Hey everyone. Many of you are aware of
my strong distaste for podcasts that
endlessly platform science denying
charlatans to the detriment of the
public. Naturally, I'm talking about Joe
Rogan first and foremost, plus all of
his copycats. Well, I recently attempted
to invade this alternate reality. Would
you like to hear about it? Of course you
would. Let's get started. In case you're
new to my content, I debunk frauds who
lie to the public about science for
financial and/or political gain.
flatearthers, antivaxers, electric
universe grifters, climate change
deniers, pseudoarchchaeology toolboxes,
creationist douche nozzles, and all the
rest. They make the world measurably
worse. Even the most benign forms of
science denial poison public perception
of science and polarize people against
legitimate sources of information. This
fosters a public that is hostile towards
science and votes for administrations
that actively attack the scientific
community, which is what we are seeing
with Trump and Bobby Kennedy. slashing
budgets for science in half. Trump
firing the entire National Science
Board, Bobby firing thousands of people
at CDC and FDA, axing the entire ASIP
vaccine panel, basically just purging
the government of anyone who will not
bow down to the state sanctioned
narrative that is determined by what is
most profitable for the oligarchy that
put them there rather than scientific
facts. And of course, let's not forget
the monsoon of antivaccine propaganda
that is unlike anything in human
history, which has caused a resurgence
in child deaths from vaccinereventable
diseases and quite likely the
evaporation of measles eradication
status. People are dying. Everyone is
less safe. Scientific progress is
stifled. And these toxic frauds are to
blame. Now, where you might ask, do
these frauds build up their public
influence? Where oh where can these
narratives gain traction? Which media do
they use to disseminate their propaganda
and brainwash the masses? Newspapers?
Television? No. Podcasts? Dozens and
dozens of dog [\h__\h] podcasts. Joe, right
place, right time, Rogan is the
meatthead who perfected this format
first, and countless copycats have been
chasing him ever since, guided by the
almighty dollar. An endless parade of
lying frauds line up for these shows,
spew a bunch of tantalizing [\h__\h] of
one variety or another. People fall for
the [\h__\h] and become addicted to it.
The host gets rewarded with revenue and
sponsorships thanks to the eyeballs. And
the fraud has their grift inflated or in
many cases launched from the ground
thanks to the exposure from these shows.
And podcasts don't necessarily have to
begin with this mission statement. It
happens naturally due to audience
capture. They prioritize the guests that
get them the most views. And that tends
to be the ones with sensationalist
claims that contradict established
scientific knowledge. You know, the
whole I know the super secret truth that
the establishment won't tell you kind of
stories. The podcaster absolves
themselves by exclaiming that they
didn't sign up to be the arbiter of
truth. They're just having
conversations. And the entire podcasting
space is slowly polarized in the
direction of exclusively platforming
fraud. This has been happening for the
better part of a decade now,
accelerating rapidly once the co
pandemic hit. And it is showing no signs
of slowing down. We are at the point
where people who religiously listen to
these podcasts are operating in an
alternate reality with an alternate set
of facts. In their world, anthropogenic
climate change isn't real. The pyramids
aren't tombs and nobody knows how they
got there. Vaccines cause autism. Co
vaccines caused millions of deaths. SARS
Corona Virus 2 leaked from a Wuhan lab.
All of legitimate medicine is an evil
pharma plot and all of the untested,
unregulated supplements the podcasts
pedal are the only way to stay healthy
and maximize your manliness. These
people are totally impervious to
scientific facts and the concept of
scientific consensus. In fact, they have
been trained like Pavlov's dogs to
recoil upon merely hearing the word
consensus because the charlatans they
worship need for them to reflexively
reject the reliable body of empirical
knowledge that the scientific community
has developed over several centuries.
They can't compete with real science or
be viewed under any actual scrutiny from
those who understand science. So, they
need their targets to begin to feel
nauseous at even the thought of real
scientists and the things they say. This
is the purpose of catchphrases like
establishment shill. This is the basis
for the hostility towards academia under
the guise of crusading against wokeness.
This is an allout war against the
concept of expertise and the idea that
the millions of people who study
something for a living are the ones who
actually know about that thing rather
than whatever jerk was on Joe Rogan last
week. This podcast bro ecosystem has
grown to this massive size because
scholars have chosen to ignore it for so
long. And I don't necessarily blame
them. They're busy with their jobs. The
audiences are highly toxic and harass
any expert who sticks their nose in
there until they give up and go back to
ignoring them. Very few of them have the
stomach and the skill set to spar with
these ass clowns for any appreciable
duration of time. This is the problem.
Enter the career science communicator.
Me. My job is to nurture scientific
understanding among the public. My job
is to facilitate the transmission of
concepts from the scientific community
to the public. I do this every single
day on my channel. But how do I get
through to the podcast bro crowd? They
won't watch my content. They visit the
comment section of my content to whine
about what a big dumb jerk I am for
exposing and humiliating their idiot
fraud heroes, but they never find the
courage to press play and watch me do
it. If only there was some way to invade
their space, to use the platforms they
engage with to disseminate factual
information. But is such a thing
possible? Joe Rogan is the Supreme
Chancellor of this parallel dimension.
What are the odds I could get through to
him?
>> Did you see this [\h__\h] Um, you know,
Godfrey,
>> the the comic.
>> Yeah. So, he had um I forget the name of
the scientist, but he had like a
scientist come on and debate Lord Jamar.
Lord Jamar is a flat-earther
>> and it didn't go it didn't go well.
>> Of course it didn't.
>> You know
>> that doesn't make any sense. Was that
that Professor Dave guy?
>> Of course have to be a Professor Dave.
>> Yeah, Professor Dave's done quite a few
of those. He's doing the world a nice
favor. Okay, so Joe knows who I am, but
he seems to be exclusively aware of my
flat earth debunking, which means he
doesn't know how often I take a gigantic
dump on him for platforming an endless
string of worthless frauds and
amplifying their reach to the
immeasurable detriment of human
civilization. That's probably good, as I
would prefer to not get punched in the
face by him. At any rate, I don't
anticipate an invitation from Joe in the
foreseeable future. What about someone
else? Lex Friedman hit me up once to
talk about James Tour and a Biogenesis
stuff, but it fizzled out. Will anyone
in the podcast bro Space find the
courage to let me infiltrate their dojo?
Then, like a glorious phoenix, a hero
rose up among them, Danny Jones. A quick
scroll through his back catalog will
identify him as one of the Joe Rogan
clones I mentioned earlier. Endless
pseudoarchchaeology frauds, antivaxers,
UFO nuts. You'd be hardressed to find a
more Roganesque roster. But unlike
Rogan, this was a man willing to sit
down with the enemy. Perhaps not his
personal enemy, but the sworn enemy of
99% of his viewers, no doubt. He asked
me to go on his show, and after some
contemplation, I decided to do it. So, I
did, and the episode went live a few
weeks ago. My thought process in
accepting the invitation was as follows.
First, as I said, it's virtually
impossible to get the sheep who fall for
these frauds to listen to me since they
refuse to watch my content. By invading
their space, I stand a better shot at
being heard and perhaps convincing some
small percentage of the flock that is
not yet so far gone. But second, Dany
seemed to me to be showing signs of
interest in diversifying his content.
His producer told me that he doesn't
want to be a Rogan clone. He wants to
host many different voices. He doesn't
want to exclusively platform and elevate
frauds. And I had two specific examples
from his show to believe this might be
the case. First, he had Ashton Forbes
on, and instead of falling for his
grift, Dany humiliated him. He ambushed
him with footage that I also showed in
my videos debunking Ashton that prove
his videos are fake. Ashton floundered
and looked like a [\h__\h] and his
influence was measurably diminished.
Great job, right? Then, those of you who
watched my two-part series debunking
Bart Cybil, the moonlanding denier
douchebag, you'll recall that part two
featured his two appearances on Danny
Jones. In the first, Dany kind of drank
the Kool-Aid, but in the second, he came
prepared, challenged Bart with some
irrefutable facts about shadows and
other things, and Bart looked like a
[\h__\h] Influence diminished. So, yes,
Danny has on countless frauds, but
sometimes he debunks the frauds, so
maybe he would be receptive to me
debunking other frauds and promoting
more fraud debunking, right? I made it a
point in the episode to commend him for
the two actions I just described and
explained how the podcast Bro Space has
to platform at least as many debunkers
as frauds in order for society to bounce
back from the record levels of reality
denial it's currently engaging in. Can
you imagine if Joe Rogan regularly
platformed a real expert the very next
day after a fraud to walk him and his
audience through the script of lies? Or
can you imagine if Joe actually pushed
back on the frauds he platforms if he
fact checked them in real time? What if
Aaron Siri spewed his [\h__\h] about
vaccines never being tested against
saline placebo? And instead of Joe
nodding his head like a buffoon, he
googled it in real time, immediately saw
that Aaron is lying and asked him point
blank why he would tell such a blatant
lie on his show. What if he did the same
for Bobby Kennedy or any other such
disgusting lying fraud? the world would
be different. That's how the podcast
space needs to be. I want to promote
that reality and do anything I can to
influence the podcast space to become
that way. That was my reasoning for
going on Danny's show. Now, we're going
to talk about some of the key moments in
my episode in a bit. I was as polite and
calm as possible to give his followers
no excuse to ignore me. And overall, I
felt that it was a relatively
constructive and predominantly goodfaith
conversation, even if his viewers had a
complete meltdown about it. Knowing
their psychology quite well, I wasn't
surprised in the slightest. But I have
to admit that I was slightly surprised
to hear what Danny had to say about me
in a later episode. Check this out.
>> The other day, we had this dude on the
podcast who um he's like a an academic
attack dog. He's like an attack dog for
academic consensus. Okay, we are already
mischaracterizing a bit. Scientific
consensus is not strictly from academia.
I explain this quite clearly in my
episode. Scientists work for various
governments around the world and in the
private sector as well. For example,
what all the chemists in the world agree
is true about molecules, whether they
work at Harvard or CDC or General
Electric, is what humans know about
molecules. They do research and publish
their findings in peer-reviewed journals
such that everyone else can read and
independently validate the findings if
they so choose. People who deny these
facts about molecules are science
deniers. And when their science denial
jeopardizes public health, it's my job
to step in and do my best to clear up
the confusion and shame the frauds who
caused it. So yes, I am an attack dog
for the scientific community. Scholars
have spent decades being overly
diplomatic or downright ignoring all the
frauds poisoning society with science
denial and turning them against the
scientific community. I do the job they
can't do, don't want to do, or simply
don't do in high enough volume. I will
be aggressive on their behalf and any
crybully who wants to protest can [\h__\h]
themselves. Darwin had Huxley and today
they have me. It's an important
full-time job and I do it with pride.
And so like normally online all of like
the alternative stuff like the
alternative history um all of the any
anything that doesn't go anything that
goes against like scientific consensus
or norms, right? Seems to get the most
attention online like exposing
corruption,
>> right?
>> No. No, Danny, you were describing
[\h__\h] Anything that goes against
legitimate science is [\h__\h] It's not
fighting corruption. In fact, quite a
lot of science denial is born of
corruption and used to further
corruption. This is a big miss. And yes,
the [\h__\h] that people like your
guests promote on shows like yours gets
a lot of attention because people are
stupid and fall for frauds on the
internet. They like the dumb stories the
frauds tell and then they want more such
stories which you provide by continuing
to platform the frauds who tell them
until millions of people are so far down
the [\h__\h] rabbit hole that they can't
tell their ass from their elbow. It's a
vicious cycle.
>> Talking of like stuff that Graeme
Hancock talks about like ancient
civilizations, the possib Like when you
use your imagination and you try to say,
you know, what if they were wrong? What
what if the what if the textbooks in the
schools aren't actually what's what the
truth is? What if there's more to this
story? That's not imagination, Danny.
That's called grifting. Graham Hancock
is a grifter. We talked about this when
I sat across from you. He's a fraud who
lies about archaeology for money and
polarizes the public against real
archaeologists in order to insulate
himself from criticism. So when he says
things that contradict legitimate
science or textbooks or however you want
to frame it, it's not because he's a
bold visionary with imagination. It's
because he's a grifting fraud who lies
to make money. Okay.
>> Right.
>> Right. And and this guy is like the one
that goes online and like publicly
humiliates and belittles that group of
people. And I was like I'm like what if
we just like went completely against the
grain and had this guy on the podcast.
The guy that everyone
>> the guy that everyone who listens to my
show despite would despise and hate this
guy. I'm like let's let's let's give it
a shake. See how it goes.
>> Yes. I am the guy who your audience
hates because I expose and humiliate the
frauds you regularly platform and who
your viewers worship because they value
stories over facts, feelings over truth.
You had the courage to have me on and I
applaud you for that. Most podcasters in
your position would not do that. Again,
I thought it went fairly well. You said
the same to me in private. Have your
feelings changed at all in the past
couple weeks? And um I thought it might
like open up
a portal,
but it didn't. It was just like a brick
wall.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. I was hoping to knock some sense
into you about your knee-jerk acceptance
of any narrative that villainizes
scientists or industry in order to sell
supplements or shitty stories, but you
were somewhat of a brick wall about it.
Perhaps you've had an epiphany since
then. And you know, I mean, we got into
some we were talking about everything
from like the pharmaceutical industry to
to ancient civilizations and Graham
Hancock and stuff like that. And um this
guy was like I was asking him like is
there anything
is there any thing that you looked at
originally that you thought was 100% a
bonafide fact that you were able to come
around on and change your mind on with
other with other evidence? like is there
are there any of these crazy fringe
things that you hated at first that you
were able to change your mind on? He
goes, "No, never." And he's like, "I
don't think it'll ever happen either."
Like he thought like he thinks he's
absolutely right. So like, "Sorry, what
was that? You just said two completely
different things. Did I ever think
something was a fact and then found out
it wasn't is a completely different
question from did I ever debunk some
piece of [\h__\h] fraud only to find out
they were right." The answer to the
first question is obviously yes and the
answer to the second question is
obviously no. Science is constantly in
flux and our understanding can change
especially about trivial details. But
the frauds that I debunk are objectively
piece of [\h__\h] frauds. So why don't we
take a look at what you actually asked
me?
>> Let me ask you this. Sorry to change the
subject. Has there ever been a
conspiracy theory that you turned around
on did a 180 on that you maybe maybe
maybe something like this that you
absolutely thought was [\h__\h] maybe
made a video attacking and then did and
turned around on it.
>> I don't I can't think of one.
>> Nothing.
>> Nothing. Did I ever debunk someone and
then turn around on it? That's what you
asked me. And the answer is obviously
no. I debunk frauds. I don't debunk
people I'm on the fence about. If I
debunk someone, they're a fraud. Take a
look at who Rogan has on his show. Aaron
Siri, RFK, Robert Malone, Brett
Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Suzanne
Humphre, Pierre Corey. every goddamn
piece of [\h__\h] antivaxer in modern
history who all spread lies for money
that kill people. Then the
pseudoarchchaeology douchebags, Ben van
Kirkwick, Michael Button, Dan Richards,
Jimmy Corsetti, and of course Graham
Hancock. Then other miscellaneous
frauds, Avi Loe, Kai Dickens, Bart
Cibbril. The list goes on and on and on.
Then look at your roster, Danny. Brett
Weinstein, Diane Powell, who supplies
Kai Dickens with her [\h__\h] script,
Stefan Burns, Avi Loe, Bart Cibbril, Ben
Van Kirkwick, Randall Carlson, Jimmy
Corsetti, Dan Richards, Billy Carson,
crazy pyramid conspiracy, crazy blue
light conspiracy, crazy alien abduction
conspiracy, crazy CIA conspiracy. It's
the same brain rot and the same [\h__\h]
as Joe, just without the standup
comedians in between to pad things out.
These are the characters that are
platformed by Joe, you, and the 50 other
podcast hosts just like you. These are
garbage people who spew objective
falsehoods wholesale. I can't spell it
out any clearer. They are frauds, and I
prove it every time with my debunks that
compare their spurious claims to
mountains of real science. So, this
desperate attempt to paint me as
closed-minded, like your audience
undoubtedly wants to hear you conclude,
is completely disingenuous and a little
shocking. It really illuminated to me
that this whole sort of like podcast
ecosystem
is its own separate universe from a
whole another part of reality. And I
don't know if it's a a fact that the
people like him, the people that are in
academia, the scientists that work on in
labs all day every day that don't pay
attention to the media, like are are
they
like are they so disconnected? is are
are they in a completely separate
universe and reality from what the this
podcasting world is?
>> Jesus Christ. Yes, Danny. Legitimate
scholars do legitimate science. That's
one world. The podcasting space is a
bunch of science illiterate morons
jerking each other off and telling dumb
stories for midws to feel intelligent
while commuting to work. That's the
other world. They are completely
disconnected. When pseudoarchchaeology
frauds go on Rogan or your show or any
other and talk about how dumb and wrong
archaeologists are, they are just
announcing that they're clueless ass
hats who don't know the first thing
about archaeology for an audience of
clueless ass hats who don't know the
first thing about archaeology. It has no
bearing whatsoever on the world of
legitimate scholarship. or it didn't
until the clueless ass hats voted into
power an orange maniac who started
slashing funding for science and
dismantling critical scientific
institutions. The ramifications of a
public that is not only science
illiterate but actively hostile towards
science are now being felt by the
scientific community who is finding
their ability to do science being
diminished by the movements supported by
that same public. That's why this schism
is a problem. This is why it's bad for
these two parallel realities to exist.
And if you don't understand that yours
is the shitty one, it's because your
bank account is preventing you from
seeing it.
>> Like if if you were in to introduce them
into this or inject this world into
their veins, would it be like a total
disconnect? Would there be would it be
like what is this? This is completely
not real. This is completely
disconnected from my reality of what I
see every day working in the lab with my
hands on
>> science and looking at atoms and all
this stuff. You're so close to the
epiphany, Danny. Yes, if you made every
scientist in the world listen to the
frauds you platform, they would
unanimously agree that it's total
[\h__\h] that contradicts everything we
have come to understand about the
universe through empirical science.
That's the point. And that's why
rational people reject the pseudocience
peddlers. Understanding how science
works and having a modest working
knowledge of scientific facts renders
one more or less immune to the
narratives the frauds are selling. I
know you told me that most scientists
are not interested in coming on your
show and I genuinely sympathize with
that hurdle, but you should keep trying
to entice more of them so that maybe a
few can help you understand what I
wasn't able to.
>> They shouldn't. I mean, and there's some
of those guys have podcasts, right?
>> Some of them do. Yeah.
>> Some cool sciency people and astronomers
talking about other universes.
>> And this guy's take is all those people
are grifters.
>> What the [\h__\h] are you talking about? No.
Legitimate scientists who have podcasts
are not grifters. Shawn Carroll is not a
grifter. He's a scientist who has chosen
to do some public outreach and he even
dabbled a little bit in exposing frauds
as so many people saw when he humiliated
Eric Weinstein on Piers Morgan as I
covered in this video. When scientists
do science communication, it's a great
thing. The problem is that there are
also grifting frauds who have podcasts
or appear on them with great frequency.
And it's not always immediately
transparent who the frauds are. Avi is a
Harvard astronomer, but he's a fraud.
How do we know that Avi Loe is a fraud,
but Shawn Carroll isn't? By examining
what they say. Shawn explains science so
that the public can understand it. He
elevates the scientific community. Avi
spews horshit in preprints that
contradict peer-reviewed literature and
whines about stupid closed-minded
academia, which he is a part of, that
ignores his super hot truth that is
actually just a script of lies. That's
the difference. Qualified scientists are
much less likely to be grifters than
random, uneducated, unaccomplished
losers. But it's not a flawless metric.
Luke Montany has a goddamn Nobel Prize
and he's a gradea crackpot that nobody
should listen to ever again. So, no,
Danny. I'm not saying that everyone with
a podcast is a grifter. I'm saying that
grifters are grifters, and I
methodically expose their grift using
mountains of real science. You're
working really hard to misrepresent me,
and I have no idea why. Like, anyone who
does real science who goes on a podcast
is most likely a grifter because the
fact that they're going in front of a
microphone means they have some sort of
a financial gain.
>> Tyson or whatever, Carl Sean. This is
just pathetic. Even if a scientist has a
financial incentive to go in front of a
microphone, it doesn't make them a
grifter. And I never said anything like
that. Sean Carroll or Neil Degrasse
Tyson or some other respected figure
might want to go on Joe Rogan because
they have a new book out and they like
making money from books. That's fine.
And do you know why? Because their book
is full of facts, Danny. It's full of
legitimate science that can help people
learn how science works and what
scientists do. It has the capacity to
improve public perception of science in
the scientific community. This is the
polar opposite of Avi Lobe, whose books
are full of lies, and it's definitely
the polar opposite of some unqualified
schmuck like Graham Hancock, who pedals
[\h__\h] stories while endlessly
crapping on real scholars. This is
shockingly difficult for you to
understand, and your guest is just going
on your botching of my position, so it's
not his fault. But the implication that
I would consider Carl Sean a grifter is
laughable.
>> I don't think so. I think some are like
public educators.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, and it's it's
thrilling, especially with kids, to tell
them about what's going on in the in the
I mean, I understand what they mean.
>> I mean, the guy had like no imagination
whatsoever,
>> right? No imagination. That's funny
because you're the one who can't seem to
imagine the possibility that all these
frauds you platform are just lying to
you and I'm the one who actually
understands and defends real science. Is
that really beyond your capacity to
imagine? You can't seem to imagine that
when you defend Bobby Kennedy for
claiming that poppers cause AIDS rather
than HIV, an actual thing you did in our
episode, that you just sound like a
complete [\h__\h] You can't imagine the
idea that people who study and do
science actually understand science and
that if you were to educate yourself,
you could understand it too and see how
pathetic these narratives are that
entrance you and your viewers. I guess
the concept of applying yourself and
learning things is just a little bit
beyond your imagination, huh?
>> And the fact that he can't change his
mind about anything is not he's not a
real scientist then. You know, what what
the podcast universe can do, the thing I
think it most valuable for is kind of uh
uh exercising the what if muscle in
people's brains. What if this?
>> What if that? Yes, random weirdo. What
if? What if all of the scientists in the
world are wrong and this [\h__\h] on Joe
Rogan is right? What if these dumb
stories that make me feel smart and
special are true and I'm not just being
manipulated by malicious frauds for
financial and political purposes? What
if this infantile delusion of pretending
that I understand subjects I've never
studied for a single second better than
the global community that studies them
every day is actually not infantile, but
is actually true. Because this is a
simulation and I'm a glitch in the
matrix and Elon's alien parents are
coming to whisk me off to the breakaway
civilization around Proxima Centuri
where there won't be any woke lip tarts.
What if indeed you guys do you remember
Art Bell? Were you around for him?
>> Of course. Yeah. So you do an art bell
thing with people which I like which is
even if they're going off and it's like
well these these these people are
enslaved for the gold and bring it to
the other thing and but you you stay
with them not
not necessarily positive reinforcing
whatever but okay and then what and then
why would that and so you you follow
them logically through their thing
and try Why don't you try it on? At
least totally. Danny is just like
open-minded Art Bell, and that's a good
thing. When Art Bell platformed Courtney
Brown and he claimed that the comet
Hailbop was bringing a UFO because of
remote viewing pseudocience [\h__\h]
and Brown's claims were used by the
Heaven's Gate cult to justify the 1997
mass suicide because the UFO that
experts agree is coming was going to
bring everyone to heaven. That was
totally kick-ass. No harm done, right?
Danny is totally like that. He platforms
disgusting piece of [\h__\h] frauds like
Kevin Mccernin, one of the [\h__\h] in
Peter McCulla and Nick Holshire's crew
who tell lies about turbo cancer and
Ivormectton to profit off of human
lives. Hooray for platforming crackpots
and frauds who spread lies that kill
people. Go Danny, go. Anyway, this
little segment is what prompted me to
make this video since I was a little
surprised to hear Danny change his tune
like this. I was hoping to nudge him
ever so slightly in the right direction
by praising him for the handful of time
he took on the role of the skeptic and
pushed back on his guests. And by text,
he privately exclaimed that he thought
the episode was great. He followed up on
wanting me to debate Brett Weinstein on
his show, who presumably declined like
he already has before on Piers Morgan
since he's a cowardly little wiener. We
talked about Max Zamalov, who debunked
Ben Van Kirkwick's ultrarecise vase
[\h__\h] on Danny's show, who I also
talked about in my video on Ben. It was
all gravy. So, this 180 pivot only makes
sense to me in the context of an
avalanche of push back from his audience
who of course never want to hear from me
and my facts again, but also needed
assurance from Danny that I'm a stupid
closed-minded establishment shill
buttface. And he gave it to them, just
like Rogan, who praised Flint Dibble
during the debate where he humiliated
Grahamcock, only to turn around and
start slandering him the first chance he
got. Perhaps the dark side is too strong
with Danny Rogan Jr., So he succumbed to
the pressure to plate the lemmings and
protect his income. He threw me under
the bus and then back to the alternate
reality grifter pipeline he must return.
Anyway, shall we now visit my episode
and go over some highlights? Should we
examine my outrageous rhetoric that
prompted such a strong reaction? Let's
check it out.
>> Recently, I watched one of your videos
on like on on ancient Egypt. I think it
was about Jimmy Corsetti. Um
>> I like Jimmy. He's he's I've always he's
always been pleasant to me. Um I get
along with him. Uh
>> if this was about any of my friends, I
would laugh my ass off about it. It was
it was very entertaining.
>> Um and I I couldn't help but like share
it with a bunch of my friends. Like,
dude, have you seen this? Like it's
great. Like even though like I don't
think the pyramids were tombs, this
guy's great. Like this guy is funny. And
I think there needs to be people that
are like this.
>> Well, Jimmy is objectively a toxic piece
of [\h__\h] He's just nice to you because
he wants access to your platform. And
the pyramids are objectively tombs. You
just fell for lies from frauds while
remaining ignorant about the millions of
artifacts like mummies and sarcophagi
anderary text inscriptions and all the
other stuff that prove their tombs. But
it's at least refreshing to hear that
you appreciate my content existing for
whatever unknown reason. Because like I
I I don't think that you should be even
though the way it is is everyone's kind
of like siloed into their own
ideological bubbles on the internet
which is kind of like what's the what
the algorithms have done. It's kind of
like like siloed people away for for
whatever algorithmic reason to get more
>> um engagement on stuff or to monetize it
better. Who knows why? But that has been
the byproduct of it.
>> It's pretty easy to wrap your head
around. I mean the the you know
sensationalist
>> uh content uh is is rewarded so you end
up getting audience capture and so I
mean that's why I'm was reticent to come
but ultimately decided it was was a good
idea because it sounds like you're
trying to not necessarily follow you
know the Joe Rogan path of just
exclusively platforming grifters because
of you know because of the the revenue
that it brings. um people want to see
this stuff that you know and Jimmy's
nice to you because he wants access to
your platform but he's a very toxic
individual and that whole cult the
pseudoarchchaeology cult which you know
you've platformed a bit uh you know Joe
Joe Rogan platforms endlessly it's an
extremely toxic uh cult and uh you know
I'm sure your listeners that have
watched all these guys on your show and
other shows don't want to hear that but
it's absolutely the case and I have made
videos on Graham and his underlings and
all of these other uh people I'm
starting to move on to other figures
because those are not as relevant
anymore and there's other people that
are kind of cropping up in the space and
it's just sensationalist clickbait
content. Anti-establishment
archaeologists are all idiots and they
don't know this like super special
secret truth that I'm offering you. It's
very it's tantalizing. It's a
tantalizing narrative. I'm going to try
my best to not just say stuff and then
play a clip of me saying the exact thing
I just said, which is tough because what
comes to mind in watching this back just
ends up being the thing I said in real
time anyway. So, by all means, go watch
the full episode on Danny's channel to
hear all the things I said. Rest
assured, more views on my episode will
only reinforce the idea that people like
me do belong on these shows, which was
the whole point of me being there.
Anyway, let's see how Danny reacts to
what I just said. Podcasts favor
charlatans who tell fun stories full of
lies, and pseudoarchchaeology frauds in
particular are giant douchebags.
>> This all probably started as far as like
the ancient archaeology angle of it. I
think um when Joe Rogan probably had
Graham Hancock on over 10 years ago
>> just over and over.
>> I think that's the kind of when the
internet really exploded with this
stuff. I I mean that's I think Joe
actually has said that that's like when
his podcast really took off when he had
Graham Hancock on. Joe's podcast, which
consisted of shooting the [\h__\h] with
random comedians, suddenly started
becoming huge when he platformed his
first grifting fraud who lies about
science for money, thereby establishing
the model that dominates the podcast
space today. Pretty interesting, huh?
>> I kind of dissented from the norm on
Joe's podcast with Flint. I thought
Graham bodybagged I mean, I'm sorry. I
thought Flint body bagged Graham in that
debate. that that was my I really
learned a lot from it and I thought
Flint actually did a good job as
insufferable as he some people think he
may be. I personally liked him. Um
>> I mean I don't like what's insufferable
about providing a mountain of facts and
empirical evidence to disprove a grippy
>> he's very toxic online. He's kind of I
mean he's just as loud as Jimmy but on
the in the complete opposite direction.
>> Yeah. These are people who have, you
know, encouraged people to contact his
place of work and try to get him fired.
And like there's just after that debate
began this entire narrative of Flint is
a liar. Flint is a liar. Joe said it on
his show, had Graham on a bunch more
times to talk about what a liar Flint is
and then all all the other underlings uh
you know, repeating this narrative. It's
just it's just damage control. He
humiliated Graham on Joe's show. That's
what happened. You know what I mean?
Danny pretending that Flint is toxic
online is bananas. He's been smeared and
slandered on a daily basis since the
debate just for having exposed Graham on
the very platform that ballooned his
following. And all he does in return is
stand his ground. Flint's a [\h__\h]
boss. And we need more experts in their
respective fields to stand up to bullies
and expose them like he did.
>> Yeah. I think I think where it gets
squirrely is when you have science and
you have academic institutions and you
have that are all intertwined with
governments and then you have financial
entanglements with all of that stuff.
There's financial entanglements in every
single aspect of science whether it be
climate science whether it be vaccine
science or or pharmaceutical companies.
This is kicking off a very long section
that can basically be summarized as
government bad and big business bad. So
all science probably bad because money
thing. It's just a black hole that can
be applied to any science that any
grifter wants to call into question
because everything costs money,
including scientific research. In
reality, researchers have to cite
potential conflicts of interest and
anything controversial is being studied
by many different groups around the
world under many different funding
sources. It also allows charlatans to
cherrypick which science they want to
accept and which they want to reject,
which authorities to affirm and which to
dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy.
Now, listen to the main thesis that I
present to Danny. This way of painting
the scientific community as this cabal,
you know, that's beholden to blah blah
blah. What it's a global scientific
community operating uh in, you know, uh
in academia, in the private sector,
under many different countries, many
different, you know, uh political
apparatus. There's no way to that that
is why the consensus of the global
scientific community is what you go by
at all times, right? Anything that is
that is contradicting the global
scientific consensus, that's what you
want to be skeptical about because can
you get one scientist to lie? Absolutely
you can. Andrew Wakefield,
>> sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. Sure.
I want to make sure I'm clear on this.
You think anyone who is who is
questioning or skeptical of the global
>> contradicting Yeah. or of the global
consensus.
>> The global scientific consensus. Yeah.
>> What about that person? Should you be
you should be
>> you should be very skeptical of that
person. Right. You you should there they
are making claims that contradict the
entire body of scientific knowledge. It
doesn't 100% guarantee that they're
wrong, but it's they're very unlikely to
be right. And especially if they're not
scientists themselves, they're almost
certainly not right. What you're saying
seems pretty common sensical. No. Pretty
hard to deny or misunderstand. No. Well,
Danny is going to wrestle with it for
about an hour. Let's watch.
>> So, are you holding
the
the people in power as your north star
of truth? Do you are you like defending
>> scientists are not are not in tremendous
positions of power, right? Right.
>> They're just people doing a job,
>> right? And so this thread starts to
evaporate when you say, well, this
government made the scientists do the
thing, whatever. Okay, which government?
We got these vaccine studies. This one's
from Sweden. This one's from China. This
one's from Argentina. This one's from
like which government? What are you
talking about? The global like the the
Illuminati government like what about
grants, scientific grants for that
scientists? One of the biggest ways
scientists get funded is by grants from
pharmaceutical companies.
>> And thus begins the pharma bad segment.
Big pharma isn't funding all the science
in the world. That's insane. For highly
specific biomedical research with
obvious medicinal application, it's a
sizable percentage. But that mainly
refers to R&D inhouse, not grants being
doled out to academia. Relevant general
research is funded largely by NIH. Let's
see what happens when Danny finds out
there's a boogeyman that's much bigger
than big pharma. This painting of pharma
as this unbelievable boogeyman with all
the money in the world, right? Do you
know that the alt health industry is
significantly larger than the pharma
industry?
>> The alt health.
>> The alt health untested, unregulated
supplement industry, right?
>> No.
>> Yeah. It's a trillion dollar industry.
It makes more money than the than the
pharmaceutical companies.
>> More money than pharma. Yes.
>> You got to find this, Steve.
>> It's the insurance companies and these
pharmaceutical companies that are raking
in trillions of [\h__\h] dollars, right?
And they have immunity.
>> This is why I'm trying to tell you about
the alt health industry, right? They're
making more money and they're pedaling
lies and selling complete. So everything
you're saying about testing and
everything, these are products that are
not tested on anything. They It's not
labeled as medicine, so they don't have
to do anything. And there's all these,
you know, so there's not only
supplements that are actively harm
people um because they're not tested.
They don't go through any clinical
trials. There's no safeguards of any
kind. So you want to talk about that one
drug that slipped through clinical
trials and some you know unforeseen, not
that you know pharma went through the
checks and balances here. Here we go. We
did these clinical trials and something
didn't show up and somebody got harmed.
Okay, well lawsuit great. Go for it. Get
the money. Um but we're talking about an
alt health industry. All of these
products are completely untested. They
do measurable harm and they pull people
away from legitimate uh medical
attention that you know Ivormectin would
be you know although that is a real drug
the Ivormekin craze uh would be a great
example of that. So this is what is this
Google's AI or whatever summing it up
the broader this this is what Google's
saying the broader global wellness
industry which includes alternative
health wellness tourism nutrition and
personal care is significantly larger
than the pharmaceutical industry
estimates place the global wellness
market at over $6 trillion which is
several times larger than the estimated
1 to2 trillion global pharma that's the
global pharmaceut so is this this is not
in the US this is global Yeah, Danny is
not thrilled to read this. Big bad
pharma is supposed to be the biggest
baddest thing there is. But what's this?
The awesome rebels with their super
secret cures that pharma doesn't want
you to know about, they're actually
bigger and more profitable than evil
pharma. Well, that just puts a big
wrench in the whole narrative now,
doesn't it? How many people do you know
that are regularly taking tons of
prescription drugs versus how many
people do you know that follow a bunch
of uh you know health influencers and
buy the supplements they
>> Everybody I know has been on [\h__\h]
Aderall since they were like 12 and they
were prescribed it
>> pretty quick dodge. Sure, Adderall was
likely overprescribed. If done so
deliberately, that's bad and people
should get in trouble for it. But I
asked how many people Danny knows that
follow any number of health and wellness
influencers that pedal all kinds of
bogus supplements. Supplements that are
totally untested and unregulated, unlike
pharmaceutical products that are
rigorously tested and stringently
regulated. Supplements that are
deceptively advertised far beyond
anything even remotely possible in a
regulated industry. Supplements that
yield a greater market share than
pharmaceuticals. Why would he be so
quick to change this subject? I think I
know why. Broadly speaking, it is it's
it's it is harmful.
>> I'm not in my 20s anymore. Even though
I've improved my workouts and my diet
over the years, I've still noticed a
drop in my energy and my motivation. And
then one of my friends told me it
sounded like a testosterone problem and
told me he was using a natural pill. And
that's what led me to Marsmen. Ketone IQ
comes in a pouch or a shot you can take
once a day and provides fuel that is
produced by the body. That's why I've
been taking Row Nutrition's liposomaal
NAD, and the difference is real. That's
why I keep Liquid IV's hydration
multiplier with me at all times. They're
packed with natural neutropics that help
boost my focus and my mental clarity.
For maximum effect, bundle with the
Revive Plus Max Growth Kit and Biotin
gummies, which works great with the red
light wavelengths. Blood Flow 7 boosts
nitric oxide levels 230% in just 3
hours, and it opens up arteries up to
62%. Remember a few years ago when some
high-profile media personalities and
medical professionals were putting the
spotlight on ivormectin? They called out
the establishment and then boom,
millions of people who had never even
heard of the drug got super curious.
What if I told you 80% of the world's
ivormectin supply comes from Asia, but
not at the wellness company. Introducing
Americanmade ivormectin. Safe, trusted,
tested, and produced locally right here
in Florida. Ivormectin has been
prescribed globally for more than 30
years and even earned a Nobel Prize in
medicine for its proven ability to
eliminate parasites. But after treating
a recent serious respiratory virus and
other illnesses, emerging research shows
that this wonder drug can help with
everything from rosacea, arthritis, and
even cancer.
If you started badmouthing the
supplement industry and calling it out
for the sea of snake oil that it is,
would these brands keep buying ad space
from you, Danny? Probably not. Who's the
corrupt one now?
>> My whole problem with all the co stuff
was all the censorship and all of the
mandate stuff. And you know, basically,
I I'm not down with the idea of having
to wake up in the morning and turn on
your TV to find out what your governor
is telling you you're allowed to do
today, including taking your kid to the
park or going to the beach or whatever
the [\h__\h] it is. Um, I think that's
totalitarian. I think that's a slippery
slope. And I think once you give them
that power, I don't think you ever get
it back. This narrative about
totalitarianism
when governments take the most meager
measures imaginable to minimize
infection risk during a global pandemic
is one of the most idiotic lines of
thinking the podcast bro has ever
produced. I don't know all of Danny's
politics, but in general these are
people who will cry tyranny when
presented with the light suggestion that
they not gather in large groups and
cough all of each other for a few
months, but then have no problem with
ICE domestic terrorists murdering
peaceful protesters in cold blood. It's
[\h__\h] insane. No policy during COVID
was without precedent and none of it
should have been even remotely
controversial. Much more stringent and
forceful lockdowns occurred in other
countries and states where more public
places closed had fewer mortalities.
>> And then also on the on the Ivormectton
stuff, I had a woman just is just
popping into my head uh Mary Bowden. I
famili familiar with her?
>> I have. She worked at Houston Methodist
Hospital and her hospital that she
worked at was the
first hospital in the country to mandate
the shots
and she treated something like it was
more than 6,000 patients for it. She was
a respiratory specialist. I just want to
jump in here since in the moment I had
never heard of this person so I could
only push back on what he presented
about her. But upon some follow-up, Mary
Bowden is very obviously a complete
fraud. She's in the same camp as Pierre
Corey and Peter McCulla. [\h__\h] who
have been pushing ivormeckin as a
miracle cure for literally everything
under the sun. Here she is very recently
pushing ivormectin for haunt virus. Why?
Because it's in the news and ivormectin
cures everything. So she's farming for
clicks. Notice the community note
debunking her [\h__\h] on the basis of
basic viology. Here she is spewing
[\h__\h] about turbo cancer, which is
not a thing. This is Nick Holshire's
grift, Peter McCulla's sidekick, who we
debunked already. She got her medical
license revoked after she was caught
pedaling Ivormectton with no
prescription on the internet. Mary
Simone Gold, Pierre Corey, all of these
people are grifters, as I've
demonstrated in other content, just like
anyone else pedaling Ivormectin for
COVID or cancer or literally anything
other than river blindness. Let's see if
Danny can wrap his head around this. I
understand that like none of the
scientific journals have published any
sort of studies that say Ivormectin is
effective, right? They they none of them
do. I I listened to your interview with
Pierre Corey
>> um and I've listened to other interviews
and that's what people seem to be
frustrated by is that the
>> there's no like placeboc controlled
trials that say that it did work for it.
Um
>> right, they're always using very shady
trials very, you know, small small
cohort um no controls. Uh the first one
was just like high like high dose in
vitro which is not applicable to to you
to a human system. It just
>> what the the the kernel that they used
and then and then expanded upon was was
not legitimate and then mountains of
legitimate science is done after the
fact because of the fervor that crops up
to demonstrate conclusively that it is
not effective both Ivormectin and
hydroxychloricquin. And so all you can
do, all you can do against this mountain
of sites is performed all over the
world, all these different countries all
over the place is just go big giant
conspiracy. Pharma paid the blah blah
blah, whatever. That's all you can do.
>> But what about people like her who
treated over 6,000 patients? And she did
say that it worked in combination with
vitamin C, monoconal antibodies,
steroids, all that.
>> Okay, so what's the difference between
that and it didn't work at all and other
things worked? You know what I mean?
Like that's that's not how you do
science, right? You don't go, I gave
them five things and they got better. So
this one must have worked, right? That's
that's not how that's not how science
works, you know?
>> Uh,
>> sure.
>> You have to do very rigorous trials
where you control every single variable,
right? You this is how you test drugs.
>> So, do you ban ivormectin? Is that the
answer?
>> Well, first of all, absolutely not
because it's a legitimate drug.
>> Should she be allowed to give it to
prescribe it to her patients? I don't
know how how bureaucratic stuff works,
but I definitely would look down on any
doctor that was prescribing it for COVID
because it was shown to not work
conclusively that hydroxychloricquin and
that is when those drugs enter the alt
health space that is so that's what I
what I wanted to say about that.
>> I mean she wasn't on like Ivormectin's
payroll or anything like that. She
didn't make it.
>> Well, okay, first of all, you don't know
that, right? You have all of these, you
know, the frontline doctors, these
organizations. I don't know who that
person is. I don't know what her
affiliations are. It's very easy to just
pre present yourself as the, you know,
the underdog fighting the big bad
system. And what do you know? It turns
out that Mary is exactly like the other
grifters I listed and was just lying
about Ivormectin to make money. So yes,
Danny, she is on Ivormectton's payroll,
which is to say that she lied about what
it does to make money on the internet
despite even the original developers of
Ivormekin merc telling the world
emphatically that it does not treat
COVID or anything else but river
blindness. Funny how pharma bad make
money is so easy for people like Danny
to swallow, but random grifter bad make
money just seems too far-fetched for him
to comprehend. Huh? How could it be that
the super awesome underdog rebel
fighting the big bad whatever is
actually the liar? How could they take
me on this roller coaster ride of
emotions only to let me down in the end?
Well, that's life, kids. Some people
lie. Grown-ups have the ability to
accept when they're being lied to, even
when it's a lie they want to hear. the
podcast bro universe desperately needs
to acquire that skill. When you see an
administration that is appointing all
these people to these cabinet posts,
right? That's it takes a very large
grassroots political movement to number
one recognize the problem, right?
Anybody who can't see that RFK is a
nightmare, that's very problematic,
right? That society can't can't
unanimously agree that RFK is a
nightmare.
>> A nightmare.
>> Okay. He's completely 100% antithetical
to public health. Everything about him,
he as if one of those I insane Tik Tok
wellness influencers became the head of
HHS. Did you just get the same amount of
whiplash that I did? Danny doesn't know
that RFK sucks ass. Let's see if we can
get him on board. Right. So,
>> he's not a Tik Tok influencer. He's been
suing public health people for for
decades.
>> No. Yeah. One of his main sources or his
main source of income is is is lawsuits.
He gets finders fe fees for lawsuits,
but none of those lawsuits actually
demonstrate harm from vaccines or
anything. They're all just
>> Well, it's not just vaccines, but also
um glyphosate, right? Wasn't there a guy
>> right over for Monsanto? He he's
deregulating. He's deregulating. I was
pretty surprised when Danny brought up
glyphosate since that's the main issue
now causing a mutiny amongst Maha
Morons. Bobby used to rage against
glyphosate largely for [\h__\h] reasons
anyway. But then in February, when Trump
snapped his fingers with an executive
order to increase domestic production of
glyphosate for the kickback, Bobby
wagged his tail and ate the treat,
completely reversing his previous
position, much to the dismay of angry
parents across the country. He he he
waves this flag of like I'm a champion
of the people. He absolutely is actually
doing the opposite. He's d I mean, not
only is he firing everybody from all
these institutions CDC and FDA FDA that
have any
>> He's firing everybody. I mean, not
everybody, but I mean, yeah, like like
thousands upon thousands of
>> He's just like fumigating all the
[\h__\h] corruption out of there.
>> No, he's No, he's making it corrupt by
fumigating out all the legitimate
scientists.
>> Yeah, but how do you know how do you
know he's not fuming? How you know he's
not getting the corruption out of there?
>> Because the output of these institutions
is now exclusively medical
misinformation. It's like listening to a
small child talk about their hero
getting all the bad guys. Danny asks how
we know that Bobby isn't just fuming out
all the corruption. He fired thousands
of people across HHS in cavalier and
indiscriminate fashion, leaving
important functions totally empty and
generating complete chaos. He fired the
entire ASIP panel, which advises CDC on
vaccine policy and filled it with
unqualified douchebag antivax frauds
like Robert Malone and a bunch of people
with direct conflicts of interest. CDC
director Susan Manarez was fired for her
refusal to dismiss vaccine experts. Top
NIH scientist Gene Morazzo was fired for
her whistleblowing about the new
administration's antivax propaganda. Top
FDA vaccine regulator Peter Marx was
forced out under similar circumstances.
These are eminent experts who were
ousted simply for refusing to bow down
to the new mission of misinforming the
public and eliminating life-saving
research only for Bobby to start
announcing totally unsubstantiated
[\h__\h] like Tylenol causes autism.
Now, you know, Danny, it's a nonstop
circus sideshow of a guy who definitely
has no idea what he's talking about. I
mean, everything the guy said, I mean,
he's like an HIV deniialist, you know,
all like really insane stuff.
>> What did you find? What are you looking
for?
>> He's an HIV denialist.
>> He He is an HIV.
>> Of course, Google's going to say this,
bro. What did he actually say about it?
>> Of course, Google is going to throw
Bobby under the bus. They're in bed with
Pharma and they're trying to take him
down for spreading the truth about AIDS.
What did he actually say, bro?
>> He has asserted that his initial AIDS
epidemic was linked to the use of
poppers
uh in the gay community rather than the
virus. So, he's saying AIDS is not the
exclusive cause, which that makes him an
HIV deniialist.
>> Of course it does. HIV is causes AIDS,
right?
>> Well, he's not denying that HIV also
causes AIDS. He's saying it's not the
exclusive cause.
>> Okay. But what he's saying is absolutely
insane and it it doesn't make any sense
at face value anyway, right? It is it is
a is a it is a disease caused by a virus
caused by the HIV virus.
>> That's what it is. This is well known
for
>> but he's saying it's also other things,
right? But
>> how do you know that it's not?
>> Because it's caused by virus. It's a
viral disease.
>> Have you talked to AIDS experts on this?
>> Dude, come on, man. Every like this is
such a laughing stock talking point,
right? We look at where we
>> I don't know jack [\h__\h] about AIDS.
>> Look at where we have come with AIDS
treatment. Why do you think that whereas
AIDS was a death sentence in the 80s and
'90s that now it is not? That through
the use of various therapeutics, it's
very right because we know what how it's
caused. We we have drugs that target
every single step in the replication
cycle of the virus that that uh you know
are inhibitors of this step and this
step. We understand very very well. This
is what I'm talking about when you say
when you So what's alarming is what you
just did. I want everyone listening to
to not do that, right? to you. What you
have to have is this incre this this
intense skepticism when somebody like
RFK says something like that poppers
cause AIDS. This is insane because and
if you don't know a lot about AIDS and
but you can look into it, right? You can
look into what these drugs do, how they
affect the replicative cycle of the
virus, how well we understand HIV and
AIDS and that's why we are able to treat
it so effectively.
>> Well, here's the thing.
>> This exchange was absolutely maddening.
I shouldn't have to explain that HIV
causes AIDS any more than I should have
to explain that the earth isn't flat. As
I said, AIDS drugs work because they
inhibit HIV. There's no such thing as
non-HIV AIDS, just like there is no such
thing as non-influenza flu. Danny's
attempt at exonerating Bobby for this
insane science denial is just really
breathtaking. This is the opposite
behavior of what I came here to
encourage from Dany. Instead of asking,
"How do you know about objective
scientific facts," he should be asking,
"How do you know?" to all the idiot
frauds peddling sensational falsehoods.
The inability to apply skepticism
universally is an enormous blind spot
for people like Danny.
>> I think that you should be skeptical
of everything. I think that anyone who's
making the rules, anyone who is in
charge, the principal of your school or
uh the people that are making the laws
in your country, you should absolutely
hold their feet to the fire and question
what they're doing and try to hold them
accountable for things. The principal of
your school, you sound like a
12-year-old who got detention, probably
for being disruptive during biology
class. I just scolded you for not being
skeptical of everything and you just
claimed to support being skeptical of
everything, but you just aren't. You're
skeptical of legitimate science and
endlessly accommodating towards [\h__\h]
just like Joe and just like every other
carbon copy of him. You're sitting here
arguing with me about how we know that
medicine works the way we know it works
and never applying that scrutiny to the
supplements you pedal or any of the
frauds you platform. You're so
hopelessly biased that you can't even
see your own bias.
>> You're also immaculately immaculately
describing whatever jerk was on Joe
Rogan last week. Right. What you just
described is exactly what I want people
to do to the person feeding them these
narratives on whatever podcast they're
watching. Right. Approach that person
with
>> skep What do you mean jerk that was on
Joe Rogan? What do you mean?
>> I'm saying whatever fraud was on Joe
Rogan last week telling them this
narrative about COVID or Ivormectton or
whatever it is,
>> right? approach that person with extreme
skepticism.
>> Everybody you should approach with
extreme extreme skepticism.
>> Yeah. I mean when you approach the
entire body of scientific knowledge with
skepticism. I mean you can do that if
you want but then what you inevitably
doing is you start learning science
right? If you like how does AIDS work?
Great. How does AIDS work? Everybody
Google that and learn how AIDS works and
then you will see that what RFK said is
insane. Right? So find I mean I want to
encourage learn if you come to learning
from a from a position of skepticism
fine. I don't care.
Whether you're like, I want to see how
AIDS works, or whether you're like, I
bet it's not true. Let me learn it. You
know, whatever. Learning is learning.
But the true skepticism should be
applied to whatever institution you're
talking about, but also whoever is
feeding you these narratives, these just
at this point, it's such a trope, the
anti-establishment narrative. You have
the big bad whatever, fill in the blank.
I'm the truth teller on the podcast
that's whistleblowing or whatever it is.
The people that are making these rounds
on the podcasts, right? You have to
scrutinize what they're saying. You have
to follow up. You have to look at, you
know, and um
>> so of course says Danny, of course,
everyone should scrutinize podcast
guests, a thing that podcast hosts
almost never do in real time and which
their viewers absolutely never do, which
is the primary reason that science
denial has gotten this bad. But maybe
Danny the podcast host wants to play
devil's advocate for a moment.
>> Of course. But why do you pick on Joe
Rogan so much? because he just excl
almost exclusively platforms frauds,
you know,
>> exclusively
>> anytime we're talking about in in like
with medical stuff and like with the
pseudoarchchaeology stuff, right? He
just very very very heavily leans in
that direction.
>> I think he just talks to people that
he's really interested in genuinely. I
don't think he I don't think he's trying
to deceive anybody. I mean,
>> I probably don't think that, but uh
>> there's no way.
>> But he may not. But it doesn't matter
because
>> he doesn't have anyone telling him who
to have on his show. Like he does it all
himself.
>> Sure. But he but he likes these stories.
I love how he brings up the fact that
nobody tells Joe who to have on his show
that he created. Of course there's
nobody telling him what to do. Who gives
a [\h__\h] Joe out of his own accord
endlessly platforms grifting frauds.
That's why I blame him for doing it and
not some boogeyman overlord. Joe is the
one doing it. And I just explained to
you why he does it. because he's an
idiot who genuinely falls for this [\h__\h]
and because he loves the money he gets
to continue doing it. It's not that hard
to understand. Podcasts in particular
Joe's are a vehicle by which enormous
amounts of disinformation spread. High
volume very rapidly all over the place
and Joe has these people on every week.
Uh that's part one
>> and he should
>> I should he what do you mean he should
>> he should he should he should have
frauds that people
>> frauds he should it doesn't that's not
the point. The point is he should have
as many people on as he thinks as
possible as as many interesting people
on as possible and as many as he wants
to. It's not his job.
>> Are they interesting?
>> I mean, is a grifter interesting?
>> It's not his job to attribute motive to
that person.
>> His job is to do is to make money like
he's just making money on his show and
he's has a unbelievably large net worth
to show for it. Um, you can he can do
whatever he wants, right? He's he's a
free agent. you should be able to and
there's no there should not be any
limits on that should be able to there's
I'm not saying look the point is there's
not it's not about he shouldn't get to
have a show or this per you know that
person whatever the endless glazing of
Joe like he's some kind of free speech
hero is just too much to bear he's a
random jerk who platforms frauds that
brainwashed the public by the millions
every week. Should he be put in jail?
No. Should his podcast be illegal? No.
But it's a bad show. It does harm. We
would be better off if it didn't exist.
And people who put effort towards
neutralizing the harm he causes
shouldn't be vilified for doing so.
That's antithetical to the free speech
they're pretending to champion. But
every Rogan copycat knows exactly who
they are and where they stand in Rogan's
shadow. So, not a single one of them
will ever be honest with themselves and
their viewers about what Joe really is
and the immense harm he causes. because
that would also be an indictment of
themselves who are doing the exact same
thing on a smaller scale. I had hope for
Dany because like I said, he has
exhibited more admirable behavior a
small handful of times like platforming
Max Zamalof who debunked Ben Van
Kirkwick.
>> Now the evidence is in the other court.
Like I can't [\h__\h] say these things
are ancient anymore. I until I see
evident more evidence
>> it goes to the contrary.
>> So a couple of things. Number one, I
applaud you for that. Number two, um, if
every podcast in this space operated as
you describe, then we I I wouldn't be
saying anything about it and we wouldn't
have such widespread science denial as
we do today. Right. Joe doesn't do that.
>> Very rarely, right? He'll have Flint on.
He did it with Flint.
>> Yeah. Well, he did it with Flint and
then after the fact started this giant
smear campaign, Flint is a liar,
whatever, and then never had him back on
and then just had fraud after fraud
after fraud.
pseudo archae pseudo the pseudo
archaeology spacesh
>> you know thrived on Rogan first um
>> but uh so look once again like you you
know you did that right you had this guy
says this this guy says this you're
giving equal attention to you know
you're you're not the one that has to be
the arbiter of what's true right you
hear people making claims so I I want to
encourage that and it's very important
especially for people like you to do
that because you have in the past have
have had these people on and I think
that a lot of your viewers put a lot of
stock in some of these figures and so
for you to have someone on that's that's
debunking this narrative this claim that
ends up being very because you can have
it on a lot of different uh you know
somebody can write a paper about it
people are not going to read the paper
that people don't read scientific
journals
>> um it has to like this this is what the
podcast landscape has has to transform
into
>> is having credit credible people on uh
that and it's it's hard because you
don't like you know I said Audi Loe
earlier he's a Harvard professor how do
you know he's a grifter well he is you
know Harvard professor can be a grifter
surprise surprise you know it happens it
it does happen I don't have much else to
say here I just wanted you to hear me
tell Danny all that [\h__\h] because it's
the precise message I was hoping would
encourage him to continue moving in a
particular direction so nobody can say I
didn't try and maybe he will one day but
I don't think I would put money on it
anyway Anyway, that's about it. The last
half hour or so involved pivoting over
to talking about Israel where we finally
found some common ground since this is
probably the only topic that the podcast
Bro Space seems to get right. We talked
about government surveillance, Christian
nationalism, the oligarchy, and other
stuff that's easy for even them to see
because the narrative has the same
format as the lies they fall for. Big
bad blank is doing blank evil thing. It
just happens to be right. Broken clock
is right twice a day sort of stuff. But
in all honesty, I am genuinely thankful
that not even the gullible podcast bro
masses fall for Zionist propaganda in
this day and age. It gives me a sliver
of hope for the future. And if we can
get them to see that the anti-science
rhetoric is essentially the same, they
might be shaken out of their coma and
motivated to actually learn something.
Thus ends my experiment invading the
podcast bro. Was it worth it? Maybe.
Would I do it again? Maybe. Depends who
and under what circumstances. In the
meantime, I'll just be over here
continuing to do what I do best,
exposing piece of [\h__\h] frauds who lie
about science for money.