Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
Speaker 2: my name is Nolan.
Speaker 1: They called me Ben. We're joined as always with our
Speaker 1: super producer Alexis code named Doc Holliday Jackson. Most importantly,
Speaker 1: you are here. That makes this the stuff they don't
Speaker 1: want you to know. Long time listeners, fellow conspiracy realist,
Speaker 1: this is our weekly Strange News segment. We are recording
Speaker 1: this on Wednesday, October eleventh. By the time you hear this,
Speaker 1: some of the situations we're looking at will have undoubtedly escalated.
Speaker 1: As you may have heard, doubtlessly if you are on
Speaker 1: social media. The largest largest attack in recent history in
Speaker 1: the well in the modern history of Israel occurred quite recently,
Speaker 1: and Matt Nol, many of our fellow listeners and I
Speaker 1: have been keeping a close eye on this. We want
Speaker 1: to be as always objective and transparent in our explorations
Speaker 1: here as we record right now, the conflict continues and
Speaker 1: all signs show that it will escalate. This is something
Speaker 1: that you have heard a lot about you may have
Speaker 1: personal experience with it. We're going to talk about several
Speaker 1: specific angles of this, and before we conntinue with that,
Speaker 1: we also want you to know we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about other strange news that is happening. Armenia is still
Speaker 1: in a lot of trouble. The war in Ukraine continues unabated,
Speaker 1: and I guess without talking too much about ourselves, you know,
Speaker 1: to be very clear, we are not of air lineage.
Speaker 1: We do have some Jewish heritage, two of the three
Speaker 1: of us. We also we also exercise empathy. As we
Speaker 1: have said frequently in the past, when empires make war,
Speaker 1: it is the grass that suffers right, and so as
Speaker 1: we record, there are millions of innocent people who will
Speaker 1: bear the brunt of this. We're going to talk predominantly
Speaker 1: about this situation. We're going to explore some questions about
Speaker 1: the weaponization of social media online misinfo or disinfo. Check
Speaker 1: out our earlier episode to learn the difference between those.
Speaker 1: We're going to learn about the rise of weight loss
Speaker 1: drugs around the world, and we are also maybe we
Speaker 1: start here, we're also going to talk about the proposed
Speaker 1: evacuation of Gaza and Noel matt All of US Doc
Speaker 1: Holliday as well. We have been reading about this recently.
Speaker 1: Would it be helpful for us to give like a
Speaker 1: timeline of what happened between now and our last strange news.
Speaker 3: I think it would. This is definitely a historical conflict
Speaker 3: and one that has a lot of nuance to it,
Speaker 3: and I think what's been happening over the last week is,
Speaker 3: for reasons we're going to get into in a bit,
Speaker 3: a little bit tough to fully wrap one's head around.
Speaker 3: So I think even a little bit of a recap
Speaker 3: would be super helpful for me personally and I think
Speaker 3: probably most everybody listening.
Speaker 1: So here's the high level timeline. You can read about
Speaker 1: this in any mediu sword on the planet now. This month, Hamas,
Speaker 1: which is the ruling party, also acknowledged as a terrorist
Speaker 1: organization by the United Nations, the United States Israel, Hamas
Speaker 1: launched the biggest attack on Israel in years from the
Speaker 1: enclave of the Gaza Strip, and this was an attack
Speaker 1: with a level of sophistication that was unprecedented in ever right,
Speaker 1: this huge attack, hundreds of people dying, thousands of people injured.
Speaker 1: You can see and we'll talk about this in a moment.
Speaker 1: You could see horrific things social media and the news
Speaker 1: about this, and they did stuff that they'd never done before,
Speaker 1: like launching Cassan rockets is precedented. But they had paragliders
Speaker 1: attacking a rave This is true along the border, and
Speaker 1: they also took hostages. They took not just is Israeli civilians,
Speaker 1: but foreign nationals back into Gaza. At this point, as
Speaker 1: we record, there is an ongoing hot conflict and the
Speaker 1: Government of Israel, newly unified, is hammering Gaza and retaliation
Speaker 1: for the invasion, the incursion, the war crimes committed, some
Speaker 1: of which are clearly provable and true. And the question now,
Speaker 1: one of the things that's popping up this week is
Speaker 1: the idea of how to safely evacuate the two million
Speaker 1: people living in Gaza from the counter attack of the
Speaker 1: Nation of Israel. The issue is that for decades and
Speaker 1: decades decades this part of the Middle East, Gaza has
Speaker 1: been bound and barricaded. The Nation of Israel controls their
Speaker 1: access to water, their access to electricity, their access to resources.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of questions if you are if
Speaker 1: you study intelligence agencies, it is a known fact, up
Speaker 1: until this previous weekend that Masad is one of the
Speaker 1: best intelligence agencies in the game, So how did they
Speaker 1: miss an attack of this magnitude? And that's a question
Speaker 1: that remains unanswered. There's also there's also the far more
Speaker 1: important question of saving innocent people in a wartime scenario.
Speaker 1: And around the world people are asking, not just people
Speaker 1: you know on Twitter whatever, not just people in regular
Speaker 1: civilian life, but people at the top of your favorite
Speaker 1: or least favorite nations are all asking where can the
Speaker 1: innocent folks of Gaza escape? Where can the innocent folks
Speaker 1: of Israel escape? Where can the civilians go when the
Speaker 1: guns start firing and the bombs start dropping and the
Speaker 1: war crimes occur. It's a question that is terrifying, and
Speaker 1: hopefully by the time this Strange News segment publishes, these
Speaker 1: will be questions that have been answered. But if you
Speaker 1: look at it, if you look at the map Gaza
Speaker 1: being barricaded, there's one crossing, it's called Rafa crossing that
Speaker 1: would allow people to exit from Gaza into Egypt. And
Speaker 1: the issue with this is that recently, as we record,
Speaker 1: a military spokesperson for Israel recommended that people get to
Speaker 1: the Rafa Crossing, and there the idea was you could
Speaker 1: exit Gaza before before the bombs hit, before you and
Speaker 1: your families were killed. The problem is the IDEF bombed
Speaker 1: the Rafa crossing and the people who had heard this
Speaker 1: news pre bombing and tried to cross, several lost their
Speaker 1: lives and had to return to an active war zone.
Speaker 1: Does this seem I'm hoping to be fair and objective
Speaker 1: about what's happening. Does this seem like editorializing aside? Does
Speaker 1: this seem like accurate information?
Speaker 2: According to the reports we're all looking at, because I
Speaker 2: think we're all looking at the same you know, general
Speaker 2: section of sources right from Al Jazeera to the BBC,
Speaker 2: like literally just trying to get a cross section of
Speaker 2: all these different sources to find out what's happening. I
Speaker 2: would say that's the best version, or my at least
Speaker 2: understanding of the best version of what occurred. That crossing
Speaker 2: you're talking about there in the southwest corner going into
Speaker 2: Egypt is literally the only other place you could escape,
Speaker 2: and it's already a crazy, tightly controlled border crossing, and
Speaker 2: it's a crossing that's been controlled that tightly. Good golly
Speaker 2: for you know me? I think since two thousand and
Speaker 2: seven ish something like that, where you can only have
Speaker 2: a certain number of people cross that border like in
Speaker 2: or out in a day, and it's in the hundreds, right.
Speaker 1: And it's with prior approval. So there were many many
Speaker 1: people civilians from Gaza who attempted to make the Rafa
Speaker 1: crossing only to find they did not have prior approval.
Speaker 1: And there were also, of course many people who tried
Speaker 1: to go there or previously injured or killed as a
Speaker 1: result of the bombing, which continues as we record this afternoon.
Speaker 1: And you'll look at this, we were talking about this
Speaker 1: offline in our group chat. You'll look at these reports
Speaker 1: and you will see a proliferation of unsourced claims about things.
Speaker 1: One thing you will see that is different is images,
Speaker 1: still images, video footage. We need to be very careful
Speaker 1: with those still images because unfortunately, there is a proliferation
Speaker 1: of misattributed images, misattributed video footage, wherein someone will claim
Speaker 1: that a thing has occurred on some side of the conflict,
Speaker 1: and if you do just a little bit of digging,
Speaker 1: then you will see that that is from a different
Speaker 1: time in the history of this conflict, or indeed a
Speaker 1: different conflict in a different part of the world altogether.
Speaker 1: Right now, One of the most harrowing things to recognize
Speaker 1: is that the nation of Israel does control access to
Speaker 1: resources for this enclave of Gos, which means that Imagine
Speaker 1: if you are in a population of two million people
Speaker 1: and you don't have control over your water, your gas,
Speaker 1: your electricity to some degree, or access to food. Imagine
Speaker 1: if there is a power that can cut that off,
Speaker 1: and that power tells you to leave town, and you say,
Speaker 1: I will leave town, and then that same power cut
Speaker 1: off your way to leave town. It's harrowing.
Speaker 3: Even if you can leave town, isn't a big issue,
Speaker 3: like you know, there's really no This is a people
Speaker 3: that has kind of been rejected by other nearby places
Speaker 3: in terms of like having the ability to seek refugee
Speaker 3: status or to seek asylum. You know, Egypt I believe
Speaker 3: is very much not welcoming to these folks.
Speaker 1: That is correct, Yeah, And you could say the same
Speaker 1: all about Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, each of which has their
Speaker 1: own troubled history with people who are Palestinian. You know,
Speaker 1: Lebanon had a civil war about this, and we have
Speaker 1: to be very very careful in how we speak about this.
Speaker 1: We are not experts, we're not math surgeons or whatever.
Speaker 1: But we do understand a little bit about geography, and
Speaker 1: we do understand a little bit about logistics, such that
Speaker 1: we can say, as the plans stand now, as the
Speaker 1: statements of the government stand, at this point, there is
Speaker 1: not a realistic way to evacuate these people unless something changes.
Speaker 1: The Biden Administration of the United States issued issued a
Speaker 1: press release wherein they said they're actively working to evaluate
Speaker 1: an evacuation plan. But the hard truth that the West
Speaker 1: doesn't often like to hear nor speak about, is that
Speaker 1: in the Arab world there is not unity right. There
Speaker 1: are differing aims, differing factions, likes and dislikes, and we
Speaker 1: cannot we as a civilization, simply cannot paint with a
Speaker 1: broad brush. That is dangerous. It will lead to the
Speaker 1: loss of innocent lives. And it's also, I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's also just it's mind boggle honestly that Masade didn't
Speaker 1: know or didn't prepare this was coming. Apparently the Nation
Speaker 1: of Egypt sent warnings well in advance. They said something's
Speaker 1: in the wind. And this was not acknowledged by what
Speaker 1: everyone in the intel community thought was one of the
Speaker 1: top performers. They just ignored it, even though they have
Speaker 1: control of one of the most heavily surveilled parts of
Speaker 1: the world, and massade.
Speaker 3: For maybe folks that aren't is up on this and
Speaker 3: I had to double check myself. That's the Israeli intelligence organization, right,
Speaker 3: Like it's sort of like their CIA or you know,
Speaker 3: KGB or whatever, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And their capacities are worldwide. They have force projection,
Speaker 1: they're very good at surveillance.
Speaker 3: Well, and I mean, you know, I think and again,
Speaker 3: this is not a I truly do not and I
Speaker 3: want to be more familiar with this stuff, but it's
Speaker 3: just something that I'm not educated enough to fully speak on.
Speaker 3: But it is my understanding that, you know, it is
Speaker 3: not a controversial belief or opinion to believe that, you know,
Speaker 3: Jewish people should have a state, you know, they should
Speaker 3: have this homeland, you know that. But within that understanding,
Speaker 3: there's also a lot of corruption, you know, in their
Speaker 3: government and mistreatment of these you know, these other folks
Speaker 3: that they find inconvenient. And I think a lot of
Speaker 3: the controversy surrounding this is like, how do you support Israel,
Speaker 3: you know in its like perfect form, but also support
Speaker 3: Palestinian civilians, you know. And obviously Hamas is a very
Speaker 3: I don't know, I mean, it's even even controversial, maybe
Speaker 3: seeming to call a terrorist organization, but it is an
Speaker 3: organization that is, you know, in charge of this part
Speaker 3: of this region, and they have some very nasty tactics
Speaker 3: and what they did to Israeli kids and the Israeli
Speaker 3: civilians in this recent situation is absolutely unforgivable. But then
Speaker 3: you have Israel doubling down and retaliating by killing Palestinian civilians.
Speaker 1: Hamas killed in the most recent incursion, Hamas is believed
Speaker 1: to have killed more than one thousand people. It's insane,
Speaker 1: many civilians. That's not counting friendly fire, which will probably
Speaker 1: that will probably come out after the fog of war lifts.
Speaker 1: Israel has Israel has become in many in many cases,
Speaker 1: in international pariah for the continued actions taken against people
Speaker 1: of not just Gaza, but the West Bank, which is
Speaker 1: ruled by a different organization, the PLO. And there is
Speaker 1: a lot of speculation at this point, right, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of smoky backroom stuff happening. Right, This did unify
Speaker 1: net Yahoo's government. Uh, this did uh, to galvanize some
Speaker 1: other some other forces that are absolutely opposed to the
Speaker 1: existence Israel and absolutely have no problem killing civilians. What
Speaker 1: we're looking at is the the genesis of a total
Speaker 1: war situation in which Geneva Conventions, red Cross rules, all
Speaker 1: that stuff, Uh, they're not being applied on the ground.
Speaker 1: And this is incredibly dangerous for the world. Innocent people
Speaker 1: are dying on both sides. It's not some sort of
Speaker 1: thing where they get to vote. To be very clear,
Speaker 1: democracies out the window at that point. And with this
Speaker 1: we know we started with a bummer. It's very important.
Speaker 1: We hope by the time that this strange news segment
Speaker 1: publishes that there will be an evacuation route for the
Speaker 1: innocent people of Gasa. We do hope that the people
Speaker 1: living in Israel, innocent civilians again are going to be
Speaker 1: able to escape to avoid the atrocities, the bloodshed that
Speaker 1: is occurring. But for now, let's pause for a word
Speaker 1: from our sponsors. Will return and maybe we continue this
Speaker 1: theme and we talk about social media, which has become
Speaker 1: weaponized and is very much in this conflict and other
Speaker 1: atrocities going forward. It very much needs to be considered
Speaker 1: another theater of war.
Speaker 3: And we're back, and you know, I mean that's obviously
Speaker 3: something that we just couldn't not talk about. Ben, I
Speaker 3: think you did a fabulous job, from my perspective, personally
Speaker 3: educating me about some of the details. I know this
Speaker 3: is very much your wheelhouse, these kinds of international affairs,
Speaker 3: and I think I largely understood, you know, the nature
Speaker 3: of this ongoing conflict, but I mean, it really is
Speaker 3: tough to fully understand without being there, without being you know,
Speaker 3: on the ground. And while you know, we may remember
Speaker 3: things like the Arab Spring and how Twitter was such
Speaker 3: a big deal back then in terms of like disenfranchised
Speaker 3: people on the ground in a war conflict or in
Speaker 3: a wartime situation, being able to communicate and being able
Speaker 3: to spread information to the rest of the world. That
Speaker 3: is largely what led to such an outpouring of support
Speaker 3: for that situation, you know, and I think probably moved
Speaker 3: the needle to some degree. Arguably. I'm not saying yay,
Speaker 3: social media, you save the world, but you know, that
Speaker 3: was a big new story that was largely what really
Speaker 3: gave Twitter it's kind of clout in terms of like
Speaker 3: this is a powerful tool. This is something that is
Speaker 3: of value, you know, for people that don't have a voice. Well,
Speaker 3: since then, a lot's change, first and foremost, well not
Speaker 3: maybe not first and foremost. But it's no longer called Twitter.
Speaker 3: It's now called X. I hate calling it that. I
Speaker 3: think it's a goofy name. I think we all feel
Speaker 3: that way. Do everything I can at the end of
Speaker 3: the show not to just leave it at that, but
Speaker 3: it is what it is. And that's because it was
Speaker 3: bought by a guy who didn't seem to really want
Speaker 3: to buy it. He seemed to try to make this
Speaker 3: whole deal as like a bit of a troll, I guess,
Speaker 3: and then was sort of forced I guess legally into
Speaker 3: buying it because he'd gone too far, he'd passed the
Speaker 3: point of no return. And since that acquisition, you know,
Speaker 3: under the I guess auspices, I'm gonna make it better,
Speaker 3: I'm gonna streamline it, I'm gonna make it profitable. This
Speaker 3: is Elon Musk talking. I can't. I'm not gonna do
Speaker 3: the voice. But he does have one that's a little
Speaker 3: little interesting. He sounds. He sounds just kind of like
Speaker 3: a patrician, you know, caricature, you know what I mean,
Speaker 3: Like from the olden times, like someone who would be
Speaker 3: waving a hanky, you know, and having his his uh
Speaker 3: man servant lay down a lay down some sort of
Speaker 3: coat over a mud puddle that he may not sully
Speaker 3: his shoes. That's just what he sounds like to me.
Speaker 3: But say what you will about the guy. Seems pretty
Speaker 3: clear that the choice, many of the choices he's made
Speaker 3: at Twitter now x have not gone very well, uh
Speaker 3: financially or functionally speaking. You know, the Twitter always had
Speaker 3: a pretty serious team, multiple teams dedicated to stemming the
Speaker 3: flow of misinformation or disinformation, you know, removing problematic posts,
Speaker 3: hate speech, things like that. That was one of the
Speaker 3: first things Xelon Musk cut, you know, like to save money.
Speaker 3: You could argue on the face of it, but one
Speaker 3: might dig a little deeper and argue that maybe he
Speaker 3: didn't want that stuff removed. Maybe he, you know, in
Speaker 3: the interest of quote unquote unbridled free speech, he felt
Speaker 3: that this kind of stuff ought to be able to stand,
Speaker 3: and that the great I guess the cream rises to
Speaker 3: the top kind of scenario and everything else will be
Speaker 3: well in its due time, be eliminated by common sense
Speaker 3: and the great you know, collective unconscious that is the Internet. Well,
Speaker 3: that's not really how it works, because it really hard
Speaker 3: to discern what is true and what is absolutely bogus.
Speaker 3: Especially in Ben you used fog of war language. You know,
Speaker 3: that's I think that that's appropriate here. When something this
Speaker 3: big and devastating happens, there's all kinds of takes on it,
Speaker 3: and there's all kinds of agendas floating around people that
Speaker 3: want the narrative to be perceived in a certain way,
Speaker 3: and what better way of doing that than to spread
Speaker 3: your narrative in under the guise of truth. And a
Speaker 3: recent change that Musk made that I think happen literally
Speaker 3: maybe for five days, maybe a week prior to this,
Speaker 3: this attack or this this this event was eliminating text
Speaker 3: headlines from tweets and replacing them with an image on
Speaker 3: its own. So even before this this, you know, opportunity
Speaker 3: for bad actors to spread misinformation. Those image headlines were
Speaker 3: being gamed in a really gnarly nefarious way where you
Speaker 3: could easily upload an image that would be misleading or
Speaker 3: even like AI images, right, we know that's old other
Speaker 3: ball of wax that would create engagement but not necessarily
Speaker 3: be any way related to what the content actually is.
Speaker 3: And you know, I guess in Musk's mind, images get
Speaker 3: more clicks than words, you know, but that's not the
Speaker 3: nature of the platform. This platform has always been about words.
Speaker 3: That's its whole bread and butter is these headlines. And
Speaker 3: now the misinformation is spreading even more rampantly because of
Speaker 3: this change. Well, let's get into some of the detail.
Speaker 3: Starting off, do you guys have any thoughts about just
Speaker 3: in general, where Twitter is now versus where it was
Speaker 3: when it seemed to be just gaining the accolades of like,
Speaker 3: you know, social justice people, you know, the world over.
Speaker 2: Yes, I was gonna say, AFK, no comment.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, the the management of Twitter or x need
Speaker 1: Twitter has become increasingly under fire, right, or has found
Speaker 1: itself increasingly under fire due to what is seen as
Speaker 1: some reactionary, free wheeling functions or activities on the part
Speaker 1: of Musk. One of the things you mentioned, Noel, was
Speaker 1: the the firing of so much support staff, right, so
Speaker 1: many of the people who were meant to ensure reliable,
Speaker 1: predictable function of the platform, as well as people who
Speaker 1: were meant to do something we used to call back
Speaker 1: in the day, the separation of church and state, meaning
Speaker 1: that advertorial content, advertising disguised as editorial and actual content.
Speaker 1: This is how stuff works. To put a fine point
Speaker 1: on it, It was under attack for getting rid of
Speaker 1: those folks, the folks who would be seen as sort
Speaker 1: of the conscience of that and critics will say that
Speaker 1: Musk has Musk has increasingly gone to a more right
Speaker 1: wing kind of ideology in this person in his personal life.
Speaker 1: We have not met this person, we haven't kicked it
Speaker 1: with him, you know, so we're not sure what happened.
Speaker 1: But the way the deal went down, in general, the
Speaker 1: acquisition of Twitter was pretty sketchy. It involved what the
Speaker 1: m and A Bress merger and acquisition bros call a
Speaker 1: poison pill, such that he was somewhat forced to go
Speaker 1: through with the deal even when it was against you know,
Speaker 1: the ostensible financial interest. What you will see if you
Speaker 1: are active on that platform, and I'm probably the most
Speaker 1: active of the four of us at this point, what
Speaker 1: you will see is that there there are algorithmic changes
Speaker 1: which seem to prioritize things with which Eilaud Musk agrees.
Speaker 1: His tweets are definitely prioritized. Right since the acquisition, the
Speaker 1: move has been similar to like a private equity firm
Speaker 1: taking over a platform like quote unquote cut the fat
Speaker 1: and monetize or maximize things. So there are as we record,
Speaker 1: there are ideas is being floated out about making it
Speaker 1: pay to play service right, making it no longer a
Speaker 1: public square of communication, which it was during the Arab Spring,
Speaker 1: but it was always social media was always heavily influenced
Speaker 1: by corporate and state powers. There's there's never been a
Speaker 1: free Internet forum if we're if we're being completely honest
Speaker 1: about it. However, again critics, critics will argue with some
Speaker 1: quantitative evidence that this trend has accelerated given Musk's acquisition
Speaker 1: of the platform, to the point where voices or perspectives
Speaker 1: or evidence that contradicts claims of Twitter's main character, Musk.
Speaker 1: There's there's this strong argument that contradicting opinions or perspectives
Speaker 1: are being actively throttled, and you don't have to look
Speaker 1: far to find that evidence. That's not saying that all
Speaker 1: voices are wiped out or canceled on the platform, but
Speaker 1: they are definitely getting suppressed to some degree.
Speaker 3: I mean, inter your point, band like the whole purchasing
Speaker 3: of the blue check mark thing. You know, that led
Speaker 3: to a lot of prioritization. You got to get something
Speaker 3: for your money, right, and that's I think how it works.
Speaker 3: Those posts kind of come up first, and that goes
Speaker 3: fully counter to the idea of folks who maybe either
Speaker 3: don't they can't afford it, or don't want you whatever.
Speaker 3: They're like, they need the service now, they don't have
Speaker 3: time to buy the goddamn blue check mark, and their
Speaker 3: voices are being buried. Not to mention Musk himself doing
Speaker 3: some pretty serious big upping of some notorious outlets for
Speaker 3: misinformation and also some notorious outlets for anti semitism, you know,
Speaker 3: like you know that that some posts that he I
Speaker 3: think maybe only recently deleted, or maybe he didn't delete.
Speaker 3: It all linked to an organization, let's see the War Monitor.
Speaker 3: I believe there was a post saying something to the
Speaker 3: effect of the overwhelming majority of people in the media
Speaker 3: and banks are Zionists and telling correspondents, yeah, back in
Speaker 3: June to quote, go worship a Jew, little bro, you know,
Speaker 3: and this is this is Musk the CEO the front
Speaker 3: Well he's not, he's not the CEO officially. What is it,
Speaker 3: Linda Yakarino. He made the kind of fall person, frankly
Speaker 3: who's coming out to clean up his messes.
Speaker 1: He does the thing that unfortunately happens pretty often in
Speaker 1: money making endeavors. He is set up with a main
Speaker 1: character syndrome is not a ding on him. It's an
Speaker 1: injective observation. He wants to be there, the accolades and
Speaker 1: the compliments and the dopaminea the dopamine casino. But if
Speaker 1: something goes wrong, he wants to pass the buck. And
Speaker 1: to be quite honest, if you have ever had a job,
Speaker 1: you've met someone like that exactly.
Speaker 3: And he Okay, let me just go to the Washington
Speaker 3: Post article by Joseph Men. He has a quote from
Speaker 3: Mike Caulfield, a research scientist at the University of Washington
Speaker 3: Center for It in Forum Public he says, anecdotal evidence
Speaker 3: that X is failing the stress test is plentiful. Go
Speaker 3: on the platform, do a search on Israel or Gaza.
Speaker 3: You don't have to scroll very far to find dubious
Speaker 3: or debunked information. And yeah, to the previous point that
Speaker 3: I was making, or the previous detail that I was
Speaker 3: pointing to. He did leave those replies up to those
Speaker 3: two accounts that you know, the one that I mentioned,
Speaker 3: the War Monitor, and an additional one. There are all
Speaker 3: kinds of little Oh that's what it's called Scent Defender. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's it, at war Monitors. And he added at Scent
Speaker 3: Defender and at War Monitor. And he has one hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty million followers. You know, this is a big deal.
Speaker 3: He has a lot of fanboys. You know, he has
Speaker 3: a lot of acolytes, I guess, you know, these kind
Speaker 3: of elon stands that that will repeat whatever he puts
Speaker 3: out there, you know, whether he likes it or not,
Speaker 3: you know, and whether the rest of the world likes
Speaker 3: it or not. You know, he is the kind of
Speaker 3: king of the influencers. You know, one could argue.
Speaker 1: Did you see the European Union recently gave him a
Speaker 1: warning you're gonna yeah, ax him for six percent of
Speaker 1: the social platform's income.
Speaker 3: I didn't see that detail, but that's fascinating, not to
Speaker 3: mention the lawsuit with the Anti Defamation League, you know,
Speaker 3: and all and he he he likes to come out
Speaker 3: and make these grand statements about how you can't trust
Speaker 3: the media, trust X trust me. But then he regularly
Speaker 3: and you know, absolutely verifiably elevates absolutely, you know, toxic information. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh, just to clarify, yeah, you six percent thing for
Speaker 1: anyone who hasn't heard, I'm specifically referring to the European
Speaker 1: Union warning that if X continues to spread disinformation about
Speaker 1: Hamas attacks on Israel and what they describe as fake news,
Speaker 1: he will be fined six percent of X's income or
Speaker 1: X will be shut down entirely in the European Union. Notice,
Speaker 1: they're not saying six percent of X's profits because the
Speaker 1: platform is not profitable.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, it's less profitable than it's ever been, and there's
Speaker 3: lots of questions as to what it's true active user
Speaker 3: count really looks like. You know, that scent Defender account
Speaker 3: that I mentioned again, This Washington Post article quotes a
Speaker 3: researcher at the Atlantic Council Digital Forensics Research Lab named
Speaker 3: Emerson T. Booking, who categorizes, you know, characterizes rather that
Speaker 3: account sent Defender as absolutely poisonous, regularly posting wrong and
Speaker 3: unverifiable things, inserting random daitorialization, and trying to juice its
Speaker 3: paid subscriber count. There were posts that were elevated that
Speaker 3: the Prime Minister of Israel was injured and then the
Speaker 3: hospital You know, all kinds of things like that, just
Speaker 3: little little details like that that when people run with
Speaker 3: it and repost it, it just absolutely intensifies that fog
Speaker 3: of war that you're talking about. I just wanted to
Speaker 3: mention this in you know, parallel with the Arab spring stuff.
Speaker 3: And I know that, you know, Twitter has never been perfect.
Speaker 3: The Internet's its own, it's a toxic place in a
Speaker 3: lot of ways, but that was a moment where it's like, oh, wow,
Speaker 3: this stuff can actually have some you know, some positive impact.
Speaker 3: And it just feels like it's fallen so far and
Speaker 3: now it's literally just kind of like a breeding ground
Speaker 3: for the worst kind of people.
Speaker 2: It's definitely awful, guys. I just I would like to
Speaker 2: just point out that I feel I'd like to state
Speaker 2: this out loud. I feel tremendously confused about exactly what happened,
Speaker 2: because I feel as though every outlet I'm reading, every video,
Speaker 2: I'm watching, every news piece, so not the social media side,
Speaker 2: not the Twitter side or acts or whatever it is,
Speaker 2: but every news piece to me feels like I am
Speaker 2: being emotionally manipulated one way or the other. Whether that
Speaker 2: yet no, I'm and I feel as though it's constant
Speaker 2: when it comes to this topic. So I'm automatically putting
Speaker 2: up defense mechanisms to try and be skeptical of these things,
Speaker 2: no matter what it's about, no matter you know, if
Speaker 2: it's something horrible that ammostive, is something horrible that is real,
Speaker 2: there's something horrible, I'm just I feel overwhelmed by it,
Speaker 2: and it's a horrible feeling of I think confusion. And
Speaker 2: as I'm going through you know, some of the articles
Speaker 2: that you guys have found for these first two topics,
Speaker 2: I just I feel as though I'm lost and they
Speaker 2: stayed in there that when there are people in Gaza
Speaker 2: who are attempting to flee from the bombs and the explosions,
Speaker 2: they are feeling confused about what exactly is happening because
Speaker 2: they are attempting to get information the same way we are,
Speaker 2: right from from various sources. So it is it's just
Speaker 2: like enough, I don't know, but I don't know what,
Speaker 2: I don't know what the what the response is, do
Speaker 2: you guze. We used to look to Twitter, to the
Speaker 2: social media feeds to be like, oh, that's actually what's
Speaker 2: going on. Because we've got some sources that we trust
Speaker 2: that are on the ground that are actually filming things
Speaker 2: that are actually reporting.
Speaker 3: Right, it's been infiltrated, it's it's been co opted and
Speaker 3: and and it's been it's so cluttered now that it's
Speaker 3: just another trash pile, you know what I mean. It's
Speaker 3: it's just it's worse even because a lot of the
Speaker 3: most toxic and gnarly voices on the internet have you know,
Speaker 3: and the in the world have figured out how to
Speaker 3: kind of game it to their own nefarious ends. Saw
Speaker 3: it with you know, all kinds of misinformation being spread
Speaker 3: during elections and the use of it. It's because you know,
Speaker 3: you use the word the phrase weaponized, Ben, That's absolutely
Speaker 3: what it is. And it's hard to know how to
Speaker 3: walk that back. I think there are you know, other
Speaker 3: social media platforms like blue Sky that are trying to
Speaker 3: be more you know, invite only and stuff. But the
Speaker 3: whole point of Twitter is that it's already there. The
Speaker 3: scale is there. You know, it's been the platform of
Speaker 3: choice for this kind of communication, and now it's just
Speaker 3: been absolutely taken over. You know, and maybe those people
Speaker 3: were always there, they just relate to your point, Ben,
Speaker 3: They've just been given more of a voice and they're
Speaker 3: rising to the top because it isn't a democratization of information,
Speaker 3: it's it's a lot of it's paid, which is hell
Speaker 3: almost like the equivalent of like paying a bribe to
Speaker 3: get your platform raised, you know, I mean, it's not
Speaker 3: based on merit, it's not based on validity of information.
Speaker 3: It's just based on money. And then this is all
Speaker 3: too you know, it's so transparent because it's all Musk's
Speaker 3: kind of desperate, ham fisted attempt to make the platform
Speaker 3: profitable no matter what.
Speaker 1: Did you know he likes Warrior though it looks like
Speaker 1: the guy who figured out he's the guy who figured
Speaker 1: out Lauren Michaels does have a price to make you
Speaker 1: a host on Saturday Night Live whatever, you know what,
Speaker 1: I don't want to say too much, but I think
Speaker 1: it's an important point you're bringing up.
Speaker 3: Guys, I don't nowhere else to go from here. I
Speaker 3: think it's just very clear that something's amiss in terms
Speaker 3: of you know, to your point, Matt, I mean, I
Speaker 3: feel the same way, and it made me even question
Speaker 3: which parts of the narrative that I think I know
Speaker 3: do I even know? Yeah, it makes your head spin.
Speaker 2: I'm only speaking personally, but it's a terrible situation when
Speaker 2: you're you're attempting to get the best information that you
Speaker 2: can find, and you're looking at various sources. You're watching
Speaker 2: CNN and a live feed right of Anderson Cooper interviewing somebody,
Speaker 2: a witness who went through something horrifying. But internally you're questioning, Wow,
Speaker 2: it feels weird to me? Why this interview feels weird?
Speaker 2: Because it's they're trying to make me feel things. They're
Speaker 2: trying to make me have an emotional reaction as I'm
Speaker 2: watching this. And again maybe that's me being hyper vigilant
Speaker 2: and maybe a bit out of my mind in my
Speaker 2: own right, but it when you feel that now, after
Speaker 2: you know, having all the conversations that we've had over
Speaker 2: the years, it feels like manipulation, and it's kind of
Speaker 2: it's scary to me.
Speaker 3: It is indeed, it is indeed. So let's leave it
Speaker 3: at that, and hopefully we can come back with something
Speaker 3: a little less dreadful for this last segment and this
Speaker 3: week's strange news. So we're right back.
Speaker 2: Hey, welcome back to the show. Have you ever wished
Speaker 2: you could somehow suppress your insatiable appetite for revelation? Style
Speaker 2: apocalypse kickoff current events. Well, hey, we feel that too,
Speaker 2: So let's talk about No, let's talk about prescription weight
Speaker 2: loss injectable adjuncts, which is it's one of our words
Speaker 2: of the day. It's a vocabulary word, adjunct. It's just
Speaker 2: something that's additional, some measure that is an addition that's
Speaker 2: meant to supplement or enhance something that already is there.
Speaker 1: It's like adjunct professor.
Speaker 2: Hey, there we go. See I just don't use it
Speaker 2: enough so it becomes vocabulary word for me. We're gonna
Speaker 2: be reading from Reuters in a This is kind of
Speaker 2: where the story begins, and then it goes down a
Speaker 2: rabbit hole from here. Weight loss drugs fuel boom for
Speaker 2: firms that fill syringes. That sounds a little bit weird.
Speaker 2: There's some kind of boom for companies that specifically fill
Speaker 2: syringes with drugs, and uh, they're being helped out by
Speaker 2: new weight loss drugs. This was written by Maggie fick
Speaker 2: fic K on October ninth. I'm gonna read just one
Speaker 2: sentence here from that article and then we'll get to
Speaker 2: trucking contract drug manufacturers seeking to tap into the booming
Speaker 2: market for weight loss. Drugs are investing billions with a
Speaker 2: b of dollars to expand or build factories that fill
Speaker 2: the injection pens used to administer treatments like Novo Nordisks,
Speaker 2: Wegovy and they are specifically phil finish specializations that we're
Speaker 2: talking about here, which is another term we have to
Speaker 2: talk about. Phil finish is the act of taking bulk
Speaker 2: drugs and placing them in some kind of specialized container
Speaker 2: that has been treated correctly. Right, everything in there is
Speaker 2: sterile as it can possibly be, and then that stuff
Speaker 2: is all sent off to pharmacies across the land for
Speaker 2: us to inject ourselves and eat or whatever you do
Speaker 2: with the specific drugs they're making.
Speaker 3: And a lot of those that come with the ones
Speaker 3: you're describing, their like specialized kind of like syringes that
Speaker 3: are branded and they're like these whole little n kind
Speaker 3: of deals. Right.
Speaker 2: Oh, yes, there there are proprietary for each manufacturer, So
Speaker 2: Novo Nordisk has their own type of auto pen or
Speaker 2: whatever they want to term it. Then Eli Lilly, who
Speaker 2: was also coming out with a new drug very soon, guys,
Speaker 2: they put out this press release for I think it's
Speaker 2: Mount Jarro. That's the name of their new diabetes two
Speaker 2: slash weight loss treatment injectable that's been out for a while. Okay, well, Munjaro.
Speaker 2: This is like the way you say it too. It
Speaker 2: sounds like it sounds like coffee. I think that's how
Speaker 2: you say it's m o U. N your site it
Speaker 2: says mound like as in mountain mount jarro.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: But okay, this is their press release quote. Mountjaro will
Speaker 2: be available in six doses and will come in Lily's
Speaker 2: well established autoinjector pen with a pre attached hidden needle
Speaker 2: that patients do not need to handle or see.
Speaker 1: Oh, assassin's creed stuff exactly, also literally dope, but not
Speaker 1: quick question with this. So this is sort of a
Speaker 1: rarefied industry, right Is this similar to is this a
Speaker 1: situation where there are only a certain number of manufacturers
Speaker 1: creating these some proprietary version of these fil finished syringes.
Speaker 2: Well, gosh, guys, this one gets so complicated so quickly.
Speaker 2: If you look at let's take two of the drugs
Speaker 2: that are available right now on the market with govy
Speaker 2: and ozepic, both made by Novo Nordisk. So they manufacture
Speaker 2: the stuff which is really the stuff called semiglutide and
Speaker 2: it's just inside these pens with some other stuff. Both
Speaker 2: of those products are manufactured by Novo, but they have
Speaker 2: also brought in other people, other manufacturers to also manufacture
Speaker 2: those drugs. And then once they're manufactured, they can either
Speaker 2: be packaged, you know, at whatever the plant is that
Speaker 2: Novo Nordisk has in various parts of the world, or
Speaker 2: they can basically get a contractor a whole separate facility
Speaker 2: through a third party company to do that same process.
Speaker 2: And a lot of these big manufacturers have been going
Speaker 2: out to a bunch of other contractors. So this story
Speaker 2: is really about all of the facilities that are either
Speaker 2: being built or upgraded to handle the amount of these
Speaker 2: weight loss drugs that are kind of, let's say, masquerading
Speaker 2: as type two diabetes drugs, because that's really what they're for,
Speaker 2: and there are a ton of human beings on the
Speaker 2: planet that could really use these products for type two diabetes.
Speaker 1: Off label use is what's making them blow up exactly.
Speaker 3: And it's interesting too, because the off label use oftentimes
Speaker 3: won't get it covered by your insurance. Yes, you have
Speaker 3: to pay a full price for it. Oh guys, she
Speaker 3: was almost leg by design. Maybe like as they're just
Speaker 3: probably cleaning up. I can only imagine.
Speaker 2: For real they're clean up. Let's talk about price, but
Speaker 2: really quickly jumped to a Reuter's article from August of
Speaker 2: this year stating that Nova Nordisk hired Thermo Fisher, another
Speaker 2: one of these big I guess drug companies, chem companies,
Speaker 2: whatever you want to call them, as a second full
Speaker 2: time manufacturer for Wagovy because they needed more Wagovy. So
Speaker 2: you can look online at the current price of a
Speaker 2: prescription or non prescription let's say, access to wogovy right now.
Speaker 2: So according to this the list price that's as of
Speaker 2: this year for Wagovy is one three and forty nine
Speaker 2: dollars per package, which breaks down to two hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty nine dollars and eighty cents per week, or sixteen
Speaker 2: and eighty eight dollars and twenty four cents per year
Speaker 2: if you were just using it without insurance.
Speaker 1: So that's pretty hefty, right, that's a pretty hefty cost
Speaker 1: for most people. And I assume these prices largely apply
Speaker 1: to like the United States, Canada, the anglosphere.
Speaker 2: Is that correct, Yes, And that's if you are using
Speaker 2: it without insurance. Probably not always, but most likely for
Speaker 2: its weight loss properties rather than its type two diabetes uses,
Speaker 2: even though it kind of does the same thing in both, Kate,
Speaker 2: it does. The drug has the same effect in both cases.
Speaker 2: One is to modify blood sugar or you know, to
Speaker 2: keep blood sugar stable. The other way is to suppress appetite.
Speaker 1: Like viagra as multiple uses, and they make money off one.
Speaker 2: The exact same thing. Man, I don't know, but yes,
Speaker 2: it makes sense.
Speaker 3: I may. I think I mentioned this in the past,
Speaker 3: but I'm actually taking one of these. I have found
Speaker 3: it to be quite effective. But I was prescribed it
Speaker 3: by my doctor, the Munjaro one, and my insurance rejected
Speaker 3: it because I don't have type two diabetes, so it
Speaker 3: was like to actually pay for it out of pocket.
Speaker 3: It's like thirteen hundred dollars or fifteen hundred dollars or
Speaker 3: something like that for a month's supply, which is just
Speaker 3: kind of you know, to try. I'm not that overweight.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to try it because it's like it
Speaker 3: seemed like it could be effective for helping reduce appetite
Speaker 3: and pairing it with you know, exercise and all that
Speaker 3: stuff that I'm doing. I thought it'd be worth a go,
Speaker 3: but it was just no way. So I met somebody
Speaker 3: or through a friend, I was referred to this dietician
Speaker 3: who they use these compounding labs that make their own
Speaker 3: version of it. But then I realized that was sort
Speaker 3: of sketchy because I looked it up and I was like,
Speaker 3: wait a minute, this is like locked down intellectual property.
Speaker 3: What the hell is in these compounded versions of these pharmaceuticals?
Speaker 3: You know? Yeah, So I actually discontinued use because it
Speaker 3: was freaking me out. But the point is the demand
Speaker 3: is so high that there are people that will roll
Speaker 3: the dice on these other potentially I'm not saying they're
Speaker 3: all on the ferry. It's it just was too much
Speaker 3: for me. But in terms of like what is this,
Speaker 3: I don't understand how this can be. It is too
Speaker 3: good to be true.
Speaker 2: Well, everybody wants in the game. Pfizer is right now
Speaker 2: working on drugs that will have the same effect, but
Speaker 2: rather than being an injectable through a needle like this
Speaker 2: or syringe, they want to have something you could take
Speaker 2: orally orally, yeah.
Speaker 3: They would have those freaked out by needles.
Speaker 2: Well, and again I guarantee you all the other major
Speaker 2: drug manufacturers are trying to find that kind of thing too.
Speaker 2: That's why the Mount Jarrow was such a big deal,
Speaker 2: because it's a slightly different thing. It's not semiglutide. It's
Speaker 2: their own little, you know, gluatide that they can patent.
Speaker 2: But all those the reason why it works, guys, and
Speaker 2: why it's actually kind of scary goes on to our
Speaker 2: next part of this. And we can't go all the
Speaker 2: way down the rabbit hole here, but let's just talk
Speaker 2: about this quickly. These drugs, using semiglutide or whatever other
Speaker 2: proprietary outide, they they mimic all of our bodies appetite
Speaker 2: suppressing hormones, the stuff that makes us say, oh, I'm
Speaker 2: not hungry right now? Right that just that happens in
Speaker 2: our body. After we've eaten for a while, your body goes,
Speaker 2: you don't need any more food, We're good for.
Speaker 1: A bit trigger saciation.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: And and they're known as g LP one agonists, which
Speaker 2: is glucagon like peptide one receptor agonist. You can look
Speaker 2: that up if you wish. It just means they're binding
Speaker 2: to the right receptors to make your body say, hey,
Speaker 2: I'm good, don't need any more food. And they, oh
Speaker 2: my god. This is from that same article. Analysts estimate
Speaker 2: that this section, these GLP one agonists, the section of
Speaker 2: drugs could be worth as much as one hundred billion
Speaker 2: dollars within a decade, including the oral treatments that are
Speaker 2: being developed to as we talked about by Pfizer and
Speaker 2: other drug companies. But you guys. On October fifth, CNBC
Speaker 2: put out this article weight loss drugs may be linked
Speaker 2: to stomach paralysis other rare but severe issues, study says,
Speaker 2: And the whole point of this is it's a study
Speaker 2: coming out of let's see research journal JAMMA, and it's
Speaker 2: a study showing that the effect, the appetite suppression effect
Speaker 2: having those receptors activated by these drugs, if you do
Speaker 2: it too long and too much of it, rarely a
Speaker 2: person's stomach can stop digesting food because by suppressing appetite,
Speaker 2: you're actually slowing down digestion a little bit. So if
Speaker 2: you've got food in your body all ready, it's moving slowly,
Speaker 2: more and more slowly through your digestive system than if
Speaker 2: you were not taking this drug. And if if you
Speaker 2: get too much of it basically your stomach, you could
Speaker 2: get stomach paralysis to where your body is not processing
Speaker 2: food at all, and you are not getting the nutrients
Speaker 2: that you need. And it can also potentially, because of
Speaker 2: those problems, give you a blockage basically to where food
Speaker 2: that is not digested properly tries to move through your system,
Speaker 2: but it unfortunately cannot.
Speaker 1: Also jam a journal of the American Medical Association, Yes,
Speaker 1: thank you, famous bunch of crackpots. They work with a
Speaker 1: bit poop. Obviously, gemas GEMMA is legit, and they do
Speaker 1: publish like when they publish the research, it is peer reviewed.
Speaker 1: And I think, Matt, you're making an incredibly important point
Speaker 1: about this nature of side effects. You know, living in
Speaker 1: one of the few countries in the world where it's
Speaker 1: legal to have vague pharmacyceutical ads on mass media, I
Speaker 1: think a lot of humans in the US forget that
Speaker 1: just because a side effect appears to have a low
Speaker 1: percentage does not mean it probably won't happen to you.
Speaker 1: You might win that lottery, you know.
Speaker 3: What I mean?
Speaker 2: Yeah, dude. And again, even though this is a serious
Speaker 2: study out of a serious journal, it is stating in
Speaker 2: that study this is very rare, but there's a possibility
Speaker 2: that users of these drugs that do not have type
Speaker 2: two diabetes, are of there at a higher risk of
Speaker 2: developing something like one of these rare things?
Speaker 1: I have another question before you met, So, these folks
Speaker 1: who run this specific industry for these type of syringes
Speaker 1: that are needed, they have, as you said, they have
Speaker 1: reached out to contract right to manufacture their's stuff under
Speaker 1: license to fulfill demand. Does it remind you a little
Speaker 1: bit of when the pop music singer Adele absolutely broke
Speaker 1: the vinyl manufacturing industry, because right, right, so, I'm asking
Speaker 1: here like, instead of you know, a bunch of non
Speaker 1: Adele musicians being unable to publish their stuff on vinyl,
Speaker 1: is there a risk that putting all of the manufacturing
Speaker 1: capabilities towards this you know, genre or class of drugs?
Speaker 1: Does that mean that there are other people who need
Speaker 1: those syringes to to medicate themselves with other conditions non
Speaker 1: related to diabetes or weight loss? Are they going to
Speaker 1: have a more difficult time obtaining medicine?
Speaker 2: I don't personally see that as an issue because the
Speaker 2: manufacturing the syringes themselves is well, I don't know unless
Speaker 2: it's in the Reuter's article and I just missed it,
Speaker 2: But I don't think so. I think right now, the
Speaker 2: shortages are of the drugs themselves and not of the
Speaker 2: what would you call that, the parts needed to.
Speaker 1: Delivery mechanism apparatus. The cops would call it paraphernalia.
Speaker 2: Ah, the paraphernalia for the drugs, the applicators, the adjuncts
Speaker 2: to the drugs themselves. There is right, yeah, but I
Speaker 2: don't know. I would just highly recommend everybody who is
Speaker 2: thinking about maybe trying one of these do some of
Speaker 2: the research because it doesn't show, at least everything I've
Speaker 2: seen doesn't show that it's a scary thing or something
Speaker 2: you should be worried about. It is definitely something that
Speaker 2: the drug manufacturers are super stoked that you and everybody
Speaker 2: else are so into it, right.
Speaker 1: Right right, And the Nation of India has entered the
Speaker 1: chat when it comes up proprietary or drug price and
Speaker 1: R and d oh yeah yeah, how far out are
Speaker 1: we from a generic version of both the paraphernalia of
Speaker 1: the substances?
Speaker 2: Oh dude, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Oh got close? And Noel, I think you were right
Speaker 1: by the way, bro to a matrix dodge that one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's you know, like I said, I've definitely have
Speaker 3: some friends that have continued using it and have had
Speaker 3: great results. But you know, when I told my doctor
Speaker 3: that I was, you know, going with this compounded thing,
Speaker 3: he immediately was like red flag City, and I was like,
Speaker 3: you know, this is intellectual property that is controlled by
Speaker 3: these giant pharmaceutical companies. So it doesn't really stand to
Speaker 3: reason that these off brand whatever they are labs have
Speaker 3: even the stuff that that is the active ingredient that
Speaker 3: they could compound with. It's very weird.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, before we leave, guys that there might be
Speaker 2: a full episode here because traveled a little bit down
Speaker 2: the history of weight law drugs that have been painted
Speaker 2: and sold across the world. Legal meth, you got, Well,
Speaker 2: there's other stuff that's similar. It's almost like it's almost
Speaker 2: like gen one of these newer versions. Stuff like sexenda
Speaker 2: s A x E N d A that's a pre
Speaker 2: you know, injectable pen same same kind of thing, had
Speaker 2: some major issues or but even worse stuff like Belvick.
Speaker 1: B E l v i Q oh deep cut Bro.
Speaker 2: They got pulled for cancer risks and other things like that.
Speaker 2: So you know, just what are we as humans willing
Speaker 2: to risk if there is an easy or a potentially
Speaker 2: easy solution to lose weight or get healthier.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, that's a good question, man, I don't know.
Speaker 2: It feels like something that big drug manufacturers are more
Speaker 2: than willing to capitalize on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's let's make that an episode. That's why we
Speaker 1: do these this weekly strange news segment. That's why you
Speaker 1: do this weekly listener mail segment. Want to end on
Speaker 1: a tiny bit of good news. It's a very weird
Speaker 1: time to say this while atrocities are occurring, but we
Speaker 1: wanted to give this a mention because a lot of
Speaker 1: us tuning into the show over the years have heard
Speaker 1: us talk about things like brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate,
Speaker 1: propyl parabin and red dye three. They're found in all
Speaker 1: your favorite processed foods at the grocery store, unless, that is,
Speaker 1: you live in California. Because good news, you guys, California
Speaker 1: just outlawed the use of these food and drink additives,
Speaker 1: probably because you know, obviously they tune into our show.
Speaker 2: Well, hold on, does that mean I can no longer
Speaker 2: buy my mountain dew in the great state of California.
Speaker 1: You're going to have to drive over to Nevada.
Speaker 3: You know, see case in point there, Matt, how much
Speaker 3: would you risk in order for that eat sweet mountain dew?
Speaker 1: He'll risk Buzz's on it. He's going code read on it.
Speaker 1: And folks, again, as always, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: tuning in. We are going to return later this week. Tomorrow,
Speaker 1: You're going to hear a classic episode. Please join us
Speaker 1: as we continue to explore. We want to hear from you.
Speaker 1: We cannot wait to hear your perspective, especially if you
Speaker 1: live outside of the United States. What are you hearing
Speaker 1: about world events? We want to know if you are
Speaker 1: a person who SIPs the social needs, what are the
Speaker 1: changes that you have seen on these platforms. We try
Speaker 1: to be easy to find online. What a Matroshka doll
Speaker 1: this is? You could actually contact us on social media
Speaker 1: to tell us your opinions about social media.
Speaker 3: Indeed you can. You can find us at the Hamil
Speaker 3: Conspiracy Stuff on a nay, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, we are
Speaker 3: Conspiracy Stuff show. However, on TikTok and Instagram.
Speaker 2: Hey, do you like to call phone numbers and then
Speaker 2: say things into your phone as though you're talking to
Speaker 2: a human, Well call one eight three three st d
Speaker 2: w y t K. It's our voicemail system. You've got
Speaker 2: three minutes. Use them wisely. Please let us know whether
Speaker 2: or not we can use your name and voice on
Speaker 2: one of our listener mail episodes. Also give yourself a
Speaker 2: cool nickname. By the way, I forgot to say that.
Speaker 2: If you don't want to do that, why not instead
Speaker 2: send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 1: We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2: Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.