Is COVID Vaccine Dangerous? Dr Robert Malone on Joe Rogan

Document text

Is COVID Vaccine Dangerous? Dr Robert Malone on Joe Rogan
YouTube video by Dr. Robert Malone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZFt3uGrJF4). Transcript is the auto-caption track — verbatim ASR, not a certified transcript.

okay so in this video i wanted to discuss a little bit of the science that was uh that was talked about on this joe rogan experience podcast with dr robert malone and so this is concerning the the coronavirus vaccines in particular the mrna vaccines which dr robert malone was involved in well he wasn't involved in coming up specifically with the covet 19 mrna vaccines but he was uh instrumental in the development of mrna vaccines in general and so this is a fraught topic to i guess put it mildly so i wanted to start with a little bit of a preamble before actually getting into the science uh and i guess to start that preamble i say specifically i'm going to get into the science of it and i'm not going to try and get into the sort of political debates or anything like that i just want to strictly look at the science uh that was discussed uh on this joe rogan experience podcast and so as a preamble to this because it's a fraught topic i wanted to point out a couple of things and so people when they are engaged in discussions on this topic are prone to two well a lot of different biases but two in particular that i'm interested in here in this little preamble is what's called motivated reasoning and the second one i wanted to discuss was called my side bias and so motivated reasoning is uh is the human propensity to to reason like a lawyer so a lawyer instead in stead of a scientist and so what this means is a lawyer is somebody who has a conclusion already so if they're a defendant then it's their conclusion is you know my client is innocent and if they're a prosecutor then their conclusion is you know is is the defendant and i was putting deep here the defendant is guilty so they they start with these conclusions uh guilty rewrite them a little bit so they start with these conclusions and then they try to argue for that case so they start with a conclusion then they go looking for arguments and evidence that proves their case where a scientist and i'll even put here an ideal scientist is somebody who gathers data first and then comes to a conclusion comes to conclusion and so the scientific method is you know humanity's best attempt to sort of mitigate this this uh motivated reasoning that everybody everybody does i do it you do it if you think you don't do it then you're probably worse than the people who know that they do it but everybody does this everybody has beliefs and then they go looking for evidence and arguments to support those beliefs everybody reasons like a lawyer so the scientific method ideally is supposed to mitigate this because we're in science the sort of you know ideal science is that you are looking to falsify your hypothesis and only you know after you've gathered data can you say well does the data uh say that the the hypothesis is wrong or right and so that is what the science the scientific method is at least supposed to be obviously scientists are people who are like everybody else engaged in motivated reasoning uh so the other one which is very related is my side bias and this uh is sort of observed in that uh that people are are good at at uh at refuting they with uh bad at refuting ideas they agree with so people are quick to refute ideas that they disagree with i put bat here that should be bad bad at refuting ideas they agree with so people are very credulous when they are presented with an argument or with evidence that you know goes that supports what they already believe in or they're likely to see it go oh yeah that that makes sense that's you know that a course of what i already believe with and so that must be true whereas when they are presented with something that goes against what they believe and they're going to be very good at picking out little inconsistencies and poking holes and things like that and so uh so with fraught issues like this with the covet 19 these two things this motivated reasoning we reason like a lawyer we start with a conclusion and then with this my side bias we can if we're presented with something that goes against what we already believe and then we're we're good at nitpicking and finding all the little possible holes but when we are presented with things that we do agree with then we are bad at looking for those holes and logical inconsistencies and things like that and we're going to be very credulous and uh sort of just continue buying into it even if it's a flawed argument or a fallacious argument but yeah anyway i just wanted to point this out because i think just in general this is important to uh remember uh you know when you're doing your own research and you're especially looking at places like news sites and things like that where people are you know trying to push an agenda most of the time they're going to run into this and so uh this is kind of uh this gets into why i want to essentially just look at the science here just look at what the science says about what uh what dr robert malone said and this video is not supposed to be a debunking i'm not trying to debunk dr malone i'm not trying to support him uh i actually hadn't heard of him before until he was on the joe rogan podcast so i don't have any sort of prior acts to grind with him or anything i just want to look at the science and see what that says uh and so like i said this is not a debunking video but this is also not you know a you know pro robert malone you know i'm on his side and this is why he's right kind of video this uh i'm trying to as best as possible uh not engage in motivated reasoning or my side bias i just want to sort of look at the science to read to you what the actual scientific papers say uh and you know then you can i guess come to your own conclusion uh using your own motivated reasoning and buy side biases i i suppose since uh those things are pretty much inescapable uh and so i guess to kind of play my biases out on the table before getting into this science here uh so i am vaccinated so i am vaccinated uh i have i have two pfizer i got my first two were the pfizer then i have my my booster which is the uh the moderna so both of them are the the mrna vaccines so i'm 36 years old as i'm making this video so you know take what you want from that what you know whatever cohort i'm in uh i'm also over weight uh and i i don't i don't exercise but i did not experience any side effects so i did not experience any side effects from getting vaccinated uh so i guess to lay my sort of political biases uh i am against against uh that should have i misspelled that against against uh the the uh the mandates so i do not think there should be mandates i'm against coven mandates i don't think the government should be mandating them i think a private business can say uh you know if you want to enter my private business then you have to be vaccinated or you have to wear a mask or whatever but i don't think the government should mandate uh mass i don't think the government should mandate vaccines so that's sort of my uh political stance on this i'm for getting vaccinated but i'm against mandates i guess is sort of to sum it up all right now to actually get into uh some of the meat of this here so i first wanted to point out this uh this here which is called the tangled history of mrna vaccines which came out in september of this year in nature and has this nice little timeline here of the history of mrna vaccines so showing you know back here in 1961 mrna was first discovered uh so you can go through here and you get up to 1989 and 1990 so this is the synthetic rna cationic liposomes so this is the stuff that uh dr robert malone actually did right here uh so this is just showing uh a timeline of uh sort of the big events in the development of mrna vaccines so we can see back here in what is it 2013 uh was the first clinical trial of an mrna vaccine against rabies and then we can kind of zoom up to here uh so mrna based copy 19 vaccines win emergency authorization in 2020 uh but anyway this will be the link the first link in the description down below and as usual everything i'll be talking about here will be linked to in the description down below uh but if you're interested in sort of the story of how mrna vaccines came to be then this will be the first link in the description down below all right and so this is a art an article that dr robert malone actually sort of cited specifically in the joe rogan experience uh video and so this was looking at uh at uh sort of well what he used it for was saying that the spike protein after taking the mrna vaccine ends up in the blood and i think he specifically said that's in the blood for weeks after getting the mrna vaccine so this is looking at so this mrna 1273 is the moderna version and so in this study there were 13 nurses so it's a pretty small sample size of 13 nurses who received the vaccine and they wanted to look at how much the the at the spike protein actually reduced in the bloodstream over time and so i've kind of fast forwarded here to sort of the the punch line of this uh you can read through the whole thing if you want like i said it'll be linked to in the description down below but uh so after the first 100 microgram dose the uh the moderna vaccine produced detectable levels of s1 antigen so that's the s1 uh subunit of the spike protein so the spike protein has an s1 and s2 which are cleaved from each other during the the viral infection uh process and so the s1 kind of gets cleaved off and that's what ends up in the blood if you get a coven 19 infection so this is looking at s1 antigen in the plasma of these nurses and so in the plasma of 11 participants spike antigen was detected in three of 13 participants uh so the nucleocastic antigen which uh is another protein in the cova 19 virus which is not present in the um in the vaccine so that's why they use it as a negative control so they look for the nucleocastid to see that all of the the spike protein that that they are detecting actually comes from the vaccine and not from you know getting infected you know sometime after getting the vaccine so nucleocastman antigen was undetectable or at background levels and all participants as expected all right so the s1 antigen was detected as early as day one post-vaccination and peak levels were detected on average five days after the first injection uh the mean s1 peak level was 68 picograms per milliliter plus plus or minus 21 picograms per milliliter s1 and all participants declined became undetectable by day 14. no antigen was detected at day 0 for 12 of 13 participants as expected however one individual will present a detectable s1 on day zero possibly due to assay cross reactivity with other human coronaviruses or asymptomatic infection at the time of vaccination spike protein was detectable in three of the 13 participants average or 15 days after the first injection the mean spike peak level was 62 grams per milliliter after the second vaccine dose no s1 her spike was detectable and by the way the the they were getting the second dose 28 days after the first dose that uh was listed uh somewhere up here uh yeah somewhere in here or it's in the um i think it might have been in this which is the supplemental material uh but anyway the so what this is saying though is uh that the s1 spike protein or the antigen which is you know the s1 spike protein was not detectable for weeks it was uh only detectable in in uh for up to five days after the first injection uh then down here after the second vaccine dose no s1 or spike was detectable and both antigens remain undetectable through day 56 for one individual spike was detected at day 29 one day after the second injection and was undetectable two days later uh we can actually look at this in their uh their um their supplementary material here so this is for each participant so this top graph here is the antigen uh days on the bottom uh in concentration so this is the one participant where they found uh the the spike protein antigen uh here on day 29 and then it went down to zero and so you can see on all these other ones that that spike protein antigen uh was staying low uh well pretty much you know after after just a few days after their first injection uh and so you know the the so once again these are for each participant looking at these top graphs on here looking at the antigen these bottom graphs are looking at the different immunoglobulins present but so the idea here is you know these spike proteins are not found uh for very long after injection of the uh of the the vaccine and so it's kind of a a stretch to to interpret this data as saying that that spike protein stays in the bloodstream for weeks after it's after the vaccine is administered and in fact there was only that one out of 13 participants that actually had it around uh for much longer than just a few days after after the injection and all of them had none of it after the second in in injection and so what that's saying is that uh the the these uh igg and iga and ign these these antibodies are actually neutralizing the spike protein and so uh after a second dose of the vaccine we're not they're not seeing any of these uh spike antigens in the bloodstream so that that's kind of important to remember when you are uh interpreting this data so it's showing that like i said uh that the that this spike protein is not staying in the bloodstream for uh for days after or for weeks after the injection as uh dr robert malone uh intimated in the in the uh joe rogan podcast interview all right so one of the other things he talked about was uh was cyrus covey to entering the blood brain barrier and so i have a couple of articles here talking about that i've highlighted a few things so this is just giving so the impact of saris cov2 and the blood brain barrier structure and function so these are sort of uh mechanisms that could possibly be be responsible for allowing the virus to enter the the brain so the blood-brain barrier so what it is showing in the top up here the top left the blood-brain barrier is not you know like this sort of wall in front of the brain that you know like this a wall around the brain it's more that these asterocytes which control sort of blood flow to to and from neurons are able to sort of filter out certain things from the blood before it actually gets into the neurons so there were a few things i had highlighted on here i wanted to show so a recent study using primary human in vitro blood brain barrier models has shown that components of these sars cova2 spike protein including s1 and s2 and the receptor binding domain can all cause blood brain barrier leakage in the absence of toxicity induction of blood-brain barrier leakage occur in response to glycosylated and non-glycosylated forms of s1 and s2 infection of primary human endothelial cells and over expressed ace ii uh with cyrus cov2 induced the over expression of clotting factors adhesion molecules and plo pro-inflammatory cytokines as well as formation of multinucleate synchitia and endothelial cell lysis together these data suggest that saris cov2 infection in contact with viral proteins could contribute to brain endothelial dysfunction and damage uh so this is talking about sars kovi to infection so this is uh this is uh not talking about the um the vaccine in particular all right so some coronaviruses for example mirrors cov2 and cytoscopy one can infect immune cells which has led to speculation that startus cov2 may enter the brain via infected immune cells uh so yeah i think this was the part i really wanted to focus on so ace ii sought to play a dominant role in uptake of stars cov2 by all tissues including the brain barriers and central nervous system tissue however several studies have presented various types of results indicating that s1 could use other glycoproteins as receptors or co-receptors including some of these different proteins here in the s1 study and i'll look at this study itself here in in a minute evidence suggests the role for s1 uptake into brain but was also suggestive that other binding sites may also play a role in contrast ace 2 played a much larger role for uptake by the lung but little or no role for uptake by other tissues suggesting other binding sites could be more important for their uptake at present our interpretation is that ace 2 is important in brain uptake but may not be the only binding site involved as a corollary of the s1 study ace2 is likely much more involved in lung uptake but other binding sites may play may be key and viral uptake by other tissues given the experimental design in the s1 study the vascular blood brain barrier is likely a site of entry into brain ace2 is expressed on the epithelial cells which comprise the choroid plexus of the sars coat and sars cov2 can infect those cells in vitro this suggests that the virus likely enters brain at both vascular blood brain barrier and choroid plexus and so this uh the study they're talking about which is their uh reference 162 is this one right here so the s1 protein of stars cov2 crosses blood brain barrier in mice and so down here so we obtain s1 proteins from two commercial sources we determined whether intravenously injected is1 could cross the blood brain barrier in mice by measuring its blood to brain influx constant so this is important to remember here uh is that they are injecting these this uh s1 uh subunit of these fight protein intravenously in this study uh as opposed to intramuscularly uh like what you get when you uh get the uh the vaccine and so here is uh their data for this so this ki is essentially uh the ability of of the spike to enter through the blood brain barrier and so uh they can we can see that this is higher than these um than these uh these controls here so the 0.295.304 is you know several orders of magnitude higher than these controls which is indicating that this is entering the blood brain barrier you can read through this whole article if you want it's you know it's interesting but also quite technical but as far as the blood brain barrier issue so like i said the one thing to keep in mind is that this is looking at intravenous uh intravenous injection rather than intramuscular and it's looking at intravenous injection of s1 protein rather than intramuscular injection of mrna so i also found these nice articles here on medium these will be linked to in the description down below so they're all by this guy xinji and uh he talks about so so dr malone talked a bit about this on this japanese biodistribution study in the um in the interview and so uh these articles talk a bit about this study so the japanese bio distribution study and i'll have that study linked even though it's uh it's in japanese and i can't read japanese which is why i had to uh find um find sort of a blogger i guess who uh was able to interpret the data because i can't read japanese so the japanese bio distribution study of fires mrna vaccine has also found that 0.02 percent and 0.009 percent of the vaccine administered dose ended up in the brain at 2 hours and 48 hours respectively and then he says down here this japanese study has also been widely misused to push the notes that mrna vaccine could concentrate in the ovaries these bio distribution data are discussed more in depth here and so that's actually this article right here uh and so i'll read through this so basically the numbers highlighted in yellow he's talking about in this image which is a figure in this uh japanese bio distribution study the numbers highlighted in yellow refer to total lipid content including both the rna vaccines lipid nanoparticles and lipid tracer thus the more appropriate numbers to look at would be the percent of administered dose highlighted in cyan over here now the numbers are no longer nerve-racking only only less than one percent of the injected mrna vaccine got into the ovaries adrenal glands heart brain and other tissues at 48 hours most of the vaccine remained in the injection site and went into the liver suggesting these lipid nanoparticles may be eliminated mostly via hepatic or you know i.e liver clearance route so you can see if we zoom in here the small percentages here of of this in these different tissues uh at at different times here uh even the dose the japanese study uses very high when controlled for weight that is 18 to 35 times higher than what is injected into humans uh as david h gorski a professor of surgery and blogger explained the human vaccine contains .46 milligrams lipids or 460 micrograms that's just let's just round up to 500 micrograms that's approximately 10 times the dose given to the rats however for the typical 70 kilogram male 1.5 milligrams represents a per weight dose of 0.0071 milligrams per kilogram let's compare that with the rats which generally weigh around 200 grams that would translate to a per weight dose of 250 micrograms per kilogram uh compared to the 7.1 micrograms per kilograms in humans that would translate to a so even if you used much older rats who can weigh as much as twice as much that would still translate to a dose of 125 micrograms per kilogram so we're looking at a lipid nanoparticle dose 18 and 35 times higher heavy as a rough estimate than the typical adult human dose the japanese biodistribution study results were consistent with pfizers that was submitted to the european medicines agency in february of 2021 pfizer also found that lipid nanoparticle encapsulated mrna vaccine was mainly metabolized in the liver and did not enter other tissues easily they also noted no effects on fertility or ovarian functions so the take home message here uh essentially being that the the rats uh that the that were injected in this this uh this japanese uh this japanese study they were injected with a huge amount compared to their weight and that yet they found only a small amount of it uh actually in peripheral tissues or tissues outside of of where the injection was placed so in places like the the liver and brain and so forth and so it doesn't seem like this uh this uh japanese uh study here this japanese biodistribution study really supports this idea that there is this you know huge issue uh of the of it going into the brain though i did find this study here which uh looked at two different patients uh who did end up getting neurological cases uh after they were vaccinated and so i put this i highlighted this because this is from uh june of 2021 uh and so uh so the these two people these two so they have case one case two they they looked at two people who did end up with neurological effects uh and we hypothesized that a post-vaccine inflammatory response resulted in the hyper-acute presentation of these lesions these cases further emphasize the need to cautiously consider and evaluate new neurologic symptoms following coveted 19 vaccinations so you can look at the actual cases if you want i'll sort of uh jump to the punch line here so we we report two cases of new onset neurological symptoms after covenanting vaccination in both cases for their diagnostic testing revealed neuro oncologic so that's uh cancer you know oncologist is a cancer doctor neuro-oncologic process that required neurosurgical intervention administration of these vaccines was unrelated to the oncologic diagnoses themselves however these two independent processes both came to the clinical forefront following vaccination we hypothesized that the inflammatory response to the covid vaccine may have played a role in increasing clinical symptoms in these patients potentially in relation to the covet 19 spike protein i'm going to kind of skip down to here although the precise mechanism of post vaccination inflammation is unknown it is known that spike proteins can initiate inflammatory cascades and cross the blood-brain barrier in covenanting infections it is possible that encoded spike proteins post-vaccination therefore across the blood-brain barrier and enhanced inflammatory responses to nascent pathology uh so it's essentially saying that there was already a pathology there uh and that this uh the vaccine sort of uh sort of made it uh worse i guess bob made it so it was no longer nascent so made it so that it was present so the blood brain bearing enhanced inflammatory response to nascent pathology within the brain following vaccine administration we believe that an augmented inflammatory response following vaccination called attention to these neural oncologic diseases by exacerbating paratumoral edema and worsening clinical symptoms and so there is this study here like i said it's looking at two cases where it seems that uh it's possible that that the the vaccine caused um caused nascent issues to actually sort of uh start presenting and so like i said so the take-home message on the blood-brain barrier thing is that it does seem that the spike protein can cross the blood-brain barrier that's what this study here was showing so when the spike protein itself is injected intravenously then it does cross the blood-brain barrier uh but if we look at this uh this japanese uh bio-distribution study uh where they inject between 18 and 35 times as much of the vaccine into mice they do get small amounts of it actually going to different organs such as the brain and the liver and places like that all right so one of the other things that was talked about in the video was uh the mrna covet vaccines causing myocarditis in and in particular in adolescence so i don't think this article so this article was essentially just saying that uh even though this uh this hong kong article which i think was referenced in the video specifically uh even though it found some cases of myocarditis uh they are still uh telling people to get the covet vaccine but if we look at some of these actual studies here uh so i'll go down here so in this population based cohort study of of a little under 2.4 million individuals who received at least one dose of coven 19 mrna vaccines acute myocarditis was rare at an incidence of 5.8 cases per 1 million individuals after the second dose and one case in 172 414 fully vaccinated individuals the signal of increased myocarditis and young men warrants further investigation then they kind of go into some of the the the limitations of their study so here cyrus kovi to vaccination myocarditis or myopericarditis population based cohort study so i will scroll down to the punch line here so among cohort members a little over 4 million were vaccinated with a saris cov2 vaccine during follow-up uh with about three and a half million individuals vaccinated with the bnt so that's the uh pfizer yeah the pfizer and then 498 000 individuals vaccinated with the moderna while the remaining vaccinated individuals were vaccinated with the johnson and johnson on the vaccinated cohort 3.4 million individuals vaccinated with pfizer and 483 000 vaccinated with the the moderna had received both vaccines all right so during follow-up 269 individuals had myocarditis or mild pericarditis of whom 108 or 40 percent were in the 12 to 39 years old and 196 were male so 73 percent of them were male so males seem to be uh more highly represented uh in people who get the myocarditis among individuals vaccinated with the pfizer and moderna 48 and 28 individuals had myocarditis or myopair pericarditis within 28 days of vaccination respectively overall individuals vaccinated with pfizer had a non-significantly increased rate of myocarditis or myopericarditis in the 28 days after vaccination compared to unvaccinated follow-up adjusted hazard ratio of 1.34 so the adjusted hazard ratio is essentially the uh number of or the percentage of people who got the vaccine and got myocarditis uh of people yeah of people who got myocarditis after getting the vaccine divided by the number of people who got myocarditis who did not get the vaccine so so and i think uh where was that yeah so this so you can we we can see here uh this is the hazard ratio so unvaccinated divided by unvaccinated is obviously going to be equal to one uh and so if we do the uh pfizer divided by the unvaccinated uh we get this 1.37 to 2.64 uh and then adjusted uh so the adjusted hazard ratio so adjusting for uh for things like age sex and priority group season and clinical comorbidities uh then it goes down to 1.34 uh and they they say that it's not significant because it's still within this uh confidence interval which is between point nine and two so if it's within the confidence interval then uh it is not statistically significant but it was saying up here uh yeah so 1.3 so yeah that's the confidence interval the point nine to two after adjustment for age sex vaccine priority and so on among individuals 12 to 39 years old we also found a non-significantly increased rate in the 28 days after vaccination individuals vaccinated with the moderna had a significantly increase so uh in you know usual parlance you think significant well that must mean big but what that is talking about is statistically significant uh so uh the it's uh the confidence interval is out or the one is outside the confidence interval so one being sort of the null hypothesis that uh that there is no change is outside the confidence interval for the moderna vaccine so that's telling us that there is that there does seem to be at least some small uptick in the amount of uh of myocarditis and myopericarditis compared with the unvaccinated population and so that's what this is saying up here but then they also tested for cardiac arrest or death they actually found that the vaccinated populations had lower rates of cardiac arrest or death compared to the unvaccinated so over here the overall absolute rate of myocarditis or myoperocarditis within 28 days of sardis cov2 mrna vaccination was 1.7 uh 95 confidence interval 1.3 to 2.2 per 100 000 vaccinated individuals the rates of the of the uh pfizer and the moderna vaccinations separately were 1.4 and 4.2 per 100 000 individuals within 28 days of vaccination respectively so yeah that is uh so that is telling us that at least with the moderna vaccine there does seem to be some uh statistically significant uptick in the number of cases of of myocarditis and myopericarditis where the pfizer in this study which as i said had uh had several million people in the um yeah so among cohort members so a little over four million uh people in the sample size so that's a pretty robust data set for that yeah these um these other these other articles that i have open up here i'm not going to go through the well i think i have some things highlighted here but i'm not going to go through these uh individually because each one of these articles could uh be you know an entire video unto themselves but these are definitely interesting to look at they're looking at how how the vaccines and the virus affect the um affect your immune system and it does seem to have some you know sort of weird effects uh you know with how it affects the t cells and stuff so this is what i found while looking into because uh because uh in the interview uh in the interview he talks about how there's this sort of you know this t cell this t cell suppression going on and then it can increase infection rates of other things like the cytomegalovirus and things like that and there does seem to be some weird things going on with uh the immune system how it uh it reprograms both the adaptive uh and the innate immune response so adaptive is the one that we are sort of trying to reprogram with a vaccine we want to have an adaptive immune response against the virus that's what the vaccine is trying to do but in this one for instance it also found innate immune responses which is sort of your just general frontline immune response and uh it found you know some some genes have been sort of uh down regulated while other ones are up regulated and there seems to be different responses to other viruses it you know it's still not clear like uh how big of a a change this is but uh you know it does there does seem to be some changes to it uh when you get these uh these mrna vaccines um but yeah uh i like i said these will all be left in the description down below uh if you want to look in them into them yourself uh maybe in the future i will go over each of these papers individually in their own separate videos uh but these these papers are really long they're very technical uh so it will take me a bit more time to sort of digest them and come up with a way of actually uh sort of presenting them but yeah if you want to look into them then i would uh highly recommend looking into those uh if you are interested but anyway i hope you found this video uh at least somewhat illuminating uh whether you've you know watched this interview or not and if you haven't i would recommend going and watching it and uh i would recommend you know looking into all the claims that he makes for yourself uh you know that it's a three-hour interview and there's a lot of things covered in it uh including you know more speculative things about you know why uh why people might want to lie about possible you know negative uh detrimental side effects of the vaccines and things like that so things that are sort of outside the science uh which is sort of what i wanted to focus on here uh sort of you know specifically i didn't want to get too much into sort of the the politics and the speculation of who's lying and you know why they're lying and and things like that i do definitely agree with dr malone that that there it there does seem to be sort of a i don't know this weird chilling effect where uh where the the free uh discussion of this issue is sort of not allowed and you know that is quite worrying so you know i will sort of uh proffer that as my opinion on sort of the political side of this so i think some of the the scientific claims that he makes are not really all that well supported but you know some of them are supported and you know there there were a lot of points in the interview where he says you know this thing or that thing is happening but there are there isn't science on it because you know the powers that be won't let there be science on it then you know that always kind of begs the question so how do you know that these things are happening if there isn't science on it yet uh but you know but i i agree with him in that if if these things do seem to be popping up if there's even anecdotal evidence of it then it does seem like it would be incumbent on the scientific community to look into those things and find out if there is any veracity to them uh but anyway i don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole this is something i mean this is like i said a three hour interview if you want to you know go down that rabbit hole even further but this video is already getting long enough uh i hope you found this uh at least somewhat illuminating in your journey to better understand this complex and fraught issue you