Welcome to this curated educational transcript of the Joe Rogan Experience. In this session, we provide a deep-dive examination of the critical perspectives and historical dialogues presented in Episode #2454. Our mission is to offer a high-fidelity, searchable research resource for students of cultural history, emerging technology, and global discourse. This transcript has been specifically optimized for academic reference, linguistic study, and archival preservation regarding mRNA Technology, Public Health Policy, and Institutional Trust in 2026 Joe Rogan Podcast. Check it out. The Joe Rogan
Experience. Train by day. Joe Rogan Podcast by
night. All day. We were trying to figure out
how long it's been since you came here. It's
been somewhere in the neighborhood close to five
years. Yeah. A lot of water under the bridge.
Your appearance on this show, boy, did that create
a lot of problems. Yeah, I didn't expect you
ever had me on again. I thought maybe Spotify
was just going to say, hell no. No, you were
right. Like, this is a victory dance. Like, it
turned out that all your warnings and all the
things that you were saying about the problems
turned out to be true. Well, thanks. And I know
you've said that on a few shows. Every time you
do, somebody sends me a clip and sees, hey, Rogan
said you did the right thing. What was it like
for you? First of all, you know, they were trying
to label you a quack and a kook and someone didn't
know what they were talking about. I don't think
it worked with everybody. I mean, it worked with
people that weren't paying attention. But anybody
that really paid attention to your background
said, no, this guy's very credible. I mean, don't
you have like nine patents on mRNA vaccine technology?
Yeah, on the mRNA. Yeah. And a total of about
15, I think. Yeah. And you also took the vaccine
and had a horrible adverse event. A series of
them. Yeah. Yeah. At the time, it was so early.
That was when the National Guard was still doing
it. And that was Moderna. I was embarrassed to
have these experiences, and I was embarrassed
when I got COVID in early 2020. You know, looking
back, there was so much fear, so much anger and
anxiety and everything wrapped around all of
this. And in retrospect, it was, you know, it
was promoted, but it was also very organic. You
know, it was, you know, looking back, being honest
about it, it was a frightening time, what was
happening. And, yeah, I, you know, I had those
experiences. My doc, who was a cardiologist,
was like. Why were you so stupid to take this?
Your doctor said that too. In 2021? Yeah. 2020
or 2021? It was 2021, 2021. Yeah. I was going
to kind of a cardiologist that had left traditional
medical practice at UVA and the associated hospitals.
And I was going to her for hormone replacement
therapy. And bioidentical hormone replacement
therapy. And she was monitoring a lot of things.
And, yeah, that was her response. Why did you
do this? Of course, I've had that question a
thousand times since. You know, why were you
so stupid? You were the one that should have
known. And so I have to answer that still. It
kind of gets a little tiresome. What was your
perspective on the vaccine before you took it?
To be honest, I was a little – I was amazed.
I was amazed that the claims that the problems
that I encountered when I had been working on
it had been solved. I didn't see how that could
be the case, but I knew that a huge amount of
money had been thrown at it, so it was possible.
What were the problems? In my hands, it was inflammation
primarily. It was absolutely not localizable.
In the monkey models that we tested, it was incredibly
inflammatory. It didn't give long, prolonged
levels of expression. It was hard to make. It
was kind of back then, it was almost a little
bit of witchcraft. You'd drop, I mean, for me
as a graduate student when I was doing that,
it was incredibly scary because it was a couple
thousand dollars worth of reagents in a little
tiny tube. And, you know, back in the late 80s,
that was real money. And it didn't always work,
the reaction. So, you know, it was a little bit
of a wing and a prayer. But then as I started
working with animal models and with the different
formulations, I could come up with a variety
of different compounds and formulations that
work pretty well in cell culture but not so well
in animals. I spent a lot of time trying to do
that, optimize that. And what I ended up with
is just seeing that it really caused, you know,
I'm sorry to use medical jargon. That's kind
of where I'm from. So that's the language. No,
it's probably better if you do. It caused a lot
of inflammation. You know, white cell infiltrates,
really aggressive white cell infiltrates in my
hands in both mice and monkeys. And I'd abandoned
it as something that just, you know, was. was
useful in research, particularly in cell culture,
but I just didn't see it maturing as an efficient
delivery strategy with low risk, acceptable risk
in animals. And that also became the experience
at this company that I had first joined where
a lot of the original patents were filed, Vycal.
They abandoned the RNA because they couldn't
make it. And they turned largely to this strange
discovery that we had that was a negative control,
that the RNA alone or DNA alone was actually
more effective in animal models, mice, for instance,
than it was to use the... positively charged
fats. Now people call them lipid nanoplexes,
lots of fancy words around it. It was just positively
charged fats of various types that were mixed
that bind the DNA or the RNA and kind of spontaneously
assemble. And a lot of work went into trying
to improve that. We did what we could in the
90s when I was at Davis to try to advance that
technology and develop new lipids. And we had
a number of them get patented and they were marketed
by ProMeg and others, but could never solve the
delivery in vivo. But this group up in University
of British Columbia that had been banging away
at this kind of related liposome tech for years
and years, even before I had known anything about
it, were the ones that kind of came up with the
magic sauce that is used. essentially by both
the Moderna and Pfizer products. And that's the
stuff that we've all been exposed to, those that
have taken it. So when you were first experimenting,
you said it couldn't be localized. So meaning
that in the injection site, it was supposed to
be there and then your body was supposed to produce
antibodies because of the injection. Yeah, and
it goes all over. But it went all over the body.
Yeah, it does. But the assertion, what they were
telling you when you got the shot initially was
that it was not going to leave the injection
site. Yeah, and I called my colleagues at University
of British Columbia that I had known back in
the day as I was grappling with whether or not
to take the product because I had to travel.
And as you recall back then, forget international
travel if you weren't jabbed. Even national travel.
Yeah. You couldn't get on an airplane. In Canada,
it was even worse. You couldn't get on a train.
Yeah, so I called. Peter and had a chat with
him and he said that they had solved the problems
of the distribution that now when you injected
it, it would stay local. It would go to the draining
lymph nodes. It was much more effective and that
they didn't have those safety issues anymore.
So that was one of the reasons why I decided
to go ahead. Did you ask how they solved that
problem? Yeah. Yeah. I asked in detail because
I knew some of the nature of the formulations.
Again, I don't want to get too technical. What
was claimed was that the incorporation of polyethylene
glycol, so this is, you know, you would know
that as antifreeze. But it's in the liposome
world, it's long been known as a way to create
what are known as stealth liposomes. that circulate
in your body for a long period of time and make
it so that these particles don't get inactivated
by extracellular proteins and the liver and stuff
like that. And so he was using the gentleman
in particular named Peter Cullis. By the way,
he's the one that should have got the Nobel Prize
for these products as far as I'm concerned. and
got slighted in the pick. But Peter Cullis said
that they had experimented with a lot of different
structures of the fat particles, chemical structures.
So they came up with some that had these properties
of staying localized and then built the formulations
in ways that were similar to what I'd done with
cholesterol and other things, but then also added
These shorter polyethylene glycol molecules attached
with a really short organic, you call it fat
or gasoline -like molecule, that put the peg
into the liposome particle, but in a way that
once it got into the body, it would fall off.
And so this is – some people have the sensation
as I did with my second jab of you get it and
then suddenly you feel tingling in the end of
your fingers or things like that. That may be
the peg. But it was those advances in the components
because these are self -assembling particles
that were used that Peter and his group – Peter
McCullough? No, Peter Cullis. P -I -E -T -E -R,
from UBC and his group, built these products
with in this technology. And that was, they had
it available, their choice, because they created
companies for this. I mean, a ton of money must
have been made because they licensed it non -exclusively
to BioNTech and Moderna. And that's still kind
of the core tech that makes this particular category
of products work. And so this was enough to convince
you that they had solved that problem? Yeah,
I took his word at it. I mean, he's an extremely
experienced, knowledgeable liposome formulation
expert, quite senior. He's older than me by another
decade at least and been doing this forever.
And he asserted that he had solved the problems.
And I believed him. I needed to travel internationally.
And also there was this buzz going around at
the time that if you had long COVID, which at
the time, if you think back to then, there was
a whole cloud over even using the words long
COVID, that the idea that you would have. these
long -lasting effects from getting the infection
was controversial and not really accepted, but
partially promoted. And there was a narrative
that was, in retrospect, actively promoted that
if you took the vaccines and if you had this
symptom of this chronic malaise and loss of stamina,
I mean, you're a guy that's, it's important to
you to be physically fit. For me, it's been important
to be physically fit all my life because I've
always been a farmer and a carpenter and worked
with my hands and my body. And I have farm chores.
I still have farm chores every day. And I couldn't
do them. I couldn't walk up hills. I just had
lost my stamina. I'd lost my pulmonary function.
And it wasn't getting better. And nobody, you
know, nobody knew anything about this, what was
causing it, whether it was even real. But I was
experiencing it. You know, there's a whole cluster
of people who say there's no virus and there's
certainly not any long COVID. But I experienced
it. And so it was promoted that if you took the
jab and you had this symptom, then it would kick
your immune system up. You get more of a response
to the. spike antigen, and that would allow you
to clear these symptoms of long COVID. That turns
out now we have data in just fairly recently
that, in fact, the opposite is true. So this
idea of long COVID, so you got long COVID from
the actual infection of COVID -19 before the
jab. Yeah, I got infected in late, very end of
February 2020. I was in Boston at a Conference
on drug discovery, computational drug discovery,
high -throughput stuff, very high -tech, MIT,
and staying in a little firehouse that had been
converted to a hotel right across the street
from the biotech company that the initial Boston
outbreak was associated with. And I came home
sick as a dog. I thought that I had influenza
B because that was what the narrative was that
was circulating at the time. And I remember laying
in bed just feeling sick as hell, hard to breathe.
And my wife came in. It's just been on the TV.
COVID is circulating right there in Boston where
you were. So that was pretty early on, and it
hit me pretty hard. So that would have been the
Wuhan 1. And then there was a couple of genetic
changes that occurred apparently in Boston around
that time. So how long did this affect you, this
long COVID? I was sick until I took the jab,
you know, just not having stamina, just feeling.
How many months was that? I had never even thought
about it. Many months. And did you try anything
else to mitigate those symptoms? Yeah, I did.
So my whole story, there's a whole bunch of what
I did back then that never gets discussed, and
that's okay. But the kickoff was that I got this
call from Wuhan, I think. It was from Wuhan,
from this guy that used to be CIA named Michael
Callahan, who I'd worked with in the past. And
he told me with a call that there was this virus
in Wuhan, this coronavirus, that looked like
it was going to be serious. And I ought to pay
attention to it, and I ought to get a team wound
up to try to address this. So what I'd done,
because this is coming off of what I did in Zika,
and I'm a vaccinologist at CORE, but developing
a vaccine in the face of an outbreak. historically,
has taken a decade. And it just isn't a practical
way to address an emergent infectious disease
crisis. And I had become convinced that the best
way to do that was through repurposed drugs.
So after I get this call, I put the team together,
building on the technology that I'd been working
with at USAMRID during Zika, for a rapid identification
of of repurposed drugs to address a new crisis.
And this time we'd really taken a computational
approach. So I used some tech out of UC San Francisco
to recreate one of the key proteins in SARS -CoV
-2 based on the sequence that got published from
Wuhan in January 11th, I think, of 2020. we started
doing what's called computational docking of
very, very large virtual libraries using Amazon
AWS and high -throughput parallel processing
and came up with a list of compounds and then
kind of screened those against problems, adverse
events, that kind of stuff. More coffee. Good.
I would. Thank you. So I had this list of compounds
and then I was sick as a dog. And, you know,
what you get trained in if you do clinical research
is docs don't experiment on themselves. That's
like breaking the rules. But I'm lying there
so sick that I'm just like, what the hell? What
do I got to lose? I'm probably going to die.
At that point, I'd spent a lot of time already
looking into the virus and what it was causing
and what people were saying it was causing. And
how old were you at the time? Let's see. I'm
66 now. So you were in a high -risk group. Yeah,
for sure. And I was obese. I don't know if you
noticed, but I've dropped about 40 to 50 pounds
since we last met. So I started taking some of
those compounds. And one of them was this drug
that is normally taken for stomach acid called
famotidine. And I got an immediate response with
that. And so I also tried isoquercetin. That
didn't seem to make so much of an impact on me.
But I experimented on myself. And the famotidine
at higher doses now has been verified to be helpful.
And it was one of the first things out of the
box that people started taking, even prophylactically,
before we knew about ivermectin and other things.
And then that went on. I mean, there's a whole
thread here we could go on for an hour about
what was done with the repurposed drugs. I was
working closely with the Defense Heart Reduction
Agency. I managed to capture a few hundred million
dollars and direct that towards drug repurposing,
adaptive clinical trials, et cetera. And the
thing that I zoomed in on through a collaboration
with a doc up in Minnesota was the combination
of famotidine, another anti -inflammatory called
Celecoxib, And then the thing that really kicked
it in high gear was the forbidden horse medicine,
ivermectin. And I managed to, working with DOD,
got over $100 million, set up a contract. It
got managed by SAIC. And we were going to go
after that using a very cutting -edge clinical
trial design. And remember, this is the DOD.
We submitted initial drug applications for using
this combination of licensed drugs, well -known
licensed drugs. And the FDA just dug in again
and again, rejected the application. So long,
what they said was we were going to have to do
cell culture tests to demonstrate the antiviral
activity of ivermectin before they would allow
us to proceed. And so in the end, the DOD caved
and they dropped the ivermectin component and
proceeded with the famonidine and celecoxib,
which showed some effect. Why were they so hesitant?
What was the resistance? Your guess is as good
as mine. People think that I have visibility
into the FDA. And, yeah, I've met with them and
I have a background in regulatory affairs. But
the policy decisions that were made during COVID
and still to this day are perplexing. But particularly
ivermectin. Oh, it was like a high sin. They
deployed. what do we want to call it, propaganda,
psychological warfare, nudge, everything, just
like they did after you and I had our little
discussion. It was stunning. I mean, like after
we had our chat, I don't know if you remember,
you asked me about, what is this about mass formation
psychosis? And it, I mean, the term broke the
internet is overused. It broke the internet.
The search results on Google went nuts. Well,
because it perfectly described what was happening.
Oh, and couldn't be – it couldn't possibly describe
what was happening even though every single person
that heard it knew damn well it did. But it was
forbidden. I mean this was forbidden because
– For people who didn't hear our first discussion,
please explain mass formation psychosis. So since
then, I've had a shitstorm come at me for using
the term psychosis coupled with mass formation.
You can't, you know, the grief, you think you
got a lot of grief from Spotify and from. Spotify
was actually great. Yeah. No grief from them.
It was from like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell
and other artists. So you probably, then you
probably don't know the whole backstory. That's
fun to dive into because it relates to the psychological
warfare domain that now I've become a pseudo
-expert on just in trying to understand what
the hell I experience and what's going on. So
Matthias Desmet, who's a friend at University
of Ghent in Belgium, who, by the way, has been
pretty well railroaded in his university now.
Not allowed to teach his own book on the psychological
basis of totalitarianism, which is where that
book had not come out yet. But it was the mass
formation hypothesis is what was the kind of
core of that book that's now published and widely
regarded. So Matthias is somebody who, as a PhD,
a full professor. had long taught 20th century
psychology work relating to totalitarianism and
thought that goes back to Freud and beyond really
all the way back to Plato and the Allegory of
the Cave. And in particular, there was a number
of philosophers in the 20th century associated
with trying to make sense of Nazi Germany and
what had happened to the German people. and really
all over the world, but particularly relating
to the Germans. And Matthias had been teaching
this on a regular basis. And the way he tells
the story, he had an epiphany one day that, oh
my God, the thing that I've been teaching, I'm
living. We're experiencing it. We're experiencing
this process of the formation of masses. And
you could call it crowd psychology. So mass formation,
it's kind of awkward or mass formation psychosis,
which is what the term was that was used in the
initial podcast that he gave out. So that's why
I use that term. But, you know, it's not in the
– the attack was that it's not in the diagnostics
and statistical manual for the American Psychiatric
Association. So therefore it doesn't exist. But,
you know, all the attacks. The core of it is
that when people, to make it simple, become disassociated
from society and from each other, they become
extremely vulnerable to manipulation of a variety
of different types. And a leader can come into
that environment and offer, to simplify it, offer
a solution to their pain. Being isolated, socially
isolated is associated with pain. We as human
beings have a need to connect with others. It's
a fundamental aspect of being human. It's what
you do. I mean you connect. That's the essence
of the Joe Rogan experience I think. So we need
to connect with others and in certain situations
where people are threatened. And in particular,
in the modern era, where we have all of these
things that drive us into isolation, most notably
our electronic tools, we become disassociated
from our community. And when that happens, we
have a strong need to become associated with
community. And a leader can come into that environment
and basically say, I have the solution to your
pain. Your psychological pain. And what will
happen is a strange phenomenon where people will,
rather than building social networks, let's say
horizontally to those around them, they'll attach
to this strong leader. And they'll get fulfillment
for that need to belong by this attachment to
that leader and following the edicts of that
leader. And this leads to this phenomena that
gives rise, you know, enables totalitarianism,
but gives rise to this whole cluster of things
that Matthias described that, you know, he uses
the term mass formation. In a way, that's kind
of an odd artifact of translation, I guess, from
the Dutch. It's an easier way to think of it
is a crowd formation. And in his examination
of the history of what happened in Nazi Germany
where things – people really went crazy. I mean
mothers were turning their children in. Children
were being executed on – consequent to mother's
testimony, which is really strange when you think
about it just in a fundamental way. You know,
we had all of this dear leader kind of stuff,
the linkage of the self and the soul to this
central figure and deriving a sense of identity
and belonging from that that went on. are still
caught up in a lot of that. That's why the German
laws. And so that's the short version. When we
spoke before, I gave a much more technical, precise
definition of Matthias' core thesis. But this...
Once this happens, then people become very, very
easily manipulated through propaganda and a variety
of techniques that now I have a better comprehension
of. I mean then I was still just trying to make
sense just like all of us of what the heck was
going on. What's with this crazy? Modern psychology
has been weaponized. It's been intentionally
weaponized in the context of military activities
in the domain that, you know, one way to express
it, the term is used, kind of term of art in
military jargon is fifth generation warfare,
or you could call it psychological warfare. And
what distinguishes the present from, say, Sun
Tzu and, you know, ancient, Propaganda has always
been part of warfare in humans. But we haven't
had the digital world. We haven't had modern
psychology. We haven't had nudge technology.
We haven't had all these tools that allow the
control of information, thought, perception,
feelings, emotions that have become commonplace.
You know, this suite of technology and capabilities
that we saw deployed in all of us were built
in a kind of a structured way largely by UK and
US leadership in the intelligence community as
a weapon of war to counter these successful insurgencies
that we keep losing wars over. Vietnam being
a notable example all the way through Afghanistan.
And so that's why it was built. But then that
tech got deployed by governments against their
own citizens. And this was really launched in
large part. in the United States by a presidential
directive from Barack Obama. I'm not making this
up. You can look it up. And by the way, the presidential
directive is still in place that established
the nudge technology units in the United States.
They were already operating in the UK. And in
the UK, it's quite advanced. When you look at
the UK politics right now and what's going on
there with all the censorship and everything,
you know, this is no joke. we're barreling right
to that end point, same as Canada has. You know,
we're just a little bit behind. And there they,
you know, we have the benefit of the First Amendment
in a constitution and, you know, often on courts,
but... There, they don't have those obstacles
and the government believes in the UK that once
they have won an election, it's perfectly acceptable
to deploy this modern psychology and information
control technology on their own population. And
I argue that once that Rubicon is crossed, the
idea of democracy because the tech is so powerful
becomes completely perverted. And we got a good
hard taste of that during COVID. What you and
I experienced, what you experienced with ivermectin,
what you experienced with, you know, just talking
about your own experiences. And the blowback
that happened after we did that little hit is
a super powerful, clear case study. understanding
this intersection of modern psychology, warfare
technology, and the digital world, and algorithmic
control of information, the creation of digital
avatars for all of us, the application now in
the present of artificial intelligence to custom
craft. messaging that gets fed into our digital
domains on a regular basis in order to sell us
whatever, but also to shape how we think and
to control what information we get access to
all the time. Just to give an example, my wife,
who does a lot of our research for our Substack,
was talking to me the other day. She just gave
me a couple examples where stories that were
in corporate media in the United States that
weren't listing certain key names or whatever.
She said, I just go to the Hindustu Times. Hindustu
Times is a great source for all the stuff that
we're not allowed to see here in the United States.
You're now in an environment, in an information
environment where you cannot rely. on, but we
all know that. You can't rely on corporate media,
but the rules, the boundaries that are being
set up about information are profound and they're
completely distorting our ability to process
what's happening around us. Can I give you the
example of what actually happened? You said in
our example, with the blowback in Spotify, this
is documented by a a report out from the House
about COVID and what happened. And that report
only carries just through to the early part of
the vaccines and then it stops. For some reason,
they didn't really want to go down the road to
the vaccines. They did talk a lot about the events
around the, let's say, lab leak hypothesis. Which
is allowed. You're allowed in D .C. now to talk
about that. Finally. Yeah. You're still – well
– It was about four years later you were allowed
to talk about it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So what was
documented was that the trail of events was that
we had our discussion. That triggered – and this
is going to sound bizarre, but this is what's
documented. That triggered Coca -Cola. corporation,
to complain to the Global Alliance for Responsible
Media, which is created by the World Economic
Forum. It is one of these global aggregators
that controls advertising. The Global Alliance
for Responsible Media, which, by the way, had
a dust -up with Elon Musk and lost, and they
closed it down as a nonprofit. It still exists
in other ways, but as a structure that could
be sued by X. disappeared when he stood up against
it. But Global Alliance for Responsible Media
had a socket with Google AdSense, by the way.
So they control the advertising ecosystem, which
kind of matters to Spotify. So Coca -Cola complains
to Garm saying, this guy Rogan, you got to shut
him down, okay? You got to put pressure on Spotify.
So Spotify... gets the message from Garm that
we're threatening to pull your advertising. Now,
what happens between that and your experience,
I don't know. It's not transparent to me what
you experienced. Yeah, we all remember the Laurel
Canyon crowd saying they were going to pull their
catalogs, which they didn't actually own, right?
That was another thing. And then they went after
you with this mashup. of inward historic events.
You know, there was clearly a concerted effort
to take out Joe Rogan, much more than to take
out Robert Malone. And so then the question comes,
why the heck would Coca -Cola be the socket with
the Global Alliance for Responsibility, one of
the biggest advertisers in the world, right?
Why would Coca -Cola give a hooey about what
Joe Rogan said to Robert Malone? on, you know,
New Year's Eve. Coca -Cola is really tight with
the CDC. Coca -Cola has funded buildings at the
CDC. Coca -Cola funds the CDC foundation, foundation
for the CDC, as does Bill and Melinda Gates,
has done all the major vaccine manufacturers,
et cetera, et cetera. The appearance is, I can't
verify this, that CDC acted. through its ally,
Coca -Cola. Why are they allies? What's Coca
-Cola got to do with CDC? The angle there is
that Coca -Cola wanted the CDC to get WHO to
not implement restrictions in messaging about
sugar use. Okay? They didn't want those messages.
Remember, this is at the heart of the inverted
food triangle now. The old food triangle was
the product of sugar lobby. I mean, the sugar
lobby is incredibly powerful because this stuff
is addictive. I mean, it's like having the cocaine
lobby, right? Well, and, you know, that's an
interesting analogy because, of course, the history
of Coca -Cola. But – so sugar is addictive. The
CDC – Coca -Cola didn't want the – wanted the
CDC to influence public health policy. to avoid
global positions on the risks associated with
sugar intake because it would potentially hurt
their market share. They're a major globalized
company. So that little ecosystem that I just
described illustrates what we're dealing with
here and the many ways that all of this... kind
of influence and messaging and signaling happens
in this kind of integrated horizontally and vertically
ecosystem that we live in right now. And one
of the things that came out of that, you'll recall,
was that you were asked, as I recall, you gave
this, you know, I've had a hostage video. I think
that was a close to a hostage video from you
back in the day when you were saying, this is
what I'm going to do. It was like out on your
porch or something. I was sitting around a campfire
in Maui quite literally when somebody said, oh,
did you just see this from Rogan? And a matter
of fact, I was sitting around Gavin DeBecker's
campfire at that time, somebody that you know.
And so the compromise was that there would be
a little trailer put at the bottom of that episode.
And by the way, you probably know that episode
for a long time became very hard to find. It
was basically blacklisted from the search engines,
et cetera, et cetera. But it carries, and I think
it still does, that little banner that says,
you know, you should go to the CDC if you want
the true, true about COVID. And you can still
find those kinds of banners popping up all the
time on YouTube. If you talk about vaccines or
COVID vaccines, that will get... If you pass
the filters, if YouTube will allow that to still
be up because you didn't say something, whatever
it is, then you'll get the little banner. OK,
that banner is pushed out by the nudge units
at the CDC. OK, that is nudge technology. It
is all around us all the time. And it's basically
still. public policy consequent to the old Obama
presidential directive that still hasn't been
rescinded. You know, I love President Trump.
I think he's doing amazing things. I think he's
amazingly brave. I just mentioned our friend
Gavin DeBecker referred to Trump the other day
when I saw Gavin in Maui as a once in 500 year
leader. And that's not nothing coming from Gavin.
And so I'm a big supporter, but the president
has still left in place this mechanism that exists
that directs the federal government to use nudge
technology and related what I assert is psychological
warfare technology on the American populace.
Right. This is from back in, what was it, 2015
or something like that? Yeah, it's quite early.
And then you had his – you had Obama's subsequent
like the notorious speech at Hoover at Stanford
where he talks about in order to preserve democracy,
we're going to have – basically he says we're
going to have to have censorship in order to
preserve democracy or whatever democracy is.
For people that don't know what we're talking
about, we're relating to the Smith month. The
Smith -Munt – everybody focuses on Smith -Munt.
But as I examined Smith -Munt and we did an essay
on this in the Substack like three years ago
because that was the kind of the narrative that
was coming out in let's say our side of alternative
media. And in my examination, Smith -Munt's impact
is a lot more limited. It has to do with Voice
of America and some of those things. The broad
impact wasn't … quite, in my opinion, what was
believed to be of enabling propaganda domestically.
More specifically, there is a presidential directive
that nudged technology, that established a nudge
office. That nudge technology shall be used.
What do they call it? They don't call it a nudge
office, right? I don't know. They've gone through
various iterations, and I'm sorry I don't have
the latest version. And it's kind of become decentralized.
It was called the Social and Behavioral Science
Team. Wikipedia says that that was stopped in
2017 but continued under the Trump administration
under, sorry, the General Services Administration's
Office of Evaluation Science. There we go. Yeah.
Boy. Yeah. Yeah. And it's kind of become – like
I said, it's been pushed out into a lot of the
agencies. They don't use that lexicon because
then it's easy to find them. Right. There's other
euphemisms they use to describe those kinds of
activities, but it's become normalized. The weaponization
of propaganda has become normalized. Overall,
behavioral interventions or nudges like the ones
implemented by OES have been found to be effective
in recent psychological science article. Researchers
identified several policy areas of interest,
example, health care. Here we go, 2015 is when
it was implemented. So 2015. Executive order.
President Obama signs an executive order requiring
federal agencies to incorporate behavioral insights
into their evaluation efforts. That's a nice
way of saying the use of propaganda on the American
people. Yeah. OK. And so this has kind of become
– thank you so much for pulling that up. That's
super helpful. So this is – like I said, if I
can illustrate, I was on a Great Britain News
broadcast about four years ago at the time when
they would – there was a window time where they
would have me on but it was sketchy and GB News
was the only one that would do it. But the rules
were then that if you were going to have somebody
that was speaking against the government narrative,
then you had to have somebody representing the
government's interests in the same broadcast.
So that's implemented by basically the UK has
an active censorship organization that controls
news media. And so I'm on with this guy, Great
Britain News, pinstripe, bow tie, you know, it
just reeks. And I'm talking about psychological
warfare and the 77th Brigade, which is part of
the British Army, which is their psychological
warfare unit. It's very open that that's the
case, as is the existence of a civilian branch
that they set up and paid people to do social
media in opposition of counter narratives that
the government didn't approve of. I mean now
they just – under Starmer, they just censor you
and send you to jail. They just cut out the middleman.
But back then, they were still kind of buying
civilians. And so I'm talking about this. And
that's – the guy says, yeah, but here in the
UK, our belief is that if the government wins
the election, they have the right to govern.
And that right to govern includes our ability
to use this type of technology and we believe
that it's justified to do so. And that – when
that conversation happened, frankly, I hadn't
– we hadn't launched the book yet, Cywar, which
is our most recent publication. And it just kind
of all coalesced in my mind that, oh my god,
what all these things – Matthias' teaching about
mass formation, what I saw, what I experienced
with you, what I experienced with the concerted
attacks of the media. And then subsequently it's
been validated by this congressional report that
talks about, for instance, the juror ticket system.
Juror tickets are what – it's a system that all
the software companies use to track glitches
and complaints and stuff like that. Well, the
government had their own juror ticket system
set up. to log information about activities of
persons that they wanted to have censored and
suppressed. And they would build these juror
tickets with information. And so one of the things
that's out on the congressional report was that
I actually had a juror ticket. I was surprised
that this is the case or not surprised in retrospect.
And my personal sins were that I was listed as
an anti -vaxxer and a conservative. Even though
you're a vaccinologist and a conservative. That's
interesting. And a conservative. Exactly right.
I mean, the stuff that's coming out. That's wild.
It's fascinating to query things like Grok, even
Grok, about certain subjects. And you will find
where they have algorithmically built firewalls.
And you can. approach them and detect them because
it will act dumb. It will lock up seemingly.
It won't give you that answer. Or it will talk
around the issue, et cetera, et cetera. You can
identify these things that have been built in
algorithmically. And of course, then we had all
of the disclosures, the Zuckerberg, oh, I'm so
sorry, apology tour that happened, remember?
Basically, he got outed by Congress and the rest
of the tech bros. And, of course, the thing that
catalyzed all of that was that Elon decided to
pony up a good chunk of change and buy Twitter.
Which I think is one of the most impactful decisions
that any American citizen has ever made. Amazing.
If he didn't do that, I think we would be really
screwed. There's – how can you debate that? How
can you debate it when you look at the Twitter
files and you find out how much the government
was involved in censoring accurate information
from legitimate professors, esteemed researchers,
anybody who didn't go along with the official
narrative? It's all coming out now in spades
and we're dealing now – the lovely thing about
all of this. I mean let's try to – it is morning
in America in my opinion. I mean, a lot of people
get very dark and there's a darkness to the times.
But there's, you know, not to push the metaphor
too far, but there is new light coming in. And
the fact that we can now see this and we recognize
that you and I are of a similar generation. I
mean, one of my earliest memories was the assassination
of the president. And all of the propaganda around
that, the propaganda around Vietnam War, ever
since, we've just been swimming in information
control that's gotten increasingly sophisticated.
And fortunately, as Americans, we also kind of
have become more and more immune to marketing
and propaganda over time because we've been living
with it, trying to discern what is real and what
is... you know false again this is if it's a
core part of what you do for a living i think
is is just try to you know have conversations
to be able to get to the bottom of the bullshit
but um that we've we've been swimming in it and
now we can see it we can see the the structures
The power of artificial intelligence and influence
mapping and all the things that are going on
in the internet right now that are the cutting
-edge technology, they're scary because they
could be weaponized against us. But they're also
super cool because we can now see those relationships.
If you want an example of that, look at the threads
that are coming out on X illuminating the… networks
of affiliation associated with this latest Epstein
file release. Just mind -blowing. Mind -blowing.
And it is just like, you know, we can sit here
and bitch and whine saying, oh, they didn't release
that, blah, blah, blah. This is redacted. All
that's true. But still, the impact of that information,
we're still... getting to the bottom of it. It's
completely changed most people's narrative of
what happened. Like we had this sort of vague
understanding, you know, but when you see in
the email, like clear evidence that they're talking
about children. In pretty obscene ways. Horrifying
ways. So that was the thing that like, even when
I talked to Mike Benz about that, he was sort
of incredulous about that. I don't think they
would use children. It just doesn't make any
sense if they got caught. But it just seems like
we were— If Mike Benz was incredulous, that's
pretty big. Well, I just don't think we really
knew until we saw those files come out. And then
you go, oh, well, there's no denying it now.
My position on it has completely shifted. I thought—
There's probably some really sick people that
have an appetite for that, but I hadn't seen
any real evidence for it until these files. And
now I'm like, oh, this is demonic. This is clearly
demonic. OK, so thank you for saying that. I'm
somebody who was raised a Christian and went
to Bible school and that kind of stuff as a kid
and youth groups. And then growing up in Central
Coast, California, let's say. Beard in different
ways. But the experiences that we've encountered
over the last half a dozen years, it's hard to
come up with a language to express what we're
observing in the world other than the language
of theology. Well, demonic by action. Whether
or not demons exist, if they did exist, that
is how they would behave. They would prey on
children and torture children. And there was
the one where there was a suggestion when a child
was praying to Jesus that, like, there was a
joke that someone should dress up like Jesus.
Did you see that one, Jamie? No, I'm not watching
this stuff. I don't even want to. People send
it to me, and I go, okay. Because I'm, for the
most part, off social media. But every now and
then someone will send me something that I have
to look at. I'm like, oh, my God. Yeah. And these
are emails back and forth. There's one of them
where Epstein says, I enjoyed the torture video.
There's these references to pizza, a lot of references
to pizza that are 100 % some kind of a code.
Yeah. And then it brings you back to Pizzagate.
Yeah. Which was widely dismissed. Yeah. Everybody
was like, oh, this is a bunch of kooks. Here
it is. She said she felt God's presence next
to her when she was in bed. She knows that Jesus
watches over her and he helped save her life.
And then he writes, whoops. And then in response,
Jeffrey Epstein says, you should dress up as
him when you see her. It is dark. You should
dress up like Jesus when you see her. What the
fuck? Well, look at the line. You're talking
about a little kid that's praying to Jesus? Look
at the line above it. How am I supposed to interpret
I'm coming trick? The O -H Jesus, I'm coming
trick. It's just the whole thing. But so we see
this darkness. It involves. Leaders in academe,
in science, in industry, in politics. And it
just – I remember a point in this arc of the
last six years where a film crew came onto my
farm and wanted to shoot some segments. And they
were talking this – and frankly, I thought it
was crazy talk. I kind of smiled and – I tried
to be civil and nice, not contradict them, about
the New World Order. And then along comes – then
my wife one day says, hey, you ought to look
at this book from Klaus Schwab. It's called The
New World Order. Like what? I mean he was just
saying it out loud. Yeah. I mean the World Economic
Forum had those ads where they were saying you
will own nothing and you will be happy. Yeah.
And it goes back to the current king of England
was the guy that kind of launched that. He was
the first one to be really talking about that
you can – you can use your favorite AI and track
it down yourself. I prefer not to use Google
these days to try to find stuff. But it – we
see – Vertical after vertical after vertical
after vertical where information has been crafted
and manipulated and the same tools of delegitimization,
of promotion of these messages. that you are
a conspiracy theorist or that you are controlled
opposition is another favorite one. A lot of
this was pioneered in the 60s by the FBI against
the various protest movements. And you can go
back and track that. The narrative of being a
collaborator surreptitiously is called bad jacketing.
And it has its own language and protocols for
how to do this to people, to divide movements.
We're in this – I mean in a way, it's kind of
a glorious moment where we're having a huge amount
of social pressures coming together in this moment
in time that you and I happen to live in. How
fantastic is that? To be at a point in time where
there is so much change, there's so much social
interaction and pressure and competition between
these different philosophies and we're swimming
in it. As somebody who writes on a daily basis
these essays on Substack because that's how I
make my living now because I can't do what I
used to do. You're a kid in a candy shop. There's
so much corruption. There's so much falsehood
being promoted. There's so much of this manipulation
of reality. And so if you're in the business
of trying to help people to make sense out of
that, which is kind of what I do now for a living,
it's— I wake up every morning. I get the feedback,
how do you come up with all these ideas? I'm
like, how do you not? All you got to do is keep
your eyes open. Yeah, it's not hard to search
anymore. So you talked about ivermectin. I mean,
the ivermectin story is still ongoing. There
was an announcement the other day from HHS that
they are launching new initiatives to investigate
the use of ivermectin in cancer. And there was
immediate blowback. along the lines of oncologists
are outraged. You know, the narrative is Bobby,
you know, not saying this explicitly, but basically
Bobby Kennedy is at it once again promoting falsehoods
and conspiracy theories. And it's going to, you
know, we're all going to die because scientists
are going to investigate the use of ivermectin
and other drugs for cancer. So this is the core
question. And this is one of the things that
puzzled me to no end. I understood that they
were upset that I had gotten better without the
use of the vaccine, that I was a popular person,
that I was a famous person, and I made a video
about a canceled show. Dave Chappelle and I were
supposed to do a show, and I made that video
to let everyone know that I couldn't do the show
because I had COVID. I had no idea it was going
to be even controversial. I listed a bunch of
things that I took. And the shit hit the fan.
I talked about IV vitamins. Yeah. I talked about
monoclonal antibodies. I talked about - Which
were allowed. Prednisone. Yeah. All these things
that I talked about. Z -Pak. I talked about all
these different things that I took. There was
no mention of any of those things. There was
only ivermectin. And that's what really puzzled
me. I was like, this is fascinating. Because
- I listed a bunch of different things, but there
was no demonization of monoclonal antibodies,
but they did make them much harder to get and
eventually pulled them. I have a friend, and
his friend was in the hospital, and they wouldn't
administer monoclonal antibodies once he got
into the hospital. They wouldn't allow him to
have them. What went on in the hospital is a
whole other thing. But that's crazy. So the why?
The why, that one medication. Two threads that
I can pull on at all is that ivermectin is a
miracle drug. I mean, Nobel Prize, right? Right.
We don't understand completely how it works.
In this case, it doesn't seem to be working as
an antiviral. It seems to be working as an immune
stimulant, pro -inflammatory or pro -immune response
in some way that's subtle. Because it has this
broad spectrum of activity against things that
have an immune response component and controlling.
But it's off patent. They don't understand it.
It's off patent. And the response is as if it
represents a significant threat to some business
interests. It's hard to discern that. And you
mentioned ZPAC. That's another fascinating one.
And to say that it was only ivermectin, ivermectin
was the most prominent, but they were actually
effective in shutting down the Z -Pak, the use
of hydroxychloroquine. And hydroxychloroquine
has a fascinating story. When you mention Z -Pak,
you're talking about Zev Zelenko. And Zev was
the one that wrote the letter to the president
saying, hey, here's this data and this information
about this drug. That is off patent. We have
a huge portfolio of experience in using it. Millions
and millions of doses. It's safe in pregnancy.
What's not to like here? And the story of that
is a fascinating microcosm because it goes back
to Ralph Baric. Ralph Baric had published that
back years ago. You know, he's kind of the guru
of coronaviruses, and a good case can be made
that he had his fingers all over the engineering
of this particular virus. So he had published
that this drug was effective against coronaviruses.
And Zev Zelenko, who's passed away now, got engaged
in trying to find some way to help his patients
in New York. with recovering from COVID and treating
COVID. And he went back, did a deep dive into
Barrick's work, pulled out this drug, a drug
that had been recommended, wrote to the president
about it. He got clinical experience with it.
And, you know, caveat, Mickey Willis is doing
a bio on Zev now. And I'm involved in that. So
conflict of interest. But he was the one that
pulled it out, sent the letter to the president
with his clinical experience. The president tasked
Peter Navarro with sourcing the drug. And Peter,
an economist, went to town. I remember the company
I was working with, Alchem at the time, getting
a call from Peter. Can you come up with some
way to make more of this drug here domestically?
We want to source it so we have enough doses
for everybody. And then I think it was Lancet
published this paper that had totally made up
data that trashed the drug, said that it's toxic,
doesn't work, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It
was all fake. They pulled the paper when it became
revealed that it was based on nonexistent data,
that it was more propaganda. published in one
of the top medical journals in the United States.
But by that time, it was completely crushed.
So they didn't have to go after Z -Stack. They'd
already killed Z -Stack. Ivermectin, though,
that was a new threat. And one of the reasons
why it was a threat was there was a meta -analysis
that had been done at the Cochrane. So the Cochrane
Institute in the UK is like, you know, the Holy
Grail for analysis of drugs. in biologics and
this process of meta -analysis. They kind of
wrote the rules for how to do it. And they had
done an analysis that showed that ivermectin
was quite effective. And then something happened.
And there was some influence exerted. And suddenly
that meta -analysis got quenched. It got squashed.
There were two investigators that were involved
in building that. One kind of went underground
and got a big grant and carried on as an academic.
The other one got so pissed off that she created
this organization called the World Council for
Health. That's Tess Laurie. And she really objected
to what happened. But ivermectin, you know, there
was a signal there. There was a clear signal
there. There was data supporting that signal.
And then something happened to cause that meta
-analysis to be restructured. And certain studies
that were showing how effective it was to be
thrown out. And then the suppression of the data
coming out of India. You remember that? And Uttar
Pradesh. And I guess it's like the cat was out
of the bag. And they had trouble putting it back
in. So they just, my sense is, they turned up
the amplitude on the propaganda and the censorship
in order to try to overcome this. And I'm pretty
sure, remember, who was it that held the original
patent? Merck. Now, I was involved as an observer
on behalf of DITRA. to the active trials that
were going on under the foundation for NIH, which
is sponsored in a significant way by Merck, and
which is now headed up by the former head of
Merck Vaccines, Julie Gerberding. Bobby can't
get her out. It's the rules. They were running
these clinical trials, including the clinical
trial that essentially by tweaking the dosing,
et cetera, made it so that they came up with
a result suggesting that ivermectin is not effective.
There was a whole lot of manipulation in the
why part. Still, the best explanation I've heard
is that it had a lot to do with... The risk that
if there was an effective countermeasure, then
the utilization of the PREP Act and the emergency
countermeasures to process to enable fast tracking
of these vaccines using this new technology would
no longer be valid. Because those are the rules,
is if there's an existing countermeasure, then
you can't implement those clauses. So it was
all about emergency use authorization. I don't
know that that's the case. It is. The only thing
that makes sense when you see how much profit
they made. Which was enormous. Enormous. So it
was effective. And all that propaganda, regardless
of how much exposed them and exposed their methods,
they made hundreds of billions of dollars. Well,
and that – the ugliest part of all of this, I
mean people – the big, big picture when I talk
to people that are still kind of on the fence
trying to make sense out of it. There's still
a lot of those folks out there. The thing that
kind of gets into their brain is the greatest
upward transfer of wealth in modern history occurred
during COVID. It wasn't just the vaccines. It
was the whole enterprise. With the lockdowns.
Lockdowns, what was done to small businesses,
what was done to the economy, the stimulus packages.
They're still digging out of all that fraud.
In retrospect, for average folks. that are just
trying to put food on the table and pay their
rent, to look at, in retrospect, what was quite
literally done to them. The middle class was
hollowed out on hyperspeed. So yeah, I'm still
pissed off about this. You should be. The thing
is, not enough people are and so many people
let it go. And part of the reason why not enough
people are pissed off about it is because they
took the vaccine and they want to justify their
decision. And you will talk to a lot of people
that make this blanket claim the vaccine saved
millions of lives. And they'll just say that.
Yeah, because that's the propaganda along with
safe and effective. That was a promoted narrative.
And that was, by the way, the rationale given
by the Nobel Prize Committee to award to Curico
and Weissman was that these products, which they
had – the thesis is they had been – playing the
central role. I disagree. I think Peter Cullis
is the one that should have got it. If you're
going to give it for these vaccines, it was Peter
Cullis and his team at UBC that really was the
enabling tech. But be that as it may, the decision's
made. And the committee said, basically, you
know, millions of lives have been saved. And
by giving this Nobel at this time, we hope that
it will promote more people to accept this product.
That was explicitly the logic given at the time.
And that reflects what was really a thrust vector.
Joe, I've – what a bizarre world since we met.
And so I've been sucked into – To call it the
center right of Europe is a little bit of a misnomer
because they're all socialists as far as I'm
concerned, Giorgio Maloney and everybody else.
But compared to the far left, they're labeled
as neo -Nazis. But I've been traveling to Europe,
interacting with these people. You think it was
bad for us. The European Union and the UK and
the Canada were an order of magnitude worse.
We should be so grateful that we live in this
country at this time and that we still have something
like a functioning constitution with the First
and Second Amendment. Look at the poor suckers
in Australia and New Zealand. You know, remind
yourself, it could be a heck of a lot worse here.
And it has been a heck of a lot worse in Europe.
I've got buddies in Romania in the leading. alternative
party, you know, calling it center right, let's
say, but that, you know, recently, I think it
was the vice president came out and said specifically
that that last election was stolen. It was in
Romania, Georgescu. They tried to put in jail.
And the logic was that I think it was TikTok
supporting his campaign had been sponsored by
the Russians. It was the same game that they
played against Trump. of Russian collusion. They
played that same book in Romania successfully.
But in the European Union environment under the
European Council, they ain't got a constitution.
And they can just step right in and throw you
in jail, inactivate your candidacy, do whatever
if you represent a populist threat to the existing
structure. We talk about the deep state. It's
– it doesn't – you know, yeah, it's a problem
here. But – and Mike Benz I defer to as a notable
expert in that space. But it's a lot worse in
Europe and Australia and Canada and the UK. And
I think, you know, we're in a perilous time here
in the United States where, you know, we have
the midterm coming up. But people like Bobby
are making progress. And these dissident physicians
that have risked so many things – and I'm just
one. I hear people saying, oh, Robert, Robert,
they've been so mean to you. I'm like, come on,
guys. You think they've been mean to me? Then
look at what they did to Bobby. And then look
– I don't have a nick out of my ear. Look at
what they did to Trump. What they did to me is
just – I'm nobody compared to that and they're
willing to deploy that kind of capability against
me. Think about what's really going on at the
higher levels where the big games are being played.
And at least we can see it now. At least we have
– for those of us that have our eyes open. We
have some ability to be aware. But what I've
spent the last two years mostly trying to convince
people about, I hardly ever talk about RNA. I
sit—oh, Joe, I got to give a caveat. Forgive
me. The opinions I'm expressing here are my own
and not those of the U .S. government, the CDC,
or the ACIP. There, I said it. Okay. But, you
know, we're— In a moment where we're seeing this,
how the levers, the gears of how all this works.
Give you an example. Tomorrow, Friday, February
13th. What could possibly go wrong? Hopefully
my plane flight out of here works OK and they
don't have a drone attack or something. Right.
So tomorrow there's a lawsuit. filed on behalf
of the American Academy of Pediatrics that seeks
to shut down the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices and the changes that Bobby's implemented
there and force all of that to go back to the
way things were when it was functionally controlled
by the professional societies and particularly
the American Academy of Pediatrics. We talk about...
this propaganda and weaponization and lawfare
and those things. And we talk about it as if
it only happened in the last administration.
It's still ongoing all the time. And it is going
to go big time if the House turns, which I think
it probably will. I mean, there's a good chance
that... They've already drawn up articles of
impeachment against Secretary Kennedy. They're
talking about articles of impeachment against
President Trump. We're about to go into another
two years of stagnation and functional – what
do we call it? We can't call it civil war. War
by other means is where we're heading right now.
But at this moment – I'm seeing major movement.
You know, Kennedy is doing great stuff. The president
is doing great stuff. We're seeing a transformation
in America's global reach, totally restructuring
global politics. And on the health side, the
Make America Healthy Again movement, you know,
there's some pushback against that and a heck
of a lot of propaganda being deployed against
it. Well, it's this old quote that Seems sort
of abstract for most people most of the time,
but rings kind of true. But you're finding it
true more and more. Money is the root of all
evil. Profound. Simple, but profound. I mean,
this is the COVID thing with ivermectin and alternative
medications, off -label medications. Why? Money.
I think it also has to do with control. Right.
Which means money. Fair enough. More access to
money. Yeah. It's money and power in my mind.
But power – they don't want power without money.
They want to benefit from that power. I believe
for the likes of Larry Fink and Bill Gates, I
mean they can't spend all that they have. Right.
It's a marker. It's like chips. You're stacking
up – Exactly. Right. They're scoring in a video
game. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But also captured by
their past actions and constantly trying to obfuscate
from all the things that they have done in the
past that could be – like if you just went into
Bill Gates' stuff that he did in Africa, giving
children polio with the polio vaccine that was
from the AP News. Africa and India. Yeah. I mean
he's kind of banned from India. So I don't get
it. I don't get where these people live. I'm
– I'm happy. You know, as far as I'm concerned,
I could walk away from all this stuff. It's just
kind of a sense of obligation of what are you
going to do when you're 66? I have this opportunity
to impact in a positive way on the world on my
way out the door. Who wouldn't take it? Well,
I guess a lot of people wouldn't. But I don't
have a need to have power. I have. Thank God
for my Substack subscribers. I have all. All
that I need. My wife is happy. My horses are
fed. My farm is paid off. And I have the luxury
of doing good works. And that's enough. I don't
get this global power thrust and hunger. Because
that's not what you do. That's not your thing.
But if you were a politician or you were some
megalomaniacal billionaire. sort of business
character that just wants to dominate and was
involved in a bunch of antitrust lawsuits in
the past, that would be what you— Not that we're
naming any names. Not that we're naming any names
that bribed off multimedia corporations to the
tune of $300 -plus million so that they wouldn't
write bad stories about him. Or owns, you know,
functionally owns the World Health Organization.
Right. And a giant chunk of American farmland
was for a while trying to push that fake meat
shit on everybody until that dropped off a cliff.
Yeah. So the business models aren't working out
so good for the globalists, are they? I think
a lot of it is because of information that's
available now. Yeah. And you can't control –
like one of the things that did happen during
COVID is these places like CNN, people stopped
going to for information. They don't believe
them anymore. There's just too much bullshit
and no one got in trouble for spreading that
bullshit. There was no corrections, no redactions,
no apologies. No acknowledgement. People now
more than ever in my lifetime mistrust mainstream
media and polls show that. Polls show that the
trust of mainstream media is at an all -time
low. For good reason. They did it to themselves.
They prostituted themselves out to the pharmaceutical
drug companies. They had to say what they had
to say on television. People knew what they were
saying was incorrect. And now no one trusts them.
So to this thread, about four years ago, I read
a report from the Trusted News Initiative. You
remember the TNI? Yeah. It was launched by the
BBC to counter Russian disinformation and then
repurposed to counter vaccine disinformation.
And I read this report about – I'd gone on your
show. So I was a little bit of a fan. Forgive
me. And so I'm reading this report and they're
talking about threats to the industry because
TNI is basically another trade organization.
It's another guild. It's a global major media
guild. And so they're doing this internal analysis
and reporting and they're talking about the risk
factors that they face. And they had a whole
great big section on Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan represents
– that was their threat. That was the major threat
to their business model is you and what you represent.
You as a metaphor for this new information economy.
And by God, they called it right. It's it's in
when I this again, this has been part of my journey
when I realized what I was experiencing and what
it meant to come on your show and have that event
occur. Which, by the way, blew up my subscribers
on Substack. Thank you so much. I still get a
wave every year about in the month following.
So January, I get a big bump in revenue. Well,
it blew up our subscribers on Spotify, too. During
the heat of it, we gained in one month, we gained
two million subscribers. What are we at now,
Jamie? Oh, yeah, please. What's the Spotify subscribers?
I know YouTube is over 20. $20 million. What
is Spotify at? So while he's looking that up,
I had this bizarre experience. I'm just an old
gray -haired guy about to have my 47th wedding
anniversary. Congratulations. Thank you. I'm
proud of it. I would have 20 -year -olds come
up in the street and fist bump me. I'm like,
what the hell? Yeah, well, they don't have a
representative. I mean, they don't see anyone.
All males. Yes, males. Those males don't have
anybody in mainstream news that represents anything
that resembles them. I mean, I know I'm much
older than them, but I never went down this path
of decay and weirdness that a lot of adult males
go into corporate business and industry, and
they become something unrecognizable to these
young men who have freedom in life. And they're
being suppressed and they're being told that
they're toxic. That was a singer right there.
Yeah. Young men that have freedom in life. Yeah.
And then they compromise. They don't want to
be what their dad is. They don't want to be what
their uncle is. They don't want to be these people
that they work for. They're like, what is this
fucking bullshit life? I don't want that. I know
I'm being lied to. I know the news is full of
shit. And I know that this one guy who is also
a cage fighting commentator and a comedian. And
doesn't have to lie. I don't have a boss, really.
I mean, Spotify promotes the show. They put the
show out. We're in partnership with them. But
there's no one telling me what to do, which is
why you're here right now. Because there's no
one. I don't have a conversation with no one.
I literally reach out to my guy and say, hey,
contact Mr. Malone. And let's get him back on.
All I know is I got a message through X saying,
Joe Rogan, do you want to come on? That was actually
me. That message is me, which I rarely use those
things, but I was trying to figure out how to
contact you. So I reached out to you there, and
then I sent it to my guy, and he takes care of
it. Like, that's it. There's no one else. There's
no one involved in all that, which you could
still be you that way. As soon as you get involved
in enormous groups of humans and a board, you
have to sit down at a table with other executives.
You have to make decisions based on the profitability
of the company and shareholders and stuff. I
have none of that. It's a skeleton crew. So as
I look back, the question, why were you able
to do this, Malone? Why were you able to, you
know, oh, you were so brave, Dr. Malone. Robert
Malone, that name became like a pejorative. It
became like, oh, yeah, that Malone guy. Yeah,
it's all weaponized. But then on the other side,
I tour. I do these rallies and stuff like this.
And, you know, it really makes my wife nervous.
Middle -aged women come up to me and they want
to have selfies. And I get this, oh, Dr. Malone,
you were so brave. You're such a hero kind of
stuff, which I frankly find a little embarrassing.
I mean it's sweet. But, yeah, there's a lot of
heroes. Why was that? Yeah, yeah, the guys that
defend the nation. But why was I able to speak?
I think a big part of it was I had no debt. I
wasn't beholden to anybody. And like you say,
I'd been about a decade being a consultant, a
free living consultant. And it had gotten under
my skin. I've always been independent, you know,
farmer, carpenter kind of stuff. And that's,
I guess, been part of my problem is I just don't
fit in in corporate. I can't suck up to people
and it's just not in me. Well, it's a very unhealthy
environment for anybody to get sucked into that
bizarre group think. It's just – Good word. It's
what it is, right? Yeah. So this decentralized
subscriber -based model, the epiphany was – and
I'm being quite sincere. You know, it was one
of those moments my wife and I looked at each
other and we said, what the hell are we going
to do now? Our consulting business is shot. Nobody
wants to talk to me. I've been delegitimized.
They say I don't know what I know. I haven't
done what I've done. And this has been promoted
by all the top liberal publications in the world.
And so I said, OK, Rogan built this thing day
after day, week after week. for years. He just
stayed on it and doing it. And we can do that
too. We can bring that kind of work ethic into
our world. Steve Kirsch had told me, you ought
to get on Spotify. And we went, we took it on
seriously. We've published thousands of essays
now, almost every day. It's, you know - You mean
Substack. Substack. What did I say? Substack.
I apologize. And so we just work at it. Again
and again and again trying to put out content.
And we're shadow banned and small roomed on X
in a serious way. You know, we've got 1 .3 million
subscribers of which, you know, all the time
I get feedback, I never see your stuff. Well,
it's algorithmic, whatever it is. You know, and
you can ask Grok about Robert Malone and, you
know, you get back, you know, I'm a controversial
figure. But, you know, not whining. And so we
have a lot of subscribers, but we just have this
core of paid subscribers. And they send in their
five bucks a month. And it's all we need. And
it totally sets us free. We can talk about whatever
we want. And, yeah, now that I'm a pseudo -government
employee, I'm a special government employee without
pay. Boy, that's like the worst of both worlds
because there's – I have – the truth is I have
guardrails that constrain me in a way that I
didn't used to be constrained for talking about
some things. I have to live in this world. I
interface with the secretary and with the deputy
chief of staff and other people and now I'm working
with the State Department more. So, you know,
I have to be more mindful. What is your function?
Like what do you do over there? At state or?
Yeah, both. When you're working for the government,
like how do they use your services? So the special
government employee category is a designation
from the executive branch. It's the one that
Elon had. I like to say I'm in the same category
as Elon was, only without all the money. So he
was an SGE without pay. I'm an SGE without pay.
And because I serve on the Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices of the CDC, which is
this, they call it, it's a FACA committee, Federal
Advisory Committee Act, that advises the director
of the CDC, that's its only job, on vaccine policy.
So I'm the vice chair, which is largely honorary.
What that means is that if the chair isn't there,
I draw the short straw and I have to chair those
bloody meetings like the last one for hepatitis
B, birth dose, which was just a slugfest, ugly,
the worst meeting I've ever had to adjudicate
my entire life. But for the most part, I sit
on the subcommittees. I sit on the COVID working
group subcommittee. I'm not supposed to talk
about the next meeting. I was told two days ago.
So that's one of my guardrails. But stay tuned
for what is going to come down if the AAP lawsuit
doesn't prevail and we're allowed to actually
have the meeting. So that's that. I'm also the
chair of the Influenza Working Group. Stay tuned
for that. And now I am. So – and I – from time
to time, the secretary asked me to help him sort
out some issue. I'll get a phone call. I once
got a phone call on the Big Island. I did this
recent series of rallies to try to – to recap
the whole reason why that we did that first hit
was to try to publicize the Stop the Mandates
rally in DC. That was the subtext for that, as
you recall. And I forgot to even mention it.
We had to go back in to do another shoot for
that. Remember? I'm still fighting that same
battle of trying to stop these mandated vaccines.
So I'm sitting there in Hawaii. I'm going to
another one of these rallies. I get a call out
of the blue from one of Bobby's people. And they
want some advice about a topic having to do with
the decision he has to make about spending money
on another biodefense initiative. So I get that
kind of stuff. He called me soon after he was
confirmed to get my opinion about what was going
on in the chicken industry and all the slaughter
that was happening for bird flu. And I told him
this doesn't make sense. It's not good policy.
There's no way you can get rid of bird flu doing
this. It's in the wild bird populations. And
this is just nonsensical what they're doing.
Why do you think they did that? OK, so that's.
That's interesting that now we drive into a kind
of public health and vaccinology. You're asking
the why. And it's been a longstanding policy.
They killed millions of chickens, right? They
do it every time. Every time there's a bird flu.
Yeah. And any other outbreak. So right now in
Spain, I just wrote an essay about this. It was
maybe the biggest reveal on what's going on in
Spain right now. There's a Spanish research lab
that's been collaborating with the USDA that
is investigating swine fever virus. And they're
actually doing gain -of -function research on
swine fever virus. African swine fever virus
kills pigs like crazy. And already China has
locked down and will not accept Spanish pork.
And it is a lab leak. And there was a bunch of
dead hogs last November around this facility.
And now it's the Spanish and the European Union
are blowing a circuit over this because it's
really compromised the Spanish pork industry.
So this kind of stuff, when this happens, the
reaction is we just have to kill all of them.
We have to kill all the potential carriers. And
this has been the wisdom, quote, in this kind
of agrarian animal husbandry world for a long
time in the context in particular of factory
farming. So the logic is that if you were to
vaccinate these birds with a... Leaky vaccine,
which, you know, COVID was a leaky vaccine. Influenza
is a leaky vaccine. If you give the birds a leaky
vaccine, what you'll get out of that is precisely
vaccine -resistant flu, okay? And so we have
no choice, has been the logic, but to... You
know, like the ostriches in Canada. Remember
that story? That was shocking. There was no logic
behind that. It's gone. It's become entrenched
as policy, as kind of this reflexive knee jerk
thing that if we have an outbreak, what we do
is we kill because we can't control the virus.
And the things that we could do to control the
virus aren't really going to control it. And
it's actually going to make things worse. Is
there any logic to that? We can argue at the
margins. We can argue at the margins. But when
you got something that – if you had something
that didn't have a natural reservoir, then you
can make the case that you could eliminate it
in that geographic population and keep it from
spreading outside. But when you have a natural
reservoir – Explain that. Explain the natural
reservoir. OK. In the case of avian influenza
… Waterfowl and migratory birds are amazing vectors
for carrying and propagating influenza. And influenza
survives in water for a very long period of time.
And so you've got ducks and geese traveling north
to south all over every continent. that are susceptible
to infection by avian influenza and all the other
migratory birds. But in particular, the waterfowl,
galliforms. My wife would wrap me on the head
if I didn't use the right term. So she's an avian
specialist. So these birds carry the flu and
a number of them are... relatively resistant.
They've been subjected to avian influenza for
centuries or millennia. And sometimes you'll
get a variant come out that'll wipe out a whole
bunch of birds. West Nile virus in crows is a
great example. And now you have crow populations
coming back that are resistant to West Nile.
We haven't gotten rid of West Nile. We've just
bred more resistant birds. That's kind of, you
know, that's Brett Weinstein's space, right?
That's evolution. It's magical. And so if you
have a natural animal reservoir like the ticks
and lime and deer, what are you going to do?
Exterminate all the deer? No, that's not practical.
Mao tried to exterminate the birds because of
the thesis that they were – eating up all the
spare grain and compromising availability of
food to the populace, right? And what happened?
Major ecological catastrophe. You can't eliminate
the birds. You can't go and kill all the waterfowl.
That would just be ecologically insane. But,
you know, sometimes we do insane things. And
in the case of avian influenza, It's there. It's
endemic. It's in all that migratory waterfowl.
They poop an amazing amount of influenza. It
gets in the water supply. The water supply goes
everywhere. They, you know, small birds are interacting
with, I don't know if you've ever been around
a chicken barn or turkey barns. OK, yeah, there's
chickens and then there's commercial chicken
production, right? So these operations are like
petri dishes for bad stuff happening. And the
only way you can interfere with that, and by
the way, the Amish are starting to do it, is
put something in the water supply. And what the
Amish are using is a compound called hypochlorous
acid. And it's stopping these things and it's
stopping the E. coli and a lot of other stuff.
But that's another problem is, you know, when
you have the momentum of these large government
agencies with their consensus about the way things
are done. You know, there's a saying that the
only time the FDA ever changes is if somebody
in a key position retires or passes away. They
kind of get entrenched in this is how we do things.
We kill chickens. If we have avian influenza
come out, we kill chicken barns. And this is
the beauty of Secretary Kennedy coming in, being
kind of not invested. in the way things are and
the way we do things and being willing to ask
the questions, does this really make sense? That
has been heresy. It obviously is still heresy
to do that, to ask those questions, to have the
president say we need to restructure the vaccine
schedule. Oh, my God. The sky is falling. Kids
are going to die left and right. There's going
to be death on the street because we ended the
thimerosal in multidose influenza vials. This
kind of catastrophic thinking. But Kennedy has
and the president have the courage. to question
these narratives, these long -held standing beliefs.
In the case of the bird flu, you know, he called
me up. I said, Bobby, I don't think this makes
sense. I think that what we really need to do
is we need to breed resistant chickens. And the
way we breed resistant chickens, and by the way,
we've written about this also in our sub stack,
there are in the domain of chicken cultivars.
You have chickens. You know, there are people
that are just freaks about chickens. But because
of that, we have this huge repository of different
cultivars of chickens. We could say they were
all generated through gain -of -function research,
the old -school way. And a number of those are
relatively resistant to bird flu. Well, in a
logical world, you would have Tysons. Maybe the
government has to incentivize this. It shouldn't
have to. You would have Tysons in there saying,
well, guys, What we need is a bird flu -resistant
chicken. Let's get on it. And that is essentially
the position that the secretary took is this
policy of just extremely aggressive mass culling
is not producing the outcome that we want. It
has never produced the outcome that we want.
It will never eliminate bird flu because it has
an endemic reservoir. And we've got to think
different. And now that's starting to percolate
through the system and there is more research
into alternative strategies including the possibility
of various prophylactic interventions in feed
and in water. And a lot of these chicken houses
mist. As you recall, they have the misters because
they've got to control the temperatures. So they
are set up with misters. And that can also be
a way to deliver things that are non -toxic,
like HOCL, that can knock out these viruses and
E. coli and other things that cause reduced growth
and loss of weight in chickens, which is the
metric that... Tyson's and those guys is food
conversion. That's the metric they all pray to.
There's different – we can think differently
and we have been locked into consensus that has
emerged over decades based on old ways of thinking.
And the same people are in charge so they don't
want to change. And they kind of – often kind
of have these lineages where they're passing
power on to the people that they've mentored.
So that's my HHS world. And then the State Department
world is a new thing that's come in. I'm starting
to support the group under Secretary Rubio that's
responsible for the various treaties having to
do with arms containment. And in particular,
the bioweapons convention. So this morning, I
got up early. And, you know, there was—so, honest
to God, I don't want to pump you up too much.
I mean, you might get an ego or something. So
I say to the state, they say, Robert, we want
you to go to Geneva to give this talk on the
use of AI for monitoring bioweapons threats.
because we have no way of monitoring compliance
with the Bioweapons Convention right now. And
it's been a historic problem. And the president
has said that we think that we can apply artificial
intelligence to this problem set of monitoring
and verifying compliance with the Bioweapons
Convention, which is heresy. It's another one
of these thinking outside of the box things.
So they say, we want you to go to Geneva and
give this talk and be the key. keynote. And I
say, and what's the date? Oh, it's February 12th.
And I say, I don't talk about this because, you
know, it's the general thing. You don't tell
people that you're going to be on Rogan. You
let Rogan say that when Rogan's ready. And so
I said, but I'm scheduled for Rogan that day.
And they're like, oh, Rogan. Well, OK, absolutely.
You got to go on that one. That's way more important
than going and speaking at the UN. So the State
Department thinks you're more important than
me talking about bioweapons. And they let me
WebEx it. So that's what happened this morning.
And it is – so I'm supporting that group. Now
and maybe increasingly over time and I don't
know where that goes. So you were talking about
these pigs that it's a lab leak that's giving
these pigs. Yeah, in Spain. Is it another gain
of function laboratory? So this is truly a breaking
news thing. Our media is not covering it. Shocker.
Yeah. It is being covered in Europe and particularly
in Spain. This is a major economic threat because
they're, I think, the number two pork producer
in the world. And, you know, in the hogs that
are feeding on acorns, et cetera, that's a big
specialty market space. So last November, this
laboratory that is ostensibly working, this is,
I mean, it's Wuhan 2 .0. Only the good news is
that this is not swine flu. People get that confused.
I'm not talking about swine flu. This is African
swine fever. It's been around for millennia.
It's never crossed into humans. It's a very different
virus. So just make sure we got that clear. So
this highly lethal African swine fever virus.
is a threat to the global pork industry. And
so this laboratory in Spain is cooperating with
the USDA to try to develop a new vaccine for
African swine fever. And in doing so, our government,
once again, was unaware that this even existed.
There's a cooperative agreement between USDA
and this laboratory. to engage in, if you read,
they don't call it gain -of -function research.
They call it building recombinant viruses and
experimenting in different virus structures to
allow them to build a better vaccine. Exactly
the same logic that was used in Wuhan. Now, then
last November, so this is ongoing. In this little
laboratory. And what this relates to, Joe, is
the idea that is being promoted that for justice
and equity and sharing, we need to enable there
being distribution of highly infectious pathogens
all over the world in separate laboratories so
that we in the big bad West are not imposing
and enabling our industries to prey on. Name
your emerging economy by taking biologic resources
from them, in other words, new viruses, and using
them to build stuff. We have to cooperate and
they have to have access to these reagents. So
the logic right now that's in play and being
promoted by the WHO is that we should have high
pathogen repositories and research programs all
over the world. decentralized in these emerging
economy states. Spain is not Germany. So there's
a Spanish lab. USDA is cooperating with them.
They're going to build an African swine fever
virus vaccine. They're doing gain -of -function
research. And by the way, just like in Wuhan,
there's some construction going on related to
that. And then suddenly, And it's an area that
is very dense in wild hogs. Now, somehow we got
to get this through our brain. Okay. You don't
put the facility in a place that's proximal to
the thing that might get infected if you have
a lab leak. That ought to be like rule number
one stamped on everybody's brain. You don't do
it. Like the Rocky Mountain labs make a lot of
sense. If you're going to be working with nasty
stuff and you got to do it, put it somewhere
obscure, not in Boston, right? So they're doing
it. They're surrounded by dense wild hog population.
And suddenly, last November, people detect there
is wild hogs dead all over around this facility.
What could possibly have happened? So they start
investigating. The police have been in. Grab
the records, grab the digital information, et
cetera, because the entire Spanish pork industry
is now compromised. There are trade barriers.
No more Spanish pork going into China. I advocate
that President Trump ought to drop the curtain
right now. Because when I looked at the distribution
of wild hogs, I mean, you've traveled enough.
You know how important wild feral hogs are in
the economy in Italy. The wild hogs are all over
in Europe. And this place in Catalonia is right
near the French border. And then like right on
the other side, a couple hundred miles, is Italy.
And the band of high -density wild hogs spreads
like that up through the mountains and then down
into Italy. And I think that if I was sitting
in the White House right now, I think to protect
both for the president, core constituency is
ag. Voted for him three times. And he holds that
near and dear. And I think that it's good politics
and it's good public health. It's a good health
agricultural decision to raise the barriers now
until we can see that Europe has resolved the
risk associated with this. How are they going
to resolve that? So, once again, what— This is
wild hogs. This is not like it's anything that's
contained. And to your point, I don't know the
answer. I mean, right now what they're doing
is they're using drones to try to find, you know
how hard it is to hunt wild hog. Yeah, they hunt
them out of helicopters here in Texas. Yeah.
And they still can't even get them. And the hogs
are winning. It's like the emu wars in Australia,
right? My friend Monty Franklin is from Australia,
actually has a joke about that. We fought a war
with the emus and we lost. It's true. We have
emus on our farm. They are weird animals, man.
It's like living with dinosaurs. They're dumb
as shit too. They are weird. My wife says they
don't have two brain cells to rub together. I
talked to a lady who's a falconer and she said
the dumbest birds by far are emus. Second dumbest
are owls, she said. Oh, really? I didn't know
the owls. Isn't that crazy? Yeah, I didn't know
that. I thought they were so smart. Give a hoot,
don't pollute. They're always wearing a monocle.
They're always the wise professor. Well, right.
It goes back. It goes back to Athens, the symbol
of learning. Crazy. Very weird. Yeah, so emus
are weird. So they have to try to use drones.
I don't know what they're going to do. What they
did to control in Europe. So the former assistant
director general of the WHO, who I knew, this
was her claim to fame, was she had led the development
of rabies baits. And they would bait. with a
rabies vaccine to try to control the incidence
of rabies in particularly foxes was the problem
throughout Europe. And a lot of the foxes were
crossing from the less developed part of the
European Union into France, which was not acceptable.
She was French. And so what they did is they
developed these baits with the vaccine. And they
would distribute them out of helicopters. And
there's a whole science about how dense the baits
have to be to get immunity against rabies in
fox populations. A whole science around it. But
they were successful. They controlled fox and
wolf population rabies in Europe, largely eradicated
it through the use of baits distributed by helicopters.
Do they have a vaccine for this? No, they don't.
That's what they were supposed to be developing.
That was the whole purpose. They were supposed
to be developing, but really what they were developing
is more transmissible strain. Whatever. Yeah.
In order to prove that they could, I don't know.
It's the same story over and over again. It's
Wuhan 2 .0. Exactly. And how are we not? going
to see this as an increasing trend. And there's
the whole dark side that, you know, when I, you
know, I read my comments. Maybe I shouldn't sometimes,
but I do. Don't do it after this show. So, you
know, you get the blowback. Well, this is all
by intention because they're building market.
for whatever it is that they want to market,
right? There's one of the dark themes about COVID
was that they wanted to promote the spread of
COVID in order to sell the vaccines and blah,
blah, blah. So that's the narrative. And so in
this case, well, they want to spread African
swine fever because somehow they're going to
profit from that while destroying their pork
industry. But this is the armchair. strategists
on the internet. But that... Has it gotten into
the domestic pork market? Interesting question.
Not to my knowledge yet, but I have this interesting
colleague that I work with closely at the ACIP
named Retzif Levy, who's the chair of the COVID
Working Group and is giving the pharmaceutical
industry a run for their money right now. And
it's, of course, being vilified. by the press,
et cetera. And Retsiff is a full professor at
MIT. And his core competence is risk analysis
and mitigation. And he reads my substack because
we're friends. He doesn't subscribe, I'm pretty
sure, but he reads it. And so we're talking and
he says, yeah, I read that thing that you put
out about that virus. And he said, I wrote a
proposal years ago about risk mitigation and
the need to do something about that because of
the ease by which it can enter the domestic pork
population. So I infer from that that there is
a whole body of science and logic about – and
he said it's very readily transmitted into commercial
pork, which is why the Chinese have already dropped.
you know, dropped the curtain and said, no, we're
not going to allow any of that into our into
China because of the risk. I mean, what we're
talking about. So I wrote an essay about low
risk, high impact events, which is what we're
talking about. Another example of a low risk,
high impact event is gene drive technology. that
Gates is promoting to exterminate the mosquitoes,
for example. You know, gene drive technology
can be used to exterminate a species, particularly
ones that have a high reproductive rate. And,
you know, it's another one that is a CRISPR application.
But there is a whole school of thought that gene
drive tech should never be let out of the box
into the environment. That what's, you know,
there are those that are actively promoting its
use and to eliminate bad stuff. And, you know,
we're all for eliminating bad stuff. You know,
organisms, insects, worms, flies, stuff. And
yet it and we can do experiments where we say,
oh, we'll. cultivate this kind of fly together
with that kind of fly, and only these flies are
going to have gene drive, and we're going to
look for whether or not it gets over to these
flies. And if it doesn't, then we can conclude
that it's unlikely. But as Brett would tell you,
we're dealing with ecosystems here, really complex
ecosystems. And the risk environment now that
I think grownups have to acknowledge, coming
out of COVID, you know, the big lessons, we can
talk about these egregious things that we've
all experienced that have been put on us. But
the big picture is this thing came out and I'm
convinced it was engineered. I believe the most
likely hypothesis is not that it was intentionally
released. I still think that's a possibility.
But that it was an unintentional release, an
infection of a lab worker or something like that
that let it get out because that's what happens
again and again in these facilities. These low
probability events can have extremely high impacts,
as we've seen, global impacts. And we have to
rethink how we're managing risk, which is, as
I mentioned, Redshift's kind of core competence.
And that logic... runs up against this belief
that, well, it hasn't happened so far, and I'm
an expert, and I have the right to play around
in this sandbox that I've helped develop. I know
more than you do. How can you tell me that I
shouldn't be doing that? You don't have the right
to tell me. I'm the expert in this space. And
to come into that environment and say, look,
guys, you're playing around with stuff that could
have a very high impact, even though it hasn't
happened yet. And you got to rethink what is
acceptable. And I think that, you know, we were
talking a moment about the State Department and
weapon control. We're now in an environment where
the speed of growth of the power of biotechnology
is accelerating. It's going. exponential, just
like what we saw with semiconductors. And our
bioethics, our regulatory structures, our way
of thinking about those risks is completely unable
to keep up with the pace of the advance. And
that is creating a whole new threat scene, not
to scare people, I mean, as I was thinking about
coming on here, I was saying to myself, OK, Robert,
just take a deep breath. It's only Joe Rogan.
He's a human. And you want to stay positive.
And I don't want to go dark and just scare people.
But we've got to take – we've got to recognize
that this is a different world now. We have all
of this digital tech. And what it means in information
control and suppression and manipulation psychologically,
basically programming, customized programming
through avatars and all of this power. But we
also have in parallel this world of rapidly advancing
biotechnology that is, you know, for the likes
of Yuval Harari. and those that are imagining
a future of transhumanism. And all of that means
we are moving very rapidly into a world that
we can hardly even process. One of the big thrust
vectors in Silicon Valley right now relating
to reproductive rights has to do with the development
of artificial wombs. You know, these wealthy,
privileged people don't want to carry their own
babies. And I guess surrogates are too cumbersome
or risky. So they're really talking about a baby?
It's not talking. It's not talking. We're going
to run an essay about this soon. They already
have a lamb that they have grown de novo in an
artificial womb. We're there. OK. And these people
see it as freeing. This this is this is more
women's rights. You know, we we don't need to
have the organic process of carrying a baby.
And that's a good thing, they believe. You know,
completely disregarding that there is a whole
lot of subtle, complex interactions that occur
between mother and fetus in the womb. OK, that
gives rise to. Right. Who knows what kind of
humans you're going to develop with no interaction
with the mother at all. But the entire nine months
where they're developing. But that exchange of
hormones. But for the sake of convenience, we
want to do that. Oh, God. OK. And that what that.
You know, zoom in on that. Okay, that has all
kinds of implications. It has implications for
organ transplantation. My friend Jan Jekielek,
I don't know if you know Jan, if you've ever
had him on, you might want to sometime. Interesting
character. He is the Washington Bureau Chief
for this newspaper that is defamed all the time,
ridiculed, Epoch Times. Which I think is like
the only print newspaper left in the United States
that's worth reading that ascribes to classical
journalism. But he's just come out with a book
about organ harvesting in China and organ harvesting
on demand. documenting that they are using live
prisoners and keeping them in compounds and testing
them for their genetic background and characteristics
and then harvesting them when necessary to provide
organs for transplantation largely to Westerners
because it is enormously profitable and also
to leaders in the CCP. This is what all this
brouhaha was about the open mic event with Putin
about we can use transplantation to – Let us
live another hundred years. Remember that little
clip? So in a world in which we can have artificial
wombs, we can grow our own clones to provide
donor tissue, to provide an insurance policy.
We are right at the doorstep of that. Again,
demonic. It sounds demonic. I mean, is a soul
a real thing? Just because it can't be quantified
by science, you can't measure it? I mean, the
concept of the soul has always existed. If that's
a real thing, who knows what you're doing creating
a human being from an artificial womb? Who knows
what kind of processes are happening? We know
that stress on the mother imparts all sorts of
unwanted characteristics in children. We know
that. We know like – All kinds of interactions.
Yes. The playing of music. That's real. Yes.
Yes. Soothing playing of music. Yeah. So that's
happening. That vector is proceeding. And once
you have that in a world of CRISPR, okay, you
can do genetic modification of a very small number
of cells and then grow a fetus from that. Okay?
So that opens the door. Did you watch the movie
Gattaca? Yeah. Gattaca, absolutely recommended.
If you want to understand our brave new world,
the one that's really coming at us and the ethical
conundrums associated with that, watch Gattaca.
And by the way, it has great production value
too, doesn't it? It's a great movie. Great movie
and totally underappreciated. And terrifying.
Yeah. That's really what our future is. And the
title G -A -T -T -A -G -A refers to a DNA sequence,
by the way. That's why the name Gattaca. Oh.
Okay. So watch the movie. You've already seen
it. You get it. Okay. We are moving to that space
where we have custom -built humans. Now it's
being, you know, what's driving that? Convenience.
Who doesn't want to have a child that's better
than, that's like you but better? stronger, bigger,
you know, smarter, better vision, get rid of
all the problems that I've got or you've got
or whomever, you know, and in your next offspring.
And all you got to do, because here's another
fun fact, at bulk, whole genome sequencing is
now about 300 bucks. Whole genome sequencing
is the portal for selective engineering. with
Cas9 CRISPR systems. So we now, we're right on
the threshold of that entire spectrum of capability
of manipulating animals, life, fundamentals of
life in every species and humans. And concurrently,
we have the incoming vector of robotics technology
and... Modern computational advance, we're moving
rapidly. People say, oh, it's going to be next
month we're going to have general artificial
intelligence. Well, they keep saying that month
after month. What do we got here? This is a video
made about the artificial wombs. Yeah. Oh, boy.
I don't know who made this. I was trying to figure
out who made this. I don't think the company
who was doing it made it, but they might have.
I'm not BSing. I mean, doesn't this look like
it's something straight out of The Matrix? 100%.
This is all 3D. Obviously, it's not real, but
oh my God, this is terrifying. This is a business
model. What kind of psychology does this child
have with no exposure to its mother? Hey, but
for mom, it's a lot more convenient. And she
can get the perfect baby that she wants. What's
not to like here, Joe? Until it becomes a fucking
serial killer. Yeah. And you put it on SSRIs.
Well, this is the thing about – do you know the
story about Ted Kaczynski? One of the stories,
one of the things that happened to him? In the
Netflix documentary, they go into this. He was
very sick when he was a boy, when he was a baby.
And they kept him in this nursery with no contact
with human beings for a long time, for a long
time. No one picked him up when he cried. He
just sat in this crib with no contact with his
mother, nothing. And he – From then on, I mean,
his brother always described him as just like
off. Yeah. Just off. Yeah. He never had that.
Early stage neural development is amazing and
profound. By the way, this loops back to the
vaccine story. When we're doing all these jabs
on these little tiny kids like Hepatitis B birth
dose, they are at a stage where this thing is
just growing like crazy. And so is their liver
and everything else. And you're injecting toxic
chemicals into their body. Which you really haven't
characterized well and you're stacking them.
Yeah. And no one's done the studies. And you're
doing it for profit. This is another thing that
the secretary is adamant about and that the president
has led on. Having them exempt from any legal
ramifications of the adverse side effects of
vaccines, what they did during the Reagan administration,
it's really – it gave them this – Free license.
Yeah, free license. To just go crazy. To just
go crazy and jack up the vaccine schedule as
high as they could justify. And then along with
it, corresponding profits rise. That's what's
fucking scary. So if you want to go down that
rabbit hole, it's even worse. Once functionally,
because of how difficult it is to prove an endpoint
and get a vaccine licensed, once you get it licensed,
you basically have a cash cow in perpetuity.
And if you get it down on the pediatric schedule,
in other words, you manage to jam it through
the ACIP, because the ACIP, the wisdom of Congress,
is vested with the authority of authorizing the
Vaccines for Children program acquisitions. So
there's no other program in the entire United
States government that is outside of congressional
oversight. The ACIP can decide that this vaccine
needs to be purchased for the Vaccines for Children
program. And historically, because the ACIP has
been captured by pharma and by the CDC itself
and by academia, those decisions, they never
go backwards. And so you get the product down
onto the VFC, the Vaccine for Children program,
and the pediatric schedule, and then that triggers
the indemnification clause that you're talking
about, which, by the way, is different from the
one that kicked in with the COVID situation,
with the PrEP Act. That's even worse. But what
you end up with, Joe, is a situation where, as
the vaccine manufacturer, think it, you now have...
No legal liability. You have guaranteed purchasing,
distribution and marketing because the CDC does
all the propaganda. Vaccines are safe and effective.
You must take this. Right. And then then you
end up with and it's in many cases, it's school
district level. It's not even state level. The
states have the right to regulate the practice
of medicine. The federal government doesn't.
That means the CDC can advise that this is the
vaccine schedule. And many states, because they
don't have the infrastructure to actually process
what's going on, they say, well, if the CDC advises
it, then we're going to mandate it. Or school
districts do. And so you end up in this situation
where you as the manufacturer get your product
on the market. You get it down into this special
program. You got guaranteed purchase, guaranteed
profit, full indemnification, marketing, purchase,
distribution, all paid for by the taxpayer. And
no liability. It's perfect as a business model.
What's not to like? It's so scary how many people
just go along with it too. They don't just go
along with it. They are propagandized into believing
it as a theology. Exactly. I was going to say
it's religious dogma. They've administered it
to their children. They believe it wholeheartedly.
And when someone says something like vaccines
don't cause autism, the whole audience will applaud.
And you're like, how do you know? How do you
know that? Well, you're so confident that you're
applauding. Well, it's because what I've heard.
I've heard it so many times. Of course I believe
it. That's what's twisted about it. It's just,
well, it illustrates the power of what we're
dealing with. Yeah. And once you get it by thinking
through the vaccine story, I mean, you're ruined
now, my friend. Because once you get it about
vaccines, then you see it everywhere. Well, I
had Suzanne Humphries on. who wrote that book,
Dissolving Illusions. And, you know, that book
is a must read for anybody who wants to really
understand the history of vaccines and what really
happened in terms of the end of pandemics and
the introduction of these vaccines, like what
actually took place. Yes, yes. Oh, that, that.
And, you know, there's a whole thread of how
prevalent. lead was in the population, in the
powdered wigs and so many things that we had.
And then when they got rid of the lead, that
was concurrent with the onset of widespread vaccination.
And so the loss of life associated or the improvement
in loss of life and birth outcomes associated
with getting the lead out of the population,
well, that's ascribed to the vaccines by the
people that are busy marketing vaccines. And
likewise, the all... All the work associated
with water sanitation and all of that. No, that's
all true. The first time I, to credit where credit's
due, as a vaccinologist, the first time I really
encountered that logic was Candace Owens had
me on years ago. And she said, you know, we've
done this deep dive and we've looked at this
thing and these infectious diseases go down before
the vaccines come up. And yet we're told this
narrative. Right. And of course we're told this
narrative. Yeah. The polio one's the nuttier
one. Because when people are so concerned about
polio and polio vaccines and we cure polio, they're
going to bring back polio if they stop the vaccines.
When I tell them what. percentage of polio do
you think is asymptomatic? And that most people
think like none, right? It's 95 to 99 % of polio
is asymptomatic. And then you find out through
Suzanne Humphrey's work that they were spraying
DDT ubiquitously all over the country at the
same time. And it gives you the same exact symptoms
of paralytic polio. And then subsequently the
actual first infections that started occurring
in this country were occurring in rural areas
where they sprayed DDT everywhere. Yeah. So one
of – so there's – if I can kind of throw another
log in the fire on that narrative. One of the
cool things that I'm getting to see from my perch
at the ACIP is people working at the cutting
edge of modern genetic – technology investigations
about cause and effect and genomic effects. And
one of the things you talk about this rare incidence
of paralytic polio or myocarditis. Okay. Myocarditis
is rare. with the vaccine. And yet it happens
at a significant rate. It happens more in certain
populations than other populations. This was
heresy at first, and now they were forced to
admit it. And stay tuned later in February. But
there's a group that had a big grant to look
at genetic links associated with risk factors
for this. And strangely, halfway through their
program during the Biden administration, all
their funding got caught. But they still made
a lot of progress, and they kind of limped along
with volunteer stuff. I mentioned the genome
costs, $300 a genome. These guys have gone through,
and they've identified seven genes that represent
high -risk factors for myocarditis after vaccination.
Myocarditis after vaccination, by the way, was
a major side effect associated with the smallpox
vaccines, or one of them. It's been associated
with vaccines for quite a while. We just kind
of haven't heard about it and it's particularly
bad with these. But one of the – trying to continue
my theme of it's not all dark. One of the things
that's coming out is that if we commit to it
and do the research like Team Kennedy is committed
to doing. we may well be able to detect those
people that the genetic characteristics of those
people that might have been at higher risk for,
say, paralytic polio or myocarditis so that we
can have genetic tests and you can have that
test. and determine whether you actually have
that risk factor. It looks like, because of the
dynamics of clinical research and epidemiology
in infectious disease, that this kind of application
of genetic diagnostic technology may give us
whole new insights into those small populations
that had those rare events. We know the big picture
in COVID. and the COVID vaccination, post -vaccination
syndromes of the high -risk individuals with
obesity and elderly and basically people with
a high inflammatory set point. But now we're
getting down into some of the nuances. And I
think that that's, you know, I talked about some
of the dark sides of biotechnology, but there's
some real, you know, bright sides that offer
hope. And what will happen as that kind of starts
to roll out is that manufacturers and academic
surrogates and others are kind of not going to
be able to continue to hide behind these narratives
that they have promoted now for decades because
the true -true is going to come out. It is going
to come out. Is it going to come out during this
administration? No. To do long -term follow -up
studies are going to take a decade. That's the
unfortunate truth. And we're going to have a
lot of grief around that. How come you haven't
already fill in the blank? But it's going to
happen. And that is another big plus of what's
going on right now kind of behind the scenes
at HHS. Hopefully they get a chance to still
do it. after the midterm and they don't get hogtied.
But I'm optimistic that these narratives that
have been promoted, these false narratives, we're
going to be able to break them through doing
actual science if we're allowed to do it. And
this new technology is particularly with sequence
analysis and identification of risk correlates,
the intersection between Sequence analysis and
epidemiology is going to really open up new understandings
about what's going on in human disease. I'm absolutely
convinced. What we do about it is that's a whole
other kettle of fish. I mean, we can do the science
until the cows come home. The public policy part
is wicked hard. Yeah. But at least there's some
positive developments. Yeah, that's what I want
to say. Some bright light at the end. There is
all this dark stuff. Yeah. And we have to allow
ourselves to see it. You see it and you get the
reaction like you did. I don't want to see that.
That's too much. It's too overwhelming. It's
too scary. But we look away at our own risk.
And we have this tendency to say it's all dark.
We have these individuals. I mentioned Yuval
Harari believing that man is God now. We no longer
need God. We have become gods. We have become
as gods. Does he actually say that? Yeah. Really?
Isn't he talking sort of metaphorically about
our technological potential? I don't know how
to discern the meaning of – He's a very demonized
guy. He says a lot of dark stuff and I think
– so you probably read the book. Did you interview
the author of – Yeah, the Sapiens. Did you read
the author of Dark Aeon? No. No, I've never read
that. So that's talking – What is Dark Aeon?
This is talking more about kind of the Silicon
Valley culture that's pushing transhumanism and
how – But integrally, it's become involved in
this space. I mean what – I don't have – I don't
pal around with Elon and not to say he is or
whomever you want to talk about in that space.
That's not my pay grade. But my understanding
and I read these things, maybe they're also –
maybe that's also propaganda. of let's say the
Bill Gates cast and the younger ones associated
with that, are advocates for a world in which
they are able to upload their avatar consciousness
in a digital space and live forever? That's Ray
Kurzweil, right? Sounds like you know more. You're
the UAP. guy here which by the way is another
fascinating domain that i'm learning more about
more about it's bizarre um that's a rabbit hole
you go down like oh this isn't empty this is
not an empty rabbit hole there's a lot of money
behind this and it seems like there's been a
lot of black funding and business yeah business
a lot of business defense contractors involved
yeah it seems like there's some inventions that
sort of emerged out of nowhere that supposedly
are connected to back engineering programs. So
I'm now of the belief that there exists a capability
that transcends physics as we know it. Let's
say Einsteinian physics and is more aligned with
Hawking's physics. We can't – we don't comprehend
right now. And it has to do with extremely high
energy systems. And I – having – I mean I've
had some of these guys because I'm now known
worldwide as a nutcase I guess and conspiracy
theorist. I've had them on my farm, staying in
our guest house and shooting the bull. And me
trying to understand their world and what they're
seeing and what they've experienced and observed
and the information. And I'm – there's a lot
of different models for what the hell is going
on here. And maybe it's all us, right? That's
one model. It's all us with – Secret technology.
That's one model for the – what do they call
it? Tic -tacs. I'm – increasingly convinced by
the logic that there is a physics beyond the
physics that we know that is the physics of extremely
high energy systems. And in high energy systems,
a lot of the rules about motion and transportation
and matter and the ability to cross between matter
states that... is repeatedly observed and reported
by responsible people, military folks that have
strong disincentives for saying this stuff, and
yet still they're saying, that's what I saw.
Transmedium devices that can fly and then go
underwater as fast as they're flying. No ripples.
Yeah. One of the models of that is that this
has to do with having some extremely high energy
source in a very small package. And is that possible?
We're now moving into a new fusion world, right?
We're talking about these microfusion reactors
that are going to be… Powering our data centers
all over the world, transforming the whole energy,
right? I mean there's this logic crossing over
into the economics, Bitcoin or kind of space.
There's this logic that it all comes down to
energy. Energy is the one thing that fuels economic
development and everything around us. I'm not
a physicist, but I listen and learn, and it sounds
to me like these micro -reactors and the technology
that was involved, strangely, in this assassination.
Remember that bizarre assassination in Boston
that happened? There was two competing companies.
The MIT guy. Yeah, there's something going on
there that's really transformational. And if
it matures – remember Trump has invested in this
in a big way that had to do with him kind of
leveraging truth social in a strange way. Remember?
If we emerge into a future within my lifetime
probably of these micro -nukes … as energy sources,
decentralized. First driven by the tech bros
because they want to have their data centers.
But then suddenly we have, as that matures and
the patents come off, we have the ability to
put power generation in very small packages wherever
we want in the world. Suddenly the entire landscape
of economic activity and the future of humanity
is transformed like that. And that's just the
beginning. If we push that technology, we may
find ourselves in some space where we have the
ability to produce extremely large amounts of
energy in a very small package and use that.
Of course, it will be weaponized. Use that for
a variety of things. But I think the guys that
are speculating about these phenomena. being
driven by the existence of almost point sources
of unlimited energy functionally, may make sense
out of things that otherwise are really hard
to wrap your head around. Well, we're in for
a very interesting future one way or another.
Yes. And it doesn't have to be dark and demonic.
Hopefully not. If we let these bastards have
their way. What is this, Jamie? Let me make a
small correction. That video I showed you apparently
isn't real, not a real company, made by a Berlin
filmmaker in 2022. Went viral. I found it in
a New York Post article that kind of said it
was real. But there are plans to do something
along those lines. Well, I was going to say,
which is a little weirder. It says at the bottom,
this is getting confused with a pregnancy robot
that was announced in China in 2025. This, though,
apparently also is not real. The pregnancy robot
is not real? Yeah. They named a scientist that
was working on it. It's not a real person. Look
at that. That's so great. The company working
on it. Nonetheless. They are working on artificial
wombs. We're going to come out. So see if you
can find the, since you're so good at Googling
or whatever you're doing. See if you can find
the images of this artificial womb, and I believe
it's a lamb. Yeah, no, we've seen the lamb before,
but I'm just saying that the people thing. The
factory thing with people. Oh, well, that was
obviously AI. No, no, it's the same, but not
that it wasn't AI. It wasn't even a real company
that was doing it. It's synthetic images. I don't
want to give out fake news. That's all. Good.
Well, God forbid. We might get banned. Robert,
thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate
it. And it was nice for you to come back under
less hostile terms in the world. Well, it wasn't
hostile then. No, but I think your message was
a lot more hostile in the way it was received.
You were received in a hostile way. I don't think
this one's going to be hostile. I think pretty
much everything that you said, most people are
aware of now. And then the other things that
you're saying. They're not far -fetched at all.
And I think there's a lot more people that are
more open to receiving information like that
now than ever before. And some of it can be attributed
to you. That's kind. Let's say to the community.
Yeah, sure. And of which I'm a vehicle, have
been at times. A lot of the stuff that I shared
with you back then. was the consequence of a
community that I was embedded in, of other physicians
and scientists, many of whom were primary care
practitioners. And I was attending weekly meetings
with these people. And I had frontline knowledge
of what they were seeing and experiencing. And
I had frontline knowledge of the physicians that
I was collaborating with at DITRA, of what they
were experiencing. I was never managing COVID
patients except myself. But I knew what others
were experiencing. And you gave me an opportunity
to share their voice through me. And I thank
you for that. It was a moment in time, and I
think we did good. But by God, they came at us.
It was wild. Well, thank you, sir. Thank you
very much. I really appreciate you being here.
It was a lot of fun. All right. Bye, everybody.