Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse podcast live stream. I believe it is the 274th. It is April 30th of 2025. I am Dr. Brett Weinstein. You are Dr. Heather Hying. A third of the way through another year. the way through another year. Yes. And deeply into spring. It's very lovely here. So gorgeous. So beautiful in April and May. June and July and August and September, honestly. January, I could do without it. I mean, you need it to get to the later months, but...
And it has its extraordinary moments, but it does go on. It drags on. Yes, it does. April, though. Here we are at the end of April, and it does not feel like it has dragged on. In fact, it feels like we could go on with April for a while longer, and yet we're not going to. I'm up for the possibility of doubling the length of April. I think that would be a good thing. So we're going to talk about...
excipients today, in large part. Excipients being, as I teased at the end of last episode, the stuff in pharmaceuticals and drugs that are not the active ingredient. So everything else. Everything else is quite a list. Yeah, it sounds like a boring topic, but it ain't. Luckily, there are up-to-date, clean, and totally accurate databases which tell you exactly what's in your drugs. Also, luckily, we know exactly what all of the excipients that are in our drugs do to us.
not true so i don't know if there's a luckily side of the there's no luckily side it's pretty much a very dark rabbit hole that yeah Yeah. And we're just going to we're going to sort of with our with our headlamps go into the rabbit hole a little bit today. It's hardly an exhaustive. We'll be lucky if the only thing down there is rabbits. Probably the excipients have done away with the rabbits by now. Yes, actually, several of them were poisoned with aluminum. That we know.
The rabbits? Yes. Oh, in... You remember the four rabbits that were used to fail to demonstrate the safety of the aluminum adjuvants in modern vaccines? And I remember them in the abstract. I didn't actually meet them. No. No, no. I didn't know them. Well, they were dispatched. Yes. All four of them, and then the data was lost for one. But anyway, I digress. Yeah. All right. Here we are.
Thank you for being here. Thank you to our supporters on Locals who can be watching on The Watch Party right now. We also have your Patreon calls this coming weekend, so if you're interested in... one on, I don't know, 8, 10, 12, whatever conversations with Brett, consider finding him on Patreon. They've been great.
They've been so good. They're firing on all cylinders. And people need not worry about the fact that they are joining a conversation in midstream. Everybody has joined these conversations in midstream, and they seem to bring people on board. And so without further ado, we have our sponsors, as usual, three of them at the top of the hour. No more ads throughout the rest of the podcast. We've got one totally new to us this week, one almost new, and two almost new. So we're getting some...
Our first sponsor today is indeed brand new to us at Dark Horse. It's Masa. Masa makes delicious, healthy chips that aren't going to make you sick because they're made with real, whole ingredients, the way that all of our food used to be made. These chips are fried in 100% beef tallow. No seed oils, ever. You can taste the difference, and your body can feel the difference.
America's health is declining fast, obviously. Chronic illnesses, obesity, autoimmune diseases have exploded. Why? In part because we've swapped real food for cheap industrial substitutes.
Consumption of seed and vegetable oils, soybean, canola, sunflower, corn, has increased more than a thousand percent over the past century, flooding our diets and causing chronic inflammation and disease. Big food companies have been pumping our food with artificial dyes, stabilizers, and other fillers for decades. In contrast, massage-ups have just three simple ingredients.
organic nixtamalized corn, sea salt, 100% grass-fed beef tallow. That's an awesome ingredient list. Yes. Absolutely no seed oils, artificial dyes, or additives ever. Beef towel used to be the standard cooking fat in America until not many decades ago. It is nutrient-rich, nourishing, and makes food taste incredible.
it was replaced with seed oils which are far cheaper and way nastier but masa is revising traditional american cooking methods creating tortilla chips with the authentic flavor and satisfying crunch that your grandparents enjoyed Masa also supports American farms and regenerative agriculture. Grass-fed ranching revitalizes soil health, boosts biodiversity, and protects ecosystems. And it is just such ranches that Masa is supporting.
Choosing real food heals us and our environment, which feeds back to making us even more healthy yet. Masa is championing clean American grain ingredients, transparency, and authenticity. Most of all, though, masa chips are amazingly delicious. Try them with salsa or goat cheese or a spicy pepper jam. Smother them in beans and cheese or just eat them straight out of the bag. They're fantastic. We know we actually had bought a bunch before they became sponsors, before...
They had approached us about being a sponsor, and they're wonderful. So go to masachips.com slash darkhorse and use code darkhorse to get 20% off first-time orders. That's Masachips, M-A-S-A-C-H-I-P-S. And I will just say... I am a huge fan of the idea that a good corn chip is actually an excellent substitute for crackers if you are wheat sensitive or even if you're not. And the other day I was taking some of that.
exquisite blue cheese that we've been having and I put it on some of their blue corn chips and it was out of this world blue on blue blue on blue exactly it was really really good so not a sponsor but santa gurr if you're a blue cheese fan santa gurr is not cheap no cheese is cheap now but it's not a cheap cheese but oh is it good and i actually had one as well
smooth creamy blue cheese on one of the masa's blue so i didn't say actually um i forgot to include they have like eight different six different flavors some and they've got a potato chip now too yes they've got a ton they've got a ton of stuff it's not just okay cool i'm looking for acorn chip i'm going to go buy a bag of these things now they've got all these different flavors and they're great yeah they're really really good the potato chip
Particularly excellent. Yeah. Not your turn yet. No, sir. Go ahead and get ready. I'm just, you know, getting my grip on the app. Okay, our second sponsor today is practically brand new to us. It's Dose. Dose for your liver is a tasty drink that supports liver health. Your liver has hundreds of functions in your body, most famously as a filter, an organ of detoxification.
Modern life is pretty darn toxic, so your liver has to do a lot of work to help keep you healthy. Dose for your liver was formulated to cleanse your liver of unwanted elements, aid digestion, and maintain your body's ability to filter out toxins. Dose for your liver has four active ingredients, milk thistle, ginger, dandelion, and turmeric in a base of delicious organic orange juice. Dose is gluten-free, dairy-free, sugar-free, and vegan, and it tastes fantastic.
Dose comes in sleek glass bottles and arrives with a stainless steel shot glass with which to take your dose. You can drink it straight or add it to other drinks. Over the winter break, when Zach was here and drinking a daily dose himself, he said he thought the dose for your liver would be excellent in coffee. Remember, dose for your liver is in an organic orange juice base.
I'm not so sure about that. Zach, you do you and all the rest of you do you as well. If you try this and you think that'd be good in coffee, go ahead and try it. Maybe tell us how it went. I'm not going to go there. I don't, I don't, I don't need my coffee. I don't see it. Anyway, that was his thought. Yeah. Yeah. Although I did, uh, I think I have violated the same rule. I added it to raw milk.
Which actually ended up being really good. I remember you offering that to me. And I thought, no, milk in my coffee. Yes, I do that. Dose in an orange juice base in my coffee or in my milk. No, no, thank you. No, but it ended up having, yeah, it had that sort of creamsicle vibe to it. It was good. Yeah. And I survived. So that's also good. For now. That's good for now. Okay. Survive for now.
Okay, Dose for Your Liver's in-house clinical studies found significant improvements in standard measures of liver health, as indicated by levels of enzymes including aspartate aminotransferase, AST, and alanine. I don't know how to pronounce it. Amino transferase, ALT. Those are long words with slightly different acronyms, which it's not totally clear why they're named that way, but it doesn't matter. Liver enzymes are what?
Other studies have determined are appropriate measures of liver health. I have not independently assessed that. And given that those enzymes are what are being measured, dose for your liver found significant improvements after study participants had drunk dose daily for as long as eight. The liver produces and regulates cholesterol, stores vitamins and minerals, and impacts digestive and metabolic health, among many other things.
Dose prompts, no. It promotes liver function, aids digestion, eases bloating, and even boosts energy levels. stick with dose and feel the incredible benefits over time more energy better digestion reduced bloating healthier liver enzyme function reduction in brain fog better sleep Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to Dosedaily.co.
slash darkhorse or entering darkhorse at checkout that's d-o-s-e-d-a-y-l-i no let me start again d-o-s-e-d-a-y-l-y dot c-o slash darkhorse for 30 off your first month Our final sponsor this week and this month is Jolie. Jolie is a beauty and wellness company that purifies the water we shower in for better skin, hair, and overall well-being. Most municipal water systems, indeed most water systems, period, use chlorine to disinfect the water, but chlorine is damaging to the skin and hair.
Add to that the fact that a lot of water also conveys heavy metals, also not good for your skin and hair. Jolie makes a filtered... Gotta try that again. Jolie makes a filtered shower head. so that you can bathe in water which starts out clean. Jolie's shower heads remove chlorine and heavy metals from your water and have been demonstrated to reduce the shedding of hair by 81%.
For most people who use them, after showering with Jolie shower heads, people report that their hair is less frizzy, their skin is softer, and that they are having fewer breakouts. But we've all, I'm struggling with the reading today. Some days are like that. Okay. But we've all experienced water filtration systems at some point. And one thing that seems to always happen is that the pressure is reduced.
Suddenly, when you had a very nice high pressure stream, now you've got a trickle. That is not a problem with chilly shower heads. The water pressure is still very strong and now your water is clean and clear. Also, these shower heads are quite beautiful, the perfect combination of form and function, and the plumbing pipe size is universal, so they're easy to install.
When we were approached by Jolie, our first thought was, we don't need this as our water is already quite clean. But we tried out one Jolie showerhead and liked it so much we've installed them on all of our showers. I will also point out. that there is a hidden benefit here, which may even be larger than all of the others, which is when you're in the shower. All of the stuff that is in your water is being aerosolized and put into these tiny droplets, which you are breathing.
Even if you don't think you need this from the point of view of your hair and your skin, you are breathing in whatever pollutants are in your water and filtering them out is a really good idea. Go Lee will give you your best skin and hair, guaranteed. Head to joelye.com slash darkhorse to try it out.
for yourself with free shipping. That's J-O-L-I-E-S-K-I-N-C-O dot com slash Dark Horse for free shipping. And if you don't like it, you can return your Jolie for a full refund within 60 days, no questions asked. Jolie is also available on Amazon and at select ultra stores. Get yours today.
all right oh i already did it i don't need to get mine today no yours are already gotten installed up and running thank you for that the whole deal yeah all right so um Usually the story of how one arrives at a topic that one wants to discuss is not necessarily worth going into, but I think in this case... It is because there are a couple of little twists and turns before we get to the rabbit warren that is exit which is that, as many people will know, the FDA...
Announced on April 22nd you can show my screen here HHS, which of course is being led by Kennedy, HHS, FDA, to phase out petroleum-based synthetic dyes and nation's food supply. This is from a week ago, a little over a week ago.
So the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced a series of new measures to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation's food supply, a significant milestone in the administration's broader initiative to make America healthy. There have been those who have complained about the focus on food,
over focus on drug safety. As we will reveal today, of course, these are not separate issues. The issues are almost inextricably intertwined. And specifically, this petroleum-based dyes, which we've talked about before, like tartrazine, are remarkably toxic. So just a few of the actions that the FDA is announcing that it will take.
establishing a national standard and timeline, initiate the process to revoke authorization for two synthetic food colorings, that's citrus red number two and orange B within the coming months, and then at slightly longer timelines out.
uh working with industry which is a kind of squishy language there which is a little concerning but to eliminate six remaining synthetic dyes that's fdnc green number three FD&C red number 40, yellow number 5, yellow number 6, blue number 1, and blue number 2 from the food supply by the end of next year, and also authorizing for new natural color additives.
And, you know, just a little caution here. Of course, natural does not inherently mean healthy or good for you or even better for you than what it is replacing. There are plenty of natural things that will kill you.
So natural should not be conflated with healthy or assumed to be something that is what you want to be eating and you know part of what we should be doing is recognizing that For instance, if we want mint ice cream, there's a good chance that the green that is making the ice cream mint doesn't come from the mint but from a dye, and maybe we should accept white mint ice cream.
And then when there are dyes in... products, including food, that are necessary to make it look neutral, that tells you that there is something so chaotic and complex likely in the formulation of that food or other product, that that should perhaps be an indication to you that this is maybe something that you don't want to be ingesting or smothering on your skin in the first place.
I wanted to respond to something you said up front about concern in the Maha movement about to focus on food and whether or not that's a... shift from what it is that we all thought we voted for. I've been concerned about this very thing, but in this case, I am absolutely 100% thrilled with this move because this constitutes the lowest of low hanging fruit.
Right. This is, you know, if you think about diminishing returns, right, some things in order to make America healthy, again, are very difficult, expensive, hard to do. And other things are not in this case. This is spectacularly easy to do, because for one thing, most of the products, or at least many of the products that these dyes are in, are actually sold elsewhere where these dyes are not allowed, and therefore...
Formulations already exist for making them simply a question of exerting the same kinds of regulations in the U.S. that exist in Europe and I think in Canada. So anyway, there are natural alternatives. Now, as you point out, natural doesn't necessarily mean good. In fact, if you're reading ingredient labels and you see natural flavors.
That is very often an indication of something bad. The term natural has been co-opted. Well, I think that's actually a separate problem from the one that I was implying, which is to say natural flavors can be on an ingredient list. if the thing was originally found in something that evolved on Earth. but has been isolated, extracted, and fully synthesized in the lab. It can still be claimed to be a natural flavor, a natural ingredient. So that's the issue you're referring to.
But then it's also just true that there's plenty of things that are produced in nature, as we've talked before about.
what are called secondary compounds. Secondary compounds being explicitly the things that plants create in order to deter would-be predators and herbivores from eating them. So poisons exist, uh exactly as a way to get you not to eat them and so you know if we just assume like well if it's natural it's good we're going to make a lot Yeah, I mean, I'm just pointing out that the term natural has been
uh abused and it doesn't mean safe because of course hemlock and many other poisons exist in nature but presumably none of that's going to get put into food but it is the term natural is being used to shield stuff that probably shouldn't be in food in the natural flavors category. Yes. You know, presumably hemlock is not going to be put in food, but I do, I do think there is.
uh legitimate concern in some corners and i don't i didn't put together a list here but you know some of the colorants that have been used in the past which in low doses are probably acceptable. But if they start replacing at scale, these petroleum-based dyes could turn out to have, you know, often it's going to be hepatotoxic.
uh you know liver toxicity or kidney toxicity effects precisely because those are our main filtration organs yeah Overall point though, if the point is to make America healthy again, you would want an approach. that took the biggest bang for the buck stuff and did it first. And this, I think, is that move. I agree. Probably the very easiest thing to do. And one would expect a fairly large.
outcome now it'd probably be a long time before you can measure it but a large outcome from the wholesale banning of the synthetic dyes and the replacement with Arguably natural substitutes. Right. And so just the same, this press release from April 22nd, there's a nice quote from Kennedy. For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent.
said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children's health and development.
that era is coming to an end we are restoring gold standard science applying common sense and beginning to earn back the public's trust and we're doing it by working with industry to get these toxic dyes out of the foods our families eat every day And so here it says, actually, the FDA is fast-tracking the review of calcium phosphate, galaderia extract blue, gardenia blue, butterfly pea flower extract, and other natural alternatives to synthetic food.
I have no idea about any of those, whether or not they're going to be... whether they are actually safe and whether they are going to be found to be safe but that's some of what the fda is looking into i will say that one thing that struck me about kennedy's quote here
is specifically talking about children. And of course, that's, you know... when we toxify our children that matters the most for a couple of reasons they have the longest to live they are the future of everything and because they are early in development smaller smaller amounts of toxins potentially have greater effects for a number of reasons, not just because they are a smaller body, but because they are earlier in the development of their systems, which are still fragile.
I would add one, which is that they are not in a position to be informed and to consent. So it is our responsibility to be extra cautious on their behalf until they can make decisions themselves. And they, it could be argued that precious few adults, have the moral and psychological gravitas to actually make informed decisions for themselves at this point.
We have all been grabbed at some point or another and are grabbed to some degree or another by the garbage on our phones, the screens, the algorithms, etc. Children have much less ability to resist And depending on their age, no reason to imagine that they should be resisting. And so as we have talked about in our book and on this podcast, Advertising to children should be banned.
The kinds of ways that children are being grabbed through cartoons is often extraordinarily confusing and potentially deranging for children. And similarly, you know, why is it that food dyes in particular are being mentioned with regard to children? Well, all of the issues we've talked about, but also because, ooh, bright color, me want, right? A bag of Skittles or a bag of M&Ms is, you know, appealing to an adult. But it's almost...
It's so appealing to a child that they have a very hard time looking away. There is so much new, amazing sensory input there that a child has not yet encountered. And frankly, it's like... You know, you, I hope that I would have, but you had the insight to keep, for instance, from our children until they were old enough to experience, to really appreciate what they were at a zoo. They've never, they and I have never seen them in the wild.
If you expose children to all of the insane high-octane wonders of the modern world when they're very, very young, What you do is you reduce their ability to be filled with wonder and excitement and awe about things later on. So why should red number five show up in their visual sphere at all? Maybe ever, but certainly at all, given that if you take them out into nature in the spring, there are colors of flowers that are extraordinary, and that should be enough.
This is not a sort of a Spartan or Puritan view of the world. It is a actually... enhance your child's wonder, enhance your own ability to find awe and beauty in the world for longer by keeping the high octane synthetic crap out of your world. Yeah, you're also... under a false premise with an apple, right? An apple is a pretty amazing thing, a really good apple. It's very hard for it to compete with Skittles, right? Skittles are... Over the top, visually.
flavor-wise and in terms of sweetness. And the point is that is actually some corporate entity competing with nature and the externality comes in the form of damage. health of the child. I would also point out that there's something faulty about the entire process that allowed this stuff into things consumed by people, including children in the first place.
If you just ask yourself the question, if I invent something in a laboratory that's very colorful, and I want to put it in food because the food will be more appealing if it has that color. What would you have to do to know that that was safe? You would want a large study and you would want to give it to people and you would want to follow them for the course of their natural lives. So the delay to find out that something like that was tolerably safe would be intolerable in a market sense.
Do you think they did that? Of course they didn't do that. Now, the question is when, you know, does that mean we can't put anything into food, right? Can we not? put some color into some ice cream? Well, you're in a very different position with respect to the logical expectation of safety if the dye in question comes from a natural plant that is not bitter to the taste. that especially if that plant is actually a food in and of itself,
But even just the simple fact of taking something from nature that does not trigger the senses to reject it, if it's very bitter, that's likely a toxin. But if you take something from nature, then the point is, well, the body is built. It's actually built to deal with a certain amount of toxicity. So long as that toxicity comes from nature, the kinds of things that end up contaminating natural food are the kinds of things we are well able to deal with. As soon as you step into the laboratory.
and you start gaming our senses and you've got completely novel compounds that are you know in this case they're What is the logical basis of your sense that they are safe? Well, it doesn't exist. There is no basis to assume that they are safe. So what would you have to do to establish their safety? Something you're not gonna do. So what are you gonna do instead? Oh, you're gonna lobby the government into looking past the fact that you don't know it's safe.
And you're going to assume that the consumer is not going to read the ingredient list, or when they do, they're not going to know what to make of what's there. The consumer will simply... assume that the work must have been done or the ingredient wouldn't be in the food, which is nonsense. Yeah. We know that that's not logical. So that's right. Basically a bias in the direction. of things that are likely to be well tolerated by the body is simply a reasonable thing that any
person with access to the information would conclude. So in essence, we're just discovering the landscape of logical horrors that have created the food that is on every supermarket shelf. Well, I'm too... Two personal stories occur to me here. Maybe they're not. maybe they have no place here but i mentioned mint ice cream because as you know i just made some And we have raw milk available on the island. We don't have cows. But we don't have raw cream available.
And so I'm using a mostly raw milk base with some cream that's already been, it's low heat pasteurized, but it's been pasteurized. And so I thought, well, and we have a ton of mint. I actually, again, we're not... Our mint isn't in yet, but I just got a giant bag of mint from our local, awesome local farm cooperative. And I steeped just a ton, a ton of mint in... in hot cream for a long time, thinking, I'm going to get a nice pale green out of this.
And nope, not even with that much mint. I think I had like three cups of mint that I had crushed a little bit and then steeped in a warm cream and then let's come to room temperature and get cold. It got a little like faintly yellow is all. And this was extraordinarily fresh, local, you know, full of flavor mint that still didn't get anything like green, but it was delicious. Sure was. And I do wonder, you know, do the following mental exercise. Imagine a bag of Skittles with no color.
First of all, kind of unappetizing, right? And it's hard to imagine, you know, the number of Skittles that you can eat. There's almost like the implication of diversity in the bag, like you're eating a bunch of different things. So the fact that one of them might not be great for you, it sort of feels like...
a variety of stuff but if it was just a big bag of yeah and actually and the and the bright the bright hot colors are reminiscent of fruit right and so it feels and and i guess with skittles unlike m&ms they are I think I've only had Skittles once in my life, but they're fruity, right? They're tart rather than chocolate. They're over in the... Yeah. Right. Okay. So... It's probably been 25 years since I've had Skittles, but... Yeah.
yeah i just was never in it anyway um whereas eminem's like oh orange like that's gonna that does not at all. So the colors are already sort of confusing you in terms of what they would normally indicate about the flavor inside. And I guess this was the other personal story that I went to, which was
Like I have you as Ariane Snows, um, not just have some colorblindness, but you have a different kind of colorblindness because of course you do. What I have is color awesomeness, darling. Would you like to?
say what is actually true oh um well i just see things radically different uh some things other things are very normal but uh you know like freshly no dude you don't have red green color blindness you have a different varietal yeah You have a different genetic condition than the vast majority of people who have colorblindness, which actually, you know, I must be a carrier because my father was red-green colorblind and both of our sons have some...
some weirdness over in red green and also whatever the hell you've got which is a different a different thing yeah i don't know i think mine is autosomal um meaning not sex linked um eric and i have the identical one you see the same stuff and on a you know one of these bubble tests that tells you what kind of color blindness you have it it diagnoses very clearly i think it's a very low sensitivity to red i can see red but it takes
total saturation to trigger it and which biases everything else that's the thing that people who don't have color deficiency don't expect which is it alters a lot of things that you would think are unaffected by emphasizing them So, for example, green... Fresh green grass, at least when I was a kid, it looked orange to me. And I think one of the things my mind does is once I know that I've got my color wrong, my mind actually can correct it.
So I begin to see the correct color, but it's really somehow it's a processing thing where the actual information causes the visual perception to change, which is also something I think you would predict.
So weird. It is weird. So weird. And my relationship with color is utterly different um i would love to know i actually i suspect that i might be tetrachromat like i just i see you know intense diverse colors everywhere it's hard for me not to be thinking in terms of color and yet um I had, I did, my mother had me do and I enjoyed doing a lot of different kinds of art when I was a child and I had a lot of art supplies in part because she
along with her friend and business partner, owned and ran an art school and store for a while, specifically about calligraphy, but lots of different inks and such. And I had this one little tray of watercolors. And I'm not, I never became good at watercolor. I used to play with it a lot, mostly just for the color rather than for any representational skill that I had with watercolor, which I never developed.
And it wasn't a giant tray, but there were, I don't know, probably 20 colors or so. And by far, my favorite of the colors was brown. and specifically when it got wet it just got it it had this like luscious warmth to it that I just couldn't get enough of. I was addicted to looking at this color. And for a long time, I thought, it's just weird. Like, otherwise, otherwise in the world, I love all of these different colors, like staring at the ocean and its different shades and all this.
And I thought, gosh, this might be about my cat. Yeah, I was just going to ask you if that was about your very brown cat. I had an amazing cat from the time I was four until almost 24, I think. who was, you know, one of my best friends growing up, and she was a Burmese, and she was just a deep, beautiful brown. And because from a very young age, I associated her with love and trust and affection and warmth.
I suspect that I came to associate this brown in a watercolor set with, again, something I could just look at endlessly and feel good about. And, you know, maybe this is a bridge too far or not related, but I'm thinking about another thing that I made recently, in addition to that mint stracciatella ice cream, which is so good, was a...
We call it a mountain of mocha cake based on the Zingerman's cake in Ann Arbor that I based my recipe off of, which is a deep chocolate layer cake with a coffee buttercream frosting in between and all the layers in it. so good um but the deep chocolate is of course a dark brown and the coffee buttercream is like you know coffee with cream it's that color with a little flux of coffee right
It's, like, it's a little warmer than khaki. Khaki's kind of a cool beige, and it's, like, a little bit on towards caramel, but it's... Those two colors, if you just put them like color swatch from like a paint chip, you're like, okay, I guess it's fine. But in the cake, on the cake, it's just, it's actually a very beautiful cake. that has no, I think, objectively beautiful color to it. But there's absolutely no synthetic color in it.
uh it's you know it's the dark the darkness of the cake is from chocolate uh which you know we're using a chocolate that doesn't have any crap in it and the color of the buttercream is entirely from you know and again we don't have dairy cows so we're buying butter we're buying high quality butter
high quality coffee and um and you know i used and egg whites to make this buttercream that uh that only has the colors of the ingredients that i know and so that's also part of like we can develop an aesthetic based on experience of truly good and amazing things that then when we run into that color again we get reinforced like oh i love that color why do i love that color it's because of my cat it almost doesn't matter like that color brings good feelings and if we do that with our food
Then we start to feel really good when something dark green shows up on the plate. or you know or any number of colors that aren't patently impossible to find in nature yeah i mean part of this is which does not properly value the hidden costs to your health much delayed and elevates your immediate reaction, you know, what grabs your attention. And we see the same thing.
parts of the world that have an ancient tradition of you know carpet making you know persian rugs rugs and things you find that almost all of the stuff that is currently being produced is synthetic dyes because the natural dyes can't compete with them. If you understood the effect on... The night is bright, they fade faster, all this. Right. But you might value it very differently. But of course, all of those externalities are hidden. And so...
You know, the market has simply prioritized the one that gets your attention short term rather than the one that's consistent with the healthier life. Okay. So... In thinking about Kennedy's decision to focus first and early on food dyes, I ended up thinking about, okay, that's a great start. Now let's restore the category of whole foods to being actually whole foods. So we've begun talking about this a little bit. But there are requirements at the federal level that in reduced fat dairy...
you have to supplement with vitamin. It's not actually clear to me. I didn't go and find the original legislation, but either D or D and A depend. And part of the answer here is you shouldn't be eating reduced fat dairy in the first place. Fat in dairy is not the problem. And frankly, as we'll talk about here a little bit, in part, it's the pasteurization and homogenization that are likely to be the problems for a lot of people in dairy.
Most people who eat, you know, modern American dairy is almost entirely pasteurized. And even many whole fat dairy products are supplemented, even though it's not required. And apparently all of the reduced fat and so-called zero fat dairy are supplemented. But these vitamins, D and A, are fat-soluble. So they arrive in a fat. And mostly the fat that they show up in, in reduced fat dairy, is Cedar. And there's also stabilizers like polysorbate 80, about which we are going to talk a lot today.
But so what that means is that if you're drinking, if you're like, well, you know, I'm eating well today. I had some 2% milk. It's like, again, like stop dropping the fat and dairy. That's not going to be the problem for you.
Even if you're buying organic, if you're drinking 2% milk, you probably got some excipients and some seed oils. You probably got some polysorbate A and seed oils in your food. And so just in terms of... figuring out where i was seeing this seed oil scout um which i think maybe were the first people to point me to masa chips which is now a sponsor as we you know read an ad for them at the top of the hour seed oil scout pointed me to um
pointed me through an email to these people uh strong sisters uh and they run what looks like an amazing farm and they're posting and they apologize in the tweet below that there's a There's a typo in here which I will correct as I read. Another reason why many people can't digest conventional dairy. Most of it is fortified with fat-soluble vitamins which require vitamin packs that include seed oils and synthetic chemicals.
Milk labels will just say milk vitamin D or milk vitamin A, vitamin D, since these ingredients are not required to be on the label. That is to say, the seed oils and synthetic chemicals are not required to be on the label. But they are required for fortification, is what that should say, since you simply can't mix fat-soluble vitamins with milk. You need carrier oils and emulsifiers to stabilize the fortification.
so support local dairy farmers that aren't fortifying as much as you can which better supports your health and supports better food system and then she's just got a couple of um screenshots of the ingredient statements from uh these the
It's supposedly just vitamin D or vitamin DNA, and the ingredients statement is canola oil, sorbitan mono-oleate, polysorbate 80, vitamin A, palmitate, and vitamin D3, or in a different one... that doesn't have the vitamin A, water, propylene glycol preservative, polysorbate 80, and vitamin D. So, apparently we don't need to know. We are not told these things. Well... Yes, the assumption is we don't need to know. Right. I think we absolutely do need to know. But apparently whoever is.
whoever decided that a these things need to be fortified which uh and i and i didn't dig into the history there but presumably that came before it was understood that most of your vitamin d comes from the sun
And people are ever more vitamin D deficient, not because people are moving farther and farther north, but because people are slathering more and more sunscreen on themselves. And living indoors. Yes, but living indoors and moving farther and farther north, those aren't changes in the last century.
well the amount of time that people spend indoors i bet you is that probably is true um yeah i mean especially in light of you know the ubiquitous uh air conditioning and things like that um yes but i just wanted to point out Months back, I don't remember how far back it goes, I was arguing that the Maha movement, in order to get done everything that it needed to do, ought to embrace the idea. that what we want is informed consent and liability.
I have since argued that informed consent needs a modification. The problem with informed consent is that as it was originally formulated it only applied to experimental substances treatments uh procedures that sort of thing That is logically wrong because all of these things, if informed consent applies, it applies because it is being taken by a person. And a person is...
a nested series of complex systems. Therefore, any intervention is experimental. We just simply don't know what happens when you do X, Y, or Z. And the number of cases in which we've discovered... many decades after some process was introduced that it had an implication we didn't spot, says it's all experimental. Yes. Informed consent plus liability with the understanding that informed consent ought to cover everything.
would address this issue. I never understood that anytime I consume something that has vitamin D enriched milk, that I'm consuming seed oil. Surely I have a right not to consume seed oils. But what I don't have is the information until this moment that tells me where they are. This is exactly the same sleight of hand that is now happening with the mRNA shot.
Right. Do I have a right not to eat meat from a creature that's been injected with an mRNA shot? Well, logically, I have a right not to, but I don't have the information. Right. Right. Where are the shots? How widely are they being applied? Is there a label that will tell me that a particular animal has not been injected with this stuff? I don't have the information. So once again, I would say.
to minimize the complexity of what we are pursuing informed consent plus liability with the understanding that Everything is experimental and thus informed consent applies to it all. Whether the FDA thinks we need to know or not, we have a right to the information should we so choose.
Yes. Okay, so I'm actually going to move up. We're going to end up talking about polycerobate A specifically, but let's just talk a bit first about excipients. And let's see, I may end up messing up my... messing up my ordering by doing this, but let's talk about excipients more broadly and how we can know before we talk about a few of the particular ones where they are since
to to your discussion of informed consent so um excipients are uh basically the inactive ingredients in a drug there is no equivalent term for food but it's that sort of thing. But there is no simple word, but excipient over in pharmacology land is Okay, we've created a drug and we have this as the molecule that is active that we were trying to, you know, that we synthesize, that we isolate, whatever it is. Here we are. And then we're going to need a whole bunch of other stuff to...
Help your immune system see it. We call those adjectives. to stabilize the thing in its current form we call those stabilizers to make sure that they can actually dissolve into the right place in your gut maybe that's an emulsifier maybe that's something else We want to make sure it doesn't look gross or smell gross. And so we have synthetic smells or dyes or textural molecules.
So here's just, you know, Wikipedia is awful, but for this sort of thing, provides a pretty decent list of just what are some of the types of excipients that are out there. Adjuvant. as we said, added to vaccines to enhance or modify the immune system response to immunization. That's a word that I didn't know before 2020, and we've talked about a lot since. An adjuvant is a type of excipient. Anti-adherent.
reducing the adhesion between parts of molecules. Binders, the opposite of an anti-adherent, keeping things together. A couple of binders that will be familiar, or at least one, polyethylene glycol PEG, which we've talked about before and we'll talk about again today. Coatings. So anyone who's ever taken a capsule pill is familiar with coatings, or actually even just the tablets. They've all got coatings on them.
colors we've talked about. Coatings which are sometimes a place where hides yes and is not on the label i have discovered there's a hard way there are a ton of um places where it turns out gluten in particular is as it's always described as opposed to wheat hides and also corn
corn apparently is all over the place without being identified so a lot of people also have corn allergies and um and don't know why they keep on getting triggered and this is one of the reasons uh colors we've talked about including as i mentioned tartrazine which is a particular petroleum-based dye. I think I misspoke earlier and said that it was the category, but it's a particular one of these petroleum-based dyes. Disintegrate.
uh disintegrants rather uh so you want it you want to be able to swallow it without it coming apart in your mouth because that's gross uh and then you want it to come apart in your digestive tract before it gets to your colon usually um or you know depending on where it is that it's it's shooting for uh flavors uh so specifically for something like a um you know a cough syrup yeah right uh gliden
are used to promote powder flow by reducing interparticle friction and cohesion. So, you know, all of these things are basically messing with the physical properties of the one active thing or the several active thing, lubricant. Slightly different from Gliden's, but same idea. Preservatives, of course, things that make things shelf-stable, like parabens. Sorbents are basically desiccant. sweeteners to make chewable things like antacids more palatable
vehicles, just the thing in which the rest of it travels. So often, you know, things like petroleum jelly or mineral oil are common vehicles. So that's just, that's a generic list of types of excipients. that are in pharmaceuticals. All pharmaceuticals that you take, it's maybe possible that if you've had something made in a compounding pharmacy that they did not have to end up putting... excipients in but I feel like inactive ingredients is part of the drug.
And so we're wrong to imagine that knowing what the active ingredient is is sufficient because there will always be something in here. And, you know, this is not a list of like, you know, enemies. There are things here which, if you were going to take a drug that needs to start dissolving in a particular place in your digestive tract, The drug itself, the goal is to get to your bloodstream, say.
is insufficient to do the job. You also need to get it where it needs to go in a form that your body can observe it. And so that's part of what all of these excipients are about. Yeah, I want to make two points. One of them closely related to what you just said. which is you need to put yourself in the mindset. Imagine that pharma was a wonderful industry that produced things that really did. help the sick and protect the healthy and things like that.
You have to understand that they have a job to do that you don't understand, right? A pill, like let's say you had an aspirin tablet. that had a physical property that caused it to stick on your tongue. So that a certain amount of time, you didn't manage to swallow it before it disintegrated on your tongue. That would be... A truly awful experience. And so there's a job that you don't know the name of, which is make this pill physically swallowable. Right. I'll give another example.
We had a I will just acknowledge up front. This was a sponsor of the podcast. who made an excellent dentifrice. This is a, it's not a paste, but a tooth, it's a dentifrice is the only term I have. It is a dentifrice, it's just not a toothpaste. Right. But you had found this before they were a sponsor. We didn't approach them. Right, exactly. And I still love the product, still use the product. But the initial formulations as they were figuring it out were fragile if you traveled with them.
That traveling with them, they bounced against each other and they fragmented and they have improved that formula so that they now stay together until you chew them up and brush your teeth. But it's a real question. Like, you know, do you want a tube? that isn't going to risk breaking apart because it's just in a tube, but you're going to be carrying more weight because you're carrying liquid. Or do you want tablets that are going to be lighter?
but have the risk of physical battery. Right. And can you just take the tablet that has, you know, it's got an excellent property if it's sitting in your cabinet and as soon as you travel with it, it.
starts to degrade can you fix that problem with something that doesn't degrade the functionality of the product or add something that you don't want to in this case you're not consuming it but use a little bit yeah um and so anyway solving all of the problems of delivering a pharmaceutical that actually works
That's a real issue. And the fact that pharma is evil, and I have no doubt will have done terrifying things with the category of excipients, does not mean that there don't need to be excipients at some level to make these things work. I think we've been tricked in part to serve their goals. I'm sure that's true.
Active ingredients. Oh yes, it's the active ingredients I should be concerned about here, because that's the reason I'm taking the drug in the first place. If I wasn't interested in the active ingredients, I wouldn't be taking the drug in the first place, therefore that's where I should start. Maybe that's where you should start, but... I believe that part of the... The evil magic trick that they did, where none of the vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule have been tested against placebo.
was this sort of sleight of hand. Because what they did, and I don't actually know about the rest of the excipients, I just know at the moment about the fact that they tested vaccine A. which has active ingredient 1 and adjuvant 2 and who knows how many other things against the control, the so-called placebo, which doesn't have active ingredient 1 but does have adjuvant 2.
and may also have a bunch of the other excipients, I don't know. So you never end up in that test actually having a placebo in which, yes, you got injected, there was saline, something.
But you still got... part of the drug is like wow but it wasn't the active ingredient yes but the adjuvant in the in that case The adjuvant is specifically there to trigger your immune system into responding, so of course there will have been bad responses over in that so-called control population, which was never a control. So in part, like we have to get out of the mind frame of thinking, well, it's only the active ingredients that matter precisely because it's that trick.
of the mind that i think allowed some number of people to just accept like oh that's placebo controlled yeah it doesn't have any active ingredients like yes but it has a bunch of the other stuff at the drug that's not good for you well They've obviously gamed the idea of active ingredient. It's like a target ingredient versus other ingredients, some of which are bioactive. yes adjuvant is bioactive it triggers your immune system to react it's not
you know, the message that your immune system is reacting to. It may not be novel in this vaccine, but if you've never tested the adjuvant alone, then you don't know whether the adjuvant is safe. And just to make this perfectly clear for anybody who's struggling with the amount of jargon in terms of art here and all of that.
and it's in the shots to do some job, like activate your immune system so that it reacts to the core ingredient of the shot. If it's dangerous, but it's in the control and the shot that's being tested let's say it kills One in a hundred people. This is an extreme case, but let's just say that the adjuvant were to kill one in a hundred people.
Well, if the adjuvant is in both the control and the treatment group, then what the experiment will show is that there was no increased tendency towards death if you got the shot. because the harm was also done to the control group. That is one way of hiding harm. The second way to hide harm is for pharma always tries to hit this target where something that it is testing against a quote-unquote placebo which isn't
is so good that it becomes immoral not to give it to the control group. And so what they do is they rush to vaccinate the control group, thereby... stopping the capacity to see what the long-term effect of the thing that you were testing is on that population, because you have no one to compare it to, right? Because everybody's now had it. So, you know, here's some research I'd like to see funded by NIH.
i want to start seeing the trials and presumably this wouldn't be uh moral to do on humans but i guess the animal studies on an actual control versus the edge
actual control versus any number of these other excipients like PEG and polysorbate AD. But specifically, let's just, again, let's start with the low-hanging fruit. We now know Despite what a bunch of yelling people on social media claim, that the vast majority of the vaccines that we are giving to our children and taking as adults have not been tested against placebo. This is untenable. It's intolerable. It's intolerable.
What we need to know then is if the things that are being given to the so-called control group in those non-placebo-controlled trials are safe. So give just those things.
to people and then or to probably to animals in animal studies and and give nothing to give an actual placebo like test test the safety of the actual adjuvant And the reason you're probably not going to do this on humans is because pharma will cry, well, but there's no reason to give those things to people because there's no active ingredient.
Frankly, if they were certain of what they claim to be certain of, and in fact, I think that they are certain of exactly the opposite, that these adjuvants were totally safe. then there wouldn't be a problem. Well, we're going to give part of the population broccoli and we're going to keep broccoli from the other part of the population. We're going to see what happens. Oh my God, that's not safe.
what about all the people who are going to die from broccoli it's like no that's not a concern right uh whereas okay you're going to give part of a clinical trial the adjuvants only and part nothing and then let's see what the actual baseline Okay, now I had this clip for a different reason, but there's a clip relevant to your point here. You want to show the Kennedy clip from the Dr. Phil show?
There's never been a pre-licensing safety study for any vaccine that is a double-blind placebo against a placebo. And so that's insane. You're mandating this product. It's a liability-free product. You can't sue them if they kill you or they injure you, no matter how reckless or negligent they are. And there's no safety studies at the outset. There's no surveillance system afterward. And you're mandating that product for 76 million American children.
So the only thing they test for is efficacy. Does it stop measles? Yeah. But does it also do something else, cause you seizures or cause neurological or autoimmune disease? We don't know. Nobody can answer that question. So we're changing those panels so that they're going to be independent scientists. And we're going to make sure that every new product is adequately tested, both for efficacy and for safety. That's so good.
Did you see the New York Times this week with a panel of three op-ed writers explaining why Kennedy is practically Satan incarnate and doing terrible things to... to america's health i did not um obviously what he's saying here is clear-headed clearly correct um it's actually baseline it's what you have assumed all along that they have been doing and they didn't um my one so first of all let me just say this is exactly what we vote
Yes, right there. Exactly what we voted for. Go, Bobby. Yes, this is the thing. And it goes a long way to alleviating any concern that. food safety is going to be swapped in uh for for drug concerns here i would say the one thing in there and you know
Obviously, whatever he said in there doesn't limit what else may be on the drawing table. But in that, he says for any new product, they're going to have this independent testing. Obviously, all the products for which we failed to do this need to be tested also. I have the sense that that's probably coming down the pike. Yeah, it's probably just huge legal battles to pull.
pull already on the shelves products. I mean, they should obviously be doing it, but it's easier to say from now on, we're definitely doing this. And then we're also going to go into the backlist. start fixing that. A couple of things. One, because of the absurdity of the way patents interface with this stuff.
Even just doing this for new products will, over time, get to everything because farms are not going to leave stuff that they can't make a profit on. Everything's going to get replaced. This would cover all of the new mRNA stuff. is a serious concern. Yep. But... the very fact of taking this approach is
Exactly what needs to be done. Hopefully it will be done for all of this stuff. In the meantime, beware of anything that existed under the previous system, which hasn't been tested in the way that any rational person would assume that it had. Okay, just talk a little bit more about excipients broadly before we talk about polysorbate 80. in a little detail uh here's a 2016 article this is uh actually a in press version of it but
It's a match for what ended up being published. In the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, a review called an overview of pharmaceutical excipients, safe or not. and just the first paragraph of the introduction.
a pharmaceutical excipient is by definition a substance or a group of substances that completes a volume of agglomerating a mixture which serves as a vehicle and incorporates active pharmaceutical ingredients The word itself is defined in some of the features of a pharmaceutical excipient.
Examples of excipients include, and again, I already read a list from Wikipedia, but here's... peer-reviewed paper that assesses tries to assess say Examples of excipients include Absorption enhancers, coloring agents, emulsifiers, extenders, diluents, fillers, flavors, preservatives, wetting agents, solvents, and sustained release matrices. That's something that we didn't see in the Wikipedia list.
uh you know probably everyone has run into drugs where it's like this is going to last for you for 24 hours you don't need to you don't need to wake up in the middle of the night and take one every six hours because this is having an extended release well how do they do that that's going to be another excipient or several
An ideal excipient is one that provides the volume, the uniformity, and the dose of the API, again the active pharmaceutical ingredients, in the medicine throughout the production process to the administration. So that's where we're at in terms of, if I can have my screen back here so I can see where I'm going next.
in terms of what what they're being defined as um and i already said like there's no equivalent word in food space just food additives but i think that everything that we're talking about with regard to excipients which specifically applies to pharmacology, applies to food and processed food.
So we have these things. We're going to talk about some of what we know about the harms that some of them do. But let's just talk to your point about informed consent, about being able to know what you're saying. because some people know and in fact you did a conversation back Where was it? Betty Pezzamenti?
uh an australian caterer a woman um back on november 26 2021 you had a conversation with her um discussing her long since diagnosed um anaphylactic allergy to peg which is one of the very common excipients, which is in the mRNA shots and your conversation with her was prompted by her being forced to get an mRNA vaccination even though she has a demonstrable anaphylactic, that is to say, plausibly fatal reaction to one of the known ingredients.
so let me just put a little more color on that she had multiple environmental allergies including peg and could not get an exemption from the australian government saying she was not required to take this shot. In fact, what they amazingly told her was that the thing to do was to be prepared for anaphylactic shock.
and give her an EpiPen should it happen. So they were actually willing to put her life in jeopardy to give her this shot, which we can now be quite sure didn't work, was counterproductive.
quite dangerous in many regards even to healthy people at the same time that they were telling healthy people you need to get this in order to protect people who aren't fortunate enough to be healthy enough to get the shot right right it was that amazing non sequitur somehow it was very important to give this poor woman this
even though it might kill her, because somehow exceptions were considered immoral, even when they were obviously medically justified. And they didn't need to be medically justified. Right. Right. Informed consent. We've hung people for violating informed consent. She had a right to say, you know, I don't trust that shot. I don't want it. But well, it wasn't you. All of us had a right to say no, and many of us were able to.
In her case, I don't trust that shot. It wasn't even a well-founded scientific suspicion as we had, right? It was actually... The manufacturer has an ingredient on its ingredient list. that I have a known anaphylactic allergic response. too like it really it really couldn't be more clear right there's it's not like i just don't feel good about it like yeah i don't feel good about it to the point of like it'll kill me right you have to take the shot that might kill you why to protect your health
What? And to protect the health of people around you. Amazing. Yeah. Yeah. Totally amazing. So, okay. It's obviously important that people be able to know what's in the drugs that they take. We have established that there are a ton of excipients in all the drugs that you might take. and that many people have allergies to them. Some of them, like Betty Bezzamenti, know many of the allergies they have. Many of us presumably don't. We have sort of subclinical...
reactions to these things. And it's probably a big part of why we have so many of these chronic diseases now that people have reactions like you do to gluten, but that many people probably do to many of the excipients. and food additives, excipients and drugs and food additives and foods that have been poorly, if at all, tested. But at least, at least we can find out what's where. Except we can't. So here's the next little piece of...
A paper published last year, in 2024, called Inconsistent Excipient Listings and Daily Med Implications for Drug Safety. I'm just going to read a few bits from this paper, from the abstract. Excipients, or inactive ingredients, are a frequent cause of medication intolerance and allergy. Patients and clinicians concerned about medication allergies and sensitivities rely on the U.S. National Library of Medicine's Daily Med for accurate lists of excipients.
Based on our anecdotal discovery of several examples of excipient emissions, we wish to examine the accuracy of DailyMed's listings more systematically in a sample of commonly prescribed medication. The objective of the study is to identify the frequency of inconsistency of excipient reporting within the DailyMed website.
We performed a database audit of the structured product labeling XML file provided by the drug manufacturer to the Food and Drug Administration and DailyMed for two randomly selected formulations of each of 50 commonly prescribed medications. For each of the hundred formulations, we compared the excipients listed in the description to those in the ingredients and appearance sections in daily measure.
The structured product labeling data file provided by the drug manufacturer contained internal inconsistencies of excipients in 39% of the formulations examined. 39%. Okay, so just a few more.
from the results we identified multiple examples of internal inconsistencies between the narrative inactive ingredient listings in package labels in the description section of these products listings in daily med and the tables in the ingredient and appearance section of these products listings in daily med that is to say
Those product inserts that many people don't read, but many people know that they should read, and presumably people with known allergies to excipients do read in order to assess. whether or not the thing that they're allergic to is in the drug there are inconsistencies in of the common medications these guys looked at 39 percent inconsistencies between what's in the product safety sheet and is filed on the daily med data. We found 41 discrepancies across 39% of the medications.
And go ahead. I'm going to have one more. Well, I just want to point out that. This is a discrepancy between two official records. It's all coming from the same place. This is from the manufacturer. But this does not, there's a whole landscape beyond excipient. Yes. Right. And so this, this is like best case scenario. This is the shallow end of the pool. This is the manufacturer having identified what's what. And then.
kind of failing to be consistent about saying what's what in what drug so in our sample of 100 drug products this is from the discussion 65 aias iai's were missing from either the description section or type of their list 12 have been listed as critical and active ingredients that can act as allergens or on lists of excipients associated with drug hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. These include lactose, gelatin, provitone, cornstarch, dyes, aluminum, and polysorbate.
Other excipients emitted include silicon dioxide, colloidal silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, stearic acid, and magnesium stearate. several FD&C dyes, emulsifying wax, nitrogen, alpha-tosopherol, hybromelos, shellac, pharmaceutical ink, dehydrated alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, ammonia solution, ammonium, lecithin, simethicone, dimethicone, unspecified natural artificial flavors, peppermint flavor and sodium, laurel sulfate.
Wow. One more. One more from this article. If manufacturers are attending so poorly to labeling accuracy for widely used drugs, the situation may be even worse among the far greater numbers of less frequently used medications. Furthermore, our audit could only identify internal inconsistencies and not other types of inaccuracies which may also exist.
to your point about things like contaminants and whether or not the things that have been established as safe enough to include in the first place are that's amazing so it's extraordinary what this is telling you this is again reinforcing the idea that whatever it is that pharma has become is indifferent to killing people
who are its customers. Because the idea that you are going to possibly omit an ingredient that can cause anaphylactic shock in a patient who doesn't know it's there because the labeling didn't even allow them to find it there should be a big warning for such things that have significant numbers of people with anaphylactic reactions to them.
But the problem is you think you've done the due diligence. It leads to a false sense of security. I looked at the insert. It wasn't on there, right? And, you know, will that result in deaths? Yes. Will it result in lawsuits? Presumably sometimes, but apparently it's mostly not. Mostly not is the answer. So that paper was actually sent to me by one of the authors after I just mentioned, said the word excipient at the end of The Last Life.
And she specifically wrote, in other words, Even if you figure out that excipients could be causing your symptoms and you take the time to look up which excipients are in your drugs or to look for a version of the drug without the guilty excipients, there's a good chance the FDA database will give you conflicting or obviously inaccurate information.
So I will just say one of the many lessons of the graduate education that we got in all things related to COVID and pharma from the COVID so-called pandemic. is that you don't have to look very far to find examples in your own life of people. This is not exotic stuff, right? As we became aware of adjuvants and, you know. I will repeat that when I first learned the term adjuvant, I believe I learned it from Bobby Kennedy. My thought was.
So alarming your immune system to get it to react to an antigen you've just injected without doing so in any specific way means it's going to be hyperactive and react to things that it's not supposed to be reacting to. How could that not be a primary suspect in all of the various allergies that people have, whether it's to environmental stuff like pollens.
or mold in their houses or foods that they're eating, right? It's obviously a prime suspect. You need to know it's there. And how far do I have to look for people who are probably suffering from this? Well, I'm probably suffering from it. That's likely where my weed allergy came from. Our kids, one of our kids has seasonal allergies. The other one has a severe dairy allergy. Where did these things come from? Oh, very probably the adjuvant.
But in this case, the excipient problem, how far do I have to look? Well, I have had the experience of finding myself triggered by wheat and not being able to figure out what it is that I've eaten. And then, you know what I discover? A pharmaceutical has a coating, it has a capsule, and what's listed there is something like vegetable jealousy.
It doesn't say wheat on the label, right? You actually specifically have to go find a pharmaceutical that says it's wheat free before you have any idea what vegetable. gelatin means, right? Of course it comes from wheat some fair percentage of the time. It's just hiding there. And you can look at the label and not see it because the word wheat doesn't show up.
gluten doesn't show up so the point is this problem how far do you have to look i don't have to look any farther than me i've had it happen to me yeah and apparently it's much more widespread and people have a lot more serious reactions than i do and even people who are who have a bad problem and are lucky enough to know the name of the source of the problem cannot get accurate information from the government websites that were created in order to provide transparency.
And so what they end up with is misinformed consent. Right? They have consented. They've taken the pill, having looked at the label. Thinking that they've done their due diligence and the fact that somebody else screwed up their job of putting all of the stuff on the insert means that they've now put themselves in danger. It's remarkable. Nothing shocks me from this industry anymore.
Pharma is absolutely comfortable causing people's deaths. And presumably, they behave very differently with respect to their own families. that the people at the tops of these corporations understand these dangers because they deal with the lawsuits. So I bet they're very careful about these things. Yeah. Okay.
hey, reduced fat dairy is fortified with vitamin D or vitamin DNA, and that comes in a vehicle that includes often seed oils, and at least according to the two that I showed you earlier, always the excipient called polysorbate 80. Just one clarification. You said D and A. D and A. Yeah. So there were different formulations. The vitamin D only fortified.
thing uh didn't actually have seed oil in it but it did have polysorbate a polysorbate 80 and another excipient whose name i don't remember at the moment And the vehicle that includes both D and A came in a canola oil background plus polysorbate 80. So what's polysorbate 80? What's it doing? It is added to foods as a stabilizer and an emulsifier. So first, I wanted to just talk about emulsifiers a little bit. Because emulsifiers aren't like, emulsification is cool. It's good stuff.
Yeah, I'm perfectly comfortable with it until you ingest stuff that's been emulsified. Well, no, no, no, no, no, you don't, because we emulsify good food all the time. So this book, I took, I should say chemical emulsifiers.
So I think I've probably brought this book out on the show before. This is On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee. I highly recommend this amazing, amazing tome. It's an encyclopedia of... of wondrousness um and i just have a few little sections here on um him talking about emulsifiers there's like everything is in here it's so good it's and it begins i actually did not realize i was looking at it again it begins
the origins of dairy because of course it does so it's so good um but it's a great reference anytime you're trying to you know the maillard reaction like anytime you're trying to do anything in the kitchen and you're interested in the actual the actual science
This is your guy, Harold McGee on food and cooking. And I, for some reason, I'm having a hard time finding it. I forgot the order that numbers show up in. Here we go. They're in alphabetical order, I'm pretty sure. I don't know what my problem was. Okay, so first, just the nature of emulsion.
an emulsion can only be made from two liquids that don't dissolve in each other and therefore retain their distinct identities even when the molecules of water and alcohol for example mix freely and so cannot form an emulsion In addition to sauces, cosmetic creams, floor and furniture waxes, some paints, asphalt and crude oil are all emulsions of water and oil.
So I wanted to read that paragraph because it brings us full circle to the Saturday Night Live commercial about whatever the product is being both a dessert popping and a floor wax. It's both a dessert topping and a floor wax. Yeah. And so, you know, they're both emulsions. And so it could be some product could be both.
uh and you know we've all i don't know if we all have i have spilled things that i might have wanted as a dessert topping onto the floor and before cleaning it up stepped in it just a little bit went oh that's quite slippery okay that didn't that didn't work out so well Okay, so that's just one true thing about emulsions. Here he has guidelines for successful emulsified sauces. So again, he's not talking about the crab, the excipients. He's talking about real food.
Emulsions have always been considered fickle concoctions by chemists as well as cooks. One chemist wrote in 1921 that contemporary books on pharmacy were, quote, filled with elaborate details as to the making of emulsions, end quote, and recorded two such details, quote. If one starts stirring to the right, one must continue stirring to the right or no emulsion will be formed. Some books will go so far as to say that a left-headed man cannot make an emulsion, but that seems a little absurd.
The worry is also that at some point the emulsion may break and separate into blobs of oil and water again. Anyone who's tried to make a mayonnaise at home has experienced this, or many of the French sauces, the emulsified sauces, like a hollandaise. This can happen, but it's almost always because the cook has made one of three mistakes. He has added the liquid to be dispersed too quickly to the continuous liquid.
or added too much of the dispersed liquid or allowed the sauce to get either too hot or too cold. so these things are finicky and depending on what the two things are that you are trying to combine together you have to get the ratios right you have to get the timing right the order right the temperature right everything has to be right and it has to be right for long enough that it stays emulsified as opposed to then separates out into something that you don't really want to eat.
Okay, one more thing about emulsifiers, because here's where we get into some cool, and again, I've forgotten about numbers. Here we go. emulsifiers, phospholipids, lecithin, and monoglycerin. Some very useful chemical relatives of the true fats, the triglycerides are the diglycerides and monoglycerides.
these molecules act as emulsifiers to make fine cream-like mixtures of fat and water such as sauces such sauces as mayonnaise and hollandaise even though fat and water don't normally mix with each other The most prominent natural emulsifiers are the diglyceride phospholipids in egg yolks, the most abundant of which is lecithin. It takes up about a third of the yolk lip.
diglycerides have only two fatty acid chains attached to the glycerol frame, and monoglycerides just one, with the remaining positions on the frame being occupied by small, polar groups of atoms. These molecules are thus water soluble at the head and fat soluble at the tail. In cell membranes, the phospholipids assemble themselves in two layers, with one set of polar heads facing the watery interior, the other set the watery exterior, and the tails of both sets mingling in between.
when the cook whisks some fat into a water-based liquid that contains emulsifier. oil and egg yolks for example the fat forms tiny droplets that would normally coalesce and separate again the emulsifier tails become dissolved in the droplets and the electrically charged heads project from the droplets and shield the droplets from each other the emulsion of fat droplets is now
So I read that in part, and I know you've got some things to say here, because the phospholipid bilayer of cell membrane... is exactly what we're talking about here, which basically has one polar end and one nonpolar. Each layer of it has one polar and one nonpolar end, but it's a bilayer. And so you've got two of the same types on the inside of the cell and on the outside of the cell with the other types matching each other on the inside.
an emulsifier is going to break those apart. So what an emulsifier is going to do in part is break apart cell. So when you add emulsifiers in places that you weren't expecting it, in a way, in a vehicle which is designed to get into parts of your body that food wouldn't normally get, and so normal emulsifiers like that found in egg yolks wouldn't normally get, What you're going to do is break apart cell membranes.
That is going to be one of the effects, and we're going to get to that. Well, I was going to go somewhere similar here, which is that the reason for my outburst about emulsifiers is that... fat and the careful regulation of its integrity and distribution is how the entire body works, because we are divided into 30 trillion cells, all of which have this phospholipid bilayer. Right on. Yeah. But I was too hasty in decrying all emulsifiers. Egg yolks are awesome. Yes. I second that emulsion.
it needed to be said that's good i like it now it has been said yeah yeah which one mayonnaise holidays anything whichever as long as it has egg yolks yes exactly okay um my next note literally reads sorry close your children's ears holy fuck i don't even know what's coming but that's my that's my notes to myself um Okay, here we go. This is a paper from 2017. Component-based biocompatibility and safety evaluation of polysorbate 80.
just read some of what i've got highlighted here introduction polysorbate 80 commercially known as queen That's so good. We call it polycerbin 80, but in the industry, they call it tween 80. I don't know why. And chemically known as polyoxyethylene serbitan 20 monooleate. To its friends. To its industry friends, Queen 80, and to us, presumably its enemies, Polysorbate 80.
is one of the most common non-ionic surfactants currently used in a great variety of formulations, including traditional Chinese medicine injections and protein biopharmaceuticals. It is also widely used as a solubilizing agent for improving the solubility of poorly soluble drugs in different pharmaceutical dosage forms such as creams, ointments, lotions, tablets as well as injections, which are complex mixtures and difficult to characterize.
Additionally, researchers found that polysorbate 80 was responsible for breaking through the blood-brain barrier. However, polysorbate 80, containing dosage forms, including especially injections, were reported to trigger adverse effects including hemolysis and anaphylactoid reaction. although oh that is a comma okay sorry in anaphylactoid reactions although the underlying specific mechanisms are still obscure
And this is what this article is trying to do. It's like, wow, we know that polysorbate 80 is causing all of these problems, but we actually... Neither those of us who are using the thing, putting it into things or producing it actually know how it is doing all the damage it is doing. We don't know. We know it is doing damage. We don't know how.
As an amphiphilic polymer, the majority of constituents in polysorbate 80 possess both hydrophilic and hydrophobic blocks. That's again just that you've got a polar and a non-polar. Besides traces of totally hydrophilic polymer, i.e. polyoxyethylene, these molecules have various different hydrophobic compositions. due to the various side reactions of the polysorbate AD synthesis and the resulting different byproducts.
polysorbate 80 obviously is a mixture containing not only monoesters but also polyethylene glycol peg so polysorbate 80 includes peg which is one of the most common anaphylactic inducing allergens among excipients diesters, triesters, and even tetraesters at varying polyoxyethylene polymerization degrees. Thereby, it is difficult to characterize.
So that was a whole lot of chemical jargon, most of which I'm not familiar with. But the final line that I read there is remarkable to find in a peer-reviewed scientific paper It is about a product that is not only on the market, but it is found cryptically in many cases in a whole array of drugs and foods that most Americans and many others are eating and ingesting. This paper sets out to characterize it molecularly, thereby it is difficult to characterize.
I am surprised at my ability to be surprised at this point by how much we don't know and what we're doing. Yes, and there are several complex systems points here. Yes. partial translation of what you just read is that the very nature of the manufacture of polysorbate 80, involves the creation of lots of chemically related products that are not the desired one, that are not purified out.
So that's one thing is that you go from occipient, which is hiding contaminants. Those contaminants have unknown effects. Presumably they haven't been tested because they're not. the target, right? Wait, so why are you talking about contaminants? How did contaminants get introduced here? Because what that suggested was that in the creation of polysorbate 80, there were the creation of all of these... It's what the thing is. This is such a complex molecule.
that it itself is creating a whole slurry of things that aren't characterized. But I don't think they are accurately described as contaminants. They are simply part of what the complex molecule is. um and and and it is it despite being approved for use in food and drugs in the united states is Incompletely characterized at even the molecular level. But that's not inherently a contaminant. No, no, I think it is a contaminant.
There's that's a semantic difference. I don't think it is, but go on. Nonetheless, they're not the product that is desired is the. No, no, no. But that's the point here is that what is the product that is desired? This paper, and I've got a few more things here, is demonstrating that actually the producers of this product, no one is actually claiming, here's the thing that we are trying to make. It is understood to be an effective emulsifier and stabilizer. Oh how does it do that?
Oh, well, it's got all of these parts and pieces. Yeah, those are probably doing a bunch of it. We know Peg does this. So it's not that they are like... They are the result of a process and we wish we could exclude them. No, it's all part of the thing that is incompletely characterized by the actual manufacturers themselves.
And this paper is trying to characterize it. So in the results, they say, as a result, the components of polysorbate 80 are too complex to be efficiently separated and accurately analyzed, making its quality control and safety evaluation very different.
the components the actual components and then this is going to be dizzying here as they go through and you're going to show for instance and i'm not going to walk through all of this but um you know all of the different all of the incomplete still, but different components that they found, including PEG. in polysorbate 80 which in this graph actually is about the hemolytic capacity that is the ability to break open red blood cells which
Several of these components of polysorbate 80 have high hemolytic capacity. And then in the discussion, they say of three of these components, PS, PI, and PEG, presented strong hemolytic capability. Again, the ability to break open red blood cells, presumably because their good solubility may induce devastating osmotic pressure difference across the membrane of red blood cells.
it is likely that PSM, PSD, and PM, three of the other components of polysorbate A, had high amphipathicity and affinity to cells lipid bilayer thereby inducing great cytotoxicity. That last phrase simply means this is an effective emulsifier. It breaks apart that vasfolipid bilayer and thus destroys cells. cytotoxicity. It is cytotoxic at its most fundamental level. Cytotoxic at its most fundamental level.
There is the implication in the beginning of that paper that this is a safe ingredient because they reference Chinese medicine, yada, yada, yada. However... I don't read that as this. I read them saying... that as we actually need to know, like this is a safety evaluation, they're calling this a safety evaluation, component-based biocompatibility and safety evaluation. We need to know because, and you look at the authors, this is coming out of China.
we need to know because it is in traditional chinese medicine injections and protein via pharmaceutical That's why we need to know. They're not saying it must be safe because it's in there. It's not saying that that's there is an implication to me at the very least. If something is in ancient medical formulations, it probably is. I don't want to say safe because lots of... Not ancient. This is a brand new... Well, so it's traditional. Yes, but this is a brand new product.
So in modern versions of traditional Chinese medicines, this is being added to emulsify and stabilize. Polysorbate 80 didn't exist 2 000 years ago it didn't exist 200 years all right well then i retract that but it makes my next point even better okay which is There's a big difference between what we ingest and what we allow to be injected. This is another one of the lessons of the graduate course that was the so-called COVID pandemic.
I used to believe that an injection was, you know, an injection especially of a vaccine was an elegant intervention in the system that introduced just enough information to make you immune to something without doing a whole lot of... I now understand it to be a radical intervention. And part of the reason that it is a radical intervention becomes obvious here. If you take this emulsifying agent and you consume it.
there is a decent chance that your gut can handle it and keep it away from cells like red blood cells, for example, but certainly not isolated to red blood cells, to keep it away from the cells that it would likely damage. If you inject it, it is going to encounter those cells. Right. At the very best case. it would be limited to the injection site, but we know that these things can't be fully limited to the injection site. We also know...
that there's a fair amount of accidental intravenous injection, even when the injection is intended to be intramuscular. And the point is, so it's going to go into your bloodstream. It's going to hit your blood brain barrier. And if it can break through it, it's going to get into your brain. None of these things are intended. But the point is, this is an intervention in a complex system where you can foresee this.
What's more, even if your gut was normally able to handle this emulsifier and keep it away from the cell membranes that would be damaged by it, Our guts do not have good integrity because we're eating so many other things that cause them to be breached. We've already, most of us have some degree of leaky gut. Right. And so, you know, things like glyphosate that cause leaky gut, I mean.
Yes. Things that cause the gut to be breached cause things that shouldn't be encountered by yourselves to be encountered, which increases the danger of all of these other things. And. Go one step further. Once your blood-brain barrier integrity is... distorted by something like polysorbate 80, what
Other toxins that you would normally tolerate well are you incapable of tolerating well because they now circulate in your brain where they're not supposed to be. Right. Because it also breaches the blood-brain barrier. Right. The blood-brain barrier evolved for a reason, which is that your brain is sensitive. And so if you're...
If you're ingesting things that damage it, you are increasing your exposure, your brain's exposure to things it shouldn't see. And you almost always hear. So I went back and listened to the beginning of your conversation with Betty Pisamenti. Yeah. Hope I'm not mispronouncing her name. from 2021 in advance of today's show.
and she begins with like the laundry list of and it's income and she does not share everything of the very many things that she's allergic to which includes like kiwis and avocados um and This is very often the case. Like it's, it's rare to have someone and like, I, you know, I suspect that there's more stuff that triggers you than just wheat. And it just like wheat is the big one and you've found it. But what are the chances that.
given that adjuvants and things like glyphosate are likely causal here. and they don't have a super short period of time during which they are doing what they're doing. Unless you were fasting or on an elimination diet as a child when you were first exposed to the thing, what are the chances that you're only allergic to one?
um that you then were exposed to in the wake of of having that adjuvant or the glyphosate or whatever it was changes are very low so you're you're more likely to be allergic to multiple things and to have this sort of laundry list of of problems which of course you know probably still but certainly until recently it was easier to dismiss such people so it's like oh goodness you it's just so hard to be around you it's just so hard to cook for you it's hard to like well actually
That's not going to be my fault. And, you know, I'm lucky. I don't, as far as I know, really have any of these things, but it's not their fault. If they were injected with something or exposed to a frickin' agrochemical that they never asked, and now have a bunch of downstream effects. It is exactly as you said, misinformed consent. Yep. Now, I think in my case, there's a pretty good argument that my sensitivity to OAT...
is exactly as you say. Sensitivity to oats amongst people who are sensitive to wheat is typically dismissed as cross reactivity. I've never quite bought the cross reactivity argument because for one thing, it doesn't appear that my sensitivity is to gluten. It's to something else in wheat. And so if people who typically have a gluten sensitivity are reactive to the gluten-like stuff in oats, that could be cross-reactivity. But in my case, it shouldn't be. And yet I do react to oats.
I think the logic is the things that you are likely to become sensitive to are the things that are most common in the diet. So they're likely to be present at the point that your immune system is freaking out as a result of adjuvants. And that can be, you know, honey. It can be peanuts. It can be wheat. It can be oats. Right. All common ingredients. Yeah. And that in my case, it picked up.
wheat and oats as primaries. And it may be that I have a slight sensitivity to a bunch of other things. Who knows? Well, I guess, I mean, I also, I wonder, maybe this doesn't exactly follow into what you just said, but. There are lots of emulsifiers. Polysorbate 80 is one of the most common and apparently still unfully characterized molecularly and just chock full of a bunch of other things that we have names for like pegs.
We've established that it's amphipathic, that it tears apart things like the phospholipid bilayer that comprises the cell membranes of animal cells. plant cells too the plant cells is different yeah but but um but they also have a cell wall so it would presumably wouldn't do the same kind of damage in plant cells it doesn't matter um i think i think it would um But even if you're not ingesting, I mean even if you're not injecting,
the polysorbate 80 and you're taking it as part of an emulsifier in a pill or much more commonly it's in a food that you've eaten that's in you know it's in your salad dressing it's in your ice cream it's in your bread and Now it's in your gut. It's an emulsifier in your gut. it's potentially going to start breaking down any cells that it runs into, including your gut life.
So you don't need to inject it to get it into a part of your body that it shouldn't be in. Well, the reason, yes, that logic is right. The reason I'm hesitant on it is that the gut is fairly well protected. You know, you're built to be able to ingest a certain amount of stuff that's not good for you. And the gut is pretty good at excluding it from the rest of the system. It has some built in defenses. Now, those built in defenses pretty much anticipate.
natural contaminants, not synthetic contaminants. And so who's to say, you know, all bets are off at the point you start ingesting synthetic stuff. And in this case, it definitely qualifies. But yes, the danger is there. It's presumably just less than, you know, if it's injected into your lymph. Yeah. That's kind of where I'm at at the moment. Yeah. It's pretty wild. Yeah. All right. Well, it leads to... So, so far, I think we have... which are intentional additions to pharmaceuticals.
for one of a number of purposes. Many of which are necessary given that drugs exist. Right. And then we have contaminants. And you and I maybe disagree on the interpretation of the paper. I think it is largely a semantic question. You've got some sort of soup of stuff. All of which are other named exceptions.
So they're not. Well, there was the discussion of the monoesters versus the polyesters, which, you know, chemistry is not my specialty, but it sounded to me like you've got the emulsifier and then you've got. The soup that it's in, I don't know that all of those things are functioning that way, but...
irregardless, as they say in Boston. The reason I ended up focusing on polycerobate A isn't just because that's actually going to be the thing that's in your fortified milk, which is crazy, but that it turns out to be... such a gigantic, chaotic, complex mess of things that includes all these other things that you may have a reaction to and that itself is unfully characterized. So I think it may be... It's a good... It's a great example to hold up on a pedestal of what's wrong with...
Excipient pharmacology. Okay. So you've got excipients. We agree that there is a category of contaminants, but then there's another category that we haven't gotten to yet. I mean, contaminants exist. I just, I don't think I've talked about them. They exist as a problem in pharma space. One of the things we learned during COVID was the number of things that were in these vials of COVID vaccine that weren't supposed to be there.
A subcategory of contaminant, though, that has become clear... clearly problematic and ever better understood by the dissidents are informational contaminants. This is going to be a whole new... is that your category informational contaminant Yeah. I don't yet know what it means. Well, what it means is if you're making mRNAs and you're doing so in large quantities because, for example, you're intending to inject billions of people with these things.
then you have a quality control problem which results in lots of partial transcripts. Right? Transcripts. Okay. So what you get is a lot of- So informational contaminants is only going to be relevant if you're talking about what I call the informational molecules. Exactly. The DNA and RNA. Yeah. But the point is, this is maybe the protein transcripts, but not really. Like, really, you're just talking about DNA and RNA.
Protein is potential, but at least DNA and RNA, you've got a problem, which is that the brochure says, oh, we're going to produce you a transcript. that is going to then be translated into protein by your ribosomes. But those transcripts are not all complete, which means that you're getting these partial products.
These partial products are bioactive in an informational way. Some of them presumably do nothing, but they don't all do nothing. And nobody has studied the category of partial transcript and what their effect on the. on the body is going to be now that, um, that specific problem is only is, is not, it's going to be. confined to things like mRNA products right like you won't polysorbate a as horrifying as it turns out to be with all of these you know all of these
Crazy. Hold on. I gotta find it. Don't show my screen yet. I gotta find it so I don't make people dizzy finding it. Like, all of these... all of these pieces, none of them are understood to be encoding information to turn into proteins right so this is this the polysorbate 80 soup is not an informational contaminant is that the term you used yeah um issue uh and i guess
Yeah, I'm still having a hard time with the word contaminant here, but I understand what you're saying with specific regard to products. We know that there were lots of contaminants in the vials. We also know that contaminants in the vials is common.
to the manufacturer of these things right they are manufactured in a process that is not well enough controlled and so lots of stuff gets into these things which is then injected into you right this becomes even worse when you're talking about things that have informational content in a language that your body speaks
either DNA or RNA. And so more low hanging fruit, frankly, like get the mRNA products off the market. Well, yes, at the very least, the mRNA products should never have been authorized. approved, let alone mandated. Well, right. None of those things should ever have happened. At this point, it should all be reversed because it never should have passed that bar. These things didn't meet any of the standards that would have been necessary.
We also know that pharma is reformulating stuff on the mRNA platform. They were undeterred by the catastrophe that they unleashed on humanity. And that means that all of the problems, including... the danger of the shots as designed. You've got the danger of the contaminants that they didn't exclude. And then you've got the danger of the informational contaminants, right?
Kevin McKernan has done amazing work here, and he's just pointed to a whole second layer of this stuff. So he pointed us to the incomplete transcript. He pointed us to the SV40 promoter plasmids that were not excluded in the file. And he has just been working on a whole new level of contamination. which apparently involves, I kid you not, HIV vaccine sequences that happen to have been patented with Anthony Fauci's name on them.
So the patent is an Anthony Fauci patent. He's not alone on the patent. But nonetheless, these sequences are being found. And these are long enough sequences to be. To be identified. Yes, absolutely. So, you know. He says here in this tweet, another contaminant found in the Moderna vaccines. Did you consent to getting Moderna's HIV vaccine? Parts of it are in there.
how horrifying is it to discover years after the fact that this shot that was injected into I don't know the Moderna shot how many people it reached, but hundreds of millions, certainly, if not billions. This shot contains sequences that have no business being in there. Things having to do with HIV and... And the point is, and this is going to be subtle for people who don't think about biology, you know, at a high enough level, but the problem with...
is that it can have effects on the body. When somebody puts a syringe into your arm and they inject you, and there's a little bit of you know, lubricant from one of the machines involved in its manufacture. That's potentially serious, but it's a whole different level of serious when the thing that they've injected you with is something that interfaces with the
essentially the programming language that the body runs on. And the fact is, biology is so that the language to translate between DNA and RNA or to go from RNA to DNA and from either to protein is all there, right? Once you're injecting information into a person, the potential... number of ways that it can go wrong skyrockets. And we are now playing with this as if it's a normal thing to do. And it's very, very dangerous.
Anyway, I wanted to introduce it here because I don't think people are tracking the seriousness of it enough. Not only is it true that the mRNA vaccines were a disaster, they didn't work, and they created a tremendous amount of absolutely unnecessary harm. But we are still injecting them and we have not begun to grapple with all of the different ways that that puts people in danger. This is entirely about pharma at this point.
They want to inject these things into people and they have their hooks. And cows and pigs and all sorts of other things, right? They've got a whole utopia that they want to go to where they reformulate all this stuff on the mRNA platform and never mind the fact that the mRNA platform cannot be made safe in its current form. Cannot. It is fundamentally flawed. Why do you qualify within its current form? if you solved the addressing problem.
There are things you could do. If you got specificity. If you got specificity so that you could essentially say which cells were to translate these things. Wouldn't specificity and not just space but also time make it better? Oh, yeah. You wouldn't want to stabilize them. So, look. From my perspective, no mRNA technology at all in this space. Not safe enough for people. And the people who are in charge of making this stuff safe have proven they can't be trusted.
I only make the caveat because... I don't like to say absolute things that... There is some technical way that they could be false later. So I'm including it because I don't want to have been the guy who said, you said this couldn't be done. Yeah, but the technical solution is itself inherently dicey. It's inherently fragile. Like any imagined currently technical solution, which requires a specificity in both space and time can break. Yes. Again.
What you would have to do is solve the problem, and then you would have to demonstrate its safety in a good safety system that was actually capable of detecting long-term harms. I just don't want to be the guy who said something that might turn out to be false later. because I was trying to speak efficiently. Yes, I see how you could make this technology work. I'm not expecting to see it in my lifetime. And in the meantime, get these fucking things off the market. You're killing people.
Yep. All right. So we're going to be a day late next week because you're off doing things elsewhere. But we'll be back on Thursday of next week when it will be May. It will be May. It will be May by then. In the meantime, check out Natural Selections, where I am publishing chapters of my first book, Antipode. This week involved you almost getting flattened by a tree. Wow, I remember that. Yeah, I knew you would.
I know you would. And you're having your Patreon conversations this weekend. Consider joining us on Locals. Our sponsors this week were Masa Chips, Dose, and Jolie. All fantastic. Check them out. A reminder that we are supported by you. We appreciate you subscribing and liking and sharing our full episodes and our clips.
Anything else to say? Nope. I think we're good. See you Thursday of next week. Thursday of next week. And until then, be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside. Be well, everyone.