Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: So we have a big potential breakthrough in clean energy technology.
Speaker 1: This was reported out by the Washington Post based on
Speaker 1: a new paper and some development here. Take a look
Speaker 1: at this. They say, scientists find way to make energy
Speaker 1: from air using nearly any material. Let me read from
Speaker 1: this report because otherwise I will butcher the breakthrough.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 1: They say nearly any materia can be used to turn
Speaker 1: the energy in air humidity into electricity. Scientists found in
Speaker 1: a discovery that could lead to continuously producing clean energy
Speaker 1: with little pollution. That research, which is published in a
Speaker 1: paper in Advanced Materials, builds on twenty twenty work that
Speaker 1: first showed energy could be pulled from the moisture in
Speaker 1: the air using material harvested from bacteria. The new study
Speaker 1: shows nearly any material, such as wood or silicon, can
Speaker 1: be used as long as it can be smashed into
Speaker 1: small particles and remade with microscopic pores.
Speaker 5: There are many.
Speaker 1: Questions about how to scale the product. That is the
Speaker 1: primary sort of impediment here. The device itself is really
Speaker 1: super tiny, size of a fingernail, thinner than a single hair.
Speaker 1: It's dotted with tiny holes known as nanopores. They have
Speaker 1: a diameter smaller than one hundred nanometers, or less than
Speaker 1: one thousandth of the width of a strand of human hair.
Speaker 1: And what they envision is that you could have roughly
Speaker 1: a billion of these things, which are called air gens,
Speaker 1: stacked to be about the size of a refrigerator, and
Speaker 1: that could produce enough energy to at least partially power
Speaker 1: a home in they say ideal conditions they imagine because
Speaker 1: you can use any material because it's so small, it
Speaker 1: could be in the paint in the walls. This is
Speaker 1: all I understand it to be a ways off, but
Speaker 1: still exciting. When you have this kind of possibility, when
Speaker 1: you have this type of research that is being undertaken with,
Speaker 1: you know at least some sliver of a chance that
Speaker 1: it could completely transform the way that we do energy production.
Speaker 2: I'm both excited and also skeptical if that makes it.
Speaker 2: I think that's not just because it's one of those
Speaker 2: words like that definitely sounds so.
Speaker 3: I remember at one point.
Speaker 2: I lived in Texas near Houston. I met a guy
Speaker 2: who had a system which pulled moisture out of the
Speaker 2: air because it's so humid in Houston to like for water.
Speaker 2: And I remember like, Oh, that's cool, And then it
Speaker 2: turned out it was like thousands of dollars and it
Speaker 2: didn't generate that much water. Yeah, and also it used
Speaker 2: a lot of electricity to get such so I was like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: is really that much better now?
Speaker 3: So you need economies of.
Speaker 2: Scale and all that that said, I mean the idea
Speaker 2: basically that this thing is basically the size what of
Speaker 2: a refrigerator and it could produce a kilo loot and
Speaker 2: power a home in ideal conditions. I mean, that sounds
Speaker 2: fantastic if that's something that could genuinely be pulled off.
Speaker 2: So the only thing I just don't really understand is
Speaker 2: how any material can be used to turn the energy
Speaker 2: in air.
Speaker 3: Humidity into electricity.
Speaker 2: I don't understand how every material is able to basically
Speaker 2: pull off this convert I.
Speaker 1: Guess it's more of the nature of the holes in
Speaker 1: the material versus what the material itself is. They say
Speaker 1: the tiny holes allow the water in the air, so
Speaker 1: the humidity in the air to pass through in a
Speaker 1: way that creates a charge imbalance in the upper and
Speaker 1: part lower parts of the device, effectively creating a battery
Speaker 1: that runs continuously. We are opening up a wide door
Speaker 1: for harvesting clean electricity from thin air, said one of
Speaker 1: the authors and UMass engineering graduate students. So, I guess
Speaker 1: the reason you can use anything is because it's less
Speaker 1: about whether it's metal or plastic or paint or whatever
Speaker 1: it is, and more about the design of how these
Speaker 1: tiny tiny holes are inserted into the way out of
Speaker 1: my deck here, guys. But that's what I'm understanding for
Speaker 1: the article.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't really get it. It sounds cool. It
Speaker 2: sounds like you can just put stick a thing anywhere
Speaker 2: and you can get limitless power, which would be awesome
Speaker 2: because it would open up basically everybody.
Speaker 5: I imagine the paint in the walls. It would be
Speaker 5: amazing and powers your whole house. That's like free.
Speaker 3: I don't want to be on the grid. I don't
Speaker 3: like the grid. I don't like to be connected to
Speaker 3: society and civilizations.
Speaker 5: Sold you have to be on the grid for that,
Speaker 5: I don't think.
Speaker 3: So it sounds like it could be the power.
Speaker 2: It could sit in your house and it could generate
Speaker 2: it for your or at the very least, it would
Speaker 2: be a lot easier than the current like way to
Speaker 2: get off the grid is basically, I mean, it's not impossible.
Speaker 3: It just costs a lot of money.
Speaker 2: And it's prohibitive for people who don't necessarily want to.
Speaker 3: So this seems like it would.
Speaker 2: Make it more available and easier, and also open up
Speaker 2: huge swats of territory which are much harder to populate
Speaker 2: because you would have access. If you combine this with
Speaker 2: like a starlink, I mean you really just you opened
Speaker 2: up huge swats not only in the country, of the
Speaker 2: whole world.
Speaker 3: I like that.
Speaker 5: I like that idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah, imagine not having to deal with oil politics and
Speaker 1: all of the like disaster and war that that causes.
Speaker 1: Imagine you know, being able to reverse the impact of
Speaker 1: climate change. Imagine having energy that is really really cheap,
Speaker 1: practically free. I mean, that would be an incredible world
Speaker 1: to live in so we'll keep our fingers crossed and
Speaker 1: keep an eye on these little developments.
Speaker 5: Have some new.
Speaker 1: Reporting for you all about exactly how Center Diane Feinstein's
Speaker 1: office is operating here and the depth of her confusion
Speaker 1: at just the basic functions of the Senate. This continues
Speaker 1: to be just sad and enraging story, as this is
Speaker 1: a woman who's supposedly representing millions of constituents in California
Speaker 1: and is clearly unable to do or even understand the
Speaker 1: basic functions of her job. So put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. This is based on some reporting. There's a
Speaker 1: report in New York Times and also a report in
Speaker 1: the La Times that had some of these details. They
Speaker 1: say Feinstein expressed confusion over Kamala Harris presiding over the Senate.
Speaker 5: Here's a quote from the article.
Speaker 1: They say, at times, Einstein has expressed confusion about the
Speaker 1: basics of how the Senate functions. When Vice President Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris was presiding over the chamber last year, in one
Speaker 1: of many instances in which she was called upon to
Speaker 1: cast a tie breaking vote, Miss Einstein expressed confusion, according
Speaker 1: to a person who witnessed the scene, asking her colleagues,
Speaker 1: what is she doing here? Staff members have been overheard
Speaker 1: explaining to her that she cannot leave yet because there
Speaker 1: are more votes to come. They also talk about how
Speaker 1: the Capitol Police and the Senate Sergeant at Arms have
Speaker 1: gone to great lengths to keep Miss Einstein shielded from
Speaker 1: photographers and reporters, helping to create a bubble around her
Speaker 1: as aids run interference on her.
Speaker 2: Behalf, yeah, the exact say, that's really what's happening is
Speaker 2: the aids and the Sergeant of Arms. So her confusion
Speaker 2: and her sinility at this point is like.
Speaker 3: Well established, we all know it.
Speaker 2: What's happening behind the scenes is that her aids are
Speaker 2: using the Capitol Police to shield her, both from reporters.
Speaker 2: For example, I recently saw and heard about an incident
Speaker 2: where the Capitol Police was like, keep back, you got.
Speaker 3: To give her some space.
Speaker 2: They were demanding reporters be like twenty five feet away
Speaker 2: from die. She doesn't need twenty five feet to get
Speaker 2: into a wheelchair. All right, five feet fine, but really
Speaker 2: what are they doing? They don't want her to answer
Speaker 2: ask any be answered any answering any questions, or ask
Speaker 2: any questions. Same with why her aids are constantly around her,
Speaker 2: they tell her how to vote. This has been reported
Speaker 2: over and over and over again. She apparently didn't know
Speaker 2: who Tim Scott was, you know, confused him for Raphael Warnock,
Speaker 2: and tim Scott was like geez okay, and like walked away.
Speaker 2: It's like there's so many incidents like this that it's
Speaker 2: almost reporting about her sinility is now like not even
Speaker 2: the point. It's just all about how powerful people are
Speaker 2: coming together to protect her from any scrutiny and.
Speaker 5: To use her for their own ends.
Speaker 1: It's very clear here now the reason why Pelosi has
Speaker 1: been her greatest ally is because she's trying to get
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff into the Senate scene, and it goes to
Speaker 1: these like behind the scenes Senate political machinations. Governor Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom of California said if he was going to appoint
Speaker 1: someone to the seat, it would be a black woman.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi doesn't want it to be Barbara Lee. She
Speaker 1: wants Adam Shift to get that seat. And if Barbara
Speaker 1: Lee gets appointed, she is a black woman that you
Speaker 1: know would fit the bill.
Speaker 5: For what Gavin Newsom has.
Speaker 1: Said, then if you're an incumbent, it's very hard to
Speaker 1: dislodge that person. So the whole idea is for Pelosi
Speaker 1: to try to prop up Feinstein to run out the
Speaker 1: clock so that she can get her favored like terrible candidate.
Speaker 5: Into the Senate.
Speaker 1: So those are the political machinations that are going on
Speaker 1: behind the scenes. It's grotesque that they're using this ailing
Speaker 1: woman as a prop in their own political plans and designs.
Speaker 1: I think the other part of this OSACER that's interesting is,
Speaker 1: you know, our friend here, Ken Klippenstein, really kicked a
Speaker 1: hornet's nest when he went after the staff who are
Speaker 1: enabling and have for years now enabled and hid from
Speaker 1: the public the reality of Senator Feinstein's condition, and there
Speaker 1: are a lot of details being reported now.
Speaker 5: I don't think it's any accident.
Speaker 1: That he sort of forced the issue into the public
Speaker 1: sphere and it became embarrassing for them that there had
Speaker 1: been no coverage and no discussion of the way that
Speaker 1: this whole thing was architected and the way this whole
Speaker 1: thing was enabled. So I think he did a real
Speaker 1: service by pushing them to do the reporting that should
Speaker 1: have been done years ago about the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: she's barely there, She's even just before a vote, They're
Speaker 1: handing her a piece of paper to know what to vote.
Speaker 1: At the times she's reading from scripts that they give
Speaker 1: her about how she even records her votes. The office
Speaker 1: is functioning as much as it possibly can without any
Speaker 1: say so from her.
Speaker 5: These are not people who are elected, right, She.
Speaker 1: Is the elected representative, And so you know, I think
Speaker 1: some scrutiny on how this is all going down, not
Speaker 1: only for her but other instances which we will undoubtedly
Speaker 1: face in the future too, is incredibly warranted.
Speaker 2: No, it's incredibly stupid, the entire the just the way
Speaker 2: that they protected them for so long. You're right in
Speaker 2: that Ken actually did kind of force the hands on
Speaker 2: the staff. But even then we don't know fully the
Speaker 2: inside details, and there's obvious reporting to be done about
Speaker 2: how back and how far along this goes, and still
Speaker 2: none of it is revealed.
Speaker 3: To the public. And it's just such a disgrace.
Speaker 2: The most populous state in the whole country, and they
Speaker 2: want to drag her for two more years while doing
Speaker 2: this just to prevent Adam Shift from not getting the nomination.
Speaker 1: What I want to know is who knew what when
Speaker 1: she was standing for reelection? Yes, time, that's the real
Speaker 1: question because she had a challenger. The California Democratic Party
Speaker 1: was behind that challenger. Obama, Pelosi and co. Come over
Speaker 1: the top to rescue her, Was it apparent at the time,
Speaker 1: very possible, Very possible given that reporting, we do have
Speaker 1: about how many questions and you know the really deteriorated
Speaker 1: condition she's in at this point, So we would love
Speaker 1: to see some more reporting in that regard as well.
Speaker 2: Vacation inflation, that's what a lot of people are seeing
Speaker 2: as they start their summer holiday plans. Going to put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen, Boston Harrold actually did
Speaker 2: it job of compiling it all together. So in effect, basically,
Speaker 2: every single aspect of your vacation is going to be
Speaker 2: a lot more expensive if you are lucky enough to
Speaker 2: even be able to afford one. Number one, airline tickets
Speaker 2: are sixteen more percent more expensive than they were last year,
Speaker 2: and last year they were more expensive than the year
Speaker 2: before that and the year before that. Hotel rooms, dining out,
Speaker 2: and even a trip to the movies have all going
Speaker 2: up in price. Annual inflation is technically only four point
Speaker 2: nine percent. Just to give everybody an idea of how
Speaker 2: much things have gone up, hotels are at seven percent up,
Speaker 2: dining out is eight, movies and concerts are up seven,
Speaker 2: sports tickets are up three, alcohol is actually increased by three,
Speaker 2: and outdoor supplies is up by eleven. But the actual
Speaker 2: flights right now where actually on international flights in particular
Speaker 2: European flights from the United States are at the highest
Speaker 2: level they have been in modern history because so many
Speaker 2: Americans did not travel in twenty twenty, twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two. Some have cash burning a hole in
Speaker 2: their pocket. Some are just like I got to get
Speaker 2: out of here, I want to go on some and
Speaker 2: sot of vacation. So obviously that pushes the price to
Speaker 2: sky high levels. And also we're not the only country
Speaker 2: that is traveling.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: I actually visited Paris almost two years ago now and
Speaker 2: it was empty compared to what it normally was. And
Speaker 2: one of the reasons that they told me is like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's because China is completely closed. Well, guess what, China's
Speaker 2: not closed anymore, So you know, we're not the only
Speaker 2: people who like going to Europe. The Chinese, the South Koreans,
Speaker 2: many of the Asian countries which were closed for the
Speaker 2: last two years are also coming, which means that hotel
Speaker 2: prices and services and tours and all of that are
Speaker 2: much more expensive. So it's just like the last thing
Speaker 2: leisure and is like the last thing that everybody needs
Speaker 2: to be more expensive and is arguably one of the
Speaker 2: most expensive things right now going on in the economy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and another piece of this that we've talked about
Speaker 1: from the beginning, which was considered like some crank theory originally,
Speaker 1: was that companies see the spectr of inflation and they
Speaker 1: raise prices because they can. And now that this has
Speaker 1: become like thoroughly undeniable, New York Times actually has a
Speaker 1: new report out companies push prices higher, protecting profits but
Speaker 1: adding to inflation.
Speaker 5: The prices of oil.
Speaker 1: Transportation, food ingredients, and other raw materials have fallen in
Speaker 1: recent months as the shocks coming from the pandemic and
Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine have faded, Yet many big businesses
Speaker 1: have continued raising prices at a rapid clip. Some of
Speaker 1: the world's biggest companies have said they do not plan
Speaker 1: to change course, will continue increasing prices or keep them
Speaker 1: at elevated levels for the foreseeable future. That strategy has
Speaker 1: cushioned corporate profits and it could keep inflation robust, contributing
Speaker 1: to the very pressures used to justify surging prices. So
Speaker 1: you see the loop that they're pointing to here. Once
Speaker 1: you have a little bit of inflation, companies can justify
Speaker 1: hiking prices. That increases inflation again, which then justifies them
Speaker 1: hiking prices or keeping them elevated even more so, even
Speaker 1: though your prices are super.
Speaker 5: High, they're actually saying lower cost.
Speaker 1: Now that some of the supply chain shocks and other
Speaker 1: things have shaken out of the economy. And then the
Speaker 1: other part of this that's devastating is if you if
Speaker 1: you still have these high levels of inflation, guess what
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve is going to feel like they have
Speaker 1: to do. They're going to have to hike interest rates
Speaker 1: again and crush you and crush your family's ability to
Speaker 1: actually go on vacation or engage in any sort of
Speaker 1: leisure activities. So it's really a horrific cycle that we
Speaker 1: are in. And you know, it was insane that even
Speaker 1: as these corporate bosses were admitting on their earnings call
Speaker 1: that this is what we're doing, that the mainstream press
Speaker 1: and a lot of like very serious economist types dismissed
Speaker 1: everyone who was like, they're literally admitting it as crazy fringe,
Speaker 1: weirdo cranks.
Speaker 3: What's sad too, because you know this has real cost.
Speaker 2: I was just reading one where so woman was planning
Speaker 2: her daughter's birthday trip to Disney World. I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that everybody has a right to go to
Speaker 2: Disney World, but that's also like that seems like the
Speaker 2: most low entry vacation, or at least it should be right.
Speaker 2: Everybody should be okay, go to Disney.
Speaker 5: World as well expensive.
Speaker 2: Well, that's the issue is that it turns out that
Speaker 2: the prices now have gone so high that she thought,
Speaker 2: even by planning a year in advance, now her husband
Speaker 2: and her son have to stay back. It's like, okay,
Speaker 2: well yeah, it's one of those like okay, well, nobody
Speaker 2: has a right to go, but I mean that's sad.
Speaker 2: That's one of those like family memories is just not
Speaker 2: going to exist now because of costs that would have
Speaker 2: had been planned. Now, you know, it's not gonna it's
Speaker 2: not gonna kill them by not having it. But that's
Speaker 2: one of those things that makes life nice. And you
Speaker 2: can go and read so many examples of this. People
Speaker 2: are driving more miles than they ever have before for vacation.
Speaker 2: They are unable to afford many things. Disney is a
Speaker 2: good example from what I've heard, they've basically costified the
Speaker 2: entire thing. So it's like, you know, you used to
Speaker 2: be able to pay like a fast pass or whatever,
Speaker 2: and you got to.
Speaker 3: Jump all the lines.
Speaker 2: Now you have an app and you can pay, and
Speaker 2: you can only do two and if you want to
Speaker 2: do more, you have to pay even more. And it's
Speaker 2: just one of those where they milk you for every
Speaker 2: dollar they possibly can.
Speaker 3: I posted something yesterday. You just went through this. I'm
Speaker 3: going through it as well.
Speaker 2: Where wedding costs are astronomically higher. DJs are up twenty
Speaker 2: five percent from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty two. Makeup
Speaker 2: artists up twenty, flowers up twenty, wedding dress up nineteen,
Speaker 2: hairstylists up eighteen, photographer up eight, catering per head up seven,
Speaker 2: venue up seven, wedding cake up to. The only thing
Speaker 2: is apparently decreased is grooms a tire, which I guess
Speaker 2: given our current tatorials, that's funny, makes sense.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not mad about like the people like
Speaker 1: the hairstyles and makeup artists whatever getting a little bit more.
Speaker 1: I'm not mad about that, but yeah, like the wedding
Speaker 1: dress does not cost more to me.
Speaker 4: No, no, And also venue.
Speaker 1: Is not is not more expensive than it.
Speaker 5: Was pre COVID.
Speaker 2: So I actually know somebody's getting married who are using
Speaker 2: the same as somebody who got married before, and in
Speaker 2: the three year period, the price with the same.
Speaker 3: Vendors and all that is forty percent higher.
Speaker 2: Wow, the exact same the exact same people. And they're like,
Speaker 2: they're like, what do you mean this is higher, and
Speaker 2: they're like, yeah, it is what it is. You're gonna
Speaker 2: go somewhere else and they're like, no, I'm not. So
Speaker 2: it's just one of those where it's like industry everywhere.
Speaker 5: Yeah, business business.
Speaker 3: These people are printing money.
Speaker 2: And like you said, like, I'm not mad at anybody individually,
Speaker 2: but overall, like we're the ones who are getting hit
Speaker 2: and everyone's like, oh, just don't do it. Anyways, I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 2: tell that to the family members who all have an opinion.
Speaker 3: Okay, So that's a whole lots.
Speaker 1: So the Ladies of the View took to debating the
Speaker 1: capabilities of our current Vice president Kabyl Harris Well noted
Speaker 1: that Kamala is maybe not always uh the best at
Speaker 1: articulating herself, can often repeat herself in a strange way,
Speaker 1: or wax try to wax poetic on topic when she
Speaker 1: really should school buses. There's a lot that's going on there,
Speaker 1: and I think it's kind of undeniable, but nevertheless, the
Speaker 1: ladies of the view will do their best to deny
Speaker 1: the manifest reality.
Speaker 5: Take a listen to this exchange and how it went.
Speaker 6: The significance of the passage of time right, the significance
Speaker 6: of the passage of time, So when you think about it,
Speaker 6: there is great nificance to the passage of time.
Speaker 5: We've got to take this.
Speaker 4: Stuff seriously as seriously as you are.
Speaker 5: Because you have been forced to have to take it seriously.
Speaker 6: During Women's History Month, we celebrate and we honor the
Speaker 6: women who made history throughout history.
Speaker 7: It's just well, if she's reading a prompter, they need
Speaker 7: to immediately fix that. You are the vice president of
Speaker 7: the United States.
Speaker 8: The administration and the.
Speaker 7: President are responsible for protecting her well, so that.
Speaker 8: I would I would add that as a lawyer, you're
Speaker 8: generally told when you're speaking that you speak in threes
Speaker 8: because that's what people remember.
Speaker 4: So if you're going to talk.
Speaker 8: About a car, you talk about the car, the red car,
Speaker 8: the fast red car.
Speaker 7: So I think what you do the definition in the
Speaker 7: word and the definition.
Speaker 1: So the latest six cause apparently is this is how
Speaker 1: lawyers talk.
Speaker 5: This is how she's trained to speak as a lawyer.
Speaker 5: Only what do you think of that one?
Speaker 9: This is like what Sager and I sound like trying
Speaker 9: to defend ron DeSantis. It's hilarious because you can tell
Speaker 9: Sunny Austin clearly cares more about the emails in her
Speaker 9: inbox from Kamala Harris's team than what like normal people
Speaker 9: think of.
Speaker 4: What she's saying.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that was for an audience of one Kamala Harris
Speaker 9: and her office.
Speaker 1: The thing that bothers me actually the most about these clips.
Speaker 1: There was a whole exchange here, of course that I
Speaker 1: didn't even play this part because it's so tired at
Speaker 1: this point. It's, oh, it's there's no problem with Kamala.
Speaker 1: It's just racism and sexism. It's like you can acknowledge
Speaker 1: the very real reality of racism and sexism, but also
Speaker 1: be like this particular black woman also has not done
Speaker 1: a very good job, and you know, the American public
Speaker 1: has really not responded to her for you know, a
Speaker 1: host of reasons outside of just her race and her genders.
Speaker 5: I didn't even play that part because it's so tired
Speaker 5: at this point.
Speaker 1: But her co host Sunny's co hosts there, they're so
Speaker 1: nervous in challenging her because they're so terrified that they'll
Speaker 1: be called a racist, and they don't want to be
Speaker 1: pegged as a racist. So all of the pushback of
Speaker 1: what is really really obvious to any normal per just
Speaker 1: watching her try to operate in a political space, it
Speaker 1: becomes super tapid, super nervous, and they just like instantly
Speaker 1: capitulate to whatever Sonny has to say about it, even
Speaker 1: when she says something as silly as like, well, this
Speaker 1: is just how lawyers talk. This is how you're trained
Speaker 1: to talk as a lawyer. It's like, come on, where
Speaker 1: did you come up with that?
Speaker 5: It's amazing.
Speaker 4: Can I use the phrase circle jerk?
Speaker 5: Yes, indeed, because.
Speaker 9: That's put the media and political classes at this point.
Speaker 9: It's just them like building each other up because they're
Speaker 9: really afraid to do the alternative. Actually, this is this
Speaker 9: is going to sound like a hard pivot. But the
Speaker 9: New York Times criticism of the Little Mermaid movie that
Speaker 9: went viral because it complained that there wasn't enough kink
Speaker 9: in it, even if the definition of the word was nice.
Speaker 5: I didn't see any of this, so.
Speaker 4: You are not on right.
Speaker 9: But what I would say is the actual complaint of
Speaker 9: the culture critic at the New York Times is that
Speaker 9: the Little Mermaid Movie was so hampered by trying to
Speaker 9: check off every diversity box that the creativity.
Speaker 4: Was lost and that the fun of it was lost.
Speaker 9: And I think it's very clear that you lose You
Speaker 9: lose capability when you are use capability creator to all
Speaker 9: of these things, when you care more about like checking
Speaker 9: off these boxes than you do about There are plenty
Speaker 9: of women, There are plenty of men, black, white, that
Speaker 9: could do Kamala Harris's job so much better than Kamala Harris.
Speaker 9: She just was for the purpose of Joe Biden having
Speaker 9: what his team thought would be this electoral advantage, which
Speaker 9: in a way is kind of racist because they're using
Speaker 9: her to be to their electoral advantage.
Speaker 4: It's insulting. And so they're the same thing with the
Speaker 4: women of the view.
Speaker 9: They can't give her honest feedback and honest criticism, which
Speaker 9: is how she gets insulated from any criticism that could
Speaker 9: possibly make her better at her job. We're all worse
Speaker 9: off for having this elite circle jerk in our media
Speaker 9: and our political class.
Speaker 1: The jokes on them, though, because now they have set
Speaker 1: this person up. I mean, the amount of leaks that
Speaker 1: have come out of her office. It's very clear that
Speaker 1: the Biden team that I think her own team, recognizes
Speaker 1: that she has become this political libil, but they can't
Speaker 1: get out of it because you can't put aside the
Speaker 1: nation's first black president, black female president and so. And
Speaker 1: this is also part of why even though Biden is
Speaker 1: old and ailing and you know, people are very very
Speaker 1: nervous about his ability to win reelection, Like it was
Speaker 1: never a real question mark over whether they would lean
Speaker 1: into making him the nominee again, because they have this
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris problem sitting right there, and they know, like
Speaker 1: as difficult as Biden's chances might be, hers will be
Speaker 1: so much worse. And even Okay, so let's say that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is able to get reelected, they're still going
Speaker 1: to have this issue hanging over them because she has
Speaker 1: been you know, propped up as the chosen one. I
Speaker 1: just will point out to your point about it being
Speaker 1: kind of racist to just assume, like, oh, she's a
Speaker 1: black woman, so black women will vote for her. In
Speaker 1: the primary, that wasn't true. I mean, she didn't do
Speaker 1: particularly well with voters of color. Actually, the two candidates
Speaker 1: that did best with voters of color were you know,
Speaker 1: the old white guys, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. So,
Speaker 1: you know, the very simplistic narratives about her are obviously
Speaker 1: very disingenuous. Like I said, the thing I enjoy or loathe,
Speaker 1: I guess the most is they're so nervous about pushing
Speaker 1: back on Sonny, pushing back on any of the like
Speaker 1: whatever is the prevailing wisdom on the view. It's amusing
Speaker 1: to watch, but I did enjoy this new entry of Actually,
Speaker 1: the problem is that she was trained to talk like
Speaker 1: a lawyer.
Speaker 5: Like there aren't a million other lawyers.
Speaker 1: In DC and you know, in political offices around the
Speaker 1: country that managed to not speak in this bizarre way.
Speaker 4: It's really crystal forty chess.
Speaker 9: It's actually that Kamala Harris is too smart for the
Speaker 9: average member of the public.
Speaker 4: So smart, in fact, that she sounds like an idiot,
Speaker 4: but just not.
Speaker 1: We just can't compete on that level. No, we can't
Speaker 1: really wrap our head around it.
Speaker 9: But by the way, that's why these cable channels and
Speaker 9: the news offerings at places like ABC Sunday Shows are
Speaker 9: starting to plummet, because people would rather watch an honest
Speaker 9: conversation like this one than one where somebody is bending
Speaker 9: over backwards and engaging in these mental parties and gymnastics
Speaker 9: to defend somebody that is objectively bad at her job. Yes,
Speaker 9: Joe Rogan had some really interesting comments about a very
Speaker 9: online backlash to an old Ford ad, and it's it's
Speaker 9: interesting for a number of reasons. But let's roll the
Speaker 9: clips so you can decide for yourself right off the bat.
Speaker 5: Here.
Speaker 6: So someone said something, Oh, it's the gay Raptor because
Speaker 6: it's the smaller raptor.
Speaker 3: Fucking moron.
Speaker 4: True, here's right, And so they actually painted it in
Speaker 4: gay colors.
Speaker 3: It's a big gay gay raptor.
Speaker 4: No, one's not gonna buy raptors. Shut the fuck up.
Speaker 10: Yeah ship that ship?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I had one of those.
Speaker 9: Okay, So that was from Friday's edition of Rogan's podcast.
Speaker 4: He said that.
Speaker 9: Ford did a quote gay commercial for their Raptor truck line,
Speaker 9: and while the quote very gay Wraptor debuted in twenty
Speaker 9: twenty one, the ad was resurfaced I'm reading from media
Speaker 9: here following the fallout from Budler partnership with Dylan mulvaney.
Speaker 9: And so because all of these sort of corporate pride
Speaker 9: ads were making their way around the internet, the Ford
Speaker 9: one made its way around the internet because Ford has
Speaker 9: a brand not entirely dissimilar from bud Light, which is
Speaker 9: sort of mass palatability, also really popular in Middle America.
Speaker 9: I just bought a Ford myself. I used Ford, but
Speaker 9: that is to.
Speaker 4: Say they last. But this wasn't that.
Speaker 9: There isn't that a tagline Ford Built to Last, Built,
Speaker 9: Ford Tough, that's the one.
Speaker 4: Sure whatever, anyway, we're not sponsored by Ford.
Speaker 1: I'm also a for consumer though, because they're you know,
Speaker 1: Union American made. So I have I have an F
Speaker 1: one fifty, which is a relative of the Raptor. It's
Speaker 1: like a less fancy version of the Raptor. I think
Speaker 1: is my understanding of this, Yeah, I don't really can
Speaker 1: you explain? I don't really understand what happened here? How
Speaker 1: did this commerce how did this very gay raptor thing
Speaker 1: come about? It looks cool, it's like rainbow painted basically.
Speaker 9: So that's the adding question is it's one of those
Speaker 9: like really typical kind of corporate pride commercials. But it's
Speaker 9: interesting to people because you have this Ford Raptor and
Speaker 9: I drive an F one fifty growing up, so I
Speaker 9: love those trucks. They are fantastic. The raptors are really cool.
Speaker 9: But it is in Pride colors and it's a couple
Speaker 9: of years old. Because but what people thought, because that's
Speaker 9: one of the things on Twitter is you can just
Speaker 9: take something without any context and start circulating it, and
Speaker 9: people are going to think the Ford ad is new,
Speaker 9: that they doubled down after the bud Light and Target stuff,
Speaker 9: and that's like important context. So why this started snowballing
Speaker 9: Because if you just see it and you don't realize
Speaker 9: it's a couple of years old, it looks like Ford
Speaker 9: is ignoring all of the sort of cultural warnings and boycotts.
Speaker 9: So people say they just want their products to be apolitical.
Speaker 9: They don't want to feel like, actually, we talked about
Speaker 9: this earlier in today's show, that there's this very visceral
Speaker 9: feeling of my team or your team. You're with us,
Speaker 9: or you're against us. You're with average Americans, or you're
Speaker 9: with the elites. It looked like Ford, out of context,
Speaker 9: was doubling down on the Pride campaign in light.
Speaker 4: Of what happened to bud Light and Target. But it
Speaker 4: wasn't a new ad.
Speaker 1: I mean, here's the thing for me as a leftist,
Speaker 1: none of these companies are my ally in anything, even
Speaker 1: if they, you know, find it like financially beneficial to
Speaker 1: posture as being like gay allies or whatever. Everyone knows
Speaker 1: before the majority opinion shifted on that issue, they weren't
Speaker 1: going to say a freaking word about gay marriage or
Speaker 1: gay people or whatever unless they had some sort of
Speaker 1: a marketing angle.
Speaker 5: So let me just put that out there.
Speaker 1: I am under no illusion that these companies are my
Speaker 1: friend or my ally on literally any issue. But you know,
Speaker 1: you made the comment about conservatives were under the impression
Speaker 1: that this was like bud Light, that this was, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of mainstream palatability company. I just loosed up the numbers.
Speaker 1: Support for gay marriage is seventy one percent in America.
Speaker 4: See that.
Speaker 1: So it's it like leaning into Pride, which is why
Speaker 1: all these companies have done it, like doing their pride campaigns,
Speaker 1: painting the truck the rainbow colors and having a drive
Speaker 1: in a privarate or whatever. It's because it has been
Speaker 1: a mainstream, acceptable, seventy plus percent support issue. So this
Speaker 1: is where again I come to like, you know, putting obviously,
Speaker 1: like I wildly disagree with the reaction backlash to any
Speaker 1: of this, Not that I even care that much because
Speaker 1: it's just virtue signaling anyway, but the intense backlashes the
Speaker 1: progress that's been made in the LGBTQ movement. I also
Speaker 1: think that it's very dangerous for conservatives politically because part
Speaker 1: of why they did so they so underperformed, I should say,
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two, was because they were effectively painted
Speaker 1: as extremists. Now that was predominantly around abortion and around
Speaker 1: stop the steal. But you're getting yourself out on like
Speaker 1: another twenty five percent issue here when it comes to
Speaker 1: aggressive pushback against even the like most basic tenants of
Speaker 1: you know, support for gay rights.
Speaker 9: And that's what's so interesting about the pride question in
Speaker 9: general that we have seen for instance, like I think
Speaker 9: about like average parents who we talked about this again
Speaker 9: earlier in today's show, like voter for Glenn Youngkin, I
Speaker 9: bet a majority of them, even though they voted for
Speaker 9: a Republican governor, are supportive of gay marriage. Jungkin is
Speaker 9: probably supportive of gay marriage. I actually don't know where he.
Speaker 4: Stands on that. I would guess that he's supportive of it.
Speaker 9: Yeah, but people have come to see Pride and there
Speaker 9: have been a lot of I think trenchon analyzes by
Speaker 9: leftists of the last couple of years about how specifically
Speaker 9: the t part of the lgbt Q question and specifically
Speaker 9: the way that it's become associated with kids Republicans, and
Speaker 9: we've talked about this before, that has been a really
Speaker 9: effective line of attack and it's very interesting to see
Speaker 9: how some of those analyzes are being proven I think
Speaker 9: correct by the boycott's of bud Light and Target specifically
Speaker 9: because Pride is coming to be associated with that, and
Speaker 9: people see corporations going all in on Pride as them
Speaker 9: necessarily going all in on lgbt Dilla Mulvaaney, et cetera,
Speaker 9: et cetera. And that is fascinating to me because, like
Speaker 9: you said, that number is it's a seventy percent plus
Speaker 9: issue that's.
Speaker 1: I mean, Rogan has this sort of baked in Kyle
Speaker 1: always says that I'm stealing from him like normy instinct.
Speaker 1: So when his guest was the one who brought up, like, oh,
Speaker 1: JC Ford with this pride stuff, He's like, this is bullshit,
Speaker 1: Like nobody's gonna not buy their truck because of this,
Speaker 1: and because he has, I mean, on this issue, he
Speaker 1: has this sort of like Normy instinct and so similar
Speaker 1: to abortion, you know, I do think that when Republicans
Speaker 1: are talking about these tricky, genuinely tricky issues around kids
Speaker 1: and age of transition and what that process looks like
Speaker 1: and you know how you navigate this and what the
Speaker 1: rules and guidelines are, et cetera, then they're on stronger
Speaker 1: political footing. But even there, you know, this election cycle
Speaker 1: was supposed to be the one where that issue was
Speaker 1: really determinative, and there were a lot of Republican candidates,
Speaker 1: not just Rond de Santis, who I think won in
Speaker 1: Florida for a host of you know that, but a
Speaker 1: host of reasons, but there were a lot of Republicans
Speaker 1: across the country who really leaned into those issues and
Speaker 1: it didn't amount to didn't amount to much because I
Speaker 1: don't think it felt really super relevant to people's lives.
Speaker 5: You know, they didn't.
Speaker 1: There wasn't some in their school, This wasn't really a
Speaker 1: live issue, This wasn't something they were grappling with in
Speaker 1: a big.
Speaker 5: Way in their day to day life.
Speaker 1: And I think because now there has been so much
Speaker 1: creep beyond just the like laser focus on kids and schools,
Speaker 1: to now freak out over two year old Ford Pride
Speaker 1: commercial that is no you know, like is no threat
Speaker 1: to anyone. I think they have already crossed the rubicon
Speaker 1: to being dramatically against where public opinion is on this issue.
Speaker 1: I mean, even on issues of like adults transitioning, the
Speaker 1: public is overwhelmingly in support of like people just living
Speaker 1: their lives and doing what they want to do.
Speaker 9: And I think where that gets tricky, so I would
Speaker 9: actually reverse that. I would say it was like a
Speaker 9: Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, popular in rural areas but sort
Speaker 9: of toxic and suburban areas. It was like the stop
Speaker 9: the steel stuff that didn't feel relevant to people's lives
Speaker 9: and made much more difficult for Republicans to message on
Speaker 9: issues in the way that Glenn Youngkin did right, it
Speaker 9: made it like impossible, like you can't be Glenn Younkin
Speaker 9: if you're also a little Doug Masteriano.
Speaker 4: And you're a little stop this deal.
Speaker 9: Because where suburban voters are interested in what you say
Speaker 9: about like you know, not affecting children and taking like
Speaker 9: what DeSantis has tried to do in.
Speaker 4: Florida schools with mixed results.
Speaker 9: That stuff I think is appealing to normy parents, but
Speaker 9: I think they're not interested if you're selling it with
Speaker 9: stop the Steal packaging or like fringe maga packaging. I
Speaker 9: think that's where an abortion makes that tough too, Like
Speaker 9: abortion brings it down, like we're bringing Glenn Younkin down.
Speaker 4: That's where people are just like, hold.
Speaker 9: On, I'm either either not voting I'm going to vote
Speaker 9: for a Democrat because I'm going to go vote for
Speaker 9: John Fetterman, I'm going to go vote for someone else
Speaker 9: because that's a little too far.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's right, And you know, there's just
Speaker 1: it's I think the strongest pull issue for Republicans on
Speaker 1: trans issues is around this question of like women's sports right,
Speaker 1: where you have a majority who say no. I think
Speaker 1: you know, how do you feel about that issue? But also,
Speaker 1: you know, usually as Democrats that will fixate on these
Speaker 1: issues that are really side periphery issues. So now you
Speaker 1: have Republican legislatures passing whole laws in their states that
Speaker 1: apply to like literally one kid in the whole.
Speaker 5: State, you know.
Speaker 1: And so okay, you are technically winning on the issue
Speaker 1: in terms of public sentiment, But are swing voters voting
Speaker 1: on this issue, like how relevant are they feeling it
Speaker 1: to be to their lives? So even on the strongest issue,
Speaker 1: I think it's a losing proposition. I think we saw
Speaker 1: that in twenty twenty two, and then when you expand
Speaker 1: it to like a freak out over anything that has
Speaker 1: anything to do with gay people, it seems to me
Speaker 1: you are dramatically on the wrong.
Speaker 5: Side of that issue. And that's increasingly where this has gone.
Speaker 9: It's so similar to the conversation we had about Ted
Speaker 9: Cruise as you've gone to tweet being controversial with people
Speaker 9: like Jenna Ellis specifically, because I think that's the it's
Speaker 9: an impossible balance for Republicans to strike, for them to
Speaker 9: be normy sort of anti woke enough right to bring
Speaker 9: in the normy like young Cain voters, without them also
Speaker 9: being for like a six week abortion ban, and you know,
Speaker 9: like you said, like getting into transitions for adults, et cetera.
Speaker 9: So like, I do think some of the stuff appeals
Speaker 9: to swing voters, but you have to bring them in
Speaker 9: with other things. Right, can't be this paired with stop
Speaker 9: this deal, paired with six week abortion bans in the
Speaker 9: way that Republicans have been going about it, because that
Speaker 9: is it is toxic.
Speaker 1: It's the anti woke mind virus. That's what I said
Speaker 1: in that segment, and that's really what it is. So
Speaker 1: just like with people who are woke, the American public
Speaker 1: is going to be on board with you, like, hey,
Speaker 1: everybody should be equal and treated equal under the law,
Speaker 1: and like let's have civil rights. And people are like, yes,
Speaker 1: we're on board with that. And then when it's like
Speaker 1: let's you know, cancel and censor and have these like
Speaker 1: authoritarian tactics in service of it, or let's go really
Speaker 1: far and like, you know, cancel you if you're even
Speaker 1: like vaguely say the wrong thing on an issue that
Speaker 1: is difficult, people are like, no, we're not on board
Speaker 1: with that. And it's sort of a similar thing that
Speaker 1: has happened on the right in terms of You know,
Speaker 1: people may have been with them on step one of
Speaker 1: this progression, but by the time you get to step
Speaker 1: one hundred today, you've lost them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, just as we wrap up.
Speaker 9: It reminds me of what Camille Paulia said in I
Speaker 9: Think it Was twenty seventeen. She had a really interesting point,
Speaker 9: which is to the question of overreach, like the Obama administration.
Speaker 9: Obama finally comes out in supportive gay marriage. Biden does
Speaker 9: it first, which never forget that was hilarious, but he
Speaker 9: feels like he has the wind at his back, and
Speaker 9: his Department of Education overreaches with the authoritarian tactic of
Speaker 9: sending a dear colleague letter that totally changed and overstepped
Speaker 9: every school's ability to sort of work out these issues
Speaker 9: on their own, and said sex and gender identity had
Speaker 9: to be conflated in Title nine, which led to a
Speaker 9: lot of the sports backlash, and Polia said she was like,
Speaker 9: that's when I knew Hillary Clinton was going to lose,
Speaker 9: when that.
Speaker 4: Became a campaign issue.
Speaker 9: And that is before I think we saw Republicans take
Speaker 9: some of the stuff and run with it in the
Speaker 9: way they have by twenty twenty three, And so the
Speaker 9: overreach on Democrats. Republicans are not being careful enough to
Speaker 9: prevent overreach when they're pushing back on the DEM overreach,
Speaker 9: which is sort of interesting because the dem overreach is
Speaker 9: exactly what they're reacting.
Speaker 1: To, right it gets captured by their like fringe, way
Speaker 1: too online.
Speaker 5: That's true, base, that's true. I think that's that's where
Speaker 5: we are.
Speaker 2: The scientific consensus, strong scientific consensus.
Speaker 11: The overwhelming, near unanimous scientific consensus.
Speaker 10: Is the consensus.
Speaker 4: But what the good matter matter?
Speaker 10: What is it with our seemingly blind obsession with scientific
Speaker 10: consensus and is it a good thing? Hand Washing it's
Speaker 10: just about the first thing we hear from doctors nowadays
Speaker 10: as one of, if not the best, way to remove germs,
Speaker 10: avoid getting sick, and prevent the spread of germs to others.
Speaker 10: But some of you might already know hand washing was
Speaker 10: not always scientific consensus.
Speaker 8: Embarrass in particular, it's very surprising that there was so
Speaker 8: much resistance to the idea of handwashing.
Speaker 10: In the mid nineteenth century, Ignos Semoweis, a Hungarian physician,
Speaker 10: was working in a Vienna hospital where he observed a
Speaker 10: situation where healthy women would go into the hospital to
Speaker 10: have a baby, and almost one out of every five
Speaker 10: died from child bed fever, compared to a significantly lower
Speaker 10: mortality rate in the adjacent midwife led ward. Intrigued by
Speaker 10: this disparity, Semoweis noticed that doctors and medical students often
Speaker 10: went from performing autopsies in one part of the hospital
Speaker 10: to delivering babies in the ward next door without washing
Speaker 10: their hands. He hypothesized that hand washing could prevent the
Speaker 10: transmission of harmful germs, and when he implemented a strict
Speaker 10: hand washing policy among doctors and physicians at his hospital,
Speaker 10: the mortality rate in the maternity war dropped from eighteen
Speaker 10: percent to about one percent, and the members of the
Speaker 10: medical community were extremely grateful for the contributions of doctor Semowis.
Speaker 10: And we all know now to wash our hands is
Speaker 10: what I wish I could say, But that's not how
Speaker 10: this story ends.
Speaker 8: Now.
Speaker 11: If you try to go against authority and convention, you
Speaker 11: can run into and mix some enemy.
Speaker 10: And enemies he made the medical community. Doctors felt that
Speaker 10: their professional status was being challenged undermined, and instead of
Speaker 10: instituting changes, they launched a full scale smear campaign against Semowis,
Speaker 10: spreading false rumors about his credibility and sanity until he
Speaker 10: was discredited and ultimately exiled from his profession entirely, and
Speaker 10: after a nervous breakdown in eighteen sixty five, he was
Speaker 10: committed to an asylum, where he died a pariah at
Speaker 10: the age of forty seven. I tell this story not
Speaker 10: as an attack against the medical community as a whole,
Speaker 10: or to say that contrarian viewpoints are always more valid
Speaker 10: than the scientific consensus, but rather to highlight the alarming
Speaker 10: parallels and the flawed ways in which I think the
Speaker 10: modern establishment scientific and medical community arrives at and enforces consensus.
Speaker 10: To dissect this topic, I think we first have to
Speaker 10: start by talking about the series of social experiments conducted
Speaker 10: by psychologists Solomon Ash in the nineteen fifties, in which
Speaker 10: a volunteer is told that he's taking part in a
Speaker 10: visual perception test, but what he doesn't know is that
Speaker 10: the experiment is actually about group conformity, and that the
Speaker 10: other participants are all actors.
Speaker 12: The experiment you will be taking part in today involves
Speaker 12: the perception of line length. Your task will be simply
Speaker 12: to look at the line here on the left and
Speaker 12: indicate which of the three lines on the right is
Speaker 12: equal to it in length.
Speaker 10: The actors have all been told to match the wrong lines,
Speaker 10: and the volunteer, the real subject, will be monitored to
Speaker 10: see if he gives the correct answer or if he
Speaker 10: goes along with the opinion of the group and gives
Speaker 10: the wrong answer three.
Speaker 3: Three three three.
Speaker 10: Over the course of the trials, on average, about one
Speaker 10: third of the participants who were placed in this situation
Speaker 10: went along and conformed with the clearly incorrect majority on
Speaker 10: the critical trials, and about seventy five percent of participants
Speaker 10: conformed at least once.
Speaker 13: The ash experiment has been repeated many times, and the
Speaker 13: results of being supported again and again.
Speaker 3: We will conform to the group again. Were very social creatures.
Speaker 8: We're very much aware of.
Speaker 3: What the people around us tank.
Speaker 1: We want to be liked, we don't want to be
Speaker 1: seen to rock the vote, so we will go along
Speaker 1: with the group, even if we don't believe what people
Speaker 1: are saying.
Speaker 10: I don't know what I would have done. I really
Speaker 10: like to say that I'd be that at rogue Maverick,
Speaker 10: but I don't know. I'm human, after all. But I
Speaker 10: imagine a scenario where each of those participants are scientists,
Speaker 10: and the three lines represent a possible result of a
Speaker 10: research study meant to validate or invalidate the efficacy of, say,
Speaker 10: a new drug, except this time around, everyone has been
Speaker 10: paid and strongly incentivized to pick a specific line. That's
Speaker 10: how modern science, specifically a lot of pharmaceutical research trials
Speaker 10: arrives at consensus. Ben I Persad, a practicing hematologist, oncologist
Speaker 10: and professor at the University of California, San Francisco and
Speaker 10: friend of the show, talks about the perverse incentives that
Speaker 10: have infected the scientific community.
Speaker 13: The problem isn't that we don't know what are the
Speaker 13: right ways to answer the questions. We do know the
Speaker 13: right ways, but the system has flawed incentives, which is
Speaker 13: that the more you can get people to believe your
Speaker 13: thing is helping people, the more you can make money.
Speaker 10: The National Institutes of Health the NIH is the primary
Speaker 10: agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and
Speaker 10: public health research. Its purported mission is to seek fundamental
Speaker 10: knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems, and
Speaker 10: the application of that knowledge to enhance health, length and life,
Speaker 10: and reduced illness and disability. But to Prisad's point, it
Speaker 10: was revealed by Adam Andrew Jeski of Open the Books
Speaker 10: a public watchdoct group that NAH leadership and twenty four
Speaker 10: hundred of its scientists have collected one point four billion
Speaker 10: dollars worth of secret third party royalties from pharmaceutical companies
Speaker 10: and other for profit enterprises over the past twelve years.
Speaker 13: Every single one of those individual third party.
Speaker 8: Royalty payments has the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Speaker 10: Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of
Speaker 10: Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the highest paid federal bureaucrat,
Speaker 10: received twenty three royalty payments over that period of time.
Speaker 10: Francis Collins, NIH director from two thousand and nine to
Speaker 10: twenty twenty one, received fourteen payments. Clifford Lane, Fauci's deputy
Speaker 10: at the NIAID, received eight paints. But as it currently stands,
Speaker 10: the NIH has defined the Federal Freedom of Information Act law,
Speaker 10: so we actually don't know who the royalty payments are
Speaker 10: from and how much was paid.
Speaker 11: You've been asking you, and you refuse to answer whether
Speaker 11: anybody on the vaccine committees gets royalties from the pharmaceutical companies.
Speaker 11: I asked you last time, and what was your response.
Speaker 4: We don't have to tell you.
Speaker 11: We've demanded them through Freedom of Information Act and what
Speaker 11: have you said, We're not going to tell you.
Speaker 10: And Ajeski calls it a conflict of interests. Rand Paul
Speaker 10: implied pretty much outright corruption. I would call it a crime.
Speaker 10: Pfizer's COVID nineteen vaccine commanity was developed from technology license
Speaker 10: from the NIH, which means that NIH researchers, who supposedly
Speaker 10: work on behalf of the people in search of scientific truth,
Speaker 10: can actually personally profit from the sale of that product.
Speaker 13: NIH is receiving tens of millions of dollars from Pfizer
Speaker 13: on those royalty.
Speaker 10: Payments, perhaps not coincidentally. In an up ed in The
Speaker 10: Washington Post, a former Harvard Medical School professor warned that
Speaker 10: a careful reading of the protocols used in the Pfiser
Speaker 10: and Maderna COVID nineteen vaccine trials revealed that the trials
Speaker 10: were designed to succeed from the start, which would likely
Speaker 10: overstate their effectiveness, and that these protocols seem designed to
Speaker 10: get a drug on the market sooner rather than later,
Speaker 10: on a timeline arguably based more on politics than public health.
Speaker 10: In twenty twenty two, Pfiser generated nearly thirty eight billion
Speaker 10: dollars in revenue from the sale of its COVID nineteen vaccine,
Speaker 10: which is almost forty percent of the company's total revenue.
Speaker 10: And now, if we can try to set aside the
Speaker 10: vaccine culture wars for a second, I hope you can
Speaker 10: see the dangers here. Foundationally, through the ash experiments, we
Speaker 10: understand the human desire to socially conform. But layered on
Speaker 10: top of that, we have also legalized and legitimized a
Speaker 10: system which consensus is established and in forced in the
Speaker 10: scientific community through a series of lucrative yet secret financial
Speaker 10: arrangements completely hidden from the public. And if that doesn't
Speaker 10: do it, there are now laws on the books that
Speaker 10: actually forbids doctors to share information that is quote contradicted
Speaker 10: by contemporary scientific consensus, a real law that was signed
Speaker 10: by Governor Newsom in California and went into effect January
Speaker 10: first of this year.
Speaker 11: So what is the solution We've demanded them through Freedom
Speaker 11: of Information Act? And what have you said? We're not
Speaker 11: going to tell you, but I tell you this, when
Speaker 11: we get in charge, we're going to change the rules
Speaker 11: and you will have to divulge where you get your
Speaker 11: royalties from, from what companies and if anybody in the
Speaker 11: committee has a conflict of interest, we're going to learn
Speaker 11: about it.
Speaker 5: I promise you.
Speaker 10: That, to me, transparency in public health should be a
Speaker 10: bipartisan issue. So I challenge Senator Randaul and his colleagues,
Speaker 10: if you are willing to engage in political theater with
Speaker 10: doctor Fauci, back it up with action more than just
Speaker 10: a sternly worded letter. No, I'm talking about actual legislative change,
Speaker 10: demand transparency of payments between the public and private sector,
Speaker 10: and independence between public serving scientists and profit maximizing corporations.
Speaker 10: If not, the only possible outcome is a continued erosion
Speaker 10: in public trust and confidence in what they are calling
Speaker 10: scientific consensus, which, according to p Research, has dropped precipitously
Speaker 10: since the beginning of the COVID nineteen pandemic in early
Speaker 10: twenty twenty. Just a few weeks ago, President Joe Biden
Speaker 10: announced his new pick to head the NIH, doctor Monica
Speaker 10: Burton Nooley, and perhaps not surprising at this point. According
Speaker 10: to disclosures filed with Open Payments, she received two hundred
Speaker 10: and forty seven million dollars in research funding from Provisor
Speaker 10: from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty one, which should raise
Speaker 10: major red flags about whether she would be able to
Speaker 10: serve the public independently. So, honestly, my problem is not
Speaker 10: with science, or the scientific method, or even the value
Speaker 10: of scientific consensus. My problem is with the degree in
Speaker 10: which I see scientific consensus being corrupted by opaque financial
Speaker 10: ragin s it's hidden from the public and then enforce
Speaker 10: through laws and statutes that forbids doctors and scientists from
Speaker 10: challenging consensus. So I'd implore everyone to seriously consider the
Speaker 10: long term dangers presented by a scientific consensus that has
Speaker 10: seemingly been bought and paid for. My name is James Lee.
Speaker 10: Thank you for watching Breaking Points beyond the headlines. What
Speaker 10: are your thoughts and opinions? Please share in the comments below. Also,
Speaker 10: if you are curious and want other stories like this,
Speaker 10: please check out my YouTube channel fifty one to forty
Speaker 10: nine with James Lee. The link will be in the
Speaker 10: description below. Of course, keep on tuning into Breaking Points
Speaker 10: and thank you for your time today.