I'll get a team. It's Tiffany Ankle because David Brian Kevin, Patrick Gillespie, it's the Bloody Project, that's you, it's us. We're stumbling like piss blokes towards Christmas and I couldn't be more excited. Speaking of booze, Hi tiv.
Speaking of booze.
You drink now and then, not much, every now and then much? What's your no? I know you don't really drink much, but if you do drink, what do you drink?
What?
You go to?
Gin tonic? Partial to a gin and tonic? Right?
Have you ever been legless? Shit faced? You know? It's been a lot of my youth getting legless.
YEP.
I actually don't know if we're allowed to say that anymore. But seeing as you and I you and I know you, and I know Don Elgan, so I'm pretty sure who's a one legged paralympian And he calls himself that. So I'm blaming Don. Don's given us the green light? What about you, Gilespo, I can't I can't see you drinking much, if any booze.
I don't drink much, not because I have any particular objection to it, but because my wife doesn't drink at all, so you know, to drink it myself. Yeah, pretty much. Yeah, it's yeah.
So I don't drink a lot.
You know. I'll have the occasional beer or glass of wine if there's one open, but that's about it. Really.
How many times in your life do you reckon you've been drunk?
Oh?
Quite a lot.
When I was younger, he's in university, I strunk a fair amount of the time, I suspect.
Wow. Wow, he says that with some pride tip. That's the this.
Is I am so old that I remember going to the university what was called the rec Club at the University of Queensland every Friday night and they used to have fifty cent cans of Swan beer. Was I mean you go in there with a five dollar night slapping on the counter and that it do you for the night? Wow?
What ten? You'd drink ten cans?
Oh? Well, I try, Wow, I.
Don't know anything about beer? Is that a terrible beer? And okay, I guess that.
When you're fifty cents is what it is?
Yes, yeaheah. How many times have you been drunk? Tiff?
I couldn't tell you, but yeah, grown up in tazzy We did.
We did on weekends a few times.
Yeah, they'll get their bottle of passion pop and away we go.
I've been the dress I've been. I've been the designated driver for forty years. I'm just the boring bloke that drives everyone to and from wherever they're going to get pissed.
That's what my wife does. I always have a built in designated driver because she doesn't drink.
Does she not drink for moral reasons, ethical, religious, or health, or she just doesn't like it.
She'll like it, sheill like taste of it, so unlike today, where everything's got a ton of sugar in it and the alcohol is a secondary consideration. Back in the day, when I guess she was being tempted with alcohol, most of her tasted pretty awful and she wasn't keen on it.
I think you told us in an episode not too long ago that I'm sure you told us that the youngies are drinking less than ever and having non alcoholic kind of options.
Yeah, the stats are really interesting that today's teenagers drink less than their parents did and less than their grandparents did when they were the same age, considerably less and the reason for that is likely to be that they get both mean hits just from looking at their phone. They don't need to go out and get messy in public.
Yeah right. And I also heard on a podcast conversation yesterday that the youngsters, and by youngsters I mean legally eighteen plus youngsters shagging less than their parents and grandparents.
In general, pursuing risky behavior a lot less so, less violent, less likely to have sex, less likely to have teenage pregnancy, less likely to drink, basically, less likely to get dopamine hits from things that require them to leave their bedroom, and so because they don't need to.
So that's the upside of social media. Yeah, there's the.
Upside is you're not likely.
To get outside of Instagram, as we've got less boys and girls making mating. Well, that was a faux pa, That was something I said that it was accurate that I didn't mean. But also, yeah, producing less offspring because they're addicted to the gram and even if they were not, they'd still be producing less offspring because, as you know, the sperm counts are going so badly that getting someone pregnanty,
it is quite a quite a feat these days. And in case you haven't been paying attention for the last three years. To David Gillespie, everyone just a heads up. This is probably the last century of humanity, so enjoy it. It seems we're on the home straight. Either we're all going to die because we can't produce, you know, the bits and pieces that make new humans. Either that, or we're all going to be robots, or we're all going to be taken over by robots. Either way, enjoy the next few years.
I was thinking about a conversation we had at the last time we talked about the AI. You just listened to a podcast I think it was something the something or other CEO.
Oh, yeah, Diary of a CEO Stephen Bartlett.
Yeah, and he'd been interviewing someone to do with AI and I went away and listened to that. You'll be glad to know you well, I made.
These suggestions, I think, you know, I enter. Yeah, that's right.
That's why I bothered, because you know, it was so important that you sent it to me long, so I had to I had to have it on double speed just to get through it. But it Yeah, it was all right. One thing you asked me during the last conversation, and I don't think I gave you a good answer, which is how close are we to artificial general intelligence or AGI is what they refer to in that, And they say that's the big bad thing, that's where it
becomes essentially human in terms of its ability to think. Yeah, And I don't think I gave you a really good answer to that. And I want to Now, the thing about the AI that we are all used to using, like Gemini and chat GPT and all those sorts of things, is that they sound human, and they behave human, and they give us human like responses. But they are only
as good as the data they're trained on. So if you were to try any of those AI on the sum of human knowledge as it existed in eighteen hundred, yes, and then ask it to improve transport, it wouldn't invent the automobile because the only thing it knew was what was available in eighteen hundred. So it might suggest to you ways to improve the stagecoach, but it wouldn't invent
the automobile. And I guess that's probably to me the defining difference between these chatbots and human intelligence today, which is humans can invent things and do these ais cannot invent anything. They can summarize things really really well and make them easy to understand, but they can't invent anything.
So they can't create, like, they don't have creativity like we when we talk about intelligence, obviously we're talking about a spectrum of things. But that kind of intelligence, well, it doesn't really have intelligence either. That's the irony.
Well, if you were to think of if you were to think about, say in human terms, they don't have the research and development arm So a lot of companies spend a fairly significant part of their budget on research and development, and a company like Google, for example, spends twenty percent of its budget on research and development. And that's something that where there's no direct, measurable, sellable output
from what they're doing. They're just being asked to think about new things and create them if they can, and most of them will fail, but some of them won't. And that capacity to invent is something that AI today can't do.
And so when we talk about artificial general intelligence where essentially for one of a better term it becomes conscious or sentient or fill in the adjective, do you think that will ever happen?
Firstly, it very well may happen. People have been predicting it now for at least twenty years, but whether it will happen from the existing set of technology is difficult to say. To me, there's no obvious trajectory from the chatbots we're dealing with today to artificial general intelligence other than that they look human. Yes, And whereas oh, sorry, I was just going to say, whereas as I said, they're not capable of inventing something, Whereas an AGI is
a different thing altogether. It is capable of inventing. And when you create something with that much firepower, with that capability, that's why it's dangerous, because then it can solve problems we haven't even invented and may not even think our problems. And the step from where we are now to very very fast development under AI of itself, which is what an AGI would be able to do, is where we are likely to get. You made surplus to requirements.
And you may or may not know the answer to this, but you'll definitely know more than I know. How far away away from quantum computing being a thing like I know that I think there's a couple of quantum computers in the world, I'm not sure, but where they become for one of better term mainstream or just part of our culture.
I don't know. I can't give you a definitive answer to that. I know that it's a race, and it's on, and we are progressing very quickly towards it. Yes, at the moment, they're quite expensive and not highly distributed, but that is unlikely to remain the case for very long.
I would have thought, and I mean, I can't remember, but it's something crazy like it can solve problems that would take a thousand is on a normal computer or even a supercomputer that can solve that in thirty seconds.
Or some Yeah, they have significantly greater capacity than current computing.
Yeah, and do you understand I don't so, and I know this is not your area of expertise, but your expertise does stretch. Can you explain what a quantum computer is compared to a regular computer.
So, quantum computers do their processing at the quantum level, which is at the atomic and subatomic level, as opposed to at the atomic level, which is what current computers do. So they're manipulating electrons and so on, which allows them to get a lot more into the physical space and capacity than you would in a normal computer. Honestly, look, if there is a computer nerd listening to this and they go, oh my god, that's rubbish, then I suggest google it, since I looked properly at this.
Well. Also, everyone keep in mind that I did ask him, and I did throw him under the bus, and he definitely knows. I don't know if he knows more than Tiff, but he definitely knows. Tiff, do you want to tell us what a quantum computer is?
Already?
It's happened out.
Ye.
I don't know how we got there because we started with how much booze do you both drink? It's like, well, we all know there's no logical kind of progression or thread to any of our conversations, so we definitely don't want to start being logical now. So you wrote recently, you wrote an article called how to Uncure Cancer? What prompted that? Firstly, and then maybe if you can unpack it with us.
What prompted it was an announcement a couple of weeks ago or a week ago now in the US that they were making no longer suggesting that mothers have the hep well that infants be given the hepatitis B vaccination at birth. So since nineteen ninety one in the United States, infants have been given the hepatitis B vaccination within twenty four hours of birth. So it's in Australia, I think it's since two thousand, in the UK since twenty seventeen.
We might talk about that an little bit more detail later, but it's the only vaccination that is given so quickly. So you might say, well, why are you vaccinating anybody for anything, particularly a virus. So let's just step back a bit and say what hepatitis B is.
So it's a.
Virus that infects the human liver, and if it infects an adult, there's not a lot of downside. There are some symptoms of adults clear it within weeks, so it's a dose of the fluid style of symptoms with a bit of jaundice in adults who are infected with it. Our immune system is extremely efficient at dealing with it.
With babies, it's a different thing altogether. The stats flip and ninety percent of infants who are infected with hepatitis B never clear the virus, and the problem with that is that this particular virus interferes with DNA in a way that it can predictably result in liver cancer, so not quickly, but a baby that's infected with it has a higher, much higher probability than normal population of having liver cancer in their forties. So that's why I call
it the article how to Uncure Cancer. So we've got this thing that we know stops a baby becoming infected with it if it's given within twenty four hours, and we know that if we do that, we will significantly reduce So the studies, the big randomized trials on this say when I say significantly, I mean by eighty eighty five percent reduction in rate of liver cancer in vaccinated
populations of babies. Now we've got really good data on this stuff because it has been a significant thing in the United States since nineteen ninety one, in Australia since two thousand and there have been big trials on this. There was a major trial in China eighty thousand babies, randomized control, controlled trial, no one knew who was getting it and who wasn't, and the rates of reduction in cancer in that on follow up were consistent with everything
else eighty five percent. So we know this works. And the reason it works is quite interesting, I think, because so the reason a baby needs the vaccination so quickly is that if the baby gets the virus from their mother, which is primarily how they get it, then the immune system at that point at birth thinks it's part of the furniture. So the immune system thinks, oh, this isn't something I need to be bothered with. This is actually this is part of the human body. I won't be
attacking that. Whereas an adult that gets the virus, you know, they've been going their whole life without it, and suddenly it appears the immune system harks up and attacks it. And that doesn't happen in newborns who are born with the virus or who contracted soon after birth. And so the idea was, well, let's give the vaccination at that point, teach the body that this is something that needs to be dealt with, and do it. And so in the
United States, the statistics dramatic. You know, you go from you know, less than one percent end up with the virus after vaccination, So it dramatic. And for the US to suddenly decide because they've convinced themselves of vaccines cause autism, for which there is absolutely no proof by the way they've convinced themselves of that. They've said, oh, you know this thing that's been effectively reducing the incidence of liver cancer, we're going to stop doing that now now we know
what this looks like when you do that. Because the UK and Australia a little bit earlier on, but the UK until twenty seventeen did it that way. The UK had a policy of not vaccinating infants. Their policy was to only vaccinate people at risk because it's cheaper. So let's just talk about how this virus is transmitted in the first place. So it's a blood blood transmission virus. You can transmit it by you know, exposure to someone
else's blood. You know, Grannie kissing a wound on a child's knee, if Grannie's infected child might get it from that, from saliva, so bodily fluid exchange, also from sexual contact, so it's transmitted that way. It's different from hepatitis A, which is transmitted by eating food which has been you know, infected with the virum. So hepatitis A is transmitted through food and water. Hepatitis B is through blood, just like hepatitis C. So the UK said, well, very few people
are actually at risk of this thing. Other people who you know, the most common people, homosexual population, intravenous drug users, et cetera. So will only vaccinate people who are obviously at risk and and that should take care of it. The result was that it did reduce the incidence of liver cancer, but only by about fifty percent, So somehow fifty percent was slipping through where people where infants were getting it anyway, even though there was no obvious risk.
And that's just the accidents of everyday life. You know, you're in a hospital, you're bumping into people, you're running it. You know, it's all manner of ways that you might somehow end up contracting the virus. And in an infant that's a problem because if it's not addressed early, they can end up with this virus for life. And it was identified when when the vaccine for this was first started to become a thing in the early nineteen seventies.
This was called the first cancer vaccination because it was the first and only one at that point where we knew that eliminating that virus would actually reduce the incidence of cancer. And it's because the way that virus interacts with protein in the liver, is that it produces mutations which make the liver cells more prone to cancerous mutation.
Yeah, and so is RFK driving this or somebody else?
Yeah, So remember he thinks he thinks neurofin causes panadol. I can't remember. It was probably panadol. Yeah, it was panadol that he thinks causes autism. And this is another of the things that he thinks causes autism. So there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. But you might be thinking, well, but hold on, this is a vaccine that we're giving to infants. Is there a risk in giving it to infants? What is the risk? And there
is one. There's a risk of an anaphylactic reaction, which is about one in one point one million, which so is infinitesimally small, you know, off the scale small, but on the upside. I don't know if you know anyone who's ever had an anaphlectic reaction to something, but you know, people have it to seafood, to peanuts and things like that. It can be extremely life threatening. Their their lips swell
up that they can't breathe. It's very life threatening. So it's not to be sneezed at, but it is one in one point one million. On the upside, this thing has been given to the child in a hospital, so that's the best place to have an anaphylactic reaction. Hit him with adrenaline, the quicker immediately sorted out. So there is a risk, but it is very very small.
It seems astounding by the way tiff use to have an anaphylactic reaction to men, but she's subsequently she's been has been treated and adrenaline. Well, no, she was. She had the Scotty Douglas vaccination and look it's things are going. I mean, I'm no doctor, but fucking hell, she seems to be healed anyway. Praise the Lord.
That's that new methodology, isn't it? Where they haven't they had I haven't had a look at the numbers recently, but where they expose children with to peanuts very very early, Yeah, and frequently, so that you know there's a giving kids peanut paste for example, so that you know they don't develop a peanut anaphylaxis. It seems to be very very effective. Is that what's going on here?
Exactly? So it started as with a minor interaction on a podcast to graduated to bigger interactions on the podcast than a brief human face to face interaction, no touching, and apparently, I mean I haven't read the latest reports, but it seems to have progressed somewhat, so I can't update you on where we're at, you know, But like the the feedback coming out of the lab is thumbs up. So if congratulations on your progress's.
No longer carrying your fipin, that's.
Great, look at you, then fucking hilarious. Stop it. I have to go and find myself myself a needle and thread to sew up my size. So here's what I don't get about, and back to the show. You're welcome, You welcome listeners like it. There's so much data that says this is so effective as a treatment or as
a preventative treatment, as a vaccination, then what's the rationale? Like, surely even the dude who's the head of whatever is the head of surely he's got to come up with unequivocal evidence to make such a hugely impactful decision that's going to affect every newborn child in a country of three hundred and thirty million people.
You'd think wouldn't you you think, I mean, but no sign of it so far. So a couple of the US states, like the West Coast California and Washington and maybe Oregon as well, have commed together and formed what they're calling a health Alliance where they're maintaining the requirement for infant vaccination, so ignoring the federal advice because they feel that the evidence is so unequivocal and is so dangerous to the unborn population that they are not prepared
to follow it. By the way, in the UK they switched in twenty seventeen to doing what Australia is doing and what the US is doing, and the results have been just as impressive, the dramatic reductions in the incidents of liver cancer. So it is there just isn't any evidence. You might expect that there might be something that he could point to that says that this is a problem, but he doesn't seem to worry too much about evidence. It's just, you know, it's the vibe, huh.
It's well, he's uncovered the conspiracy and he's brought it out of the darkness into the light, and brothers and sisters were just mm which don't worry about. Don't worry about all the data everyone. It just seems anyway. It reminds me of the fluoride conversation. I think he's an opponent to fluoride in water as well. From memory, that may be true.
I'm kind of with him on that, which is a bit of a sad thing most of it. I don't think we should be having mass medication in food supply. What are we trying to fix with fluoride? What we're trying to fix fixed? There is cavities in children's teeth, and we know what causes the cavities. There's only one thing that causes it, and that's a little molecule called fructose, and we find that added to most of the food on the supermarket shells. It's one half of sucros or
table sugar. It's also one half of high fructose corn syrup, which is the shoe where they're use in the United States, and it's what causes cavities and teeth. When you look at populations that don't have access to it, they don't have cavities so easy. The solution is stop doing that, and instead what we're doing is applying a band aid where We're going to put a substance in the water supply of everybody in the hope that we can somehow patch up some of the damage that's being done now.
It does work. It does reduce the incidence of cavities by about one per child, so it drops it from about four and a half to about three and a half. But it's to do that, you're dosing everybody with something where we're not entirely certain about the outcomes, and we have no real way of knowing how much of this stuff people are ingesting. We do know flo ride works when you apply it topically, so put it in a toothpaste and scrub it on your teeth and then rinse
your mouth out and spit it out. We're not so certain about what it does to your skeleton when you ingest it. So I think that's a risky approach to public health. And I sort of wrote a tongue in cheek thing a few weeks ago.
I was going to bring that up. Zemp in the water.
Yeah, yeah, but why not if that's a viable solution. Why I put a zempic in the water supply. It's taking the same approach to public health, and I don't think that's a good way to do it, but it is. I can see why your mine might leap there from vaccination programs like the one we're talking about, but I
don't think they're the same in any degree. What we're talking about with that is a very specific population who require a very specific treatment, not something put in their food supply, something where someone is actually going up to them and putting a needle into them to prevent a well known and easily connected disease state which is ultimately fatal.
If what we were talking about here was a hep B vaccine being dumped into the water supply, then I'd probably have similar concerns about Yeah, do you.
Know off the top of your head, just back to the the correlation between the vaccination and cancer for the minute. So the kids who say don't get the vaccination and get hip B as infants, Are there any numbers on there the correlation between that and the incidents of liver cancer down the track?
Oh? Look, these will be off the top of my head, but I think it's like five percent developed zerosis and then of those five percent, five percent develop developed liver cancer.
Right, I mean that's still that's still a fair few that don't need significant It is signifant.
It's not. This is not something that's remote in any sense. This is something that that is a very real risk.
Yeah, yeah, it's yeah. It's the fact that things get put into i don't know, put into law or get mandated that really from a scientific point of view, don't make make any sense. As somewhat terrifying, is it. You said that some states were pushing back. So it's not it's not illegal to vaccinate kids. It's not. It's just it's just a recommendation or it's going to be a recommendation to not do it. Is that correct.
It's going to be up to the parents to decide whether to do it. So you go from a situation where a doctor is saying you should do this, this is on the vaccination schedule and this is why you should do this, to ah, sort yourself out, make up your own mind. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I wonder And that's a difficult that's a difficult place to be. It's like, for example, with this this whole under sixteenth thing in social media, people often say to me, oh, you know,
that's not going to work. Kids these days, they can circumvent that stuff, and yeah, they can. But the difference is that when it's the law, it's the law. And that means that a parent can sit down at a kitchen table with a kid and say I'm not letting you do this because it's against the law. Now, not every parent will do that, but it gives many parents the backbone they require to say something that desperately needs to be said. And it's in a similar situation here.
If you go from a position where a doctor says you really really should be doing this to not what evs do whatever you want to do, it's a very different situation.
Yeah, all right. My last question is a little bit clunky and very a huge departure from what we've been talking about. But and I don't really want to know your thoughts. It will make sense when I ask it. But as you're a lawyer work in the legal system, would you ever write anything about what we saw or what transpired at Bondai on Sunday. I don't want to start a new conversation now, but how do you know?
Obviously that's a very volatile, very emotional, very multi factorial kind of conversation, and I just like, even for me, I wrote I wrote something that was just going to be a post and I'm like, well, nobody needs to hear what I think. And it had ended up being quite a long piece and I'm like, it's too big to put on social media, and then I went, I'm
just going to post it as a podcast. And I said at the start, look, this is me just thinking out loud about because I want to understand the drivers and the mechanisms and the motivations and the reasons underneath it all. But even then I was quite wary. So my long winded question is, would you write anything about it?
Oh? If I wore it wouldn't be now because it is just too raw.
Yes.
But in general, standing back from the current circumstance, something that has always fascinated me is the transition of the transmission of memes. How prone humans are to being infected with ideas, and some of those ideas are very malevolent, and some of them are kpop. But there's a similar mechanism going on, and I find that fascinating about it. What about the human mind is allowing that to happen,
What facilitates it? And how do we stop it? I think once we know that we are more likely to be able to vaccinate if you want against dangerous memes, which we really need to be able to do.
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, Well when you write that, whenever that is, I want to read it, I want to hear it. I will say goodbye, fair but mate, appreciate you. Thank you, Tiff, Congratulations on the medical breakthrough. Keep working on that and keep us updated with the research. Scott knows he's just an experiment, doesn't he. Have you filled him in?
Can't know how you can't tell this subject of the experiment that it's an experiment. Hopefully he's not listening.
Yeah, hopefully thinks it's legit. Thanks Tiff, Thanks David, Thank you,