The History of Vaccine Hesitancy: Jeffrey Tucker on DarkHorse

Summary

DarkHorse Podcast
Episode: The History of Vaccine Hesitancy: Jeffrey Tucker on DarkHorse
Date: February 18, 2026
Host: Bret Weinstein
Guest: Jeffrey Tucker (President and Founder, Brownstone Institute)

---

Episode Theme

This episode delves into the deep-rooted history of vaccine hesitancy, the evolution of the vaccine industry, and the structural problems that have plagued scientific and regulatory institutions. Bret Weinstein and Jeffrey Tucker explore the origins of public trust and skepticism in vaccines, the intertwining of industry and government from the 19th century onward, and how these threads converged during the COVID-19 pandemic. The discussion exposes how intellectual fragmentation, institutional capture, utilitarian philosophy, and a lack of genuine interdisciplinary collaboration contributed both to policy failures and to the suppression of dissent.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Brownstone Institute and the Value of Intellectual Pluralism ([00:00]–[22:50])

• Origins & Purpose: Jeffrey Tucker introduces Brownstone Institute as a unique, interdisciplinary space with no ideological litmus tests, where thinkers from all backgrounds convene. Its success, he says, stems from learning from failed institutions and creating an environment where people are eager to engage and learn from one another.

• Interdisciplinary Deficit Revealed By COVID: Both highlight how COVID exposed damaging intellectual silos — with lawyers not talking to doctors, monetary economists isolated from trade economists, etc. This led to narrow, ineffective pandemic policies.

• Good Faith & Mind Expansion: Key to Brownstone’s intellectual gatherings is that participants must bring expertise but also "play well with others" and be open to having their minds changed (see [22:50]).

  "There are lots of people who have something to bring to the table but who are, you know, read-only... they're not listening. Those people aren't there." — Bret Weinstein [20:30]

---

2. Institutional Capture & Historical Vaccine Industry Dynamics ([24:20]–[44:00])

• Policy Decisions — Then and Now: The story of the Bayh–Dole Act (which allowed NIH to profit from patents) and the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act (which shielded manufacturers from liability) are revisited with first-hand reflections from policymakers like David Stockman, who admit to changing their views after learning more about the subsequent harm such policies enabled.

• Intentional Industry Advantages: Jeffrey Tucker recounts the 1902 Biologics Control Act, which was driven by industry to salvage its reputation and profits after public outrage over vaccine injuries. The very regulatory structures that appear to guard public health often originated as industry shield mechanisms.

  "It turns out there’s only one industry that actually managed to use all that propaganda to its advantage and that was the vaccine industry." — Jeffrey Tucker [25:05]

---

3. Vaccine Myths, Public Health, and the Role of Mythology ([31:43]–[46:39])

• Public Health vs. Vaccines: Tucker contrasts traditional public health (clean water, sewage, food safety) as uncontroversially beneficial, whereas vaccines always had a harm–benefit calculus, propaganda, and a “mystical” status resulting in social myth.

• Origin Myths & Early Hesitancy: Vaccine injury, skepticism, and opposition date back to the 18th and 19th centuries. Both Jenner and his American analogue, James Smith, were surrounded by controversy—vaccine mandates sometimes led to tragic errors and outbreaks.

• Civilization Needs Mythology: Bret discusses how societal functions are built on mythologies, which are then captured by powerful players (governments, industries) for their own agendas.

  "There's a mythology about the founding of the US that isn't exactly true but it's true enough...we function, and those stories get captured." — Bret Weinstein [41:05]

---

4. COVID Response: Industrial Power, Policy Catastrophe & Missed Opportunities ([53:30]–[65:56])

• Manufacturing and the Dangers of Industry–Government Symbiosis: COVID policies echo a long pattern: regulatory acts intended to “protect” the public often spur unintended negative consequences, insulate harmful products, and stifle dissent.

• mRNA Vaccines as an Industry Experiment: The pandemic saw the deployment of a not fully tested vaccine platform not as a strictly public health measure but as a field test for new tech and social control — a point validated by discussions within Brownstone’s private retreats.

• Suppression of Treatment Alternatives & Narrative Control: Potentially effective treatments like ivermectin/HQ were disparaged not due to ineffectiveness but to preserve the vaccine "exit strategy" narrative.

  "If they let people experiment with ivermectin, doctors will quickly discover how useful it is... At the point you introduce the vaccine, nobody will want it, because there’s a safe alternative." — Bret Weinstein [84:32]

---

5. Utilitarianism, Public Health, and Suppression of Individual Rights ([80:07]–[91:53])

• From Medical Care to Population Management: COVID saw a coup of public health over medicine; doctors lost autonomy to treat patients individually in favor of one-size-fits-all, utilitarian policy justified by “the greater good.”

• Utilitarianism as Justification for Tyranny: Both critique utilitarian calculus for being endlessly manipulable to justify anything—including the silencing of debate, loss of patient autonomy, and the coercion of mass vaccination.

  "Utilitarianism can be used to justify absolutely anything..." — Bret Weinstein [82:46]

---

6. Social Engineering, Control, and the Narrative Around Lockdowns ([87:42]–[103:24])

• Lockdowns as Tools for Social Control and Industrial Gain: Lockdown and reopening plans disproportionately favored large businesses and “the laptop class,” harming small businesses. The BLM protests were allowed as a "pressure release" to maintain lockdown legitimacy.
• Inside Out Rationalizations: The “Hammer and Dance” narrative was propagated by people who stood to profit from pandemic measures, illustrating how messaging is crafted from self-interest and opportunism.

---

7. Failures of Intellectual Communities and the Need for Courage ([127:15]–[141:04])

• Collapse of Critical Communities: COVID revealed profound failures among rationalists, libertarians, scientists, and even religious institutions, all of which rationalized forms of obedience antithetical to their stated values.

  "I realized very early on that I was pretty much alone...The rationale goes something like this: well...getting a disease is like a negative externality, so government can actually be a handmaiden of liberty. Anything’s possible, you know, you suppose if you’re clever you can justify anything." — Jeffrey Tucker [128:07]

• Cowardice vs. Courage: True dissent required not mere intellect but personal courage — the willingness to risk social, professional, and financial standing for truth.

  "I would much rather have courageous people confronting a puzzle like this than cowards...The cowards aren’t going to get it right because they’re too easy to manipulate." – Bret Weinstein [136:09]

---

8. The Brownstone Model & Human Social Learning ([144:42]–[151:56])

• Creating Safe Haven for Real Dialogue: Brownstone’s mission is to provide security and freedom for genuine truth-seeking, in-person, with an ethos of humility (admitting what we don’t know) and mutual model-upgrading.

• Physical Presence as Essential to Collective Intelligence: Both discuss how in-person gatherings produce a kind of group intelligence, accountability, and process of idea refinement unattainable online.

  "Our ability to plug our minds into each other in an almost literal fashion—that is a kind of superpower...But we are breaking that dynamic." – Bret Weinstein [115:09]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment, and if you could just figure out all of the things you've seen that don't work and avoid them, you're well on your way to something that might work." — Bret Weinstein [03:11]
• "We need serious environments for all these different people to talk to each other, so we can learn from each other...and also we have no ideological litmus test. I’m not demanding that people fly this flag or that flag." — Jeffrey Tucker [10:55]
• "Peer review is not the same as review by peers...If you can’t explain it to somebody in an adjacent discipline you probably don’t understand it very well if it’s even true at all." — Bret Weinstein [12:30]
• "Pharma is vastly more sophisticated than we understand in its ability to pull one over on us...we’re playing catch up with a very sophisticated creature." — Bret Weinstein [69:01]
• "Utilitarianism is inherently a population-level phenomenon...public health and utilitarianism have a direct connection...so the utilitarians have taken over civilization—they literally shut it down. It's an amazing fact." — Bret Weinstein [82:46, 83:34]
• "I don't know how I would say the wrong thing and then go on about my business, it would tear me up." — Bret Weinstein [140:19]
• "I've always believed in that...the culture that created the greatest intellectuals of the twentieth century...I want to be there, right, that thing." — Jeffrey Tucker [113:43]
• "Maybe it's the phenomenon of keepers of the flame during a Dark Age...in every Dark Age there are those who maintain the rights and belief structures...and they keep track of how to do this work." — Bret Weinstein [146:21]

---

Suggested Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:00]–[22:50]: Brownstone Institute origins & the need for interdisciplinary truth-seeking
• [24:20]–[44:00]: Historical vaccine industry lobbying, Bayh–Dole, liability shields
• [53:30]–[65:56]: Bioweapons, mRNA as experiment, intentional suppression of remedies
• [80:07]–[91:53]: Utilitarianism, public health, and the mechanics of mass policy
• [103:24]–[113:11]: Lockdowns as class war and social engineering
• [127:15]–[141:04]: Institutional failures, the function of courage, and the rationalization trap
• [144:42]–[151:56]: The meaning of Brownstone — security, truth, and communal learning

---

Tone Note

The episode is deeply critical, wide-ranging, reflective, and sometimes darkly humorous. Both speakers blend historical analysis, personal anecdote, institutional critique, and philosophical musings to examine why modern society repeatedly falls prey to the same patterns of power, myth, and rationalization — and what it will take to build better intellectual communities moving forward.

---

Further Involvement

• Brownstone articles, books, supper clubs, conferences (see [149:14]–[152:31])
• Jeffrey Tucker’s origin of vaccine industry article (referenced extensively; available through Brownstone)
• Next Brownstone Polyface event: Registration open; high demand

---

This episode is a dense, far-reaching dialogue for anyone seeking to understand not just the story of COVID policy and vaccine skepticism but the broader, perennial struggle for truth inside captured institutions.

Transcript

[Brett Weinstein]

Hey folks welcome to the dark horse podcast this is going to be a good one i am sitting with my friend jeffrey tucker who is the president and is it fair to say founder of the brownstone institute where i am a proud fellow before i say more about what i see at brownstone and ask jeffrey what he sees jeffrey welcome to dark horse well it's so nice.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

To be here thank you so much for having me i'm really looking forward to this discussion because brett i think i'm going to tell you some things that you don't go.

[Brett Weinstein]

Wow you know it would not be the first time in fact i would say i was thinking back in preparing for today's podcast i don't think i've missed a gathering of brownstone since the first one you invited me to i can't remember exactly when that was but i'm hooked because brownstone is many things and describing it is not a simple matter but i think it is the only institution of any size that i have been part of or witnessed from the outside that seems to function as intended it's quite.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

An accomplishment well and that's a consequence of a lifetime of experience in seeing things go wrong so once you eliminate all the things that you know go wrong then you're left with maybe an institution that could possibly function well and i'm going to knock on wood but so far it's really i'm just thrilled we have a tiny staff and you see what's happening to the separate clubs we've got now fifteen separate clubs i think we're going on twenty all over the country most of them sell out every single week we've got now we're working on our twenty second book i'm putting the finishing touches right now on a book that you i think you're just going to love it's the first book on the great branson declaration and the book is edited by martin koldorff and jay bhattacharya and the purpose of the book is to just provide a thorough documentation of the declaration the faqs the defenses of it the attacks on it the disputations the debates the disputes and everything that unfolded from that and if you can believe it this book is it's going to be i think we haven't done the index yet but it could be it's about seven hundred and fifty pages all right so this.

[Brett Weinstein]

I don't know how many in my audience will be well familiar with brownstone i think everybody will have encountered it somewhere and probably scratch their head as to what it is and it's hard to put your finger on it's part publishing house it's part of you know i would say it's a salon in the best sense of that term you have gathered people from widely divergent backgrounds many different walks of life maybe i'll name a few people who show up.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

There.

[Brett Weinstein]

Ron johnson and thomas massie robert malone warner mendenhall will be less well known but he's kind of the tip of the legal spear on fighting covid tyranny gosh there are so many fascinating people and so the salon part i will say you have wisely and to go back to your point about avoiding all of the mistakes that you've seen my favorite aphorism with my children they're absolutely sick of saying this is that good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment and if you could just figure out all of the things you've seen that don't work and avoid them you're you're well on your way to something that might work and anyway brownstone works our first sponsor this.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Week is van man here at dark horse we love van man's products and are certain that you will too absolutely everything we've had from them has been exceptional from their pearl eye cream to tallow and zinc sunscreen from coconut and magnesium deodorant to their remarkable remineralizing chewing gum all of it is superior today however i want to focus on their tallow and honey balm in particular tallow is the best moisturizer on earth because the fatty acids in tallow are nearly identical to the oils in your own skin one use and you'll feel the difference your skin will be soft and.

[Brett Weinstein]

Smooth and a little goes a long.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Way this stuff lasts and it's fantastic for you and tallow bomb isn't just a moisturizer it can replace everything from lotions and wrinkle creams to to neosporin and diaper balm it works on rashes and scrapes acne and sunburn our boys young men at college now swear by it too the ingredient list of van man's honey and tallow balm is short and entirely edible it's got one hundred percent grass fed and finished suet beef tallow organic raw honey and beeswax and organic cold pressed extra virgin olive oil you can get it with or without essential oils van man's tallow and honey balm is powerful enough to heal the skin and yet safe enough to spread on your toast that's real ingredients and unlike many other seemingly small wholesome companies making healthy organic products van man is the real deal remember when burt's bees made great stuff native doctor squatch all of these companies have been bought by megacorporations and private equity firms which hijack beloved brands and replace it with the usual corporate slop van mans will never sell out ready to ditch the corporate chemicals go to vanman shop darkhorse twenty six and use code darkhorse twenty six twenty six for fifteen off your first order that's vanman shop darkhorse twenty six and use the code darkhorse for fifteen percent off your first order van man real ingredients no exceptions our second sponsor for this episode is brand new to us it's puree puree makes a wide array of supplements and powders from vitamin c magnesium and b complex to creatine collagen and protein powders what makes puri different is how clean and pure all of their products are all of them puri was founded in two thousand nine by two men who wanted to create the cleanest purest products to support their own active lifestyles since then their product portfolio has grown to address common nutritional deficiencies in the developed world and they have never compromised on quality from the fundamental understanding that health requires good diet physical activity recovery and balance the founders of puri reject quick fixes and have insisted on the most stringent purity testing on all of their products from the very beginning we're using puri's magnesium which is excellent like all of puri's products their magnesium complex is third party tested and certified by the clean label project against over two hundred contaminants and at any time you can scan the qr code on your bottle for the test results for your particular batch heather's mom is expecting her first shipment of multivitamins and fish oil from puri any day and is excited to finally have products that she knows are safe and contain exactly what they say nothing more and nothing less and our son toby has been making protein enriched smoothies for a couple of years but has had a hard time finding a protein powder that he liked most of them are strongly flavored and gritty but he wanted one that would disappear into his shake letting other flavors shine now at nineteen he's found his protein powder puree's grass fed whey protein powder bourbon vanilla flavor toby says out of all the protein powders i've tried this is the best the flavor is mild it doesn't intrude on the other flavors it's smooth going down and is full of great whey protein most protein powders aren't just gritty and artificial they're actually toxic several studies including those done by consumer reports show that a significant fraction of protein powders on the market contain lead in amounts that are known to be dangerous you shouldn't be eating lead at all much less in a supplement you're taking to improve your health not only is puree whey protein powder free of lead it also delivers a whopping twenty one grams of whey protein in each serving and is free of gmo's pesticides and exogenous hormones toby loves the bourbon vanilla flavor but they've also got a dark chocolate flavor made from organic cocoa powder whether you're looking for magnesium or a multivitamin collagen or protein powder you can't go wrong with puri use code darkhorse at puri dot com darkhorse to get thirty two percent off puri grass fed whey protein when you start a subscription in addition you get a free shaker worth dollar twenty five on your first subscription order which brings total savings to forty nine dollars go to p u o r i dot com darkhorse and use the code darkhorse at checkout for this exclusive.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Offer brett one of the things that i think you'll recognize from academia is that the intellectual world in general has a major problem that people get burrowed down in their specializations and don't end up communicating outside their specialty and this is true ideologically too it's like okay i'm a conservative here are my conservative friends i'm a liberal here are my liberal friends i'm an economist i like to be with economists and so i'm a monetary economist so i like to be with other monetary economists trade economists i don't care about right so natural sciences don't talk social sciences lawyers don't talk to don't talk to medical people for whatever reason in twenty nineteen we were a seriously intellectually segmented society where we just didn't have occasions for these masters of these various disciplines to share information with each other which is to say they were not in a position to learn from each other and i think this is a lot of the reason why the world broke right so we had the microbial kingdom acting up and then the economists would say well i don't know anything about that lawyers that's not really my area you know preachers theologians i don't know anything about viruses and how to control you know epidemiology nobody ever taught me about that so everybody just kind of bowed out and the entire intellectual world just said we'll let essentially fauci you know handle this for us right and and it was a tragic people are scared to engage in areas that are not their area of codified certified specialization and that left the world in the hands of fanatics who ended up launching a kind of a crazy tyranny and we were all dancing around this crazy kabuki dance scripted by some wackos in washington who had only one concern which is to preserve the immunological naivety to this particular pathogen for as long as possible in advance of deploying an inoculation an innovation on the public to see how this new technology works that was the agenda and everybody else was just supposed to shut up and it more or less worked when i started brownstone i really thought we need serious environments for all these different people to talk to each other so we can learn from each other the lawyers can learn from the medical doctors medical doctors can learn from the economists and so on that and also we have no ideological litmus test right i'm not demanding that people fly this flag or that flag and as a consequence i mean you say how exciting these things are this is why they're exciting because you've got collegial engagements with people who have a different intellectual formation they have different books that are their favorite books they have a different apparatus in their minds and they're willing to share that with people and that forces us to talk in ways that are communicative and make sense so it serves as a test of our own ideas against extremism against dogmatism just to know you're sitting in front of a lot of really intelligent people who might not know anything about your field of study so now you've got to make sense that is a brilliant opportunity i think that's why you like it so much is why i like it so.

[Brett Weinstein]

Much well if i can add a one piece that i think it'll be obvious to you in retrospect but this is the conundrum of being a broad minded evolutionary biologist is that you're over in the biology wing of the academy but cellular biology the geneticists the molecular biologists they do not think in evolutionary terms why not well it's a pure accident of history that their field developed when there wasn't a lot of opportunity to say very much about how it interacted with evolution and so they sort of take evolution as you know the one sentence survival of the fittest whatever they have in their minds and so they assume well i don't understand why that's a field but i can do that i understand the basics and they don't realize that actually evolution is the interdisciplinary glue that holds all of biology together so when covid happened heather and i were simultaneously not a specialist in any of the disciplines but we're as much as an evolutionist is specialized specialized in the stuff that links all of the things under discussion everything from the human interactions to the evolution of the virus to the impact on the immune system of an inoculation all of these things are viewable from evolution so yes the fragmentation of the intellectual world is a disaster you'd pay lip service to to interdisciplinarity but we don't do it well and so and i also think what you've described i've often argued that peer review is not the same as review by peers if it was we'd all be for it but what you're talking about is defining peers differently when we say peer review we're talking about your immediate competitors and friends in your tiny little corner of the discipline right that's not the standard that we should judge whether your work is any good if you can't explain it to somebody in an adjacent discipline you probably don't understand it very well if it's even true at all so you've gathered people you've very wisely set essentially no rules you've purged all of the stuff that people don't like from your gatherings which is jarring at first it's like there's not a lot of structure but it leaves as you say the lawyers free to learn from the doctors and vice versa and it's mind blowing what you come across because everybody everybody is forced to speak in english not jargon and i learn things i think the real test is people get up to go to the restroom during the conference but nobody wants to be out of the room people hurry back if they have to go to the restroom they don't feel good about having to leave and so what conference have you ever been to where people are so eager to be in the room that everybody's there and nobody's taken an excuse to go.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Outside and chat yeah it's a little disorienting i think for people who have been socialized in the modern economic life you mentioned the segmentation within the field of biology i'm just going to give you a quick example from economics first of all economics long ago separated itself from the other social sciences and social sciences from the national sciences we've already got an isolated group here well they've now broken down into tiny little groups we have a major problem in this country with trade controversies that are intersecting with the role of the dollar as a world reserve currency so that requires at least two fields of economics monetary economics and trade economics coming together to try to understand something well those are completely separate fields and they don't talk to each other the trade people don't know anything about money if they do know they don't feel like they have the right to talk about it and the opposite is true too so as a result we've just got it's like it's crazy chaos out there and it doesn't make any sense so i just i give that example just to affirm that this is true in every discipline not just biology so yeah bringing people from all different all these different fields together to learn from each other you know a lot of this grows out of when covid happened all our intellectual communities were shattered i mean we didn't have them anymore all the friends we used to know the institutions around which we once rallied the safety net the social infrastructure that we all depended on just sort of weirdly went away our friends betrayed us our institutions betrayed us we found cowardice when we least expected it we found people pursuing careerist strategies for survival we never would have expected that so we came into twenty twenty one without much and during those i started brownstone over the course of the summer and the fall and then had the occasion to meet with you know tom tom harrington and tom comes from a completely different field of studies humanities language professor and languages and spanish language hispanic studies a man of the for sure but just a really engaging kind of person and he and i sat in my living room and we couldn't stop talking i mean we would talk i'm going to say like three or four nights a week we would sit he would sit on one sofa i would sit on the other and we would talk for four and five hours at a time and why were we doing this we were both thrilled it's like the it felt like the first time in years that we were in a position to share ideas with you disagreeing on a top ton of topics in good faith pushing back on each other what about this what about this you should you know this thinker i don't know that thinker tell me about that thinker well he's this do you know this thinker i don't know that thinker tell me about him and so on so it was this magical evenings and they just went on for i'm going to say like two months or a month or two and then out of that experience i thought everybody needs to see what this is like like if you care about ideas and you care about just understanding the world around you you can't just do that in isolation much less with just people who are agreeing on your your dogmas right that's just not going to get you to where you want to go but the progress in an understanding comes only through this confluence of differences put together in good faith without a lot of ego and a burning passion to know what's true so the supper clubs were founded with that idea and they're open to the public and anybody can come and i try to keep a lid on them for a long time until they finally at the end of this year you know they just went wild all over the country so yeah it's because we need this that's it we.

[Brett Weinstein]

Just need it so again i'm sort of focused on why your project works and you know if i try to reverse engineer what you've got a when you see it and you experience.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Feels.

[Brett Weinstein]

Like the intellectual life that i think we all naively thought was widespread and occurring differently in all these institutions and you know for those of us who've been in the academy it's shocking how little of it there is you know i had a very good graduate lab that i was in that did have that characteristic but it was very rare elsewhere that i could see so you sort of get the sense that maybe it doesn't exist or it hasn't existed in a very long time and then in the brownstone context i would say if i'm to describe what i think you're doing you're bringing people together who seem to have two characteristics there are two fundamentals that you have to have one is you have to bring something to the table you have to understand something or have an approach to something that is generative and you have to play well with others you have to be able to be a part of a good faith discussion and what that means is there are lots of people who have something to bring to the table but who are you know what you might call in computer terms read only you can hear what they have to say but you can't affect them they're not listening those people aren't there instead you have people you know ryan cole would be you know it's amazing how many people who have been on dark horse are circulating in brownstone but you know what exactly is ryan cole well he's obviously a pathologist but he's also you know a philosopher and you know a farmer with a million really difficult hobbies like making musical instruments and things anyway that's a rare mind and he doesn't come through the door as just you know a doctor expert on the pathology side of things he comes through as a wise person who's seen some stuff that almost nobody else has so anyway the magic of gathering people who all you know very little ego lots of interest in adding to the discussion things that actually enhance it anyway it's it's a.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

One of the things that it's so is you have to be willing to change your mind too right i mean it's not we don't have a form yet but that that helps so we had david stockman i remember at one retreat and there was i guess it was toby rogers was raging against the bayh dole act you know passed in nineteen what was that eighty eighty two which allows the nih to share in patent royalties with pharmaceutical companies right and billions of dollars are shared in these patent royalties which you look at that you think well that's really corrupt but we were talking about well it turns out david stockman was in congress at that time and he was sitting right there he was reagan's first budget director and he spoke out and he said i can't believe it i voted for this thing wow what was i thinking and so i said well david what were you thinking he said well i think the attitude back in those days was that private enterprise was coming up with amazing innovations every day and bad government bureaucrats who are risk averse were blocking them and stopping them from you know giving their great products to the country so we were trying to find a way to break through the bureaucracy so how about we give the rewards to the bureaucracy for when they approve drugs and then that th those rewards will be contingent on the profitability of the product it seemed to make sense sense to us that.

[Brett Weinstein]

Is that is a wild story i mean and it makes sense on both sides really i mean toby rogers who has also been a guest on dark horse is in his in his quadrant he's a walking talking red pill it's terrifying actually because much of what he has to say is it's beyond horrifying about what we've done and what he's unearthed so anyway amazing that stockman is not defensive in light of this but he's actually searching his own mind to figure out what his motivations were in light of toby rogers presenting it in a context in which it's obviously insane.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

He was raging against himself he said i can't believe i bought this and another example of this was the nineteen eighty six vaccine injury act or whatever the the thing that indemnified all all the vaccine companies against against liability for for harm so long as they ended up on the schedule so he explained that this one was a very similar situation recall that this was happened under under republican congress with a republican president right so stockman said if you think back to those days there was clearly a manufactured liability crisis there were books coming out oh what are we going to do about the liability crisis the courts are being clogged up with these superficial lawsuits frivolous lawsuits frivolous lawsuits we're going to destroy america they're going to destroy free enterprise because you can't make somebody and the famous example the lady gets burned by the mcdonald's coffee cup and the drink drive thru sues mcdonald's oh mcdonald's now has to pay all these litigation costs the judges are like oh here's another stupid lawsuit and the juries are bought so you got this impression at the time in the mid nineteen eighties that the entire world was collapsing because of frivolous lawsuits well it turns out it turns out there's only one industry that actually managed to use all that propaganda to its advantage and that was the vaccine advice they're like yeah that's a great point there's too many frivolous lawsuits you need to indemnify us against any lawsuits so they end up being the only industry in the country that has a complete ability to crank out product after product with absolutely no accountability from the public whatsoever so now looking back at it to what extent was all that the crisis of liability actually generated by the industry that ended up benefiting from the cris very interesting so stockman is reflecting on that too saying this is a disaster i can't believe i believed that at the.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Time our final sponsor this week is clear clear is a nasal spray that supports respiratory health it's widely available online and in stores and both it and the company that makes it are fantastic.

[Brett Weinstein]

It'S cleer that's x l e a.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

R pronounced clear throughout history improvements in sanitation and hygiene have had huge impacts on human longevity and quality of life more so than traditional medical advances for instance when doctors started to wash their hands between the handling of cadavers and helping women give birth the rate of maternal deaths went way down breathing polluted air drinking tainted water have hugely negative effects on human health clean up the air and water and people get healthier nasal hygiene often gets overlooked but consider that the majority of bacteria and viruses that make us sick enter through our mouth and nose it has become a cultural norm to wash our hands in order to stop the spread of disease from person to person but it makes every bit as much sense to block the adhesion of bacteria and viruses in the nose enter clear clear is a nasal spray that contains xylitol a five carbon sugar alcohol our bodies naturally contain five carbon sugars mostly in the form of ribose and deoxyribose which are the backbone sugars in rna and dna respectively while most of our dietary sugars have six carbons sugars like glucose and fructose xylitol is known to reduce how sticky bacteria and viruses are to our tissues in the presence of xylitol bacteria and viruses including strep sars cov two and rsv don't adhere to our airways as well which helps our body's natural defense mechanisms easily flush them away clear is a simple nasal spray that you use morning and evening it takes just three seconds it's fast and easy and decidedly healthy if any of this sounds familiar perhaps you listened to my conversation with nathan jones founder of clear on the inside rail in november of twenty twenty four or my conversation with nate's father lon jones osteopath and inventor of clear on how xylitol interacts with respiratory viruses in may of twenty twenty five we recommend those conversations and we highly recommend clear as a daily habit and prophylactic against respiratory illnesses that's clear with an.

[Brett Weinstein]

X x l e a r get.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Clear online or at your pharmacy grocery store or natural products retailer and start taking six seconds a day to improve your nasal hygiene and support your respiratory.

[Brett Weinstein]

Health yeah it's amazing the propaganda you know when you're in the line of fire the propaganda is strangely compelling but if you figure out where to stand outside of it you realize you know a couple things about the liability shield for for vaccine manufacturers one it was specifically granted because vaccines are not safe this is what the industry said and therefore they couldn't be made safe and therefore the industry effectively threatened the reagan administration saying we're not going to produce them if we don't get this so all of this safe and effective stuff that we've been told downstream of that is a direct contradiction to the reason that they have this immunity from liability but the other thing is as an evolutionary biologist if you tell me here's what we're going to do we have a reason maybe it's even a good reason we're going to give this industry immunity from liability i can tell you what's going to happen wildly dangerous products for very simple reason the fact is if you're limited to only selling safe products your profit is going to be x and if you can sell any product and not suffer the cost of the harm you do to other people you'll make vast so even if there were companies that intended to sell good vaccines they will be out competed by the ones that sell crappy vaccines and pretend they're good so this was just a guaranteed evolutionary outcome of that piece.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Of legislation yeah any economist or any evolutionary biologist would have predicted it and now we're living with the consequences and this is what got me into this very interesting industrial history of vaccines how come this this one industry keeps which is arguably the most powerful industry in the world i mean what other industry was able to prevail upon one hundred ninety four nations all at once to shut down their economies and destroy civil rights to wait for them to produce their product i mean nothing like that has ever happened in human history i conclude from that that vaccine industry is the most powerful industry probably in the world so what is it about this industry that makes it so mystically.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

The.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Benefactor of government privilege and how long has this gone on so i began to go back in history and landed in nineteen oh two with the biological control act which is a fascinating history we can talk about that but then through the origin of public health in the eighteen eighties why did vaccines get grafted onto that that's very interesting because you think about public health public health is obviously a benefit to everybody right so clean water benefits everybody harms nobody clean air benefits everybody harms nobody good sewage benefits everybody harms nobody vaccine industry is like hey don't forget about us well what are you bringing to the table a lot of benefit yeah but i mean a lot of harm too right yeah utilitarian calculations show us that we produce more benefit than more harm okay so that makes it a complete outlier in the suite of causes we consider to be public health all the other causes clean water clean food good sewage refrigeration whatever you want to talk about it clean streets those are good for everybody vaccines kind of rode the coattails of public health to gain this industrial privilege which they almost lost entirely after nineteen oh one when about five cities simultaneously experienced a vast injury and death from the new diphtheria and tetanus vaccines and there was massive public outrage we're sick of these people what do they think they're doing to us we put up with this crap long enough and so the vaccine industry went to washington in nineteen oh two and said listen you've got to do something we're quickly losing public support you've got to declare it safe and effective by cracking down on bad vaccine manufacturers get rid of the riff raff out there and just codify good safe vaccines from us and the result was the biologics control act which is a complete product of industry lobbying and that's what was the beginning of what became the nih so it was an industry creation to rescue the industry from the consequences of its own failings so now you've got government going this is safe and effective and people are like oh well there's a lot of injury and death but i guess they fix that this just keeps happening and so anyway i traced it all the way back to the origins with edward jenner in seventeen seventy six who incidentally was not the interventor of the vaccines that was invented by a farmer twenty years earlier named benjamin jeste who never got the credit because he was a mere farmer whereas edward jenner was a fancy scientist who became surgeon general to king george iv so the farmer gets no credit for cross immunity but janitor gets all the well that's.

[Brett Weinstein]

A very common pattern in the history of science if you look at the great discoveries it's amazing how frequently somebody had it who didn't have the skills to or the position to get the credit and you know even in darwin's case where i will say darwin is the right the right person to have gotten the credit there are two things that are important to understand about how that happened one there is a very.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Early.

[Brett Weinstein]

Somebody writes a paragraph in which he outlines the theory of natural selection one hundred years earlier it's fascinating i don't think darwin ever saw it so i think darwin genuinely created the idea but somebody was way ahead of him but maybe even more to the point darwin did not have the features of character that would have allowed him to get the credit he needed a bulldog and the point is that de facto partnership between darwin and huxley is why we correctly record that darwin was the inventor of this idea what's more in the first edition maybe it's in all of them but certainly in the first edition of the origin of species darwin does something that would be ludicrous in modern times which is he pleads for the scientific community to take care of wallace so his direct competitor who also independently had nailed the theory and had emailed he wrote a letter to darwin it was not an email at the time but wrote a letter to darwin saying mister darwin i understand you're working in this area could you take a look at my work so he knew that wallace was going to get the prize which spurred him to finally complete his work but darwin instead of trying to hide wallace actually pleads for him to be taken care of financially and otherwise which anyway that's very sweet yeah.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Jenner never credited benjamin jeste it was a poor farmer you know there's another funny thing about this breath i've been wanting to talk to you about this because i think it's a little bit mysterious when edward jenner came out this is seventeen ninety six he did some experiments so did trusty by the way his experiments were just simply taking pus from cowpox and applying it to open incisions they weren't injections in this day so they're still doing the strategy of variolation so you open up a couple of incisions in the wrist rub the pus on there and then test to see if you've created immunities to smallpox the result was you have okay so jenner somehow like i don't understand how this happened but just all throughout the western world was celebrated not just as a great discoverer not just as a great scientist but the prime example of what enlightenment values can achieve for the world enlightenment values enlightenment strategies enlightenment evidence based testing and so on so to the point that thomas jefferson became a wild fan and imagine writing a fan letter to a scientist from america to britain which he did in eighteen oh one or something like that so he's like president but he writes a love letter to janner what you have done is going to go down and history is the greatest thing so there's something mystical about this first of all jenner's achievement here was not uncontroversial in fact the surgeon to the princess of wales who hilariously is named john birch if you can believe it but anyway his name was john birch raged against the vaccine and went around the country chronicling vaccine injury saying this vaccine is dangerous you've got to stop it published monograph after monograph ran polls he tried to collect vaccine injury stories and he did there's a publication in eighteen oh seven it was reprinted again in eighteen seventeen published and circulated all over the country these were extremely controversial products so i guess from the beginning they were controversial so i just don't understand how it is that vaccines as a technology or as an insight across immunity and injections didn't come along to fifty years later why did they benefit so heavily from almost a mystical belief in them that they represented the the best that modernity had to offer all right i want.

[Brett Weinstein]

To address that but before i do let's just say you've written a very concise piece describing this full history including what you blazed through a few minutes ago which is that although most of us think that the nih was created with a noble purpose and then captured by industry in fact it was created by industry and it was sort of captured from the get go which puts our modern circumstance in a very interesting.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

I definitely proved that in my article definitely that took me a long time so i'm very proud of that well.

[Brett Weinstein]

I mean the article is mind blowing if you've been embedded in this battle you know if like me you've been waking up to not only you know initially heather and i woke up to the the horror of the COVID vaccines just based on the fact of how novel they were how poorly tested they were and how incapable of doing the job they were supposed to do they obviously were but then you know once you start looking under that rock and you start thinking well what's under the other rocks and you look into the rest of the vaccination program it's pretty scary that none of these things are tested against an inert placebo they're required by government there is a clear embedded transfer of well being you are taking a risk and it may not be you that you're trying to save so there's a lot to be said and i really appreciate that your article for the first time i'm aware of anybody doing it goes back and says well how far do all of these patterns that we now are fighting about go back and it turns out that vaccine injury goes all the way back not surprisingly the industry strong arming government goes back the mythology that doesn't match the evidence goes all the way back and it i do think that there's a there's a piece of this which is civilizations function based on mythology and i'm not saying that in a pejorative sense i'm not saying that it's lies i'm saying that we tell ourselves stories that allow ourselves to function and those stories get captured so the point is there's a mythology about the founding of the us that isn't exactly true but it's true enough it allows it anyway we love it yeah and you know i sometimes i say you can't write a myth you can write a narrative and if it's a good one evolution will turn it into a myth over time but anyway the point is what we're really talking about is the mythology that is necessary for us to function and what happens to it in the context of power players and money and things like that where they capture the mythology and they convince us that we know who the good people are the good people are the ones who go to the doctor and get the injection that makes us all safe from disease and the bad ones are the crazies or the selfish ones who because there's some tiny little risk of something aren't doing their part to protect the entire planet or whatever the thing is and the point is this mythology is somebody's position statement that they have lodged in a kind of religious place in the population and of course this would be the result of it.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

You know why is it vaccines in particular well like we never had this religious attachment to steam ships or steam power or the telegraph to get people to accept internal combustion didn't require an official internal combustion agent by the us government with propaganda and demonization of people who are against it this is very strange that vaccine as a product has always had this huge thing one of the things that's fascinating is there's always a vaccine agent agent right so in the us case it was james smith right who was considered to be the edward jenner of america and he writes james madison a letter saying you know what we just had this terrible war of eighteen twelve you know what that means wars mean sickness and death smallpox so you need to appoint me the vaccine agent i've got the stuff make me the sole vaccine agent for the country and i will inoculate the population especially the troops and james madison says wow excellent point okay so here you have a government that barely exists i mean what was the federal government even doing in eighteen thirteen right but now suddenly james madison is rallying around a product to distribute to the american people for free and even mandating that the pony express has to deliver it requested by a single monopoly provider named james smith who claims to be the edward jenner of america because he's got all the vials in his lab this actually happened why did this happen what is it i don't know it's just mystically interesting of course the result was vast injury vast death at some point he mixed up some vials he started giving smallpox vaccinations where you're meant to give cowpox vaccination created a smallpox epidemic in like three cities one i think it's called the tarboro instant i have it in my article finally the public was just fed up and raging against these vaccines and congress repealed the act in eighteen twenty two we were done with it for a while but anyway i just i don't know maybe maybe there's no answer to this but like why vaccination in particular.

[Brett Weinstein]

I think you nailed it up up top.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Where.

[Brett Weinstein]

I mean if you think about it obviously early well maybe i don't have it because the early vaccinations weren't injections right they were they were not.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Injections they were not injections yeah the only only innovation was the discovery of cross immunity from cowpox to smallpox and that you could do this from an animal to a human and improve the health of the human being yeah the.

[Brett Weinstein]

Mythology around this was that milkmaids were seemingly immune to smallpox and because they had gotten cowpox which is a nearly harmless disease that they pick up while milking cows but okay i still think we can rescue this if you are living in an age where enlightenment is changing the landscape in palpable ways and you are told that all of the terrible misfortunes that come from pathogenic disease are actually addressable if we elegantly intervene in this way that we have discovered through you know experiment and observation that the promise of that seems so great that the consumer the citizen ends up doing a lot of the work on their end convincing themselves that it's true talking themselves into the idea that this is elegant and all benefit but again something i learned from your article which you know in retrospect i should have expected it but the idea that there was an anti vaccine sentiment from the beginning and that there were you know embarrassing cases in which massive harm was done to people it's like oh well of course if this is the style of intervention you're going to do you're you're basically yes in principle you can inform the immune system of something it should know ahead of time that's a beautiful idea but all of the ways that it can go wrong need to be in the calculus and they aren't because well frankly because of bad motives.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

And self delusion and confounding variables right so like in the case of the civil war we had vaccine mandates for both sides the north and the south both wanted their troops vaccinated thoroughly vaccinated because they didn't want sudden epidemics of smallpox breaking out in the middle of a war that would guarantee that one side would lose right so they wanted mass vaccination but in the pursuit of which they would go to the hospitals find people who died from small spots scrape off their scabs and essentially reviving the old practice of variolation but the problem was that yeah the person might have died of smallpox but they're carrying a lot of other diseases also because it's frigging wartime so syphilitic infected smallpox scabs were very common so the vaccination spreads syphilis all over the north and the south and we have huge records of vast injury and death from diseases other than smallpox because of the attempt to vary against smallpox so that's just.

[Brett Weinstein]

One example hold on sorry i don't mean to keep interrupting you but there's.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

So many things i'm sorry this is.

[Brett Weinstein]

All great but okay so there's an error obvious in retrospect where okay you're trying to get effectively an inoculant from sores of a person infected with smallpox as far as the argument goes that's sensible enough but you're taking it from a human being and a human being is capable of harboring many different human pathogens and this same so the point is you should expect what else am i bringing in along with this it's an obvious question but this mistake is then repeated with the polio vaccine which is grown in monkey kidneys and the point is well okay yes you're concentrating on the thing you're trying to do i'm trying to grow polio virus in monkey kidney cells because it will grow there okay do those monkeys have anything that a human could get that you don't know about yet this is what you know this sv forty promoter that's in the COVID vaccines this is where it came from sv forty simian virus forty came accidentally from the cultivation of polio vaccine in monkey kidneys they didn't know it was there and so the idea that well okay i know what a vaccine is supposed to be be it's supposed to be a killed pathogen it's supposed to be an attenuated pathogen or it's supposed to be fragments of a pathogen that means i have to grow pathogen the part they don't tell you is that they're going to have to grow it in something and if they're going to have to grow it in something and it's a pathogen of people it's probably going to be something closely enough related to people that they will have other pathogens in there that we've never even named or noticed and and we will discover after we have used this stuff that it wasn't perfectly purified out and how many people have died of cancer because of sv forty.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

From a polio vaccine and this probably also accounts for all the vaccine injury in the early eighteen hundreds that were carefully chronicled by john birch i mean if you're even under perfect conditions where you've got cowpox from the hand of a milkmaid and you scrape it off and you've got this vial of it well there's other things you don't know what other diseases was the milkmaid carrying besides the cowpox pus what diseases was the cow carrying that she milked so you're actually so it's very interesting and john birch makes this argument that you're spreading disease you're not preventing disease you're actually spreading it so i don't think there's an obvious answer here it could be one or the other but as you said it's there's so many varials so many things that could go wrong.

[Brett Weinstein]

Yes and you know boy there's so many threads here but to go back to your very first point i think not only did the public health top officials take control of civilization and stage a coup against medicine but they happen to be people who were also involved in creating the damn pathogen in the first place the ultimate irony right that fauci had offshored bioweapons research to the wuhan institute for reasons i still have never heard properly explained but the idea that the guy who screwed up and was doing work that was too reckless to be imagined caused a pandemic and then he's the guy in charge of saving us is ludicrous on its face but the part of the story that you have to be i think evolutionarily aware deeply aware to understand is that the bioweapons research is motivated bioweapons makers are bored with the very short list of weaponizable human pathogens it's well explored none of them work in a way that is suitable but they are also aware that for the sixteen or so weaponizable pathogens that they found there are millions of undiscovered pathogens in other creatures and they are eager to find ones that have the two characteristics that make them useful as a weapon one characteristic is that they can infect a human and the other is that they can transmit between people and i think what.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

About the third characteristic that it can be something against which we can inoculate.

[Brett Weinstein]

Well the third characteristic would be you can inoculate and then there's a whole thread about whether or not the bioweapons research with COVID and the vaccines actually turned the whole thing on its head because the vaccines since they cause the body to produce igg four antibodies actually paradoxically attenuate the immune response if you've had two or more of these shots when they are exposed to the spike protein so i don't know quite what to make of that fact it's very frightening that it seems to accomplish the goal of bioweapons makers but if you reverse the two populations the inoculated people were not immune they're vulnerable but anyway so i think what happened is they found because there were six miners in yunnan province in china who got sick from a bat coronavirus three of them died none of them ever transmitted it to anybody else but when they got news of that they thought aha we've got a pathogen that knows the first trick and we know how to teach it the second one which is how to jump between people right gain a function so the point i'm trying to make is if you are interested in making human beings safer from pathogenic disease the absolute worst thing you can do is give any pathogen that is not currently infecting people a route to start infecting people people so the idea that you're going to grow the substances you need for your vaccine in the tissues of some creature that isn't a person opens the door to things moving into humans that would never have gotten there in the first place so it's insanity that you would do that you would need a mechanism that didn't require you to run that risk for this to be even something worth contemplating.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

You were at the retreat i think when we had a very knowledgeable and important person at the stand and i asked a burning question that i've always had which was did they know that the vaccine wouldn't really be effective from the beginning and that it might even be dangerous and if you already knew that why would you risk the sort of moral status or reputation of an entire industry by promising that you're going to use this shot to get out of a pandemic that actually you knew was not going to actually produce any public health benefit why would you do this app and the answer came to us a very credible answer that it was a test of a technology you remember that.

[Brett Weinstein]

Moment i sure do you know this is brownstone has many threads and many purposes but keeping the proper most important questions of COVID alive so that we ultimately come to understand what happened to us and why seems to be central and i will say i'm still i'm still wrestling even with that answer because although it very much does feel that this was a test not just of a technology but of an entire program of control a program that was previewed in event two hundred one in twenty nineteen so you know i've asked myself and asked publicly if there's something special if they needed us inoculated for some reason because if they didn't first of all they could run a test on a much smaller population you didn't need to inoculate billions of people in order to test this that could be done at a much smaller scale excellent point and if they had given us shots that were basically empty maybe technically contained something but not enough to matter then given the sleight of hand they played with all of the data and the statistics they could have pretended that it worked they could have declared that it had ended the pandemic the injuries that you and me and many others feared would emerge wouldn't have and we would have looked like we had been worried for nothing so i think they would have won if they had used shots that just didn't have an effect and pretended that they had saved us and the fact that they didn't do that is still a head scratcher to me.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

You make an excellent point and i think all the all the research we have bears it out we had achieved very high levels of seroprevalence by the late fall of twenty twenty before the shot release and you've seen the studies of south dakota were showing fifty and sixty percent seroprevalence before the vaccine was ever released you're right if they had just come out with a you know a sailing shot or just nothing everybody would have we would have achieved indomicity regardless already probably had then you could have just said look see we we fixed it with the vaccine they didn't.

[Brett Weinstein]

Do that they didn't do that and it it is the reason that so much of the public is awake and they're not fully awake they don't know what they're awake to but a lot of people know that something terrible happened a lot of people fear the shots that they took and that was that was either about something either injecting people had a purpose that we don't know or it was a you know the greatest own goal in history because they they revealed how ready they were to lie to us that their quality control didn't exist that they didn't think twice about it they would inject people who stood to gain nothing from this people who had natural immunity as you point to people for whom the risk couldn't conceivably be justified like pregnant women young healthy children and the fact is the disease as much as i think it's more dangerous than we now give it credit for is certainly not deadly you know the data shows that it killed very vulnerable people people who were already either very old or very sick or.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Both ready to be ready to die from something which was it pulled them.

[Brett Weinstein]

Forward a few weeks but if they had just let it run its course and you know run in front of the parade and pretended that they were leading it then the fact is covid would have ebbed and you know the evolution of the virus itself would have made it dangerous which maybe is what happened people who were vulnerable would be eliminated from the population so the vulnerability of the population drops it looks like you know it looks like the vaccine campaign worked and in fact there's this question across many vaccines is that the stuff that they're given credit for addressing was ebbing rapidly in the first place and you know is this just just case after case of this industry running ahead of the parade and pretending to.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Lead it the great promise of the mrna platform was that it was going to finally win the race against mutations which has been going on for seventy five years the five thousand seven hundred fifty eight flu pandemic they developed an inoculation but only after the thing became endemic losers same thing happened sixty eight sixty nine food pandemic there was an inoculation by the time it came along there wasn't a market for it so the great industrial challenge then was we've got to speed up the process we've got to get the shot up before national immunity makes it irrelevant and you can imagine there's a thinking here that well in the past we were always late to the by the time we got shot out the virus had mutated or is already endemic so it was a loser well if we can get the shot out really fast then we can save a lot of lives okay that makes sense and this was the time that they were going to deploy this great new technology which is all about speed and but they didn't quite make it right they didn't make it out in time because there's logistical issues there's all sorts of things there are also political issues that delayed the release of the shot right they didn't want it coming out under trump right eric.

[Brett Weinstein]

Topol in fact argued to delay it revealing that he didn't care about human life either.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Fauci sent moderna back to the trials because they didn't have enough diversity racial diversity in their trial subject so yeah so yeah but the whole goal was to to get ahead of the mutations really to outrun nature essentially but they they didn't but that was the goal so but they tried and it was the fastest vaccine that we have on record right from from detection to inoculation we reduced the the time by what a year or two or something like that but it wasn't it wasn't fast enough like i say in domesticity was probably out here in novemb of twenty twenty which is a fact that is so mind blowing to me when you think about it oh it's.

[Brett Weinstein]

Stunning and it's hard not to be cynical about it you know okay so it is in its own way impressive that we have radically sped up the timeline for creating vaccine injuries but i'm not sure that's a good thing frankly i think a little slower would be better.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

It'S a really interesting point but you know brett to a larger point and i hope you you kind of get my theme here as an economist i'm very interested in the question of product viability like what is an innovation that has its own energy you know where it's a customer base it's efficiently produced you've got manufacturers can profit by making it people benefit from it enough so they're willing to trade their own property exchange to get it like hamburgers or air conditioning or or anything else you can think of right so the question is do vaccines qualify in the same way as any other consumer product i think by looking at the history going back two hundred twenty five years the answer is apparently in question we don't actually know because at every single stage of this there's been some intervention that's sort of provided a subsidy provided a mandate provided some propaganda here's your agency here's your indemnifications here's your wartime mandates here's your fancy philosophy called utilitarianism it's been so much apparatus thrown at this one thing for two and a quarter centuries you at some point have to ask the question is this a really viable product in a normal society with a producer consumer relationship and i don't have the answer to that but i would like to find out the answer one possible answer is that there has been an ongoing revolt for more than two centuries that keeps being stamped down like one of the things that's interesting you think about nineteenth century media not very big not a lot of newspapers there certainly wasn't an internet or even cable news shows but when the newspapers of several cities would simultaneously get wind of a tremendous amount of vaccine deaths they would run it on front page and then the public would panic and then the industry had a problem all right what are we going to do now so that's when they go to government various things happen or in the case of eighteen twenty two congress just said just stop this nonsense this has got to stop every time there's public interest the industry gets set back they panic they regroup they find a new strategy a new philosophical justification they buy out some more doctors some more journalists oh here's how this here's how this this has been going on for all this time so what what i'm wondering is if maybe this time they went too far.

[Brett Weinstein]

I think they did and i think it's clear and we have to consolidate our gains in revealing what they did but a couple points along the way one i'm convinced by your article that once again what we have discovered is that pharma is vastly more sophisticated than we understand in its ability to pull one over on us because it is the product of a long running arms race that we only just started paying attention to so the selective environment in the arms race has turned it into a ferociously capable bender of reality when we've only just woken up to the fact that reality is being bent so we're playing catch up with a very sophisticated creature that is.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Very well armed long institutional knowledge there.

[Brett Weinstein]

On how to get around institutional knowledge so i've given a couple presentations at brownstone and i've talked about it on dark horse about what i call the game of pharma right what i learned dragged into thinking about pharma in a way that i never had before during COVID is that we saw a game play out in which treatments for covid that were good were portrayed as bad and dangerous treatments that weren't any good were portrayed as effective and safe and effectively underneath pharma pharma is i would argue an intellectual property racket it the game is you own a piece of intellectual property that has some plausible connection to health doesn't have to be true it just has to be plausible and once you have that thing now what you need to do is it's patented and you need to create some research that makes it look promising you need some research that makes it look like it out competes what we've already got you need to make it look safe enough you know and then the higher levels of the game you need to get it declared the standard of care so that doctors are afraid not to prescribe it and afraid to prescribe anything else if you're really you know on your game you get it mandated you get it paid for by the government et cetera so the point is it's levels of the game and we all caught up to this during COVID but the point is no this is twenty four seven three hundred sixty five pharma on every one of these things they're playing these games and no kidding they're better than us we're like novice tennis players who just walked out onto the court with pros well you can imagine.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

What farmer's reaction is to something like rfk showing up at hhs or j bhattacharya showing up at hhs we are going to end the corrupt capture of this agency by industry oh really are you going to do that you think you're going to do that yeah this could be a fun little game we can play it's i mean the hope is brilliant and it's dreamy and i want it to happen but i mean would these agencies even exist apart from industry capture that's what's not clear it's so baked into the institution of the agencies of the journals of the science of the media of so many institutions in this country it's just politics i mean trump is trying to get some sensible reforms through but he can't even convince republicans of them because they're all in the page of the industry they're.

[Brett Weinstein]

All bought well there's a great line maybe you can resurrect there's a great line in your piece about the near impossibility of distinguishing between regulation and regulators on the one hand and some kind of cryptic competition where you point out that the meat packing reforms loom in the public mind as this great moment where industry was brought to heel but in fact it was industry it was big industry stamping out their little competitors by using the government to make it impossible for them to survive it's a.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Classic so that was nineteen oh six and everybody kind of knows about this they don't have the story right but the theory was the meat packers were poisoning everybody so the government said oh stop doing that and showed up and cracked down and therefore we had safe meat from then on you know the actual history of that and i didn't mention this but meat got less safe after it started being regulated because they started because the government was typically using a shoddy much less strict method of testing safety of meat than the industry had been previously using because they didn't like having to test all the meat for safety the government they were worked with government to lessen the cost of testing so they had government agencies this is their true history they used what they called the poke and sniff method of finding rancid meat they come in with a pole and go carcass by carcass like that pull it out sniff it pull it up sniff it this went on for decades pull it out what's that going to do it's going to spread it it's going to spread it which is exactly what happened so the meat meat was less safe after this before it's unbelievable story but my point is and i think this might have been for me this was a new discovery this very same dynamic had happened four years earlier with the vaccine industry with the biologics control act of nineteen oh two and you know brett it's a very interesting thing because i suspected this but it took me several days of reading and research to be able to prove it i just knew the industry was involved here because if you know anything about the progressive era and what was going on and how government works at this point i've got a very sort of dark worldview i thought i bet this is actually an industry racket and it took me about three days but i finally found it and i put all the evidence in my article this is an entire industry scam but the great thing about doing this research is it enabled me to go through all the pharmaceutical journals of nineteen oh one and nineteen oh two wow reading this crap that they're saying what i'm telling brett i think i mentioned this to you already there's i quote this in the article very common belief in the vaccine pharmaceutical industry at the time that vaccines would grant would end the problem the real problem of human beings the real flaw of biology which is mortality and you know one of the top guys in that quote him in the article he says you know if we can get if we can get the vaccines and mix these substances the right we there's no reason why we shouldn't have no reason why anybody should ever die.

[Brett Weinstein]

Yeah i mean let's give it its credit that's a hypothesis it's not likely but it's i mean in twenty twenty six it's so obviously wrong but at the time it is a valid hypothesis to imagine that maybe all the degradation of the body is the result pathogenic infections that we don't know and so if we can focus on these things and knock them down one by one voila sure but it is just a wild hypothesis and obviously not correct but the idea that they work themselves into a lather selling the stuff and then i mean if i can go back and just retell a piece of your story here here with an evolutionary lens the problem as i argue everywhere is that we people with incomplete expertise which is to say all of us have a strong tendency to not distinguish between things that are highly complicated which we don't understand and things that are truly complex which we don't understand understand and we don't realize that those two things are very very different and you know your computer is completely understood if not by one person by a collection of people there's nothing unaccounted for going on in there it's complicated it's not complex a complex system like the human body which is actually many complex systems layered in on each other and then civilization is more complex systems economic social and otherwise but the point is anytime you cross the boundary from complex from complicated to complex you have entered a realm which is fundamentally unpredictable and so that haunts the story that you're telling in so many places because on the one hand yeah great insight excellent point you're you're injecting something into a human complex system you do not know what it's going to do you if you're lucky you'll get the thing that you were trying to do right but all of the other things it will do you're going to have to discover in the aftermath of having done it and if you blind yourself you won't discover them but at the same time this weirdly look i'm a i'm a born i was born into a liberal family i still have strong liberal sympathies but the liberal wants to prevent any harm and the idea that we might release a product and then discover its harm is anathema i still feel like it's a terrible idea so i don't want to wait for lawsuits by harmed people to solve a problem in the market but what you're describing is a system in which that mechanism has been removed it becomes impossible to settle these questions in the court so the manufacturers don't live in fear of being ruined if they hurt people i want them to live with that fear fear because it's the thing that keeps me safe most safe of all and so at the economic level we've disrupted a complex system with strange interventions that break the magic that makes it work at the physiological level we're intervening in these complex systems in ways that are guaranteed to cause unintended consequences which we then pretend we don't see it's like how many different layers of the story are we going to make that same.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Error error you know and you think about the nineteen eighty six indemnification a century earlier vaccines had already received a philosophical indemnification in the form of the utilitarian calculus you have to break some eggs to make an omelet right so yes some people will be harmed but the overall good will be there and we can figure out this through mathematics or whatever that's a strange thing because that same philosophical justification was never there for why we should have clean water but you didn't need that fancy pants rationale it's like no this is going to be a benefit and so it is with practically everything else but vaccines uniquely require this philosophical indemnification that happened sometime in the seventeen eighties seventeen nineties and then in nineteen oh four we got the ultimate thing we got a supreme court decision that said you gotta take it even if you don't want to that was jacobson a decision worth reading over because it is entirely sort of codified into all this utilitarian calculation you know you've got to take one for the team.

[Brett Weinstein]

That'S interesting i think you're the funny thing is so during COVID public health staged a coup against medicine doctors were not allowed to treat their patients based on what they saw based on their best guess at what was causing it they weren't allowed to pool their insights and discover what a protocol was that might properly treat a patient they were told from above here's what you do do for covid and you better right if you don't you're going to lose your career so that coup of public health against medicine means that we have jumped from treating an individual which is something we can do to imagining a population level solution which you know obviously if it's clean water that we can do but not when we're talking about intervening in their individual physiologies that's a whole different ball game but what i'm getting anew here is i've been railing against utilitarianism because although in general you probably do want whatever does the greatest good for the greatest.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Number at the most the best possible outcomes for the most possible people of.

[Brett Weinstein]

Course right but utilitarianism can be used to justify absolutely anything including including slavery genocide concentration camps you name it you can come up with a utilitarian reason for doing that and it doesn't make it acceptable so i guess the point what i'm seeing newly here is public health and utilitarianism have a direct connection which is they're both population level individual utilitarianism doesn't make sense because it's the greatest good for the greatest number it's already a population it's baked into utilitarianism so you know the utilitarians have taken over civilization they literally shut it down it's an amazing fact that is an.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Amazing fact and so now we have the perfect demonstration of what's in practice extremely dangerous about this your point about the disregard for the doctors i think is extraordinary the people who actually have experience dealing with respiratory disease who have vast knowledge on what kind of therapeutics are perfect for a coronavirus were shut down in favor of the theoreticians on behalf of this new industry shut down and denied the right to treat their patients i mean that that is an incredible thing and your i guess your point is that the justification for that was like it doesn't matter what happens to your individual patients like yeah i know you got somebody who wants my vector that hardly matters we're dealing with a much bigger issue here we're saving.

[Brett Weinstein]

The world right yeah it it's it's preposterous on its face and you mentioned ivermectin which the public still does not understand what was done to it over this drug but the problem with ivermectin is that so if i can just juxtapose a couple things hydroxychloroquine was taken off the map with a diabolical study in which people were wildly overdosed with hydroxychloroquine and people died so it was made to look dangerous when it wasn't you can't do that that with ivermectin because it's not toxic enough it's like literally almost impossible to give somebody enough to kill them so they did other things they ran studies in which they wildly underdosed they treated very late they had cryptic caps in the protocols that caused fat people who were the most vulnerable to covid to be underdosed relative to the rest of the population of the study every trick in the book was played to make ivermectin look useless but the real question is why would they bother if it's really useless what's the harm in letting people try it and i'm afraid that the answer to that question has to be something like the if you allow people to use ivermectin they will discover how effective it is against covid why because like hydroxychloroquine it is actually generally useful over rna viruses it's not like it was briefly hopeful it would be weird if it didn't work for covid because it works on all the other rna viruses so if they let people experiment with ivermectin doctors will quickly discover how useful it is at the point you introduce the vaccine nobody will want it because there's a safe alternative and why would i take something that turns out to be a gene therapy if there's an off the shelf drug that does it and it costs nothing nothing but i'm pretty.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Sure that this i think what you just said makes makes perfect sense the idea is you have to keep the population panicked and and focused on the single solution to everything right i am pretty sure that this explains a a lot of things i think it explains the panic over the great branton declaration yeah if you think about that that i couldn't understand why everybody was against it because you look at it it looks like just very plain statement about public health right but it had these these this phrase in there that drove fauci and everybody crazy which was we can get through this with national immunity right through through exposure and recovery that so that and so that document comes out like three weeks before the shot rollout and that was the reason that's they had to stop that they had to eliminate eliminate every possible other avenue apart from injection as a possible solution i mean vitamin d forget it good sunlight you know how about if i hang around with my friends no you don't want to do that yeah no.

[Brett Weinstein]

They they literally sent you home which was the most likely place to get it yeah but i take something slightly different so just in case it's not clear to people you and brownstone are at the core of the great barrington declaration right you were there at the inception is that fair yeah that's correct yes okay so here's what i take the issue with ivermectin was about keeping people panicked denying them a remedy the issue about lockdowns which is what the great barrington declaration challenged wasn't necessarily about panic it was about motivation keeping people locked down so they couldn't live a life and then saying actually there's a solution to this it's in the form of a vaccine and then i want to add one other piece to the puzzle which as covid was happening this was also happening to heather and me and so we watched it very carefully the blm riots the george floyd inspired riots the weirdest thing happened in the midst of telling everybody you couldn't possibly have an excuse good enough to be allowed out into the world unless you're a so called essential worker and even then only for your essential work and then blm happened and instead of cracking down on the protesters and saying no you can't do that too dangerous there's a virus about they decided to give some weird rationalization where they said actually the real pandemic is racism or something and it was like total non sequitur so here's my conjecture they let the blm riots happen when they were locking everybody else down because if they had told those people people to stay home it wouldn't have worked that they were actually afraid of the blm protesters revealing to us that this lockdown was paper thin and if we just don't abide by it it's gone yeah i get.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

What would you call this like the safety valve theory of blm you know that that they knew that the public was they couldn't keep this up for much longer the pressure release press release yeah like on a gas can you have to have a thing or something like that yeah and i i do recall that people were going out of their minds by the time by the time those that those riots came along there i had you lockdown just could not keep going like every day just like every other day it was just like camus describes in his book the plague you know it's like time just went in a sort of circular fashion you wake up in the morning not even sure why you woke up what are you here to do i guess i have to scroll the internet you get tired so five o' clock comes you hit the bottle you know you pass out earlier binge old movies you wake up the next day what's that this went on for months right crazy so they had to do something something had to give somebody had to do something so yeah it's very interesting theory that you have you've got sort of ruling class that says look people are pretty upset so let's just pretend to sort of encourage this and i remember the newspapers were saying things like mask well masked protests you know so this is why they're not do you remember that they said they're not spreading covid because they're wearing masks well some of them were but it's so crazy like you can't even believe it every day just seemed like i couldn't believe this was happening but if you ride a motorcycle in south dakota at at the whatever that little festival thing that you're spreading covid and you hate you're killing.

[Brett Weinstein]

Grandmas along the entire route that you're riding.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

But if you're protesting atlanta georgia out in the streets with a mob of people that's just not you're killing the real virus which is racism but you're staying safe because you're wearing a.

[Brett Weinstein]

Mask you're wearing a mask well i mean you know this was before you and i knew each other but heather and i were trying to unpack the raw information not peer reviewed because there wasn't time so there were all of these papers on the preprint servers and you know the quality was rough because it was just whatever people thought they wanted to publish however it had not been filtered by peer review for allowability so there was lots of information in it and we became very focused on the idea that this virus actually showed no capacity to spread outdoors and that's a pretty odd because you know bats live outdoors and somehow this virus it kind of suggested suggested that maybe their gain of function experiment which was definitely not done outdoors had created an artificial condition for the spread of the virus which was that it had to be indoors so i still don't know if that's true but i think it's a valid hypothesis but in any case.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

If.

[Brett Weinstein]

You know we have a saying here in the pacific northwest there is no bad weather only inappropriate occasionally equipment and so the point was if you could figure out how to live your life outdoors you could do it perfectly safely you go fall in love you just got to figure out how to do it outdoors gather with whoever you want go to the beach at the same time that they were telling us oh the beach is closed the hiking trails are closed and it's like well this is the exact if you're trying to protect a population from a virus that spreads indoors and you're afraid that they're psychologically fragile because of the fear of the virus because of the disruption to their lives encourage them to go outdoors is what you should be doing and so we were shouting at the top of our lungs like what is this policy why would you close a beach.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Let me ask you this brett do you remember that there was an indiscernible moment where the prevailing wisdom was that there's always this pretense of knowledge with this thing like they knew where the COVID was this is always we know where covid is we don't know that well we have an intuition there is a perception that the virus is outdoors so everybody should go indoors but at some uncertain moment and i'm not sure when that was there's a decision made that the virus is indoors we should all go outdoors well am i describing.

[Brett Weinstein]

This more or less correct i will never know the answer to this question but heather and i were i think we were certainly at the beginning and for a long time we were singular in pointing out how strange it was that we were not focusing on this fact and the connected fact that the environment you were in could be rendered much safer even an indoor environment if you understood that you were trying to change the effective volume of the space space right so a room has a volume if you open the window the volume goes way up and the point is if you get to the infinite volume room that is the outdoors the transmission goes to zero so you should always be focused if you have to get into an uber during COVID roll down the windows i don't care that it's january roll down the windows right so this was a thread for us and i think think it caught on and it got so embarrassing that they were telling us don't go to the beach don't go hiking and we're sitting there saying there is nothing better you could do any minute you're hiking is a minute you're safer than any indoor place you would be why are you telling them this so i think the point is this is one in which we forced the change because what they were saying was was too ridiculous and it could just be said out loud why are you telling me not to go to the beach that's where you should want me.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

So pat what you're telling me is that it's your fault all new york restaurants had to build outdoor version of their indoors in order.

[Brett Weinstein]

To open up i don't know i'm sure some of this was not my fault but i guess i'll take the hit on that it's the strangest thing.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

On show i've told you this story but i was at a train station once waiting to board a train or something and there was a place open and i said well i'll have a glass of wine and this plexiglas the masked lady whatever plastic cup she shows a plastic cup she said drink it outdoors but it was freezing cold and right there was an entirely empty room that they would usually use for dining and sipping i said i said why how about i just go in there and she said i can't let you do that because of COVID and i said do you think covid is in there and she said yes.

[Brett Weinstein]

Well it's funny it is it is life like a some kind of a not very well written ghost story i mean you.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Know well it's good we can laugh about it oh my lord what tragedy.

[Brett Weinstein]

I mean what else are you going.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

To do really yeah but you know i think your your large point here is that i think it's a very beneficial force that's part of what we're doing brad so we're using what happened over these traumatic three four five years as a prism to understand the world in a in a more precise truthful way you know because it just told us so much about so many things that we didn't know before agencies medical journals the cowardice of academia the fragility of freedom so many lessons that we learned or that we're still learning no.

[Brett Weinstein]

It it i sometimes say certain stories diagnose the system and this story is the best chance we are likely to get in our lifetimes to understand the system that we live in because it took over everything and it's not a pretty picture but the worst part and i give you tremendous credit for keeping this alive is the urgent everybody is so embarrassed about what they got wrong or what they allowed to happen that everybody wants to move on and it's one thing to move on from the particular virus it's another thing to try to move on from the lessons about everything from bioweapons to academic rock to regulatory capture to the subservient press delivering dangerous propaganda all of it is captured in this story and frankly i don't want to let anybody off the hook until they remember what role they played as soon as they do that i'm absolutely ready to welcome them back but the point is you would like a.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Little bit of honesty about that i would like a little bit of honesty about that and i think we have i've tried to be as honest about things i was wrong about i thought testing was essential and in the early days where the test get us our test i think i was just wrong about that and i was wrong to believe our world and data that it had a perfect real time accounting of who's going to infected you know at what level so all i believed all that stuff so i try to admit that but i think we all should but you know there's other things that keep lingering that upset me and i i truly try to move on you know i don't want to get stuck here but i was looking at beef prices yesterday and you know i'm looking at hamburger for dollar seven a pound i remember just a few years ago it was dollar four a pound and i went back and looked at industry data on what happened to groceries in general since twenty nineteen they are up forty one percent the reason you know the reason for that was that the federal reserve created six point five trillion dollars to fund the stimulus payments that congress voted for because everybody had to be paid to stay home stay home and be lazy for a few years so everything's connected and it was this amazing wealth transfer there's another thing that overwhelms me is the role of class americans don't like to talk about class but the role of class in the construction of policy i mean for several years we lived in a world designed and constructed by on behalf of the ruling class the laptop class and at the expense of everybody else i never imagined a time in my life when i would see you know this this sort of the world according to marx you know just put up full display.

[Brett Weinstein]

For us well it you mentioned the massive transfer of wealth and i wanted to connect it back to what you were saying earlier about industry creating regulators to do away with their the little guy competition right create regulations that the little guy can't endure we saw a different version of that with the lockdowns that effectively you know they kept walmart open but they clobbered the mom and pop shop down the street and was that the plan i tend to think it was probably somebody's plan it had.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

To be let me just give you one other example of that which takes just a little bit of thought to realize that do you remember the reopening plans they would say okay business can open but everybody has to be at half capacity so you can only let half the normal number of customers in that you normally would all right i live a little bit block away from a bakery that has about eight chairs in it they can only have four customers on the other hand and if you're the olive garden down at the suburban mall you've got a capacity for a thousand now you can let a five hundred people in so these capacity restrictions were designed as a well i don't know if they were intended to be but they became a massive industrial subsidy even during the reopening period big business massively benefited from these capacity restrictions predictions at the expense of small business.

[Brett Weinstein]

Yeah no it makes perfect sense and totally there's a way in which it felt you know i there's always a question about how much of this was intentional and how much of it was happenstance but if you imagine that event two hundred one tells us that they knew this was coming they had their plans they were already they weren't scrambling the way they told us they were where they already had procedures that they were ready to deploy they needed to bring in people from media and whatever to do their particular role the question is how much did just simply how much of the game was okay we're going to turn civilization into a game of simon says and the point is there are certain authorities who are in a position to grant you rights and they can take away your rights and if you don't listen to these people you're a grandma killer that's the penalty so if you know and many things worked like this like the vaccine requirements in the military caused everybody to submit and those few who wouldn't submit were driven out leaving a force that's much more compliant the kind of force that is much more likely to act on immoral orders was that intentional was somebody planning to deliver immoral orders and they needed to go through a purge of people who would stand up and say.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

No along the same lines academia purged of all the all the the true dissidents you know like the people who didn't want to get shot wouldn't get shot among faculty administrators and among students yeah you're not welcome here if you're.

[Brett Weinstein]

Not compliant which was insane for young people who stood to gain very little from the shot even if it had worked worked because they just weren't vulnerable to covid in this way so you know let's put it this way it is unfortunate that when i put on my how much of this was about compliance rather than health that it fits very well that across elements of civilization somebody was given the power to tell you that what to do that you you as they trained us not to be free people.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

And there's so many industrial conspiracies here overlapping not just pharma but big tech you know the stimulus payments everybody's spending their money on laptops and gaming platforms and everything but you remember very early on i'm gonna i'm going to say like the first week of march like or maybe just after that just about the time this twenty twenty when when we realized we were going to descend into total madness the top most performing article translated into many languages called do you remember this the hammer and the dance the hammer and the dance yeah so it was a heavy statistical article with all sorts of models in it the hammer is the crackdown it's the closures it's the lockdown and the dance is that we're going to crack down the virus flatten the curve and then we're going to be happy as a result all right the author of that article is a guy named thomas puelo this thing received millions of views back when nobody could understand why this is happening here's a guy saying it's the hammer in the dance this article just went hundreds of millions of views translated into language thomas wellow is the ceo of an online learning program platform.

[Brett Weinstein]

So let me understand what this guy was putting out a hypothesis that we were being led to engage in a dance but the real story is the hammer is that the well.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

He said the hammer is the lockdowns the dance is getting over is getting rid of the threat of the disease but we're going to need the lockdowns to get over the threat oh i.

[Brett Weinstein]

See this is an argument yeah this.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Is for the mainstream and nobody under could understand it this puelo guy with lots of data and grass and fancy language said look it's just a hammer and the dance but and the way these algorithms work there's there's a reason this article went viral but this guy had never written about any subjects of infectious disease in his life he doesn't know anything about infectious disease he's a businessman who runs an online learning platform all right that he hoped to be used during lockdowns so he becomes the author of this article that becomes that shapes the entire public narrative around what is about to happen at a time when nobody could understand so you see my point i mean like he was probably tasked with this by somebody but he was glad to take on the job because he had an online learning platform that he hoped would make bank very soon because of the school closures and he was probably right yeah he was right because i looked at the data of his company his company made billions of dollars yeah i draw a.

[Brett Weinstein]

Distinction between people who are actually working for those who are colluding and those who are freelancing so if you are an amoral person listen let's say you're a journalist and anthony fauci is consolidating power and deploying a control architecture over civilization if you try to figure out what's in anthony fauci's head what would he like said and then you say it it and then you get wealthier because it catches on unnaturally because it starts getting amped by the people who are in on whatever it is you're not actually working for somebody you don't you've never met them you don't know for sure that they are the reason that you're succeeding but the point is there's a hunt a cryptic hunt for noises that if i make them my life gets better and and i bet there's a lot of power over there they're refiguring civilization i'm going to start saying the things that they want said we'll see what happens so this could be a case in which a guy with a platform that stood to make a lot during a lockdown either he was deluded himself or he's cynical but the point is not surprising that he would find himself saying things that just so happened to make his business more valuable people and it wouldn't be surprising if the power structure decided to reward him so that he would do more.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Of the same that's true well you've heard thomas harrington talk about this a lot but he says a lot of academic training and training in general for professional life you know to be to be an aspiring professional is learning what to believe at the right times what to say at the right times learning how to you know extract the right information the an agenda from what's around you that's that's a skill you learn that that's how academia socializes you learn a language but mostly you learn an instinct you know you get really good at finding out what you're supposed to.

[Brett Weinstein]

Say when all right i want to pick up on that thing let's imagine that that's a general architecture for for all environments but that what the environment what you're supposed to say in an environment is a very different thing so during COVID out in the social media world there were very definitely things you were supposed to say and things you were not supposed to say and if you said the things you weren't supposed to say you got thrown off you got demonetized all the bad stuff happened to you you and if you said the things you were supposed to say well you were celebrated elevated all of those things but if we take brownstone or the graduate lab that i was in many years ago well what are you supposed to say actually you're supposed to say the thing that causes an upgrade in the model of the room right in a proper scientific environment what you're supposed to say is the thing that others aren't seeing that causes the puzzle to be more tractable than realized.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Right that's a good way to put it i'm going to have you introduce our retreats from now on and say that very thing because that's exactly what i've been going for that's what i.

[Brett Weinstein]

Was going to say is that is the ethos of the room right you are rewarded for upgrading the conversation and so i think the point is it's exactly the sort of friendly competitive environment that you would want where everybody is looking for what they can add that causes the conversation to get smarter and it's like well what more could you.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Want that is what you want yeah it doesn't always work and sometimes we'll have presentations that didn't quite achieve that and then there's a sense of well we'll be friends again during cocktail hour but you know yes yeah right but.

[Brett Weinstein]

It'S a culture is the thing and so it's a culture of learning culture is kind of a standing wave the people in the room aren't always the same people but there is a thing that carries through one to the next where the idea is this is where we don't bludgeon each other we do try to upgrade each other's model we try to give proper credit where it's due and all of those things we admit our mistakes which is so crucial it's painful but it's way better than maintaining your mistakes you know a lot.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Of this but i meant to say this earlier i might as well just interrupt you and say this now a lot of this comes out of what i imagine was true in interwar vienna say nineteen thirty thirty one thirty thirty thirty one thirty two we had these circles and they would meet in salons all the time so you had the positivist circle and then you had the legal circle but they would trade amongst each other so that you would have deductivists sitting around next to positivists you know in casual and serious conversation but disagreeing profoundly but maintaining personal friendships and learning learning from each from each other and this is true across all disciplines you know this is this is the culture that created the greatest intellectuals of the twentieth century so i developed in my mind a model of how this works with my limited understanding understanding of the of the empirical reality of what was going on in those coffee houses and clubs and restaurants and academic circles of those times and i i i missed i just yeah i i've always believed in that and maybe it's a fantasy maybe you know some of it's certainly reality but i it is an ideal that i've always wanted to experience for my own selfishly i want to be there right that that thing well.

[Brett Weinstein]

I i will from my perspective as a biologist who is fascinated by the very special animal that humans are the key the key features that make humans truly unique are our ability to plug our minds into each other in an almost literal fashion that the ability to take an abstract idea and pass it off more or less faithfully from one mind to another parallel process it pressure test it hand it back and forth is a kind of superpower and so those great minds that you're talking about are simultaneously what we understand them to be and also they are a central node in a network that is highly vibrant right it's very rare that one of these people is truly independent right and that's not to take anything away from them but it is to say that the quality of the immediate social environment is a catalyst for the highest quality thought my advisor used to say that great evolutionary biologists rise in threes was just a pattern that he had noticed that they pushed each other around in a way that they exceeded what they would have done if they had worked alone and so in any case we are breaking that dynamic we are causing people either to be in an echo chamber which does not cause that benefit or isolating them which does not cause that benefit and if the purpose was really for civilization to get smarter because we all end up i hate using the term wealth but loosely we all end up wealthier the better civilization runs and the smarter it is it's just such a crime that we are sabotaging that basic human superpower over nothing.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Let me ask you a question as an evolutionary biologist what is the point of being together physically i sense that it's really important but i'm not sure i know why why.

[Brett Weinstein]

I'Ve been wrestling with this too i think one of the things that you are clearly doing is following an intuition that meeting in person is just it's non negotiable and i know that you don't exactly know why that's your intuition but it's your strong intuition and i agree with you about it let's just notice a couple things in the adjacent territory one then there is a tendency to moderate your own behavior in person i take it to be the result of the fact that it's dangerous not to.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

So we.

[Brett Weinstein]

See online people saying the most vile things to each other and it's like you wouldn't say that if we were in the room together for one thing you'd detect my humanity better and for another thing you'd be afraid i'd hit.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

You yeah there's accountability for what you say what you say there's a feedback.

[Brett Weinstein]

And so the point is the room will maintain it you know people will detect that something in that corner is getting loud and tense so anyway the benefit of us moderating i think of us feeling that we are linked together that our fates are linked together the fact that we have extra cues that we can detect this is going to sound far afield but there's this result that says that talking on a cell phone while driving is as dangerous as being drunk but talking to the person next to you in the car isn't it doesn't have a negative impact why well in part because you're responsive to the same physical environment so the point is you're in the same space whereas if i'm talking to you on the phone my mind is partly in the room you're in i'm imagining where you are and how you're seeing it so there's something about just pooling minds that are really this is why heather and i use the metaphor of campfire that human beings gather around the campfire when they can't be productive out in the bush or farming or whatever they would do and they use their amazing minds and tap into each other but it's it's a physical place and in fact you're looking at each other around a circle at a campfire so i think i didn't answer your question but there.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Was lots no i think you i think you did i think that's that's really interesting and i sense i think the sense that that's true the accountability aspect of things is interesting because when you're when you're surrounded it can be an intimidate it's it's wonderful but it can be a little scary and stand in front of thirty other really intelligent people and be physically there for them you listen to yourself through their ears a little more carefully than you would if you were just talking on the zoom call or something like that i mean people strive to make more sense to themselves so that other people can understand them better because you don't want to be negatively judged and as you say you want to reward people with insight that's the driving thing that's what you really want to do you want to cook up a glorious little dish of ideas that everybody's going to enjoy eating right then right so that's very exciting and if you don't do that you feel this and so everybody's watching the cook but you're watching yourselves in that physical space in which that doesn't happen nothing like that happens in the.

[Brett Weinstein]

Digital world yeah i agree it's it's not it's not really possible and actually there's a an analogous situation that i think would tell us something about this.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

There are.

[Brett Weinstein]

Live performances of certain i'm thinking of popular music popular music of the modern era or twenty years ago where where the band not only nailed it but they nailed it in a way in which the feedback from the audience was palpable to them and so the point is it was an electric moment it happened once it was captured but we can still hear that it happened and the point is it wasn't just that there was a band and these people happened to be lucky enough to be in the room it's that the feedback the band is detecting what the audience is hearing and they're feeding it and vice versa and i think the point is i don't know what that is i don't know how it works exactly but that it exists if you've ever experienced it where you're resonating with a room you know for you and me it might be at the podium but it's a real thing and it's very powerful let me just tell.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

You very quickly brett something that i find so mahler composed nine symphonies and he was afraid to compose the ninth symphony because he was certain he would die just like beethoven did right but he went ahead anyway but as the ending of the last move in the ninth symphony he basically put the sound of the end of time as part of the music so it's dramatic it's brilliant it's maybe his best symphony but the ending lasts like maybe fifteen minutes of increasingly smaller sounds and less movement to the point point you can't really tell the difference between the music and the silence and at some point it just stops and by tradition the conductor it's probably been going on for one hundred years the conductor just holds a baton and and the violinist so everybody's frozen in place for a surprisingly long time time okay so i knew this i knew this legend and you could watch it on youtube like oh that's great you listen to it but to be at the new york philharmonic and be in the presence of whatever that is fifteen hundred two thousand people and a live presentation like i can't describe it to you it was one of the most exciting moments of my life life to be sitting in this mob of people in the stillness of death in the presence of what seemed like eternity all together.

[Brett Weinstein]

Yeah i i get it just from your description i can imagine a room full of people that are like hanging on the tip of the the conductor's movement that the fro i mean and you know and the fact that it seems to allude to like the heat not just death but the heat death of the universe you know it's it's amazing and they say.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

You gotta be there you gotta be.

[Brett Weinstein]

There well but you know and it also is like a transcendent insight that mahler was apparently recognizing that although you you go to the symphony and you watch you know some sort of awkward devices being wielded by people sitting in awkward chairs in an awkward half circle you know with a guy with his back to you it's all very you know the point is the music it's not the visual of it but the idea that actually no there is something in the visual you could do that would stun the entire room simultaneously they would be of one mind all transported to the same place that they'd never been before and in perfect silence it's like oh my god that's genius the.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Silence is the most magical music i think maybe that's the message i don't know but anyway that experience was it's brett to be there you don't want to breathe like you only breathe if you just have to.

[Brett Weinstein]

Right the mob would turn on the guy who cough yeah all right maybe one last thing before we go okay one of the patterns that i think all of us who were in the wilderness as dissidents of some kind yeah many of whom you've gathered together at brownstone one of the things that we've observed is that we were embedded in communities that wildly disappointed us and i will say it's not the first time i've been there that was not my first rodeo in fact twenty seventeen at evergreen where a mob came after me for a false accusation of racism and my faculty call colleagues almost to a person were silent it's like oh i've been in this community of people and i needed to know this about them from the get go it's not safe to feel that you've got a community that will literally say nothing when you're falsely accused of something so anyway the question i wanted to ask you is you've spoken about communities that you were part of of gathered around ideologies or economic beliefs or whatever and you know certainly the medical establishment as a whole seem to have failed spectacularly under the pressure test of.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

COVID and the ecclesiastical establishment yeah i mean imagine this the vatican had vaccine passports like how can you even is that i mean if you read the bible jesus had this thing where he would just like hang out with the lepers all the time right cure the sick and heal the sick i think that was part of his mission right it's part of his ministry and the vatican closed to the unvaccinated during high holy days for like a year.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Yeah.

[Brett Weinstein]

That is the great that's the greatest most ironic of examples so something primordial was drawn upon to get almost everybody to snap into line and it worked on people that you would imagine it.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Would never work on and the malleability of the rationalistic mind is alarming so let me just tell a quick story about libertarians so the idea of libertarianism is like people should be free and stuff like that and the government shouldn't make you do stuff so you think this is basically the idea right so you think of all people in the world who would be raging against the COVID controls and libertarians would be out front i realized very early on that i was pretty much alone and i didn't know where my community was and i couldn't figure it out well as the months went on and i began to poke around on the intellectual leadership and the publications the institutions to find out what was going on it turned out they were able to manufacture a rationale and the rationale goes something like this well there are there are there are flaws in the market among which negative externalities negative negative externalities and so and so getting a disease is like a negative externality you know and so if somebody gives you a disease like if you cough a knife that's kind of a torture a kind of an act of violence so to the extent that government can use the precautionary principle to prevent that from happening it is in a way become an instrument of social peace and reducing the level of violence in society and reducing the amount of negative externalities that are imposed upon each other so in this rare rare case government has actually become the handmaiden of exactly what we're going for which is more liberty more prosperity more social flourishing and a non violent environment so i'm listening to this rationale and thinking you know anything's possible you know i suppose if you're clever you can come up with an apparatus to justify anything.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Well.

[Brett Weinstein]

That'S a fascinating tale i agree with you the failure of libertarians to show up on the right side of history with respect to covid is shocking precisely because they should have been allergic to all of the tyranny and warrant i would say something i've become increasingly sensitive to i would not call it a a rationale i draw a distinction between a rationale rationale which is the reason that you do something and a rationalization which is something you impose in retrospect and to that point i would say this was not the only community that found itself turned exactly against that which it held most dear for reasons.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

That.

[Brett Weinstein]

Sounded reasonable but at the end of the day simply weren't and i.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Would say self esteem i guess the.

[Brett Weinstein]

Old word right sophistry exactly yeah so the rationalists failure on covid was i thought equally jaw dropping because it revealed the fragility of their method which on any normal day i would say it's a little overly formal but it's a reasonable approach to the universe you certainly do want to understand what is taking place and why and you want to use bayesian reasoning so you don't fall into traps but it became obvious that there's assumptions built into to it about the weighting of how likely things that you're being told are actually true in other words you can't do rationalism by algorithm because at some point you're going to have to make a judgment call about what evidence to process and which to discount and if you're if you are anything but a very high integrity person you're going to end up doing that cherry picking badly you want to prioritize evidence that stands a high likelihood of being accurate not evidence that flatters your perspective right that's the trap people fall into but the fact that these folks ended up on the exact wrong side of this and got belligerent and mean over it rather than recognizing the possibility that this was not easily calculated and that they couldn't be certain of any of the things that they were.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

So sure of are we talking about epidemiologists or no no the rationalist community.

[Brett Weinstein]

Itself these are people what is that community it is a community that aspires to be better and make the world better through unflinching exploration of the evidence processed by reasonable algorithms and updated based on the change of the bayesian priors and one outgrowth of this movement are the effective altruists who say actually there's a game theory problem that causes the world to be worse than it might be be and it's tractable so we're going to look at what should happen but won't because of the game theory and figure out how to rearrange things to make it happen frankly the whole project is laudable at that level but impossible and lends itself to utilitarianism and apparently lends itself to being propagandized into foolishness so anyway i don't want to dwell on any of these communities in.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Particular rationalism you think of irrationalism as a camp of things thought were a really existing community that's sort of the successors to the purest form of enlightenment.

[Brett Weinstein]

Idealism yes i mean it is a real community they do meet i think a lot of their stuff is intermediated online too but no it's a real group of people with intellectual leaders and all of that and it just did so spectacularly badly in this puzzle that frankly the ragtag fugitive fleet did pretty well like so you know the community you've assembled at brownstone proved this was not a puzzle you couldn't figure out i don't think we have it all nailed but we've certainly made great progress and hit well above our weight class so why is it that these other groups that ostensibly are built to sort out what's true and what we should make of it and what it suggests about how we should act why did.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

They fail so badly you know brett i've concluded very reluctantly over time that i know you're not really asking me that question but i'm going to offer this that i do think that there was a big professional cost a social cost and a potential financial cost to being correct during these years and it was just a lot easier easier to go along and much better to yeah to invent a rationalization for why all this stuff was justified in some way i mean that's where the social and fiduciary advantages are and i'm sorry to put it that way i mean it took me a long time to finally just say this seems to be the driving thing what i've called careerism but really it's just that's a survival instinct right.

[Brett Weinstein]

I think you've nailed it and i want to encapsulate it see if i've got it right there's something that you know i don't know if you know this but heather and i trained as field biologists so we do science wearing rubber boots sometimes with a machete it doesn't look it's not like a laboratory environment and so we're comfortable with that we know that science works in an environment in which you can't control all the variables it does impact what you can know but nonetheless i think the problem is the communities in question have prioritized a certain precision and cleanliness and those things turned out they prioritized them but they turned out to be be much less important than courage which is in very short supply and i think this is this is a key lesson actually of COVID is i would much rather have courageous people confronting a puzzle like this than cowards and i don't care how articulate or even smart aren't the cowards are the cowards aren't going to get it right because they're too easy to manipulate and that's what.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Happened but can i ask you to fill out this word a little bit coward because it sounds like just an insult i wonder if there's a way we could reframe it it's not an insult but a rational impulse so to not be cowardly during co meant i think at minimum that you had to be willing to risk your your social status and social circle and then possibly risk your financial well being all right you had to be it wasn't a guarantee that you're going to lose all things that everybody's going to hate your gods or you'd lose your community standing or you you fall in culturalized or be attacked by them none of this was certain but you had to be willing to to hold out the possibility that this could happen and that the willingness to do that is the act of courage i would say love it.

[Brett Weinstein]

All right now let me reflect this back at you and see if we've nailed something we talked earlier about the problem of utilitarian calculus and we talked about the fact that utilitarian calculus is inherently a population level phenomenon i think what we're detecting where you don't like my use of the term cowardice but we both see that there is a set of personality traits that makes you the pawn of an anthony fauci in.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

A case like this you know brett just i'm interrupting your narrative here but let me just be clear that i don't think anyone has a moral obligation to be heroic.

[Brett Weinstein]

Well look i can agree with that on the other hand what we saw the cowardice turned them into bullies on behalf of those who were out to oppress us so it's one thing if you want to stand aside it's another thing if you're going to become an agent of the oppressive force because you yourself don't want to pay a price so i draw that distinction if you stood aside and were quiet that's one thing but i would say what i'm calling cowardice what you're calling an unwillingness to face substantial personal consequences or even the strong chance of them i would say is what happens when you do utilitarianism at the individual level that the people who failed were looking at their own lives and they were thinking well if i say this then bad things are going to happen to me and if i don't in fact if i say the thing that i'm being told all reasonable people say then actually i can sleep at night so i would argue that that same failure of utilitarianism actually does exist at the level of the individual we just don't call it utilitari it's it's it's incentivism kind of i don't know about you but my feeling during COVID and frankly during the evergreen meltdown is like there wasn't really a choice i i don't know how i would say the wrong thing and then go on about my business it would would it would.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Tear me up no i get that and you find that it's all great heroic intellectuals throughout the twentieth century i mean you look at a person like ludovine mises he had to say what he was going to say yeah he got driven out of vienna yes he got driven out of geneva yes he landed in new york without a job at the age of sixty but he just had to say what was true from his point of view the same thing is true of freud i'm not sure if you're a freud fan i am he was very courageous and and and his his own actions and i'm not saying i'm courageous but i will tell you that when covid hit i just had to say i just and i knew god i could tell you stories but there were times when i knew that that that this was going to be a personal disaster for me but you know you just have to keep you just have to keep going you know that's courage well you know if if you have committed yourself to what we call the world of ideas i don't know what we call it but the intellectual world your primary obligation is to say say what's true as you see it and if you're not going to do that i think you should be doing something else learn how to install drywall you know something but get out get out of the world of ideas if you can't if you can't if you can't just say what's true this is why we pay intellectuals this is the whole point of them.

[Brett Weinstein]

All right now maybe we should close this out on brownstone because i think this actually this is a great place to view what it is you're doing so when we are manipulated we are manipulated based on insecurities right they can be very real like if you're financially insecure and somebody's in a position to threaten your career career it's not any of our business to say oh don't worry about it in fact i'm very careful not to tell people say the right thing and nothing bad will happen because i don't know that nothing bad will happen and you may have a family and kids you're protecting so but the point is the thing that wants to control us cultivates our insecurity because that insecurity is useful to it if you want people to behave honorably to say the right thing then cultivating security is the way to do it and what i see whether it was your intent or not in starting brownstone is that you have created an environment where at the very least it is safe to say what you see and to explore what it might mean and i think you've cultivated security in other ways but that seems to be if it's not the core mission it's one of the main missions of the place is to create safety so that people do say what they need to say and they do so in person in a room where it elevates the conversation and frankly i think you've got the smartest crew anywhere because of that instinct and.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Also not afraid to say i don't know i don't know and that you're not going to get degraded or miss a promotion because you don't know something you're there to learn from other people it takes a while for people to get used to the environment as you know the very first day so the very last retreat you went to i had to introduce it i wanted to present my great research on what i think is really good research in the history of the vaccine industry right because i think it's all new and fresh and i don't have a lot of time to speak at these things and i don't want to abuse my position so that i got to present that paper i stood under the microphone i thought you know i can't do that i can't do that i've got got to lay out a framework here that's going to determine help create a culture that's going to set the agenda for the next few days but yeah because it's so unusual people are just not used to it and it's a shock so often people come to me and say i found my home these are my people i've never felt so afraid free to think and learn as i as i do here isn't that sad i mean it's thrilling but it's also sad i mean that's the whole purpose of academia was to be the way things are a brownstone event but it's fallen so short of that it's tragic but at least at least we can present a model that maybe other people will pick up on the future well.

[Brett Weinstein]

I think it's sort of the phenomenon of keepers of the flame during a dark age age that this i've argued this is a dark age i think that's becoming more obvious but the idea that in every dark age there are those who maintain the the the rights and belief structures and they keep track of how to do this work and.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

So those are the greatest people brett if i can just bump back slightly you so intrigued me but you were talking about this individual utilitarianism where a person speaking of rational looking at their incentive structures and making a rational decision to be a coward to be heroic based on their individual self interest there's one thing there that is an interesting little confounding element to individualistic utilitarianism which is the intertemporal consideration so martin kulldorf decided to speak out he said repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly constantly implausibly like a mantra this pandemic will end and everyone will know that i was right.

[Brett Weinstein]

Yep i.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Mean he said it with with not it wasn't not as a forecast right but just as a truth he knew it from the very first he knew it and he said it all the time i remember he would say that to me i think i don't know can you are you sure yeah yeah.

[Brett Weinstein]

I'M sure well that is you know back in the heyday of gentleman science and i'm not defending gentleman science because i'm glad that you no longer have to be rich to do science but one of the good things about that era was that there was no point in talking yourself into lies or presenting those lies in a compelling way because your goal was to discover something so important that your name lasted longer than you did that's not a bad it's not a perfect motivation but it aligns pretty well with making making discoveries that are actually true and that's just not the ethos in science anymore so anyway it does fall to the keepers of the flame to keep that alive and in that spirit i would point out people have heard a lot about brownstone in this conversation and i want to encourage people there are several different ways that you can tap into this community community among other things brownstone is a publisher both of real physical books but also of a great many very insightful articles so we will link the website there is the supper clubs that you mentioned which are proliferating they're a very good time you can go and you can gather with other people who have been watching the world and reach some sort of similar sense that things might not be right but there might be a way to figure out what is going on it's a good time we're going to have one in seattle is boy if i was a better human being i'd know when it was but it's upcoming i think i'm the speaker at it there are conferences the last one was in salt lake one before that was in pittsburgh there's a very special conference if that's even the right word that you held at polyface farms this last year where joel salatin is doing his heroic work on this very enlightened version of farming and am i right that you're going to do polyface.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

Again this year last year we had a limit of four hundred people and we had a waiting list of four hundred more so the form to register just went up with no content at all other than the fact that this is happening we were already half sold so get on it yeah listeners of this podcast this is your channel because it's it's going to be the same thing as it was last time right just crazy demand and limited supply it's.

[Brett Weinstein]

Great it's not to be missed polyface farms is in and of itself a marvelous thing and you should definitely see it and get the tour that joel gives so you see how how he thinks about farming it will change the way you see farming it'll be cool if a lot of dark horse people sign up for this conference we can.

[Sponsor/Announcer]

Have a little.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

It just makes me laugh when you think about the implausibility of brett weinstein and jeffrey tucker hanging out at an organic farm.

[Brett Weinstein]

Feels like home to me but it's a great event if you're listening to this and you're debating whether to do it it's totally worth it i will say i learned a very important lesson at the last one which is you never want to follow thomas massie as a speaker.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

He was great you were wonderful though everybody loves you you were fantastic it was a great event it was a.

[Brett Weinstein]

Great event but anyway i think this year's will be equally greater even greater so anyway between the supper clubs the polyface events the annual conference and the stuff that you can find on the website whether it's books or articles there's a to of ways to start tapping into the marvelous phenomenon that is brown's done jeffrey tucker it's been a real pleasure and i'm looking forward to the next event already thank you so much.

[Jeffrey Tucker]

For having me brett great to be.

[Brett Weinstein]

Here all right be well everyone.