Del Bigtree (6:28)

Okay.

Brett Weinstein (6:28)

I've watched your film and I knew a lot of what was there. But I will say it's surprising. As someone who is now quite thoroughly steeped in the vaccine shenanigans and propaganda and have had my eyes opened, I still learned quite a bit from it. I think it's well worth any Dark Horse listener's time to to watch it. What, an hour and a half?

Del Bigtree (6:55)

Yeah, sure. I think it's even less. Just about 75 minutes. I wanted to part of it. We were making it so quickly. It was. It was sort of rushed into production because Senator Ron Johnson saw the study. We were. I mean, we can get into the details of how that came about. But the study had been languishing. I didn't know what to do with it. I couldn't publish it. You know, it just didn't seem like that would do anything at all. But our attorney, Aaron Seri, while I was on a vacation last summer, handed it to Ron Johnson, and he said, I want a hearing on this right away. And so I think he set the hearing for under two months out. And Aaron called me, and because we had all this undercover footage that I'd done interviewing the scientist or having dinner with the scientist that was the head of the study. And he said, del, you got to make that documentary now. And I said, well, how much time do we have? He said, less than two months. And I said, aaron, you know, I'd really appreciate if you would do the legal stuff and let me decide, you know, you know, delivery dates for documentaries. You can't make a documentary in two months. But he said, we don't have a choice. Ron thinks the window's closing on his ability to do hearings like this. It's a lot of tension in Washington, D.C. so he's already scheduled it. And I think we should have this documentary drop somewhere near that hearing. And so it forced a speed at which I don't think many people could make a very good documentary. And I honestly was planning on lowering the bar. Like, I just didn't want to be embarrassed by it. And I take the products that we put out very seriously. But I can say that it's one of those things that it forced it to. I actually think it's. I really like the film, and now when I watch it, I can't think of anything it would change had I had more time. And that restraint of not having the time. The year I would really like to have on a documentary like that, I think forced us to keep the story really simple and to the point. And there'd be moments where we would start to get off track and trying to explain Covid and get into Covid and details. And then I would. You know, we just say, we actually don't have time for that. I don't have time to cover it. I can't make it make sense. Let's get back to just the story we're trying to tell, the science that hasn't been done, what this study is, why it's relevant and important, and just lose the rest of It. And, you know, I think you know me, we've been around each other long enough. I, you know, I have a tendency to probably overstate things. And, you know, my wife always says you have to know when you've won the argument. I think an inconvenience study is just a very clear, simple, you know, dictation of what this problem is and why. I think this study is very important.

Brett Weinstein (9:52)

Well, I would never have guessed that it was done under an extreme time constraint. The production values are excellent.

Del Bigtree (9:59)

Yeah, thank you.

Brett Weinstein (10:00)

Does tell the story very clearly. I also, as a scientist, greatly appreciated that not only did you cover the strengths of the story, but you preempted the obvious criticisms that are raised by others and pointed out why, though there is a significance there, it is not devastating to the study in question. And the logic is there. And what's more, you give us the remedy. If you don't like the constraints of this study, do the right study.

Del Bigtree (10:29)

Right.

Brett Weinstein (10:30)

The right study is there to be done at any moment, and there's a reason it hasn't been done, which is that the answer is sure to be to be devastating to the mainstream narrative. But maybe we should step back and you should describe the study in question, where it came from and what happened to it.

Del Bigtree (10:50)

Yeah, well, what's interesting about this is it's one of those, you know, as you're sort of fighting a battle, you plant seeds, you don't know where they're going to lead, what's going to turn into fruit or not. But this study takes me back to the very beginning of my jump into this vaccine hesitancy or medical freedom space. Anti Vaxxer. If we're going to just throw the. We'll use the pejorative at it. You know, I was touring with the documentary Vaxxed, which I executive produced and made that released early 2016. I left my job at CBS working on the. The talk show the Doctors. As a producer on that show, I won an Emmy award. So producing medical science information as sort of entertainment is, you know, my, I guess, my special skill. But Vaxxed was sweeping the world, really. And we were on a tour with a bus that had Vax on the side of it, and people were signing the names of their injured children or, you know, family members who were deceased after a vaccination. And, you know, I was learning a lot. The film Vax was just about one vaccine, MMR vaccine, measles, mumps, rubella and its potential connection to autism. And a whistleblower at the cdc. If people haven't seen it. I think it's also a very good movie. But we were going to be pulling up through Detroit, Michigan, and somebody reached out. I didn't know who they were, but they said, look, I'm a huge fan of Vaxxed and I know that head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health. Would you be interested in having dinner? And I said, well, yeah, of course. That'd be super interesting. And so I had dinner with Dr. Marcus Zervos and really nice guy who sort of surprised me. He started, this is something that you and I have been at different parts of this debate over the years in this conversation. But back in 2016, when I was having this dinner, he said, I watched your film, which I was impressed by. It's clearly not. Wasn't going to be, you know, talk about what he'd be interested in or at least believe in. And he said, you know, it's very compelling film. He said, but you've been saying something on this tour with this film, like, I looked you up. I've been watching your YouTube videos that I found very disturbing. You keep saying that they've never done the proper science to establish safety on any of the childhood vaccines. And he said, so I sit on the biggest databases in the world. I went and, you know, did my research so I could show you what you're wrong about. And he said, and I'm shocked that I have to sit across from you and tell you you're right.

Brett Weinstein (13:42)

Well, I will just pause you right there. 1. I want to know where, what was your perspective when you were working at CBS before you had delved into the MMR vaccine?

Del Bigtree (13:57)

Yeah, well, I think it's, it's important to note that I'm not vaccinated, so at all, at all. My mom was a really like. I mean, my parents were ex hippies or had, you know, come out of the 1960s. My parents marched in Chicago. I was raised very much with that sort of rebellious advocacy for freedom of speech, freedom of education, anti war, you know, all of that. And somehow in that my, you know, I was, we were very health conscious. All you didn't think organic food, but we ate like, you know, mostly macrobiotic and things like that. But my mom didn't vaccinate me. And it wasn't something. She didn't do it with some deep, I wouldn't say she was like a deep medical researcher. And it was just how I was raised. I didn't think a lot about it. I remember the moments where I was coming out of homeschooling and going into a public high school. And the principal was. My mom would drag me to. It was one of the things I appreciate about her. She didn't fix the world for me. She brought me to every conflict she had and wanted me to see what had to happen there. And she's like, they don't want to let you in the high school. Come with me. And it started as a little kid. There'd be times like, I don't want to go. I know what this is going to be. It's going to be you in some really awkward space. And so she dragged us to all those things. But I remember her saying to my principal, he said, we have a mandate for vaccines in this schools. Boulder, Colorado. She says, yes, but the state has a, I think it was a personal belief exemption. We have that exemption, but there's no one in the schools unvaccinated. And I'm putting my foot down on this. And she said, let me ask you something. If you know all your kids are vaccinated, right? Yes. You believe the vaccines work? He says, yes, of course. So then what harm is my son going, going to do if he comes to school here? I mean, what risk is he if the vaccines work? And he did not have an answer to that. And I wouldn't say my mom was the world's best debater, but I was really impressed in that moment. And sure enough, he's like, okay. And so I got into the school all that to say, I don't. So when I was working on the medical talk show the Doctors, my mom would call me and say, what are you doing working on a medical talk show? You've never been to a doctor in your life? And I said, you know, for some reason, I feel like this is where I'm supposed to be. I feel like I'm a little bit of a Trojan horse because I didn't buy totally into the medical establishment. I didn't grow up in it. I wouldn't say. I just. A lot of the stories I was doing for CBS and on the show were challenging the system. I was interested when a drug was being recalled, why it took so long, how to get a proof of safety to begin with. When glyphosate was ruled to be probably carcinogenic to human beings by the who, I was like, oh, I want to get to the bottom of that story. And I'll tell you, you know, one thing less about medicine. But Monsanto, like that was Satan in my family. I mean, from for years and years, all the stories of organic farmers who had the seed blow over onto their farm in Monsanto was suing them. I hated that company. And so when I saw this moment where Monsanto's being accused essentially of SP things on 90% of our crops is probably carcinogenic human beings, which is the second highest cancer rating there is, Second only two does cause cancer. The beauty of that show was I could reach out, which I did, to Monsanto, and say, hey, look who is saying your product probably causes cancer. Would you like to defend it on our television show? And I had a sense that they felt like it would be a safe platform for them. The doctors, the medical show were sponsored by. They just didn't know that the hippie son of the hippie kid is in here. And so they agreed and sent Donna Farmer, head of toxicology, to the show. And I reached out to Jeffrey Smith, who had written books about Monsanto and had a debate on the show. So those are the types of things. Just to give you an idea, I was very controversial. I was a little older than most of the producers on the show. My career kind of got a late start. So I was really into venturing into deeper discussions than that show, I think, was designed to be having. But because of that, I was the highest rated producer on the show. I was really getting a free ride for the most part. My producers would just say, I don't even understand this story. What's going on with Monsanto. I was like, trust me, this is a big deal. And so all that being said, the vaccine issue wasn't one that I was focused on at all. And I hadn't covered it at all. But I did. I was doing a really complicated story about children, babies that were being taken away from their families and based on what were supposed to be fractures in bones from infant abuse. And there was this radiologist who had written a whole paper on how he believed it was rickets, that it wasn't child abuse, that this was a form of rickets. Infants that are born when their mothers were vitamin D deficient, especially African American mothers, they were forming these things that look like fractures that were filled with calcium. But he's like, this is rickets. Fascinating story. But while I was talking to his name was Dr. David Ayub. While I was interviewing him for that story, he said, look, you probably shouldn't have me on your show. And I said, why? He said, well, because I'm considered a quack if you look me up online. I was like, why is that? He's like, well, I'm one of these doctors who believes that vaccines cause autism. And I said, oh, this story has nothing to do with that. He's like, I know, but it probably could undermine my credibility. I was like, I'll worry about that. And then he said, would you ever cover that story? And I said, you know, this show is pretty set on the fact that vaccines are safe and effective. And we had a bad run in with Jenny McCarthy which has made things complicated around here. So look, if there's a big sea change in that conversation, let me know. And so he's the one that a year later called me and said, there's a whistleblower in the CDC that's coming forward and saying they're committing fraud on the vaccine safety studies, specifically MMR autism. And that ended up being vaxed. So that triggered. And that's a long. I didn't mean to get that deep into it, but I don't really. It's important to know I do come at it with a bias in some way.

Brett Weinstein (20:49)

I want to leave push back on that in a strange sense. Our final sponsor this week is Branch Basics, which makes simple, all natural, non toxic cleaning products. We've been using Branch Basics cleaning products for several months and we love them more than ever. They are effective, non toxic and easy to use. What more could you want in cleaning products? We use Branch Basics in one concentration for countertops and a slightly stronger concentration in the shower. It works on practically everything you need to clean, from laundry to produce. And Branch Basics really works. You use cleaning products every day, but do you know what you're cleaning your home with or how it might be affecting how you feel? Many products look clean but contain ingredients linked to hormone disruption, skin irritation and respiratory issues. And because cleaning brands in the US don't have to list everything they contain, you don't really know what's in your products. Branch Basics changes this with full transparency about their entirely non toxic ingredients. Their premium starter kit comes with one powerful concentrate that makes everything laundry detergent, bathroom cleaner, glass cleaner, even pet wash and vegetable rinse. Just one plant and mineral based formula replaces it all and it's safe for babies, pets and anyone wanting to reduce their daily exposure to harmful chemicals. In the new year, Branch Basics ships us two products, a concentrate and an oxygen boost. And the shipment includes empty bottles that you fill to different concentrations for different jobs. When you run out, all you need to do is restock the two products on their site or on Amazon or at Target and you're again ready to clean everything in your home from Laundry to bathroom to countertops. Founded by three women on their own personal health journeys, Branch Basics was created out of a desire to heal. Through years of research, trial and error, the founders discovered the powerful impact that removing toxins from their environment had on their health. And now they're on a mission to help others do the same. And there's more good news. Branch Basics is now available everywhere you shop. At Target, Target.com, amazon, and of course, BranchBasics.com tossing the toxins has never been more convenient. And for anyone grabbing the premium starter kit, you can still get 15% off@branchbasics.com with code DARKHORSE. Just use code DARKHORSE for 15% off the premium starter kit@branchbasics.com after you purchase. When they ask where you heard about them, please make sure to mention our show. What I hear in your story is if I take your story and I take what I now know, the burden of proof was reversed. We were sold the idea that vaccines are safe and effective. I think all normal people assume that that must be the result of large studies that have demonstrated a net benefit to these things. And we don't check. Right. It would be arduous to go look at all those studies and, you know, how much would you need to understand to actually figure each one out? Just to determine that, of course, they were studied against an inert placebo and showed themselves to be beneficial. Right. That's what I would expect. And so anyway, the burden of proof was subtly reversed on us, where if you believe these things aren't safe, then the burden's on you to show it. And of course, who are we to do that?

Del Bigtree (24:03)

What technology do I have, what funding do I have, what access to information do we have?

Brett Weinstein (24:09)

In light of the fact that the studies weren't done, the obvious natural response is, I'm not going to allow you to give me a technology I can't assess that hasn't been assessed for safety when the human body is built to deal with infectious disease. So the point is, the burden is on them to really establish that it is safe. And in the absence of that, your mom's approach, which you took on passively, is the logically natural one. It's not a bias, it's the precautionary principle being applied correctly. In a system where most of us don't understand that this is the direction the precaution goes, most of us assume that taking the vaccine is the precaution, rather than, I don't know what's in that, know how well it Works, I don't know what unintended non specific effects it's going to induce. Right. So anyway, I don't really hear it as a bias. I hear it as your family had.

Del Bigtree (25:09)

The natural intuition and raised me with a natural skepticism. My mom was incredibly skeptical of any industry that said that it could make you healthier or safer. And you know, I was. I mean, the principle in my house was always question authority. I mean, always. And, and that's not an easy way to raise kids because the only authority around is my parents. And so it was a, it's a fairly loud and volatile home in a good way. Not, not like, but just we had loud arguments at tables. We were, you know, I would be invested in perspective and we'd be, you know, as debating inside of our household very young age.

Brett Weinstein (25:55)

Well, my household was the same.

Del Bigtree (25:56)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (25:58)

Very skeptical of corporate motives and interventions. Strangely, I think medicine got an exemption for some reason that there was a belief, you know, there was simultaneously this sort of skepticism of authority, but also a belief in science. And so when you see, you know, when you see this thing that is dressed up as if it is the pinnacle of our scientific achievement and that not only is it wonderful what insights it's brought, but it's actually providing us the ability to avoid horrible medical fates that used to exist. And you know, it's not that there aren't those instances. Nobody dies a gangrene anymore.

Del Bigtree (26:43)

Right, true.

Brett Weinstein (26:44)

That was a pretty rotten way to go. So there was, I think, too much faith in the medical system with respect to technology.

Del Bigtree (26:55)

Well, you know, because there's assumption it was being scientific.

Brett Weinstein (27:01)

Right. But totally unjustified, just below the surface.

Del Bigtree (27:05)

Just. I mean, what's fascinating because I would say my family came at things probably from more of a spiritual, religious perspective. You're created brilliantly. You don't need things outside of you to make the body healthier. And so that was the perspective. But that takes faith and that takes, you know, some belief in whatever, you know, dogma you're following. And when you think about science, science is supposed to rid us of the need for faith. It's supposed to. Right. You know, answer the questions that couldn't be answered and get us out of this very vulnerable, humbling experience inside this cosmos and start empowering us with facts and learning and ability to question and answer. And I mean, you've done so much, so many great podcasts on this, but it is shocking, I mean, for me diving into this, you know, I was covering issues and being skeptical on a lot of different Topics getting into this one and then really becoming a specialist. And I think as a journalist, I don't think anyone's put more time into one single investigation for me, which is vaccines. And even more specifically, not just like we hear, safe and effective. I didn't care about the effective part. You know, once I made Vaxxed and started seeing these giant audiences that would stand up every time I'd say, who in here has a vaccine injured child? And that was happening five shows a day, five days a week for an entire year. I'm watching three quarters of the audience stand up. I'm thinking, how have these people been hidden going down that rabbit hole? And then really study how this whole thing happened. Then, of course, you start going, whoa, what other science am I assuming was done correctly? And I'm in a very. I mean, I'm in a place where, you know, when I talk to, you know, Peter McCullough or Paul Merrick or Robert Malone, doesn't matter. They're all starting to come to the same conclusion. Like, everywhere I look, it's the science wasn't done.

Brett Weinstein (29:15)

Well, I have a suggestion for you. You feel free to ignore it, but I'm pretty sure that there would be a great documentary if you were to take all of the people who have arrived in this location, most of us unsuspecting.

Del Bigtree (29:34)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (29:34)

That there was anything to find. I mean, I vaccinated my own kids. Yeah, right, right. And, you know, it's not that I was in the dark about the possibility of hazards. We delayed every vaccine we could because the idea in our minds was the more development that has passed before something goes wrong, the better off you are. Which is probably true.

Del Bigtree (29:53)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (29:54)

But even with that level of skepticism already present, we just missed the boat with respect to how much potential harm there was here. So, you know, my story. As I've told you personally, it's a little embarrassing how much I missed, how much I took on faith that was completely unwarranted and how I arrived more or less kicking and screaming in the exact inverse camp where I never thought I would be. I was a real believer that vaccines, even though they carried risks, were a, you know, a beautiful, elegant intervention that had the ability to just load information into your immune system that would allow you to fend off a disease that might otherwise harm or kill you.

Del Bigtree (30:40)

By the way, perfectly brilliant idea and wonderful. I love it. I love it.

Brett Weinstein (30:45)

The one in the textbook is great, and the one in the textbook is perfectly safe because it's on paper and it's theoretical. But Anyway, what I would imagine would be the documentary I want to see is one in which all of the people who have had an experience like that one, and, you know, Bobby famously had this experience. He did not want to end there and reluctantly just couldn't turn away. But if you documented all of those stories of how did I end up, you know, as a terrible person who believes unforgivable things.

Del Bigtree (31:19)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (31:20)

What it would do is it would model for people who cannot conceive that those of us who are now raising the alarm about vaccines, they can't imagine we could possibly be right. But if they understood that there's no eagerness to arrive in that camp, it's a horrifying discovery and. Yeah, and it's good.

Del Bigtree (31:41)

People can't look away. Career destructive. I mean, it's, it's, it's the. It lacks self preservation in its journey.

Brett Weinstein (31:51)

Like it takes over your life, takes over your reputation.

Del Bigtree (31:54)

Yeah, yeah.

Brett Weinstein (31:56)

Anyway.

Del Bigtree (31:57)

Yeah, so let me zip back in. So, Dr. Zervos, I'm traveling with Vax. I've made this documentary. And he says, I haven't, you know, we didn't do the studies. I'm shocked to find that. But he said, it doesn't mean that I'm. That vaccines aren't safe. It just means we can't say that they're safe. Said. Yet you do. On every television show, 24 hours a day, every news agency. I mean, it is. It's the mantram of all mantra. Safe and effective. Safe and effective. And he essentially, he said, I don't, you know, I don't know what we're doing here. I don't know what I can do to help you. I was like, well, would you ever consider, you know, doing a vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparative study to get to the bottom of it? If, you know, I want to know if we're wrong or we're right. I mean, vaccines make us healthier. Certainly you would see it there. And he agreed to do that study. And so the film's just about how long it took him to talk him into it. But, but cutting to the chase, the study's horrific, what it discovers. And in all the conversations we've had, that was in the back of my mind, but I couldn't. I think you and I sort of. We were agreeing on Covid. We're in Bath, England, and we had a very memorable dinner, actually, where I learned a lot. But you were saying, I shouldn't be dragging all vaccines into this conversation at that moment in one way. And I knew I had this guy that was, I think at that point had probably done the study, but was sitting on it or we were about to get it done. But what makes this study so important to me, Brett, is I think it is the scientific method. The scientific method to me, demands that your opposition get to be the one that take the shot at your hypothesis. And we really haven't had that situation. I didn't go to, you know, there are other vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies, you know, by Brian Hooker and Neil Miller and the great guys, by the way, but who were already maybe somewhat like me, already somewhat skeptical of the vaccine program. At least they get accused of that when the outcomes turn out the way that they do. My goal and the dream of a lot of people like me, as soon as you wake up to this, like, we've got to get someone from the other side to do this study, someone that believes that vaccines are completely safe, the greatest invention, and have them do that study, so they sign off on it, because if it's going to be a problem, they'll see it too. And so when he agreed, when Zervos, who brags in the footage that I have of him of I'm the reason we force vaccinate every employee at Henry Ford. So you can't really get more pro vaccine than that. And so to have that guy do the study and ultimately come out with just very quickly, for those that haven't seen it, 2.5 times more likely to have a chronic disease if you've been vaccinated, compared to the unvaccinated, it's about 18,500 kids, nearly 2,000 of them unvaccinated, six times more likely to have neurodevelopmental disorders, nearly six times more likely to have an autoimmune disease in almost every major health category, the. The vaccinated are flailing and the unvaccinated seem almost untouched or very light. You know, small group of people with issues. And so to me, no single retrospective study that I'm very clear about in the film can really answer any question for us. But of all the red flags that have ever been thrown up, it would be as if when you and I were arguing, you went and did the study. I mean, someone that just says, I don't believe you, you, then they go and do the study. I have to assume whatever bias you can put into your science, which I do think bias affects outcomes, it had to be for the other side. And the fact that this study cannot does the opposite of showing the vaccines are safe and that the unvaccinated are the ones in danger. It's so incredibly lopsided that the vaccinated are coming out with incredible health issues. And I think the scale on it that was really. Is looking 10 years out, that a vaccinated child had a 57% likelihood of having a chronic disease and an unvaccinated child only had a 17% likelihood. I don't know if we're ever going to have. I mean, without. I don't know how we're ever going to have a moment this honest again. I mean, if Bobby does this study, they'll say, oh, well, his bias was involved. Even if he brings in other scientists. It's why I never published the study. It's why. I mean, I kept begging him to publish it because I wanted everyone to know. This is from your side, this is from the people that believe. And this film's as close as we can get.

Brett Weinstein (37:00)

Yeah. Now, I think a robust discussion is worth the spoiler here. But the tragedy of your film is that. Is it Dr. Zervos? Do I have his name right? Yeah, yeah. That he does the study, as you say, expecting it to come out demonstrating the safety and utility of vaccines. And not only does his study show the exact inverse of that, but he does not come to question the study itself. He says it's a good study, it's not perfect. I would publish it. It, you know, under ordinary circumstances as it is, but refuses to say so publicly. And you actually, it's regrettable that you have to use a journalistic tool like, you know, covertly filming him over dinner in order to hear what he actually has to say. But the fact that he rightly understands that if he publishes this study, it will be likely career ending.

Del Bigtree (38:11)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (38:12)

But I have to say, as somebody who has made some career ending decisions and had to start a new career a couple times now, this is terrifying because he knows that the result of him not ending his career by publishing this very jarring study is that children will continue to be maimed. And in my book, there's no. I mean, you know, you can imagine Nazis at death camps saying, well, I mean, this is terrible, but you don't expect me to end my career. And the answer is, yes, I do. I expect you to end your career.

Del Bigtree (39:00)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (39:00)

And, and many of us have. So I'm, you know, I'm troubled by the cowardice that results in the study not being published. I think you've done admirable work bringing the study to a kind of Attention that it might not even have gotten if it had been published in a normal sense.

Del Bigtree (39:18)

Yeah, I think that's true.

Brett Weinstein (39:20)

And it opens the door. And of course, I have heard all of the critiques about retrospective studies and differential sizes of the con. The essential, essentially the control group versus the treatment group. But, you know, you also talk about in the film the sensitivity analysis and the fact that.

Del Bigtree (39:40)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (39:40)

You know, if you correct for some of the obvious defects of the study, it does not radically alter the conclusion. No, that is. It's powerful. And as I said up top, stop. If you don't like this study, you know exactly what study you have to do.

Del Bigtree (39:58)

That's it.

Brett Weinstein (39:59)

Right.

Del Bigtree (39:59)

You're not poking. We're past the point now where you get to just poke holes in. It used to be an argument. Now you're poking holes in science. Like the science is being done. It's been done nearly 10 times by what you might call biased scientists that were skeptical of vaccines, but it's been done. And now with. With. With Henry Ford and Dr. Zervos, I guess I have to be careful. I am. They have threatened defamation case. So I have to make it clear that it's my opinion that they are a pro vaccine institution. They. They say it's not fair for me to describe them that way.

Brett Weinstein (40:40)

So frankly, that's a strange flex on their part.

Del Bigtree (40:43)

Weird that the. The position they want to take is you're not allowed to call us a pro vaccine, even though they took out like a whole page, like pro vaccine statement during COVID But, okay, but I want to be careful to say. And I'm not careful about what I'm putting out, but the accusation is that I could do great harm to their institution. And they want it to be known that the reason Zervos did not publish that study was because it's not a good study. The data is flawed, and it didn't meet the scientific rigors or standards that they are used to it. Henry Ford Health. That's the statement that they've sort of made and put out. Now, they put all of that out. Prior to knowing that, I had undercover footage of Dr. Zervo saying exactly the opposite.

Brett Weinstein (41:33)

Right. So, okay, on the one hand, you've got the evidence, right. You've got the author of the study saying it's a good study. I'd put it out as it. As it is, but I won't do it because I'm not ready to end my career over it.

Del Bigtree (41:46)

Right.

Brett Weinstein (41:47)

But I would also. I would just level the challenge at them. Don't you dare tell me that that study isn't good and that's why it didn't get published. Unless you're already planning to do the right study.

Del Bigtree (41:58)

Correct? Or.

Brett Weinstein (41:59)

Or what's stopping you?

Del Bigtree (42:00)

Why didn't. When this study, which it's. It's your database. Like if the data is flawed, it's the data you're using to do all the studies that you're funded to do. It's your database. It was the cohorts born into the Henry Ford Health system. And by the way, I mean, you're probably aw this. It's better than the VSD that Bobby dreamed would exist when he got the job as HHS secretary that he could use because it doesn't just track ICD10 codes inside of Henry Ford Health because they're also the insurer even when kids left. So it's a very robust data set that they were able to use with all the information you dream to have. But why was the Response not Hey, Dr. Zervos, even though we trusted you with the hydroxy chloroquine study, even though we trusted you with the Moderna trials were a little bit suspect of this potential study. Why didn't they come in and make the adjustments that should have been made? I mean, inside of their own internal peer review. Why do you throw an entire study in a wastebasket? The study design is the design set up by the cdc. They had never done this study, were funded to do the study and decided we'll spend the money doing a study on how to do a study. A vaccinated person vaccinated. The whole. I mean, you get it. The cat and mouse game has been ridiculous. But you're taking a million dollars store. Maybe it's a half a million they spent on how to do the study and then they copy that. Henry Ford Health, which would be a great protocol to accept. This is what our own government said would be the way to do it. You bring every parameter against it. Cox proportional hazards. You're doing sensitivity analysis and challenging you can. They're trying to give you the most conservative view of this as you can. But why didn't they fix whatever problem they saw? So you just make a habit of stopping three quarters of the way through a scientific process and throwing something in the garbage. That's not a very good strong defense for their institution either.

Brett Weinstein (44:14)

No, no, it really isn't. And in light of I would say a vast quantity of evidence that there is a real honest to goodness problem, if that evidence is incorrect for some reason, it is certainly in our interest to discover that right away because if it is correct, I don't know. Today, yeah. Kids are being vaccinated. And you know, I will just point out in my audience is well aware of this, but Heather and I were strong believers in the benefit of vaccines. I still believe that it is likely that there are some vaccines that make sense under some circumstances. There may be vaccines that make sense to give every child, but I don't trust any of the evidence given what I've now seen. You know, I would. I would take a rabies shot if I thought I had been exposed, but I would do so knowing that I was taking a substantial risk.

Del Bigtree (45:29)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (45:30)

And I would alter my behavior in the aftermath of it. I would be very careful what I ate for a good long time so as not to be triggered into some state that was unnecessary. But in any case, case, the possibility of good vaccines exists. Sure. I don't think you would deny it. I wouldn't deny it. But they have broken the system of trust with fraud. That's what.

Del Bigtree (45:56)

Yes. Fraudulent in every corner.

Brett Weinstein (45:59)

Yeah.

Del Bigtree (45:59)

I mean, it's. There's not, there's no part of it that you can't pull a vaccine. I'll say, oh, this one. This one they did. Right. Here's. Here's a good study on this. You can't find it.

Brett Weinstein (46:10)

No. Anywhere where the question was opened.

Del Bigtree (46:12)

Right.

Brett Weinstein (46:13)

The game was rigged. Including absurdities like the supposed demonstration of the safety of aluminum adjuvants, which when you look at what they did, is preposterous. I mean, it's so bad that the first time I heard Toby Rogers describe what had been done, I was sitting there thinking, either this person is off his rocker or something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Because there's no way that what he's saying could possibly, possibly have been the demonstration of safety for this. So, you know, I didn't know what to think at the end of his talk, but I went and checked and it turned out he was right. And so it was like, oh, my God.

Del Bigtree (46:57)

Well, very quickly. I mean, what was. You know, what are you referring to so that we can hold this whole.

Brett Weinstein (47:02)

Oh, the four Angora rabbits, the data for one of which was apparently misplaced and pathology showed up in a couple of the rabbits, if, if memory serves, you know. So the point is. Look, look, four ain't enough rabbits to demonstrate safety. If nothing had happened to any of those rabbits, it wouldn't tell you aluminum adjuvants are safe. But that's not what happened. To the rabbits. And the idea, you know, we didn't even. They lost the data on one of the rabbits. I mean. Yeah, how exactly did that happen? And why was that? Not the. You know, if you thought four rabbits was enough and you lost the data on one of the rabbits, you would then discover, oh, well, then three isn't enough. And you would realize, actually, you know, 300 wouldn't be enough. So you would end up doing a correct study if that was your intent. On the other hand, if your intent is to have a reference that you can go to when you say aluminum adjuvants are safe, and then you can reference some paper and nobody bothers to go look at it to discover that it was actually nonsense, you're not trying to figure out if it's safe. In fact, you're trying to avoid something you fear would show up in such a study.

Del Bigtree (48:17)

I mean, that's. I mean, I get accused of being a conspiracy theorist, and if you look at my Wikipedia page, if that. Does anything exist? AI I think, jumps into so quickly, does Wikipedia even exist anymore? But whatever, it's a horror show. It's been a horror show. I'm like this conspiracy theorist, but the truth is I always give the benefit of the doubt. I try to just imagine. I think most these people think they're doing what's right. They believe in what they're they're doing. But you know, when you really drill down on Paul Offit or these people, they. At the point at which you have got to do bad science or can't recognize this is so obviously poorly done. You would never accept this in anything, any other form, part of your experience. Why are you accepting this? And then you're clearly looks like hiding something. Because I keep thinking, and I say this all the time. I believe Paul Offit vaccinates his kids. I think Bill Gates vaccinates his kids. I think these people believe in what they're doing on some level. I can't prove it, and I have tons of followers that will say you're crazy. Dell, they're injecting themselves with saline. Maybe they are, but this is the place where once you have to hide something, hide bad sign, or hide a result, then how can you believe in what you're doing anymore? Why isn't your own confidence in this process shaken by the fact that you're coming up short? There's a. There's a recent in this, the very Ron Johnson hearing that this study was discussed. Jake Scott, this doctor shows up. He shows up for one job and one job only, to refute this idea that there's been no placebo based trials of any of the childhood vaccines. And he knows he's going to be across from Aaron Seri. And at this point anyone in this space knows Aaron Seri is coming loaded for bear, you know what I mean? And when the guy hands out his 661 studies or whatever, expecting, I mean, are you still in this world? We expect, we're all going, oh my God, he's got 661 studies. There it is. And then Aaron just destroys, goes through the list. 560 have not have nothing to do with the childhood vaccine program. They're out know, you know, 50 of them and just, you know, down to you have zero. And then his response, I mean I use this video in talks all the time. His final response is, well I'm really surprised if you did that, you know, if you did all that investigation because we haven't even looked into the studies ourselves. I mean that's, that's. He shows up to win an argument and ends with I struggle to believe that you ripped through our studies that much because we haven't even looked at them yet. And you run into that like the, the, the ego or hubris like that that would allow you to just say you were just supposed to bow down to this evidence and not question it or look into it. But how did, but then Jake Scott the next day will post this is a lie. This, that there's no placebos, like you just lost this argument on public television. We all watched it. Your studies, unless you can and they don't do Brett, what you expect to do. Like, look, I know when I've lost, I have to go get my evidence, check it or say oh, I forgot to present this or here's what was missing or here's how you got this wrong. None of that, they never bring any of that. It's not like Aaron's theory was wrong. Here's the study. He just keeps posting the same 661 studies that were just destroyed on an international, you know, public way and is going to stick to that story. And that's what I can't understand about a human being.

Brett Weinstein (52:07)

Well, it does remind me of the, the song. That's my story and I'm sticking to it it because I mean that song is intentionally ironic, right?

Del Bigtree (52:15)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (52:15)

Do you remember the song?

Del Bigtree (52:16)

No.

Brett Weinstein (52:17)

Colin Ray has told his girlfriend, I guess that he had fallen asleep in the hammock in the yard and that's why he wasn't Home until all hours of the night. And she says, you don't know it, boy, but you just. And he says, well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. And it turns out she had put the hammock in the attic, and so she knew there was no hammock anyway. But it's that the point is. And Colin Ray just continues to stick to his story because he doesn't have an alternative. And Dr. Scott, when I saw what happened to him, I thought, oh, boy.

Del Bigtree (53:01)

It'S as close to an American public caning as I think we've ever seen. Right.

Brett Weinstein (53:05)

But it does tell you was, you know, we can differ over how much Paul Offit understands about the lies he's telling.

Del Bigtree (53:12)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (53:13)

But Dr. Scott was a believer. And the interesting thing which you're pointing to is that even in the moment when Aaron Seri reveals to him that what he's saying is not true, it does not cause him to update because some part of him is thinking, oh, God, I'm going to end up on that team of people that I know are evil. I can't do that. And so he's just stuck in, well, I'm just going to keep doubling down on all of the stuff that just evaporated in front of me. And what it really speaks to is a brokenness in the heart of science and medicine where once upon a time scientists and doctors. And doctors were scientists, by the way. They're not anymore, but they were. They had a commitment to the truth. They had a commitment to the patient that overrode all other considerations. And unfortunately, the system that we've built now trains them to be. Be subservient to something else. So that when a patient. You know, just as you saw with Dr. Zervos.

Del Bigtree (54:35)

Okay.

Brett Weinstein (54:36)

Kids who have not yet been maimed are on the line. Your move, Doc. Are you gonna publish this story and fall on your sword, or are you gonna continue to pretend that what you used to believe before running this study is still true?

Del Bigtree (54:50)

Right.

Brett Weinstein (54:50)

Right. What are you gonna do? And the answer is, well, you don't expect me to lose my career, do you? And the answer is, well, wait a minute. Where you're in a profession that has an oath.

Del Bigtree (55:04)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (55:05)

That's not common. Right. We oats are serious things. They're effectively above the law. And to reveal that, actually, either you don't know what's in that oath and you just went through it pro forma, or you don't care what's in the oath oath is to reveal that you're not really a doctor and I, I see the same thing in science too. I think the number of people who publish things they don't believe in don't have a deep relationship with the scientific method. They're kind of going through the motions. And if it looks like science, you know, if it takes place with the right glassware and you know, the right lab coat.

Del Bigtree (55:48)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (55:48)

And it's probably scientific and it certainly is. If it, you know, got published in the journal and was peer reviewed. Well, peers wouldn't have signed off on it if it wasn't signed. So. Yes they would because they're faking too. And it is that loss of commitment to higher principles that is breaking out across the entire system. And it has, frankly, it has allowed interests that are so obviously at odds with the well being of the public to take over. Right. It should not be a surprise to any, anybody that pharma would be willing to sell some drugs that might not be in the interest of the patient to take them.

Del Bigtree (56:29)

Right, of course, yeah.

Brett Weinstein (56:31)

Fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It's right there. It's their actual legal commitment. Right, Yep. So given that you would expect it is normal for corporations to try to make money however they can get away with. Yes. It is normal for us to view them with skepticism. It is normal for us to want independent scientists to check anything that comes out of that corporate environment. And instead what we have is a fusion of the corporate environment with these former sciences and it spits out a product that sounds and looks like science but just isn't. And you know what? The fact that it looks like science doesn't make it work. And the fact that it doesn't look like science doesn't make it fail. If it adheres to the scientific method, it works. It's self correcting over time. It doesn't matter if you're wearing a lab coat or frankly, I did my graduate work in rubber boots with a machete. Right. It may not look like science to you, but the point is you either applied the method or you didn't.

Del Bigtree (57:26)

Right.

Brett Weinstein (57:27)

That's the question. And we've just lost that commitment.

Del Bigtree (57:30)

Well, I mean I can speak to better than. I mean you're a scientist. I'm not. I've write about them, I've interviewed them, I've studied these studies. I know how to meet like, I'm like Bobby Kennedy. No, I'm not a doctor, but I know how to read a, you know, a study. But I can speak to journalism. And it has the same horrific and probably more Dangerous result. Which is, I think the greatest problem in the world today, certainly in, in America, is media. We live in a. We would be much better off. We lived in China and just knew that our news is lying to us. It's really unfortunate that in this country we think we're getting anything, any semblance of actual information. And I am. I cannot explain the motivation. Similarly, of my fellow journal too. I do interviews with all of them. You know, they, they ring my phone off the hook, what's Bobby up to? What's going on? Because I'll answer knowing that the hit piece, and you'll call me a crazy anti vaxxer. But I can tell they're, I can tell they're starting to really shake. And I'll look them right in the eyes. Major writers, New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic. Just the other day, sat down and, and I, and I say to them, I don't understand how you're doing what you, you're doing. I don't understand it. You're a journalist. And I go way outside the boundaries of what someone's trying to get an idea. Like if I should really just stick to four talking points that they'll just, I'm just saying it over and over again that they'll publish so I make sure I can make the point to the public I'm trying to make. I can't do it. I sit with these journalists and I just say, I need you. You've got to search your soul right now. And I try every attempt with them throughout every question they want me to answer. But why do you think Bobby's doing what he, he's doing? I mean, and I'll say to them, what happened to, you know, just like science, Our job is to forever be skeptical. We're not supposed to work for the government. We're not supposed to work for any industry. We're supposed to ask difficult questions and challenge them. What happened to that? And then, like lawyers, you're supposed to be working towards a motive. What is the motive? You can't tell a story if you don't understand the motive. And I said, what is my motive to sit here? I will say to them, why do you think I'm sitting here? I know you're writing a hit piece about, about me. Why do you think it is I'm sitting here and answering these questions, why does Robert Kennedy Jr. Leave being. He's a Kennedy. This guy is born into the closest thing to a royal family this nation has. On top of that, you know, he, you know, he's followed by cameras. So he has some issues in his childhood, but becomes arguably one of the greatest environmentalists alive. Certainly as an attorney is, you know, brought visibility to issues that have changed our earth as we know it. He's celebrated by the Democratic Party liberals for having achieved that. They forget about his troubled childhood. He's offered the Senate seat in New York. He doesn't want to get into politics. He hands it to Hillary Clinton. Question whatever judgment that has. But then all of a sudden, in the middle of that, you know what I really want to do? I want to go and create a fraud around the safest product known to man and everyone knows it's safe and make people afraid of it so that I get ridicul by every newspaper there is. I get tarted, feathered. My entire environmental career gets. Goes up and burned so that when I finally do decide to get in politics, I'm hated by the party that my family basically built. Because why, right? Why? Why would anyone other than he has gone batshit crazy? But that was the problem is that then you watch in a podcast, you have to say, that sounds like a sensible. I mean, I'm expecting a lunatic who just trashed the greatest life experience you could ever have for no reason. I mean, I say to journalists, is it possible that he actually saw something so devastating and so horrifying he was willing to risk his entire career to tell that story? That's Occam's razor. That's the simplest version if you got a bezier. But they can't go, well, I haven't really thought about it. How are you writing and not thinking about it? And then I take it a step further with, you're no longer in a place where you can even say we don't have science. Everyone's in the Atlantic interview. This reporter is like, I saw the movie. It's very compelling. I don't really know what to say about it. It's like, well, I'll tell you what you now know is you can't say we don't have science. Science has been done from your side and it's not adding up well. So now it's my science against what you're saying is science and we're in a problem. But ultimately what I say to all of them is, here's what I don't understand that you're doing. The number one conversation is around, have there been placebo based trials or not? It's really simple. I have staked my entire career saying, I have sued the government of the United States, I have spent millions through a nonprofit bringing this to light. Robert Kennedy Jr. Said the same thing. And yet every time we make that statement in your article, articles you will write, the experts say this is not true. Paul Offit says this is not true. They've done placebo based trials. I'm like, I don't understand how that's journalism because certainly the first time we said it 10 years ago. Okay, that in your first article for after 10 years to keep saying the experts say and not saying to those experts, hand it to me, hand it to me. We're the New York Times, we're the Atlantic. Hand me 16 vaccines. Hand me 16 placebo based trials at establishment or the original versions of those vaccines and we will put it on the front page of New York Times. And Bobby Kennedy's done, Del Bakery's done. This is over. They were lying to you. But how are you allowing yourself to write the experts say, when you now have no evidence? Do we live in a time because this means that Woodward and Bernstein would have called Richard Nixon personally said, we're being told that you tapped some phones over at the Watergate Hotel. Did you do it? No, I did not. I would never do something like that. Well, the experts said they didn't do it. Moving on. And that is where journalism is at. Call the guy that's being accused, ask him if it's true. If he says, no, it's not true. You stick with that expert opinion and the rest of it is considered conspiracy.

Brett Weinstein (63:58)

Yes, it is institution after institution that are now inhabited by people who, who one are actually more like actors than they are like people attempting to do the job that is, is the one they've ostensibly been hired for. But worse, they don't know it do.

Del Bigtree (64:20)

I mean, so that. Okay, so this is where we're gonna. Do they not notice Paul Offit not know that he's. He's moving around bad science? Do these journalists not know that journalism requires. You have a follow up effing question. Where's the science? Where's the data handed to me?

Brett Weinstein (64:37)

Well, I know I would say Paul Offit is a tough call. I don't, I don't know how Paul Offit runs. I've seen him say some things that make me worry about his moral commitments. Yeah, but it's possible. I mean, the real question is did he vaccinate his kids?

Del Bigtree (64:58)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (64:59)

Or would he still. And I can't answer that question. I think there are clearly people in this mill you who know and wouldn't. But I do think in all of these realms, you have something in which you are supposed to have a higher goal, and then you've been hired to do something. It's like, okay, okay, good, I want to pursue the truth. And somebody's actually hired me to do so on stories that they're going to send me. Right. If that's the structure, it can work because there's enough alignment between your objectives and the person you hired you. But the degree to which people can be trained to do something else, and I think mostly what they are doing, doing is they are detecting their own well being. They're like, looking at their well being as if it was a stock price. And anytime if I make this move, my stock price is going to plummet. The answer is, well, then I'm going to make the inverse move. And the point is that overrides your commitment to the scientific method. It overrides your commitment to truth. And the really weird, weird part is, and I wonder, I say this as a. I don't call myself an atheist because I'm angry at the way atheists have handled the question of religion and dealt with religious people. I think it's disgusting. But a de facto atheist, that's where I am. I wonder if part of the problem is that people who do not have. At a religious orientation can make their peace with things that somebody who actually believes cannot. Yeah. And, you know, how do you make the decision to not publish a study that reveals at least strong evidence of severe harm to children that would potentially derail, derail the maiming force? How do you not publish that if you think that the universe cares about whether you do the right thing?

Del Bigtree (67:21)

I know, I'll tell you, okay? Because I think it's. I've seen the slippery slope. I've watched it many times. But first of all, what Zervo says is, it won't make a difference if I publish it. The system is so corrupt. He says this. It's so corrupt, Corrupt. I'll get destroyed. I'll never be remembered. None of this will matter. No one's going to change anything. The government would have to get involved. They won't. These institutions are never going to listen to it. So to be just a futile, you know, self, I'm going to, you know, emulation, where I just, you know, destroy myself for no reason. I think he tells himself that. Now, whether that's true or not, that's the story he tells himself. And then this has been going on for years. When I was making Vaxxed, I would, you know, because I Was I was coming from the doctors television show. I knew doctors and scientists all around the world. So I went to people that I'd done shows with, I'd made them famous for some surgery or something and say, hey, have you ever looked at the vaccine issue? I'm curious. And so many times they say, is this off the record? Yeah. I mean, if it has to be. All right, Dell. I mean, I'm talking people like heads of universe, like medical systems. I know for I've watched it with my own eyes. Vaccines are causing autism. I will never say that on a camera, ever. I will never. You don't ever report it. I trust you. But you're, you're onto something, though. I hope you can get to the bottom of it. But I will never say it because if I don't, do I have a great research project going right now that is on the verge of hearing a cancer or I got diabetes in my sights and if I get into this vaccine issue, I will lose all my funding and I will not be able to save millions of people. I believe I'm on the verge of saving millions of people. And by making that statement, that'll be taken away from me and those people will die. And so I'm saving those people for. So for Zervos. I'm saving these people at the cost of these. And it really doesn't matter because no one's going to do anything about this anyway.

Brett Weinstein (69:33)

Right? Okay.

Del Bigtree (69:34)

So that's how they justify it.

Brett Weinstein (69:36)

That is how they justify it. It still doesn't tell me whether or not these are people who believe in a higher power. Oh, I, Yeah. But I do think that that's how it works in the mind, as I've talked about with my audience before. 4. Utilitarianism is a. A wicked problem in the following sense. On average, we should want a utilitarian calculus to prove out. In other words, in general, if something improves the well being of a larger number of people, it's usually good, but it's not always good. Slavery can be argued to be the greatest good for the greatest number. We enslave a tiny number of people and everybody else profits from it. And the point is, nope, you don't get to do that no matter what. So the point is, we have a basic attraction to utilitarian calculus and we don't understand the pitfalls of it. That it can justify literally anything, including slavery, including genocide. So once you have this kind of rule of thumb attraction to utilitarianism, you also know what lie you have to tell Yourself in order to justify your answer. Inaction, which is what you're telling me.

Del Bigtree (70:53)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (70:53)

If I think I'm on the verge of a big breakthrough and it's going to save a ton of people and if I do this other thing, I will save no people and it won't have the positive effect, then the answer is, well, then this is the morally correct thing to do. This is actually my biggest concern about the so called rationalists is that they have, they've, they have a explicit commitment to this kind of calculus. And I do think it is in conflict with a. Well, the beauty of the belief in a higher power is it's not gamble.

Del Bigtree (71:31)

Right.

Brett Weinstein (71:32)

If you know that you're telling yourself a lie because you fear what happens if you tell yourself the truth. You can get away with that between you and you, but you can't get away with that if somebody's listening into your thoughts and saying, you know, know better. You're not on the verge of saving millions of people. And you know what, if you did take this risk, it would make a difference. Right. So I, I think we're really, we've discovered a flaw in the way civilization runs at the moment, which is that science displaced faith. Maybe that needed to happen, but we didn't replace it with anything that could do the heavy lifting that faith did.

Del Bigtree (72:11)

Yeah. And, and it didn't remain true to its own principles of what science was supposed to be. So it just became another religion.

Brett Weinstein (72:20)

Yes.

Del Bigtree (72:20)

You know, it's just, it just happens. All, all that science and medicine is to me now is the most powerful religion in the world. That's all that it really is. It's become a faith based religion. It just demands more faith than almost any other religion and it lacks a God. The God in this religion is human beings that are completely and totally flawed. And we, we've imbued it with the same ideas of God. But these people are flawed individuals that make millions and hundreds of millions of dollars. And so this thing is so far off track and to the point I think that a lot of the people I've worked with from Bobby Kennedy and many, we do feel a spiritual calling. I think God plays a big role in this movement, if you will, in the medical freedom movement, Maha movement, whatever you want to call it. You, one of the anomalies is calling. We've had some great conversations, you know, floating in Lake Travis that, you know, enjoyed and you know, I think you have a very unique perspective on when you're saying atheist. I don't think it rings for how most people think that word means. But and I. We could get into a conversation about what happens when you believe you're actually working for God, which is what I do. I mean, it's, it changes. It's amazing when you really think I'm just a vessel and God needs me to be is clear and open. Keeps saying, yes, I'll never be a Zos like I am the opposite. And I find great benefit to the fact that I take huge risks and I believe God's got my back. When you walk with that, it imbues maybe an unrealistic set of abilities, but it gives you a confidence. I think that pays dividends in many, many ways. But that's a different conversation because what I think is important important, and I really want to pick your brain on is we can sit here and analyze what's making journalists tick, that they're not doing their job. We can sit here and come to, you know, conclusions on how scientists aren't doing their job. But my biggest concern is the human beings of this planet. At this point moment, I don't. We're. We, we. We're buying microphones on podcasts in your pocket. We want to get through to people. And I keep bashing scientists and showing studies that refute them, but it's like you're. I feel like I'm talking to an audience that is half as. Like it's just gotten so used to dramatic statements and outrageous news and the new. The television's been turned up to, you know, the Spinal Tap 11. It's just everything's been an so long that when something comes through that really is important and is really dangerous, it's just taken, you know, with a spoon of sugar just like every other loud piece of information that's coming out. Like, I think there's a reason of all the topics you've challenged a lot of things in science, this one's bigger than that. This is the lives of your children. This is the future of our species at the very least. I mean, just our natural desire to want to put Code Covid behind us as though we've. We've learned. So we haven't learned what happened there. We don't know what happened. And we don't know if it's over. We don't know. There's so much we don't know. But we just. It's time to change. I've got to change the channel like this Add I just want more. Let me get some other Kardashian level drama. But. And I feel like, in some ways, I'm repeating the same story over and over again. But, but this, I don't know any other issue that's like this. There's. There's some big issues in the world. There's wars, potential wars going on. We've got central reserve banking systems and, but, and, but this I still see on the television. They're like, vaccinations are down. It's down to, you know, lower 90% or something, or maybe upper 80% of people are still vaccinating. And I think when I got into this, I just wanted freedom. I've been saying I just fighting for freedom, but the truth is, is the freedom is not really going to last that we're achieving. If 90% of the people still think this is a great product and aren't paying attention.

Brett Weinstein (76:57)

Well, okay, I think Covid did something unique and we're losing it. I feel the same thing. Everybody's desire to move on from COVID has got them not paying attention to the fact that, that Covid wasn't really Covid. It was a larger story that marches on and has you in its sights still. It's coming back. MRNA shots, to be sure.

Del Bigtree (77:17)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (77:18)

But the, the key thing for me is I understand that we can have impassioned arguments about the red team and the blue team, and then you go to the poll, something happens, and you can barely detect the impact of whatever shift occurred in your life. You know, maybe there's a big initiative that changes the crappy way you get your crappy health insurance, but it's hard to detect.

Del Bigtree (77:51)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (77:52)

The impact of your right or wrong belief.

Del Bigtree (77:55)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (77:56)

In the case of COVID and especially the MRNA shots, people had very strong beliefs about people like you and me. Those guys are nuts. Right. They took the shots and large numbers of them now have these sudden, mysterious pathologies. Aggressive cancers. There's a lot of death and injury. And it was a moment at which, hey, you're wrong, but belief caused you a health problem. And if it didn't, it caused it to somebody, you know. So the point is, whoa, that's a lot of consequence for a wrong belief. And a. The rational response is, the right thing to do would have been to say, actually precaution involves me not accepting that novel technology. Maybe it works, maybe it isn't harmful, but it sure can't be safe because it hasn't been around long enough to know what it does to a person over the course of a decade. So it was an opportunity to make that point. But the thing about the rest of the vaccine schedule is. I know that we have a huge number of injured people, and I have reasonable confidence in what happened to many of them if. If that connection is right. The thing that really motivates me is all of the people who haven't been harmed yet. You may not be able to do anything for the vast number of people who've been maimed, but you can certainly stop creating new maimed children. And I do not understand the mind that lies to itself in that context. What I want to know is me and whoever else, can we agree that if those shots were doing what I think they're doing to kids, that it is the highest priority that we save those kids who have yet to be harmed from them, and instead we get this kind of mushy dissembling. Well, these experts say this, and I just want agreement. If I'm right, this should end, and then maybe I'm not right. Right. But if I'm right, let's agree this should end. Because no. No decent person could possibly disagree with that, I think.

Del Bigtree (80:22)

Yeah. Well, in those numbers, and usually, I mean, on my show, I'm very positive, being really honest with you right now that, you know, we've sat. We've put together events, you know, defeat the mandates and, you know, really put a lot on the line to try and move as many people. And we have. I don't mean to be negative, but. But, you know, we're. We're watching changes happening. We're watching a government, I think, being more dramatically different. Like when. Like when you're saying when you vote red or blue or you have that argument, the country doesn't change that much. It doesn't seem like. We've been told this is a giant, you know, aircraft carrier that takes forever to turn, and within the four years or eight years, you really don't get much done. I was. Would say there's. There's a huge turn happening in several fronts that I care about. How long will it last? Will we see it?

Brett Weinstein (81:16)

Well, hold on. I want to clarify one thing that I. I must not have made plain enough.

Del Bigtree (81:22)

Okay.

Brett Weinstein (81:22)

I'm not saying that things don't change substantially based on who you vote for. I'm saying that the average person sitting in their living room can't feel it.

Del Bigtree (81:32)

Yeah. Right.

Brett Weinstein (81:33)

Something shifts some.

Del Bigtree (81:34)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (81:35)

You know, and, you know, unfortunately for, you know, my entire adult life.

Del Bigtree (81:40)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (81:42)

It was really a choice between, you know, which crime family was up and which crime family was down. The point is, it doesn't feel that different. You know, who Are you being taken.

Del Bigtree (81:50)

Advantage of on this issue? You know, 50. What is it they're saying at the CDC? 76% of Americans now have a chronic disease that's going to be hard to change. Like, that's going to, you know, they're sick, and they're going to mostly go to doctors who are the same people that are in the same system that are making them sick. Sick. And so odds are you're right. And I actually am working on a new company for exactly that. I think we've got to build a new healthcare system that actually has care in mind and is about making you healthy, is not pumping you for drugs, but actually trying to get you off of drugs. If you're on them, figure out better, alternative, holistic ways to live your life that, you know, nutrition, huge. I think the pyramid's great. But to the point, Brett, that's going to get really difficult here in the very near future. And where I'm now trying to think, I mean, I'm always in the strategy. We had a great strategy discussion back in Bath when you were arguing and you said to me something that I have reiterated to myself many times. You said, I don't think you have taken stock of how much the world has changed around you. You've been in this fight so long, you're fighting the same way. You said to me, look who's in the room today in this dinner. You got Dr. Robert Malone, who invented the MRNA technology. One of you got gear, band and boss, you got me. We're here. We weren't here last year. You were all alone. I get it. But you need to reassess your strategy based on how the game has just changed. I think we're in that moment, which is we do have people shifting, and I do. The numbers that are amazing are, I think, Amongst pregnant women, 60% in America when polled, at least whatever poll this was said they are not going to stick to the CDC schedule. So that's a huge. That's outside the 90, 80%. That could have a huge tidal effect to how this whole nation sits. But right behind that is going to be a world that the media run by pharma is going to take advantage of, which is. Measles is coming back. Oh, my God, the measles outbreak. Oh, my God, the chickenpox outbreak. Oh, my God. The end. And I think we do a disservice when people that aren't vaccinated say, my kids never get sick. That's not true. That's not true. They're not Sick long. I mean, my kids are unvaccinated. They get sick for about eight hours one day. My son, 17, he's wore himself down. I think he was sick for two days. It looked really bad. He's just fine now. But our kids need to get sick. We've got to change. I mean, the hardest part of this, Brett, is one thing to say. These things are dangerous and a lot of people are getting that. Covid certainly helped make that clear. But in a world of AI and a world of moving forward, the technology and advancement, advancement, advancement, is that society actually capable of coming to the conclusion that actually going backwards in this one space is our way forward.

Brett Weinstein (84:52)

That's very well said. I would point out two things. One, I think there's a battle that has to happen where the public has to come to understand non specific negative effects of vaccines. Because part of the problem is you hear measles vaccine and you think about measles. And as you have pointed out, maybe this is effective at preventing measles. But that's not what you, as someone deciding whether or not to give this to your kid, wants to know. What you want to know is, is this net health benefit beneficial for my kid? Which is a much tougher question.

Del Bigtree (85:32)

Yes.

Brett Weinstein (85:33)

Because there are lots of things. We don't know why they're connected to vaccines, but that seemed to be lots of things that we just didn't anticipate. And you know, Christine, Stable Ben has done a great job of tracking these non specific effects. And anyway, the public needs an upgrade in that regard. I'm trying to remember there was another point that I needed to put on the table here, and I can't remember what it was.

Del Bigtree (85:57)

Well, it was about this, this new world of having to accept that we're going back as the way to go forward.

Brett Weinstein (86:01)

Got it. Here's, here's the, the other little upgrade that has to happen in order for that to make sense. You've got a public that is used to. The latest phone has all the stuff your last one did, plus a bunch of new stuff. And so there's this sort of addiction to, well, I want more features. Because, I mean, especially in the context of a phone, what exactly am I giving up? Right.

Del Bigtree (86:30)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (86:31)

That is not how things work. When what you're doing is you are intervening in a complex system that is delicately balanced by evolution in a way that no human being understands. I'm tempted to say completely understands. But the fact is we're at the very beginning of understanding how a human function functions and our ability to intervene in a way that is net positive is minimal. So I think the addiction to your. The newest phone has a carryover that it doesn't deserve in the area of medicine, right? Well, you know, if I'm going to take, you know, the measles shot, I want the newest one. No, you don't. When you're talking about taking a drug or a vaccine, you want the one that is best understood, that the people who took it first have been around the longest. So we have some idea what its net impact is or at least have that potential. And so, you know, going right back to what you described about your natal home, right? You were eating traditional stuff that used to be called food. Now we've got stuff that we call food that really shouldn't qualify, right? It's a formula that's being tried on us. So getting people to separate their more or less rational attraction to the newest AI engine, the latest phone, the newest car, to separate that from their instinct about medicine and food. That's the key, right? You are an ancient organism built for an environment you don't live in. You should want to deviate from your ancestral environment as little as possible because you put up person, especially developmentally. You put them in an environment that looks like the ancestral environment from the beginning and then you allow them to go through development in that environment. And then you make the adult environment match that. That's going to be a healthy person. All of this ill health comes from a mismatch between the critter and the environment. And that mismatch is coming from us. The call is coming from inside the house. It's a technological pathology.

Del Bigtree (88:41)

Yeah, yeah. It's going to be tough though. I mean, and I think there's another feature to this I'm worried about. You know, I mean, I've said it. I want my kids to have the measles. That blows people's minds. Like I want them to catch chickenpox. In fact, I am concerned, Brett, that my unvaccinated kids aren't the same thing as the original baby boomers that were non vaccinated for any of these diseases and did just fine because they were being primed by these illnesses. We, there are studies that show reduced heart disease. If you had, you know, measles as a child.

Brett Weinstein (89:19)

Yeah, absolutely.

Del Bigtree (89:20)

Cancers. If ovarian cancer I think is. If a woman had mumps and measles when she was a kid, not from vaccinated, doesn't do it. But there's, there's obviously a priming of the immune system. I'm concerned that, you know, kids now that are unvaccinated, they're not necessarily. Clearly, we're not going back to square one. I think about this. You know, what really sort of triggered me on this was I would always say when I started this whole thing on vaccines, you know, the greatest invention of the 20th century isn't vaccines, it's penicillin. Penicillin saved far more lives and all of this. But then as I realized, the more reporting I do on antibiotics and the fact that most manufacturers are giving up on making antibiotics because they can't keep up with the evolution, the evolution of the bacteria and the resistance, and they're causing scarier and scarier bacteria in hospitals and things. And then I thought, we're still. The window we're looking at is Pasteur is a genius, but if we get to a point inside of a hundred years where we just give up on antibiotics, but we're not going. When we do that, we're not going back back to prior to Pasteur. We now live in a world where we have created superbugs that are like unstoppable eating, flesh eating, you know, growing on walls. No matter how much antiseptic you pour on a hospital, they're just teeming with these things. And will the same story be told of Pasteur if all he did was give us a tiny little moment of success, but left us with the most dangerous environment that we would have never had had we not introduced animals, antibiotics to the environment? So these are. I mean, these are the questions that I ponder now. And it's the same thing. We can't just go back to not vaccinating. Our infants aren't protected from measles or chickenpox. They're in danger. So the vaccine programs wiped out infant immunity. So now we gotta. You see Bobby doing people saying, why is he not getting rid of chickenpox? It's a ridiculous vaccine. Or even measles. Most of us know it's a Brady Bunch of episode, because I was in those conversations, been in with scientists, even Andy Wakefield, when we were making Vaxxed. Who's the big bad guy in this? He's like, we can't just end the measles vaccine program. It's like. He's like, babies will die. I mean, we have messed ourselves up. So there's the fact that my kids aren't being primed the way they're supposed to. And then something I'm really thinking about now is doctors aren't trained for any of these Illnesses. To them, measles looks terrifying. And I look at these two deaths that happened in Texas that obviously the media wants to scream about. It's almost like they're being murdered by medicine. And I'm not saying on purpose, but if you walk into a hospital and they go, oh, you're not vaccinated, well you're going to die. I don't want my doctor's assumption that I'm going to die of what I've just walked into the hospital with. But they've been trained to think like that. Whereas 40 years ago I walk in the hospital like, oh, you just have the measles. Let's get you some vitamin A, we'll get you out of here, you'll be fine, go lay up, play some, you know, board games, everything's gonna be fine. We're living in a totally different world. All of this is going to be so much more dangerous to experience.

Brett Weinstein (92:48)

Yes, there are a number of points here. One of them I think you're going to appreciate. The doctors aren't real doctors, which means that even the fact that something is going to reemerge is special problem because when doctors were scientists they would have trained themselves anew. Whereas if they're handed, you know, anti vaxxers of the problem, they're going to die. All of this stuff becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Yes. But on the point regarding bacterial resistance, there's a hidden story here and I wish people understood it because actually it tells us a lot about complex systems and medicine and governance. It's a really kind of an interesting thing to understand. So we are screwing up by overusing every antibiotic at our disposal, creating a gain of function experiment in which we are training these bacteria to fungi to overcome our best weapons. And the point is it's getting ever harder to find substances that actually will deal with these new resistant bugs. However, we have the solution to that at our disposal. Anytime we choose to avail ourselves of involves the fact that, that there are trade offs in these bugs. And I'm using bugs loosely obviously talking about microbes.

Del Bigtree (94:28)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (94:30)

The trade offs mean that there is a cost to being resistant. The bugs that have resistance thrive because they are so regularly encountering the antibiotics in question. Right. So they are being reinforced, forced in their resistance because the cost of lacking that resistance is greater than the cost of having it. That ceases to be the case as soon as we stop applying this stuff. Right. What happens is the cost of being resistant now out competes the cost of not being resistant because there's no benefit to It. So whatever extra investment it takes to be resistant is unique, remunerated. So all you got to do to fix an antibiotic is withdraw it completely for a long enough period of time for evolution to return these things to their baseline state. But you cannot do that in a libertarian environment. This requires coordination. We have to agree that actually the loss of that antibiotic is sufficiently bad for humanity that we have to take it away for a period of time to reproduce, restore it, and nobody gets to break the rule. Right. You have to be able to do it in a coordinated fashion or it won't work.

Del Bigtree (95:47)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (95:48)

So I don't know that we have the wherewithal to do that. Sounds tyrannical, I'm sure. But we all need those antibiotics. We are creating the very problem that requires them.

Del Bigtree (95:58)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (95:59)

And we are leaving ourselves no off ramp. So we need to wrap our minds around the fact that even though, and I'm, you know, I know how this will sound to people. If you take an anti antibiotic that is developing, the resistance is being developed towards and you withdraw it, some people will die. Some people who might have been saved by that antibiotic. Now, maybe there's a contingency plan. Maybe we can, you know, let's take a ship and turn it into a floating hospital where we can carefully deploy an antibiotic in a way that resistance can't escape back into the world. I don't know if there's a plan like that that would be viable. But we have to be able to coordinate our use because it is the libertarian free for all that has produced the resistance that we now can't keep up with.

Del Bigtree (96:53)

It's a very, I mean, it's a very good point. And it's, it's one of the things, you know, in this movement. I've been a part of what I would call the medical freedom movement for almost 10 years. The big baddie is any concept of a greater good. Right. We're going to make a decision for the greater body of humanity because everyone that's been injured by a vaccine, that was the argument that was used. You are an accepted casualty to achieve herd immunity. Unfortunately, science didn't know how big that casualty is. And I think it is far higher than can be justified in actual, actual math. But what you're talking about, and I've said it, is, I'm sorry, every decision is a greater good decision of some kind. Whether we're vaccinating or not vaccinated, whether we're deciding. Because there are casualties to every single choice that we Make.

Brett Weinstein (97:50)

Yes.

Del Bigtree (97:52)

And someone has got to do the math on what is the greater casualty. And I think at the moment, the way we are using antibiotics, the way we are using vaccines, and the way that we are approving pharmaceutical products, especially vaccines, our species is not long for this earth. And I don't mean naturally, I mean specifically if we keep. And this is what I say to every journalist, I don't care what you actually think of the COVID vaccine, whether you are blind somehow to the men, amount of carnage it's caused, but let's say it was successful. I assure you that if we continue to live in a world where the pharmaceutical industry is allowed to rush a brand new technology that messes with your DNA, your mRNA, whatever you want to call it, rush it onto the market within a year, skip out and then get an emergency use authorization by the government to skip out of all long term safety trials and then mandate that everyone, in order to get on a bus or on a plane, or go to a job, or go to school, have to take this totally experimental product. Somehow we got lucky that Covid, at least so far, it may have a longer term burn, did not destroy our species. But if we continue with that, allowing pharma to rush products onto the market, rush brand new technologies, get it mandated by every government in the world, and everyone in a stronger and stronger authoritarian system around the world globalist system is forced to take this problem product. Nature has never and will never deliver a virus or a bacteria that can wipe this species out. But rushing science mandated on all humanity that is perfectly capable of doing that and will eventually.

Brett Weinstein (99:44)

Well, let's put it this way. My top priority in this regard is the gain of function has to stop. Yeah, right. Because what, what effectively we have are weapon scientists who have gotten bored with the 16 or whatever weaponizable pathogens that nature handed them, and they're now shopping in all of the things that make creatures that aren't exactly human sick and looking for ones that they can teach to infect people for their own demonic purposes.

Del Bigtree (100:19)

Yeah. So.

Brett Weinstein (100:20)

So that has to stop. Because we actually have pretty good resistance to the things that are circulating.

Del Bigtree (100:29)

Right?

Brett Weinstein (100:29)

Yeah.

Del Bigtree (100:30)

The story we've been evolving with them for a very long period of time.

Brett Weinstein (100:33)

We have. And what happened to the indigenous people of the New World when the Spaniards arrived looms too large for us. Because the point is, this has already already happened. Right? It got everywhere and everything gets everywhere, which has rendered these things much more controllable because selection has already acted to make us capable of dealing with them. That's not true. If Anthony Fauci and his insane friends are shopping the caves of the Yunnan province for bat viruses that they can train right now, suddenly we're dealing with a whole bunch of new pathogens that we don't have the experience. Experience to deal with. And so, anyway, I don't need to convince you of that, but we are technologically putting the species in danger in short order. We're doing it physiologically, we're also doing it technologically. I mean, the experiment that we are running on ourselves with AI is not psychologically safe, among other risks.

Del Bigtree (101:36)

It is my new vaccine focus that. That thing scares me. I may have found something that could potentially be more. More dangerous than a, you know, horror safety show, you know, around vaccines, this thing.

Brett Weinstein (101:49)

It's very frightening. Even if, you know, I'm. I am alert to the possibility of a, you know, misalignment where the AI goes after us. But you don't need to get anywhere near those scenarios to see how this can catastrophically disrupt humans and. And is already beginning to. To do so, so. Well, anyway, I'm interested to hear that you're of this mind and on a project to potentially, I hope, refocus medicine around, I would argue the precautionary principle and Chesterton's fence that we need to understand that all of the technological stuff we've done has been born of an understanding of the complicated. We are complex. Complicated and complex sound like synonyms. They're not complex. Things are fundamentally unpredictable. And so you intervene at your peril.

Del Bigtree (102:51)

Right.

Brett Weinstein (102:52)

And our love of intervention and the few cases in which we've made interventions that, you know, frankly, all of the interventions that we've made that have worked spectacularly well, well, work because they work in concert with things about the body we don't understand, like, for example, surgery. Well, surgery works because you can slice open the human body, you can take something out or modify something, and then the body has magical properties to put itself back together that were there having nothing to do with medicine.

Del Bigtree (103:29)

Right.

Brett Weinstein (103:29)

You try that with your car. You know, take a chainsaw and, you know, cut into your car and see how well it heals. Right, Right. Your car is complicated. You are complex. And we need. We need to, as much as possible, let the body take care of itself and stop imagining that we're gods and that we intervene in all of these magical ways that, you know, are all good and not bad and.

Del Bigtree (103:53)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (103:55)

Anyway, it's an important transition and I wish you luck with it.

Del Bigtree (103:59)

Thank you.

Brett Weinstein (104:01)

Before we close out Here I did want to get your sense of where we are in the larger context. You, as Bobby's campaign manager, saw director.

Del Bigtree (104:13)

Of communication, and Rose Kennedy was campaign manager. I ran the media perspective, social media, getting him, you know, handling the story.

Brett Weinstein (104:23)

Right. Well, sorry about the error.

Del Bigtree (104:25)

It's okay.

Brett Weinstein (104:26)

But I'm wondering, you've seen the system now up close in a way that few of us have.

Del Bigtree (104:32)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (104:33)

And you're obviously watching what's taking place not just at the level of human health, but at the level of this administration, which you and I both had a hand in making happen.

Del Bigtree (104:46)

Yeah. Um.

Brett Weinstein (104:48)

Where do you think we are? Where do you think we're headed? Are you optimistic? Are you concerned? Both.

Del Bigtree (104:55)

I like to say to journalists, because they ask me that all the times. Like, I'm giddy, I'm singing in the car. You know, I feel really good about what I see happening. I. I first sat Bobby down. I took out a. I don't know if it was a presidential suite, but the Hyatt in Washington, D.C. i took out a room that had a big, long conference table in it. I knew a Siri, who I worked very closely with, was going to be in D.C. and they were going to be making some rounds. So I knew Bobby was going to be in D.C. this, I think, was like 20, 18, 19. And I'll never forget, I invited him up to for a meeting, and I was going to get us dinner. I got this nice room, but he shows up with his own box. Me ravenous and starving and sitting there in, like, you know, the jean shirt. Great. I mean, I just love Bobby in so many ways. He's such a natural, natural guy in such an unnatural environment when you think of Washington, D.C. but in that moment, he's like, all right, guys, why am I here? And I pitched to him then that I thought he should run for president. I said, I think that we are making a lot of headway in this conversation now, but the censorship's moving in. Remember, this is pre Joe Biden. There's only been at that moment, one debate with all 20 people on stage. And I was like, Bobby, you can jump in there and you're going to survive the debates, at least for the first several, because your name recognition alone will give you above the 2% that you need. You're coming in an advantage. And I said, you're going to get a real advantage because I think the media is going to make a tragic mistake and attack you on vaccines and give you far more airtime than most of the people on that stage on that one issue, and I'll be in the background working with you and Aaron, and we'll run your social media and show everybody the science. That was my harebrained idea. He thought about it for a few weeks and then just said, I'm just not sure that this is the right time. Of course, Covid hit right at the end of that whole election cycle. And I'm still curious what that would have looked like if Bobby. And remember, in that situation, Bobby would have been on liberal news and they would have watched him speak. But anyway, I don't go back in time, and I'm not the type of person that really wastes a lot of time there. I did get the call when he did decide to run and ended up being his director of communications. And it was an incredible ride, incredible journey. I got to be in the Oval Office when he was sworn as hh, HHS secretary, which, you know, I did think in that moment, God is good. This is bigger and better than anything any of us dreamed. We have toiled and slaved to get this guy wherever he was going. But I really asked myself as I was leaving that day, did I ever picture him as president, like, in the whole new age? Did I have. I never put, like, you know, a vision board on my wall. Wall. And Bobby standing, you know, sitting behind the, you know, the desk or anything. And so the whole flight home, I was just. What was. What were we doing? And I want to say that, you know, Amaryllis Kennedy, Charles Eisenstein, me, and, you know, Stephanie Spear around Bobby, and Bobby, who's a very spiritual person, but we all. When I think about it, I don't know that we were just signed off on. He's gonna be president. It was a long shot, no matter what. What. But none of us felt like it was just some futile.

Brett Weinstein (108:16)

It wasn't a lark.

Del Bigtree (108:17)

It wasn't a lark. There was something that was happening, and we knew it was going to pay off somehow. This is going to. We feel it. We're here for a reason. It's too big. There's too many doors opening in really miraculous places for this not to add up to something. So I do believe in God, and I do believe my. You know, the coincidences are too big and too, too brilliant. All that said, getting close to D.C. is the most. It's a horror show. I don't like it. Bobby asked me if I was interested in coming in and being in media inside of D.C. and there's no part of me that certainly that's not my calling at the moment. I watched the criticisms. I was frustrated by the criticisms against him by people on our own side. Why does he stop talking about battle vaccines? He's given up on us. I was like, we let the guy get into the job, right? The food issue. And I'm, I'm happy to admit this, that the press is like, he really moved to food soon as Maha and just to get more people right? Like, yeah. And it was a much more easier. It was an easier conversation to have on the dangers of food than the dangers of vaccines. So did he use that to get more people behind him? Like, yeah. I mean, yes. It's not like he made it up, though. He's been fighting for clean food his whole life. It wasn't like he made it up to hoodwink people. It's just like, hey, there's this other part of something that I think we all more obviously care about. So coming out of the gate immediately started fixing the food supply. I mean, just to look at that last year in review, I mean, I was being asked as the let, you know, as we were trying to see if he would get confirmed, Donald Trump got in and I cheered and it was amazing. But then I realized, oh, wait a minute, this doesn't mean anything. Bobby's not confirmed yet. And that became its own major heavy lift and scary and very, very close. I don't think people realize how close that was to not happening. But even before the election, red dye number four was being taken down by HHS by the same criminals that had had that job for decades and not done it. And so when people were saying to me, what effect do you think Robert Kennedy Jr. Can have? I was like, he's already having it. He's already brought attention to issues that no one in this country were ever paying attention to. Red die is coming out. It's not because. Because Bobby Kennedy's coming. And all those people don't want to go in history as being the last fools that poisoned America. They want to say, no. I started that before Bobby ever got there. And I would say in those interviews that they. That moment, you know, if I went on the street right now and said, who's to every stop a thousand people, who's the current HHS secretary? Would they tell me? Javier Becerra. They're like, no. I was like, how many? Like, like, I don't think one in a thou. Every reporter said, I don't even think one in a thousand could do it. I. If I go out there and say, who's about to beat the HHS Secretary of the United States of America. Like, yeah, maybe 1 in 10. I was like, that is the change. The change is we're engaged now as a voting public. And no matter what you think about of Donald Trump, the one great thing about him is he woke America up. Whether you hate him, you vote against him, if you love him, you're voting for him. But both sides are realizing we're in a dangerous situation and I got to get more involved. So for all of those reasons, we're a greater nation right now than I think we've been in most of my lifetime. And to watch what Bobby's doing, starting out with food, removing chemicals from food that every liberal has wanted. Every crunchy granola mom. I'm shocked they're still calling themselves Democrats or are somehow mustering up. I think he's a crazy person. We've been talking about the food supply. He's fixing the food supply. Marty Makary I think has been brilliant speaking out. We're going to have placebo trials. No more vaccines without placebo trials. Huge change. We're no longer give flu shots that can't prove to stop the virus that's circulating. Seems like a no brainer but took.

Brett Weinstein (112:25)

A lot of brain, it took a.

Del Bigtree (112:26)

Lot of brain to make that happen. I think seeing Donald Trump sort of really pressing upon Bobby to look at the pure nations and say, you know, can we study their vaccine programs and this shift two weeks ago to the Denmark schedule plus chicken pox I think will save millions of lives. I'm not this not over. There's still, you know, we've gone from 17 vaccines to 11, I think it is or diseases. There's 54 vaccines. It's turning into 23, 54 shots to 23 shots at the moment. But they're still going to mandate those other ones. So for my work, I say I'll be done. When I got into this with Vaxxed, I'll be finished. When vaccines aren't mandated and when liability is back on the manufacturer, we have a free market system that when we get back to what the United States of America is supposed to be, you got to prove the damn thing safe. And if it isn't safe, then there's other products you're going to compete with. We're going to state it publicly. We're not going to make people take it so you don't have to fix it. We're not going to protect your liability. I think if we just get back to that natural world, most of these problems will start. I think science will return. I think the scientific method hopefully will get involved there and we're moving in that direction. So I'm ecstatic with what I see. I think that there's still vaccines. I think the Gardasil vaccine is one of the worst things ever made.

Brett Weinstein (113:52)

Horrifying.

Del Bigtree (113:52)

It was. It was sad to see it stay on the schedule. Which says to me, I know Bobby. I know he works by, you know, consensus inside of people he trusts. So somewhere in Oz, Dr. Makary and J. Bhattacharya, there must be a love for that vaccine. I don't know why it is so useless, so pointless, has achieved nothing except damage. But I think there's also the assumption the ACIP meetings that are going on and Robert Malone was. I love, loved watching him run that last meeting. I love him in that position. I'm not sure, you know, how long he'll stay there, but I think aluminum is going to come under the spotlight that Paul Offit's screaming bloody murder over that. So just watch Paul Offit. If you want to see how much success you're having, just keep it. Whatever he's screaming about, monitor if his eyes are bulging. Exactly. Aluminum's a horrific thing that we're doing. It is going to be devastating. Paul Offit's right. It'll be very devastating. The vaccine program, if you come to the obvious conclusion that there's no neurotoxin, shouldn't be injected in the children, that.

Brett Weinstein (114:59)

It is especially of liability.

Del Bigtree (115:01)

Rebecca, especially so. My concern is the midterms. I think that Bobby will be the first if, if you. If the Republicans, and I'm not, I consider myself politically marooned. I obviously supported Bobby. I stand behind Trump because he's supporting Bobby and that's a huge part of what we're doing here. But I think Bobby is the most effective part of this administration. Administration right now.

Brett Weinstein (115:24)

Oh, I think that's clear.

Del Bigtree (115:25)

And I think that if we, if the Republicans lost control of the Senate and the House, if that actually took place, I think Bobby be impeached almost immediately. I think that. And so that concerns me.

Brett Weinstein (115:39)

That's frightening.

Del Bigtree (115:40)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (115:41)

I will say I'm watching Bobby and as you know, I have defended him against attacks from our side, which, you know, attacks that, like you, I have some sympathy with. Right. There are some things that should be done that aren't being done. But I also, in watching Bobby, it is clear that he is doing something that I don't think most of us would be capable of stomaching. What must it be like to have to negotiate in an environment where you know that how well you do adjusts, how many children will be maimed, but you can't get the number to zero because you'll be out on your ear. Right. That, that's a rough position for a good man to be in, to have to negotiate over this. It's, yeah, you know, it's a Schindler like position that's, you know, it's, it's unthinkable. And anyway, more power to Bobby for being, being able to do it.

Del Bigtree (116:49)

I think he needs to be done into the thing you've alluded. I think the one thing in being as close to him for the years that I worked with him on the campaign, his spiritual life, his guiding principles to life are unmatched in the political arena.

Brett Weinstein (117:06)

Yep.

Del Bigtree (117:07)

And I want to make sure. I'm not saying religious, I'm saying spiritual. He's guided by something much bigger than himself, himself. And I think that he, all along the way, and I mean this, if he didn't get confirmed or if Trump didn't win, his energy would be almost identical the next day. Because he truly lives his life believing if God, if it's meant to happen and I'm the right vessel for it, it will happen. I'm going to be smart. He's obviously working the political stuff system better than most ever have. He grew up in it. He's designed for it. I'm sure he would love to change everything tomorrow. And he. But when I sat with him at dinner, he knows the attacks, they don't bother him from his own side. Right. The opposite side's always easy. But the friendly fire, he gets it. He understands it. He, in many ways, is forgiving of their lack of knowledge of the world that he's actually in, the vampires and darkness that he's from surrounded by. But most importantly, I think he's seeing every day as every day I survive here, I get to do a little more good and, you know, God willing, I last long enough to get this entire job done. But he sees that as being out of his hands. I think he's playing some chess with Trump just to make sure Trump stays happy on some things that they may not agree. I think he knows can't piss him off. I'm going to get all these other things done that I can. And I think he's got to be ecstatic that he's really making some big sweeping changes right now and moving everything in the right direction. So he seems to be having the time of his life. And I couldn't do. Does take compromise. I'm too much of a right fighter. I can't. As strategic as I believe myself to be, I'm not as strategic as he is. And I. He is designed for this. And we are so lucky in this nation and the world is lucky that this man, through efforts by guys like you and me and so many people that came from our different walks of life, I mean, this is a ragtag team that came together and it's pulled off, really, a political miracle. And I, you know, I think he's making huge change. My concerns right now is how do we make. Make sure that they're fortified and can stand the test of time.

Brett Weinstein (119:37)

Yeah, I. I agree with you exactly. You know, I don't know how Bobby does it, because I think, actually, you and I both know where his heart is and how much he knows about what needs to happen. And he's watching the clock, too. And so the ability to. To be strategic when you can see everything that's at stake and you must want to put your foot on the gas, it's a remarkable quality. And anyway, I'm glad he's doing it. He is the strongest argument for the Trump administration having been a success. And I'm worried, too, about the midterms. But anyway, let's hope that goes well.

Del Bigtree (120:21)

Yeah, well, I'm not into hope. As much. As much action as I can. Yeah. Further. And I'm sure we'll talk more about strategies on what we need to do there, but it's in our hands. It's back in the people's hands at the moment. And, you know, I think we've shown we can get people elected. I think we can make a difference. It is certainly not a time to be apathetic, and it's definitely not a time to think that this battle is over in any way.

Brett Weinstein (120:46)

Yeah. I wish at some level, the scorn that is heaped on Bobby by people who've just not yet made icons. Contact with what a good person he is and what. What he is doing on their behalf as they are fighting him. I wish more people would just think for a moment whether or not what they have seen is actually a match for what they have been told about it.

Del Bigtree (121:14)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (121:14)

Right. Just compare those two things. Right. Is this person an insane person? No, this is a person with encyclopedic knowledge. Is this, you know, as you point out, what is his motive to get rid of safe and effective vaccines for children? Is. Is he a monster?

Del Bigtree (121:30)

No.

Brett Weinstein (121:31)

Doesn't look like a monster. Those of us who know him know he isn't one. So anyway, people could just realize something is off about what they've been told.

Del Bigtree (121:40)

Yeah.

Brett Weinstein (121:40)

And then go back with the fresh, fresh eyes and look at what he's doing and realize, oh, wow, this is long overdue. And nobody else could have done it.

Del Bigtree (121:51)

Exactly.

Brett Weinstein (121:52)

All right, Bill big tree, it's been great chatting with you. Where can people find you?

Del Bigtree (121:59)

I do a weekly podcast called the highwire.com you can go there, interview all the great people on the planet that are waking up to all sorts of different realities, like yourself. And the other website I think is very important right now is an inconveniencestudy.com the film is free. The nonprofit funded our ability to do it. I think we're nearing 100 million views worldwide, which is very exciting. It's sparked a scientific debate. And my favorite thing about the film is how many people reach out to me and say, I have been trying to get my relative or someone I love to look at this issue. And they finally watched that movie, and it actually has got them changing how they think. I think it's a really, really great tool. The way it's designed. Designed. It's. It's simple, understandable, and it really defends itself very well. It makes its points. So everyone should be sharing that. I think it's a. It's a game changer, and I don't think we're going to have another opportunity like this. Not. I mean, not the way this is set up. That film is a study done by the other side. It has a power to it that it's only the second film I've made. I mean, people think. I mean, I do a weekly talk show, but I made vast. I don't make documentaries because it's just know I was like, I don't feel like that's a document that wouldn't be a good story. Very proud of this. There's a reason why it's the second one. So those two websites right now will get you to everything I'm doing. And I'm going to be starting a new podcast soon that'll just be more getting to the basics of conversation. I love this. I love you, Brett. You're such an inspiration in how you're seeing the world. And I. I don't know if I was interviewing you here or not, but I really wanted to see. Sit with you because I am trying to figure out how we recalibrate. We're in a place we never dreamed we'd be. But I don't want to sit in awe of it. I want to use it to our advantage. Make sure we get everything done.

Brett Weinstein (124:01)

We got to make hey, while the sun shines. No question about it. Well, I hope everybody will consider. Hey, is tonight the night that you should go watch this film? I think it might be. It's an hour and a half and you'll be glad you saw it.

Del Bigtree (124:13)

You will.

Brett Weinstein (124:14)

And in case convenient study. And anyway, Del, thanks for joining me. It was excellent. And look forward to next time.