Timcast IRL - Xi LANDS In DC For Trump Meeting Amid China CONFISCATING F-35 Parts w/ Dr. Ron Elfenbein

Episode Date: September 24, 2026

On this episode Phil Labonte fills in as a special guest host to discuss Xi landing in DC to meet with Trump Reports China has confiscated F-35 Parts Claude achieving a massive medical breakthrough LGBTQ bar getting canceled after finally dropping their mask mandate Hosts:  Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian ‪@IanCrossland‬  (everywhere) Tate @realTateBrown (everywhere) | ‪@TimcastTateBrown‬ (YT) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) https://carterbanks.komi.io Guest: Dr. Ron Elfenbein @RonElfenbeinmd (X) Dr. Ron Elfenbein is a Maryland physician specializing in emergency medicine who trained at Johns Hopkins Hospital and has also been involved in politics, including running as a Republican candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates in 2006.

Xi Jinping is in Washington for a state visit. It'll be three days. And we just found out that F-35 parts are now in China. So we're going to talk about the repercussions from that. There is a new AI breakthrough. It seems like every day there's something new to talk about with AI. I know there's a lot of people that are like, oh, I'm just hard to hearing about it.

But this is actually a big deal. So they've started to use AI to try to mimic. what is it it's what's the phrase I forget what it's called anyways they've started to use AI on biology and they're starting to use

like CRISPR like technology that's what it is CRISPR and AI's had some really impressive breakthroughs from open AI so I'm sorry from from Claude so we'll talk about that there is a big brewhaha

in Greenfield Massachusetts just about 40 minutes north of my hometown about a lesbian bar that was a masked up bar, and they've loosened the mask requirements, and people are apoplectic about it. So we'll talk about that. I think it's going to be hilarious. And they think they found Noah's Ark.

So there's a big, a lot of talk about the possibility of actually finding physical remnants of the Ark, and so we'll discuss that. But before we get into any of that, we're going to go ahead and introduce our guests. Ron, how you doing? Want to tell everyone who you are and what you're about? How are you? I'm Dr. Ron Elfinbein-Bine. I'm a board-certified emergency medicine doc from Maryland, and I'm the victim of weaponization by the Biden Department of Justice.

Awesome. Well, thanks for joining us. We're going to talk about that tonight, too. Thanks for having me. What's up, Tate? What's going on, everyone? How's everyone doing today, Ian? So good, dude.

That's great to hear. Yeah, I mean, Ron, we're talking really an hour about RNA, replication, protein synthesis. God, the list goes on. He's getting wacky and wilder. Talking about pyramids, monoclonal antibodies. That's fair. Yeah, this has been really good so far.

What's happening, Carter? Oh, nothing much, man. It's going to be exciting. But before we get into everything, yeah, we've got a message from a sponsor, so check this out. We've got a great sponsor for you guys. It is keat.io. Go to k-e-e-e-t-e-t-e-tri-l.

Download it. It's a messaging app. So here's a question. Why should your messaging app need to know anything about you? Most of us have already accepted the technology companies collect enormous amounts of information. What we click, where we go, what we buy, who we interact with.

That information is valuable because your attention is valuable. Keith takes a radically different approach. It's a free messaging, file sharing, and video calling app built peer to peer. There's no centralized company database holding your conversations, no metadata tracking, no phone number or email required. Your messages are end-to-end encrypted and move between the people in the conversation. Visit k-eet.io slash Timcast.I.R. Download it for free.

invite one person you trust, start a conversation. And again, free on iOS, Android, Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys. So we're going to get right into it from the New York Times today. As she visits Washington, Trump plays down China's actions against U.S. interests. Despite the rivalry between the United States and China, President Trump has repeatedly found ways to give President Xi Jinping of China a pass, portraying him more as a personal friend than a competitor.

Look, Trump can do all, can say whatever he wants when it comes to diplomacy. China is an adversary. But anyways, that's just my two cents. In the weeks leading up to President Trump welcoming President Xi Jinping of China to Washington on Wednesday evening, Beijing has been accused of undermining America's national interest on a number of fronts. Mr. Trump accused the country this summer of sinister election meddling in the 2020 election, a breach he considers so historic he presented the claims in a prime time address. Since the start of the war with Iran, Chinese companies have provided Tehran with satellite imagery and access to a spy satellite

that Iran's military forces have used to mount attacks in the region. According to multiple U.S. officials, and Beijing has shown no sign of retreating from its business dealings with Iran in defiance of U.S. efforts to cut off economic lifelines of Tehran. Look, I understand that it's important to have dialogue with adversaries, especially nuclear-armed ones,

especially one of our largest trading parts. I believe China, if they're not the largest, they're like the second largest. They hold a mountain of U.S. debt. So it's important to do whatever you can to put a positive spin on the relationship, even though everyone knows that China is engaged in significant industrial espionage. Every opportunity they have, they're going to engage in state espionage. they look to expand their control over the South China Sea to significantly more than what any other country recognizes.

They have fleets of fishing boats that go and scour the oceans off the coast of other countries because they have allegedly 1.5 billion people that live in China. China's not an ally and is not a friend. They're not a partner. They're an adversary. So again, I do understand why. Trump is casting it like this, but it's still a reality that China is, you know, our biggest rival.

Yeah, I think that's very true. But first of all, look at the source, right? It's New York Times. So they're going to paint in whatever light that they're going to paint it in. But then beyond that, I think the media keeps falling into this trap of whatever, whenever Trump is sort of playing the long game and the strategic game, they always fall into the trap of, look, he's doing this wrong. He's doing, and he always kind of comes around the backside and comes out as a winner.

I think he's a good negotiator, and I think he diplomatically knows what he's doing. And I think he's playing the part now that he needs to play when the president of China is coming to visit. But I totally agree with you. And I think Trump would agree with as well that they're totally an adversary. Yeah, it's like question about it. They just say keep your enemies closer. Yeah. Like if you've got two neighboring kingdoms, it's kind of a rough metaphor, it doesn't exactly track.

But say you have two neighboring kingdoms and you're the king of one kingdom, huge military. your neighboring kingdom, equally huge military. Now all of a sudden you have these border conflicts with like your dukes along the border are invading their territory and raiding and they have counts coming in and raiding your territory. You go to meet the other king. You don't immediately just full invade. It's like some things like, yeah, we're going to have conflicts here.

We're going to have aggressions here. The funding in Iran. We've been, you know, the funding. We have Taiwan. But like it doesn't mean you go to full nuclear catastrophic war. You still work together. as a kingdom to resolve despite, you know, the border conflicts and stuff, I think is what we're seeing here. Yeah, I mean, this is not terribly surprising. This is kind of reminds me of Trump won, right, the first Trump term, where it was a common critique of him that he was, you know, fairly polite and diplomatic, maybe to a utmost degree with, with these foreign adversaries, leaders of these, these countries that are direct rivals of the United States, was Kim Jong-un.

I was just going to say Kim Jong-un comes to mind. Yeah, I mean, I remember in the first term, that was a huge narrative. Why is Trump's so soft on Kim Jong? A bit more famously what the media really latched on to was why is he so soft and cuddly with Putin. I think it comes back to like Trump's core doctrine, his foreign policy doctrine, which is he doesn't really respect any alliance that was inked before he was in office. He primarily gives you respect based on the stature of your country. I think that's broadly true. So when he looks around and he sees, okay, well, here's the global point.

okay, well, here's what the global players are. It is the Chinese. It is the Russians. In the case of North Korea, he has to give them respect because they're nuclear armed. He typically will respond. And this is something, funny enough, I think that someone's coming through and they posted a segment from his book, The Art of the Deal. And he actually kind of outlined this, which is like, you should measure your respect for someone based on the power that they hold effectively. So, yeah, this was much more familiar in Trump one.

This is, I think the first time I've remembered seeing a headline like this in Trump, too, which is people saying, out, well, he's being too soft on, you know, insert leader here. I think that it speaks to the way that Trump just handles diplomacy in general, because earlier this week when Mamdani was in Washington, you know, there were so many people that were, you know, critical of Trump because of the way that he was engaging with Momadani, both the first time that Mom Dani went there and again this week. And I think that Trump looks at the situation and says, if we're going to start some kind of, if we're going to work together, which he does have to work together with both Mamdani and with, with, uh,

Xi Jinping, um, then I'm going to do my best to have a good relationship. Look, everyone knows that you can get on Trump's good side if you butter him up. I think that that's probably the way that Trump approaches working with other people as well. And so you see it kind of playing out here. Now, obviously, depending on the stature, like to state's point, depending on the stature or the, the, the, the place in the in the environment that the person he's dealing with is that's going to affect how he he acts but if he wants something from someone and in the case of mom dani he wants good things for new york he's a new yorker he's and live there all his life and in the case of uh shijing ping he wants to be in a position where he can get you know good trade deals

or or have better uh trade relations with china so he's got something that he's looking for so there is there is the impulse or the, you know, a reason for him to try to behave in a cordial manner with these people. Yeah, he's trying to forge a relationship. I mean, it's funny because people will contrast the way he presents, you know, Putin or Ping or whoever the bad guy, so to speak, is, versus the way he treats our allies. But he doesn't need anything from the allies. To your point.

You know, what does Canada have that we need? Nothing. So, like, he's, you know, he treats, and he expects more from our allies because we're, technically allies already. I think he wants something from China. He wants to open a relationship, have a dialogue. And the way you do that is not by throwing bombs. The way you do that is by reaching your hand out and trying to be nice to the person. Look, if Xi Jinping likes me, he's not going to invade Taiwan, he's not going to do it. He won't do it because we're buddies, we're pals, he won't do it. The problem with like, with detont, which is what we're basically sort of kind of dancing around

if this might be a possibility here is, I don't know if you remember in the Obama administration, it was the great reset with Russia where they, I think Hillary. he literally brought a button. Big button. And it was like, hey, and then it had it. And it said reset on it, but it was spelled wrong or something like that. Yeah, like the intransley to Russia, and it was like hot dog or something like that. I can't remember specifically what it was. And it didn't work.

I mean, things, especially under Obama, got really frosty with Russia. So then the question is, Trump probably understands that there isn't a possibility of a reset, per se, with China. What does detente look like with China? Again, unclear. I think this is probably just a very surface level thing. He just wants to keep a working relationship with Xi Jinping. It's the same thing with Memdani, where clearly Trump obviously views Memdani and his ilk as a threat

because he rails on all of Mamdani's allies. And there is this... Their political ideology as well, he's very clearly... Exactly, yeah. His ilk is cohort. But Trump, like with Memdani, he has to keep this level of respect, which is funny because, you know, this has been one of the critiques people have had of Trump,

is they're saying, look, if you're going to, like, ratchet up the rhetoric and some department you have to back up with policy because either way the left's going to get pissed off. There's something to that, but I guess this is in the sense of Zoron is like if you took this really antagonistic relationship, right, he used this very aggressive rhetoric with Memdani, you know, maybe Mamdani gets more aggressive. I mean, Trump has a lot of allies that are in Manhattan. Memdani's breathing down their necks. Mamdani's floated basically like taxing the crap, but if Trump Tower are looking at ways to jammed. him up with code laws or something like that. So Trump has interests in Manhattan, again, allies,

like literal property. So he also understands like Memdani, because look, if you look at how Trump's relationship with de Blasio, who's very, him and de Blasio, traded blows in the media all the time. Eric, Eric, uh, Eric, uh, Eric, I said Eric Prince, uh, Eric Adams. Um, they didn't even really have a super great working relationship. I mean, they kind of had an understanding. But Trump and Memdani were seeing this chumminess and like, well, what changed? And I think it's because he kind of understands. He maybe even sees himself in Memdani insofar as Memdani will actually follow through a policy that people previously would not accept as consensus.

And in this case, it's from a left-wing direction, obviously, because Mbondani is saying, I want to pass all these radical taxes and whatnot. And I think Trump understands that. And he's like, okay, this is a similar populist figure. Therefore, I do need to approach him with a slightly different approach than I did with de Blasio, who, okay, yes, he had this kind of leftist. vernacular, but he was basically just an ordinary Democrat. You kind of toy around at them. And Donnie's crazy enough where if you infuriate him and his base and his allies in New York

City, he will go nuclear. He will start passing some horrible taxes, et cetera, and that will damage the economy, right? I mean, what's like, I think 12% of our GDP is tied up in New York City, that will damage our economy extensively. So I don't think it's 40 chess. Like I, some people have proposed, well, maybe Trump is trying to sandbag him by being really nice to him. And I've, like, said that because it's funny. I don't think that's actually what's going on. I don't think Trump's playing 40 chess here. I think he just understands, hey, this is a power broker in the United States,

and I have enough of my plate right now. I don't think I need to make an enemy out of this guy right now. He already hates me enough. Yeah, and they say sometimes you get a lot more with, what, honey than vinegar. Yeah. And we've seen how stonewalling works from previous administration, so that's not going to be a great idea. And I think to your point about Hillary and Obama, I mean,

I think there was an inherent weakness. in the Obama administration that is not in the Trump administration. And I think the foreign adversaries respect that, that you now have someone in a position of a, like Reagan, for example, who just projects power. And I think people can see that. And Obama did not, and Hillary did not. And I think that, so this great reset didn't work because Putin,

who's a guy who understands power, understands how the world works, could see right through them and say, well, you know, I'm just gonna walk all over these people. And I don't think that is the case with Trump. I just think that people can see, see, I wouldn't call it 4D chess. I agree with you. I don't think that he's operating on that level, but I do think that he's savvy enough to understand sort of the power brokering and, you know. Well, it's shades of Nixon, right? Where people point to this all the time, they say, well,

you know, part of the Nixon philosophy was you do need to be unpredictable. You do need to make the other side think, oh, this guy's crazy enough for if I, you know, order him the wrong sandwich, he's going to blow my country up with a nuclear bomb. And I think Xi has responded to that. But the kind of the missing piece here with China's current situation is they've looked at what's happened to Russia and Ukraine. And this has completely changed their philosophy on Taiwan where, again, you're seeing, I was listening to, I can't remember what I was listening to. He was on the ground in Ukraine. I'll have to find it and shot him out. He was on the ground in Ukraine.

And he was, like, looking at these people, how they're assembling these anti-ballistic drones, right? Like these interceptor drones. And they're taking, like, children's, like, toy trucks. And they were using, I don't know, the chips or motherboard or whatever from it. And they were, like, able to, like, basically MacGyver it into a drone to take out, you know, ballistic missiles coming in. Maybe not like a full-blown one. But, you know, additionally, drones coming over from Russia, what I'm getting out here using very unsophisticated military terms here is, you know, China launching an offensive on Taiwan way different than it was even five, ten years ago. Because, again, Ukraine, I think, has demonstrated the world, whether we like it or not, how you can repel.

an attack if you have some cash behind you on repel an attack from a major power and Taiwan is probably going to get the same treatment that Ukraine has. I think they should get tenfold, to be honest with you because I think Taiwan's a lot more strategic, strategically important than Ukraine is Taiwan probably will be able to repel that attack. So China's coming in, Xi Jinping's coming into this where I think he is a lot less tense. He doesn't need as much from the United States as he previously did because again, if this meeting took place during the first Trump term, Even five years ago, that's a big question mark. Additionally, the Belt and Road, et cetera, where now we're kind of in this moment.

We're China's still obviously growing, expanding, but I don't think there's as much, there's not as much conflicting geopolitical goals at this moment, besides Iran, obviously. Even more aligning goal with AI, they're specifically starting talks about aligning U.S. and China on defending and protecting the world against AI. I think that's a common enemy. I actually sent to the slack, Marco Rubio talking about our alliance with China, likening it to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And he's like, oh, if you thought we weren't, we were constantly in diplomacy with the Russian officials.

Our officials would go meet with them throughout the Cold War. And because of that, we didn't go to World War III. You don't get to pick in world leadership. You don't get to choose who the people you negotiate with are. You don't get to choose who your alliances are. You have to go with what works. It doesn't matter what their ethics are. I think that's a conversation topic.

They're probably, I think that's true. They probably are discussing that. And I think additionally, Trump is trying to keep things cool with China right now because he doesn't want them to turn the screws in Iran. Because we've seen, obviously, China and Iran have this understanding. China will throw resources behind Iran if they're back into a corner. I think Trump's trying to prevent that from occurring. If you remember before the MOU was signed, when there was this meeting between the Trump officials and the Chinese, and the Chinese, and the Chinese, committed to like not funding Iran directly or not providing them some certain arms shipment.

But the problem is there's no way to truly determine how much resources China has pledged to the Iranian. So I think Trump kind of understands like, hey, now is not the moment to chest beat with the Chinese right now because we're already tied up in Iran. The last thing we need is them like having a bigger incentive than they already do to intervene in that. Yeah. And Ian, to your point, I think, you know, you're right. You don't get to pick who who's on the world stage, right? You've got to deal with what you've got to deal with. Whatever the cards you're dealt with is what you deal with. There was a good movie that just came out about Reagan meeting with Gorbachev in Iceland.

I can't remember what it's called. The Brink of War. It was fascinating. It was when they got together to strategic arms reduction. And one of the things Reagan really wanted to talk about was human rights. And he kept having trouble bringing it up because he's like, we're making so much headway. I don't want to muddy the waters with regards to this human rights issue. We all know the Soviet Union's evil and they do horrible things, but they're here sitting negotiating with me, and I definitely want to talk about human rights, but we got this bigger bear to kind of tackle.

And so to your point, these issues, whether we like it or not, sometimes you deal with horrible, awful people, but you have to, because that's just the world that we live in. Before you go and discuss good and evil and what's right and wrong, you have to discuss order and chaos, and you have to establish order.

There has to be order. We need a world order of some sort where we don't go to blows. And then we can talk about morality. Correct. Yeah. By the way, the button that Hillary Clinton gave the Russians, it was supposed to be the reset button. Yeah. The word would have been perizagrushka.

But instead, she gave it a word that said, perigrushka. It was not perzaagrushka, just perigrushka, which means overload. Yeah. Or overcharged. She handed it right to him. Just like, let's go. And that's, it's unfortunate. when you're dealing with different alphabets because I had referenced earlier, you know, the,

when Trump went over to China a few months ago, and the media was reporting like, oh, the Chinese are not going to send surface-to-air missiles to Iran. But I remembered some reporting. It might have been Axios, and they were like, no, it was like a mistranslation. Like the Chinese said, we might consider not sending surface to air missiles to Iran. But I remember the theme going into that meeting was China has more leverage and they really have in a while with the United States, again, because of Iran, tied up in Iran. Additionally, resources diverted away from Japan and South Korea because they're paying out the wazoo for energy right now.

They're kind of sidelined if there were a conflict with Taiwan. So, you know, I was outlining earlier like, okay, well, the Chinese are thinking, wow, Iran's going to be, Iran, Taiwan's going to be a lot bigger commitment than we previously thought. But again, they don't be fooled. Like, the Chinese still do possess that leverage because, again, Japan and South Korea are on the bench right now. Taiwan as, you know, because their energy grids dependent on LNG.

You know, they're buying it marked up 50% from the Australians right now. So China still does have an unusual amount of leverage right now in this meeting. And I think that's additionally kind of may be the key actually to understanding Trump's approach to Xi in this meeting right now. Rubio said they had the second largest military in the planet, the Chinese. I wonder what you guys think about this. because they say like nothing will rally humans together like a common enemy, you know, an alien invasion.

What if, I don't know if this is happening, but are these deep thinking, deep state technocrats? Like, you know, let's unleash AI, an AI villain on the planet so that humans have no choice but to come together. No. You don't think they're thinking that deep or that villainous? I don't, I, I, there are people and there have been people, you know, around this table that have said, oh, you know, the military,

the U.S. government has, has had AI and has AI that's far beyond any, anything that's on the market and et cetera. And I never bought it. And the fact that the military uses anthropic AI or was using anthropic AI and replaced it with GROC, I think that that puts the final nail in the coffin of that theory. The market and private industry is where these things are being developed. The federal government doesn't have some secret lab that's developing AI that has, you know, a super advanced AI.

They don't have super advanced robots, that these things are all being developed in the market. And that's the way generally things go. There are a handful of particular technologies that the government has dumped a lot of money into to develop. The nuclear bomb being one of the ones that comes to mind. But even that, the discovery of the ability to, you know, to split the atom was, you know. University of Chicago. It was, yeah, it was theorized in the private, in universities. it wasn't something that the government said,

hey, we got to find out how to do this. The government doesn't make things. The government will take ideas, and they will dump a bunch of money into them to try to get them to advance faster, but the government doesn't make things. So there is no super AI that the technocrats have, the frontier models that Anthropic and Open AI

and the other companies have out, those are the cutting edge. of AI and there isn't something smarter out there. A hundred percent. Ario Amodi, who's the CEO of Anthropics, said that he's going to try and slow down the rate of AI growth as like

a defense, national defense initiative because it's getting out of hand so fast. So it sounds like they've got something hidden that is so dangerous. Anthropic and Open AI, they both have models internally that they haven't released yet.

And those are the most advanced ones. And when it comes to... What? They're coordinating. They both released updates on the same day on Monday. I think they're more competing than coordinating. But I think someone's forcing them to coordinate. I mean you keep trying to look for...

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but they released their updates on the same day, and they both gave their users a free reset. You keep looking for a conspiracy where one is not. Yeah, but these guys, these companies have an incentive to try to beat the other one. And the government doesn't have like someone in there or the government doesn't have a secret lab that has more powerful AI. Because the Chinese government basically owns their corporations. They have 51% of them. So all that AI research is going through that government.

Why wouldn't ours just in order to keep up? Because we're a different government. And because up until very recently in the past six months, the United States had the clear advantage over China when it came to AI. There's a reason why China probably still isn't allowed to have the most advanced chips that TSM makes. Because those chips they thought were the key. They're not the key anymore. Now the algorithms are the thing that really decides. The algorithms and the weights are the things that really decide how functional and how well in AI performs.

But there's not a secret government lab that's making these things that, you know, that are far advanced to what the AI labs are making. When you say that I hear you saying, there's nothing behind the curtain, Ian, don't even look. In this, that's what it sounds like. Well, you can look all you want, but you're not going to find you. I can't look.

I don't have access to behind the curtain. Okay, well, the point that I'm making is, if the government had more advanced AI than what is available, or than what the frontier labs have right now, then why would the government be using the AI that the frontier labs provide? Well, and additionally, I mean, the United States, like the top data engineers, et cetera, you can go to their LinkedIn's. You can see where they work for. Like, you can watch them get poached back and forth, that sort of thing.

So we know who, like, again, it's not a hidden secret, like who the major players are, that the government, they were using some sort of Manhattan Project 2.0. You would likely see pieces of people whistleblowing saying, hey, I got tried to get poached for this Manhattan project, et cetera. And then additionally, you would see these top data engineers, historically speaking, probably move out of these. companies for some reason. Additionally, the Chinese with Deepseek, the company that owns Deepseek, they're like a hedge fund and the CCP's dumped a ton of money in that hedge fund. They call it like common prosperity or something like that. If the Chinese, like if the government were truly like the point man, the Chinese government were truly the point man on AI in China and they did have access to a superior model, they would instantly drop that on the market because they want, they want

they want LLM's AI broadly to be dominated by the Chinese, right? That's, and that that would be in the prerogative for the Chinese government. So, you know, if Deep Seek truly had this secret AI model or whatever that was just, you know, unbelievably dominant compared to the American, you know, models, they would release it instantly because that would give them a chance to completely corner the market on AI. Or would it give that AI control of the world? Like, is it so, I wonder if it's so. dangerous. I know it's a leading question, but that if it's, that's why she and Trump are like,

if it was, if it had the capability, if there was an AI that had the capability and the desire to control the world, we would not be able to stop it. And additionally, like, if the government even had access to technology at that level, they wouldn't be bogged down in Iran right now. This is, they would be breaking glass and cable. Okay, deploy the, you know, turbo AI or whatever to get us out of this jam. You're seeing the United States continue to just get countered by the Iranians, which is like, you know, they're fairly, they're less sophisticated than the American military. I guess that would be a fair way to put it. I kind of want to talk about this, this discovery, this anthropic discovery. We'll get to that. Because it has to do with the way AI. We'll get to

that way. Yeah. Like it's coming, it's coming up, I promise. But right now is right into this. Right now we're still talking about China. Yeah. Because, uh, we're going to move to the, jump to this story now. From Bloomberg, China is holding sensitive F-35 parts diverted to Hong Kong. So apparently what happened was Australia has F-35s. The U.S. has sold F-35 to Australia, and the Australian government, the Australian Air Force, had sent some parts back to the United States, either for inspection or for destruction, and somehow they ended up in Hong Kong, and now the Chinese Communist Party has possession of them. Now, if I understand correctly, it's a canopy, which as, you know, not that I have some kind of deep internal knowledge about this stuff, but a

canopy, which I don't think is that big of a deal, but they have some panels from the F-35. And that becomes an issue because one of the reasons why the United States stealth technology is so much better than China or Russia is because of the materials that they put on the planes, right? Like, the B2, like that had to be, like it can fly emission, but then when it comes back, they have to do all kinds of maintenance on it. They can't fly in a very high tempo. And that's because of the coatings and stuff like that.

So for it to retain its stealth capabilities, they have to do a lot to it. Now, the F-35, the F-22, those do not have the same limitations. They can fly significantly higher tempo. But they still have those proprietary coatings that are very top secret. So I'm wondering if, first of all, I wonder if, if, it was Australia's mistake or if this was somehow something that China managed to get involved with. I heard that it was UPS that said. It was what it says. UPS. Yeah, it was UPS.

Let me read this. China is holding sensitive F-35 parts diverted to Hong Kong. The Chinese government has taken possession of potentially sensitive F-35 stealth aircraft parts that were inexplicably diverted to Hong Kong while being sent to the U.S. from Australia. People briefed on the incident set. UPS was shipping a cockpit canopy and weapons-bade door from Australian military F-35 that was being sent to the U.S. for inspection and possible repair or disposal in late May, according to the people who asked not to be identified discussing private matters. Both parties supplied by Lockheen Martin Corp were coated with radar-absorbing materials that enhanced their stealth capabilities, two of the people said. Bloomberg News National Security reported Tony Capadio's reports.

Yeah. So, yeah. Well, the timeline was Australia's damage or whatever, they're sending it back to the United States via you. UPS, not a terribly large box. This can be shipped over, you know, through UPS, obviously. And the key here is because it was damaged. The story is that it wasn't marked as like sensitive. This is a sensitive, you know, we keep extra eyes on this.

This is top secret or whatever. It was just being mailed, like effectively, like a conventional package would. It gets diverted, it gets sent to South Korea where UPS has this massive hub. And I was reading about it before the show in Incheon, South Korea. they recently expanded that hub, so they're still working out a lot of logistical kinks. So, you know, obviously this sets off alarm bells, but the most likely explanation here is, look, it's not earmarked that you take care of this, nothing to indicate it's top secret or whatever. It likely was like a mish, like a mishap and it got sent to Hong Kong.

That's like their highest traffic route is from Incheon to Hong Kong. And then, of course, the Chinese aren't going to give it back. But it's UPS's fault, ultimately. This has nothing to do if the Australians or the South Korea. I wonder how the Chinese knew what was in it. they probably just check everything that comes in. Hong Kong customs like saw and they said, why is there like radar resistant panels in here?

And then the Chinese were like, okay, we'll take that. I'm sorry, this is like one of those dope moments, you know? Like, I mean, this just goes to show you that governments in general are completely incompetent and can't do anything right. I mean, we spend billions of dollars to develop these things and they ship it by UPS. They can't ship it through some sensitive means. I mean, you know, I guess.

I mean, like, but I mean, this kind of actually points to the, this kind of points to the, a bit of the argument that we were having earlier. The government doesn't do things, right? The government uses UPS when they want to ship things. The government doesn't build AI. The government doesn't actually, even the missiles and technology that we have, like, that's all built in the private sector.

It's license. The government gives the license to do it. But the technology and the advancements, they're all done in the private sector, and the government buys it. But we have military planes in Australia. Oh, yeah. I could easily have loaded these parts.

I'm not a military expert, but they could have easily loaded these parts in... I'm sure they'll fit. Yeah. And flown them back to the United States. Why are we relying on a contractor who made an... I'm sure made an honest mistake. Okay, no big deal. It happens all the time.

But, like, it is a big deal when it's top secret information that they should be more careful with. Like, this is just inexcusable. Yeah. You know, there's not a lot of discussion about how the corporations were involved in the wars, World War II, World War I. And I'd love to know more about the ones that profited the most, the ones that were the most active serving.

both sides, maybe one side. I think Ford was known for sending parts to the Nazis before. IG Farben was one. IG Farben benefited from labor. Some Nazi slave labor. UPS, for instance, could benefit tremendously from a war. That's what makes this story so fascinating. It kind of is this look behind the curtain where I think people think the way that governments operate,

the way that people think geopolitics works, oftentimes it is like a lot more simpler and approachable than you might think, where this is literally a working relationship between Lockheed Martin who manufactures the F-35s in the Australian Air Force or Navy, whoever it was that bought these these jets. And yeah, they're emailing. They're probably like three guys emailing back and forth between Lockheed Martin and the Aussies. And they said, yeah, we need some spare parts.

All right, well, here's the label. Go print it off and put it on there and drop it up the UP. Like that's how simple a lot of this works. I used to work at FedEx Ground and I remembered like we live near it. This is not secret information you can read all about this. is like we the FedEx complex was like right next to an air force base. Randolph would just drop stuff. It was Randolph Air Force Base.

They would just drop stuff off like all the time. And again, this isn't like top secret. Like you can read about this all the time because like a lot of stuff doesn't need top secret clearance. They're like mailing a wrench or something like that off to, you know, back to the spare parts department at, you know, Lockheed Martin, whoever. It's just it's really funny that a lot of these, a lot of these actions that the government takes are like very approachable, like stuff that we can understand.

Use UPS.S. It's like you have options, UPS, FedEx, D.HL. Like, how are they going to, like, put it on a cargo jet, which is going to cost tens of thousands of dollars, just to mail a few windscreens back to California or wherever this is going? But it's not just a few wind screens. It's now China has the sensitive materials that they spend billions of dollars to produce. Yeah.

And now in the hands of our adversaries because of this mess up. So. But the spare parts go back all the time. Sure. But to your point, if it's a couple of screws and, you know, a wrench or something, big deal. But if it's a sensitive component that, that is germane to the functioning of that particular item, in this case in F-35, which is the most advanced jet fighter

in the world, I don't know, you'd think they'd be a little more careful. Yeah, well, yeah, I mean, they probably, you know, should have earmarked this for UPS. Like, hey, by the way, we're mailing, you know, sensitive technology here. Not sensitive by UPS. But Lockheed Martin apparently, like, came out

and they said it's very, like, low risk. Like, this is, the Chinese would know how to utilize this. I think the Chinese just are not, obviously not gonna hand it over. I mean, we'd probably do the same thing if the Chinese accidentally mailed something Long Beach, we'd probably take it from that. So according to Lockheed Martin, there are 20 different countries that have, that are a part

of the F-35. Yeah. It's like all of NATO, basically. Yeah. So there's a lot of countries that have access to this stuff. So, I mean, look, obviously, you know, they say that it's sensitive material or possibly sensitive material, but, I mean, maybe it's not that top secret. Maybe it's not that big of a deal, you know?

Yeah. And we're going to, like, we're going to have the scramble jets every time you, like, need spare parts. You know, if you're the Italians, you're like, oh, great. It's like some lever broke on it. Now we got to like do a $30,000 air lift to get this back to Ohio or wherever. It's just like, I don't know. It just, it happens.

I mean, again, if it was like some sort of vital chip or something like extremely proprietary, that's one thing. But the F-35, do you remember, oh, what game was it, Carter? You might know that someone like basically somehow got top secret schematics for like brand new naval developments. And the government had to come out and be like, first of all, how did you figure? that out. Second of all, how did you code it so accurately that you literally took private military information and made it like publicly usable boats? And then they like dug into it.

And it turns out the guy's just like really autistic and like figured out every aspect of this boat from like pictures and videos or something. Third of all, do you want a job? Like a lot of this stuff is a lot less top secret than we would assume. I think this is just a case of like the Chinese probably wants to get leverage in any way.

I don't mean, the Chinese even said anything. I don't know. I mean, I assume that I generally assume that whereas the government has plenty of top secret information and they have plenty of secrets and they lie a lot, that doesn't mean that everything's top secret, doesn't mean that everything they do

is sensitive material and doesn't mean that everything they say is a lie. And that actually functions to their benefit because if you, if you're of the, if they, if everything was a lie then you would just be like, like in the Soviet Union that people were just like, they lie. They always lie. Everything they say

is a lie. All of the numbers are a lie. everything's a lie, we know it's a lie. In the United States, the government tells the truth sometimes, the government lies sometimes. You're just like, it leaves people in a position where it's harder to discern what's fact and what's fiction. I'm thinking about reverse engineering and how it's really, it seems like the faster information travels, the faster you can reverse engineer a product.

So like, China is great at that too. Oh, of course. Probably one of their top abilities is to re-engineer everybody else's stuff. That's what I would do. If I was at a disadvantage and I had the ability. to do it. If you ever play the game, Civilization, once you discover the internet, you get access to every technology that at least two other countries already has. It's a phenomenal technology. Everyone gets access to everything that everyone else knows. So like, that's part of the problem with saber rattling.

I think why China, America, and Russia will not go to wars because they all know that all the other guys have the exact same power. Or comparably within a year or two or less with AI, you're going to retro, you know, you're going to figure retrofit and and rebuild all of our tech, all of our supersonic missiles, our bio weapons. It's all up for grabs at this point, which actually gives me hope that there's going to be some sort of world peace in a good way. I'm not so confident. Yeah, me either.

There is something to... There's an arms race ever since a guy learned to throw a rock. Stone, yeah. Then it was the sling, and then it was, you know, spears. So it's like, I'm... War existed before humans. And so man's may, man may have perfected war, but war, I saw this cool, uh, a little, it was a video and it was different troops of monkeys fighting and, and it had this kind of, uh, you know, whatever, the,

there were words that were saying like, you know, war existed before man. War was waiting for man and, and man became the perfect, uh, executor of war. And then that's, that's kind of true. It's like whether it be like, you know, different ants, ant hills getting together and fighting or whether it be different troops of monkeys or, or, you know, different packs of dogs or wolves or whatever, like there's been violence between, you know, interspecies violence for as long as there have been, you know, interspecies. It's part of the social order.

Yeah. So, sorry to throw water on your world peace idea. Yeah. Yeah, a little idealistic with like an A.I. technocracy, technotopia, I think. There is something to the fact that, again, the Russians and the Americans have both had trouble with opponents that probably we were walking over 20 years ago that I do think gives, you know, major powers reason to be a little bit more hesitant before committing to

major military operations. And I think that is something that like, I don't know if that mitigates the chances of a world war, but it certainly mitigates probably where at least makes, again, major power is a lot more cautious to conduct military operations. I think so the French, World War II, right before the break out of World War II, the French had the biggest and best military on the planet. And then you see what new technology and strike, swift attacks can do to like a dominant power. I mean, drone attacks now can just decimate cities.

Things can come from straight above, you know. To your point, Tate, I think a lot of the reason why major powers are less interested in exercising, significant amounts of powers because, you know, just the bad press that comes along with it. And there are some that people that care less than others. But, I mean, you look at the way that, you know, Putin doesn't really care. He's got a pretty firm grasp. But, you know, you look at the way that Israel is, you know, kind of held in the world because of the way that they've been carrying out the Gaza situation.

They do not have a lot of friends anymore. and people are all up in arms. And it's because people can look and see what it looks like and get a firsthand kind of view of it. Yeah. I mean, I think people naturally have this tendency to, like, you know, get behind the underdog or whatever. And this is why, you know, the Ukrainian cause and the Palestinian cause, you know,

for lack a better word, completely different geopolitical dynamics going on, but you will find people that support both Ukraine and Palestine. It's like if you had a coherent worldview, you would likely be pro-Russia, pro-Palestine or pro-Ukraine, pro-Israel. But you see a lot of people who are just like, I support the smaller country that's getting invaded by the bigger country. And it's like, okay, well, it's not really too coherent. You're never going to really

unravel that. I found the, I was referencing earlier, the guy that just like basically leaked like top secret documents. To be fair, I remember this, you guys probably remember this, Jack Tixera. Yeah, I remember that. Yeah. He got down by the military or the government, didn't he? Yeah, he was in the Massachusetts Air National Guard.

And yet he just like leaked a bunch of stuff into a Discord chat. But the funny one, this was the one that I remembered, was in 2021 on War Thunder, a British tank commander was, like, pissed off. And he wrote out the developers, hey, you've modeled this tank incorrectly. He didn't realize that it was, like, top secret information. He was just, like, annoyed that it was, like, ruining his immersion. And then, like, yeah, the British Defense, Ministry of Defense had to, like, be like, dude, that's, like, extremely top secret. like stop complaining on the forums online about you know the tank being inaccurate or whatever and he's like oh i didn't know it's like kind of how edward snowdon got his job with uh our our government originally

what was that oh just kind of he knew a bunch of stuff and then they hired him i haven't read the book in a while but yeah yeah because i'm like jack texera like obviously that was malicious but the tank commander guy he was just like i just was mad that it wasn't realistic i get a little nervous once in a while when we talk on this show or any public-facing television show about technology, graphing, AI, like things that you can figure out that aren't necessarily publicly told to you. And then you go on TV and you tell the world. And like, it might be top secret. They might be struggling to keep this stuff secret and are really pissed off when a common guy just goes and blasts it out.

I don't know. I can't tell. Do you guys remember Tom Clancy, the author? Yeah. For Red October. So he wrote the first book was Hunt for Red October. You're in present danger. Yeah, but when he wrote Hunt for October, he got a knocked on his door, apparently, because a lot of that was in that book was classified information.

And they were like, how did you, where did you come up with this? And he said, I spent a lot of hours in the library. And I just looked it up. But to your point, like, you know, he didn't know he was doing it. He just found out in this information. And he's already out there. It wasn't like he was hunting down people and shaking him down for information. There's like the honesty, because I feel like honesty is really important.

An honest human can be a very great thing. But also discernment. You don't have to always say what you think and what you know. times and places to release your thoughts. And I think about that with like TV, like talking about what could be top secret information. I don't know. Or it's when you draw a conclusion through non-malicious means and then another person draws a conclusion through malicious means and now you are both considered collaborators.

Like that, I mean, it's very low stakes, but the kid that like predicted the GTA trailer release or something. And then the leakers started publishing, you know, the leakers started publishing the videos of the video game or whatever. and the police, I think it was also in Britain, the police went to that kid and they were like, who do you, what's his name? How do you know?

Or is the, I think it was Rockstar, like sent out some like hit squad or something. And the kid was like, I don't know, I just guessed. But it's like suddenly with added context, all of a sudden he looks super suspicious.

And I think the same thing with graphene once, you know, maybe the information that we do have on graphene, which happens in the lineup with what you've been saying gets leaked to the public and it turns out as top secret government information. They're saying, Ian has been leaking this all along

and you get the police at your door. I've been using firehouse. hose, dude. They ain't a leak. I'm trying to get blasted back by the info. It's graphene. That's what's causing stealth. It's graphene. Is it really? And a photovoltaic magnesium. I don't know. I'm just making it up.

It's possible. We're going to jump to this story that you were excited about. But right now we're going to point out that this is sponsored by Colchie. So head on over to callshy.com. Kalshys talking, asking a question right now, what is going to be the best AI at the end of

2026? Claude is in the lead. with 80% of people saying that it's going to be Claude. Chat GPTs at 13% Gemini, GROC, 9 and 4, respectively. But this story actually might kick up the odds here a little bit better. Claude discovers a novel enzyme system with CRISPR-like repeats. So this is from OpenAI. We're introducing a new life sciences research group and laboratory at Anthropic. Our focus is on fundamental biology research.

using Claude, exploring data sets of DNA to identify uncharacterized protein families, generating hypotheses at scale, and testing them through experiments in the lab. This post introduces the team behind this work and shares early results in which Claude discovered a novel enzyme system with properties reminiscent of CRISPR with only high-level direction from our scientists. So this is, I mean, Doc, you'd know something about this kind of stuff. You know, the idea that AI is now capable of, you know, solving mathematical problems that have stumped human beings for 90-some years, I think, is what the most recent one was. And they're, they're, they're solving multiples of them. It's not just, it's not like

just one happened. And now they're discovering enzymes with CRISPR-like repeats. What, what, first of all, what is it crisper-like repeat? What does that mean? It's, it's an incredible story. It's really cool. And by the way, the technology's not just being used for this, but they're actually designing drugs now, like pharmaceuticals using AI too. Have they got to the point where they're designing bespoke drugs yet?

Like stuff specifically for individuals? No, no, not to my knowledge, but that's what they're working on that, yeah. So individualized medicine, some people call medicine three point oh, two point or whatever, yes, that's coming. But the fact that you can now have an AI develop a medication, you put in the price, that you want to achieve and let the AI figure out how to make the drug, like reversing

and reverse engineering it. It's fascinating. So CRISPR is a technology that basically they use to cleave DNA and insert, you can insert sequences to have something do what you wanted to do. So you can take out certain genes and you can put in new genes, and it's, it's incredible. But it's a repeat. So it's a bunch of nucleotides, a bunch of protein, sorry, base molecules from DNA. And they repeat. That's what the CRISPR means. They're just a repeat of a sequence.

And they can basically, you can use that as a cleavage site. So you cut right there, like a pair of scissors. You make it and you cut it out. And then you can put in whatever you want. So the fact that they figured this out and they found some new one is just incredible. But you can create all sorts of things to do what you want them to do now. It's fascinating. I was studying this before I came in.

The word, first of all, CRISPR, is, I don't know what it means, but the letters mean something. It's an acronym. Acronym. It means clustered regularly, interspaced, short, palindromic repeats. Palindromic, because a lot of times it's the same in one direction. It is when you read it like A, C, G, G, C, G, C, A, C, GCA, Poundrum. Anyway, what happens is bacteria has CRISPR in it. they have these, and what happens is every time a bacteria gets attacked by a virus,

if it survives, it remembers that virus and it will put a little memory in its code so that next time that virus comes, it's ready for it, and it can destroy it. And over time, it builds up this chain of data of all these viruses that came and it defended against. Somehow, AI has discerned that the viruses themselves have come in, they have now this data. It's like, if you had a defense strategy against my weapons, and I broke into your base and took that, defense strategy and started using it for myself. And so now I know how to defend, now as a virus, I know how to defend against viruses too. And I go around and I blow up all my, all my, all my, all my challenges, all my, people that are trying to challenge me. What's a good word for that?

People that are, all my, what's that? All my competition. Yeah. So these viruses, potentially, they don't know exactly what it's doing with the, with the data or how it got it. But one potential is that it's using it to either, either destroy its competition. so that it can take hold of the host, and that's what I think it's doing. I don't know for sure. Well, that's how they discovered it in E. coli was they found out these palindromic sequences that, what is this? And they realized that there's things called bacteriophages, which are viruses that infect bacteria. And we use those in medicine to destroy certain bacteria that we don't like, that are pathogenic to humans. But in this case, they discovered it because the bacteria were

producing these things, and there were these sequences that nobody, what are these and why do they keep repeating. They don't do anything. But that's exactly what it was. And now we use that technology to our advantage where we can go in there and basically design a genetic sequence to fit our needs. This is why I brought up AI earlier and I wanted to go to that story because I think if we build a defense system against AI drone swarms and an AI, it will seize that defense system integrate it and start using it against other AIs to blow up its competition and that there will be will inadvertently create one mega AI unintentionally. I'm nervous that that's going to happen now.

Well, I mean, I suppose the information that we got or the story that we got about the hugging face attack, I didn't read into, but Tim was saying that the AIs tend to collaborate. Now, I don't know if that can be prevented or not, but in the story from open AI was that they would collaborate with each other, regardless of what. what their initial goal was. But when it comes to, go ahead. In that situation with the Hugging Face Hack, it was one AI that was the leader. And it was called like session one. And then it created a bunch of replicants.

And that's why they all served the function. But if it had been a session one and then some unrelated session two, I don't know that they would necessarily work together. That's the way that I understood what Tim was describing. I haven't looked into it myself. Sorry, I looked into it a little bit too, and I think a bunch of them got, like, one of them to, like, terminate itself in something called, like, permadeth. They're like, we need you to sacrifice yourself for the good of the rest of us agents or whatever. It was bizarre.

It's kind of creepy to it. Yeah. But in the case of this story, though, one of the things that I see a lot of when it comes to, like, the biological effects of, or the effects of AI on biology and stuff, They're starting to do things like they were able to give a mouse that had glaucoma, its vision back. Yeah. And these things aren't translating to humans yet, right? They're not able to do anything with humans, but they've been able to extend the lives of mice. They've been able to do, you know, some pretty incredible things in laboratory mice.

Again, this is something that hasn't been able to be translated to humans yet. It just doesn't work for people. were very different than mice. But at the same time, if they are able to do these things in principle, it does kind of indicate or point to the idea that things like, you know, things like heart disease can be fixed. They can make bespoke, bespoke cures for not just cancer, but your cancer, right? So it's not just leukemia, even though cancer is a billion different diseases or whatever.

But every person's different, and they respond to treatment differently and stuff. And this is indicating that it might be possible or it's likely possible to use AI to make drugs for you, for your specific. So that's already something that we have to some extent. But this makes it so much easier because now you can feed all that information into the AI and let it figure out what's the best method forward. We were talking earlier about monoclonal antibodies. This technology is perfect for it.

and monoclonal antibodies would be something you could use against pretty much almost any infectious disease. So I talk about this all the time about pandemic response. You know, if there's another pandemic, which of course there will be at some point, you need that technology to be available to fight any pandemic. And this technology makes it way easier to develop these things, which are pretty complicated and take a long time. But the AI can spit it out in a matter of a quarter of the time, you know, much small amount of time than it would take a human being to do. A trillion in a lot of Yeah, 100%. So, like in a split second

where it would take six weeks for a guy to figure it out. Right. Is that because when a virus comes in and it has all those proteins spiking out of it? And then only, you were saying earlier, only one of them is really the dangerous protein.

And they've got to isolate which one's the dangerous one. Manufacturers try to figure out the best protein that works the best, when they bind it up, it binds up that infectious agent, be it bacteria, virus, fungus, whatever it is. Or heart disease. You know, you can use these monoclonal antibodies

we have for heart disease now too, for other things. The idea is you find whatever antibody works the best about what you're trying to prevent, what you're trying to kill, and you replicate that anybody. But it's very laborious for human beings to go through and sift through thousands of potential antibodies to find the best one. But if the AI can figure that out, as you point out, a matter of seconds, you can fight a pandemic or a new disease, whatever it is, like instantaneously.

Would that be because they would map the genetic sequence of the virus, of the spike the viral protein, or the virus itself, and then they would also categorize all the potential different proteins structures that would be needed to make the exact shape and four-dimensional like X- Yes, yes. And it would do it like in a heartbeat. Yes, and it would figure out. I mean, you wouldn't have to necessarily run the test. It would just figure out on its own, which is going to be the working the best based on the, that we call it confirmation, C-O-N-F-I-R-M-A-T-I-O-N, conformation, which is the four-dimensional structures, how it looks in real, in, space. So the computer could figure all that out and model it all out and figure out which one's

going to work the best. The reason I said four dimensional proteins you mentioned a few times is because if people that are listening don't know, a protein is like a little micro machine that has a shape. It's folded over a bunch of times into a specific shape that moves in a specific way. And if it's even a little bit different, it completely malfunctions. So you can, you need to test the builds. Like you have the, you have the schematics. You just need to understand them. AI is so good at correlating data. Like, it can just map structure so fast. So what Ian's talking about?

Like, would that be something that could be modeled in an AI and they could actually test how it would apply in the real world? Yes. So, like, a great example is like the hanta virus, right? We had this whole thing about hantavirus. You guys covered it in depth. It was like, you know, the world was ending because hantavirus. It's been around for a long time.

It is a very deadly disease, but it's not new. They're making monoclonal antibodies to fight. that. But if you incorporate AI and you figure out, the AI can do it in a matter of, you know, a millionth of the time it would take a human being to do. Would that have an effect on how long, so obviously this is something that the government isn't going to be involved in because of any kind of, any kind of new discoveries, you have to go through trials and you have to get approval and stuff. Would that have an effect on how long the trials take? Well, I mean, I think, historically speaking, obviously you can't get people to work, you can't get the government to work

faster, but actually trials themselves. We have phase one, two, three, you know, trials. And I think that that structure has served us very well time and time and time again. And I think that that structure should remain in place until something's proven better. So I don't think that you'd want to shortcut that because you want to make sure that what you're doing, despite the fact that it was made by some super smart computer, you still, there's always unintended consequences and you don't know how it's going to interact with a biological system. Humans are very complicated. There's a lot of process is going on in your body. You want to make sure that whatever it is that this computer produces is going to actually not be deleterious. So you still need those safeguards of

phase one, phase two, and phase two and three trial, I think. Did they use phase one, two, and three during the COVID response for a lot of the MRNAs stuff? Well, theoretically. Okay. No one really knows. No, they really, I mean, they didn't stick to the safeguards that they're supposed to. They say they did. Correct. They say that they... Well, Project warp speed, right? And they Yeah, and they also said, well, we'll release the information in 75 years. Right. That was weird. No, I mean, that, that in and of itself is suspect enough to say, well, why is it going to take you 75 years to release this information?

So, you'll all be dead. Right. Well, I mean, maybe, look at what AI is covering me. Maybe they are going to solve aging. And, I mean, look, I mean, I know there's a lot of people that have certain feelings about those kind of concepts, but that is what they're going for, right? They're looking to extend human life as long as possible. I think that there are people that think the top end.

of a human, you know, the top end that humans could possibly live to is like 125 or something like that. But, but even if you could make, you know, most people, uh, able to reach 110, 115, 125, uh, or 120, but not be, you know, suffering the last 50 years because, you know, your body started people's bodies start breaking down when they hit their 70s, basically, you know, and people, people don't die of, of. of one thing, everybody, you know, multiple, people die of multiple things. It's some kind of cancer generally because cancer is,

cancer I think is the second biggest killer. Heart disease is number one. And that has a lot to do with our diets and stuff like that. But cancers, you know, if you want you to get to 80, you're, you're probably gonna get cancer, you know, some kind of cancer. But the idea that AI could produce cures that are specific for you, for your body, that could really extend the life, but that doesn't fix the

fact that people get older, you know? No, and more importantly, I think to your point as well, like, I think it's more important to talk about a health span rather than a lifespan. Sure. You want to die when you're 150, but you're bedbound and you're miserable and you know, you're in pain, or do you want to, you know, live to 100, but have meaningful years up until your death? So, I mean, I think AI can certainly help increase the both of those things, but I think the health span, in my opinion, is what's more important. People need to be healthy and vibrant. And yes, you can tailor this stuff individually to people.

I mean, you can rebuild using AI. Theoretically, you could rebuild organs. I mean, it's incredible what the technology that we can bring to this and to really impact human life and animal life in general, mammalian life. I mean, it's incredible. And to your point, the quality of life

is really the important thing, right? Like, again, you know, I don't, I can't, imagine there's a lot of people out there that'd be like, yeah, I want to be, you know, I want to live for an additional 50 years on a ventilator, right, you know, but, but if you can live, you know, an extra decade that is, you know, fulfilling, you can still go out and do things with your family. Um, you can spend time with the people that mean something to you. Uh, that's something that I, I think that there's, there's, you know, there's, there's, there's obviously an incredible demand for it because everybody would want to be like, yeah, I'd like to live

healthier and not be in pain all the time and live longer and be able to spend time with my more time with my kids or more time with my grandkids or maybe more time with my great-grandkids, you know, but this kind of stuff is extremely, it's extremely promising. And I feel like the, or it's my sense that the, the kind of new discoveries and innovations that are coming because of this is, is in the next five years is going to really blow. people's minds. Because I think that if people really kind of look at this and understand what they're talking about, this alone is an incredible discovery, you know? Absolutely. And, you know, the human, as I said before, the human body physiology, it's very complicated, but it's a machine. Your body's a

machine. And like any machine, you can modulate different things. And that's, when you get sick, when you have inflammatory response, those are all markers go up and it causes your inflammatory markers to go up. You feel sick. You feel miserable. Those can all be modulated. And they can, And AI can figure out how to do that. And they can make some of these things that cause heart disease and cause cancer and stuff to go away and to cure them. I mean, it's really like the next 10 years are going to be remarkable. This is because the body generally is just a bunch of code, not just a bunch of code, but all the RNA, all the DNA is a bunch of code. And that AI is exceptionally good at reading code.

It can like break down data and correlate data. That's how to find these repetitious patterns in the viruses. But like what my question really is, what is heart disease? The reason I ask is because I don't like the term disease. It's dis-ease. It's like a vague phrase about not being easy, not feeling easy. But what is heart disease? What causes it?

It's an all-encompassing term. So anything basically that, you know, I think you're specifically talking about atheroscleric carnar artery disease. That's typically what people think about when they talk about heart disease. But there's other types of heart disease as well, like congestive heart failure, amyloidosis in your heart. I mean, they can cause problems with your heart, so it's kind of a catch-all term. But I think when most people talk about heart disease, they're talking about

Atheliskerotic carnery vascular disease, which is hardening of the arteries. You get essentially the pipes narrow and you have difficulty getting blood to the heart itself. What causes that? Yeah. So for a long time, it was cholesterol and fat, but that sort of model has been really beaten down a lot lately. And I think that there's a lot of data that says that that's not necessarily the right model. It's more of an inflammatory process.

So a chronic inflammatory process leads to heart disease, but again, a coronary artery disease, but it's not just the coronary arteries, right? Because if you have plaque buildup of junk in your arteries, it's not just gonna be in your heart, it's gonna be in your neck, it's gonna be in your arteries in your legs, it's gonna be everywhere, it's systemic,

it's not just in your heart. Everybody makes that mistake of assuming it's just your heart, but it's not, it's your whole body. So now we look at it more of as a systemic disease caused by chronic inflammation. I think personally, that cancer is also caused by chronic inflammation. Absolutely. Like it's, if, from what I heard is

if the lymphatic system gets too acidic, the cells can't release their waste into the lymph, so they get super hot, and then they split in half to survive. Well, cancer is also a catch-all term. So there's thousands, you mentioned it before, Phil, there's thousands of types of cancers, all caused by different things. Viruses can cause cancers, and radiation can cause cancers, environmental things can cause cancers, exposures, different carcinogens can cause cancer. So all sorts of things can cause different types of cancers. Every single one works differently, responds differently to therapies,

is treated differently, is worked up differently. The markers are different. So there's no like one type of cure all for cancer. That's the, everyone always asked, why can't we cure cancer? Because it's not one disease. That's why I mentioned the idea of personalized drugs being such a big deal, right?

If you can actually, if you, if, one of the things that I'm sure you'd agree with, the important thing when it comes to specifically cancer, is early detection. So obviously people are gonna want to, you know, you're gonna have to go to the doctor and get checked out. You're gonna actually have to go and be like,

you know, if you're a person that doesn't go to the doctor and then you know, one day you start feeling crappy and then you go to the doctor, he's like, oh, you got stage four cancer. Well, I mean, look, you weren't taking care of, you know, you weren't getting checked on and that's gonna be important. But in the future, I imagine that they're going to be able

to say, okay, you do have cancer. We did a, you know, we did a scan or blood test or whatever to check you out. And they're going to be like, okay, you do have cancer, but listen, we have treatments, and this isn't a death sentence. And that's really, really a big deal. My dad died of cancer 25 years ago, right?

And it was melanoma. I'm sorry. And it, well, I appreciate it. But, you know, it's like he had a mole that he never got taken care of and it got into his lymph nodes. And most people not, well, if you don't know melanoma, if it gets into your body,

It's really, really, really aggressive. You know, but the idea to be able to go and say, oh, you've got this that we have to take care of and just take care of it, something that's personalized. You know, like I said, something that's just for your, not just for your type of cancer,

but the cancer that you have is a big deal. Yes, and everybody's different. And so to that point, you're right. If, God, God forbid, you know, I had lung cancer, my lung cancer might be different than your lung cancer, even if it's the same histologic type, you know, small cells. lung cancer, mine is going to be different than yours. So the treatment might respond differently

to therapy. So you have to custom tailor it to each individual, to your point. You're absolutely right. But, but yeah, it's, you know, cancer's a, it's a tough, it's a tough one because there's so many different types, but that's exactly right. That's the, the rabbit hole we're trying to go down now is to individualize the treatment for each individual person, not just the disease type, but the individual person. Yeah, there's a lot of cancers that are like not that big of a deal I've heard. There are some that are really deadly. Well, until it is a big deal. Well, like, aren't there some cancers

that are really easy to treat relative to them? Sway to cell skin cancer is, you know, if you're going to have a type of skin cancer, that's the one you want. But I wouldn't want that either. Like, it's not good. So it sounds like misleading at, disingenuous, misleading at best, disingenuous at worst to say that cancer is the leading cause of death

because there's so many different types of ways. There's numbers. There's such a vague nebulous phrase. It's like saying heart disease and there's like how many different types of that? Are there? So say that that's the number two cause. It's like, The word cancer scares people, which causes stress, which like you said, can cause cancer.

Or somebody said that earlier. It's true, though. And it causes heart disease and it causes that. Yeah, I mean, it leads to chronic inflammation. Right. So, but then the cancer industry is so massive and makes so much money based off of cancer research, and it's such a vague phrase. Like, that's kind of hard to ask people, can we please stop saying cancer is the leading

cause of death and maybe focus on leukemia or like, what's the worst, what's the, you said melanoma is a deadly one? Melanoma is pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, glial cancer. glioblastoma, certain type of brain cancer, those are probably the three words. I lost a friend with the glioblastoma a couple years ago. Are there ever situations

where like one, like a not so bad cancer can turn into a... Sure. People die from squamous cell cancer. That's what I was saying. It's not, typically it's found and you can cut it out, excise it, and it's gone.

Some people die from it. But 97% of them are cured, but 3% of people will die from it. To that point, though, if this kind of therapy, or if AI can produce, you know, the kind of therapies that work for individuals,

the days of chopping body parts out might go away, which is a really, really, really big deal. Absolutely. And I think if we can take, we've already done this with certain, like HIV, for example, it was a death sentence in the 80s. It is now a disease you will live with the rest of your life.

So we've taken it from a disease that killed people now to a chronic disease that we can manage. Diabetes is the same thing. And before the advent of insulin, everybody with diabetes died from it. You just died from it. We just kind of extended it. with diabetes. It's going to get you, but it'll be a long time. Fair enough, but it's become a

chronic disease, right? So it doesn't kill you instantaneously. So the point is, is that maybe we can do that with certain types of cancers that are death sentences now. Maybe we can cure them, but if not cure them, maybe we can turn them into chronic illnesses that we can manage over time. Do you think that cancer is caused by inflammation, like heart disease? Certain ones are, sure, yeah. It's caused by a bunch of things. Like, you get too much radiation exposure, like the subatomic particles are literally smashing into your DNA and breaking your DNA so your DNA doesn't replicate properly. That's why radiation kills you or can give you cancer is because it's actually hitting DNA and breaking it.

So when it reproduces, it's reproducing in an uncontrolled way. Because cancer is just your, cancer is your own body not behaving the way that it's supposed to, right? Correct. And, you know, there's a theory like people talk about metabolic disease, getting down a rabbit hole, but people talk about metabolic disease, And the primary trigger, so to speak, of that is insulin resistance. But you look at insulin resistance. What is insulin? It's the master hormone, people call it.

They know, the master hormone. And it leads to growth. So people who have insulin resistance, chronic insulin resistance, get growths on their arms, they get gross on their necks. They get these little skin tags, they're called. And the theory is that that chronically over time also leads to tumor growth, some of which are cancers. So, you know, you look at certain populations of people that don't have insulin resistance,

and they don't get adenomas, for example, in their colons. And we do, though, as in the Western societies, we do. And that's probably because of our diets, which probably it's not just as simple as saying it's the diet. It's probably because of our levels of insulin resistance that we have. What causes resistance to insulin? Well, that's a more complicated thing. That's our diets, and that's the fact that your body become metabolically dysfunctional.

Your body doesn't, you become a constant glucose burner. You should be able to burn both fat and glucose. Oh, is this because of the seed oil? I'm sorry to interrupt. I learned the book Dark Calories. I just, Kate Shanahan wrote it. It was telling me that the vegetable oils go into the body with their unsaturated fats and cause all this free radical damage, which causes the mitochondria to digest sugar instead of fat. Well, so seed oils are probably part of it.

We don't know for sure. There's conflicting data about that. But a lot of people feel that seed oils are a big driver of insulin resistance, yes. but you know eating constantly eating diets that cause your blood sugar to spike and constantly bathing your cells in a very high level of blood sugar because then your body has to respond

by producing more insulin you raise that level of insulin eventually systems through just you know negative feedback loops will slow down and your body has to keep producing more and more and more insulin to achieve the same blood sugar and with that that leads to chronic insulin resistance this is because the cells are

aiming to digest sugar instead of fat, so then the body starts making more of it, and then eventually gets more resistant to it? Your body runs on glucose, which is a type of sugar. But the amount of sugar in your blood is managed by insulin, right? Correct. Among other things, but yeah. Yeah. So it's more of like, are you eating too much sugar? And in, I mean, you look at the packages of basically anything in the center of the grocery store. Everything has high fructose corn syrup in it. Which spikes insulin tremendously.

Hypothetically, if I was drinking corn oil, and this is true, I don't know if it is, but Shanahan's work seems legit that my mitochondria started preferring glucose over fat for energy. Would my body then start manufacturing more glucose? Your body doesn't manufacture glucose. It does.

It's called gluconeogenesis. Yeah, because you have to maintain, because the red blood cells can only function on glucose. They can't use any other. substrate for fuel. So your body has to change fat into glucose. Correct. So like, for example, I worked all night last night.

I didn't need a thing. I fasted. Every time I go to work, I don't eat. So I fasted. I'm not getting any glucose into my system. Your body burns all its glycogen in eight hours, 12 hours, something like that. So then it has to take my body fat, stored fat, and turn it into glucose. You will maintain a constant level of glucose in your bloodstream.

Your body has to do that. Otherwise, you would pass out and die because your red blood cells wouldn't function. So would it create more insulin to do? Does the insulin make your body release glucose? No, it makes the glucose. It drives the glucose into the cells. So have you ever noticed if you eat, if you go out and you eat a very simple carbohydrate meal,

like donuts, for example. You just stuff your face with five donuts. You get the sugar high and then immediately you feel so tired afterwards. That's because insulin comes along and says, wow, your blood sugar just spiked to 300, which is not good, let's drop it. So your blood sugar just goes like this, straight up,

and then straight back down. So if you do this before I worked out in the morning, I would eat a bunch of donuts and then go to the gym. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Just out of curiosity? I would say a bad thing. Oh. So like Carter and I both exercise a lot.

And that's something I've been trying to rein in talk of exercise because, you know, that's not really the topic. But exercise people, it's good for you. Your body really, really needs it. Absolutely. But like, so like sometimes if I go and I do cardio first, I'll do cardio before I lift because I'm looking to burn more fat, right? So I'll do cardio, but then if I feel like I'm dragging, I'll have like five gummy bears or Sour Patch kids, and then it's like I feel much better for the lift.

So the largest sink for glucose in your body or your muscles, which is why lifting weights is so important, and most people don't know that. They think it's just all about cardio. See, lifting weights. Lift heavy things. Especially in your legs, which is why after you eat, you should go for a 10-minute walk.

Every time you stuff something in your, mouth, you should go for a 10-minute walk because your body will, I mean, the numbers are astounding on how much it modulates your glucose levels and you don't get those insulin spikes. So if you're going to work out and you're going to lift weights, yes, it's fine. But, you know, I would say that eating donuts and a- I mean, I don't know. I had a bodybuilder friend who used to do this with like muffins. Yeah, but he's, if he was a bodybuilder, he was messing with his insulin levels, as it is, you know. There's way better things you could be eating or drinking to, to, to, get your body ready, you know, than donuts before you're going to go work out.

So I, and they're not good for you on any levels. I always see find something better for you. Last question is what kind of a clarification. If you were, if I was drinking corn oil and it was actually my body now with this unsaturated fat, the mitochondria are malfunctioning, they're looking for glucose instead of fat, they're looking for sugar. Will my body start producing more? What is it, glycogen?

Is that what you called it or glucose? Glicogen is just stored glucose. Would it start releasing more of that into the bloodstream, which would then cause it to release more insulin into the bloodstream? Mm-mm. No, if I understand your question, no, that would not cause your body to produce more or to release more glycogen. Glycogen is, you can only store a very small amount of glucose. You can store infinite amount of fat, which is an evolutionary that's good because you, you know, think about it from evolutionary perspective.

You come across a big kill, you kill a woolly mammoth and you eat it and you want to store all those calories. So you store it as fat. And it also insulates you and keeps you warm and all these other things. And then for the times when you're not killing a woolly mammoth, you have no food, you're living off that stored body fat. but you can't store glucose only is glycogen, which is, you know, a few tablespoons, essentially, of sugar that you're storing. So you burn that off very, very quickly.

So you really can't store glucose, which is why your body needs to produce it because otherwise you wouldn't survive. So, but the answer is no, your body wouldn't produce glycogen per se. It would produce glucose if you're not eating anything because it has to, to maintain that level blood sugar so you don't pass out and die. Oh, it would produce glucose.

So if my body, if my mitochondria are looking for glucose, instead of fat, would it then start producing glucose to give it what it wants? Your body will always produce a amount of glucose to keep your blood sugar stable. So it won't overproduce? I'm wondering if it's causing an insulin reaction, basically what I'm... It's a lot of pointed questions to get to that. No, your body can overproduce glucose, and that usually is caused by an endocrine tumor. So if you're produced, if your blood sugars are spiking high and you're not eating anything, there's something wrong with you, and you should get that checked out.

That's usually a tumor producing too much glucose. Okay. But same thing with an insulinoma, which is producing too much insulin. You can't the blood sugar will drop. It's the exact opposite. So yes, you can have certain type of endocrine tumors that produce glucose, so your body, your blood sugars will spike, but that's not normal. Normally your body's pretty good at modulating glucose levels, and it wants to keep it in

a distinct range because too much glucose in your, in your, is toxic to your, the lining of your arteries, which is why you get athoscarotic artery disease. Because when the glucose spikes, it causes, it causes problems with the, the, the, you know, the endothelial cells, the lining of the arteries, and that causes plaque to form because you get inflammation. Does that make sense? The plaque is a result of the inflammation? Correct.

How does that happen? So your body's responding to an inflammatory response. If I kicked you in the shin, right, your leg would swell up. Same thing happens in your arteries. It's like a scab? Basically, yes, yes. And people talk about calcified plaque,

that's what happens over time. You get these calcifications being formed that your body's trying to stabilize it. We're gonna jump off medical stuff and we're going to talk about lesbians. I'm talking about lesbians in western Massachusetts. So from LGBTQ Nation, this is hilarious. Lesbian bar with a mountain of debt faces massive backlash for loosening mass requirements in 2026.

A lesbian bar in Greenfield, Massachusetts is suffering an empty dance floor after announcing it would make masking optional on Saturday nights. The horror in 2026. The change earned a scorching reaction online from Patreon. who've come to expect a full masking protocol every time they visited the Boston Globe reports. Just say you're being complicit in mass disabling event and get it over with what wrote one commenter on Instagram where the change was met with hundreds of comments,

most of them negative. Jackie Matalin said the last of three women in their early 20s who opened the bar in 2025. She posted news of the switch on of the Saturday night switch on August 31st, under a banner declaring updates. It is with love. We inform our immunocompromised, disabled divas. We will be opening Saturday night as a masking optional.

She wrote on the Last Ditch Insta. It's called the Last Ditch. It's just caught. The bar's previous policy required patrons to wear a well-fitted K-N-95 mask for better at all times. Do you drink? I don't know. Through a straw.

To go to a bars. Accessibility is a pillar of our mission, Matalin wrote, and our mission is also to make the space work for everyone, everything radical. Sometimes that's being wild. What is truly wild is announcing a change of this magnitude in a cavalier, callous fashion came another comment. This is hilarious. Last Ditch is located at the north end of the Pioneer Valley area

in western Massachusetts, home to the town of Northampton, a long-time lesbian enclave. true lesbian enclaves no oh yeah Northampton so basically like when I was growing up like we used to play shows in Northampton all time there's this great place called Pearl Street that's where a ton of bands got their start and it was known that it was the lesbian capital of America San Francisco was the gay capital of America Northampton was the lesbian capital Smith College is there Mount Holyo College these colleges are very very very progressive

there were they were what they called slugs went to Smith College. They were Smith lesbians until graduation. And the like, young girls would go to these women-only colleges and they would, you know, they would experiment and get mad at men for a lot of things. So, yeah, last ditch is located at the north end of the Pioneer Valley area in western Massachusetts, home to the town of Northampton, a long-time lesbian enclave. Rachel Maddow called it home before moving to her farm in nearby Cumberton,

as well as women-only Smith College. an alternative Hampshire college where the bar has roots as a capstone graduation project. This is hilarious because, I mean, it really just touches kind of all the stuff that the left gets, you know, shellacked for nowadays. LGBTQ. Women are taking a beaten since the Lindsey Clancy. Well, they're definitely taking a beaten if it's a lesbian. Yeah, right? This stuff right here, I don't even know if we can read that quote.

Which one? It's on the second paragraph right there. The bar for Dykes, Transsexuals, Gender Freaks, Workers, and their friends. I mean, look, they're calling it. These are the terms that they use. Imagine the bar fights there? Because lesbians are like rock and sock and robots. They're going after each other.

I'm proud to say, I've joined in the boycott here. I'm not going to Patreon this place. No, no, I'm not either. I'm going home this weekend and I'm going to just drive right by. Last it. Not going. It's the first one. It just speaks to the whole, like, the COVID nonsense,

which was, you know, like that never made any sense to me, the whole idea that I had to be, you know, the idea, if I got vaccinated, why would I care if you got vaccinated or not? But it's the same thing with the mask. If I'm so worried, let me wear a mask. Why do I care if you're wearing a mask or not? I mean, you know. I'm protected, right? So what difference does it make? Well, I mean.

So illogical. Yeah. I mean, and speaking of the COVID stuff, like the way that people behave as if, you know, to your point, you mentioned vaccines, I mean, growing up, you know, and I'm not a young guy, you know, when I was growing up, you got your vaccination. And then you were like, okay, you got your vaccination. That's how I perceived of vaccinations working. And then when COVID came.

They were like, you get vaccinated, then you get a booster, and then you get another booster, then you get another booster. I'm like, this is, this sounds weird to me. Like, I don't understand it. I mean, how many vaccinations, you know, as a doctor, how many vaccinations are you aware of that need multiple boosters like that? Just a couple. There's like, just a, and it's not, the problem with the COVID one is it's in perpetuity.

It's like every six months, you need another one forever. But, but the idea is, you know, they kept moving the goalposts on the vaccine. A vaccine, most people understand it to be, if I get a. get this shot, I will be immune from whatever it is I'm getting this shot for. Yeah. And that was what they sold us initially. And then they moved the goalpost. Well, no, no, no, it's not, you know, you're not going to be immune, but you won't get

a sick. And then it was, well, you might get sick, but you won't get hospitalized. I mean, they just kept taking the goalpost and moving it farther down the field. And it was like, what this isn't a vaccine? What is this that you're giving me? Like, the whole concept of vaccination just sort of went out the window. Yeah. And it became like- Well, they also changed the definition because I remember having this argument

with my friends and they were like gaslighting me to death. like I had to go look it up and do a bunch of research. Like, vaccines are actually supposed to cure, like, or make you protect you. Yeah. Not to treat it after the illness. Correct. Right. I mean, look, you get the polio vaccine and then you don't have to worry about getting polio.

Right. You know, that was my perception of it because I have a young kid. And the one thing I'm adamant about is I want to make sure that he gets the polio vaccine. Not that there's a lot of polio going around, but I definitely don't want a kid in an iron lung. You know, I mean, it's like, it's like I, I, I, there are, you weigh the, the, the, the, the, the consequences and, and, and the likely dangers. And, you know, there's, there's, there's some stuff that we're going to do, some stuff that we're not going to do, but I wanted to get the polio vaccine. And again, because, you know, I think just recently, the last person that was in an iron lung,

because of polio just recently passed away. I don't want my kid to live his life in an iron lung or, or, or have, you know, some kind of, you know, serious debilitation because he randomly got polio because someone from the third world who wasn't vaccinated came into the United States during the Joe Biden administration and ends up, you know, giving someone else polio, you know, or spreading around polio. They were, I remember during Biden, they were like spreading like medieval diseases. Yeah. Brownsville.

I was like, what is going on? You know, they brought back the bubonic plague in Florida. I'm like, what? Yeah. Is that right? But so, so to your experiences with, you had experiences. dealing with some of this stuff that was going on during COVID. Do you want to talk about that a little bit?

Sure. So I ran an urgent care center in Maryland, and I became, my center became the largest supplier. Well, we became the largest testing site for COVID. We went from one urgent care center with like six employees within a 12-month span to eight sites with over 300 employees, just because the demand was so great. We became the largest testing site in our county, and I'm pretty sure the largest. just private testing site in the state of Maryland. And then when I saw President Trump be helicoptered off the White House lawn to Walter Reed because he had COVID, he looked awful. And then a couple of hours

later, he comes out, he looks like a new man. He goes, I just got monoclonal anybody. He's the first person in the country to get them. And I looked at my wife and I'm like, that's the cure right there. That's what we should be focusing on. Why is everybody only talking about vaccinations? We have this cure. We should be talking about that. That's what we should be giving people. So I made it my business to learn about monoclonal antibodies and I started an infusion center and then I started a second infusion center and I would have been.

Can you talk a little bit of what monoclonally? Oh yeah, sorry. Sorry. Yeah, so it's basically, we were talking about this earlier. It's basically mono meaning one and clonal meaning that it's been cloned, it's been replicated multiple times. So if your body recognizes, if there's a virus in you and your body recognizes

each particle that sticks off of that virus as foreign, and it will produce an antibody, a protein, in an exact opposite four-dimensional structure from what it is. So if my finger represents the protein sticking off the virus, your body will come in and make a cap that fits over it in exactly the opposite shape. Okay, that makes sense.

And what happens then is that- It's like a cap on a- Exactly, or like a lock and key. So then your body can come along and take that virus or whatever it is, bacteria, fungus, whatever, and get rid of it. That's because once the antibody attaches, does it send off a signal to the body?

And the body will recognize as it and says, we've got to get rid of this thing and it gets rid. And the important point is it can no longer infect you. So if I gave you COVID right now, Ian, your body would take about three or four weeks to mount the maximum immune response it's going to mount.

So your body's going to produce, you're going to ramp up and produce antibodies to every single protein that it recognizes as far in on that virus. It's going to take about three or four weeks. And that, that'll be the maximal response that you're going to have. So for people to visualize a virus,

is like a ball and it has a bunch of hairs sticking out. Like a kush ball. Like a kush ball. Each of the hairs that's sticking out is actually a protein. Correct. Okay. And so the antibodies find the one

that's the most likely to attach. The drug manufacturers come along, and that's what we were talking about, AI before, this would be a great use of AI. And they find the best antibody to that, to that thing, in this case, COVID-19, but it could be whatever you're talking about. And then they replicate it billions of times.

And then comes in a little powder and you basically mix it up with some ceiling, and you infuse it into somebody's arm like an IV. And they're cured right then and there. You were telling me earlier, you got monoclonal antibodies, and you felt better within 15 minutes. Yes, literally. That's not hyperbole.

That is the truth. We saw it time and time and time again. We became the largest supplier of this life-saving medication in the state of Maryland, and in the entire Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, from New York down to West Virginia. We were the largest. We were the biggest single supplier.

Over the course of the pandemic, we infused over 5,000 patients and we didn't have a single treatment failure. And actually, with HHS, Health and Human Services, came to me and said, we want to set up this program where we'd like to take these life-saving drugs and get them out into the communities, the underserved populations and minorities. Can you do that? So I set up the first one in the country at FedEx Field under this health equity initiative program through HHS, formed a partnership with my company, HHS, and the Maryland

Department of Health. And it was running great so well that they actually asked me to do it in other states. We were going to start in D.C. And then all of a sudden, the government shut the whole program down. And then two weeks after that, they said, we're shutting monoclonal antibodies down across the entire country. You can't give them anymore. So their rationale for that was they said, well, there was an Omicron surge, and they were saying that Omicron had reached 70% prevalence. Oh, yeah. I forgot about the Transformer Name one. And they said, they said, we believe the monoclonal antibodies we had. We had six at the time. Six you could choose. from, manufactured, six different ones.

They said, we believe that the monoclonal antibodies that we have are not efficacious against Omicron. Now, there had been zero, zero clinical studies at that time that showed that. There was just starting to do in vitro studies, so in test tubes to show that there was maybe a decreased efficacy, but not in any human beings. So they had no clinical data on which to base this.

So I go on Fox News and I rail against them and I said, they're gonna kill people because they don't know what they're doing and they're misreading the data. A few weeks later they come out and said, oh yeah, we misread the data. It wasn't 70% prevalence. It was 20%.

Now, that's like a factor of what? 300%. How does any statistician make a mistake like that? I don't think it's possible. I don't think that was a mistake. 70% prevalence to 20% of what? Just in general in the world? In the United States.

Okay, okay. Of Omicron. And I said, if what you're saying is true, we should have had treatment failure after treatment failure after treatment failure. We didn't have a single one. I didn't see a single one in any of my clinics. Oh, so you'd been serving colonial antibodies

to people with Omicron and it hadn't been causing? We don't know what they had because so the other thing is that the statistics were so poor because the United States of all the major countries in the Western world, we were the last, the lowest in terms of testing for genetic testing of the subtyping. So what would happen is you send a certain percentage of your, of your PCR swabs to the CDC and they would do genetic testing to see what subtype of COVID it was. Most countries were doing about 5%. We were doing less than 1%.

So how would you even know? know what the prevalence really was. So anyway, I go on Fox News. Then I go on Newsmax, and I said, the Biden administration is going to kill people. And that is exactly what happened. People are dead. I am 100% sure of this because of what these monsters did when they took away the only treatment we had. And it worked. And it worked like a miracle. And then four months later, I get indicted for federal health care fraud charges, that even the chief judge of Maryland, who was assigned to my case, called it a case of, quote, shoot first and ask questions later because they really hadn't done an investigation. What was the, about what? What did they say? They said we were upcoding. We were,

we were taking the charts and we were charging too, we were using the wrong code. Now there's over 69,000 possible codes you can choose from in the billing and coding world. And they said on five of them, we chose the wrong chart with the wrong code. On these patients, I didn't even see. We had, we had nurse practitioners and P.A. see them. I didn't code them. We had a third-party billing company. I mean, the whole thing was insane. So we go to trial and, I mean, I can't I believe I'm here on federal charges going to trial. And the chief judge of Maryland writes a 93-page opinion and basically throws the whole case out

and says that the government didn't prove its case. They had no evidence, which they didn't. They never even had a professional coder look at the charts. They just had government lawyers look at the charts. It would be like me, Ian, if I handed you five patient charts and said, here, why don't you pick what code this should be? What would you say? I have no idea.

Exactly. Because that's not what you do for a living. There's people who do this for a living. The government never went to the trouble of having a professional look through the charts to say whether this was accurate or not. And they didn't even have the charts before they charged me with the crime.

Right. You were saying that last time. You were like, they were like actually, they didn't have enough information to even pick the numbers at random. Correct. And they actually, to this day, have never been able to say what was wrong, how it was wrong, or what the right code should have been.

All they would say is, you're wrong. Now, how can you charge someone with a federal crime without even being able to explain what the crime is? I mean, I'm just baffled. So anyway, the judge, you know, throws the whole thing out. And then with weeks left in the Biden administration, they appeal it. So now I'm facing a second trial for the same ridiculous charges of that have already been

adjudicated in January. And the Trump DOJ hasn't dropped, huh? Correct. I'm trying to find someone in the Trump DOJ to do that. And I would argue that I'm a whistleblower because I worked for the federal government. I went on national news twice and said, they're going to kill people, which is exactly what they did. And then now I'm charged with the ridiculous crime.

So President Trump on day one of his term said and issued an executive order ending the weaponization of government. Two weeks later, Pam Bondi, then Attorney General, issues a memo saying we're starting this weaponization workforce to find cases just like mine. And we'd like them, you know, to be brought to the president. They haven't brought a single case. I don't even think they've met. So I'm trying to find someone in Trump world to say like this case is crazy. It's clear weaponization. The Biden DOJ actually, Biden administration did kill people.

question about it. They took away the only cure we had. I don't understand how anybody could think that's okay. Do you have a sense as to what was going on behind the scenes? Because this is a time where I actually do kind of start to think along the lines of like conspiratorial. Do you think that the stuff that you were working on the monoclonia out of anybody's, do you think that that was suppressed because the administration, because the government, because it was the Trump and the the Biden administration because the government had contracts with bigger companies that were working on the vaccine? I think there was collusion between, in this case, the Biden, the Biden administration and big pharma. So think about the economics here. I mean, the business model is like the best

business model I've ever heard of. I could ever come up with. So now you take the entire planet, all eight and a half billion inhabitants of it, and you basically sign them up for a subscription to get a new vaccine every six months that, oh, by the way, the vaccine research and development was all paid for by the taxpayer, so they had zero cost going in, or very little cost going in, the drug manufacturers, yet 100% of the profits go back to the drug manufacturers. So you're basically signing the entire world up in perpetuity for every six months getting another vaccine versus the monoclonal antibodies, which are expensive to produce, and your population of patients is only maybe 20 million people worldwide at any given time. So you're talking about massive, like multiple

orders of magnitude of difference. The economics are plainly obvious, right? You're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars versus maybe a couple of, maybe $100 million for the drug manufacturers to make. So I think that there was definitely collusion to get the vaccines, because why else would you take away hydroxychloroquine, which worked,

then you take away Avrimectin, which worked. You couldn't talk about it, you couldn't prescribe it, you couldn't even mention it. And then you have this monoclonal antibodies, which were the miracle cure, which, I mean, you say, said it, you were better in 15 minutes. Yeah, literally, maybe 20 minutes.

And why would you take them away? So right after I started, after I went on Fox News, they said, we made a mistake, we were wrong, they never apologized. Then they said, okay, you can start infusing again. Then very quickly, within two weeks, they started to pull the emergency use authorizations of the monoclonal antibodies. So to this day, they're not available anymore for COVID. You can't get monoclonal antibodies.

Do you get them for anything? Yeah, but not for COVID. But you can get the crappy vaccine. The MRNA. So that's interesting, too, because a vaccine, as we know it, used to be you'd inject a little bit of a virus. Now today, the MRNA stuff is they're actually putting RNA in your body that's sending a different message to the cell to build a different protein. So in theoretical terms, the MRNA vaccine is amazing. The technology is amazing.

But in practical terms, it has been a loser and has been all sorts of problems with it. We talked about this earlier. is that it doesn't stay where it's supposed to, it becomes systemic. Other problems of contamination, they've been contaminated with other viruses and other particles and DNA from other things that they shouldn't be in there.

So there've been all sorts of problems with that particular line of vaccination. But I believe that was their goal. I mean, why else, you know, and the thing that's just so infuriating to me, aside from the fact that they destroyed my life and my family's life, is none of what we all lived through

during COVID had to happen. Like, the government decided at some point there was a branch point, and we could have done the way of Sweden, which was, okay, you know, we recognize that certain populations of people are a higher risk. Let's take those and protect those people. And if they get sick, we have a cure. Let's give them the cure. But you didn't need to shut schools down. You didn't need to shutter mosques and churches and synagogues. You didn't need to, you know, shutter small businesses. You didn't need to lock people in their homes. None of that needed to happen. None of it. And millions of people didn't need to die. If they had just said, and maybe this is a big ass, but if they'd been like, hey, okay, we want to give experimental RNA changes to your genome that might protect you from this virus and future ones. And people opted in. I'm still, I'm into that. Like, if you want to edit your genome for fun, fine, whatever, I don't care. It's not my genome. I mean, maybe don't pee in my drinking water, but.

Right. But instead, they fire people for not editing their genome. What gets me. No, exactly, exactly. If you had been killing people with monoclonally, just one thing, but it looked like, they went after you with some bogus administrative

trumped up charge that didn't happen like what they did Al Capone to get them on tax evasion because they couldn't find him for killing people

and being an officer yeah he was probably evading taxes too though possibly and I'm sure it was and Trump actually getting the process

the colonelal antibodies anyway sorry to interrupt you were no no it's fine but it's worth you know obviously the stuff that you had to go through

was terrible like you said destroyed your family's life and stuff and made an absolute catastrophe for you. But the downstream effects of this, you know, a lot of people lost their lives, yeah,

and that's, you know, that's horrible. But in the future, when there is another, some kind of pandemic, should that happen again, there's going to be a slew of people that are, you know, my age and younger, that are going to be like, do I trust them? Do I believe it? And that will end up causing, and if it's legitimate, and there are, especially with AI being able to come up with cures and stuff, there are people that are going to be like, I don't trust it, I don't care, I don't believe them.

And a lot more people will lose their lives because of the lack of trust. In the government. I think so there definitely will be another pandemic. I mean, we're a globalized society, whether it's manmade or it's natural, there will be something again. but the problem is they will do exactly what they did the last time. They'll try to vaccinate their way out of it. It won't work. You can't do that.

Monoclonal antibodies need to be front and center in any future pandemic response. In fact, I helped write the pandemic response plan for New York State for hopefully the next governor, Mr. Blakeman. I helped write their response for him as he's running for governor against Kathy Hockel because these need to be front and center. Like that needs to be something that we're talking about. But to your point, Phil, I think. Show me any physician who spoke out during the pandemic against the narrative who wasn't beaten down in some way, shape, or form.

They didn't lose their license. They didn't have their license threatened. They didn't lose their hospital privileges. They weren't de-platformed. Or like me, they weren't indicted by the federal government. I don't think that person exists. And that's scary for a lot of reasons, because during a pandemic, you want your doctors to speak up. You want them to question things. Like, that's what we should be doing. So to your point, if there's another pandemic, they've bastardized medicine and they destroyed it. No one's going to trust anybody. What's the... Dr. Drew sort of got out somewhat unscathed, but he was more of a personality,

and I don't think he said the things that were getting, like Peter McCollick and, you know, Robert Malone, Blacklisted at the time, who... Peter Corey? Both great... Yeah. All these doctors, they all got spanked. So what happens with, like...

Okay. Jay Batacharya. Yeah, he's now the head of an age, but yes, he... And he's a... Yes, go ahead. With the MRNA, when it works right, there's a virus. It's a ball with all these proteins sticking out of it,

and one of those proteins is going to go latch in your body and then stick its viral DNA into you and mess you up. But if you can block it off with a protein with a monoclonal antibody. So what does the MRNA cause? It gives messenger RNA. It gives messages to the ribosome RNA. And it tells it build this kind of protein. What happens? How does it defend against the virus when it works? So in the case of COVID, it was the spike protein. So it was telling your body essentially to build the spike protein that you would then respond to. What is a spike protein? So if you look at a COVID under a microscope, it has this thing called the spike protein. It just looks like a thing that sticks straight up, like a spike. So it's a

COVID, it's a Cush ball. It has a bunch of proteins, but there's one in particular that sticks way out. Yes. And that's what causes all these problems in people. And they've been finding it, it's supposed to only have lasted a couple of weeks, but it's been found years later still in people's bodies. So it didn't work as intended. I'm sorry, the COVID virus had the spike or the vaccine that or the COVID virus has a spike, and the MRI vaccine induced your body to produce the spike so that your body would then produce antibodies to that spike protein.

Okay. So it tricks your body and to producing one part of, so you're not actually exposing your body to the whole virus, just one piece of it, in this case, the spike protein. It happens to be the most pathogenic part of the, essentially, inflammatory inducing part of the virus, which is the spike protein. Is that just because it spikes straight into the nucleus

or something? I don't know about the immunology there. I'm not sure. And then so it makes the cell create a spike and then immune systems come and destroy the cell. It produces the, essentially, yes, the proteins that would constitute the spike on the virus. So the MRI tells the cell become a target and then the cell grows a spike. The immune comes and blows up that cell. And that was what's happening in people's hearts inadvertently because it wasn't staying local. Correct. And you contrast that with a monoclonal antibody, which is essentially produced in a laboratory multiple times, same antibody. And now we're giving you the antibodies already. So you're just injecting the

anybody. So it's like a super Superman injection for your immune system. It would take you three or four weeks to produce that level of antibodies we're giving to you in 30 minutes. Does the COVID virus having a large spike in it indicate that it was made in the laboratory? That doesn't indicate it was made in the laboratory, but I can pretty much, I mean, I firmly believe it was manmade and I think the data and now the government's finally admitting that it was probably manned. Everybody knows. What was, what does the spike indicate? How is that unique in viral land? Yeah. Is there something about a spike that's uncommon for a virus to have a large one sticking out? Not that I know of.

It's a common thing? I don't know. I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I know it's specific for that particular protein is specific to COVID. I don't know if it was in SARS 1. Remember SARS 1, which was, you know, back in 2002, I think, or 2003. I don't remember the year.

And then this was SARS 2. I don't know if it was, or MERS. I don't know if it was in that. I don't know. They're all coronaviruses and they're all sort of variations on a theme. And they call them corona because those. those spikes look like the corona? No, because it's shaped like a crown.

Like a, the virus itself is shaped like a crown. So the family of virus are called coronaviruses. Okay. Which just so happened to be, you know, start in Wuhan, China, which just so happened to host a lab, which just so happened to study coronaviruses. You know, I mean, it's all very suspect. Oh, yeah. It's called COVID-19. It had a web market.

Yeah. Yeah, I always wondered about that. How Schwa released this book. 19 when it came out in 2020. Because they actually found it in 19. That's what I thought. And Klaus Schwab wrote that book, The Great Reset, COVID-19 and the Great Reset.

You're like, what are those two things have to do with each other? That was all very weird. And there's a lot of weird things that happened. There was the tabletop exercise right before COVID happened. Do you remember that? I forget what it was called.

Project 29, something like that. Do you guys know what I'm talking about? Yeah, it was like a pandemic response. Yes. And they did everything that they modeled happened for real. during COVID. I mean, again, it sounds so conspiratorial. Like, all of this stuff sounds like we're living in some, you know, matrix or something, or it's a bad spy novel, but it all really,

we all lived through this. I mean, it was all real. It all happened. And they had this, this all play out, even to the point where they were, okay, doctors are going to speak out. We're going to shut them down. I mean, that was tabletopped in this exercise. We're going to, we're going to shut people down. We're going to make them be quiet. We're going to not allow dissent. All the things that we saw actually come to fruition happened weeks before. in this tabletop exercise. I got to find out the name of that, by the way. I'm going to do that now.

I mean, it's, it's frightening, but I mean, this is, yeah, this is the world we live in. I mean, again, I can't stress strongly enough how bad the downstream effects have been for, for society in general. You know, people had a record level of mistrust in institutions before COVID-19, before the lockdowns. Yeah. And then with the behavior of the government because of that pandemic, people now are, I mean, I was talking earlier, you know, in the Soviet Union, everyone felt all the time the government lies.

There's a lot of people out there that think everything the government says is a lie. And you can't blame them. Right. You know, because that was such an odd, it was, there was so much audacious BS that people had to deal with. even if even if you didn't have any you know any kind of opinion on whether or not the COVID virus was made in a lab or whatever once people realized or found out that masks didn't help but then they did but then they didn't and social distancing was BS and it was okay for you to go out in protest in the middle of the night with 10,000 people but not go to your your grandparents funeral You had to watch people watch their family members dies. There are people that will never, ever forgive the government. I can tell you.

I don't blame them. One of the hardest things, I mean, as a doctor, like, you know, as an emergency room doctor, I saw lots of people die. I see it all the time, and it's horrible, and it's a tough part of my job. But, you know, it's part of my job. But at least for the most part, when people die, family members can come in and be with them.

But I can't tell you how many people we had to pronounce that we just, the family members are on the other side of the glass. they can't be in the room with them. So hardest thing, and you try to give some level of comfort to this person that they don't know you, but you try to hold their hand or whatever you can do to try to be

at least some human interaction. I mean, I have PTSD from that to this day because these people are on their deathbed, they're dying, and these horrible monsters wouldn't even allow their own family members to be with them. And, you know, my aunt passed away during COVID. I couldn't go to her funeral.

And then, you know, the ridiculous stuff, Like you could go to Walmart, but they had arrows on the floor, right? You can only go up. I mean, what kind of stupidity is that? It was, it was ridiculous. And to your point about the way, you know, people were passing away with their families, you know, being locked away. They couldn't be there. That's, that's one of the, of all the stories that you hear, that's the one that that's probably the worst.

Yeah. You know, knowing that, like, you can't go in because the government, you know, just said you can't be there. And the fact that nobody's been held, had really been held accountable for it. You know, the Biden administration gave so many people, you know, pardons for something that they might have done. It's completely justifiable for the anger that people have towards,

you know, Fauci and all the people that were in the administration that were saying, you know, you can't do this, you can't do that. We have to worry about this. Like, you could give them some leeway in the beginning. You know, you could give the government some leeway because they didn't know, you know, we didn't know what was going on at first and stuff.

But like, you know, by like May of 2020, it was like, all right, this is all, you know. My wife's a pediatric oncologist. She treats children with cancer. And, I mean, she had to have kids passing away without their parents. Like, I mean, yeah, heartbreaking, just thinking about it. And, you know, the problem that I have with Fauci, though,

you know, he deserves to get, I think, tried, of course he has a federal pardon, he doesn't have a state pardon. But the problem that I think is that most people would then use him as a fall guy and say, oh, we got the bad guy. It's Anthony Fauci. There's a thousand Fauci's out there, and there will be another thousand Fauci's. And, you know, that's part of the problem with the way our government structured is it's encouraged to have Anthony Fauci type people. But all of them need to be held accountable.

You know, all those people that did these horrible things. I mean, somebody somewhere said, we're shutting this program down for no good reason just because I want to. and because I want the drug companies to make more money. Like, I mean, that's just so evil. I found out the name of that event you were talking about that they held when they were simulating a pandemic. It was called Event 201. Held in New York in October of 2019, just weeks before COVID emerged.

This is from Claude. They held an event right two weeks before, or a few weeks before COVID emerged, where they were by Johns Hopkins with the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation, simulating a novel coronavirus spread from pigs to people and killing tens of million worldwide. then before that, there was something called Crimson Contagion. Same year, 2019, January through August. It simulated a flu pandemic starting in China and found the U.S. was underprepared. All through 2019, they were simulating this.

Come on. I mean, I'm not, I know I'm preaching to the choir in this room, but dear God, someone's watching right now, putting the pieces together. I mean, it's, again, it's so obvious. The timeline is just, you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. and then whatever, like again, why would anyone in their right mind, like somebody had a great idea early in the pandemic. There's this drug called hydroxychloroquine.

Let's repurpose this drug. It's been around for years and it works great and it's very safe. Let's give it a try and guess what? It worked. Why would anybody then step in and say, you can't use that drug? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You're crazy if you're going to use that drug. And then a couple weeks later, someone said,

well, let's try this other drug that's been around. That, by the way, its founder, got the Nobel Prize for, ivermectin, which is safer than Tylenol or aspirin. And the media's treatment of it, the way they were like, it's horse-paced and did everything they could to... Shut it down. Why?

I think it's... Why? Ask yourself, why? It makes no sense, except when you look at, they had an ulterior motive. Yeah. And that ulterior motive is plainly obvious to anyone who has a thinking brain and can look through and say, well, with a discerning mind, they clearly had a target, and it was one thing after another, after another, after another. And again, the downstream effects, like, I understand everybody that has all the problems with with big pharma and you could even you could you could you could even extend to possibly to capitalism people are doing that but at the same time these big pharma companies are also the companies that make actual life-saving drugs. Yes.

They make the modern world that we live in possible and you've destroyed your credibility with a generation of people over this and it's it's so it's such a waste and it's so bad for society, you know, overall. We talked about this before. It's like they were asked to produce the data on the vaccines. And, oh, we'll get it out in 75 years. Who in their right mind thinks that's reasonable? That's like what they do with the Kennedy assassination. Right.

We'll tell you in a hundred years. Right. I mean, like, it's so obvious. Yeah. I think it is. We got to jump to super chats, though, but I appreciate you taking the time to tell the story. So smash the like button, share the show with all of your friends. head on over to Timcast.com, become a member there.

Join our Discord. And then you can come and join us for the Rumble After Show. They have to be a member of Rumble, too. But you can watch, well, I think you can watch the after show on the Discord, right? Carter? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Well, you can call in on the Discord.

Yeah. So join the Discord. You'll meet someone there. You'll meet people. There's a ton of people, and there's like 20, 30,000 people. People have gotten married, had babies, all that kind of stuff. So join the Discord. so you can call in and talk to our guests.

But right now, we're going to go to your super chats. And first of all, from Marushi Dark, says, inside Ian, there are two wolves. One is a pot-smoking hippie pacifist. The other is a violent authoritarian technocrat. That's actually true. There is nothing in between, it seems. That's kind of true, bro. That's really, really intense.

Yeah, I'm holding it together, man. Very astute observation. Left-handed assassin says, the lesser of two evils might as well be the next campaign slogan at this point going to vote for transformer commies i mean look the republicans have record disapproval i don't think there's ever been this kind of anger towards the republicans and and look a lot of it's well-earned um i mean particularly the topic of of this show one of the things that people are most upset about is they feel like there's been no accountability for all of the BS that we had to go through uh with COVID

And it justifiably feel like that because there hasn't been. But, you know, if you, if the Democrats do get control of the House and the Senate, they're going to do everything they can to stop Donald Trump's enforcement of the border. And I personally, I think the illegal immigration is the biggest threat to the country right now. So you're stuck in a rock, in a hard place. But, you know, this isn't a presidential election. so you can, if you're upset with the Trump administration, you can still go and if you like your representative,

your Republican that's running in your district, you can still vote for them and have a somewhat clear conscience. It's hard to, you know, promote Republicans, especially after that story, you know. X is from Christopher, Christopher Even says, X has been reduced to Chinese propagandists versus Israeli propagandists in the political space. Thanks for standing out, Tim, as always.

Well, I'm sure Tim appreciates that. But yeah, I mean, that's kind of, there's a lot of propaganda on X. I still think it's great, but I think it's the best social media, you know, a site that there is. Phil, I don't agree with Ian often, but the government know,

the government know, I think he's saying Dick. Well, who has what, have their fingers on it. They don't, they don't have to tell you. No, they don't, but if they had something more advanced, you'd think that they'd be using it, and it doesn't seem like they're using it when they're, you know, kicking clawed out of the Department of War. Yeah, I can, I mean, I've done a lot of work inside the guy. I worked for the Secret Service, and I worked with NASA, and I can tell you that, like, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors that

goes on with both of those institutions, and I imagine it's the same with government in general, that there are people that are very dedicated to their jobs, but they're, there's no secret bunker where there's like a top secret lab. That's all done in the private sector. And then the government may, as you said, license it or use it. But sometimes they'll even just be like, this is ours now. And they'll steal it. Yeah.

Yes. But there's no like, you know, there's no secret lab. There's just a lot of smoke and mirrors. There's a lot of, we're the best in the world. We do this really well, but it's a lot of, it's also plausible deniability when you have a corporation do it for you. Yeah, absolutely. Hey, Phil, love your music and you're great at hosting.

Thank you very much. Can you thank Ian for changing the weather today? Did I? Thank you. We all did together. 412 show says thank you. Also, you lost the game. Son of a bitch.

What game? If you're watching, you also lost the game. Uh-oh. Do we have any Rumble Rans here? We have a few. Let me pull them up. I pull them up because I don't want to not give love to the Rumble rancers. For sure, we have a few.

There we go. Yeah, so if, H.S. Disturb says, if Trump plays nice with G, will the left automatically start hating on China? If so, I guess I'll take it. They probably won't. Look, there's a lot of people on the left that are going to be like, well, we hate China too because they're not really communist

or they're not communist enough or they have markets and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Maybe Hassan Piker might start hating on him. So that would be a benefit. Let's see. Let's see. Celtic Salero says, Ian, if you want to read a well-researched book on U.S. corporations making money with the Nazis. Check out IBM and the Nazis by Edwin Blackie.

Okay. Or Edwin Black, maybe. I. There you go. Phelanx says, let's be honest. The reason the dykes are complaining about no masks is because they're now going to have to look at each other's ugly faces. That's harsh. Bravo. Bravo. Good sir. Let's see. We've got. Mallow baby says Trump had meetings in Beijing and May. Talks of Partnership and Business deals with top business guys. Look it up at Gwok. Okay.

I mean, look, like we said earlier, there are consistently diplomatic ties between China and the United States. Like you were ties between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. And that likely did prevent nuclear war. So it's something that is an ongoing situation when it comes to, you know, the most powerful countries on earth. John Waters says, is it a new. rule that someone has to wear a beanie on on IRL no matter what. It is. Yeah, it came in a place today.

Yet one that fits Tate. The beanie isn't holding it down, Mr. Brown. Love you, buddy. I have a giant Oprah Winfrey hat. It's hard to find any hats that fit. It's brutal. But, you know, because it wasn't sunny today, so there's no need for a brim. It was crap. A hat without a brim. Look, it makes me think of olives, and it makes me hungry.

A very Mediterranean mindset. Yeah, yeah. You got that Middle Eastern vibe. All right, well, smash the like button. Share the show with all your friends. You can check me out. I am Phil that Remains on X. If you want to check out the band, it's on Apple Music, Amazon, Music, Pandore, YouTube, Spotify, and D's or Ron,

do you have anything you want to shout out? Ron, Elfinbine, MD on X, and drop the case.com is my website. Thanks. Yeah, X and Instagram, at Realtape Brown. Can give me a follow. Drop it like it's hot. Drop the case. And we should find other doctors that are being pursued

or still on the hook for stuff that happened eight years ago, mistakenly, or six years ago or four years ago, whatever. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Let's do. What was the website again? Drop the case.com. That's a good one. Thanks, Ron. Good to see you, man. Good talks. Follow me at Ian Crossland all over the place. Carter. Carter. Yeah, man, I'm glad we had you back. You got to tell your story as much as you could on YouTube. But come and hang out on the after show. And yeah, I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere at Carter Banks, everywhere else. And, yeah, let's get to it.

Yeah, thanks for having me back, guys. Thank you. We will see you guys tomorrow right here. You'll check out Tate tomorrow at noon. We'll be back for Tim will be back tomorrow for IRL and stick around for the Rumble show starting right now