Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And The Specific Type Of Scientist He Liked To Collect (5/10/26)

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Epstein Chronicles

Episode: Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein And The Specific Type Of Scientist He Liked To Collect (5/10/26)

Host: Bobby Capucci

Date: May 10, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the disturbing intersection between Jeffrey Epstein—convicted sex offender, financier, and socialite—and his targeted patronage of select scientists, especially those seen as mavericks or outcasts in the academic community. Bobby Capucci explores how Epstein wielded donations as a tool to gain influence, open doors in elite academic circles, and further his own nefarious objectives. The discussion is anchored in investigative reporting from outlets like Science Magazine and Evolution News, with sharp commentary on the complicity, silence, and ongoing lack of accountability in academia.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Science Magazine Article and Epstein’s Patronage

• Background: Host reads and comments on a Science Magazine article by Jeffrey Mervis, examining the type of researchers Epstein targeted and his manipulative engagement with the scientific community. (Starts at 01:00)
• Epstein’s Agenda: Epstein, far from a benevolent patron, sought to leverage relationships for future gains—never giving “out of the kindness of his heart.”
  • Quote: “Everything that he did was hoping that...it would pay off. And it paid off in spades for him. Not for you. Not for any of the Core 4. It was all about him.” (Bobby Capucci, 02:26)

2. Media Compromise and Lack of Courage

• The initial Science Magazine interview was conditional: Epstein demanded editorial control over his quotes, which the journalist accepted—something Capucci finds deeply problematic.
  • Quote: “That’s what’s wrong with our media folks. I’ll let you know right now, I’m not agreeing to any terms for any sort of interview...That’s not how any of this works. We’re not gonna play that game.” (Bobby Capucci, 03:26)

3. Epstein’s Philanthropy Philosophy & Selectiveness

• Epstein’s Stated Motivation: Claimed he was supporting “smart people” denied by “politically correct” institutions, freeing them from “grants and the necessities of life.”
• Real Motivation: Host argues Epstein always expected something—favors, secrets, or leverage.
• Focus on Elites and Outcasts: Preferred funding the “tippy tip of the top of the pyramid”—not interested in broader science education, only in those whose work could serve his private interest.
  • Quote: “I’m interested in rarefied peaks...I’m trying to reach the smartest of the smart. It’s the same issue in terms of money. My clients are not in any way near the middle. They’re at the tippy tip of the top of the pyramid.” (Epstein, via Science Mag, commented by Capucci, 15:44)
  • Capucci underscores how this mirrors Epstein’s classism and racism, as corroborated by inside sources (07:10).

4. Notable Scientists & Epstein’s Influence

• MIT and Harvard: Epstein’s influence extended through donations and personal relationships with luminaries like Marvin Minsky, Seth Lloyd, Josh Tenenbaum, and Noam Chomsky.
  • Example: Marvin Minsky, MIT professor and AI pioneer (accused by survivors), gave Epstein academic cachet. (23:44)
  • Seth Lloyd: MIT professor who later apologized for accepting Epstein’s money, but only after massive public scrutiny.
  • Notable Resistance: Few like physicist Ivet Fuentes outright rejected Epstein’s financial offers, highlighting ethical standards often missing in the wider academic response.

5. Silence and Complicity in Academia

• Widespread Beneficiaries: Hundreds, if not thousands, in science quietly accepted Epstein’s money; few questioned or opposed his involvement, even after his 2008 conviction.
• No Accountability: Capucci is scathing toward the lack of consequences and public reckoning in academia.
  • Quote: “You have very, very few people from the world of academia who have stepped up and pointed out the wrongdoings here and how the science community in general was wrong accepting Jeffrey Epstein as a patron.” (Capucci, 33:46)

6. The “Code of Silence” and Cultural Pressures

• From Michael Egnor’s Article: The real lesson isn’t just Epstein’s depravity, but the “abject silence” in science—a code of omerta, where professional survival trumps ethics.
  • Quote: “The profound revelation from the Epstein scandal is that the scientific community is silent in the face of obvious lies, criminality and moral atrocities.” (Michael Egnor, read/commented by Capucci, 53:07)
• Careerism over Conscience: Capucci discusses how fear of losing grants, status, or careers led to complicity or cowardice, often rationalized by personal circumstances or pressure to conform.

7. Impact on Public Trust and Future Risks

• By welcoming Epstein back into polite society after his conviction, elites in academia and business enabled the ongoing abuse and further undermined public confidence in institutions.
• Capucci warns that unless accountability is demanded, another “Epstein” will inevitably emerge.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the elite’s willingness to trade ethics for favor:

  “For the smartest people amongst us, you’re pretty damn stupid. And it’s laughable to me that the scientific community still won’t take responsibility, still won’t step up to the plate.”
  — Bobby Capucci (33:46)

• On Epstein’s manipulative charity:

  “If Jeffrey Epstein was giving you money, he expected something at some point. It might not be now, it might not be tomorrow, but eventually you would pay the piper.”
  — Bobby Capucci (06:18)

• On the code of silence in academia:

  “There was no dissent in the scientific profession about taking guidance and money from a convicted pedophile...Not a word. And he is 100% right.”
  — Bobby Capucci, reflecting on Egnor (39:41)

• On ethical refusal:

  “Even if you lose some opportunities, saying no is the right thing to do. What Epstein has taught me is how important it is to do that.”
  — Ivet Fuentes, quoted by Capucci (31:00)

• On the real scope of culpability:

  “How is it that the only person being held responsible for this is Ghislaine Maxwell? Now don’t get me wrong, she is the most disgusting of the group and she should be in prison for the rest of her life. But what about these other people that these girls were being trafficked to?”
  — Bobby Capucci (43:49)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:00 — Start of article discussion: Epstein’s interview with ScienceMag and motives for patronage
• 03:26 — Host critique of journalism's willingness to accommodate Epstein
• 07:10 — Epstein’s elitism and racism detailed from inside sources
• 14:10 — Differences between Epstein and traditional philanthropists (e.g., Gates)
• 23:44 — MIT Media Lab, Marvin Minsky, and name-dropping to gain credibility
• 28:15 — Cases of scientists who took—and sometimes later apologized for—Epstein’s money
• 31:00 — Example of Ivet Fuentes rejecting Epstein/ethical scientific choices
• 33:46 — Capucci on academia’s refusal to reckon with its silence
• 36:36 — Introduction to Michael Egnor’s “Epstein and the Silence of Scientists”
• 39:41 — Deep-dive into the “code of silence” and professional cowardice
• 53:07 — The lesson: the scientific community’s silence as the true scandal

---

Flow and Tone

Bobby Capucci presents with an unvarnished, candid tone—often indignant, sometimes sarcastic, and always unapologetically critical of the enablers around Epstein. Through a mix of investigative article readings, direct quotes, and his own pointed commentary, the episode pulls no punches in holding the scientific community and elite academia accountable for a deep-seated lack of ethics and transparency.

---

Final Thoughts

Capucci frames Jeffrey Epstein not as an aberrant “lone wolf,” but a product of interconnected systems—academic, financial, governmental—that enabled and protected him. The episode exposes not only Epstein’s selection and cultivation of “collected” scientists but also the broader moral rot that allowed survivors’ voices to be drowned out for decades. The show calls for sustained scrutiny, transparency, and genuine accountability—for justice, and to prevent future conspiracies from flourishing.

---

For further reading, Capucci provides a link to the Evolution News article discussed and invites listeners to contact him for discussion or tips.

Transcript

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Forget everything you had planned for this weekend because you are sitting on your couch and winning from the comfort of your own home. I'm here with spinquest, where you can play hundreds of slot games, all the table games you love, and you could even win real cash prizes. New users 30 coin packs are on sale for [e-mail] SpinQuest is a free

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[OnDeck Advertiser]

Cash flow crunch on Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota, all loans and amounts subject to LE approval.

[Bobby Capucci]

So like I said, sciencemag.org is where this article was published. The author is Jeffrey Mervis and this article was produced in September, September 19, 2019. The headline what kind of researcher did sex offender Jeffrey Epstein like to fund? He told Science before he died in August 2017, I received an email from an email from publicist Masha Drukova asking whether I wanted to interview her client Jeffrey Epstein. I saw your piece on President Donald Trump's science budget, she wrote, referring to a story on the President's proposed massive cuts to research in his 2018 budget request to Congress. Jeffrey has an interesting perspective on what it will take to fill the gaps. Would you like to speak with him next week? And now, mind you folks, this is in 2017. This is long after he did his bid. This is long after he was back in society and he was already right back in good graces with New York's so called polite society right when he got out of jail. And then obviously he was still working the backroom channels and the back work of the backroom networks to get his hands in on more of these scientific type projects so he could have more influence. You think he was just doing this out of the kindness of his heart? We know Jeffrey Epstein didn't do anything out of the kindness of his heart. Everything that he did was hoping that in two, two moves later it would pay off. And it pay off in spades for him. Not for you. Not for any of the Core 4. It was all about him. Why would Science talk to a shadowy financier and A convicted sex offender? I queried my editors. How strange, one said. Wonder why he's seeking press now? Another asked. Eventually we decided I should accept the invitation on the chance that Epstein would say something newsworthy. And on September 8, 2017, I reached him via Skype at his mansion in New York City's fashionable Upper east side. According to federal prosecutors, that is also where Epstein engaged in sex acts with teenage girls during naked massage sessions. Oh, according to federal prosecutors, huh? Yeah, them and as well as the girls themselves. Yeah, that's definitely what occurred there. Okay, you don't have to be worried. Don't be timid. Nobody's going to sue you. Okay, Mr.

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

Author.

[Bobby Capucci]

Epstein began the 80 minute interview by asking me to agree if we wrote a story based on the interview, not to use any quotes without first getting his permission. I have lots of detractors, he said, so certain things phrased the wrong way could make trouble for you and I. He, I. You and I. I agree to his terms. I mean, really? You agree to his terms, huh? That's nice. This author, what's his name? Hold on. Let's go back and take a look here. Jeffrey. Jeffrey Mirvis agreed to Jeffrey Epstein's terms just to get the interview with him. That's what's wrong with our media folks. I'll let you know right now, I'm not agreeing to any terms for any sort of interview. I'm going to ask the questions that I want to ask, and I'm not going to run them by anybody to make sure that they're okay. That's not how any of this works. We're not gonna play that game where I give you a bunch of answers before a bunch of questions beforehand so you can rehearse your answers. No way. That's not. That's not how this game is played. Now, two years later, a more complete picture of Epstein's alleged predations has emerged. And last month, the disgraced financier pedophile hanged himself in jail after being arrested on federal charges of sex trafficking. My editors and I concluded that given Epstein's death and the intense interest in his support of science, we could quote him in this story. What follows are Epstein's views on scientific philanthropy and the experiences of a few of the many scientists drawn into his orbit. Oh, so he dies and then the sciencemag.org gets some courage and they're like, oh, now we'll quote him. It's shoddy work. You know, this is the kind of shit that makes me really agitated. As an independent content Creator. As an independent journalist, this, this doesn't fly. How could the, how does this kind of stuff fly?

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

So two years later you decide, oh

[Bobby Capucci]

yeah, well, I'm gonna run it now after he's dead. Why were you so scared of him? Why was everybody so scared of him? I just don't understand it. It doesn't compute with me. Money I understand. In the interview, Epstein was by turns modest. I'm not the most. I'm not more than a hobbyist in science and boastful, but money I understand. And, and I'm a pretty good mathematician. He was eager to discuss his philosophy of giving and how science works. However, some of those views struck me as contradictory and others were outdated or discredited. The overarching goal of his charity, of his charity, he said, was to compensate for the Trump administration cutting back on pure research. It seemed like a grandiose claim. Although he repeatedly dodged my request for specific amounts. His scientific donations over the past 20 years are, are unlikely to have exceeded a few tens of millions of dollars. That sum pales next to the US government's annual research budget of 150 billion. And it's small even compared with the nine and ten figure gifts to science from many super wealthy individuals. Yeah, but you guys all took it, right? Oh, it pales in comparison. And oh, Jeffrey Epstein really wasn't that big of a donor to the scientific world. Yeah, right, Mr. Mervis. Millions and millions and tens of millions of dollars donated. And how much was donated behind the scenes? How much was given into the palms of these scientists? How much money was given for secrets? I asked who, I asked who he chooses to fund. I'm looking for smart people who might have a great idea. He answered. I'm making a bet that certain people, not a lot of them, can do great things if they simply can be freed up to think and freed up from writing grants and having to worry about the necessities of life. Remember, I'm not building a laboratory, so my money goes to support them in a nicer way than being on a postdoc salary. I asked him how that approach differs from the so called genius awards from the John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur foundation, which gives out five year grants of $600,000 and and asks nothing in return. That's completely different from Jeffrey Epstein. If Jeffrey Epstein was giving you money, he expected something at some point. It might not be now, it might not be tomorrow, but eventually you would pay the piper. I asked him how that approach differs. Excuse me, we read that already. It's night and day he replied, if you look at the MacArthur Awards origins, there were scientists like physics Nobel laureate Murray Gelman on the committee looking for the world's smartest people. But over the years, big institutions like MacArthur have become politically correct. If you look at their awards in the past five years, they're concerned with diversity. Again, Epstein was not concerned with diversity. Okay, Epstein was very racist. From inside sources that I've spoken to Epstein and his whole entire circle, they were very, very racist. They did not like minorities whatsoever. And in fact, they didn't even like poor white people. They were very sick people. It was a very sick group of people. Now, I'm all for diversity, but I'm for diversity of excellent ideas, not for diversity in the people who receive grants. Epstein continued, he seemed to view science as something done by a self perpetuating scientific priesthood that ignored anyone not like themselves. Well, that's because the scientists in his circle, like Murray Gelman and Minsky and the rest of these sick bastards, Kraus, these were all fellow travelers. These were all people who had the same predilections as Epstein, the same proclivities as Epstein. They might have not acted upon them the way he did, but these people that were around him, these scientists that these girls were given to, they were just as sick as Epstein. His next comment was even more retrograde. Now, the MacArthur grants are sort of a good citizen award for being exemplary citizens as opposed for being a great scientist. Something you're able to tell being smart is the sine qua non for Epstein. So how, I wondered, did he go about identifying such budding talent? One way was to ask teachers. I talked to lots of professors, he told me, and I asked them, how long does it take you to figure out in a class of 300 who the three smartest kids are? He explained. And usually they'll say they know by the end of the first class. I don't believe that. I definitely don't believe that. That's how it happens. And again, Jeffrey Epstein is very boisterous. We know that he was very boastful. He was. He always used a bit of embellishment when telling his stories, right? He wasn't very, very truthful when telling these stories, according to people that knew him. And we see it, he was very, very bombastic in a sense. But Epstein also thought that a science writer might do just as well. Okay, Jeff, who would you fund? He asked me at one point. You've met a lot of interesting people and talked to them who stood out. I demurred saying I was a journalist, not a scientist, and that there were many people much more qualified to judge someone's scientific potential. He responded with flattery. I've listened to the way you ask questions, Epstein replied. You ask good questions. When you interview someone, you must get a sense of whether they are quick, smart, or creative or all three. I think that people don't trust their sense of who's smart. Epstein, on the other hand, obviously he was just the best judge of who was smart. He was the greatest talent judge in the whole world. He was just the absolute pinnacle of finding out who the best scientists were, according to Jeffrey Epstein, anyway. When I refused to take the bait, he abruptly shifted the conversation to animals. Do you have any pets? He asked. I don't, but I offered up my adult daughter's. My adult daughter has a dog, a hamster, and several fish. Epstein plowed ahead. I'm not sure about the hamster, he responded, but if you asked if your daughter's dog was smart or not, my guess is that you'd say it was either a smart dog or a dumb dog. And it wouldn't be because you're an expert on dogs and just something that you're able to tell after a while. And again, this was the opinion he had of the rest of us folks. He thought we were all so stupid. He thought everybody was so damn dumb that nobody was ever going to catch on to him. He thought that he had a beautiful mind. In reality, he was nowhere near as smart as he thought he was, and he was nowhere near as slick as he thought he was. He was being protected by people that were much more powerful than him and people that were using him. At the end of the day, Jeffrey Epstein was an object that was used and tossed away when it had no use to them anymore. Certainly my opinion on it, Tippy, tip of the top. Epstein said his approach to giving was aimed at achieving scientific breakthroughs, but his view of the current state of innovation was surprisingly gloomy. Frankly, Jeff, since the discovery of penicillin in 1928, there's been no really remarkable discovery. He said. I followed the genome project, and there's lots of hope, but in terms of a real product, there's probably nothing that has kept more people alive than penicillin. I can't really disagree with that. I hate to agree with Epstein on anything, but penicillin was a serious game changer. Now, I don't know if there hasn't been any, you know, remarkable discoveries since then. I'm not qualified to make that assertion, but I will say that penicillin was a fantastic find. What's up baby?

[OnDeck Advertiser]

It's Bretzky and I'm here to tell you that Spinquest.com is giving out free Stuff Sweeps coins.

[Bobby Capucci]

All you gotta do is purchase a

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

ten dollar coin pack and guess what? They're gonna give you the coins from a thirty dollar coin pack that lets you play all your favorite games like Blackjack, Wanted, Dead or Wild.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

And we're talking real cash prizes baby.

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

Spinquest.com Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spendquest.com for more details.

[OnDeck Advertiser]

Cash Flow Crunch on Deck Small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to 200000 right when you need it. Cover season, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans an amount subject to lender approval. Protein packed meals in 10 minutes. TikTok's got millions of them. Could you whip one up in under eight? Probably. But hey, it's not a race. Grab the recipes on TikTok and start cooking.

[Bobby Capucci]

Epstein was quick to distinguish his approach from the path taken by other people, by others, both dead and alive, many of them with wealth that far exceeded his own. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation doesn't search for smart people, he asserted. Bill wants to cure polio, he wants to eliminate poverty. But in terms of coming up with new theories of biology or some new form of mathematics, zero interest. And I'm not gonna even begin to pretend that I like Bill Gates or what he's about. I think that Bill Gates had a much more cozy relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than he likes to let on. And I think he should come forward with that information and he should be very transparent. He shouldn't be hiding his relationship with Epstein, especially when it's going to come out eventually. He should just be very upfront about it and tell people what the deal was. Because being hiding in the shadows the way he does with his relation in regards to his relationship with Epstein, it's, it's just a bad look for him. It does not serve him well and it leaves questions. And those questions we're going to ask them, we're not going to shy away from them because it's Bill Gates or anybody. It does not matter if you are brought up in this case and you're in court documents or it's found out that you are very friendly with Jeffrey Epps Epstein, especially after his conviction, then I have some questions that are going to be asked on this podcast. Epstein said he also dispensed with the accountability that typically goes with a grant. When I've given money to a scientist, they're usually somewhat surprised and then they say, what type of reports would you like? Is it for a milestone for my next grant? And I giggle and say no. The concept is, you know your field best. Letting people with lots of money have input into what you do. Doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know if I buy that. I honestly. Look, there's a reason Jeffrey Epstein wanted all of these scientists in his sphere. And of course it had to do with his own crazy ass genome projects and seeding of the human race with his DNA. Of course it has to do with that. But a lot of these scientists were working on very secure projects, very projects that are classified in some cases, etc. Etc. And now they're receiving money from Jeffrey Epstein. And not only receiving money, they're also being invited to his island. And once they get to the island, if they engage in any activity with an underage girl, well, now he has them. He owns them. So now not only did he give you money, but he has video of you being engaged, of engaged with minors in very compromising situations. So if we believe the intelligence angle, and we believe that. I certainly believe that there were multiple intelligence apparatus at work here, not just the Mossad. But look, let's be very clear. The Mossad is the younger brother. The Mossad does not operate without the CIA being involved on this sort of scale in America. Zero chance of that happening. Just go ahead and squash that and get it out of your mind right now. The CIA is the big bad wolf, folks, okay? The Mossad, you know, look, they have their own problems, there's no doubt. I'm not going to sit here and sing the praises of the Mossad because I'm not a fan. But the real problem in the world, in my opinion, is the CIA. Asked whose approach to charity he admired, Epstein said his sole role model was billionaire James Simmons, a fellow hedge fund manager and a PhD mathematician. Simmons has poured some of his great wealth into found into the. Into a foundation that supports budding mathematicians and math educators. But unlike Simmons, Epstein said he felt no obligation to help foster a more scientific, literate population. Exactly. He did. Again, this article is showing better than anything we've read about how he feels about normal people, the average folks. He doesn't care about a more literate population. His goals weren't for civilization as a whole. His goals were very self serving. He was trying to find the scientists that could help him out with his goals and the scientists also that were working on projects that were not only of interest to him, but to his people. I'm interested in rarefied peaks, he said in response to why he hasn't funded any efforts to improve science education. I have no insight into that area Zero again. I'm trying to reach the smartest of the smart. It's the same issue in terms of money. My clients are not in any way near the middle. They're at the tippy tip of the top of the pyramid. Oh, you're so special Jeff. Isn't that great? You know, the rest of us should just bow down to you and we should all just look up at you in awe. Meanwhile, you're the sickest disgusting bastard in the history of the world and the lowest, poorest person amongst us is more important than you'll ever be. The legacy you have left on this earth, Jeffrey Epstein is one that is going to go down in infamy. Rebels who don't fit in the researchers Epstein chose to support. It was becoming clearer fit the old stereotype of scientists whose brilliance makes them social outcasts. The MIT Media Lab is a good example, he said. The Cambridge based university has launched an independent investigation into it, into what its president called the deeply disturbing relationship between Epstein and the lab whose director Joy Ito resigned following media reports that Epstein had invested in his private companies as well as donating to the lab. And I kind of mentioned that earlier today about how it wasn't only donations on a level of oh, alright, here you're working on a science project, I'm gonna give you this money for that project. No, he was funding these guys as well, giving them money for to, you know, do whatever they want to live their best lives. And again back to the RICO situation. If they slapped them with rico, well, they'd have to trace this money. And if anyone received money from this criminal enterprise then they're caught up in the RICO investigation as well. I would say 25% of the kids there are autistic on the spectrum. Epstein opined. They don't really work in groups, they're not taking classes, they're not given teaching assignments, they don't have lots to do. They're there to think. I don't really have much to say about that? I have no idea how many people are on the spectrum at MIT or how operations work within the building. What I will say is this. I'm not impressed because it's mit. I'm not impressed because it's Harvard. What? Sick people don't go to Harvard. Oh, they sure do. Sick people don't go to mit. Oh, they sure do. Just because you're smart, just because you're successful, just because you're rich, doesn't mean that that's a shield for you. That that's not armor. That doesn't make me say, oh well, he's rich or he's super smart. He couldn't be involved in any of this. It's actually the opposite at this point. Those traits appeal to Epstein on two levels. It's my natural bent to move toward the maverick and rebels who don't fit in, he noted. They were probably overlooked in school. They were definitely never class president. Such outsiders, in Epstein's opinion, are also less likely likely to kowtow to the scientific establishment, which he regarded as inherently conservative. He wanted people that were willing to walk a separate way, willing to dance to Jeffrey Epstein's drum and not the norms in the scientific community. He'll say all this other crap, this other garbage, oh, it was too conservative and blah blah, blah, blah blah. But in reality, he wanted people that were gonna march to his to his tune. The older guys usually just tell you what doesn't work, he asserted. And the referees of peer reviewed journals have also become politically sensitive. Everybody knows who the reviewer is that has turned them down because he's been asking the same question any number of times. Yet Epstein readily admitted to asking prominent members of the scientific establishment to assess the potential contribution of these so called outcasts. So I had Jim Watson to the house and I asked Watson what does he think about this idea. A proposal to study how the cellular mechanisms of plants might be relevant to human cancer. Watson is a Nobel laureate and co discoverer of the structure of DNA. Likewise with Noam Chomsky on artificial intelligence. He said, referring to one of the pioneers in the field. Isn't that nice, huh? Noam Chomsky hanging out with Epstein. Another guy that likes to yelled down from the rooftops about how he's so much smarter than the rest of us and how none of us know how civilization's supposed to work. Meanwhile, he's palling around with Jeffrey Epstein. Remember that next time you quote your boy Noam. In fact, Epstein expressed great respect for the opinions of these elder statesmen. It's funny to watch Noam Chomsky rip apart these young boys who talk about having a thinking machine. Epstein noted, he takes out a dagger and slices them very kindly into shreds. Nobody cares. I've never liked Chomsky anyway. And this puts an even worse taste in my mouth about the dude we know. Chomsky is a sick dude probably as well, right? All of these dudes that were running together, at the very least, they were enabling Jeffrey Epstein. So you can miss me with the Noam Chomsky bullshit from here on out. A notorious name dropper, Epstein clearly savored his access to scientific superstars. As you might know, I was very close to Marvin Minsky for quite a long time. I funded some of Marvin's projects. Yeah, you also provided a young girl for him to abuse. Remember? Marvin's one of the people that Virginia has named directly. He. He said about one of the founders of artificial intelligence, a longtime MIT professor who died in 2016. And Marvin told me there was this young guy in Germany who. Who had a very unique idea about artificial intelligence, or this. So I was just with Roger Penrose, a distinguished theoretical physicist who leads an institute in San Diego, California, and Roger told me about an Indian woman physicist who has come up with the idea of using a Bose Einstein condensate, a collection of supercooled atoms to find gravitational waves. Again with the name dropping. So, has anybody talked to Roger Penrose about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? Maybe I should get on that. Maybe I should figure out who Roger Penrose was and what his relationship to Jeffrey Epstein was when he was accepting this money. You know, again, like we. Like I said last night, reading the Daily Beast article, when they were talking about how one of the survivors slapped a RICO suit on top of her civil suit, I had no idea about that. And that's the same here. I'm not familiar with Roger Penrose in this story. But that's why these drops and these daily updates are so important, because we unearth things that we might have missed. I let them decide. Epstein said he usually gave out his money anonymously because he had no interest in publicity and because he understood that his notoriety might be a burden to grantees. It's not really a secret, but it's private. He explained about his gifts. I let them decide. If you want to tell people you got it from me, fine. If you prefer not to for your own personal reasons, that's okay, too. Come on, really? Jeffrey Epstein wanted everybody to know who he was giving his money to. Now, maybe after the fact he was a little bit more coy about it, but the overall idea remains the same. The reason for him giving this money remains the same. The reason for him funding these scientists remain the same. I wondered how the recipients saw it. The researcher Minsky had flagged for Epstein, Joshka back declined repeated requests from me to discuss his ties to Epstein. But a 2018 paper on his theory of consciousness acknowledged support from the Jeffrey Epstein foundation, and Bach has been listed in media tallies of Epstein's grantees. Bach represents the type of scientist for whom Epstein claimed his money can make a big difference. You don't have to think about money for the next five years, epstein said he told Bach as the researcher prepared to move to MIT's Media Lab in 2014. Epstein says Minsky helped arrange the appointment. Minsky is a huge part of Epstein's scientific weight. Minsky was one of the big dogs that had Jeffrey Epstein. That really gave him credibility in the, in the science, in the world of science, because everybody respected Minsky as a scientist. And when he vouched for Epstein, well, the rest of the boys came on board. And once Epstein was there and once he started talking to them and, you know, drawing them into his bubble, well, money, access to girls, etc. Etc. That story talked to these folks.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Forget everything you had planned for this weekend because you are sitting on your couch and winning from the comfort of your own home. I'm here with spinquest, where you can play hundreds of slot games, all the table games you love, and you could even win real cash prizes. New users $30 coin packs are on sale for [e-mail] SpinQuest is a free

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[OnDeck Advertiser Alternate]

Cash Flow Crunch on Deck Small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock INV or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondac does not lend in North Dakota. All loans in amount subject to lender approval.

[Bobby Capucci]

Two years later, Bach moved to Harvard University's Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, which was founded by Martin Nowak, another beneficiary of Epstein's charity. In February, Bach left Harvard and became vice president of research at the AI foundation, based in San Francisco, California. For Seth Lloyd, a self described quantum engineer, taking Epstein's money initially seemed a no brainer. Already a tenured MIT professor when he met Epstein in 2004 at a party hosted by his literary agent John Brockman, Lloyd was charmed by Epstein. During several subsequent meetings at Harvard, Mr. Epstein offered me a grant to do research, which I accepted, lloyd wrote in an email after declining to be interviewed. He seemed to like my work on ideas of information and computation being the fundamental substrate of the universe. Lloyd received additional donations from Epstein in 2012 and 2017 to support his MIT lab. There are lots of topics topics in this field that were not funded by other grants, lloyd notes. Last week, MIT President Rolf Reif acknowledged signing a thank you letter sent to Epstein after his 2012 donation. And again, both of these donations in 2012 and 2017 were after he had been arrested. And for Seth Lloyd to take that money, it's gross. Seth Lloyd is an absolute disgrace for taking that money. Last month, however, Lloyd publicly addressed the ethical issues involved with taking Epstein's money. In an Aug. 22 blog post titled I am Writing to Apologize to Jeffrey Epstein's Victims, Lloyd related how the job of a scientist is to look for truth and the job of a teacher is to help people to empower themselves. I failed to do my job on both counts. Yeah, the apology is all fine and well, but you knew what he did and you still took the money. My comment stands. I don't Lloyd, you're a piece of garbage, buddy. Sorry, it would be very tempting. Ivet Fuentes is the physicist whose work on detecting gravitational waves Penrose described to Epstein. But unlike Bach and Lloyd, Fuentes says Epstein's name immediately raised a red flag. For the record, Fuentes grew up in Mexico, not India, and did her PhD at Imperial College London. Penrose and Epstein had met at met at a June 2017 conference on the science of consciousness in San Diego. Although the topic of consciousness is not what I do, when I saw the list of speakers and was offered a plenary talk, I decided that it would be a good thing for me and a good audience to hear about my experiment, says Fuentes, a professor at the University of Nottingham in United Kingdom whose work is supported by the Penrose Institute. Shortly after returning home, Fuentes says she and Penrose had a conversation. Would I be interested in receiving funding from a wealthy man who had been convicted of a sex offense? Fuentes recalls Penrose asking her. Penrose shouldn't even be asking this question, especially to a woman. Penrose should be ashamed of himself and he definitely needs to answer some questions. Fuentes immediately said no, citing ethical objections, and quickly forgot about the conversation. But two months ago, after reading that Epstein had been arrested, she called Penrose. Was it Epstein? She asked him. And he said, yes, I think it was. And I said, oh, God. Fuentes is hoping to get a few million dollars from a European funding agency to build a prototype of her project, a room sized version of an existing facility, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, that has cost the U.S. national Science foundation more than $1 billion. Epstein's money might have accelerated her work, but that was never an option for her. Well, yeah, and it shouldn't be. You're a, you're a spurk. Your work will be more respected by doing it the old fashioned way. Getting donors who actually have, you know, good, good intentions when you, when they're giving you that money, they actually want to see the science moved forward. They actually want to see people do a good job and they want to see the world be a better place. That was never Epstein's motivation with these scientists. That was never what he was about. The dream of my life is to build a gravitational wave detector and have it work, she says. So if someone were to say to me, I'll give you the money to make your dream come true, it would be very tempting to say yes. But then you have your ethical standards. Even if you lose some opportunities, saying no is the right thing to do. What Epstein has taught me is how important it is to do that. He should have taught everybody in the science world about that. At this point, nobody should be taking money from people like Jeffrey Epstein. It doesn't matter the walk of life and it doesn't matter the purpose of this money. Guys like Jeffrey Epstein should, should have been completely and utterly ostracized after his first arrest. He should have never been able to come back into polite society. He should have never been able to continue with his criminal enterprise. But so many people like these scientists and others gave him the credibility and offered him a vehicle to insert himself back into public life. And the survivors are still left waiting for justice. All right, everybody, if you'd like to contact me, you can do that@bobby capuchirotonmail.com that's B O B B Y C A P U C c [e-mail] you can also find me on Twitter at B O B B Y Underscore cap ucci everyone.

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. You can't talk about Jeffrey Epstein unless you're talking about all of the money he was pumping into the world of academia and into the pockets of scientists. Yet all we've had is silence from these people. None of them have come forward and said, well, you know what? We saw some goofy shit going on down at Epstein's island when we were there for the EDGE Foundation. None of them said anything like that. And I have said from the very beginning, you know how these scientists are. For the most part, none of these dudes were picked first in pe. None of these dudes were playing football or baseball or popular, for the most part, I would guess. And then they get to this island with all of these beautiful girls, and they think they literally just hit the lottery. Well, guess what? For the smartest people amongst us, you're pretty damn stupid. And it's laughable to me that the scientific community still won't take responsibility, still won't step up to the plate. You have very, very few people from the world of academia who have stepped up and pointed out the wrongdoings here and how the science community in general was wrong accepting Jeffrey Epstein as a patron. And let's not act like it was just one or two people he was donating to. Let's not act like it was just one or two campuses. This dude was trolling. This man had many fingers in many pies. And it's an embarrassment, honestly, that there hasn't been more of a spotlight put on academia, put on these scientists that took his money. Now, how many of these scientists were working on private projects, secure projects? And how much of that information found its way into Jeffrey Epstein's hands? Now, again, look, maybe none of it did, right? Maybe. Maybe none of it did. But that's a question that surely has to be asked when you're dealing with sensitive material. You're dealing with places like the Santa Fe Institute, you're dealing with Los Alamos. There's a lot of sensitive projects that are going on in places such as that. And when you have a patron like Jeffrey Epstein who is donating hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, that opens a lot of doors for these people. And that was Jeffrey Epstein's goal. What, you thought he was just some great patron of science? He just wanted to make humanity better? That was never his goal. You heard what Maria said the other night about Jeffrey Epstein. It was always about how he could increase his own wealth, his own power. He never just gave freely. He wasn't some charitable man. We've talked about this a million times on the podcast, how these people wrap themselves up in charity, like it's armor. And then they expect us all to believe that. Well, since I donated to this charity or started this charity, I can't be

[Bobby Capucci]

involved in any of this.

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

Well, newsflash, we're not buying the bullshit anymore. And it's about time that the world of academia gets called out onto the carpet for their bullshit as well. Alright, today we have an article from Evolution News and Science Today. Now this one I pulled out of the catalog, considering we're a little slow as far as what's going on with juror 50 and the rest of the stuff that is currently going on. So we yank this one out of the archive because it's still very, very relevant, considering there has not been enough done here with these scientists and they continue to just go on with their business. How many of them have been swooped up by another Jeffrey Epstein? Again, I don't have that evidence to prove that.

[Bobby Capucci]

That's just a question.

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

Jeffrey Epstein and the Silence of Scientists this article was authored by Michael Egner. Literary scholars have an adage about the interpretation of texts. They point out that the really important things in a text are often what is not said more so than what is said. And we talk about that a lot too, right? The. The lies of omission. When you're omitting things, it's still a lie. And there's a lot of omission when it comes to the history of scientists and Jeffrey Epstein. To really understand the story, you have to read between the lines. What should be in this story but was left out? What was the motive for the omissions? This often reveals deep purposes and themes that are obscured in the explicit words on the page. It's comparable to Sherlock Holmes, Dog that Didn't Bark. Silence is often the real meaning in a story. And that is for sure, right? A lot of times you'll see these journalists or these print editors or whatever beat around the bush. They'll dance around the edges, they'll play touch butt in the park, but they'll never get down to it, will they? And those are lies of omission. They know the deal, they know what's going on. But for whatever reason, they refuse to put pen to paper and let everybody else know the deal. The scientific scandal involving pedophile Jeffrey Epstein is horrifying. But it's vital that we understand the real meaning of the collaboration between Epstein and the science elites. And this is. This is very crucial, right? Because these scientists, these very scientists, are the ones that are dictating public policy at this point. And I don't know about you folks, but I'm not comfortable with that. I'm certainly not comfortable with a bunch of Jeffrey Epstein's friends dictating my future or what's right or what's wrong. Now, I'm not saying everybody who's in the scientific community who's making policy is friends with Epstein. But you gotta believe that some of these people that were close to Epstein, these people that were at the EDGE conferences with him, Brockman's friends. I'm not comfortable with it at all, folks. Honestly, the most important meaning in the partnership between Epstein and the leading Darwinists and computer scientists isn't the depravity of the man and his elite scientific friends. The most important meaning is in the silence in the scientific community in the midst of this atrocity. And honestly, one of the only people to speak out as far as academia goes, is Dr. Stephen Delay. And he has been very, very forceful with his pushback against his colleagues in academia and their behavior. There is no reason that these people should be taking money from Epstein. There's no reason that Epstein should have the access to the campus or an office on a campus. None of that should have occurred. But these people that are working on these projects or these scientists, they're like anyone else, right? They can be manipulated, and a few hundred thousand dollars is a. A good salve to put on the wound. What didn't happen. What didn't happen is this. There was no dissent in the scientific profession about taking guidance and money from a convicted pedophile who was obviously trafficking children for sex. Not a word. And he is 100% right. I mean, let's. Let's not cut corners here, okay? All of these people who acted like they had no idea what Epstein was up to, especially after the first arrest, are lying. Now, the people that were associated with him before his first arrest, I still don't believe they. They had no idea what was going on, but at least they can say, hey, look, this guy wasn't convicted. At the time, I had no idea. But after the fact, I have zero time to listen to any excuse you have about how you had no idea what was going on. What, Google didn't work for you, you didn't have a search engine that you could type his name into and see what was up. And for some of the smartest people in the world, you mofos look pretty damn stupid right now.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

I'm here with spinquest, where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the Table games you love with real cash prizes. Right now, thirty dollar coin packs are on sale for ten dollars. For new users. It's [e-mail] that's S P I N

[Bobby Capucci]

Q U S.

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

Spinquest is a free to play social casino Void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[OnDeck Advertiser]

On Deck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team or bridging cash flow, gaps On Deck's loans up to $400,000 make it happen fast. Rated A plus by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star trust pilot reviews, Ondeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in [e-mail] depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

at every stage of this repellent saga. From Epstein's early forays into scientific patronage 20 years ago through his conviction for child prostitution in 2008, to his largesse as a patron of elite Darwinists and computer scientists at mit, Harvard, the Santa Fe Institute, the Transhumanist Project, Humanity plus and many others in the decade that followed, there was from the scientific community abject silence. And why do you think if these scientists would have spoke up, they would have lost their patronage, they would have lost this money, this funding. And nobody wanted to step on Epstein's toes. They were all terrified of this guy. And it's sad, right? Because now when you look back on it and you look at all of these scientists and all of these big shots who are complicit, it leaves a real bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it? How is it that the only person that is being held responsible for this is Ghislaine Maxwell? Now don't get me wrong, she is the most disgusting of the group and she should be in prison for the

[Bobby Capucci]

rest of her life.

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

But what about these other people that these girls were being trafficked to? They don't hold any responsibility for their decisions or their actions. No self responsibility whatsoever. We should just forget that it happened, huh? Sorry, that is not going to occur. And these scientists that were here harboring Epstein's image and, you know, enabling his behavior, they all need to be called out on the carpet. Thousands of elite and pedestrian scientists benefited from Epstein's philanthropy and camaraderie. Thousands more knew of Epstein's courtship rituals with scientists and with children and said absolutely nothing. What happened on the Lolita Express in Pedophile island, while probably known to Many Epstein's elite science pals were known as well, at least in outline, to the thousands of ordinary scientists and administrators who cashed his checks and worked in his labs. And again, what they'll say is, oh, we had no idea. They'll distance themselves from all of this, and then they'll just go on their merry way like it never happened. But that's not gonna work. There needs to be accountability, right? All of these people that were involved in this shit need to be held accountable so it doesn't happen again. What, you think Epstein's the only one out there? The only sick fuck running around right now? Unfortunately, we're sharing air with a lot of sick and twisted people, folks, and there's guaranteed to be another Epstein out there as we speak. And in your own communities, you don't have to look too far for mini Epstein's dudes that are doing this to hookers right now on whatever the track is in your. In your city or your neighborhood or whatever. I can leave my house right now and go three, four miles and find a whole area with nothing but hookers. Poor, poor people who are, you know, stuck doing what. What they have to do to provide for themselves, whether it be they have a drug habit or whatever. The fact is they're out on the street. They're in that circumstance. They're in the clutches of human traffickers. Only whispered questions. There were whispered questions, undeniably obvious questions. There must have been daily whispers in labs and hallways and coffee rooms. Why is Dr. So and so taking trips with this guy? What do you think is happening with all those little girls? Where does the money come from? These are all legitimate questions that even, you know, basic folk like us would ask you. You mean to tell me that all of these scientists and all of these bigwigs, big shots, had no idea? They didn't ask these questions. They weren't interested in where this money came from. I guess when the. The tap is flowing, you don't question it, huh? You just put your hands under it and continue to drink the water. Some the answers were in broad daylight. Epstein's life was an open Internet page. Thousands of scientists and administrators, even those not directly involved with Epstein and the children he trafficked, asked these questions and knew the answers. No one said a word. Why? Well, in my opinion, it's because Epstein was so highly placed in society. And when you're best friends with Billy Boy Clinton, eh, you know, it's kind of intimidating for people to think that they can go against you. You know, you walk into Epstein's office, and you see pictures of Clinton, Trump, Ehud Barak, the list goes on of powerful people. That's intimidating. And he wasn't afraid, Jeffrey Epstein, to point out that he could end your career, end your life. So a lot of these scientists were probably a little scared, but that doesn't excuse it. You need to have some backbone in life. Certain things are worth fighting for. Certain things are worth losing your career over, in my opinion. And this certainly is that, right? Look, if dying on the hill of protecting children isn't worth it to you, then you're just a scumbag, in my opinion. And I don't even have kids, folks, right? I don't have no desire. I have no desire to have children. I'm not a big fan of little kids running around crying, snotty nosed up. But as a society, that's our future. Those kids are going to carry the torch. They're going to be the ones to make this world a better place, hopefully. And these sick fucking people like Epstein, abusing them, molesting them, and these scientists keeping quiet about it. Well, you know, my big fat mouth is going to be moving. We can only do what we can do, right, to try and enact change. And I can only do my small little part here, talking on this podcast to bring some awareness to what's going on. But like I always say, they can avoid. They can avoid one gnat, right? Swat it away. But when there's 10 million of us now, it's time for these people to suffocate a pariah for life. Some years ago, at a scientific conference, I had a private chat with a colleague from another university. His research was in a rather obscure topic in biology, but he was a scientist of the first rank. He was a superb investigator and quite senior and widely respected. He told me that he knew that I was involved in intelligent design, and he thanked me for what I was doing. He told me that he was a Christian. He said that a lot of the scientists know that Darwinism is a charade, and he was thankful for scientists who were speaking out. But he couldn't do so, although he desperately wanted to. He said his wife was sick and that if he spoke out, he would never get another grant. Hey, look, I don't know one way or the other about any of that. I'm not a scientist, right? The. The point of this story is Jeffrey Epstein was an absolute scumbag. And the scientific community knew a single public statement endorsing ID or critiquing Darwinism in any meaningful way. Would make him a pariah for the

[Bobby Capucci]

rest of his life.

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

My career would end. The day I spoke out, he told me. He said that his wife's life depended on her current medical care and that he would be unable to afford her care if he lost his position. He said he felt terrible that he couldn't speak out publicly, but he had a responsibility to his family and that they would suffer if his career went into the abyss. That's terrible, man. Look, people should be able to speak their mind, right? I don't understand how things can be so corrosive, so corrupted. It's okay that people have different opinions, as long as when you have a conversation about it, you can defend your opinion in a meaningful way. Scientists, especially scientists in academia, are uniquely vulnerable to professional destruction. If they stray from the herd, their life hangs on peer review. Just look at the ostracism, ridicule and even hate rained upon by Mike Behe or Jonathan Wells or Guillermo Gonzalez or Bill Demski or Richard Sternberg or any of the other courageous scientists who had the integrity to question the Darwinian consensus. I mean, isn't that what science is about, really questioning what the norms are and trying to, you know, challenge those? I mean, I don't think science should just be. All right, well, the science is settled. Let's move on. Now, again, I'm not a scientist, and I'm certainly not somebody who is strong enough in biology, human biology, or whatever, evolutionary biology, to offer an opinion one way or the other. I mean, I'm lucky I can tie my shoes in the morning, folks. As the Epstein scandal shows with striking clarity, dissent on matters of importance is forbidden in the scientific community. Scientists will engage in or tolerate all manner of lie and vice to protect their careers. They go along to get along. They join the consensus that Jeffrey Epstein is a wonderful patron and his money is untainted, Just as they join the consensus that Darwinian evolution is a fact. Many, perhaps even most, do not do it because they believe it. They do it for professional survival. All right, well, again, I don't know anything about any of that. I don't know about the infighting in the scientific community about Darwinism or evolution. To me, it looks like evolution is the. The proper way things came about, right? I mean, it seems logical, but what. What do I know? I'm agnostic, folks. I don't know about theology or if there's a God or if we were created by aliens. Again, I'm, you know, I have enough problems on my. On my plate here talking about the. The Worldly problems that we can see. I'll leave all of that spiritual stuff up to other people. That is way above my pay grade. The profound revelation from the Epstein scandal is that the scientific community is silent in the face of obvious lies, criminality and moral atrocities. Scientists at MIT and Harvard and the institutions on whom Epstein rained largesse obviously knew enough about Epstein to know that association with him was immoral and his money probably came from child sex trafficking. They could know with a mouse click that Epstein had no college degree and sketchy experience in finance. His primary enterprise seemed to be making little girls available to rich men. But they stuck with the consensus and said nothing. Their scientific careers, of course, came first. And you see this paralleled in other industries, right? Especially the media industry. Jeffrey Epstein and his friends and, you know, they have a lot of power. So a lot of these media companies don't want to deal with that. They don't want to tangle with people like Epstein kept in the club. There was a scientific consensus held by thousands of scientists at all levels of the profession that Jeffrey Epstein was a great patron. Any doubts, and there must have been agonizing doubts for 20 years, were kept in the club. And this is a big problem. This is my biggest problem. Sometimes you have to be willing to break away from the herd. Sometimes you have to be willing to, you know, go your own way, forge your own path and figure things out for yourself. But when you're a part of one of these exclusive scientific clubs, your whole life depends on getting on, to go along, right? And for me, that's just a moral. I don't like it. I'll never be part of the herd mentality, you know, and I won't be put into a box either. I have my own opinions, my own outlook on life that has been shaped by my own life experiences. So when you look at people like these scientists who have no sort of moral compass and are willing to sacrifice basically their souls, well, it's a very, very disturbing and disgusting scenario to think that these people are so highly respected in society and on these campuses.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Forget everything you had planned for this weekend because you are sitting on your couch and winning from the comfort of your own home. I'm here with spinquest where you can play hundreds of slot games, all the table games you love, and you could even win real cash prizes. New users 30 coin packs are on sale for [e-mail] SpinQuest is a free

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[OnDeck Advertiser]

Cash Flow Crunch Ondeck's Small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts sub letter approval.

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

There is also a scientific consensus that nothing makes sense except in light of Darwinian evolution, held, as it turns out, by the man of the same scientists who cashed Epstein's checks. There was and is no dissent. Well, look, again, I have no idea about that debate and that argument. People are gonna have to make up their own minds, right? I'm not gonna sit here and tell anybody, oh, well, you shouldn't believe in God or you shouldn't believe in evolution. Believe in whatever you believe in. I mean, really doesn't affect me one way or the other. This is the lesson from the Epstein scandal. Scientists are first and foremost devoted to their own professional survival and they will toe any line to survive. They will lie, cheat and steal for professional security. They will even tacitly endorse child rape and child sex trafficking and personally profit from it to avoid the professional abyss. Science is conducted under a code of omerta. Descent is punished mercilessly as a measure of scientific and moral truth. Scientific consensus is worthless. Like I said, this article was authored by Michael Egnor. He's a professor of neurosurgery at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, the director of pediatric neurosurgery. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. A guy who's a scientist and obviously somebody who's, you know, moved in these circles. The thing about this article and why I wanted to share it is that Jeffrey Epstein was well, well respected in the scientific community. He was somebody who was a patron of a lot of these people and still a lot of these scientists, a lot of these people that took his money have found a way to fly under the radar. So if they were taking money from Jeffrey Epstein, my question is this. Who else are they taking money from? All right, folks, that's going to do it for this morning's update. Obviously, a lot more is on the way. If you'd like to contact me, you can do that@bobby capuchirotonmail.com that's B O B B Y C A P U c c I protonmail.com youm can also find me on Twitter Obby Capucci. The link that we discussed can be found in the description box.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on spinquest, and there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10 all the table games you love, with hundreds of slot games and real cash Prizes. That's at spinquest.com S P I N

[SpinQuest Legal/Disclaimer Voice]

Q U-E-T.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.

[OnDeck Advertiser Alternate]

Cash flow crunch on Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips. Manage payroll, restock or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment. Get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomorrow, depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondac does not lend in North Dakota. All loans in amount subject to lender approval.