Speaker 1: I'll get a team. It's Tiffany Ankle because David Brian Kevin,
Speaker 1: Patrick Gillespie, it's the Bloody Project, that's you, it's us.
Speaker 1: We're stumbling like piss blokes towards Christmas and I couldn't
Speaker 1: be more excited. Speaking of booze, Hi tiv.
Speaker 2: Speaking of booze.
Speaker 1: You drink now and then, not much, every now and
Speaker 1: then much? What's your no? I know you don't really
Speaker 1: drink much, but if you do drink, what do you drink?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 1: You go to?
Speaker 2: Gin tonic? Partial to a gin and tonic? Right?
Speaker 1: Have you ever been legless? Shit faced? You know? It's
Speaker 1: been a lot of my youth getting legless.
Speaker 2: YEP.
Speaker 1: I actually don't know if we're allowed to say that anymore.
Speaker 1: But seeing as you and I you and I know you,
Speaker 1: and I know Don Elgan, so I'm pretty sure who's
Speaker 1: a one legged paralympian And he calls himself that. So
Speaker 1: I'm blaming Don. Don's given us the green light? What
Speaker 1: about you, Gilespo, I can't I can't see you drinking much,
Speaker 1: if any booze.
Speaker 2: I don't drink much, not because I have any particular
Speaker 2: objection to it, but because my wife doesn't drink at all,
Speaker 2: so you know, to drink it myself. Yeah, pretty much. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's yeah.
Speaker 1: So I don't drink a lot.
Speaker 2: You know. I'll have the occasional beer or glass of
Speaker 2: wine if there's one open, but that's about it. Really.
Speaker 1: How many times in your life do you reckon you've
Speaker 1: been drunk?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Quite a lot.
Speaker 2: When I was younger, he's in university, I strunk a
Speaker 2: fair amount of the time, I suspect.
Speaker 1: Wow. Wow, he says that with some pride tip. That's
Speaker 1: the this.
Speaker 2: Is I am so old that I remember going to
Speaker 2: the university what was called the rec Club at the
Speaker 2: University of Queensland every Friday night and they used to
Speaker 2: have fifty cent cans of Swan beer. Was I mean
Speaker 2: you go in there with a five dollar night slapping
Speaker 2: on the counter and that it do you for the night? Wow?
Speaker 1: What ten? You'd drink ten cans?
Speaker 2: Oh? Well, I try, Wow, I.
Speaker 1: Don't know anything about beer? Is that a terrible beer?
Speaker 1: And okay, I guess that.
Speaker 2: When you're fifty cents is what it is?
Speaker 1: Yes, yeaheah. How many times have you been drunk? Tiff?
Speaker 2: I couldn't tell you, but yeah, grown up in tazzy
Speaker 2: We did.
Speaker 1: We did on weekends a few times.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they'll get their bottle of passion pop and away
Speaker 2: we go.
Speaker 1: I've been the dress I've been. I've been the designated
Speaker 1: driver for forty years. I'm just the boring bloke that
Speaker 1: drives everyone to and from wherever they're going to get pissed.
Speaker 2: That's what my wife does. I always have a built
Speaker 2: in designated driver because she doesn't drink.
Speaker 1: Does she not drink for moral reasons, ethical, religious, or health,
Speaker 1: or she just doesn't like it.
Speaker 2: She'll like it, sheill like taste of it, so unlike today,
Speaker 2: where everything's got a ton of sugar in it and
Speaker 2: the alcohol is a secondary consideration. Back in the day,
Speaker 2: when I guess she was being tempted with alcohol, most
Speaker 2: of her tasted pretty awful and she wasn't keen on it.
Speaker 1: I think you told us in an episode not too
Speaker 1: long ago that I'm sure you told us that the
Speaker 1: youngies are drinking less than ever and having non alcoholic
Speaker 1: kind of options.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the stats are really interesting that today's teenagers drink
Speaker 2: less than their parents did and less than their grandparents
Speaker 2: did when they were the same age, considerably less and
Speaker 2: the reason for that is likely to be that they
Speaker 2: get both mean hits just from looking at their phone.
Speaker 2: They don't need to go out and get messy in public.
Speaker 1: Yeah right. And I also heard on a podcast conversation
Speaker 1: yesterday that the youngsters, and by youngsters I mean legally
Speaker 1: eighteen plus youngsters shagging less than their parents and grandparents.
Speaker 2: In general, pursuing risky behavior a lot less so, less violent,
Speaker 2: less likely to have sex, less likely to have teenage pregnancy,
Speaker 2: less likely to drink, basically, less likely to get dopamine
Speaker 2: hits from things that require them to leave their bedroom,
Speaker 2: and so because they don't need to.
Speaker 1: So that's the upside of social media. Yeah, there's the.
Speaker 2: Upside is you're not likely.
Speaker 1: To get outside of Instagram, as we've got less boys
Speaker 1: and girls making mating. Well, that was a faux pa,
Speaker 1: That was something I said that it was accurate that
Speaker 1: I didn't mean. But also, yeah, producing less offspring because
Speaker 1: they're addicted to the gram and even if they were not,
Speaker 1: they'd still be producing less offspring because, as you know,
Speaker 1: the sperm counts are going so badly that getting someone pregnanty,
Speaker 1: it is quite a quite a feat these days. And
Speaker 1: in case you haven't been paying attention for the last
Speaker 1: three years. To David Gillespie, everyone just a heads up.
Speaker 1: This is probably the last century of humanity, so enjoy it.
Speaker 1: It seems we're on the home straight. Either we're all
Speaker 1: going to die because we can't produce, you know, the
Speaker 1: bits and pieces that make new humans. Either that, or
Speaker 1: we're all going to be robots, or we're all going
Speaker 1: to be taken over by robots. Either way, enjoy the
Speaker 1: next few years.
Speaker 2: I was thinking about a conversation we had at the
Speaker 2: last time we talked about the AI. You just listened
Speaker 2: to a podcast I think it was something the something
Speaker 2: or other CEO.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, Diary of a CEO Stephen Bartlett.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he'd been interviewing someone to do with AI
Speaker 2: and I went away and listened to that. You'll be
Speaker 2: glad to know you well, I made.
Speaker 1: These suggestions, I think, you know, I enter. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: That's why I bothered, because you know, it was so
Speaker 2: important that you sent it to me long, so I
Speaker 2: had to I had to have it on double speed
Speaker 2: just to get through it. But it Yeah, it was
Speaker 2: all right. One thing you asked me during the last conversation,
Speaker 2: and I don't think I gave you a good answer,
Speaker 2: which is how close are we to artificial general intelligence
Speaker 2: or AGI is what they refer to in that, And
Speaker 2: they say that's the big bad thing, that's where it
Speaker 2: becomes essentially human in terms of its ability to think. Yeah,
Speaker 2: And I don't think I gave you a really good
Speaker 2: answer to that. And I want to Now, the thing
Speaker 2: about the AI that we are all used to using,
Speaker 2: like Gemini and chat GPT and all those sorts of things,
Speaker 2: is that they sound human, and they behave human, and
Speaker 2: they give us human like responses. But they are only
Speaker 2: as good as the data they're trained on. So if
Speaker 2: you were to try any of those AI on the
Speaker 2: sum of human knowledge as it existed in eighteen hundred, yes,
Speaker 2: and then ask it to improve transport, it wouldn't invent
Speaker 2: the automobile because the only thing it knew was what
Speaker 2: was available in eighteen hundred. So it might suggest to
Speaker 2: you ways to improve the stagecoach, but it wouldn't invent
Speaker 2: the automobile. And I guess that's probably to me the
Speaker 2: defining difference between these chatbots and human intelligence today, which
Speaker 2: is humans can invent things and do these ais cannot
Speaker 2: invent anything. They can summarize things really really well and
Speaker 2: make them easy to understand, but they can't invent anything.
Speaker 1: So they can't create, like, they don't have creativity like
Speaker 1: we when we talk about intelligence, obviously we're talking about
Speaker 1: a spectrum of things. But that kind of intelligence, well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really have intelligence either. That's the irony.
Speaker 2: Well, if you were to think of if you were
Speaker 2: to think about, say in human terms, they don't have
Speaker 2: the research and development arm So a lot of companies
Speaker 2: spend a fairly significant part of their budget on research
Speaker 2: and development, and a company like Google, for example, spends
Speaker 2: twenty percent of its budget on research and development. And
Speaker 2: that's something that where there's no direct, measurable, sellable output
Speaker 2: from what they're doing. They're just being asked to think
Speaker 2: about new things and create them if they can, and
Speaker 2: most of them will fail, but some of them won't.
Speaker 2: And that capacity to invent is something that AI today
Speaker 2: can't do.
Speaker 1: And so when we talk about artificial general intelligence where
Speaker 1: essentially for one of a better term it becomes conscious
Speaker 1: or sentient or fill in the adjective, do you think
Speaker 1: that will ever happen?
Speaker 2: Firstly, it very well may happen. People have been predicting
Speaker 2: it now for at least twenty years, but whether it
Speaker 2: will happen from the existing set of technology is difficult
Speaker 2: to say. To me, there's no obvious trajectory from the
Speaker 2: chatbots we're dealing with today to artificial general intelligence other
Speaker 2: than that they look human. Yes, And whereas oh, sorry,
Speaker 2: I was just going to say, whereas as I said,
Speaker 2: they're not capable of inventing something, Whereas an AGI is
Speaker 2: a different thing altogether. It is capable of inventing. And
Speaker 2: when you create something with that much firepower, with that capability,
Speaker 2: that's why it's dangerous, because then it can solve problems
Speaker 2: we haven't even invented and may not even think our problems.
Speaker 2: And the step from where we are now to very
Speaker 2: very fast development under AI of itself, which is what
Speaker 2: an AGI would be able to do, is where we
Speaker 2: are likely to get. You made surplus to requirements.
Speaker 1: And you may or may not know the answer to this,
Speaker 1: but you'll definitely know more than I know. How far
Speaker 1: away away from quantum computing being a thing like I
Speaker 1: know that I think there's a couple of quantum computers
Speaker 1: in the world, I'm not sure, but where they become
Speaker 1: for one of better term mainstream or just part of
Speaker 1: our culture.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I can't give you a definitive answer
Speaker 2: to that. I know that it's a race, and it's on,
Speaker 2: and we are progressing very quickly towards it. Yes, at
Speaker 2: the moment, they're quite expensive and not highly distributed, but
Speaker 2: that is unlikely to remain the case for very long.
Speaker 1: I would have thought, and I mean, I can't remember,
Speaker 1: but it's something crazy like it can solve problems that
Speaker 1: would take a thousand is on a normal computer or
Speaker 1: even a supercomputer that can solve that in thirty seconds.
Speaker 2: Or some Yeah, they have significantly greater capacity than current computing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and do you understand I don't so, and I
Speaker 1: know this is not your area of expertise, but your
Speaker 1: expertise does stretch. Can you explain what a quantum computer
Speaker 1: is compared to a regular computer.
Speaker 2: So, quantum computers do their processing at the quantum level,
Speaker 2: which is at the atomic and subatomic level, as opposed
Speaker 2: to at the atomic level, which is what current computers do.
Speaker 2: So they're manipulating electrons and so on, which allows them
Speaker 2: to get a lot more into the physical space and
Speaker 2: capacity than you would in a normal computer. Honestly, look,
Speaker 2: if there is a computer nerd listening to this and
Speaker 2: they go, oh my god, that's rubbish, then I suggest
Speaker 2: google it, since I looked properly at this.
Speaker 1: Well. Also, everyone keep in mind that I did ask him,
Speaker 1: and I did throw him under the bus, and he
Speaker 1: definitely knows. I don't know if he knows more than Tiff,
Speaker 1: but he definitely knows. Tiff, do you want to tell
Speaker 1: us what a quantum computer is?
Speaker 2: Already?
Speaker 1: It's happened out.
Speaker 2: Ye.
Speaker 1: I don't know how we got there because we started
Speaker 1: with how much booze do you both drink? It's like, well,
Speaker 1: we all know there's no logical kind of progression or
Speaker 1: thread to any of our conversations, so we definitely don't
Speaker 1: want to start being logical now. So you wrote recently,
Speaker 1: you wrote an article called how to Uncure Cancer? What
Speaker 1: prompted that? Firstly, and then maybe if you can unpack
Speaker 1: it with us.
Speaker 2: What prompted it was an announcement a couple of weeks
Speaker 2: ago or a week ago now in the US that
Speaker 2: they were making no longer suggesting that mothers have the
Speaker 2: hep well that infants be given the hepatitis B vaccination
Speaker 2: at birth. So since nineteen ninety one in the United States,
Speaker 2: infants have been given the hepatitis B vaccination within twenty
Speaker 2: four hours of birth. So it's in Australia, I think
Speaker 2: it's since two thousand, in the UK since twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: We might talk about that an little bit more detail later,
Speaker 2: but it's the only vaccination that is given so quickly.
Speaker 2: So you might say, well, why are you vaccinating anybody
Speaker 2: for anything, particularly a virus. So let's just step back
Speaker 2: a bit and say what hepatitis B is.
Speaker 1: So it's a.
Speaker 2: Virus that infects the human liver, and if it infects
Speaker 2: an adult, there's not a lot of downside. There are
Speaker 2: some symptoms of adults clear it within weeks, so it's
Speaker 2: a dose of the fluid style of symptoms with a
Speaker 2: bit of jaundice in adults who are infected with it.
Speaker 2: Our immune system is extremely efficient at dealing with it.
Speaker 2: With babies, it's a different thing altogether. The stats flip
Speaker 2: and ninety percent of infants who are infected with hepatitis
Speaker 2: B never clear the virus, and the problem with that
Speaker 2: is that this particular virus interferes with DNA in a
Speaker 2: way that it can predictably result in liver cancer, so
Speaker 2: not quickly, but a baby that's infected with it has
Speaker 2: a higher, much higher probability than normal population of having
Speaker 2: liver cancer in their forties. So that's why I call
Speaker 2: it the article how to Uncure Cancer. So we've got
Speaker 2: this thing that we know stops a baby becoming infected
Speaker 2: with it if it's given within twenty four hours, and
Speaker 2: we know that if we do that, we will significantly
Speaker 2: reduce So the studies, the big randomized trials on this
Speaker 2: say when I say significantly, I mean by eighty eighty
Speaker 2: five percent reduction in rate of liver cancer in vaccinated
Speaker 2: populations of babies. Now we've got really good data on
Speaker 2: this stuff because it has been a significant thing in
Speaker 2: the United States since nineteen ninety one, in Australia since
Speaker 2: two thousand and there have been big trials on this.
Speaker 2: There was a major trial in China eighty thousand babies,
Speaker 2: randomized control, controlled trial, no one knew who was getting
Speaker 2: it and who wasn't, and the rates of reduction in
Speaker 2: cancer in that on follow up were consistent with everything
Speaker 2: else eighty five percent. So we know this works. And
Speaker 2: the reason it works is quite interesting, I think, because
Speaker 2: so the reason a baby needs the vaccination so quickly
Speaker 2: is that if the baby gets the virus from their mother,
Speaker 2: which is primarily how they get it, then the immune
Speaker 2: system at that point at birth thinks it's part of
Speaker 2: the furniture. So the immune system thinks, oh, this isn't
Speaker 2: something I need to be bothered with. This is actually
Speaker 2: this is part of the human body. I won't be
Speaker 2: attacking that. Whereas an adult that gets the virus, you know,
Speaker 2: they've been going their whole life without it, and suddenly
Speaker 2: it appears the immune system harks up and attacks it.
Speaker 2: And that doesn't happen in newborns who are born with
Speaker 2: the virus or who contracted soon after birth. And so
Speaker 2: the idea was, well, let's give the vaccination at that point,
Speaker 2: teach the body that this is something that needs to
Speaker 2: be dealt with, and do it. And so in the
Speaker 2: United States, the statistics dramatic. You know, you go from
Speaker 2: you know, less than one percent end up with the
Speaker 2: virus after vaccination, So it dramatic. And for the US
Speaker 2: to suddenly decide because they've convinced themselves of vaccines cause autism,
Speaker 2: for which there is absolutely no proof by the way
Speaker 2: they've convinced themselves of that. They've said, oh, you know
Speaker 2: this thing that's been effectively reducing the incidence of liver cancer,
Speaker 2: we're going to stop doing that now now we know
Speaker 2: what this looks like when you do that. Because the
Speaker 2: UK and Australia a little bit earlier on, but the
Speaker 2: UK until twenty seventeen did it that way. The UK
Speaker 2: had a policy of not vaccinating infants. Their policy was
Speaker 2: to only vaccinate people at risk because it's cheaper. So
Speaker 2: let's just talk about how this virus is transmitted in
Speaker 2: the first place. So it's a blood blood transmission virus.
Speaker 2: You can transmit it by you know, exposure to someone
Speaker 2: else's blood. You know, Grannie kissing a wound on a
Speaker 2: child's knee, if Grannie's infected child might get it from that,
Speaker 2: from saliva, so bodily fluid exchange, also from sexual contact,
Speaker 2: so it's transmitted that way. It's different from hepatitis A,
Speaker 2: which is transmitted by eating food which has been you know,
Speaker 2: infected with the virum. So hepatitis A is transmitted through
Speaker 2: food and water. Hepatitis B is through blood, just like
Speaker 2: hepatitis C. So the UK said, well, very few people
Speaker 2: are actually at risk of this thing. Other people who
Speaker 2: you know, the most common people, homosexual population, intravenous drug users,
Speaker 2: et cetera. So will only vaccinate people who are obviously
Speaker 2: at risk and and that should take care of it.
Speaker 2: The result was that it did reduce the incidence of
Speaker 2: liver cancer, but only by about fifty percent, So somehow
Speaker 2: fifty percent was slipping through where people where infants were
Speaker 2: getting it anyway, even though there was no obvious risk.
Speaker 2: And that's just the accidents of everyday life. You know,
Speaker 2: you're in a hospital, you're bumping into people, you're running it.
Speaker 2: You know, it's all manner of ways that you might
Speaker 2: somehow end up contracting the virus. And in an infant
Speaker 2: that's a problem because if it's not addressed early, they
Speaker 2: can end up with this virus for life. And it
Speaker 2: was identified when when the vaccine for this was first
Speaker 2: started to become a thing in the early nineteen seventies.
Speaker 2: This was called the first cancer vaccination because it was
Speaker 2: the first and only one at that point where we
Speaker 2: knew that eliminating that virus would actually reduce the incidence
Speaker 2: of cancer. And it's because the way that virus interacts
Speaker 2: with protein in the liver, is that it produces mutations
Speaker 2: which make the liver cells more prone to cancerous mutation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so is RFK driving this or somebody else?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So remember he thinks he thinks neurofin causes panadol.
Speaker 2: I can't remember. It was probably panadol. Yeah, it was
Speaker 2: panadol that he thinks causes autism. And this is another
Speaker 2: of the things that he thinks causes autism. So there
Speaker 2: is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. But you might
Speaker 2: be thinking, well, but hold on, this is a vaccine
Speaker 2: that we're giving to infants. Is there a risk in
Speaker 2: giving it to infants? What is the risk? And there
Speaker 2: is one. There's a risk of an anaphylactic reaction, which
Speaker 2: is about one in one point one million, which so
Speaker 2: is infinitesimally small, you know, off the scale small, but
Speaker 2: on the upside. I don't know if you know anyone
Speaker 2: who's ever had an anaphlectic reaction to something, but you know,
Speaker 2: people have it to seafood, to peanuts and things like that.
Speaker 2: It can be extremely life threatening. Their their lips swell
Speaker 2: up that they can't breathe. It's very life threatening. So
Speaker 2: it's not to be sneezed at, but it is one
Speaker 2: in one point one million. On the upside, this thing
Speaker 2: has been given to the child in a hospital, so
Speaker 2: that's the best place to have an anaphylactic reaction. Hit
Speaker 2: him with adrenaline, the quicker immediately sorted out. So there
Speaker 2: is a risk, but it is very very small.
Speaker 1: It seems astounding by the way tiff use to have
Speaker 1: an anaphylactic reaction to men, but she's subsequently she's been
Speaker 1: has been treated and adrenaline. Well, no, she was. She
Speaker 1: had the Scotty Douglas vaccination and look it's things are going.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm no doctor, but fucking hell, she seems
Speaker 1: to be healed anyway. Praise the Lord.
Speaker 2: That's that new methodology, isn't it? Where they haven't they
Speaker 2: had I haven't had a look at the numbers recently,
Speaker 2: but where they expose children with to peanuts very very early, Yeah,
Speaker 2: and frequently, so that you know there's a giving kids
Speaker 2: peanut paste for example, so that you know they don't
Speaker 2: develop a peanut anaphylaxis. It seems to be very very effective.
Speaker 2: Is that what's going on here?
Speaker 1: Exactly? So it started as with a minor interaction on
Speaker 1: a podcast to graduated to bigger interactions on the podcast
Speaker 1: than a brief human face to face interaction, no touching,
Speaker 1: and apparently, I mean I haven't read the latest reports,
Speaker 1: but it seems to have progressed somewhat, so I can't
Speaker 1: update you on where we're at, you know, But like
Speaker 1: the the feedback coming out of the lab is thumbs up.
Speaker 1: So if congratulations on your progress's.
Speaker 2: No longer carrying your fipin, that's.
Speaker 1: Great, look at you, then fucking hilarious. Stop it. I
Speaker 1: have to go and find myself myself a needle and
Speaker 1: thread to sew up my size. So here's what I
Speaker 1: don't get about, and back to the show. You're welcome,
Speaker 1: You welcome listeners like it. There's so much data that
Speaker 1: says this is so effective as a treatment or as
Speaker 1: a preventative treatment, as a vaccination, then what's the rationale? Like,
Speaker 1: surely even the dude who's the head of whatever is
Speaker 1: the head of surely he's got to come up with
Speaker 1: unequivocal evidence to make such a hugely impactful decision that's
Speaker 1: going to affect every newborn child in a country of
Speaker 1: three hundred and thirty million people.
Speaker 2: You'd think wouldn't you you think, I mean, but no
Speaker 2: sign of it so far. So a couple of the
Speaker 2: US states, like the West Coast California and Washington and
Speaker 2: maybe Oregon as well, have commed together and formed what
Speaker 2: they're calling a health Alliance where they're maintaining the requirement
Speaker 2: for infant vaccination, so ignoring the federal advice because they
Speaker 2: feel that the evidence is so unequivocal and is so
Speaker 2: dangerous to the unborn population that they are not prepared
Speaker 2: to follow it. By the way, in the UK they
Speaker 2: switched in twenty seventeen to doing what Australia is doing
Speaker 2: and what the US is doing, and the results have
Speaker 2: been just as impressive, the dramatic reductions in the incidents
Speaker 2: of liver cancer. So it is there just isn't any evidence.
Speaker 2: You might expect that there might be something that he
Speaker 2: could point to that says that this is a problem,
Speaker 2: but he doesn't seem to worry too much about evidence.
Speaker 2: It's just, you know, it's the vibe, huh.
Speaker 1: It's well, he's uncovered the conspiracy and he's brought it
Speaker 1: out of the darkness into the light, and brothers and
Speaker 1: sisters were just mm which don't worry about. Don't worry
Speaker 1: about all the data everyone. It just seems anyway. It
Speaker 1: reminds me of the fluoride conversation. I think he's an
Speaker 1: opponent to fluoride in water as well. From memory, that
Speaker 1: may be true.
Speaker 2: I'm kind of with him on that, which is a
Speaker 2: bit of a sad thing most of it. I don't
Speaker 2: think we should be having mass medication in food supply.
Speaker 2: What are we trying to fix with fluoride? What we're
Speaker 2: trying to fix fixed? There is cavities in children's teeth,
Speaker 2: and we know what causes the cavities. There's only one
Speaker 2: thing that causes it, and that's a little molecule called fructose,
Speaker 2: and we find that added to most of the food
Speaker 2: on the supermarket shells. It's one half of sucros or
Speaker 2: table sugar. It's also one half of high fructose corn syrup,
Speaker 2: which is the shoe where they're use in the United States,
Speaker 2: and it's what causes cavities and teeth. When you look
Speaker 2: at populations that don't have access to it, they don't
Speaker 2: have cavities so easy. The solution is stop doing that,
Speaker 2: and instead what we're doing is applying a band aid
Speaker 2: where We're going to put a substance in the water
Speaker 2: supply of everybody in the hope that we can somehow
Speaker 2: patch up some of the damage that's being done now.
Speaker 2: It does work. It does reduce the incidence of cavities
Speaker 2: by about one per child, so it drops it from
Speaker 2: about four and a half to about three and a half.
Speaker 2: But it's to do that, you're dosing everybody with something
Speaker 2: where we're not entirely certain about the outcomes, and we
Speaker 2: have no real way of knowing how much of this
Speaker 2: stuff people are ingesting. We do know flo ride works
Speaker 2: when you apply it topically, so put it in a
Speaker 2: toothpaste and scrub it on your teeth and then rinse
Speaker 2: your mouth out and spit it out. We're not so
Speaker 2: certain about what it does to your skeleton when you
Speaker 2: ingest it. So I think that's a risky approach to
Speaker 2: public health. And I sort of wrote a tongue in
Speaker 2: cheek thing a few weeks ago.
Speaker 1: I was going to bring that up. Zemp in the water.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, but why not if that's a viable solution.
Speaker 2: Why I put a zempic in the water supply. It's
Speaker 2: taking the same approach to public health, and I don't
Speaker 2: think that's a good way to do it, but it is.
Speaker 2: I can see why your mine might leap there from
Speaker 2: vaccination programs like the one we're talking about, but I
Speaker 2: don't think they're the same in any degree. What we're
Speaker 2: talking about with that is a very specific population who
Speaker 2: require a very specific treatment, not something put in their
Speaker 2: food supply, something where someone is actually going up to
Speaker 2: them and putting a needle into them to prevent a
Speaker 2: well known and easily connected disease state which is ultimately fatal.
Speaker 2: If what we were talking about here was a hep
Speaker 2: B vaccine being dumped into the water supply, then I'd
Speaker 2: probably have similar concerns about Yeah, do you.
Speaker 1: Know off the top of your head, just back to
Speaker 1: the the correlation between the vaccination and cancer for the minute.
Speaker 1: So the kids who say don't get the vaccination and
Speaker 1: get hip B as infants, Are there any numbers on
Speaker 1: there the correlation between that and the incidents of liver
Speaker 1: cancer down the track?
Speaker 2: Oh? Look, these will be off the top of my head,
Speaker 2: but I think it's like five percent developed zerosis and
Speaker 2: then of those five percent, five percent develop developed liver cancer.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean that's still that's still a fair few
Speaker 1: that don't need significant It is signifant.
Speaker 2: It's not. This is not something that's remote in any sense.
Speaker 2: This is something that that is a very real risk.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's yeah. It's the fact that things get
Speaker 1: put into i don't know, put into law or get
Speaker 1: mandated that really from a scientific point of view, don't
Speaker 1: make make any sense. As somewhat terrifying, is it. You
Speaker 1: said that some states were pushing back. So it's not
Speaker 1: it's not illegal to vaccinate kids. It's not. It's just
Speaker 1: it's just a recommendation or it's going to be a
Speaker 1: recommendation to not do it. Is that correct.
Speaker 2: It's going to be up to the parents to decide
Speaker 2: whether to do it. So you go from a situation
Speaker 2: where a doctor is saying you should do this, this
Speaker 2: is on the vaccination schedule and this is why you
Speaker 2: should do this, to ah, sort yourself out, make up
Speaker 2: your own mind. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I wonder And that's
Speaker 2: a difficult that's a difficult place to be. It's like,
Speaker 2: for example, with this this whole under sixteenth thing in
Speaker 2: social media, people often say to me, oh, you know,
Speaker 2: that's not going to work. Kids these days, they can
Speaker 2: circumvent that stuff, and yeah, they can. But the difference
Speaker 2: is that when it's the law, it's the law. And
Speaker 2: that means that a parent can sit down at a
Speaker 2: kitchen table with a kid and say I'm not letting
Speaker 2: you do this because it's against the law. Now, not
Speaker 2: every parent will do that, but it gives many parents
Speaker 2: the backbone they require to say something that desperately needs
Speaker 2: to be said. And it's in a similar situation here.
Speaker 2: If you go from a position where a doctor says
Speaker 2: you really really should be doing this to not what
Speaker 2: evs do whatever you want to do, it's a very
Speaker 2: different situation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right. My last question is a little bit
Speaker 1: clunky and very a huge departure from what we've been
Speaker 1: talking about. But and I don't really want to know
Speaker 1: your thoughts. It will make sense when I ask it.
Speaker 1: But as you're a lawyer work in the legal system,
Speaker 1: would you ever write anything about what we saw or
Speaker 1: what transpired at Bondai on Sunday. I don't want to
Speaker 1: start a new conversation now, but how do you know?
Speaker 1: Obviously that's a very volatile, very emotional, very multi factorial
Speaker 1: kind of conversation, and I just like, even for me,
Speaker 1: I wrote I wrote something that was just going to
Speaker 1: be a post and I'm like, well, nobody needs to
Speaker 1: hear what I think. And it had ended up being
Speaker 1: quite a long piece and I'm like, it's too big
Speaker 1: to put on social media, and then I went, I'm
Speaker 1: just going to post it as a podcast. And I
Speaker 1: said at the start, look, this is me just thinking
Speaker 1: out loud about because I want to understand the drivers
Speaker 1: and the mechanisms and the motivations and the reasons underneath
Speaker 1: it all. But even then I was quite wary. So
Speaker 1: my long winded question is, would you write anything about it?
Speaker 2: Oh? If I wore it wouldn't be now because it
Speaker 2: is just too raw.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: But in general, standing back from the current circumstance, something
Speaker 2: that has always fascinated me is the transition of the
Speaker 2: transmission of memes. How prone humans are to being infected
Speaker 2: with ideas, and some of those ideas are very malevolent,
Speaker 2: and some of them are kpop. But there's a similar
Speaker 2: mechanism going on, and I find that fascinating about it.
Speaker 2: What about the human mind is allowing that to happen,
Speaker 2: What facilitates it? And how do we stop it? I
Speaker 2: think once we know that we are more likely to
Speaker 2: be able to vaccinate if you want against dangerous memes,
Speaker 2: which we really need to be able to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, Well when you write that, whenever that is,
Speaker 1: I want to read it, I want to hear it.
Speaker 1: I will say goodbye, fair but mate, appreciate you. Thank you, Tiff,
Speaker 1: Congratulations on the medical breakthrough. Keep working on that and
Speaker 1: keep us updated with the research. Scott knows he's just
Speaker 1: an experiment, doesn't he. Have you filled him in?
Speaker 2: Can't know how you can't tell this subject of the
Speaker 2: experiment that it's an experiment. Hopefully he's not listening.
Speaker 1: Yeah, hopefully thinks it's legit. Thanks Tiff, Thanks David, Thank you,