A (11:27)
Well, here's some science that I probably could have told you how it was going to turn out. Emily Caldwell is writing for the Ohio State University. Apparently a keto diet was linked to a 70% reduction in depression symptoms in college students. But because it was a kind of study that they didn't do a control group, you know, there was no placebo control group sort of thing, wouldn't you imagine that if you said to a bunch of college students, hey, I've got a proposition for you. What is it? We're going to put you in a scientific study. And they'd be like, oh, no, that's how Zeke. I go, wait, you haven't heard the details. We're going to fix you delicious food. You won't have to shop, prepare it or clean up. Like, we'll just basically deliver you stuff on disposable dishes and it will be delicious and healthy. And by the way, keto has lots of good stuff in it so you don't have to worry about, you know, not having good stuff. And, and then we'll have contact with you and we'll be checking in with you. Don't you think that that would almost guarantee that people would have less depression? Because don't you think just being less lonely and having a purpose, just the being as part of the research, that alone, no matter what they were researching, if they gave you lots of points of contact and you, you thought you were doing something useful and then you also had the placebo effect of believing, well, this looks like healthy food, it's certainly going to fix many of my problems. You put all that together and it wouldn't matter what the nutritional value of the food was, I would expect people to say they had fewer depression symptoms just because of the way they were treated. You're basically treated like kings. And they probably didn't have to pay for their own food. So I'm assuming that the food was free. So if you have free food and people fussed over you and asked your opinion and you weren't as lonely. Yeah. If the food was no more healthy than the other food you had, you'd probably feel a little less depressed. But I also think eating right is good for your brain, so I do believe that it's healthy. Well, Apple had some announcements. They're making a thinner, better phone with better cameras and stuff. But the big news, if you can call it that, is that Apple is going harder into health sensing stuff. So they got some stuff built into their ear pods. Now they can, it can. Well, basically all of their stuff, their watch, their earbuds and their phone are all going to have lots more health related apps, but also live translation in five languages. So that's not health related. But how cool is that that you got to be alive at the time when humans could actually put a little earbud in an ear and it would translate in real time five different languages? I'm just hold that in your mind for a moment that you're alive. When that became just a consumer product, it's not even special, so you could buy it at the store. But I guess they can also now measure everything from your sleep to your ovulation to your sleep apnea, your temperature, your vitals, your heartbeat, your hypertension. Yeah. So Apple's going to save your life. Well, the Maha make America healthy again. They have a commission that released a big strategy yesterday to improve children's health because, as you know, children have many chronic health problems that we didn't used to have in, say, my childhood. And they're still trying to figure out why. But as part of that, they've got more than 120 initiatives, including advancing research on autism. More on that in a minute. Pesticides, vaccine injury, water quality quality and all the other stuff. 120 initiatives, that's a lot of initiatives. Is that even manageable? If I told you that something was happening and there would be 120 initiatives, would you say to yourself, wow, that's good. That's a lot of initiatives that could only go right with that many initiatives. I mean, even if a few that went bad, you still might have 80, 90 great initiatives. Or do you say to yourself with the Dilbert filter, hypothetically, the most number of initiatives that any entity can handle would be about 5 and anything beyond that would just become a cluster. Well, I hope. But on the other hand, to be less skeptical, on the other hand, there probably are at least 120 environmental risks that are going to require somebody to work full time to figure out what's what on just that one risk. So, yeah, I could say 120. Anyway, Justin News is reporting on that, so would you be surprised? I know this will shock you. I know that a judge blocked something that Trump wanted to do. No, no. Really? No, I'm not making that up. There was a judge who decided that Trump wasn't allowed to do a thing that was just part of his normal job. Does it feel like Groundhog Day that just every day you wake up and is there another story about another judge blocking another Trump thing that he just wanted to do, which he totally has a right to do? Yes. And now the judge is blocking the firing of that Fed Governor, Lisa Cook. I'm not even going to look into the details of that story because I imagine it'll get appealed. And I imagine that in the end, the President can do the things that are the job of the president. So another probably just. Just a bump in the road. Probably. Well, another one of those smuggler boats has been destroyed, but this time the Navy was nice enough to let the humans get off first and the drugs get off. So they captured a bunch of drugs and then they very, very impressively blew up the boat. Blew up the smuggler boat and sunk it. And in other news, the Post millennials reporting on some of this, that over 600 suspected Sinaloa cartel members were arrested by the DEA in a 23 state sweep. 600 cartel members. Now, what is the first question you ask yourself when you hear that 600 cartel members just from one cartel? There are more than one cartel. About 600 of them were arrested in 23 states. What's the first question? Well, my first question is, how many are there? Is 600? Did we get most of them? Is that like, well, good news, we got 95% of them or did they get 2% of them? Or 1%? Doesn't it really matter what percent they got? Have I ever told you too many times that if the only thing they tell you is the number or the percentage, but they don't tell you both. If they only tell you one or the other, somebody's trying to bullshit you. So it's making me wonder if we're supposed to think that we're much SAFER now because 600 have been picked up, or if we knew that there were really 20,000 of them, would you feel much safer? So I feel like we're being managed a little bit. It's possible that we have no idea how many there are, but an estimate would be useful. Well, apparently ICE is going into Chicago to do its job arresting people, and it's going to be called Operation Midway Blitz. And that part apparently is totally legal, as far as I know, because it's the Fed's job to do exactly that. If so, they're not dealing with crime in general. That's just the. They're dealing with the immigration problem. And let's see what else has happened. According to the Guardian, there was. There was an airport. Where was this? Heathrow, Part of the airport. Heathrow was evacuated because they thought there was some kind of. Some kind of poison gas or something. So people were falling ill. 21 people fell ill. But when they looked into it and they analyzed all the air and everything, they determined that there was no hazard whatsoever and that the best guess is that it was a psychogenic illness, meaning that it was all in their heads. Now, do you believe that 21 people could be so ill that they became a statistic? They must have reported to somebody or must have been detected somehow. But 21 people falling ill, do you feel there's any chance that that could be just in their heads? The answer is, yeah, easily. That's not even hard. Yeah, you could reproduce this effect fairly easily. You would just get a few actors to go into a public, crowded space and say, I could barely breathe. What is that? And then everybody would smell it. Like, I smell something too. It's got me, too. Yeah, it would be about that easy. You couldn't get everybody. So, you know, it'd be fewer than 20%. You might be affected by something like that, but that would be enough that you would wonder if some major contagion just broke out. So, no, it's really easy for that kind of stuff to be in your head. So how many of you are following the news about the new whistleblower reports about UFOs? And there's a big meeting, I guess, a congressional hearing in which the witnesses came in and had some amazing stories of UFO spotting and encounters. One of them included a glowing orb thing that they thought was some kind of alien spaceship, or at least nothing we know about. And apparently they have video which they showed is grainy. I know you're surprised it's grainy, but, yeah, it's blurry and grainy and black and white. Can you believe it? And it's a ufo. I mean, how. How could those two things possibly happen at the same time? I mean, really, what are the odds that something grainy and blurry and black and white would be the only way that they'd get a picture of a ufo. Okay, but now they've got a picture of what they call a hellfire missile. I don't know how they know that. Allegedly intercepting it, but bouncing off it basically not. Not affecting it. So that must be alien, right? Okay, I'm not even a little bit persuaded that they have a video of an alien that just happens to look like a glowing orb that for some reason, and I don't know what that reason would be, that we shot a hellfire missile at it. Do you really believe that we shot a hellfire missile at a glowing orb without knowing what the fuck it was? Or were we under attack and somehow the news didn't catch that Earth was in an intergalactic fight with a superior technology from another race alien race. Are we just finding out about it now? What are the odds that we fired a hellfire missile at it? Whatever it was, pretty low. So yes, there's a claim and there's a grainy video that you've come to expect sort of Loch Ness monster style, Bigfoot style. So no, I was not convinced by that. And then there were these military other whistleblowers who are talking about how they had personally witnessed things and they were being quite persecuted in a whole variety of ways. You know, things. Things were happening that would be suspicious except if you understood them as revenge. To which I said, well, you know, I won't go over everything that the gentleman said, but do you believe that there's one person who saw five major UFOs, like, including one that's as big as a house. Do you believe that one person saw five of them at one military base? Does that pass your sniff test? And the rest of the base was just like, no, look up, look up, there's another one, third one today. Okay, I don't believe any of that. And then I don't believe the stories of revenge and the reason they can't get jobs and everything. Absolutely none of it sounds credible to me. So I hate to ruin your fun, but I'm going to say that there was not a hundred foot triangle flying low over at Virginia's Langley Air Force Base. Maybe I would love to be wrong. You know, I would love to eat crow and, you know, apologize for being such an arrogant prick about my disbelief of the UFOs. But there. But whether or not the UFOs are real, the, the way it's being presented just doesn't have any credibility at all, in my opinion. Yeah, this One guy saw five unexplained incidents. All right, and then there was a report that the military had been regularly destroying all police records every three years, including these reports. Yeah, there's people destroying the records everywhere. Yep. Yeah, none of that, I believe. Well, Representative Jasmine Crockett making a little news. She was on CNN and she says she believes that 80% of the most violent crime in our country is white supremacy. Oh, Jasmine, Jasmine, Jasmine. Don't you wonder if she believes what she says? I don't think she does, but it'd be funny if she did. However, I'll tell you what the big news is. If you're on social media, if you're in the right leaning social media especially, there is a lot of what I'll call racial bluntness happening. A lot of white people and sometimes black people talking about the. What they say is a huge problem of black crime, violent crime against white people. Now, you've all heard the statistics and you can decide if you've, if you think that that's big crime or not. And you know, most of the things that people say about this topic have all been said, but there are a few things that maybe have not been said yet, believe it or not. So I'd like to add one. Apparently I saw a Douglas Mackey post on this. Apparently the New York Times decided that they would spell black with a capital B, as in the black man, but the white woman would be a small W. And I guess they had some explanation for that, for why the white would be a small W. But I think we can all agree that whatever they say is a reason that that's okay. That's not the reason. Whatever is going on here, it's not what they say. That's the one we can rule out. No. Whatever is your worst suspicion about why they only capitalize black and not white. It's that it's that it's whatever is your worst suspicion. I guarantee it. It's that. So that's going on. But then I saw some people weighing in on social media who said what I would consider the most obvious thing you would say, the most NPC thing you would say is that it's not about race, it's about income. And if everybody made the same income, then you wouldn't see this disparity. So do you buy that? Here's what I'll add to that. If it were true that income is the direct thing that causes violence, then there wouldn't be any places that are poor and also low violent crime. Am I right? But there are. There are places that are poor and don't have much crime. So it can't be true that being poor automatically generates violent crime at some higher than normal rate, because it simply doesn't happen everywhere. So if you know that's not what it is, what is it? And I know you're going to say culture, because that's the next thing you say, because it's safer than the alternatives. So you say culture. I would say I would replace that with design. So design. It might not be intentional design, but the way some communities are organized, they couldn't possibly succeed even if you just saw it on paper, it's like, all right, tell me. Just give me the facts. Like, how are you organized? Oh, okay, well, that's not going to work. Probably create a lot of crime. Even on paper, it doesn't look like it'd work. And what I mean by design, if I were going to give a positive example of good design, I've made this example before. But there's a person you should follow on social media called King Randall. He's a young black guy who's got a school for kids. They're mostly, but not 100% black. And he's just trying to teach kids basic life skills. Now, I would call that good design, because probably he's becoming a role model for people who may not have a dad at home, or maybe if they do, he's not the best role model. So they've got at least one positive role model who cares about him and teaches them useful things and makes them confident and. And he specifically teaches them not to think as victims. Now, that would be a design. Would you call that a culture? Well, you could if you want to, but I would say that King Randall has simply designed a situation that affects probably hundreds of people by now. And on paper, you would know that that would create more successful people. If you asked me, look, do you. Would his students, let's say people who spent more than a year with them, Would I expect them to have a high violent crime rate? Nope. Nope, I would not expect them to have a high violent crime rate. So design. You could design a system that just simply didn't cause as much violent crime. All right, that's not the only variables involved, but it's a lot of them. And then. Then you also have to ask yourself, is there any correlation between what makes somebody poor and what makes them violent? Because in both cases, isn't there something in common, like, you know, the people who can't figure out how to make money may have to resort to what they can figure out in some cases, which might be violence. So it does seem like it's not the poverty per se, it's whatever caused the poverty, according to Dr. Marty Makari. Is it this? The FDA? So the government used to send out warnings to pharmaceutical companies doing commercials on TV or doing ads, I guess just ads. And they used to do hundreds of notices because that's how many times the pharma ads would be misleading. Hundreds of times per year. And that sort of died down until under Biden, it went down to 00 times. They told the pharma, hey, that's misinformation. But apparently Trump administration is going to crank that back up and you'll get a little bit more honesty from those commercials. Do you remember the story about allegedly Trump drew a little body birthday card for Epstein and allegedly, and there's a debate over whether it's really his work, had some weird little message, kind of cryptic, and there was a crude drawing of just the outline of a woman's body, you know, no details. And his signature, and some say the signature is, you know, where the pubic hair would have been. But I don't know, maybe that's just also just the place he signed it, maybe had nothing to do with that. But I'll give you my opinion now that I've seen it because before we were only hearing about it, but now we've seen it. And my take is, remember how I always say Trump is a great writer, just one of the best writers. It's just not the way he writes. And I doubt there's anything about the fact that it was, you know, X number of years ago that changed him from, you know, whatever wrote that to the way he writes down, which I often say is some of the best writing in the world. Like it's just world class writing. His posts on truth and anything he writes, basically he's an amazing, amazing writer. So to imagine that the, one of the best writers you've ever seen would also have been in that context where there was quite a bit of writing on the card to imagine that he was also the worst writer. I mean, it's not even close. Whoever wrote the card is not a good writer. Like not even, not even a little bit. So I'm going to get, I guess the White House is denying that it's actually his. I'm going to say I would back him on that. You know, anything's possible, right? Anything's possible. But I think I'd back him on that. It doesn't look like his. I mean, not even a little bit. So I'll go with that. But you never know. So, as you know, by now, Israel bombed, I guess it was five Hamas leaders who were in Qatar because Qatar hosts them and, you know, knew. Knew they were there and explicitly allowed them to be there, even though they were, you know, wanted as terrorists by Israel. So Israel, which I don't think anybody was really expecting, bombed them because they were all in the same place for some reason. And Trump just weighed in and he actually sort of criticized Israel, wink, wink. Actually, I don't know, maybe he's really mad. But let me just tell you what he said. He said he was just, you know, notified that day, and he said he did not approve of the bombing of a sovereign nation that is our ally. So he was taking Qatar's side, saying it was inappropriate bombing. And he said he's working very hard for peace, meaning with Gaza, and that the bombing did not advance our or Israel's goals. But then he did say that, you know, he's happy about Hamas leadership being eliminated, that that's, that's a good thing. So he managed to actually try to keep himself out of it. Who knows how much conversation, if any, happened before the attack, but he managed to make a story where we're just finding out about it and we don't love it, but, you know, at least something good came out of it, you know, the getting rid of the five leaders. So I guess he's trying to have it both ways to get the, the benefit of having, let's say, a little more pressure on Hamas for a piece without saying that we were part of it. So if I were to judge him on skill level. Pretty good. Pretty. Pretty good. Yeah. I mean, you can. What, what would he say? Would he say, oh, I didn't know anything about it? Which is sort of what he was saying. It's a good answer, good political answer. Well, as you know, by now, maybe the jobs numbers for last year were off by over 900,000, nearly a million, well, 5 million, and that they were downward revised. So there was a fake impression that we were doing well under Biden, but in fact, we were doing not so well if you count jobs. You might know that I often say, you know, the economy is complicated, but if jobs are good, you can usually depend on figuring out, you know, everything else out. But if jobs are bad, then you don't have much to work with. It's just a much harder deal, especially if you're $36 trillion in debt. So it's a big, big deal that instead of being job positive, we were job negative and we were lied to. I remind you that all data is fake, even things that I relied on on the podcast. Today, you can't really believe any data. That's the world you live in. And the sooner you realize that you can't trust any data, just any. I mean, you still have to make decisions. So you have to sometimes act like you trust it or just take a leap, because you got to choose yes or no, so you got to do something. But no, if you trust data, it's a mistake. I saw a post next by Chamath Pella Hapatiya from the all in podcast, and he said, now can we admit it? I think he's talking about the jobs reports being revised. He said, now can we admit it? The Fed is woefully ill equipped to set monetary policy in an economy as dynamic and complicated as the US in 2025. Added in the reliance on useless and wrong data and it's a recipe for disaster. So he was separately, Chamatha talked about how they only meet ever so often so that they, you know, it's sort of a. It's almost like horse and buggy kind of technology. So they have a bad process, they're not very fast, and their data may be completely wrong and they may be too late. So why do we pay them? We got questions. All right, how many of you saw, I guess it was a Senate hearing on the safety of vaccinations and they had a lawyer who must looks like he has a lot of experience in that, suing people over vax injury. Aaron Seri S I R I that's interesting. That must be so annoying to have your last name activate digital devices all over the world. But he was really good. And one of the things that he claims is that there was A study that 10 years ago found that of unvaccinated kids, 17% of them had chronic health issues. But of vaccinated children, 57% of them had had at least one chronic health issue. Now, do you know why you never saw that study? It's because they had that result. So his claim is that they realized, whoever did the study realized that they would all be fired or lose their job or, you know, never be able to be happy again if they publish that, because it would be so counter to the entire medical establishment. So they put it in a drawer. But what they found is that within the vaccinated group, there were 262 people with ADHD in the unvaccinated group. There were, take a guess, 262 people with ADHD in the vaccinated group. Now, we're not talking about COVID by the way. Sorry, I probably confused you. This is not about COVID It's about childhood vaccinations where there as many as 70 of them the kid gets. And so they were looking at. I think they looked at the combination of them. So you could just look at kids who got all their vaccinations, like all of them versus the ones that didn't get any. And 262 of the vaccinated ones had ADHD. And the number of unvaccinated people who had ADHD was zero. Zero. Yep. Zero. Now, remember, all data is fake. So why would you believe what you've been told so far? You know, you've been told all your life vaccinations were healthy and good and they've been tested and don't worry about it. But if you don't believe that now, why would you believe the new thing? Why would you think the new study is accurate? Well, it does have that feeling of accuracy, doesn't it? Because there's nobody who could make money by that study, and it was shut down, which is exactly what you would have expected. So I'm not saying I know it's accurate because remember, I don't want to be a sucker and assume that some data is accurate and some isn't when we live in a world where mostly it's all inaccurate. But I don't know 00 ADHD in one group. I feel as though there's a very good chance that RFK Jr. Is going to have a reputational turnaround like nobody's business. It might be one for the ages. Do you realize what might be happening? We might be on the verge of finding out that that nut job RFK Jr that crazy bastard who is always spreading that misinformation, we might be finding out he was right all along. Maybe not about 100%. You know, there may be some nuance there that is not 100% right, but that would be true of everybody. All right, so this Dr. Siri, his name I will not pronounce, he was a really good lawyer. So of course he's asked the following question by Democrat Senator Blumenthal. He said, are you a doctor? Because he talks like that. Are you a doctor? So what would you say if you're a lawyer who specializes, it sounds like, has lots of experience in this domain as a lawyer, but not as a doctor. And so he's going to try to impugn his expertise by saying, aren't you a doctor? Aren't you a doctor? And here was his answer. He goes, no, but I depose them regularly, including the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines, and I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court with regards to vaccines, I don't get to rely on titles. Oh, snap. I don't get to rely on titles. I have to prove it with data. Oh. Oh, man. I'll buy that lawyer. Can I hire him? He's good. You'd want him defending you or repressing your case. Yeah, when I go to court, I got to bring actual evidence. I don't get to rely on titles. Bam. Bam. That's the hardest I've ever seen anybody judo flipped on that accusation about expertise.
