Bizzy (0:00)

You have probably heard of Big Pharma. I'm sure you've heard of Big Agriculture, but what about Big academia? Entire departments inside of a university can be funded by an organization. An entire area of global health could literally be funded by the Gates Foundation. You can connect the dots here. Real doctors that are following the scientific method, that are checking all of their boxes, are still being censored and kept off to the side because their discoveries and their research and poses a direct threat to dominant paradigms. When there's this much money on the table, things get wild. There's something controlling you, something hidden, operating beneath your awareness, dictating your decisions, your emotions, your relationships. You think you're in control, but you're not. Your thoughts aren't random. They follow a pattern, a script. And that script was written a long time before you even knew you had a choice. Why do you keep making the same mistakes, chasing the same people, ruining the things you claim to want? Your brain is wired for deception. It builds stories, rationalizes, defends, and it does it so well, you stopped questioning it. But here's the truth. Patterns can be broken, the code can be rewritten, and once you see it, you'll never unsee it. Decoded dismantles the hidden programming that's been running your life so you can finally take it back. Once you hear the truth, you can't go back. So the only question is, are you ready to listen? Subscribe to Decoded because you deserve to know what's really running your mind. Foreign welcome to this episode of Decoded. This is called Big Academia. You have probably heard of Big Pharma, I'm sure you've heard of Big Agriculture. But what about Big Academia? My guess is that this topic is going to be much more taboo than some of the others because we tend to base our intellectual frameworks around the university system. And I just want to preface this episode by saying this is not to denigrate or make fun of any of you who have toiled and spent hours and years of your life dedicated toward higher level education. I respect that. I respect the effort that you put into it. I am trying to shine a light on a system that I believe has been broken and corrupted for many, many hundreds of years that needs to be uncovered, reworked, reimagined, and it's not to look down upon the effort that you have made personally. So please understand going into this topic that I have the utmost respect for all the hard work that you've put in. However, uncovering what's really happening beneath the scenes, even for some of you who do have higher degrees, it's an important conversation for us to all have and it does spill over into a variety of other areas of our life. As you're going to see today. This system is absolutely need of a systemic overhaul, and I do believe that it is rotten from the very core. And there are many top innovators and entrepreneurs in the world that have actually dropped out of college without ever graduating. And the other ones likely never went on to pursue master's level or above education. Can you think of some top entrepreneurs, innovators, disruptors? Just hold the vision in your head for a moment. Probably about to drop some names of people that you're originally just thinking about. How about Steve Jobs, Jack Dorsey, Bill Gates. Yeah, Bill Gates, the faux doctor himself, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Dell, all of the names I just described, they actually just straight up dropped out of college. So they are not college graduates. Shocking, right? Naval Ravikant, Jeff Bezos, Sarah Blakely, Elon Musk only have a Bachelor's degree. I'm sure most of you are thinking, like, what? How's that even possible? We have been led to believe that a master's level or higher in education is synonymous with expertise and credibility, but this is absolutely not true. Did you actually know that Elon Musk dropped out of his PhD program two days after starting? I wonder why. I think we're going to uncover the reason. Many of the funding of these universities and the people that are writing the textbooks, these are actually connecting back to government contracts, private philanthropic interests and foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and even other NGOs. Now, it's important to remember that any organization like this, they're going to have an agenda. And when you put a lot of money into something, you're going to have rights, whether overt or covert, to push your agenda. Let's look first at the involvement of federal government grants and contracts in the university system. So some of the top agencies involved are nih, nsf, dod, Department of Education, darpa. And the way that they influence is through, of course, funding based on project based or conditional grants, meaning the research that they're focusing on has to align with the interests and priorities of the agency. They also create a publish or perish environment where grants dictate research agendas. And these are not based on intellectual curiosity or public interest, which we're going to get into a little bit later in the podcast. Now let's take a look at private philanthropy and foundations, the biggest players, of course, we're all aware of the Gates Foundation. There's also Open Society foundations, which is funded by George Soros Ford foundation, the Walton Family Foundation. Walton Family is the Walmart brand. And what's happening here is that the foundation is built around some sort of ideological goal, Right? Many of us, without dipping my toe too deep in the waters, we're pretty aware that the Gates foundation is very heavily focused on bringing vaccines all over the world, right? So that's an ideological goal where maybe some of us disagree, some of us agree, they believe they're trying to bring health to the world. I'll let people chew on that on their own then. If we look at something like Open Society foundations, this is a much more political ideology that is being then funded and pushed throughout university systems. So what ends up happening is that global health interventions like Gates, or now social justice frameworks like Open Society, their funding is now going into the university. And guess what? If they're putting in a ton of money, when they say jump the university, university jumps. Or if they say, we don't want that speaker here, that speaker gets pulled. We've seen this a lot over the last few years. Also, donations are going to have a direct correlation to the dictation of a curriculum. Literally entire departments inside of university can be funded by an organization. So an entire area of global health inside of university could literally be funded by the Gates Foundation. So you can connect the dots here. If the Gates foundation has an ideological agenda and then they're putting the money to fund a specific curriculum, that curriculum is going to mirror or echo the ideological agenda of said organization. There's also something called philanthropic capture, which is when we're actually steering the hiring of faculty, the research focus and even course requirements. So what ends up happening is whatever philanthropic organization is funding, they actually steer, step in and kind of steer or guide the hiring process, decide what research to prioritize or deprioritize. And again, even course requirements, what classes does somebody have to take? What needs to be a part of that curriculum? So there's very much an ideological steering of the university system from the funding source directly. There's also corporate partnerships. So this kind of transcends over into that more big pharma, big agriculture side, where there is a connectivity. Here corporate partnerships are going to include not just big Pharma, but also big tech. So think like Google, Microsoft, Meta, but also defense contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, of course, also agribusiness or big Agriculture, Monsanto and Bayer, and then also the fossil fuel industry, Chevron and Exxon. Their influence mechanisms are very similar. They actually direct fund research that benefits the sponsor. So think here, like biotech, drug trials, climate change policy, data surveillance. And as you could imagine, there is a major conflict of interest here that is hidden behind the facade of academic neutrality, which in my opinion, from doing this digging and just being awake and aware, I think is a complete farce. Corporations may actually even sponsor professorships, labs and centers within the university system, essentially buying influence over content and findings. We'll get more into the clinical studies side of this in a few moments. Another area of this is alumni donations. When we're talking about alumni donations, we're not talking about the everyday people that give a few hundred dollars. We're talking about the people that are actually putting forth large sums of money in terms of an endowment. So think wealthy alumni, often billionaires or politically connected individuals who may actually withdraw donations on an annual basis or exert pressure if the institution actually diverges from values. And let's be real here, if they're a billionaire or a politically connected individual, even though they are operating as a singular entity, all of their other companies and their investments and all of their other interests and ideals are still very much on the table here to exert pressure. This can also be something that suppresses controversial faculty or speakers. So think about this issue right now, Israel and Palestine. There's a lot of major division even among left and right. This is a very divisive, divisive issue. Critical race theory, economic redistribution of wealth, climate change. It doesn't take much to come up with an area that is heavily divided. And when you have an influence mechanism like this, the alumni who is donating large sums of money really gets to call the shots here because the school and those who are protecting the endowment will basically do the will or bidding of the person who's putting forth the money because they'll be afraid to lose the funding. Also, we see that schools have a tendency to sanitize content to protect their endowment growth. So let's say within the faculty, somebody starts to go on a more curious or possibly more controversial thread where they're expanding their research or they feel like they're onto something, the school may actually crack down on that individual to protect future endowment growth. Right? They're basically saying, like, we're going to need you to keep this a little bit more vanilla so that we can keep seeking outside funding because we don't want to be too divisive. So one could think, oh, that kind of sounds a little bit more like neutrality. But it's not real neutrality. Neutrality is not bending a knee to either side. This is trying to keep things just vanilla enough to appease those who are funding. And as we've seen over the last few years, there tends to be a trend among funders even just look at Hollywood, for example. There's a very clear trend in political, economic, climate change vaccination leaning. Now, I spent many years of my early career embedded in Hollywood working with and for many of these celebrities, I can tell you point blank, look me dead in the eyes. Many of these celebrities who are out there saying, hashtag, go get vaccinated, they don't vaccinate their kids. This is a complete farce. They're doing what their manager or their agent tells them to do, which is going to convince you to do that thing. But they're going to do things their own way. So they really are a facade or a puppet. So I do want you to keep this in mind that there tends to be this political or ideological agenda among wealthy people or the elite where they're going to control what you, the lowly person, can have access to, even if they fundamentally disagree with it themselves and would never do that to their own children. So those are the types of people and investments that are actually driving the curriculum, the agenda, the choices, and the research paradigms that are operating within the school system. Let's take a look at the distinction between safeguarding and gatekeeping, because I do think many people who have come from within the academic space, they have been led to believe, and I understand why you believe this, that going through a research institution and having to learn certain sort of fundamentals before you go your own way is a safeguarding practice. Right. We don't want anyone random pretending that they're an expert when they may not be an expert. Right. I do understand that sort of mindset. However, what is the line between safeguarding and gatekeeping? And if there's finances involved and ideals involved here, especially interconnected with finances, can it truly be safeguarding anymore? Or is that a power source that can now be pushed on or used as a weapon to hold people back? From my perspective and the research that I've done, I think it's very clearly crossed over into gatekeeping and suppression of true innovation and innovators. Let's talk about some of the mechanisms that essentially make a safeguarding practice actually become gatekeeping, where it keeps people out or prevents innovation or even discoveries or even, God forbid, us finding out that many of the theories or hypotheses that have been predominating our society are just flat out wrong. One of them is censorship by omission. So entire fields like systems theory, alternative medicine, post colonial economics, they receive very minimal exposure if they threaten any dominant paradigms. One thing that I can think of very easily is I have been listening to the telepathy tapes with my daughter. My oldest daughter is turning 15, she' cerebral palsy. And there's so much of what's discussed in the telepathy tapes that hits home that has been part of our personal experience. And it doesn't take long going into the episodes to start to see this is partly what's happened here is censorship by omission. Real doctors that are following the scientific method, that are checking all of their boxes, they're crossing their T's, they're dotting their I's are still being censored and kept off to the side because their discoveries and their research poses a direct threat to dominant paradigms. Example would be materialism, which we'll cover in a little bit. I also cover this in depth in a few chapters in my book, your Brain is a Filthy Liar. Another example of a mechanism that crosses or blurs this threshold between safeguarding and gatekeeping is that universities really function like an ideological echo chamber. If you think about that top down approach of who's funding the university and how their ideals and their money is in control of what's being disseminated or taught within that system, it makes sense that it would become an echo chamber. The faculty hiring often favors those who are aligned with current institutional narratives. And this creates what's called an intellectual monoculture. And it doesn't take long to look on various social media outlets to see what's happening in universities right now, to see that it is actually homogenizing thought. So rather than going to university and having your mind like blown and being exposed to all these amazing unique things that are helping you become different, think critically, think different. What's actually happening is that kids are going, going to school and their thinking is being, I believed, intentionally homogenized. And they're being primed to think a very specific way that is coming from these top down sources of funding. Another thing that I think is very important is weaponized credentialing. Academia becomes the arbiter of legitimate knowledge. And what ends up happening is if you didn't come through this system, you're suddenly discredited because you're an outsider or you, your dissenter. Regardless of the data that you've brought forth, regardless of the study that you've brought forth, regardless of the innovation or the invention that you've created, if you didn't come through their system, you're illegitimate. We'll get more into that in a little bit. But if you just think about the idiocracy of that statement that no one can invent outside or innovate, innovate or invent from outside of this closed loop system, that they're automatically illegitimate. I think honestly, if we go back and look at some of the most life changing inventions over time, very rarely are inventors that have changed the course of our lives coming through an academic system. Like think about Nikola Tesla for example. There are people whose minds were so open and thinking so drastically differently, in part because they weren't pushed through this system. We're going to get into that in a moment. Let's talk about controlled dissent. Even left leaning critical theories like DEI or critical race theory are now institutionalized within the university. And this we've even seen over the last four years. Sometimes these things are even coming down from federal government regulation. So now we've got essentially government regulating an ideology and reinforcing the same people that are funding said organization. So now you've got this like two pronged attacks that is thrusting forward an ideology and basically presenting it as this objective curriculum, which of course it is not. There's also gatekeeping via accreditation and journals. And this is something that I have personal experience with, that I'll share in a few moments. Research that is not passing peer review is marginalized and the peer review process is actually gatekeeping. And I'll explain that in a few moments. But if you just think about how everything has to kind of come through this system. And when you come through the system, essentially what happens is you have to be conformed in a certain way. Even like you have to meet these standards. You have to build your theories off of existing theories that have already been approved. What ends up happening is it takes something that could have been radically innovative and disruptive. But now for this to fit this mold, you have to cut away all of this stuff because you have to make it similar to this, to be pushed through into acceptance and appearance. Reviewed journal. What you're doing there is you're ensuring that real innovation and disruption is never truly able to pass those safeguards. And if you're listening to this on audio, I'm giving you very obvious air quotes that really ultimately are gatekeepers. And if you think about who's truly operating at the very top, it's of course going to be the major corporations and Those who hold the shares or the money and the power in those corporations and what ideals or what ideas they want to allow to be established in our society or not. Because if you look at it from a marketing, branding perspective, there's so much money on the table that if we solve certain problems, they lose money. One of the primary reasons that I believe academia at large homogenizes thinking and starts to push away or turn off true innovators or disruptors is something called paradigmatic entrenchment. So I want everyone to imagine for a moment that there's one big circle, right? This is all possible choices. And let's say that this big circle is a big gray circle. Now, once you have someone's ideals or their sort of paradigm that they're looking at, a paradigm is a way of thinking, right? A set system of thinking. You're saying, essentially within mental health, these are the boundaries of what's previously established. And this is how we want you to see, see this issue. And you can't step outside of these boundaries because, you know, that's anti science, for example. So now you've taken this big gray circle of all possibilities and you've placed this much smaller yellow circle on top of it, okay? Now you have maybe the religious studies department saying, like, well, this is our paradigm of thinking. Like, we see things like this, we see this religion is connected to this religion. So now we place this kind of big red circle over that thinking, like a Venn diagram. There might be subtle ways that religious studies or spirituality slightly overlaps or intersects with psychology, for example, but ultimately there's going to be spaces in both that are outside of the scope or the paradigm of which information is being disseminated and taught. The reality is there are so many intersections to actually see the truth. You cannot be operating in a very set restricted paradigm. And most all of academic institutions and all of their departments within that, like mental health, biological sciences, et cetera, part of the entire scope of the training. And these foundational building blocks that you are taught throughout your university career are to establish the boundaries of these paradigms. And you're actually told, do not step outside of these paradigms. So when we're talking about paradigmatic entrenchment, we're talking about building blocks that are taught from kind of day one to day 336, 65, that are taught to reinforce each other. So think about it as simple as for us, you are taught that one plus one equals two. You have to understand that, to understand that two times two equals four. And so on. So each of these building blocks eventually establishes this boundary or the circle that forms the paradigm. In academia, there's also a culture created around the knowledge base that questioning certain keystones or foundations is ridiculous and will immediately lead to ridicule or being ostracized from the group. I have watched many podcasts where people who are operating in the natural sciences space, even, you know, Harvard graduates, MIT graduates, you know, double triple PhDs, as soon as they bring anything slightly tangential to spirituality into the conversation, they're immediately ridiculed and outcast from their research. Again, going back to this example of multiple paradigms kind of overlaid on top of each other, ultimately making the truth, I like to think of this like a kaleidoscope monocle, right? If you were to able to layer all these things one on top of another, you'd actually start to see a bigger picture of a more universal truth. But in these paradigms, they are very much guided both overtly and covertly to not step outside of this boundary. A paradigm is a systemized way of thinking and you can actually overlay these paradigms to see a broader truth. But again, this is definitely discouraged in academic thinking, in particular in the more natural sciences, because they don't want things to be nuanced. As soon as you get into nuance, then you start to tiptoe off the edge and realize maybe these hardline boundaries aren't as hard line as I once thought they were. And then next thing you know, you're being called a conspiracy theorist or somebody who has been practicing pseudoscience. This practice in general of thinking in a more nuanced, multi paradigmatic way is absolutely obscured throughout all of academia. When we're talking about paradigmatic entrenchment, we're really talking about how alternate perspectives or even people that are operating in that gray area eventually start to become marginalized or outright dismissed. And I want to make this clear to you, this has happened to many people, not who are anti science or operating in pseudoscience, but people who have quite literally just been willing to ask questions and follow their line of questioning and then follow the research. Which isn't that what science is supposed to be about? Aren't we supposed to get curious and not decide what's going to happen on the other side? Of course, when you're forming hypothesis, you have to have an idea that you've worked through and you're trying to prove something or disprove it. But ultimately the whole idea of science is not for somebody to tell us what we have to research, but to have an architecture by which we figure out why something's doing what it's doing and that entire practice has been shut down. Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, outlined this perfectly. Once a paradigm gains enough institutional power, normal science becomes about preserving the paradigm rather than quality questioning it. Once a paradigm has been established, like materialism, right, which is very much focused on things having to be three dimensionally true, right, they can't be observable in anything that is outside of the scope of the third dimension, then if you're talking about anything like that that we can't see with the naked eye, then you're practicing pseudoscience or you're quack. Once we have doctors or researchers that start to ask questions again on that boundary, then you know, they start to get outcast because you're not allowed to question the paradigm. Of course this is going to break down innovation, which I don't know about you, but I think innovation's pretty important. In fact, I think looking forward into the future, innovation's the most important. We are sick, we are mentally unwell, we are suffering from a chronic disease epidemic, we are subtly getting micro poisoned every single day of our lives, through our environment, through our food, here's some of the medications that we take. And if we keep allowing this top down funding approach to guide our research and what we're allowed to study or not, and what's allowed to become mainstream or not, we're going to stay sick. I think we've seen that happen over the last 100 years. So we have to be looking at what breaks down innovation and what's stifling it so that we can see our way out of it and find another solution. Ways that innovation is stifled in an academic institution. Disruptive thinkers are labeled as pseudoscientific or are un credentialed. That's a great way of saying even if you have this brilliant idea that is working and the proof is in your practice and people are coming to you and getting trained, if you're not credentialed, then you're not really an expert. Even if your data is sound, the paradigm might shift, right? And often arise from the margins or the cracks before it's reluctantly accepted. I think I'm standing on the precipice of this now. I think we will see more and more over the coming years that people are finally willing to see that there are major cracks in narrative based therapy and there are significant cracks in how the work of Freud and others has influenced the trajectory of our mental health crisis. There is a space for data and logic in mental health. And when we treat those things like they are somehow anti mental health or they're anti feelings or emotions, we stay stuck exactly where we are. So a paradigm is naturally going to shift little by little. If you've ever watched any of my other lectures, I taught one called deviance in U.S. society. And when we're looking at how deviance actually is, is going to be carried out throughout society, it tends to be generated in a spiral, right? Subtle shifts over time, slight shift to the right, slight shift to the right, slight shift to the right, eventually creating a spiral where then there is a period of normalization. And then oftentimes more often than not, we pendulum swing and we circle in the other direction. But there are very few radical swings from one side to the other. This is going to naturally happen with a paradigm. However, the people that are spearheading these subtle shifts are often marginalized or considered quacks along the way, all the way up until it's reluctantly accepted. And I do think that we will see the shift in the mental health space over the next five years. Now we also have cross disciplinary insights that are underfunded or siloed or even just completely hidden where people are like, well, what about this sector? And this sector example for me, technology and data and psychology? Well, we don't want to know the answer to this from a funding perspective because this actually will make some of these other things relevant. So we're either not going to fund you intentionally or we're going to attack you in the press, or we're going to silo you off and hide you over here. Because once you have a breakthrough that's truly novel, it'll make some of the predominating methodologies or paradigms irrelevant. And they don't want that. Especially if the funding sources from above have something to gain by us being mentally unwell or sick, which I believe they do. Conformity also becomes incentivized, and I have seen this firsthand when I was brought into a program in Johns Hopkins University. Innovation becomes really performative and they actually don't want real innovation. They want you to build something off of something that was already receiving funding. And ultimately, let's be real, they basically just want you to make some sort of pharma medication. This episode is brought to you by Healing Sauna, the most advanced portable infrared sauna on the market. And it's trusted by people like Dave Asprey and Peter Diamandis. I've been using this consistently at home, and it is truly next level. I found them at Dave Asprey's biohacking conference. The girl ran me down and was like, hey, Bizzy, we love what you do. You have to try this. It's got 99% purity with every single one of its infrared ceramic chips. 0EMF. That's right, 0EMF. And it heats up in 60 seconds. I originally went for it because I've been struggling with lymphatic drainage and all types of issues, struggling with weight loss, rashes. And I knew that I just needed to add something into my daily habit stack that I could keep up with. This is something that I can keep at home. It's something I can jump in for 15 minutes instead of going somewhere to go sit in the sauna, wait for the sauna to warm. It's just, boom, Jump in there, throw on a pod and heat myself up from the inside out. And it helps detox your body. It boosts circulation and improves recovery. And of course, it supports brain and mitochondrial health. I use it about four to six times a week. And six times a week, even for only 20 minutes, has been proven to extend your lifespan. Listeners of this podcast get a hundred dollars off by using my personal code bg heal@healingsana.com every purchase supports my work too, and I would appreciate it deeply if you'd go check it out. By far and away the best sauna I have ever owned. Are serious about your health, recovery and longevity. Go head over to healing saunas. Use my code BGHEAL for $100 off. When people were bringing to the table these ideas that were more a method or even a physical intervention that could stop somebody from potentially needing medication, there was a very clear undertone and in some cases an overtone that really, financially, that's not what they're looking for. They're looking for medications that they can make money on over the long term. So conforming to what they want, put they again in air quotes, actually becomes a way to line your pockets with cash. So in general, in this space, whether it's biomed, biotech, mental health, there's certainly a financial incentive to doing it the way they want you to do it rather than truly innovating or disrupting. And I've had with firsthand experience the come to Jesus with other people who I thought hypothetically, like, you should want there to be breakthrough in this category or this area. And instead of them being excited about the novel nature of what I've created and the breakthrough, it was an Incredibly mixed bag. And I share this story on one of the episodes of my podcast. So I won't go into it too much, but suffice it to say, I really pissed off some people. And then I also had some director level people of the NIH come over to me, hand me their card and say, hey, your product is actually novel and you will make this other person's job completely irrelevant. Thus why she was so mad. Don't stop for a second. So there are good people in these organizations and I feel like to me that goes without saying, but I'll say it anyways. In all of this decrepit system, there's always going to be people within it that have a strong moral compass that do try to do their job in an ethically sound way. I think this is all the more reason why we need to address that the system itself is broken. So good people can be operating within the system with moral conviction and strong ethical standards and ultimately still be doing damage in the long term because of the system itself. So conformity is what they want so they can all make money rather than true disruptors that potentially are going to shake the tree so much that it will destabilize the entire foundation that the system is built on. So if we think about how these systems actually, I think, prevent true disruption innovation from entering the space, that might be one of the reasons that some of the most successful people have either dropped out of college or never pursued higher level education. Another issue that I ran into when I was going through the accreditation process with Break Method was is that they want you to prove that your theory or approach is built on other theories and approaches that have already been approved. So again, I just want you to sit with this one for a second because it's asinine and it makes no sense at all. They're basically saying for us to approve you, you have to list all the methodologies or foundations that yours is built off of that we already agree on, so that we can then stamp yours for approval. That is anti science to me. That's also anti innovation, anti disruption, which is of course what they want. So you have to then figure out, how can I, even though I didn't create it from this paradigm, how can I echo enough of these things to basically get this check mark, which is ultimately what we had to do to get through, because we didn't build it that way. It was built outside or extrinsic to this homogenized system. So then you have to find just enough things to check off and be like okay, can I pass now? That is not in the benefit, I believe, of humanity and us truly being able to heal. If predominating theories and paradigms have gotten us to where we are now, in order to break out of those, we shouldn't have to echo them or build them into our current research or approach. We should be able to go completely, radically outside of those things if it gets results. So here are some ways that echo chambers get created within academia. One is gatekeeping in publishing. This is also something that we're in the midst of right now. And you know, this process has been really enlightening and eye opening for me because I really hadn't even thought about what the peer review process looks like and how many there are and how focused they are on specific areas. And I think the idea of peer reviewed makes total sense to me. I get that the idea of it, it was for the process of safeguarding. However, there have been plenty of people who have uncovered, especially over the last couple of years now that we've had this rise in AI, how you can actually get a completely bogus study passed through peer reviewed by just checking the criteria. So part of the issue here is that you can write about something in a way that sounds not like bullshit. And as long as you are meeting their criteria and checking those boxes, as long as you stay within their rubric or their guideline, there's a chance that you could pass something that's complete and utter bullshit. And actually people have done this just to prove that it's possible, just to show there is a crack in this system. Now on the other hand, you have people that maybe they didn't come through a more traditional sense like academia. So now they've got these brilliant ideas that are completely world shattering and they're thought leaders in their own right, but it's challenging for them to translate these ideas into this more homogenized rubric based system. So now some of these are now prevented from getting their research out there or are having to go to very alternative peer reviewed journals or very obscure ones because that's the only person that will publish them. So I think big picture, if you're finding sometimes challenge the dominant model or you're coming from something that's so outside of the scope of the norm, a lot of times you're going to get pushed aside or again you're going to have to go to these very obscure journals that are trying to again safeguard where really they're trying to gatekeep their operating paradigms. There's also funding Bias research supports the dominant paradigm in variety of funding. I've had people on my podcast that have talked about this as well. And paradigmatic ideas become self fulfilling, not because they're more accurate, but they actually attract more money, more resources and more attention. So if you know that there are research dollars that they want to put forward into this, they're going to steer and guide your entire research process and then help fund you publishing your study. We're going to get into it in a moment. But the whole process of clinical trials and studies is, I think, one of the major areas of gatekeeping that takes place that needs to be completely overhauled. There's also major career risk to dissenters, as we talked about. If you're going to ask questions about this boundary of the paradigm, often you can lose your tenure, you can now be canceled within your academic institution. People can try to attack you on social media. So ultimately people, and I know many people in the mental health space, for example, that are afraid to speak up for some of the things that they're definitely questioning in terms of ethics, but they're afraid to say anything because they're afraid to lose their jobs, they're afraid to have their peers turn on them. That is not a critical thinking, nurturing environment. If you're afraid to ask questions or be real about something that you're seeing that's more decrepit in your industry, and you're afraid that you're literally going to lose your job over it, that's not an environment that I think is conducive to us changing and healing for the better. There's also curricular canonization. So sometimes dominant paradigms actually then become part of textbooks and they become part of program structures. And once they're canonized, they're taught as these building blocks. And even if technically they were more of a hypothesis or a theory and they weren't actually the truth, they're presented as the truth. So then anything that person builds on top of, it's being built on top of a foundation that's being presented like it's cement or brick, but really it's a facade. And then we've steered the direction of innovation because we've started from a faulty foundation. So I think big picture, when we get into topics like that, a lot of times innovation becomes very limited because you're pivoting off of a place that was faulty to begin with. And I think big picture, this is why so many innovators and disruptors, they're starting from nothing, right? They're starting Another way to say this is like they're starting from more of that zap of an idea from the ethers, or through a vision or through a dream, where it's not something that's built off of what they've been taught, A to B to C to D. It's something that is coming from outside of the scope of physical knowledge of the world. That is why I believe, truly, where innovation and disruption comes from, and we've built our society to make fun of that, in many cases, make that person look crazy. I think a lot of the top innovators in the world probably would seem pretty crazy if you met them. And that might just be why they're able to solve some of these problems, because they're not thinking in a paradigmatically entrenched way. We talked a little bit about echo chamber reinforcement, but ultimately this is where we've got kind of the conference circuit, the journals, department conversations. Everything's kind of built to keep reinforcing this paradigm so that as you are asking questions, maybe you're at a conference, you ask a question and one of your peers is like, oh, no, no, no, we don't. You don't ask that question to that professor. And you're like, oh, yeah, I'll keep that to myself. Basically, what happens, you create this intellectual loop that closes in on itself, and then everyone's afraid to ask real questions. I don't think that's in our best interest. So I do think that at the core level, and maybe this wasn't always the case, although I suspect that on some level it was, this process actually intentionally prohibits innovation. And instead of an idea being truly based on the merit or the actual utility for humankind, it's based more on what the funding sources deem appropriate or fit, or most importantly here, not threatening to their current investment or strategy in the marketplace, many of the projects and research that are conducted are following a funding source rather than the actual curiosity or the need of humanity at large. And I want you to really sit with that one for a second, because there are things that we know we need. There are things that we know are a problem, but often we're gaslit into believing some sort of alternative narrative about those things. So I'll give you a brief example. There are a lot of people, when we're talking about this autism topic that's so hot right now, a lot of people are saying, well, the rates are just rising because it's now just being diagnosed more, right? It's more. We're observing it. And Therefore, we're just marking it down more. That's why the numbers are going up. But if you really dig into the data, a lot of the autism cases that we're talking about here, within the spectrum, we're not talking about really low grade symptoms. The people that are getting diagnosed with autism that are nonverbal, have severe behavioral issues and a whole variety of other cognitive delays. These numbers are going up. And that's certainly not just from previous years of not properly diagnosing. Right. I know people have said this out loud before on social media, so I'll just echo it. And this is certainly not something I initially thought of, but I think it makes a lot of sense. If it really is just the diagnosis thing, then, like where all of these tens of thousands of adults that are still in diapers that can't cognitively process, where are they? They're not there. Because the numbers that are going up are actually a lot of these kids that have much more severe disabilities because of. However, and I'll leave it to you, however the autism presented itself, I think no matter what, I think it's always going to be a variety of factors. And I really hope that we do follow the science and we do figure it out, because it's a major problem. We do have to figure it out. But if we think about something like that, we've known that the autism thing is a problem for many, many years. But every single person who has asked questions and tried to follow the data has either been pushed away or outcast or lost their license, canceled, publicly shamed. So I'm glad to see that in 2025, we're finally at this place where it seems like, I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed on this one. It seems like we're finally willing to ask the right questions and follow this thread. But this has been an issue for 30, 40, 50, 60 years. Why did it take us this long to actually ask this question? Well, it's because the powers that be in the funding sources that then influence not just universities, but government itself and the formation of policy itself have prevented us from being able to ask these questions. And anyone who did ask the questions is immediately labeled anti science. So we need to get ourselves to a place where our need as humans and the problems that we are having are able to be prioritized above the desires of a funding source. So in general, we need to be able to get to this place where we can ask questions without immediately labeling someone, a conspiracy theorist or someone who's pursuing pseudoscience. So I Do think that to some large extent, academia and accreditation and all of that does function much more like a cult. I think we've established that. I pulled some cases that have happened over the last five years or some actually even 10 years ago, where there are doctors that did their research exactly the right way. Right. They followed that rubric, they did it standardized, they did exactly what they were supposed to do. But ultimately their findings were opposite or against or antagonistic to what these funding sources wanted people to know. So they were censored, they were outcast, and they were publicly shamed. So one name which you might have heard of during COVID was Dr. Judy Mikovitz. Her study was on retroviruses and chronic fatigue syndrome. In 2009, Mikovitz published a paper in Science, which is a peer reviewed journal, linking a retrovirus XMRV to chronic fatigue syndrome. This posed a threat to longstanding psychological explanations of cfs and it implicated contamination and widely used cell lines in vaccines, which of course is a massive liability for pharmaceutical companies. Her findings, after she was, and I'll let you do some more digging on Dr. Judy Mikovitz, she was really publicly shamed. They came her in every possible way and her findings were swiftly retracted. But deeper controversy swirled around her refusal to recant. So if a scientist, even with all this pressure, refuses to recant, and this even started to hit political overtones, eventually she was arrested and her research files were seized and eventually she was blacklisted as a doctor. She later made broader, more conspiratorial claims that that centered her around even more backlash. And in general, she was a huge thorn in the side of the CDC narrative. She eventually became regarded as a pariah. But I want to make it clear, not because of bad science, but because her findings were actually conducted using the true rubric that you're supposed to use. And it threatened billions in liability and decades of medical dogma. So like her or not, if you really dig in and you don't just look at the mainstream media sources of what they did as a coordinated effort to blacklist her or cancel her, but you actually look into the research itself. She did exactly what you're supposed to do and they just didn't like what she found throughout her research. Another example of this is Dr. John Lewinitis. I don't know if I'm pronouncing his name correctly. He published something that says most published research findings are false. This was in 2005. That was the name of his article. He was eventually attacked because he published a landmark paper arguing that systemic bias, data mining and conflicts of interest make up much of the medical research and it makes it completely unreliable. Especially because he was able to directly tie pharma funded studies that essentially spit out exactly what they wanted to be spit out. You can manipulate data to make it seem like you proved your hypothesis, when really all you did was essentially tweak or manipulate the data to get a very specific result. He called out the replication crisis years before it hit mainstream awareness. What happened to this guy? Well, he didn't just get canceled. He was relentlessly criticized for undermining public trust in science. Again. His whole point was if we're going to trust the science, we have to call attention to how these things are corrupted. So he wasn't trying to get people to a turn on science itself. He was trying to show people and showcase the corruption that is operating under this facade of science. During COVID 19 he also tried to call for balanced risk assessment and critique of the inflated death projections. And this got him branded as a dangerous researcher and doctor by definitely the mainstream media and even some of his peers. Eventually he was deplatformed from public discourse despite his long standing credibility. So this is something that you always want to look for. It's like how can somebody be credible for all these years? And as you'll see, many of these people went to some of these academic institutions and it's only once they say something that's antagonistic to the paradigm or to the ideals of the funding sources that they eventually get pushed out or cast aside. Did they forget how to do science? Did they forget how to do research? Did they really just go that rogue? No, no, they started to ask the wrong questions, which frankly to me makes it that much more clear that they were asking the right questions for us. Right? We the people are grossly underrepresented in what problems we need solved above the funding sources themselves. The broader implication of things like this is that academia often tolerates dissent until you step on that one wrong landmine. And then despite your years of being credible and an expert, now all of a sudden you're an outcast. Another example is Dr. Christopher Exley. He did research on aluminum and neurotoxicity in vaccines. Exley was a British biologist who studied aluminum toxicity in the brain. And with some of his later work, he actually touched on the potential role in autism spectrum disorders. Of course, this is a major red flag topic in scientific and political disposition, this course. Eventually, despite publishing in respected journals, he was accused of pseudoscience and funding from the School was blocked through university policy changes. His university froze his access to research donations and completely shut down his work. Right. That just shows you whatever's happening at the top, they can be like, nope, you're asking the wrong questions, you're shut down. And he's since been excluded from academic roles and has struggled to get any support on his continued research. He just stepped on the wrong landmine. He challenged the assumption that vaccine adjuvants are inherently safe despite legitimate concerns and peer reviewed data. The backlash shows that certain scientific questions are completely off limits regardless of the science and regardless of the evidence itself. Another example is Dr. Phyllis Malenics. She was studying neurotoxicity of fluoride in children, which we now know finally right from being right in that gray area. Now they're finally admitting that fluoride is actually in fact a neurotoxin. That does impact her iq. Thanks a lot guys. She was attacked for trying to pursue this research. She was a respected toxicologist and a former chair of a toxicology program at Forsyth Dental center, which is a Harvard affiliated program. Melenix conducted early animal studies showing that sodium fluoride had neurotoxic effects including behavioral deficits and IQ reduction. What happened is that when she presented her findings in the 1990s, she was fired from her position and her research was completely derived of any sort of peer reviewed support. And despite being well constructed, established following every single part of that rubric or the process that you're supposed to go to, she was told that her research was, was flawed, but they couldn't point to how or why it was flawed. She was unable to get any further grants for her fluoride work and her findings were ignored by the dental and public health establishment which of course at the time were largely promoting water fluoridation. Conflict of interest? I don't know, probably. Some of her conclusions have since been echoed in newer studies, including a recent NIH funded research study, yet her name is completely left out. So they ostracized her, ruined her career, only to eventually find, you know, 35 to 40 years later, oh, actually she was right. Sorry about that. Mullenix threatened the public health consensus at the time around fluoridation, which again was an ideal that was coming from a funding source. And this was something that was embedded in so many aspects of our infrastructure, from how we were treating our water to how we were practicing dental hygiene, et cetera. And her case reveals how questioning an entrenched safety claim in public policy can lead to complete academic exile because that is what they did to her. Now, my last doctor that I want to take a look at. This is the doctor whose research eventually led to the famous Alex Jones they're turning the frogs gay comment. I remember when I first saw this, this meme, I was like, what? Like, someone put this into context for me. They're turning the frogs gay. What does this even mean? Well, actually, Dr. Tyrone Hayes was studying atrazine and endocrine disruption in amphibians. So Hayes was a biologist from UC Berkeley, very well known organization, university, and he was conducting research showing that atrazine, one of the most widely used herbicides in the United States, which is manufactured by Syngenta, chemically castrated and feminized male frogs, implicating it as a potential endocrine disruptor for humans as well. Thus, they're turning the frogs gay. Okay, so this is where his comment, which, you know, bless Alex Jones, sometimes he's articulate, sometimes he's batshit crazy. I totally am with you on that. But I will say there are things that he said over the years where you, like, you think it's nuts in the moment, and then you're listening, years later, you realize, oh, my God, he was actually trying to highlight this study, which is this one. So what happened here to Dr. Tyrone Hayes is that Syngenta, the company that actually was manufacturing this atrazine herbicide, they attempted to discredit him, launching a multimillion dollar campaign, right? Like, we got deep pockets, so we're going to actually surveil this guy, interfere with all of his public talk, and plant information to undermine his credibility. So they actually spent millions of dollars to, in the public, completely dismantle this guy's reputation, Right? More like a PR campaign. Internal Syngenta documents that were later made public showed deliberate efforts to get Tyrone Hayes in trouble, including digging into his personal life and professional relationships. If any of you ever seen the movie Michael Clayton, Great movie. Or really any movie that highlights the role of a fixer in a large corporate law firm. There's always someone whose job where they're being funded by a huge corporation like this is to basically go mess with people in ways that are certainly not lawful, either through blackmail or threats, or again, digging up this information to kind of create this PR campaign that's meant to completely discredit you. This is what they do. When they can't win based on merit, they win based on using their deep pockets to completely destroy your reputation, your public image, which has been the case for every single doctor that I've named So far, and despite his findings being peer reviewed and corroborated by others, his work has been excluded from regulatory decisions and has been ignored by the EPA for years. Broader implications of this is that when science threatens big agriculture and their profits, the response is rarely done through rebuttal data. So again, they're not refuting the data with better data. They're literally just paying to destroy your reputation through a corporate PR campaign and academic marginalization. Right? So they take away, they threaten your safety, your stability financially. In some cases, there have even been people that were whistleblowers whose families were threatened. There have even been people that turned up dead. When there's this much money on the table, things get wild. So this has happened to these five doctors, but it won't take much research on your end to see that this is a trend and it goes far beyond five doctors. It didn't take me long to come up with these five doctors. So do your research. And remember that looking in the mainstream media, all you're going to see are the PR campaigns that were funded to discredit this person rather than really doing the deep dive to figure out what were they studying and what. Whose financial profits was this potentially going to disrupt? Because that's really the trail that you have to follow here. So that's one area, right, where what people are researching can get gatekept at that process. Now let's look at another avenue, because we also have how clinical studies are run and how ridiculously expensive they are. Okay? So we've been in the process of running a study. We've run one. We have another study that we're looking to fund right now through SBIR grants for Break method. And I was shocked and awed when I finally got to understand really what the clinical trial process was like when I was invited to that program through Johns Hopkins University. The pricing here literally makes no sense. If you actually want people to solve problems, you cannot price things the way that they have these priced. So I'm just going to give you some average cost of US clinical trials. Okay? So some clinical trials, they're based on phases. So I'm going to give you an outline of what these phases look like. So, for example, knowing that you're going to have to go through multiple phases, a phase one, which is a safety trial, which is typically a very small sample, 1 million to $7 million. We had to sit with that for a second. One to seven. Like what to what? How do you even do that? You've already priced out most people who are Going to be able to have a novel idea that has been used in practice. Like the average person who's really solved a problem, who brings a lot of value to the table, what are they, how are they going to come up with a million to $7 million for just a phase one? Then phase two is efficacy and safety. This can be 7 million to 20 million. Oh, then we go to phase three which is large scale efficacy where you're doing a much bigger group group 20 million to $100 million. Then we go to phase four which is a post market and this can be upwards of $10 million. Okay, so when we're looking at pharmaceuticals, med tech, et cetera, that's really what you're looking at. Then let's look at more of a proper academic study. These are the price ranges that we have had to swallow in Break method. A small pilot study which is roughly 3200 subjects projects starts at 350k up to $500,000. This includes IRB submission which is the ethics board, participant compensation. And yes, you have to pay participants, which we'll save that for a whole other episode. You need to pay for a project manager, research time, data analysis, publication fees. It is a costly endeavor and of course what's going to happen? Well, the average person isn't going to be able to do it unless they're backed by university. Okay, well we already know how that's going to go. Or if you need to get outside funding. Oftentimes you're getting outside funding from, I don't know, an investor, a bigger corporation. So you see one person, let's say one person that has an exceptional methodology, where it is working and they've used it with thousands of people. Unless they essentially get in bed with one of these other broader institutions that can fund this, how are they going to do it? Right now they really can't. And there's no, there's no scholarships for this. Right. There are SBIR grants, but having been through this process, those have their own source of gatekeeping which we'll get into in a future episode. Now let's look at mid sized controlled trials. So this is 100 to 500 subjects per trial. Now you're in the range of a half a million dollars to $2 million. Because now you have to have on site coordination, more intensive data infrastructure, outside ethics monitoring and sometimes we even now have biometrics or app development. Right, so this is the phase are in right now with Break Method. On our second study. It is exceptionally expensive. Then you go to an Even larger sample trial, which is over 500 subjects. And now you're at the 2 million to $10 million range. And this is really only achievable with those SBIR grants, or if you're partnered with NIH, DoD or some sort of major university, which again, ideologically, you're now being pushed through this homogenization tool and they have the ability then to say, oh, well, actually I'd prefer you do it this way, you're willing to do it this way, and at that point you're getting some extremely watered down vanilla version of something that ideally, if you could have pursued it in its potency intact, and there were ways that were based on merit to get this funded, rather than you having to jump through the hoops to tell people who are already ideologically and financially compromised that you meet the rubric. I mean, then we might actually see true innovation spring forth in our country. We might actually see real problems being solved. But ultimately that's not what's happening. There are a variety of gatekeeping functions here. One, of course, is the cost that we talked about. Obviously that cost is exorbitant. And the average person or the average small company that may have solved a problem or invented something can't eat those numbers without getting some sort of outside investment, or again, a grant or a partnership with the university. There's also a lot of complexity in irb, which is the research board. So this is the board that basically has to oversee how you're bringing in the participants, how you're running the study, et cetera. And for non traditional thinkers or small teams that are actually working in these groups or have been working with a methodology that has worked for many years, the complexity makes no sense. It would be like trying to suddenly make a small organization run like this math of corporations. So there's a disconnect there. And then of course, if you end up having to take in capital to get this done, then you run the risk of these larger funding sources basically steering what you're doing and then essentially just changing your model as a whole because there are compromising values. So the entire field of not just how our education becomes possible, methodologies or agents for change, that's all corrupted. We know that, right? The building blocks create this paradigmatic entrenchment. But then once you're going through the university system, and I found this out too when I was at Johns Hopkins, if you're within that university system, if you invent something, guess what, the university actually owns it, partially. So if you are going to that University, if you create something, they immediately have some rights to be a part of your idea. So there's all these kind of backend loopholes. And I saw this, this when I was at Johns Hopkins. There were a couple people who were in more of like a professorship role. And when they were talking about what they had created, someone had, you know, shared with them very briefly. Like you realize that your university essentially owns this and they're like, wait, what? So there's all these backdoor areas where the university kind of gets to wrap its tentacles around the idea. But then if you get through that phase now you have to run studies, now you've got to go with your accreditation. So there's all these ways that it just keep squeezing, squeezing, squeezing. And at which point a true disruptor innovator would have been like deuces. I'm going to do this as a D2C company because I don't want to go through all this regulation because I just want to help the people. So ultimately D2C is direct to consumer. Many true innovators or disruptors have gone this path. Or they're basically saying like, this system is so decrepit from the inside out and every phase of it is corrupted. So I essentially have to build this completely outside of the system as a direct to consumer brand. Eventually you might see that it builds enough credibility as a D2C brand that now people within that more academic based paradigm are like, oh, maybe there is value in this. Right. A good example would be EMDR was basically treated like a pseudoscience witchcraft for many, many years until eventually it was adopted. So often you're on the fringe until eventually you prove after enough years that you're credible in an extrinsic way to then have the system be like, okay, well fine, you sure you can come in, but that's not the way this should be. And I think big picture, when we look at this system where you go from university to now bringing your idea through an accreditation body, or now having to run a clinical trial, what you end up having happen is that through that paradigmatic entrenchment, you're not able to really solve the right problems anymore. There have been so many layers of constraining your thinking or getting you to essentially even push away some of your own instincts on how to solve a problem because you're either afraid of getting outcast or you almost believe that what you self generated couldn't possibly be true because now it conflicts with all these other things that you were told are complete, concrete, objective truth. So eventually you get yourself into this place where this quote really, I think, holds ultimate truth, which is a problem cannot be solved in the same state of consciousness as it was created. So I truly believe that until or if we radically transform this whole homogenization system, we won't be able to really think outside of the box, because you're taught to think inside of the box. And I do think that this quote summarizes why Big academia is actually one of humanity's most sinister systems that is preventing us from a radical paradigm shift and an emergence of innovative approaches that actually need to solve a variety of issues that are plaguing society at large. We are sick, we are broken, we are mentally unwell. And if we keep doing what we're doing, which is only putting academia up on this pedestal, they're the only ones that can solve the problem. They're the gods. We may stay stuck here literally forever. And I certainly don't want that. There are so many industries that are ripe for disruption, but we do have to work together to reinvent the system itself and make sure that that safeguarding system doesn't eventually start to get corrupted and used as a gatekeeping source, because that line is so razor thin. And as soon as finances are on the line, I think the line completely disappears. So I want to leave you with a question like, what should the future of this look like? I've thought about this a lot and I have some ideas. I think a return to a more apprenticeship model could absolutely be amazing. And I do hope that many of these very prominent industry disruptors, tech disruptors, start to build systems for this, because I do think at this point, the system's so broken that we do have to build this up outside of the current system. But I think there are apprenticeship models that could absolutely work here. I think a census and voting of what issues citizens actually want should be prioritized. So there should be some way for us as a human population to be like, hey, why haven't we answered this question? Like, why am I sick? Why does everyone I know have cancer? We should be able to bring forth these issues and have them actually heard and prioritized through properly run studies like following the real science, not just the financially incentivized science. We need to create extrinsic systems that may run a parallel track to what's widely accepted, and that needs to be run by people who are not afraid to go against the grain. They're not afraid to be ostracized or canceled. And I really hope these people Keep rising up because it needs to happen. I think the possibilities are endless here, but I think it's time to have these conversations before innovation gets completely stamped out, not just by big academic academia, but the rise of AI. Because now we've got two issues that I think are ultimately really going to suppress our human creativity and innovation. And we will do a future episode on how the AI agenda compromises human innovation, because I think it's a really important subject as well. I think big picture, I, for the last 11 years have been straddling two different worlds, right? Running an accredited methodology, training therapists, trying to make sure that I'm able to understand how they're thinking so that I can effectively pass my teaching to them in a way that makes sense, while also being completely uncompromising in my values and my ethics and making sure that I'm always standing in the truth and not bending a knee. I do think that bringing thought leaders together who are willing to reinvent how academics and safeguarding structures in our world are being brought to life, I think this needs to happen. I hope more people start to question this. But again, because academia has become synonymous with expert, I think people are afraid to ask these questions. But I know I'm not the only one thinking it. So I do hope that more thought leaders start to say something and we start to organize an alternative pathway outside of the system until that system gets fixed. And I think we need to be aware of policy because I think a lot of people in this space, they shy away from like, I just want to be neutral, I don't want to like politics, I don't want to dip a toe on that. If it's not my area of expertise, I just try to stay outside of it. I think this is where thinking in a more cross disciplinary approach and understanding not just the role of these financial institutions, but how then that pours into policy and then how policy then reinforces all these other things, things we have to educate ourselves because none of these pieces of the system functions in a silo. And we have to really understand how the whole system works. And I really don't think that we can just stand back and be like, well, that's not my area. Like, we have to make it our area if we want to break through this. Because I do think that although it's inconvenient, the strongholds of big academia spills into so many of these other areas that it, I believe, is one of the major ways that we are being held back as a human civilization. And we have to Ask ourselves those hard questions. Many of us that have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on our academic career have to sit with the cognitive dissonance of like, did I pay a lot of money for something that is ultimately corrupted? And I know many doctors and therapists have had to face that. I hope people come forward. I hope people start asking the questions and that we do create these parallel tracks so that. But if you're afraid to lose your job within the system, you can build yourself a job outside of the system. Because for now, we need people solving these problems. We need to heal. We need to step fully out of our mental health crisis. And we're not going to do that if we just keep pretending like the system is totally great. It's fine. Oh yeah, Any person with a good idea can make it. Not in this system. This system is built to prevent that at every turn. So I hope this was food for thought for you. I know for some people it is a tough pill to swallow and I hope that you sit with it, think about it, go do your own research. And if this episode challenged what you initially thought about the intersection of science and power and truth, good. That was the point. That means Decoded is working. Paradigms don't fall quietly and the gatekeepers are not going to be handing you the keys. The more we expose how this knowledge is controlled, the more we have the opportunity to take our power back. If this episode resonated with you, please share it, speak on it, send it to someone who believes the system is just inherently neutral. And if you believe in what we're building here at decoded, just take 30 seconds, please go rate and review the show on any of the main podcast platforms. It does help this message rise above a lot of the noise that's out there there. And just remember, we are not just decoding the lies that people tell the behavior. We're literally rewriting the rules of how society functions. Because decoding starts with perception of reality. And if we're able to not just take something at face value and understand how we're perceiving it, then we can truly change the world and completely rewire the entire system one episode at a time. Time. Thank you so much for joining me for this episode of Decoded and I will see you all next time. Your brain isn't broken, it's running. An old code break method is a system that maps your neurological patterns, decodes your emotional distortions and rewires your behavior fast. No talk therapy spiral, no getting stuck in your feelings, just logic based rewiring in 20 weeks or less. Head to breakmethod.com and see what your brain is really up to. It.