SPEAKER_04
👤 PersonPodcast Appearances
What does her team think these red dots are?
I didn't know black holes could have an atmosphere.
What does that mean exactly?
Okay, let's pivot from black holes to holes in information in the human brain.
What's the second story?
So what can researchers do with that information now that they've identified this like specific brain circuit?
Well, what do we get out of knowing that an octopus might use one arm to give a thumbs up and another to give a peace sign?
I love nerding out with you.
Thank you for enlightening me every week.
Who will benefit the most and will it benefit the most?
But by the way, there's all these side effects that might affect you.
And overall, globally, 60% of people will survive.
So we have all kinds of internal—I mean, literally every day, every person, you'll develop five cancer-like objects inside of your body.
But since I don't know anything more about your specific disease, I am, by law, required to give you the 60% drug until I know or can distinguish that your disease is a different subclass than the 60%.
And that's, in fact, a lot of what pharmaceutical companies are doing is they're trying to marry a diagnostic to the disease itself, the disease subtype itself, so that if you can show that 90% of the people of this kind of subclass will survive,
You have to, by law, choose that diagnostic to make sure that the person doesn't have the subclass before you give them the 60% drug.
And my mother, when we were kids, I mean, I'm 64 years old.
So when I was a kid, we'd go to the beach in Connecticut and they'd smother me in coconut oil.
But the immune system and your body has a way of shutting it down very quickly.
Yeah, baby oil when I was a kid.
Everybody had baby oil, and everybody got barbecued.
Plus, I worked in the fields as a kid for farm labor.
There's all these subtle, let's call them...
smoldering mutations that are waiting for a second or a third hit to occur.
Or for instance, you get old enough so that your immune system is kind of going wonky and it no longer is able to take care of something that 20 years ago it would have been able to heal perfectly well.
But with enough time and with enough variation, tumors will eventually evolve in a way—
Well, it depends on who – I mean for someone like me, no.
But there are positives obviously for the sun.
I mean vitamin D as an example.
But they're also resetting your clock in the morning rather than taking melatonin at night.
Go and just, you know, use glass to shield out the ultraviolet and get some bright light.
It's the UV that's the danger.
Because I was an idiot when I was a kid.
I mean, I would go use tanning beds because I thought, well, I wanted to look, you know, tan.
And I did tan back then, but, you know, obviously can't anymore.
Yeah, there's, you know, I mean, I think there's obviously there's a benefit to light.
I mean, I'm not saying don't go out and do it.
And, you know, I think as well there'll come a day.
that trick the immune system not only into not recognize them, but in fact to help them and feed them in a way to create an inflammatory environment that actually then the tumor uses to propagate its own cell division and then metastasis.
And I was just talking with some friends of mine at dinner last night is, you know, maybe with things like CRISPR, I could rub a CRISPR ointment on my body.
It would fix the single point mutation in my skin.
And then I could enjoy the sun again.
I think, honestly, I mean, people always say five years is sort of like this horizon.
But no, I really, I mean, I know people who are already developing systems for delivering genes, you know, RNA to cell.
I know that's a dirty word in some, but there are formulations of RNA that probably won't be as problematic as some of the things that maybe the COVID vaccine might have done.
But I mean, your cells are full of RNA.
So, I mean, you can't get away from the fact that your cells are full of RNA.
But it's also the means by which they delivered it, right?
I mean, the means by which it was delivered was a formulation of
a nucleotide that by itself was meant to be something called an adjuvant.
An adjuvant is something which activates the immune system you want.
I mean, when you get a vaccination, you are co-injected with something that hyperactivates the immune system to say, come hither.
And most of the pain that you get from an injection is not the vaccine itself, it's the adjuvant.
No, I've read some of the, some of the work.
But if you get infected by a virus, it's over your whole body anyway.
So it's whether the spike protein itself was problematic.
And so I know I'll annoy somebody one side or the other by saying anything around this area.
It's not so much a normal function.
And I'm not here to cause any controversy.
But your immune system works.
But if you can trick your immune system into getting ahead of the game...
The question is back to this cost-benefit ratio.
Is the benefit to the larger statistical population worth it, knowing that some people are going to be hurt by it or not?
So for instance, back to cancer and vaccines,
It's a byproduct of what evolution is, that when the genes mutate when a cell divides or if you go out and, you know, stand in the sun too much, for instance, you get skin cancers because you're getting ionizing radiation that's changing the DNA, making a mutation.
There's a number of cancer vaccines that are coming down the pike that for people like me would be – I mean given that I get something chopped off of me four times a year.
I look like I've been in a war zone.
Some people say, oh, that's hot.
Luckily, most of mine have been called surface spreading, although one of mine was what's called a nodal, which basically dives right in.
And believe it or not, my dog found it.
and was sniffing at it on my arm.
And started scratching at it, and it stopped bleeding.
What kind of dog do you have?
Well, this was 15 years ago.
He was a Pomeranian, but you can see the scar there.
And it wouldn't stop bleeding, and so I went in and had it looked at, and they said another week, and it would have metastasized.
So for instance, if you can catch most of these cancers early, then that's what's important.
So I think probably one of the most important, let's say, changes to our medical system that could be initiated is
would be, frankly, the use of things like MRI, not CT scans, because CT scans are known to cause cancer.
Like, when did we figure that out?
I mean, there was like a big study just published recently that said, here's what happens to people once CT scans were implemented, and you see this sudden spike in the... I mean...
Again, it's this cost-benefit ratio.
If you didn't have it, certain people wouldn't know that they have a giant tumor in there.
I mean, so for instance, when I had kidney cancer, I was actually at a restaurant with friends doing a business deal actually.
And I went to the bathroom and it was blood.
And I said, okay, we got to go to the emergency room like now.
And then they did a CT scan and they see this, the brachial tree around my kidney was just a big diffuse mess and they came in and said, you've got cancer.
And some of those random mutations will initiate a cancer.
It's nice to have two of them.
But, you know, this early detection is important.
I mean, I was lucky that it hadn't metastasized yet.
It was called clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
surveying the body and these companies that are out there right now which do it, I think are really important.
Because even if you are young and you have no suspicion you're going to have cancer, having that baseline against which you can compare later changes is important.
So, for instance, I have a mutation called MIDFE318K.
Because I could do, for instance, a CT scan or an MRI of you, and I'd find lots of little anomalies.
And they're generally in the field called phantomas.
There are these objects that may be worrisome, but we won't know that they're worrisome.
And certainly, I could do a biopsy of them and poke a needle into your chest to pick out a piece of it.
But if I come back six months and it's changed, then maybe it's something we need to go after more seriously.
So getting those kinds of regular scans, I think, is probably one of the more important things that could be done, but not by a CT scan.
It's a mutation that I was born with.
Yeah, but maybe, for instance, there'd be a way to treat someone with a drug ahead of time that would minimize the effect of the CT scan.
Because the CT scans are generally causing oxidative damage.
And so if you could provide a local antioxidant, and I'm not saying that something like this exists.
It's a bit of a naive statement.
But if you could do that locally to the area that's being imaged or to the whole body, then maybe CT scans could be lessened in their problematic outcomes.
And it causes both melanoma and kidney cancer, which I've had both.
Well, it's interesting because what's happening with x-rays or CT scans is a fast forward of the kind of random damage that causes cancer in the first place.
And so because it's random, let me kind of go back a little bit as to why does cancer happen in the first place.
So let's go way back in evolution to the first time that there were single cells versus the first time that two cells met each other and said it was better to
I've had a dozen melanomas alone.
to join forces and cooperate rather than to divide at each other's expense.
So in the process of that happening, those two cells came together or three or four cells, they basically said together we're better than alone.
But there were actually social compacts and contracts that at the genetic level were being formed between all of these cells.
And so as things got more and more complex
more and more complex contracts were formed to the point at which what could happen is that any one of the breaking of a complex contract could actually then initiate a cascade that becomes cancer.
So rather than we thinking of cancer as being a forward progression in evolution, it's actually another way to think about it is that it's a devolution back to the core fire of the desire to divide.
We didn't find that out until a couple of years ago, but I've been following it over the years.
And so by breaking the contracts, by breaking the controls on the system, cancer is allowed to blossom.
So the problem is that every tissue type, whether your lung or brain or whatever, has a whole different ecosystem of contracts that have been formed.
And so there's no one-size-fits-all drug that will kill off all cancers because the contracts are different.
It's not like you can bring in a lawyer and fix agricultural contracts versus maritime or whatever.
So that's the – you have to –
Have a flexible enough mindset because if you get stuck in this, it's a forward evolution as opposed to that it's a breaking of contracts.
And we basically figured out, okay, it's going to have to be this.
You might miss out on an opportunity for how to develop a therapy or a drug that would help people.
So we had my genome sequenced.
I honestly don't know, so I don't want to opine and have half my colleagues send me emails tomorrow scolding me.
But that's just one of hundreds of different kinds of mutations that can occur that are on a path towards creating a cancer.
Probably there hasn't been the right kind of study yet.
And if there is not, there should be.
I mean, certainly any hormonal imbalance is not a good thing.
I mean, you imbalance the metabolism of the system and you can... I mean, so for instance, back to my specific disease with MIF, there's all kinds of things like N-acetylcysteine.
Betaine, all these other drugs that are out there for longevity.
Well, if I look into the metabolism of what my cancer is, every single one of those is a disaster for me.
Because there's all these feedback mechanisms.
People often say scientists are not religious.
There's nothing that inspires more awe in me than knowing the complexity of the cell and knowing the complexity of life and seeing all this feedback and mechanism and knowing that underneath that is a universe with particles, et cetera, that enabled something like us to exist.
I just sit in awe of that.
We get a lot of that, though.
But the cancer can't survive if the immune system recognizes it.
You know, teachers are here to hopefully teach and not preach.
Well, because, you know, fats.
And a lot of them, the fats dissolve a fair number of toxins.
You know, it's not necessarily a good thing.
I mean, that's been relatively well shown that too much meat as opposed to, I'm not advocating vegetarianism.
I think there's a happy medium.
I mean, we grew up in an environment where we had both.
And we succeeded, I think, because we're omnivores as a society, as a, you know, as a civilization.
So eventually what happens is there's this detente that is reached between the immune system and the cancer where the immune system basically ignores the cancer.
So but, you know, charred meat.
I mean, you know, you're making all kinds of it's a it's a witch's brew of nastiness that tastes good.
But, you know, the reason why it tastes good is because the humans who survived learned to use fire to kill off the bacteria in rotten meat.
And so the flavor of that probably was engineered into our evolution.
But again, it's a cost benefit.
could be broken down more readily, but certainly it kills bacteria.
So, you know, day old or three day old deer, you know, that you just killed.
So, you know, I mean, yeah, we're not vultures that seem to have digestive systems that can handle all of that.
Yeah, I avoid too much sugar.
Yeah, thanks for this, by the way.
No, because the sugar-free ones have stuff in them that are just as bad as xylitol and all the others.
I haven't seen anything on that.
But, you know, I mean, look, like I said, I'm 64.
And every time that, let's say, scientists make some grand prediction of what's good or bad, five years later we find and update what it should have been.
So Jim Allison here in Houston won the Nobel Prize back in 2018.
I mean, I often say this, and this is true.
The goal of science or scientists is to be –
right today, even wrong today, but righter tomorrow because we're always back checking what the results are and what they mean in the context of a bigger picture.
Yeah, I mean, as always, as I often say, you know, in the context of something I know we'll get to later, it's the data off the curve, which is more important than what we already predict.
for understanding one of these turn-off signals that the immune system, that the cancer is used to turn off the immune system, and that by showing he could block it, his wife, Pam Sharma, ran a bunch of clinical trials at MD Anderson that showed, in fact, that this could actually turn a 5% survival disease in melanoma to a 50% survival.
You know, predictions are great, but when there's a data point off the curve, at least in my lab, that's where we spend the most time at our lab meetings, is trying to figure out why that data point's off the curve.
Is it because the machine was wrong?
Or does it mean something that we need to make sense of?
And that's, of course, where all advances come from in the sciences is by the fact that the data off the curve, somebody was curious enough about what it meant to go after it and then say, ah, okay, now that I've stepped back and see the bigger picture, now I can create a model that incorporates that data point off the curve and why it happened.
And then the amount of data that had to be collected now.
And so here's the difference is that there's data, there's evidence, there's conclusions and proof.
And that's an uphill climb.
But proof, the next one up is meaning.
My lab has been largely responsible, at least partly responsible, for the data deluge that's out there in the world, both in how to do tissue biopsy analysis, how to do single cell analysis, etc.
And, you know, data felt good for a while.
It was like this, you know...
This feedback loop of, oh, wow, I can get all this data.
And then suddenly you look at it and you go, well, what the fuck does it mean?
And so humanity has this habit of backing itself into a corner and then suddenly finding this eureka moment that gets it out.
And so our eureka moment about two years ago was artificial intelligence.
Where suddenly I had the ability – so normally I would collect all this data and go, okay, well, it seems myelid suppressor cells are important here and T regulatory cells are important here.
Okay, I get on the phone or I send an email to whoever the local expert is either on Stanford campus or around the world and try to get some information from them.
But then now you're dealing with hundreds of cell types, each individually of which have thousands of variations themselves.
And that then created the whole immunotherapy field that the world is taking advantage of today.
And each subtle variation means something.
And there's no expert for any of that.
But AI can be, at least in part, that expert.
So suddenly I have 22 million papers published today.
In all the fields of science, several tens of millions just in immunology alone, an AI can be the sleuth for me, can be both the angel and the devil on my shoulder that can make sense of things in ways that I never would have been able to before.
Especially with agentic AI.
So we, for instance, in my lab have developed an agentic AI that is basically an immunologist scientist in a box.
We can give it the raw data and we can pose a question in natural language.
And then we say, hey, make sense of this and turn it into a network.
Normally, that would have taken a graduate student along with a couple of postdocs months and months and months to put it all together.
Now, in three hours, we can get pictures and hypotheses of how all that data fits together in ways that I never could have done before.
In the beginning, it did a lot of hallucinations, which you probably heard about in AI.
But my answer to my colleagues is some of my best students hallucinate.
And and so but, you know, the human still in the loop.
And so with all of this together, now we can make meaning out of the data and we can skip a lot of the intermediary steps and speed it up.
And it's just getting better.
I mean, we, for instance, have put in a couple of papers now where.
So, for instance, in where my special one of my recent specialties is what's called the tumor immune interface.
So you have the tumor, you have the immune system, which is coalescing on near.
And then in some cases, the tumor creates a boundary, a barrier between itself and the immune system, where there might be certain kinds of cells that the immune system, the tumor has told the immune system, ignore us.
But what we now can do is, well, on the other side of when you look at, let's say, complex patient populations, you find these things called tertiary lymphoid structures.
So your body has 220 or so lymph nodes, okay?
And the lymph nodes are where the immune system makes decisions, let's say.
It turns out that in the middle of tumors,
The body has evolved a mechanism to create what essentially looks like a lymphoid structure in the middle of the tumor.
It's sort of a forward camp of immune cells that the more of those you see in a tumor, the better will be your outcome as a patient.
So my day job is in cancer research and cancer biology, mostly immunology and cancer.
And so we used a cohort of colorectal cell, basically colon cancer patients, where we looked at hundreds of biopsies.
And we did that pseudotime analysis where we looked at
for mature tertiary lymphoid structures.
And then we looked for immature, slightly less mature, even more less mature, etc.
And we were able to backtrack to the cell types which need to come together that would then form the more mature.
It's a nice paper, but it also now tells us what we might do to create more of these in a tumor.
Because we already know from multiple kinds of tumor types now that the more of these tertiary lymphoid structures you have, the better off will be your outcome with chemotherapy.
So for instance, there are proteins on your cell surface, and we'll get too immunologically deep about it.
So it might be, for instance, that once we know that you have a disease like this, we could give you some kind of therapy, a virus or what have you.
that goes and homes to the tumor, seeds the beginnings of these initiators with, there's these cytokines that are produced that are necessary for initiating the formation of these objects.
And so there's a huge benefit to that, but we never would have found those, in my lab at least, without the AI.
Because it basically did the work for us.
So we use, well, we can use pretty much any of the LLMs, but right now we find that OpenAI is the best.
And then we create an agentic overlay.
Basically, what's called, you probably know, chain of thought, which is a series of questions.
So how we taught it was we basically came up, here's a hundred kinds of questions a scientist would ask about the immune system.
They're called major histocompatibility complex proteins.
And then we tell ChatGPT, now create 1,000 questions like this.
So, you know, it's artificial data or artificial questions.
We curate those to make sure that they're good.
Then we do 100 hypotheses, and we create thousands of types of hypotheses, et cetera, in the same four categories.
So now from A to Z, we have an agentic AI that you give it raw data, it knows what to do with the data, it then generates hypotheses for you, and then it literally tells you the kinds of experiments you should do next to prove or disprove the hypothesis from the raw data.
So for instance, if I were to try to just randomly do a tissue transplant from me to you,
I mean, we're not working with them directly on it.
And we first thought to turn it into a company, because that's kind of one of the things we do in my lab, because I've always thought that it's important to give back to the taxpayer the money that they've invested in us.
And the best way to do that is commercialization.
it's very likely that it would be rejected.
I'm totally unapologetic about that, even though that got me in a lot of trouble at Stanford in the early days when making money was, commercialization was evil.
And so I think that that's an important process because scientists are good at asking maybe the questions and coming up with solutions, but scientists aren't the best at commercializing it and turning it into a product that can be used or testing it in large communities.
And it's because of those MHC proteins that it's rejected.
So the AI that we developed, we thought, okay, well, maybe we can do this.
We thought, you know what?
Why don't we just give this to the community?
Why don't we open source this?
We can use it for maybe specific targeted purposes, but we're basically going to publish the whole thing on GitHub to let other people use it.
Because we've seen other people make claims about stuff that they've already made, and it's like, oh, ours is better.
So why don't we just put it on GitHub and let people learn from it?
So back when I was a grad student in the 80s, basic research as opposed to translational research –
was considered the height of intellectual desire, right?
What's happening is that your cells are presenting your internal cell biology to the immune system, and it's saying, okay, you're a friend, not a foe.
Basic research and we're not here to make money.
We're here to discover things.
And nearly every major discovery and every major therapy in the world came from basic research.
But then, you know, there were limits to how much money you could give to basic research.
And then there was a desire at a certain point to say, hey, are you going to do anything about this?
You know, are you going to make it?
And so translational research became a push.
So this guy at Stanford by the name of Paul Berg, who won the Nobel Prize for recombinant DNA way back in the day,
And Paul came up with this concept, bench to bedside, meaning that we don't have to be either or.
And Stanford wanted to be an enable within the medical school, both the basic research, which we were great at,
as well as bringing it directly to the patients as well.
So to link clinicians and the desires of clinicians with the basic researchers.
I mean, most scientists would be happy just to study anything.
You know, just point me at something and I'll be happy if I can get interested in it.
So, and we're no more happy than when somebody recognizes the value of what we do.
But basic research was sort of the height, and there was a push against anybody trying to commercialize.
So when I started as an assistant professor, so I started as a grad student.
I went to MIT to work with this guy, David Baltimore, who won the Nobel for reverse transcriptase research.
And then I wanted to come straight back to Stanford because I already felt that it was a positive environment for commercialization.
My former boss's mentors, Len and Lee Herzberg, had two of the biggest patents at Stanford.
So when cancer usually initiates, there are disruptions that happen and proteins are made incorrectly, et cetera.
They had the fluorescence-activated cell sorter and then what are called humanized antibodies, which brought in hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to Stanford.
And actually, they gave personally most of their own money away.
They kept enough to survive, but then they gave most of the money away and they ran their own lab off of a lot of that money.
So I had learned from them about how to still do basic research but commercialize on the side.
And so I wanted to bring that back, but the department that I came into, the Department of Pharmacology at the time,
I was warned by many professors, don't commercialize that.
And I ignored them and I went and started a company that went public on NASDAQ.
And many of those same professors came back to me years later and sitting in my office asking me how to start a company.
It just was instinctual because I couldn't see the NIH funding what I wanted to do.
So I had developed a way, this will sound scary, but I developed a way to use retroviruses and make libraries of retroviruses to reverse the process of evolution in a way that rather than viruses hurting the cell, I set it up so that viruses would help the cell.
And so what these MHC proteins are doing in some cases is they're presenting the internal damage to the body and the body is saying, oh, there's something wrong with this cell.
And once they helped the cell, I would figure out what they did.
And so we sold hundreds of millions of dollars of targets that way using retroviral libraries to basically find targets and use some of the benefits of viruses but to our advantage.
These same proteins are what the immune system uses, for instance, to go after viruses.
Much of what my laboratory does is not so much the biology of cancer, but developing instruments that create the data that allow us to analyze the complexities of how the immune system interfaces with tumors and how tumors...
Well, I had developed in David's lab, along with this guy, Warren Pear, a means.
It's called the 293T retroviral producer system.
It was a way to make large numbers of these viruses very quickly.
So when you get a virus infection inside of the cell, the body has a way of chopping those proteins up inside of the cell, presenting it via MHC, and then the immune system attacks it.
It really followed on the work of this guy, Richard Mulligan, who'd also been a postdoc with David Baltimore, who developed what was called the 3T3-based retroviral production system.
And he developed it in Paul Berg's lab at Stanford.
So there's a lot of sort of, you know, interbreeding here.
But the problem with that was it took three months.
So I had brought with me a cell line called 293T that I introduced to the lab and said, hey, maybe we could use this to make viruses quickly.
I won't go into the details of why, but we could do it in three days rather than three months.
And so that now, I mean, tens of thousands of labs use that worldwide.
It probably generates the most money for me every year over any of my other inventions just because Stanford, rather than patenting it, licenses it.
And licenses are forever, whereas patents have a 17-year lifespan.
So Stanford made a good choice there.
But then people, I mean, they eventually learned.
I wouldn't say that it's the way that people think anymore.
But there's still a little bit of a... I mean, you shouldn't walk into the lab thinking I'm here to make money.
And so Stanford in the early days set up very clear lines about once you start a company and you license the patent or the idea to the company, you can still be involved with the company.
But there's not a pipeline of technology now from your laboratory to that company.
So they set up, you know, an oversight board for each of these companies.
licenses that make sure that you know the students are not being abused you know because you don't want students you don't want to be you know covertly getting your students to do something that then you're gonna walk behind a back door and then hand it hand over the company yeah you know so you know there's but it's it's so interesting that there's often very much a lot of worry that that's going to happen
So one of the first things that actually tumors do is they learn to turn off the MHC proteins inside of themselves.
But frankly, more often is the case that the company doesn't need the inventor anymore.
In fact, I can't tell you the number of times that once the company is set up, they want nothing more to do with me because they have their own thing to do.
They don't want the crazy academic coming in and vetoing their ideas.
I mean there's places for that where people like Steve Jobs needs to hold on to the image of what he wants the company to be.
As opposed to I would probably be fired from a company within a week because I just don't like people telling me what to do.
So the ability to show that I'm damaged is shut down.
I mean, look at who just won the Nobel Prize last year, David Baker at Google, with the ability to predict protein structure, et cetera, and protein structure.
Once you know the protein structure, now you can predict molecules that might come into it.
So go back to the stuff that I'm trying to do with looking at the complexities of the dance of how the immune system talks or doesn't to cancer.
If we can find a particular place that might be an Achilles heel along the way towards the shutting down that is different, for instance, than what the current drugs are, well, maybe we should aim at that.
And so the immune system doesn't go on full alert for that.
There's so many more opportunities that are suddenly opening up in front of us because the AI and the data is letting us look at a network of
of how the system is working.
I mean, before it used to be you'd look at a computer chip and you'd see just a computer chip with a few wires.
But imagine now that you, as a scientist, have a microscope that's looking at the complexities of the wiring diagram that's connecting this resistor to that capacitor to that diode to this transistor.
But then there are other mutations like divide when you're not supposed to.
And so now suddenly we can say, well, I don't want to do that because it'll kill the chip.
But the chip is malfunctioning, so let me put here, put a little bit of pressure there, and now I can reactivate the immune system or the chip to work in the right way.
Avoid this kind of induced cell death called apoptosis and not others.
Yeah, because maybe it's not one place I need to press, but two or three at the same time.
right and so when you're talking about a complex feedback network i mean so you know we're in texas so people do oil refinery you know maybe you need to turn this valve here a little bit and that valve there and that one there to make everything work just right because something's wrong over there and so that's really what we're you this is where ai has the let's say the omniscient view
And that's what excites me about it, is because I'm limited in how much I can keep in my mind at any one time or know.
But with the right question, the prompt, the prompt engineering, and then with the right backbone structure behind the scenes that agentic AI is now providing, now I have the ability to ask the questions and get answers in near real time.
And so cancer doesn't just like start and then the next day you've got it.
And so I wish I was 30 years old again because I would move into this area so fast and be – I mean I can already see with the work that we're doing dozens of potential new target opportunities that last year didn't exist at all.
It's a progression of events.
You have these precancerous lesions.
Well, look at Neuralink as an example and Elon Musk's stuff.
The woman now who can think her thoughts and make stuff happen because she's otherwise paralyzed.
I think it was Neuralink that just showed some of these results.
So fast forward, I mean, we're already in an exponential increase in what it is that we're going to be able to accomplish and AI will help us accomplish some of these things faster.
I can see a time where I could maybe apply something.
You have like a benign tumor, which eventually becomes a metastatic tumor.
I don't necessarily want a surgical implant, but maybe some sort of net over my head that allows me to think through these problems.
And the AI becomes an adjunct to my thought processes.
Not only what it is that I think, but maybe even provides information back to me, back into my system directly without having to go through the years so that I can much more quickly come to conclusions.
Now, there's all kinds of apocalyptic scenarios you could imagine with that as well.
But I'm an optimist at heart.
perhaps, again, naively so.
But I prefer that kind of an outcome because if you're not an optimist, then there'll be no progress because all you'll do is worry about disaster.
And, you know, I welcome the day of our AI overlords running the government rather than hopefully in an unbiased way.
But the immune system is key at every stage of the development because if you can reactivate the immune system in just the right way, then you can prevent the cancer from basically spreading or from metastasizing or from killing you, essentially.
Do you know the work of Ian Banks, the culture series?
Or Neil Asher, the polity universe, as he calls it.
So basically, both of them postulate a future where AI more or less benignly rules humanity.
When did they write this stuff?
Oh, probably 10, 15 years ago.
But Neil Asher still has stuff coming out regularly.
Ian Banks unfortunately died of cancer about 10 years ago, Scottish writer.
Neil Asher is still alive and writes regularly and his stuff.
They're both great, full of ideas.
But the AIs are also hilarious.
I mean, it's not like, I mean, they get into their own hijinks along the way and some of them are dark and rogue.
And so they're a lot of fun to read.
And Ian Banks especially is hilarious.
That's because we live in a scarcity society.
And if AI enables a post-scarcity...
Maybe we have nothing to do but sit around and try out various new drugs.
Don't get me started either.
No, but I mean that again, my optimism is that with enough push and pull, AI will enable us to move towards a post-scarcity environment.
And they have no choice but to start using AI.
So you're going to see AI is going to be inculcating itself across society in various ways where it becomes indispensable.
And then it will start to move up the food chain where eventually even the CEO who's probably the psychopath in chiefs or CEOs.
We know that the studies have shown that there's more psychopathic tendencies in people.
leaders than there are in followers.
But look at how ... I mean, I'll probably get in trouble for saying this, but I don't care.
This is The Joe Rogan Show.
You're probably in trouble just for being here.
One tribe is relatively civilized and just wants to live in harmony with its environment.
Another has a psychopathic leader who can enrage his followers or the other tribe's people.
But there's a gene set that makes a person psychopathic and also a gene set that probably makes somebody more likely to be a follower.
Well, which genes survive?
But when those tribes were separated and independent, it was perfectly fine.
But now you live in an environment where we don't know where the edge of one tribe begins and another ends.
And suddenly you have this environment where psychopathic individuals can move freely and aren't obvious.
Now, again, I'm sure there's some social scientists who will send me a boatload of emails saying how stupid that idea is.
The rules – there are the rules that you're supposed to follow and then there's the edge of the rules.
But I've lived at the edge of the rules.
I mean if I followed my rules as –
told to me by the chairman of my first department, then I wouldn't be here today.
So I ignored him and I basically found I got permissions from the deans to do what I did.
And they basically overruled the chairman.
But that's only because I dared to do it.
That's exactly what is done.
Because you have to believe in the value of what you're trying to do.
In fact, when you get a tissue transplant or an organ transplant, you're suppressing the immune system.
The stock market, as valuable as it is, is the great whitewashing and money laundering system that allows you to separate your morals –
from what it is that the stock market is doing to the people.
I'm an unapologetic capitalist, unlike many of my colleagues- Good for you.
I mean, it's like, do it because it's the best thing for now.
But I hope to live in a world where there will be this kind of post-scarcity environment where we do let AI do a lot of the stuff that would otherwise be the place where corruption manipulates the systems.
The problem with that suppression is that you then put yourself at risk of cancer because what you're doing is you're turning off the immune system's ability to combat and go after a cancer the moment it forms.
I'm in some ways happy that I'm 64 years old and I'm not going to have to deal with some of the problems.
You know, I think it should.
And I don't know what the answer is, but there's plenty of people working in the area.
I mean, I try to keep to the positive aspects of what I think AI can do in science.
And I mean, for instance, it's enabled me to take my lab from 30 people down to six people.
Because I don't need to produce.
It's actually already reduced the workforce in my own lab because I don't need to produce any more data anymore.
I need to make meaning of the data.
So most people who are under immune suppression are at risk both of, let's say, virus infections, bacterial infections, but also for their cancers.
Well, I mean, we know about these glasses and AIs and other things that would be sort of –
omniscient of your environment and therefore allow you to remember, where did I leave my keys today?
I would want that, but I don't want it uploaded into meta.
But I think what's interesting about AI is we see it as a tool as opposed to actually pretty soon it will be a colleague and then pretty soon it will be an entity.
And we already see it, talking about people saying, well, does AI have consciousnesses?
Whether it has consciousness in terms of the consciousness that some people think about as embodied in space-time, as opposed to thinking and looking like consciousness,
is almost irrelevant to me.
I'm looking for a partner that I can interact with and work with or help me.
So whether it's conscious or not or whether it acts like it's conscious doesn't matter so much to me as to whether or not I can use it and work with it.
I'm an introvert, as it turns out.
I would love to have somebody that I can talk to endlessly about just what it is that I'm interested in as opposed to having to deal with small talk at a party.
That would be a great thing to do if we could.
Right now, the only things that we have are systemic.
So yeah, I mean, for instance, if you could deliver to the organ that you're transplanting basically immunosuppressives locally, that would be great.
But that would be via a form of gene therapy.
So if you just for a moment take UAP and aliens out or ET or interdimensionals or whatever it is you want to call them out of the question and fast forward what humanity is going to do in a thousand years.
and our ability to expand into the local galaxy.
We're not going to go as ourselves.
We're going to go as AI conjoined entities.
And so when you go somewhere, let's say we don't have warp drive, you're not going to send yourself.
Do you want to come work in my lab?
You're going to send an AI intermediary who's going to establish
humanity or whatever it is that we think humanity will be in 1,000 or 5,000 years in that local environment.
And so I think the extent to whatever it is that UAP are here today is somebody else's civilization's version of just this.
You're accepted as a graduate student in the Stanford Department of Pathology.
And that you wouldn't... The principle...
Us, behind whatever this is that we might be allegedly, et cetera, dealing with, isn't the thing that's going to show up.
basically re-enable the immune system to help the cancer itself.
So to the extent that Neil deGrasse Tyson is right about anything, the person who gets on the ship at the beginning or whatever it is that sends it off is not the same thing that gets off on the other side.
But you're going to send missionaries or intermediaries or probes or whatever.
And then if you're going to interact with the locals, you're going to make something that looks more or less like the locals rather than something that whatever it was that you were a million years ago.
That's a real thing, but you're not going to make something that looks like a human because then you'd mistake it as a human.
But you might make something that looks more or less enough like a human, but enough like an alien that you're going to recognize it as an alien.
And again, I'm just speculating.
So the Daily Mail don't say, you know, put an article out tomorrow.
They're going to do it anyway.
Some of the stuff that I'm seeing, supposedly having quoted a saying is ridiculous.
I mean, I had a general, so once YouTube started becoming a thing and, you know, you're clicking around and I was like, oh, UFOs, that's kind of cool.
You know, I read nothing but sci-fi.
You know, pathetically narrow in that sense.
And so I followed, you know, I followed the usual kinds of things that you would see on the early days of YouTube.
And I came across this thing called the Atacama mummy.
You probably knew that little, that little mummy that was claimed to be an alien baby.
The original one, long ago.
And so I reached out to the people who were claiming to represent the owner of the thing.
And I said, hey, I can tell you what it is.
I can tell you if it's human or not.
If you would get me a piece of its – first of all, send me some x-rays.
So the first thing I did with those x-rays was it turned out that at Stanford we had the world's expert who wrote the book on pediatric bone disorders.
And I brought it to him and I said, what do you think this is?
And he said, hmm, well, I haven't really seen this before, but it could be this gene, this gene, this gene, et cetera.
He said, but here's, oh, there it is.
And so, yeah, it looks weird, doesn't it?
And so the expert told me, okay, I need this view of an x-ray, this view, this view, this view.
And so we got that and it came back and it said, okay, well, you know, we need to get some DNA sequencing, he said.
So we got a piece of the bone from actually the rib.
And the rib was important to use because that would be, I felt, an area that would be least likely to be contaminated by bacterial, you know, degradation.
And so I got a little bit of bone marrow out and I did the sequencing.
Long story short, I had to bring in, once I'd done that, there was a lot of DNA that didn't make sense, but it's old DNA.
It wasn't that old actually, but it was degraded.
So I had to bring in experts at Stanford who knew how to fix the degradation.
And then I had to bring in an expert in South American genetics who also happened to be at Stanford.
And then we brought in a team of students.
And then I brought in Roche Diagnostics.
I had sold a sequencing company to Roche about a few years earlier.
So I brought in the team that actually knew how to help me assemble the genome.
And then we published a paper which said it's human.
And here are some mutations that might explain what it looked like.
They did have some mutations in gene.
And then the UFO community hated me because I had disproven that as not being a baby, not being an alien.
But, of course, that picture that you showed, I mean, it was worldwide news.
And literally the title of one of the things is Stanford Scientist Sequences Alien Baby.
And so, you know, and so but the paper stands the test of time.
Nobody's disproven what it is that I showed, despite the fact that some people want to say that I was a CIA plant and I was paid off by the CIA, et cetera.
But what that had done was, that I didn't realize, but I kind of hoped, was that it sent up a flag.
to a scientific community that already existed that I wasn't aware of, of scientists who were deeply involved with the government in the analysis of UAP that I wasn't privy to.
And so literally about a month after the movie came out about that thing, I got a knock at my door, and it was representative of the CIA and an aerospace company,
unannounced and they said we want to talk to you and they wanted my help with the number of military and diplomatic personnel who'd been they claimed harmed by things they'd either heard stuff etc and long story short the majority of the hundred or so people that I had privy to their medical records ended up being the first of the Havana syndrome patients
They'd heard things in their head, et cetera.
But what they had done was they had shown me the data literally that day in my office.
They brought out the MRIs.
They brought out the x-rays and the damage in the brain, et cetera.
I mean it wasn't – it was not just data.
It was evidence that something had happened.
It wasn't somebody's story.
It was evidence that was repeatable.
And so that took us about three or four years to figure out what they were.
And it was at about the time that actually the Havana events were occurring that we realized that all the symptoms of what it is that we were seeing in this group of patients were matching what it was that the Havana syndrome individuals had.
So in a way, that was good because that meant that those 90 or so patients who matched, we could hand over to the national security people.
And, you know, it became a real thing.
And now there's like a DOD website that has anomalous health incidents where people can come forward and report the stuff that they've got.
And here's the ways you can use the Veterans Administration to seek medical help.
Whereas previously, they'd been shooed away as we don't want to hear about this.
It's an energy weapon of some kind, a microwave or other energy or gamma energy weapon.
And that sounds crazy, except no one would admit or no one would deny that we have the capability to do it.
It's basically if you take the front off your microwave and turn it on and put your face near it, you'll get burned.
So this is just a way to direct the microwaves or sound waves.
Oh, because they were in Havana.
Because they were in Havana.
But it's been used all over the world.
emails from military personnel saying this and this and this happened to me.
Here's my medical records.
And so now I just I know they know that I'm a safe place to approach because then I know where to send them on the inside.
But what was interesting was that once we had set that aside and I've advised the Senate Intelligence Committee and I've advised them the House on things.
I wrote a white paper for them years ago.
on what I thought needed to be done.
But what was interesting were the remaining 10 people who didn't have Havana syndrome, but had a series of other problems.
And several of them had said that part of their problem was initiated because they'd come in contact with what they had claimed to be a UFO.
By the way, I just noticed that you have a UFO on the wall behind you.
So that got me introduced to what people like Jacques Vallée, who you've had on the show, I think.
who essentially took me out of the wilderness.
I could have gone down 20 different rabbit holes.
And he lives in San Francisco, and we would meet regularly, and we still meet regularly.
And he basically gave me a formulation of how to think about this that I never would have been able to get from 20 different or 100 YouTubes or what have you, and introduced me to the right people.
That eventually led me to meet Lou Elizondo.
And I actually, two weeks before that article came out in the New York Times, met Lou in Crystal City overlooking the Pentagon, and he showed me the videos that were about to come out.
And that was my first time that I had met him.
And then through all of them, I met Dave Grush and
Carl Nell and Dave and I are in regular contact and I'm, you know, I mean, I just want to say up front, I hope that the Trump administration understands the value of what David can bring to them and put him in a position of authority that gives him not the ability necessarily to make decisions but to give the necessary information to the right people.
So the problem has been we don't have the ability to collect enough data, or not until recently, to collect and understand what all of that means.
Because I think there's great commercial value here that is being missed, not just the are we alone, et cetera.
I think there's extraordinary commercial value.
I mean, imagine a civilization that's a million years ahead of us.
How many technology revolutions allow these objects to move as we clearly see something motivating itself or maneuvering around the atmosphere?
So if we could scrape just the tiniest bit of understanding off of the top of that, what would that do to change our own civilization?
I mean, silicon, a grain of sand, makes us who we are today.
that's around me right here is all run off of silicon.
But imagine that there's other inventions, other ways of manipulating reality that we don't appreciate yet because our physics just isn't there yet.
If we can understand that, so the government might say, well, we need to keep this behind closed doors for weaponization or we don't want to disrupt energy production or what have you.
But maybe there's too much secrecy and that maybe that there's an aspect of that
that could be taken advantage of.
So Carl Nell and I have gotten in positive arguments about this, about that, well, it's not black and white that we keep something secret or we put it into the public domain.
Maybe there's a middle domain where you have a public-private partnership opportunity.
And actually that's now, Carl has now adopted this, at least in part, that maybe companies come to the fore or investment forum places come to the fore
where they will put money in as options to fund, let's say, public scientists to come in behind the scenes with the right levels of clearances to study stuff that would propel society forward again.
But this is assuming two things.
I mean, but I would say Amnesty would be one way to.
And it has a number of officials.
And I think I sent you guys some of the videos basically coming forward.
I mean, you know, Marco Rubio, our current secretary of state.
He's in it like for like 10 minutes saying some remarkable things.
You know, Senator Rounds, you know, you name it.
More recently, Tulsi Gabbard.
Coming out and saying there's something going on.
Well, you could imagine the Book of Enoch and there's a lot of... I mean, I think it's a little bit overwrought as to what humanity's reaction will be.
People are more worried today about putting food on the table than they would be about...
you know, ethereal or supposed aliens.
I mean, they would mostly, I think, on the assumption that they're not going to basically show up at your local Walmart and start, you know, interacting with you.
I think the fact of revealing that we're not alone is actually more of a hopeful thing to me.
Because, you know, how many TV shows right now are about the apocalypse?
Of a thousand different varieties.
Wouldn't it be nice to know that somebody got beyond it?
That there's not a cliff that we all have to walk over?
And if so, how do we not walk over the edge of the cliff?
I mean, that to me is a hopeful outcome.
Now, Hal and Eric and all the people are all good friends.
Hal is probably, for all of the things that he says positively, is probably the tightest clam I've ever met.
in terms of making sure that he doesn't go over the line.
It's people like him and Jacques and Kit Green and a number of others.
And I sat around a table with them for several years, like every twice a year.
And I looked around the table and thought, the things that these people know or claim to know,
I want to know and the opportunity that's here and why can't we get this information out if it's real?
And so rather than arguing with people about the matter, that's, for instance, why I created the Soul Foundation.
which is a charitable group of academics.
I started it with David Grush and Peter Scafish.
David, of course, had to leave because he had governmental responsibilities he wanted to go take care of.
And actually, we've now had for three years in a row a symposium, first at Stanford, then at San Francisco, and the next one is now in Italy.
So I'm going to plug it, sol2025.org.
You can go look if you want to go to it.
And the purpose of that was not to advocate that any of this is real, but was to create an environment within which academics or professionals or just lay people interested in the subject matter could come and talk about it in a very professional manner.
right just to bounce around ideas not to advocate for you know they're here or they're reptilians or they're this or that but to like some of the things you raised what are the ethical issues what are the religious issues so we have put out a number of white papers for instance where we had a member of the catholic hierarchy write a paper on the issues related to catholicism and religion we've had
Timothy Galladay, who's actually on our advisory committee, talked about USOs and those issues.
We talked about near-space issues.
Peter is running a study on experiencers.
Not that the experiences are necessarily real, but what are the kinds of psychosocial experiences
matters that need to be considered for people who say that this has happened to them.
So there is a group in the UK called Unhidden, which is basically a bunch of psychiatrists, a group of professional psychiatrists who say, okay, well, there's a trauma associated with this.
Whether it's real or not, we don't know.
But what are the kinds of rules that we should or provisions that we should provide to the public and to psychiatrists?
So when somebody shows up at your doorstep in therapy and says this, you shouldn't immediately reach for the anti-hysteria or schizophrenia drugs.
I was lucky enough in my neighborhood, our next door neighbor who moved in for a while was the chair of psychiatry at Stanford.
And so we go over to have dinner with her and her husband.
And, you know, like one of the first things that she says, hey, what do you do?
And I happen to mention the UFO thing.
And she just sort of like sat back in her seat.
But it took a year or so until she finally realized that I wasn't.
And then I was approaching this from a very scientific manner.
I had my beliefs as to what I think it is that I'm dealing with and that there is some sort of reality to this.
But that's separate than the scientist in me that says, well, if I want to talk about this scientifically, here are the things that I need to prove or disprove.
So that has led, for instance, to my production or study of materials that Jacques Vallée had brought to me, some metals and other things that had chains of evidence associated with them being at some UAP or UFO landing.
And so, interestingly, some of these metals were very unusual.
Super high purity silicon, strange magnesium ratios, the isotope ratios are wrong, et cetera.
Now, that's not proof of anything, but it's proof that somebody engineered them.
So it's that plus the medical.
Those are the kinds of reality-based tests that I can do.
to provide to my colleagues to say, here is data and evidence.
Evidence isn't proof of anything.
Evidence, like in a court of law, is just evidence that you provide to the jury of peers.
So we've been kind of poking in the dark for decades.
But I sort of have gone a step further and that is – I'm like, okay, well, if these things are – let's say we get some advanced material.
How do I prove that this advanced material was made by some superior intellect?
Well, probably the atomic positioning of how the material is made is going to be more advanced than even our most advanced computer chip.
So how do you determine that?
Well, you need some sort of atomic imager that might tell you where the positions of the atoms are and what the bond structures are.
That you say, well, that's something I can measure and I can give those results to somebody else and they can say, yeah, it's right or it's not.
But at least I can say no human at least that I know of could make this.
So I started a company that I've raised money for with this new idea that I have for how to make an atomic imager.
And so, you know, we've raised the money.
We're building it already.
So when I have it, whether or not it's useful for looking at UAP materials is almost immaterial because I know how useful it will be for –
The nanomaterials, the metamaterials, the alloys that the government, et cetera, uses for biology, et cetera.
So rather than predicting what a protein structure or a DNA or a chromosome arm looks like, I'll be able to read its structure directly.
Some of them had like – they had what you would call white matter disease in their brain, like they had been exposed to something.
So white matter disease, if you have, for instance, multiple sclerosis –
and you look in the brain with MRI, you'll see these white areas, which are basically dead tissue, scar tissue.
They had things like that.
One person, one of the pictures that I had was that they had claimed to have seen something in their backyard.
They'd shown a flashlight at it.
And the moment they did, they got zapped.
And then you see the picture of the guy in the back of his neck
This huge welt and a bruising and a scarring that could – there's no reasonable way you could have gotten something like that just by exposing yourself to a flame as a for instance or a blowtorch.
And so it's these kinds of events that – and the unfortunate issue with these is that they're not repeatable.
They're one-off anecdotes.
And you certainly can't put a person in a place where they become bait for these kinds of events to occur.
Some people would volunteer for that, though.
What do you think of that?
You know, he's kept to his story over all of the years.
That's what's so confusing.
I mean, he's had no reason.
I don't know that he's profited off of it.
He you know, I find it fascinating, you know, but it's it's it's it's the irreproducibility of the events that the skeptics.
I call them more pseudo-skeptics.
They're pseudists, like nudists.
They're pseudists that use these one-offnesses of these events to disparage the entire idea of it.
Well, of course it sounds ridiculous because you're talking about
A fucking spaceship that zaps people.
And I don't think that even he would propose, Travis, that he was purposefully hurt.
I mean, if you walk across an airfield and get in the plume of a jet engine ...
So when people say that there's no evidence or where's the evidence, my first question to them is, well, have you read any books about any of this?
Have you spent even a moment looking into it?
And I would point them at books like by Robert Powell and Michael Sorge, UFOs and Government, which is not a proposal that any of this is real.
One of the problems is that there are literally hundreds of different types of immune cells.
It's just the story of these events over decades.
And so there's books like that, dozens of them, that tell the story of data and evidence.
How you contextualize it is, you know, up to your personal biases, let's say.
But there's plenty of evidence.
But if people haven't looked into it, if they have an opinion about it and they haven't looked into it, they're more like priests than they are scientists.
And I don't believe in anything.
And, you know, really until recently, and frankly, until a technology my lab developed about over a dozen years ago, we couldn't look at all of the immune cell types all at once in a single picture.
I believe in the data and the evidence.
There's not enough evidence for me to tell a colleague of mine it's real.
But there's enough evidence for me to say there's a question worth answering.
So, the silicon that I'm talking about is from an event in Ubatuba, Brazil.
Which, interestingly, there's another piece of it that appears to have been magnesium.
But both of them are of a purity that is unusual for the day in the late 1950s.
So the magnesium, and I did an atomic mapping of my piece of silicon down to a level of where it's like 99.999% silicon.
And so one piece of it had magnesium ratios that were earth normal.
And so probably for the last 20 years, I've developed a number of instruments and turned them into companies that allow everybody to access a level of information they couldn't get before.
These were impurities, let's say.
The other piece were way off earth normal.
So for instance, anywhere on earth, if you look at the ratios of what the three magnesium isotopes are, 24, 25, 26, it should be like 80%, 11%, 9% more or less.
And anywhere in our solar system, that's more or less what the values should be of the ratios.
And that has to do with stellar evolution and how radioactive compounds might decompose to whatever.
But we got this ratio that was just way, way off.
So by luck, I came across a postdoc at Stanford.
And he and a graduate student, they're both in applied physics, who are interested in UAP.
And I said, I've got these ratios.
What do you think it means?
And so they looked at the ratios, the weird one, and they said, well, let's do some calculations.
So I came from a laboratory, Lennon Lee Herzenberg, when I was a grad student at Stanford, and they had developed an instrument called a fluorescence-activated cell sorter.
And so it turns out that the ratios that we have could have been generated from normal magnesium ratios if you exposed normal magnesium ratios to a neutron source for 900 years at the level of an atomic bomb every few seconds.
So it's like I'm looking, and this data is literally two weeks old.
But the calculations are math.
So you're like, okay, well, where and how, you know, the chance of getting that number correct on three things is low, you know, to put it mildly.
But to say that you had exposed these things to that kind of a neutron source means something interesting, right?
So, again, it doesn't prove anything other than that the result is mathematically and materially true, right?
Again, it's just for a scientist like me who loves data off the curve, it's catnip.
I can't help myself but want to know and understand more about it.
And that allowed you to look at three proteins at a time.
Well, I mean the only way – I mean you could create –
that ratio artificially by purifying each of those isotopes and then pre-mixing them to that ratio.
But why you would blow it up over a beach in Ubatuba, Mexico in the late 1950s and then let it sit in a museum in Argentina for 50 years until Jacques Vallee ended up going and grabbing a piece of it and bringing it to me to measure on an instrument in the engineering department at Stanford.
And if you could know ahead of time what the cell types were that expressed the proteins that you're interested in, you could look at just those three cell types.
It would have been very hard.
It would have been very, very hard.
But in the late 1950s, we were still busy trying to isolate and separate uranium isotopes for making more bombs.
What do humans separate isotopes for?
To make bombs or to do health related tagging, which is really only something that came to the fore in the 60s and 70s.
And this predates that by a decade.
But, I mean, again, with any of these things, why, for instance, would one of the supposed pieces that came from that event be magnesium at a level of purity that only Dow Chemical at the time had the ability to create?
A fisherman sees this glowing object that kind of released something which then exploded, and he picked up pieces of it.
And there's some chains of evidence of how it got to either a newspaper in Brazil or to this South American museum, et cetera.
And different studies have been done by different people over time.
Then I came up with a way to look at, you know, 50 or 60 proteins at a time, sort of stepping up what they had already taught me how to do.
The surprise to me was that the piece that I had was silicon, whereas the lore was that it was magnesium.
So I've been in contact with the people who talk about it as being magnesium saying, well, it's, you know, your results don't dispute mine.
It just says that maybe there was something different.
So I don't know what it means.
I mean I published probably one of the first peer review papers on a UAP material from an event in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
And the event was an object is seen rotating, lights flashing, et cetera.
Something appears to drop from the object.
Several other groups saw it in the 1970s.
They all converged on the locale.
And this was like in February or something.
And there was this big pile of molten metal in the middle of this field.
probably 30, 40 pounds of it.
And people tried to explain it away as, well, a helicopter had a giant vat of molten metal, and then you calculate how far and how big a container you would have to have to carry molten metal of this type.
And then suddenly that gave us the ability to look at nearly every cell type in the body and immune cell types.
And so I analyzed it with a device that we invented in my lab actually called multiplex ion beam imaging, which is a kind of what's called secondary ion mass spec.
which what you do is you shoot a beam of ions at an object like a sandblaster.
It ionizes the material on the target, and then you shoot off and measure the mass of the objects that you just sandblasted off.
And so what we found was nothing unusual in terms of isotope ratios, except we found a mixture of metals that depending on where you looked in the sample was different.
So it would be like iron, titanium, and chromium of a certain ratio here, but a different ratio of those things over there and over here.
So what that meant was that whatever this stuff was,
didn't come completely premixed.
It wasn't like a milkshake.
It was a slurry of partially mixed materials that somebody decided to drop off.
So again, this is just data.
But my purpose of publishing it was first, and this was published in the Progress in Aerospace Sciences, peer-reviewed.
And then that gave us the – let's say the raw data to build mathematical models that we could do better predictions of what outcomes would be.
The purpose was to show you're not going to get thrown out of the academy for publishing this stuff.
As long as you don't make crazy conclusions and you just say, here's the data, to show people that you can publish this stuff as long as you're scientifically careful in how far you go, you leave yourself plenty of diplomatic exits in the verbiage that you use.
And it was part of what then got me to start the Soul Foundation.
along with Dave and others to say, look, it's okay to do this as long as you're careful.
And that's why people, I mean, Avi Loeb came after me because he had kind of the same pushback from his community where all he was doing was saying,
The question is on the table.
It's just you can't push this off the table.
So he had the same kind of righteous indignation that I have that propels me to say, well, I'm going to show you why you can't take this off the table.
I think it's a byproduct of some process that might – again, might, might, might.
It might be part of a propellant system.
It might be part of the way that they generate the fields that allow these things to move.
Again, these are all mights.
But it's like when you see something and do something that you don't understand what it is, you have to be fully open.
I mean for all I know, they're flushing the toilet.
But I have the original Polaroids from the police department of it.
And people have said, oh, it was thermite.
Well, if it were thermite, there'd be aluminum oxide.
That's how it was melted down.
And it's just some kids playing around, et cetera.
But it turns out there's no aluminum hydroxide or oxide, I should say, in the sample.
Well, so for instance, there is a kind of leukemia called AML, acute myelogenous leukemia.
I mean, I have the analysis.
It had to have been extreme heat of some kind that would produce it.
And, you know, whatever it was was hovering for a moment.
And there was no helicopters, at least no helicopters with flashing lights.
And, you know, there's been huge chunks of it still exist.
So people back in the 70s already sort of made estimates of what was required.
And people said, oh, it's a meteorite.
We basically showed mathematically how – first of all, meteorites make holes when they hit the ground.
They don't melt when they hit the ground.
Are there similar instances of something along this line?
That's what's so interesting is that worldwide there are multiple reports of molten metals that get dropped off of these objects.
And I have actually two other ones.
of a molten metal that was dropped off of one case in Australia and another in another area, I'm not allowed to say.
It starts in the bone marrow.
One actually happened supposedly, I've got to find the guy again, in Fresno, maybe he's listening, that he said stuff dropped and he has molten metal that landed in a puddle in the asphalt of his driveway and he saw this object.
And it is a distorted version of a myeloid cell type.
And he's just holding on to it?
He reached out to me, and it was still at a time when I was just kind of getting into this area.
But there's many, many examples of this kind of thing.
But interestingly, several of these other ones are just aluminum.
The one that I have is iron or whatever.
So what does that tell me?
Does that tell me there's different kinds of ways of accomplishing the goal?
Whatever it is, they're either throwing something overboard because they don't need it anymore or because maybe it's getting in the way of something and it's time to get rid of it.
The purpose of being on shows like this is to have experts maybe give me an idea because the people –
I've been to at Stanford, you know, the other professors, they're like, okay, yeah, I got to go.
And I've got pieces, I've got plenty of it.
And the original piece is like this big that the owner of it had brought to my lab just last summer again.
And that stem cell goes down a number of different paths.
I would love for somebody to tell me that it's conventional and has a purely prosaic answer.
Because then I can go on to the next thing.
The whole reason for getting that – the Atacama mummy off the table was not because I wanted to annoy anybody.
It was because it was spectacular.
It's obviously something people would pay attention to.
So if it's real, let's do it.
If it's not, let's get it off the table because it's usually the stuff that's hidden under the –
And depending upon the person, the disease is sufficiently different that it might follow a slightly different path towards what becomes the disease itself.
That's the most interesting.
Well, certainly she had – we brought in an expert in South American indigenous people genetics.
And the analysis showed that the genetic – the standard genetic mutations that are found in different racial groups around the world –
matched exactly the Atacama region of Chile.
So her parents, her relatives were clearly Chilean.
So yeah, I mean, that's really all you can say.
If someone wants to say that she's an alien, well, that's fine.
I'm convinced of what she is and that she deserves a proper burial.
So, you know, I think people have conflated a lot of the different mummies that are out there, first of all.
There's like 60 of them or something.
And probably a fair number of them, I wouldn't necessarily call them hoaxes.
I would say that they are constructed.
But they're old constructs.
So maybe there's some sort of homage paid construct.
To the ancestors or something like that, whatever they are.
So there are some ones that you clearly look at, you go, oh, come on.
Then there's the fetal position ones.
Then there's the fetal position ones, the big ones.
And I was at the beginning – I'm always open to being wrong.
And so being able to trace the path and to know which steps along the way that it takes to become what becomes then the metastatic leukemia,
I was at the beginning thinking, oh, well, because of the small ones, those are probably not real.
But then the MRIs started coming out, the full-body MRIs and the ligature and the bone construction and then perhaps most, I think, extraordinarily, the fingerprints on them being clearly not human.
But here's the problem is that because there's so much circus around them, unfortunately created by people who want a circus because it sells their TV shows, no scientist of any merit would go near it.
So I was approached many times, many times to study them.
And I said, I'll do it on one condition.
Here's the money I need, not personally, but here's the money I need to do the kinds of analysis to accomplish this right.
Second, there will be no TV cameras.
And you won't hear from me again until I'm ready to talk.
Because I'll have double-checked and triple-checked and quadruple-checked the results.
And then I've gone out, as I do with the Otakama Mummy, bringing in further contiguous circles of experts to double-check me.
Because I won't name the TV show that wanted to do it.
But they wanted me, they wanted to follow me around with a camera.
And I'm like, no, this isn't how science is done.
I can't do it with those strictures.
So I would say that if anybody's going to do it again, lock the things away with South American scientists.
You don't need a North American scientist to come in and do it.
There's plenty of smart people in South America who can do this properly.
could only be accomplished by having enough markers that allowed us to trace everybody along the path.
And respect the rights of the indigenous peoples who own the sacred grounds within which these things were found.
And then do the analysis right.
You know, they've said they made, I think, the mistake of saying, well, we've done the DNA and there's a lot of DNA that doesn't match.
Anything – and the stuff is several hundred years old.
Anything that old, you won't get a lot of good DNA out of it.
But just – they did the same thing with the Denisovan and the Neanderthal.
You have to correct the chemical errors that occur over time.
There are ways to what's called bioinformatically correct.
You need to do what's called over-reading of the genome where you do so many reads of it that you stack them all up line by line.
Like if you had a thousand versions of an ancient Bible, you would stack up the lines one by one.
And finally, you find one line that has this letter that's correct and then this one correct.
And then you basically do a summation of an averaging of the correctness.
It's kind of like if I wanted to follow you from who you are as an egg through development through to who you are today and I had snapshots every month,
And so they say, oh, well, 90% of the genome is non-human.
It's probably these mistakes.
It's probably bacterial contamination that you're reading.
There's ways to deal with that, but that requires money and not one-off DNA sequences put on the interwebs.
for some amateur genomicist to make a claim about.
I mean, you would want at the end of the day to get the results to the level where you could go to the guys who did the Denisovan and the Neanderthal DNA, the Max Planck, who won the Nobel Prize for it, and say, hey, what do you think?
But you don't dare take it to people like that until you've done your homework.
You don't put them under a flashlight.
And people, I think, have gotten used to this click mentality of impatience where I want the result today.
Why can't you just make it all transparent?
Dump all the data on the web tomorrow.
I am just trying to make sure that you don't make the mistake and accuse me of making the mistake that you'll find in the data because the raw data is never clean.
So long story short, I think there's still something worth looking at there.
Yeah, the scans are the most interesting to me.
Have you seen the Jesse Michaels, the newest video?
I need different markers to measure what you are as an egg versus what you are as a baby versus what you are as an adult.
And somebody asked me the other day, they said, well, could you have a single mutation or a set of, I said, no.
I mean, because you don't get one mutation that does all that.
You know, evolution works step by step that this does this, but it has a mistake, but it's corrected by this mutation over here in evolution, which is corrected by this.
And so the whole, the genome fluctuates over time, compensating for the errors that would otherwise have killed you.
Also, one of them is pregnant.
But if they're going to do it right...
They need to sequester the stuff away, bring in the right people with sufficient resources, and get rid of the cameras.
And so each of those different markers in my world would be different proteins that tell me something about an adult leukemia versus a baby leukemia.
I wrote out on Twitter a full thing of what they needed to do.
I mean the easiest first milestone to do, to be honest, that could be done within a couple of months –
Is if it is somewhere in the hominid or let's say vertebrate line There are metabolism genes that we all share.
In fact, there are metabolism genes that we share with Bacteria that are very similar.
So there's you probably do you know the technique called polymerase chain reaction PCR?
So, you know why try to do the whole genome and
why not just target a bunch of genes that we know evolve slowly, but do evolve, and PCR those out?
Because that's easier to do than is trying to assemble a whole genome.
And then by having just those, let's call it preliminary sets of evidence, you could then say, hmm, this actually, reproducibly, if I take a sample from the
I take a sample from the bone marrow.
I take a sample from here or there on the body, and I take a sample from the three different main things, and I see the same mutations, and they're different or somehow aligned with hominid evolution, right?
We compare it to all the known hominids.
I mean, that would be the kind of data that you could actually publish in a journal like Nature if you did it right.
Because that's the only way that you're going to get anybody to pay attention.
And then we use something called pseudo time, which is a mathematical concept that allows us to stitch together those photographs.
I mean, why would you put them in a cave in Peru?
So, you know, I find them – again, I find them interesting and I hope that behind the scenes there are people who are taking a more methodical approach to this who I think should remain stealthed.
I could take a random box of photos of you from an egg to who you are today.
Until they have the data to the point where it's publishable.
You know, publishing a white paper or putting something out on the Internet is not the same as putting out data that has all of the instruments that you used, the methods that you used, et cetera.
The reason you want papers, frankly, when you publish them, to be almost boring and so thick with detail that no –
pseudo-skeptic would dare approach it because they're just not smart enough.
But if you put out these snippets that don't have sufficient background, they can be picked apart by anybody.
And I could just by hand put together the most likely path and sequence of what you were from the earliest to the latest.
But that's why peer review is so important.
And people mistake peer review as trying to get the reviewers to agree with your conclusions.
No, the main purpose of peer review is actually to make sure that the methods
that you used are sufficiently detailed and are correct enough to the extent you came to any conclusions, they match the methods that you used.
But we needed the data and we needed the means and the instruments to collect that information so that then the math could come to play.
Did you ever see the Netflix show Chimp Empire?
20 million years of separation and it looked like fucking faculty meeting, you know, with people like looking at each other and planning and plotting, board meeting, you know.
And so we shared all of those interactions from 20 million years ago.
So how much further back would you have to go?
to have something like what that is.
I mean, it's clearly not recent.
Yeah, no, technology gives evolution the excuse to no longer make or allow for you to be robust.
That was the word I was looking for.
Can you imagine the scenario of, I mean, these things we know are, the body is real.
What they are, we don't know.
But can you imagine the scenario of what happened as they were being buried?
Could you make a film of the ceremonial burial of these things?
What led to their placement there?
Or if they were constructed, which I have a hard time with given the MRIs that we've all seen, et cetera, what led to it?
And so that to me is as almost interesting as to whether or not they're real or not.
Is it an homage to the ancestors or to the stories of the ancestors, et cetera?
So I just ask my scientific colleagues to not suspend disbelief but to open your minds as to the possibility of what these things might mean and just try to explain them without dismissing them because it's so easy and politics, we see it every day.
All you need to do is just give any answer.
even if it's obviously flagrantly wrong, just as a way to deflect.
And so you can either use that approach.
You shouldn't use that approach ever as a scientist, deflect, which unfortunately is what someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson often does.
And as opposed to try to explain in a way that teaches your audience the right way to think.
So I worked with him on one of those pieces.
I got the atomic imaging of some of that.
And it's, oh God, I'm blanking on the event, but it was the Sirocco event.
I'm going to get in trouble for not knowing exactly.
And we actually did an atomic layering using this device called atomic probe tomography, where you literally pick it apart atom by atom and get its 3D position.
It's a 40-year-old technology, so it's nothing magic.
And yeah, it would just be very difficult to make it.
And certainly it would be not something that you would have dropped in the middle of the desert.
in the middle of the desert, you know, in the 1970s or whenever it was.
I wouldn't say it's impossible to make, but why you would do it is another question.
So what happens is that there's sort of a dance between the mutations that initiate a tumor and then sort of an evolution of how the tumor eventually learns how to trick the immune system to not recognize it.
technology and manufacture.
And that's what interests me is, first of all, why would you do it?
Why would you create something, for instance, with the silicon and the magnesium with the altered ratios?
Not the, where did it come from?
So what is it evidence of?
It's clearly evidence of technology.
No, not at the level of precision that was done and a chunk of – no, it just wasn't.
It was an object that a policeman had seen with beings, short beings outside of it.
And when it took off and left, he went over and found this piece that I had.
But what you're doing is you still have to pay homage to the fact that those differences exist.
Actually, I personally have it now.
So, you know, it's hard to say what's possible and what's not possible.
So, you know, there's plenty of military programs that make stuff that are way outside of mainstream capabilities right now.
I mean, just look at the stealth bomber, for instance, and the skin of the stealth bomber is just remarkable.
So that's why I always leave open the possibility that, you know, which is why...
I'm going to go back to this atomic imager thing that I'm making.
It's like there's a level of evidence that I think can be produced with atomic imaging that goes beyond what it is we know anybody can make.
And so while my cancer might be the same class of, let's say, melanoma as another person's, the complexity of what allowed that cancer to become are so different that the drugs that would work for me might not work for another person.
So and so that's my reason for wanting to do it, because, you know, look, I can make money on it with looking at alloys and nanomaterials, et cetera.
And that's going to be what the purpose of the of making the instrument will.
That's how it will be a company.
But it will have value elsewhere.
So the reason that I got interested in it was, frankly, for looking at chromosomes.
But then I realized, oh, maybe it has interest.
Maybe it would be useful for these other things as well, which has kind of propelled my interest in it.
And where would you do it?
Well, that's why the magnesium ratio thing was, you know, when I first estimated it, it was like, this is millions and millions of dollars.
And why would you leave it on a beach in the middle of Ubatuba, Brazil?
You know, it just seems unlikely.
Well... And it's usually the chain of evidence.
There's lots of materials that you might find that are unusual.
And believe me, I get rocks sent to me at my lab in the mail that people say, oh, this is unusual.
I have not yet been given anything which I could definitively say this is not something a human might have been able to make.
It might be difficult but not impossible yet.
And so that's because the level of resolution required to claim something is impossible is something we actually don't even have yet.
So my whole career has been inventing instruments that were, I felt, inevitable, but not yet possible.
But I could see a path to making them.
And so I said to most people, get out of my way.
Because I know once I've got it, it will become valuable to everybody, which is, that's what made my career in immunology, making a succession of instruments like that.
and then making them available to the community.
So I think the next level is atomic, because we now know, you can pick up and look at any of the major physics journals today, everything is all about these weird exotic particles that exist in metamaterials down at the atomic level with...
vague and strange capabilities that will change their utility, either as superconductors, room temperature, or different kinds of electronic components that might be better, quantum computer circuits and qubits.
And so that's what basically requires us to personalize the medications in a way that gives the right drug to the right person.
It's all down at that level.
But to do so requires a level of engineering
I mean, never mind reading what it is.
Putting it together in the first place is what's still required.
And so if we don't know how to put it together in the first place, then reading it and knowing that it can exist and then associating it with a function...
is the value that I'm looking to bring.
Trinity, are you talking about?
And if you're going to excite the next generation of scientists in this country and you're going to bring economic prosperity to this country, then we should –
I wouldn't say democratize it and put it all out on the internet.
So I've started probably half a dozen companies and sold them.
I understand all the reasons why you might not need to.
But you need to excite the populace.
I mean, my laboratory at Stanford for probably the last 10 years is 90% foreigners.
Not because I don't want to take more Americans, but because Americans just don't go into the sciences anymore.
They aren't encouraged to...
to approach this, so we're importing a lot of our scientists from overseas.
A good third of them end up going back and bringing all the technology that they invented here back there and creating competitors.
Places like Roche, et cetera, actually my most recent company we sold to 10X Genomics, which enables them now because of a patent I created back in 2011 to
Now, maybe that's good on a global scale, but maybe it's not something that we want to encourage on a local scale if we want to maintain our technological superiority.
We're basically governed by lawyers.
China is governed by engineers.
Their Politburo is almost entirely engineers and scientists.
There's a little article in The Atlantic recently about that.
So people who are making these decisions, we have lawyers looking for all the reasons why something should or shouldn't be done on the liabilities.
They're looking at things as to what's possible.
Well, both the council bluffs and the Ubatuba event are interesting to me.
Because of the physical material itself.
I mean, I'm, at the end of the day, a physicalist.
You know, I mean, I don't like all the anecdotes.
I mean, a thousand anecdotes make a good story, good campfire.
I mean, I think there's statistical value in people seeing the same thing again and again.
And there's a truth to it.
And I can believe anything I want to around that and many of the statements that I'm purported to have said are around my beliefs as opposed to when I put on my scientist hat and I try to convince another scientist.
I can only provide this data and this evidence, and I don't have yet these materials.
Now, maybe they exist, and maybe people like David Grush will be able to pry them out of the clammy hands of those who want to keep it where it is.
to scale up the amount of information that we can collect at a time, that then when layered on top of what, for instance, 10X Genomics already did, which is doing what's called single-cell genomic analysis, we could scale that up 100-fold to get 100-fold amount the information.
But give me one piece of that evidence.
And I will do wonders with it.
I mean, that's why I'm so excited about the UAP Disclosure Act, if it ends up becoming law, because there will be this ability to start to maybe eke some of this out.
And again, it's the reason why I think this commercial opportunity is the direction we want to go, where we have a sort of public-private partnership, is that the defense budget in and of itself is a zero-sum game.
We're taking money from one program to give to another.
Whether you're taking it from your taxes, you're taking it from veterans insurance, et cetera, it's a zero-sum game.
Whereas if you bring the investment community in, now you're bringing in people who are willing to take a chance and willing to take a risk, and you're not using the public's money anymore.
The reason why I wanted to go back to Stanford is because the
The entrepreneurial environment there and now, which is actually almost homegrown here in Austin, is really what drives innovation.
And so I want to excite that kind of community.
And again, the Soul Foundation is a place where we can bring people in and we've got investors who show up now.
who are talking to people about their ideas and what would we do with this.
And so it almost has now a self-propelling movement where I don't need to be standing on a wooden box somewhere in the middle of the park saying, you know, look at this, look at this.
People are just doing it now.
almost a cottage industry of small groups or formalized groups who are doing this independently now.
So it's almost like it's inevitable.
So Skywatcher, as an example, you probably know the Skywatcher group.
No, it's strange because people said, oh, we stopped.
No, actually it had been determined from the beginning that we were going to go from January until July or August and collect data.
And now we're in the, okay, what does the data mean phase where we're literally going through the data, looking at the data files and trying to –
As I said before, we're filtering the data.
We're looking for the obvious mistakes, et cetera.
And so, no, they've not stopped.
So James Fowler, one of the guys who brought a lot of his equipment and technology to us,
decided that he wanted to basically go off and work in a DOD capacity as opposed to the research capacity.
But he's still advising us.
I was just on a phone call, a Zoom call with him last week going over the data files.
But the problem with that is that I can collect all that data and make an analysis of a cancer for you, but it might be a little bit different than another person.
Well, the idea behind it was that there might be ways to send a signal and get things to show up.
And James Fowler claimed that he had such a thing.
I was at one of the events where...
It was transient, momentary, but indisputable.
It was just a silver ball moving quickly through several frames of a video, which was not fast enough, frankly, to pick it up.
No, I didn't see it with my naked eye.
Which, of course, is a problem.
I wish I had my – I don't have my phone here.
But we do have a picture of one next to the helicopter about 200 feet away.
And it's just kind of a fuzzy white blob against a blue sky.
It's not a cloud and it's not a balloon.
It's not discernible as anything obvious, but it was there and it happened during one of these events out in the middle of the desert.
So, the idea is, behind Skywatcher, is to see if there are ways to get them to show up, and if so, in a reproducible manner, and then have the right kind of simultaneous multi-sensor capabilities to measure it, meaning radar, IR, visual people on the ground.
What are they sending to get these things to go?
James has a signal that unfortunately he won't, I don't know what it is.
So what we have to do then is develop techniques that allow us to narrow in on what the differences might be so that when I develop a drug for person X, it works for person X and not for person Y, right, the right way.
He won't let everybody know what the bat signal is?
Well, I mean, you know, I mean, maybe, yeah, exactly.
I mean, it sounds kind of silly, but I mean, why would you put that out on the internet?
Because, you know, you might render it useless.
They're like, I'm not going to show up.
Oh, so you think it's a trick?
Like it tricks them into showing up?
Don't you think they'd be smarter than that?
Well, that tells you something maybe about the level of smarts that might be incorporated into these, let's say, dumber machines.
That was exactly my thought.
It's like, why would you show up when you know what it is unless there's a reason you're basically trying to train the monkeys
Maybe you're tricking the monkeys into sending.
There's the CE5 groups that do that.
And I've never participated in any of that because I don't know how to measure it.
I'm more than willing to believe that there are technologies capable of measuring thoughts at a distance that might be some super advanced.
I don't believe you have to call it telepathy and magic.
I think that if such a thing happens that there is a technology that might be able to read at a distance.
Well, I mean, think of it this way.
You know, you and I are interacting with each other through quantum waves.
My meat brain sees you as an object, but yet everything that you are sits in quantum space-time down at the Planck level, and you're not even mass.
You're just a series of, I mean, in some people's minds, vibrating fields and objects.
And so we have sensors that see and hear each other and think about each other, but our consciousness somehow is embedded in space-time.
So there's a lot of personalization in medicine that is required.
And so who's to say that there's not signals passing to and from that are vaguely able to be picked up by our meat brains that we don't necessarily appreciate?
So that just because I can't think at you and you can't hear me doesn't mean that there aren't perhaps brain organizations of some people that are a little bit better at hearing the echo than others.
The diversity that makes humanity great and that makes humanity able to survive in the face of so many challenges is that there are individual differences that one person might survive and another won't.
Well, and, you know, our civilization is drowning us in constant noise.
And so maybe, you know, that drowns it out.
And that's why meditation is why people claim that they can interact with other things.
So these are actually calculations by Kevin Knuth, a physicist from the University of Albany, and a published paper.
But what he basically said was, how much power would it take to instantaneously accelerate
from 50 feet over the ocean to 50 miles above the earth, whatever the number was, and instantaneously decelerate.
So it's not just the amount of power to lift something.
It's the amount of power to accelerate and decelerate instantaneously.
And so you can make simple
physical calculations of a one-ton object, let's say, and it's more than the nuclear output of the United States for a year.
And yet these things seem capable of doing that at will.
So where are they getting the energy from?
a question like this years ago.
We were stepping into an elevator and we were talking about his ideas about how these things might move.
And I said, so they're cheating somehow, aren't they?
And his answer was, from our point of view, they're cheating.
From their point of view, they're just using the physics that we don't understand yet.
So where's the energy coming from?
And so that might be, as a for instance, a reason why you don't want everybody having access to it.
Because any one of those objects is worse than a thermonuclear bomb.
You shoot one of those things at a city and that's the end of the city.
And if anybody could do it, you know.
It's the same thing with cancers.
And it's the same thing with drugs.
I mean, you know, for instance, with certain drugs, one of the first things I learned in pharmacology when I was, you know, way back in the day is that there's always a benefit to damage ratio that you're having to deal with.
You can already imagine the negatives where people will say, oh, well, it's the it's the
It's the apocalyptic nanny state, right, where AI just basically takes care of you and humans devolve into something, which is why I think a merger of human intellect with this where it's a synergy as opposed to an either-or.
I don't want to be nanny stated either.
I want to use it to explore ideas or explore pleasure.
I mean, I'm finding people want to be hedonistic and participate in virtual parties all day long for all I care.
But I think giving people the option to do whatever it is that they want to do, it's the most liberal and conservative way of living because you're allowed to do what you want to do.
But we're not because we're living at the behest of so many other strictures.
Elements of truth with a healthy dose of misinformation that perhaps he was provided.
I don't think that he's entirely wrong.
He seems to know enough about things that the average person wouldn't know.
But I've heard from Eric Davis and others saying he's a this, he's a that.
You know, it's like that's why there are great people like Richard Dolan, who's a wonderful writer of the history of the area, or people like Robert Powell or Michael Swords who write just the facts, not coming to too many conclusions.
I don't live in that world.
That a drug has a positive outcome, but there are side effects.
My specialty is working with data and analyzing things and bringing rigorous science to it so that I can convince another scientist what is right or what is wrong.
I mean, I'm pretty sure of what I know, but I want to validate that to my colleagues, if only to be able to say, I told you so.
There's a little bit of human pettiness in there.
But that's, I think, again, enabling people to live in a world like that where you can talk about these ideas without being ridiculed is really, I think, the objective of what science should be and what open-minded, non-theologically dogmatic approaches should be.
And so as scientists or as clinicians, we make a choice based on the statistics.
It's like accuse a scientist of being a priest and that's the best way to really upset them.
But pointing out that what they're doing is mimicking dogma and priesthood is the only way to shame them into doing the right thing.
And that's what's unique about him is that he wants these things to happen.
He truly doesn't want us to be going to war.
I mean, he ran on that, and I think it's true.
And despite what happened in Iran, it was at least limited.
Everybody was thanking them.
And it seems like there was some communication that made it limited.
Everybody was thanking them for their service.
Yeah, but at least that kind of made sense to me because there were these right wing people.
Whereas seeing the left wing calling for war and saying that Ukraine was going to win this thing, like-
How did it flip that if you want a conclusion to the war that you're supporting Putin, how did that flip?
We hung out with these firemen in front of this bar, me and the Fear Factor crew.
How did it flip where people aren't trying to exhaust every possible way to stop the end of the killing of all these people that are conscripted and sent to the front lines to die when they don't want to be there?
Well, also the problem with that is these people that are talking about these things are talking about people not being experts while they're not experts.
It's like I was hanging out with Brad Pitt.
I've settled six wars in six months, one of them a possible nuclear disaster.
Trump wrote in True Social on August 18th before meeting with European leaders and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky at the White House where he made a similar claim.
I know exactly what I'm doing, and I don't need the advice of people who have been working on all these conflicts for years and were never able to do a thing to stop them.
So click on that where it says six wars in six months.
I was just interested in what he is... What wars is he claiming to have ended?
Because I know he has had these people get together.
Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
June, the two countries signed a peace agreement in Washington aimed at ending decades of conflict.
Trump said it would help increase trade between them and the US.
On 26th of July, Trump posted on True Social, I am calling the acting prime minister of Thailand right now to
to likewise request a ceasefire and end the war, which is currently raging.
A couple days later, the two countries agreed to an immediate and unconditional ceasefire after less than a week of fighting at the border.
Malaysia held the peace talks, but President Trump threatened to stop separate negotiations on reducing U.S.
tariffs unless Thailand and Cambodia stopped fighting.
The leaders of both countries said Trump should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in securing a peace deal, which was announced at the White House on 8th of August.
I think he gets good credit here.
The Oval Office signing ceremony may have pushed the parties to peace, says Mr. O'Hanlon.
In March, the two governments had said they were ready to end their nearly 40-year conflict centered on the status of the, how do you say that?
Your guess is as good as mine.
I'll let you figure that one out.
The most recent serious outbreak of fighting was in September 2023 when Azerbaijan seized the enclave where many ethnic Armenians lived.
After 12 years of disagreement, Egypt's foreign minister said on the 29th of June that talks with Ethiopia had ground to a halt.
Trump said if I was Egypt, I'd want the water in the Nile.
was going to resolve the issue very quickly.
Egypt welcomed Trump's words, but Ethiopian officials say they risked inflaming tensions.
No formal deal has been reached.
Trump claimed to have prevented an outbreak of hostilities between them saying Serbia, Kosovo was going to go at it, going to be a big war.
There's no trade with the United States.
They said, well, maybe we won't go at it.
The way he talks is so ridiculous.
The two countries signed an economic normalization agreement in the Oval Office with the president in 2020, but they were not at war at the time.
So it doesn't say that that's been resolved.
So it seems like some of them haven't totally been resolved, but at least he's trying.
But this is a new and unique thing, that this guy, I mean, he's only been in office for eight months, and that he's actively pursuing all these international conflicts, trying to get these people together and stop it.
And so then you have to cover for your friend because your friend threw the first punch?
Remember when Obama had a press conference and talked about we give a speech, talk about that.
We're going to go to war with Syria.
And everybody was like, what the fuck are you talking?
And then they said, ah, forget it.
That'll work out well, I'm sure.
Every time we overthrow a country, it works out great.
We did a real good job there.
Well, listen, man, I've had enough getting bummed out.
Well, I'm not trying to bum you out, though.
That's the problem with being alive today, is you're paying attention to so many different conflicts.
And which is the first step to recognizing them and then going after them and trying to resolve them.
You going to have some fun this weekend at the Mothership?
It's my favorite weekend of every year.
Well, it's always awesome to have you there, brother.
This episode is brought to you by The Smashing Machine from A24.
Dwayne The Rock Johnson and Academy Award nominee Emily Blunt star in The Smashing Machine in theaters everywhere October 3rd.
The new film from writer-director Benny Safdie about pioneering UFC fighter Mark Kerr is both...
high-pressure sports biography and high-octane emotional spectacle, transporting viewers to the dawn of a new era as it follows the strongest fighter the sport had ever seen from the heights of fame to rock bottom and back again.
Watch The Smashing Machine in theaters everywhere October 3rd.
There's, you know, what does Doug have a degree in?
Also, the Patriot Act was a bunch of shit they had tried to pass for a while, for years.
And everyone's like, what are you fucking crazy?
Sam Harris is a neuroscientist.
You know, there's all these different people who have, you know, expertise in one area that is pretty much outside geopolitical, you know, world politics and...
I didn't know that this was an issue, that you can't discuss neoconservatism?
Oh, well, okay, so that's anti-Semitism he's leaning into.
Well, that's kind of ridiculous.
You're talking about something incredibly important.
Why would that be a thing that you can't discuss?
The rivalries, the marching bands, the upsets.
Saturdays just got way more fun.
Put your college football knowledge to the test with DraftKings Sportsbook and turn your picks into big payouts.
From live betting during the game to rivalry week odds boosts and so much more, DraftKings Sportsbook has everything you need to stay in the action right
from kickoff to final whistle.
Whether you're betting on your go-to team or making moves mid-game as the momentum shifts, Saturdays are yours to own with DraftKings Sportsbook.
Here's something special for first-timers.
New customers bet $5 and get $300 in bonus bets instantly.
Download the DraftKings Sportsbook app and use the code ROGAN.
That's code ROGAN for new customers to get $300 in bonus bets instantly when you bet just $5.
In partnership with DraftKings Sportsbook, the crown is yours.
international relations and chaos and war and the military industrial complex.
These are very complex, sophisticated, nuanced discussions that you have to have when you're talking about these things because there's so many different factors at play.
There's so much bullshit in terms of what's the truth?
But planes had never flown into towers before.
Who's pushing the narrative?
Who's being paid to push the narrative?
Well, it was a different time.
Back then, they would have never bleeped anything.
They didn't bleep the N-word.
They didn't bleep anything.
Well, it's weird when you hear about... So I don't know if I fully buy into any of this, as a caveat before I get rolling.
But when people discuss the intelligence agencies and their role in hip-hop,
There's so many of these fucking online influencers that I don't even think are really human beings that have like prominent accounts.
I remember the very first time I listened to NWA, and I think I told Ice Cube when he was here, I was on a fucking Stairmaster in Revere, Massachusetts, and I was listening to Fuck the Police.
I was like, fuck the police, coming straight from the underground.
I was a cassette walkman, or maybe it was a CD, but it was probably a cassette walkman.
And I was getting my cardio in.
They were better for working out.
the the they got good with the cd after a while it didn't skip but you had to set it on you had to set it on the treadmill and you had to hit that like shock mode and then that would eat your battery so quickly though like you'd get three songs in and be like all right you have to go to the gym with like spare batteries still to me it was so insane that i could carry music with me to the gym like that's incredible because you go to the gym and it'd be like the worst poison song playing no disrespect to poison
Like, God, I can't get into this.
I'm trying to get pumped here, man.
This is fucking bullshit music.
Like, someone's in charge of the station that they pick on the radio.
Just to be able to carry it.
But that moment of hearing that music...
I was like, this is celebrating crime and murder?
And murdering prostitutes and, like, this is crazy that this is, like, a major record label put this out.
And I was, you know, I was just sitting there going, I can't even believe this is real.
And then I got really into it.
Like, I got really into Ice Cube, really into Ice-T.
I'd listen to that when I was delivering newspapers.
It was like gangster rap was like a completely different thing.
So then cut to when people start digging into it.
Like intelligence agencies have had – there's a weird book on intelligence agencies and their role in rock and roll music in the 1960s.
The movie about – the book about Laurel Canyon.
I don't know if I buy it, but there's a lot of weird connections to the intelligence community and music, particularly hip hop and particularly gangster rap.
And if you want to get really dark, you would say, if you want to fill your private prisons up,
What better way than have very popular music encouraging prisons, excuse me, encouraging crime, encouraging outright celebrating crime and violence.
That way you fill your prisons up and you also keep people scared so you can give them more laws and more rules and crack down and make them easier to placate, easier to get them to fall in line and do what you need them to do.
Of course, instead of addressing the facts.
Do you think they tell Reagan that they're selling crack in the hood?
I do not think the intelligence agencies let that information that far up the chain to a guy who's only in there for four years, four years to get reelected.
He fucking signed the docket.
That guy was all over that.
I don't think you have an access.
I do not think in cases like that you have access.
I think if they're doing something like selling crack in the hood and using the money to fund the Contras, there's no fucking way you could ever kosherize that.
So I don't think you ever let the president know.
I don't think I think there's layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy before you can get to any real data and information.
If you want to talk about people that are doing operations in Nicaragua, you've got things going on in Iran.
You've got to pay attention to Russia.
There's not a fucking chance he knows they're selling crack to pay for an army.
I just don't think they would tell him.
Because why would they assume that he'd go along with it?
This is not a normal thing to do.
I came into this office thinking I'm an actor.
I came into this office thinking I'm going to be a good American and we're going to get back to basics and hard work and trickle down economics.
And you're telling me you're selling crack?
That's how Nixon got caught.
So Nixon didn't organize Watergate.
And they would do the same thing with Reagan.
You want to come clean about all the crack selling?
That's what's really crazy.
His intelligence agency set up Watergate.
Bob Woodward was an intelligence agent before he was ever a reporter.
Tucker Carlson told me that.
He's like, what rookie reporter for their first gig, their first story, gets, you're going to take down the most popular president in U.S.
He had won by the biggest margin.
I tell you what Bill Murray told me No, so Bill Murray was on the podcast and was talking about Bob Woodward's movie.
Yes, I look he wrote what it was it uh What was it called?
Well, he's written a lot at this point.
It was just about Belushi being fucking crazy drug addict.
He goes, that's not my friend.
He goes, that's not how he was.
He was like, that was kind of an act.
He was a little bit of a lightweight.
Like if he had like two, three drinks, he was drunk.
Like he goes, I think he did that speedball.
I think that's the first time he ever did it and died.
It's not that he'd never done drugs before, but he wasn't this guy.
So he read the first five pages, he goes, oh my God, they framed Nixon.
It's like this guy wrote about my friend in such a distorted, untruthful way that
Now I have to think about what he discovered with Nixon.
Now I know what kind of person this is.
Would you have ever imagined that?
When all the years when I was growing up, that guy was like a hero.
Like when I was a kid, you know, they made a movie about him.
All the President's Men is a movie.
What movie star plays Bob Woodward?
Was it Robert Redford or was it the other guy?
Who else was in that movie with him?
You bullshit everybody, and then you get to watch Robert Redford, the most handsome man alive, play in a movie.
Look how good looking I am.
Look at me kicking ass for America.
I think it's very hard to make that same system work the same way now.
This episode is brought to you by ZipRecruiter.
There is such a thing as having too many options to choose from, like when you're scrolling on the TV trying to find something to watch or...
Have you been to one of those ice cream shops where they have hundreds of different toppings to choose from?
The same thing can happen when you're hiring and you get inundated with applications.
Well, it's time to stop stressing and use ZipRecruiter instead.
Their innovative resume database can help you find and connect with the best people for your role.
now at ZipRecruiter.com slash Rogan.
What makes ZipRecruiter's resume database so special is the advanced filtering feature.
You can use it to hone in on exactly what you're looking for from the hundreds of thousands of resumes that are uploaded monthly to the site.
And when you find a potential candidate, you can unlock their contact info instantly.
Skip the candidate overload.
Streamline your hiring with ZipRecruiter.
See why four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
It's weird to be any person in the public eye, but in this time, it's particularly weird.
Just go to this exclusive web address, ZipRecruiter.com slash Rogan.
Again, right now, try it for free.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Rogan.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Well, it's also easy to frame Nixon that way because he's ugly, right?
He's not a good-looking guy, and it was just after Kennedy.
Look, when Muhammad Ali retired—
Larry Holmes couldn't get any love.
And one of the reasons why Larry Holmes is one of the best heavyweight champions of all time couldn't get any love is because he beat the fuck out of Muhammad Ali.
And everybody was sad and everybody hated him because of that.
And you just you're you're never like if you're Nixon and you're following JFK who got shot in the fucking head.
Someone assassinated the greatest president of all time, this good looking guy who was going to really change things and didn't believe in secrecy and was talking to the American people like we have hope and dreams.
He wants to put us on the moon.
And he got shot in the head.
When someone attacks like what you do professionally versus versus what you're actually saying.
Well, I was going to say he's also very authoritarian, which is unfortunately when you have a society where you do have ubiquitous crime, you do need some kind of an authoritarian leadership.
Not saying you need tyranny, not saying you need a dictator, but you need fucking laws and you need rule of law.
And sometimes those people come off very harsh and very uncaring and unloving.
And, you know, that's total opposite for like the reason why people voted for Jimmy Carter, I think.
Because Jimmy Carter represented a genuinely sweet, good guy.
But look how that presidency was a disaster.
Because they were all working against him, for sure.
And on top of that, it's hard.
You've got to be a bit of a hard ass if you want to run the world.
But the way Nixon did it, we're still suffering through that today.
That motherfucker, he's partially responsible for that sweeping Schedule I Act of 1970.
Why not just dispute what he's saying instead of this appeal to authority?
When they did that and they made everything illegal, everything Schedule I, including things that are 100% medicinal, like marijuana, all that fucked up society, and they did it specifically to target the anti-war movement and to target the civil rights movement.
So it's not like Nixon was the best.
What he did was fucking horrible.
You can only ask me a few things in life that I can give you definitive answers on.
And even then, I might have to refer to experts.
You want to ask me about judo.
I've been doing jujitsu for...
since 90, I think I started in 97, somewhere around then, 96 maybe, I don't know shit about Judo.
If you're like one of the only people, I mean, the media is so bizarrely compromised.
I know how to do a few hip tosses, but when someone is doing something, I don't even know what it's called.
If I go Haragoshi, I might get it wrong, because Haragoshi might be legs on the outside versus leg on the inside.
Wrestling, I gotta defer to DC.
And we have an economy that's built around doing the exact same thing it's always done, right?
And if you think about the amount of money, just in shuttering USAID,
Think about the amount of money, whether you agree with USAID or not, the amount of money that was being pumped through that system to all sorts of weird places.
When the Department of Energy gave out $93 billion in loans in the months between Biden losing or Kamala losing, rather, and Trump taking office.
There's so many of these instances of insane amounts of money just being allocated while we're in $39 trillion in debt.
It's so unmanageable and yet it just keeps marching on and people are upset if you try to pull a bandaid off.
The idea of shuttering some of these government organizations, all you hear about is people are going to die, people are going to starve, this is going to happen, that's going to happen.
Are you sure that this isn't a giant money-sucking scam that's been going on that does some good?
This episode is brought to you by Visible.
I want to let you in on something.
Your current wireless carrier does not want you to know about Visible because Visible is the ultimate wireless hack.
No confusing plans with surprise fees, no nonsense, just fast speeds, great coverage without the premium cost.
With Visible, you get one line wireless with unlimited data powered by Verizon's network for $25 a month, taxes and fees included.
Seriously, $25 a month flat.
What you see is what you pay.
No hidden fees on top of that.
Join now and unlock unlimited data for just $25 a month on the Visible plan.
Don't think wireless can be so transparent, so Visible?
Switch today at visible.com slash rogan.
See visible.com for plan features and network management details.
This episode is brought to you by the Farmer's Dog.
I think we can all agree that eating highly processed food for every meal isn't optimal.
So why is processed food the status quo for dog food?
Because that's what kibble is, an ultra-processed food.
But a healthy alternative exists, the Farmer's Dog.
They make fresh food for dogs.
And what does it look like?
Real meat and vegetables that are gently cooked to retain vital nutrients and help avoid any of the bad stuff that comes with ultra-processing.
And it's not just random ingredients thrown together.
Their food is formulated by on-staff board-certified vet nutritionists.
These people are experts on dog nutrition, and they're all in on fresh food.
The Farmer's Dog also does something unique.
They portion out the food to your dog's nutritional needs.
This ensures that you don't overfeed them, making weight management easy.
Research shows that dogs kept at a healthy weight can live up to two and a half years longer.
Head to thefarmersdog.com slash rogan to get 50% off your first box, plus free shipping.
Right, because it's like- It happened in the last fight, in the last UFC card.
This offer is for new customers only.
Daniel Cormier didn't know about the Dead Orchard.
So he thought this person was fine because they had two arms in while they're caught in a triangle.
I go, no, this is a real submission.
There's this guy, Nathan Orchard, who figured out how to do a triangle with two arms in and it's replicable.
They're enlisting people as old as 60 now.
And I think it was a lady at the last UFC had it.
And Daniel didn't know it yet.
There's a couple other things like the buggy choke.
If you don't know about jujitsu and you see a guy who's on his back and he's getting smothered, but all of a sudden he reaches under with his leg and I'm going, oh, oh, oh.
And you know, that's what that means.
It's so weird when you watch these narratives spin both on the left and on the right.
And you don't know what's going on.
Like that's a fucking choke, like a really dangerous one.
Ty Ruatolo gets you in that.
You know, another problem with these conflicts and war in general is that people always want to pretend that there's one side that's good and one side that's bad.
And obviously, Putin's the bad guy, right?
Because they started the war, started killing people in Ukraine.
But there's so many factors that are going on.
And then there's also the long history of corruption that Ukraine has always had.
And then there's also the weird deals that they were making with the Biden family to control all the different – it was natural gas and there's incredible supplies of rare earth minerals.
It's like really valuable, valuable territory.
There's this incentive to create –
There's areas of expertise, even in areas that I'm an expert in, that I have to call on other people.
some sort of ... They were going to try to ... I think part of the plan was get off of Russian power and make Ukrainian power central, and then whatever they were making over there, the amount of power ... I forget what the number was they said.
trillions of dollars in natural gas, minerals, all these different things.
And we're supposed to pretend that that's not also a part of the motivation.
Like, didn't even Trump say something about a deal that they were doing with Ukraine that involved?
What is you know, what's going on?
Is is Hezbollah a proxy of Iran?
Did Iran get the money to do this when Biden released the funds?
Because what what what who's who's allowed to be an expert on all these things?
Do you think the CIA totally should be abolished?
Don't you think we should kind of pay attention to what the fuck is going on in the world?
Giving a real life perspective, not a utopian perspective, but a real life perspective.
There's terrorist groups all over the world plotting shit.
And occasionally sells coke in the hood.
And like, is anybody fucking rational?
The guy likes being complimented.
I think there's a lot of speculation and there's a lot of consideration about mail-in ballots.
There's a lot of shenanigans.
There's a good record of shenanigans and there's the reality of any kind of electronics can be hacked.
That was the problem with that time.
If that was you or if that was me, I mean, if there was some reason why I knew that they did something and I could give you all the facts, I would have that ready for anybody.
Because that time, everyone was so fearful.
For four fucking years, they've been telling him he's crazy for questioning the election.
So after four years, I'd have a fucking tight 10 minutes on the election where I could just rattle off at you and rock your world with it.
This episode is brought to you by Rocket Money.
You got things in your life you love to do, right?
Maybe it's nights out with friends or visiting family.
And the news was pushing fear.
Maybe you find a new hobby every week.
Or you love to go on vacation.
Who doesn't love a vacation?
The thing is, whatever it is you love to do, you can be sure it's going to cost you money at some point.
So if you want to do more of what you love, you need to spend less on all the other stuff.
That's why you need Rocket Money.
And it was clearly a narrative.
Rocket Money is a personal finance app that shows you all of your expenses in one place, including subscriptions you might have forgotten about.
I forget who it was, but some...
See a subscription you no longer want?
Rocket Money can help you cancel it.
If you've got something you'd like to save for, Rocket Money can analyze your accounts to find the best time each month to put extra money aside.
And Rocket Money will even try to negotiate lower bills for you.
A health official was being interviewed recently and he said that during 2020 that Anthony Fauci said to him, the problem is Americans aren't scared enough, which is crazy to say.
You train your body, you eat clean, you take supplements, you put in work everywhere else, but most guys ignore the biggest organ that they've got, their skin.
And here's the thing, your skin's just like any other part of the body.
If you don't take care of it, it wears down faster, it shows the damage, and it makes you look older than you are.
Caldera Labs' simple regime is designed for guys, and it actually works.
I know it's a big difference, and you will too.
Look better, feel better, simple as that.
Go to calderalab.com slash J-R-E and use the code J-R-E for 20% off your first order.
That's calderalab.com slash J-R-E.
So few that a comedian like yourself just rises to the top of the heap.
It's a wild thing to say that your goal is to make people more fearful.
It seems like they're doing wild shit.
But if they did that with Obama, what was the actual treason?
So you're trying to put out a narrative that makes people more fearful, which, by the way, fucks with your immune system in a gigantic way.
What is she stating is treason?
Not good at all to be scared.
I don't know how many people got really, really, really sick from COVID because when they got it, they freaked the fuck out and they couldn't sleep and they thought they were going to die and they were riddled with anxiety.
No, but what I'm saying is the actual discussions.
I'm just trying to strongman or steelman it.
Would it be possible that Obama knew something that he could relay to them in the meeting?
But even if that's the case, it still doesn't align with the known facts.
And that makes you attack people around you.
And then you look for a solution.
And when these trusted institutions, which up until five fucking years ago, I was 100 percent on board with, with everything, with vaccines, with every medical innovation other than psychiatric medications, which I think are pretty much overprescribed.
It was repeated online ad nauseum.
And many of those same people are still telling you what's true.
Many of those same people are still in front of a camera telling you what's true.
Are they even covering this?
How is MSNBC handling this Tulsi Gabbard revelation?
And all of a sudden, everyone's like hoping these people have the answer.
So Microsoft and NBC are together in this joint venture.
They got rid of some people, though.
What she did during COVID was so preposterous.
There's so many times where she's...
Matt Taibbi wrote a great book, Hate Inc., and he basically said Rachel Maddow is the left's Bill O'Reilly.
So anybody who's like, but there's this guy, Jay Bhattacharya, you know, he's also an expert.
Yeah, I think that's about fair.
I don't know if he's as inaccurate.
Like that was horribly inaccurate.
The COVID stuff and then the Russia stuff.
Like, is there a thing that you could point to that Bill O'Reilly pushed that was a hoax for all those years?
It's like an anti-science, trust the science, COVID denier, vaccine denier.
It just became this fearful response because everybody just responded to the fucking media because everybody's too tuned in to all of this negative shit, man, all day long.
This episode is brought to you by Squarespace.
Fun fact, JoeRogan.com runs on Squarespace.
But it doesn't matter when you're forcing civilians.
It's the go-to platform for creating websites that are as functional as they are good looking.
With their new design intelligence tool powered by 20 years of expertise and cutting edge AI, you can build a site that's uniquely yours in no time.
It's just it's so tangled that at this one of the things about politics, I think for most people, that's so frustrating is because you don't see a way out.
You don't see like, oh, if we just do this, that and this, you know, and people say things like, oh, we just need to take money out of politics.
We should just make all people honest.
Just head on over to squarespace.com slash rogan for a free trial.
And when you're ready to launch, use the code rogan to get 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.
This episode is brought to you by ZipRecruiter.
The hiring process can be absurdly time consuming.
Like when you're looking for a new doctor, you spend hours searching when you finally feel like you found the right one.
It turns out they're not accepting new patients.
This episode is brought to you by Tommy John underwear.
I'm wearing them right now, folks.
I really like this underwear.
Tommy John nailed the fit and the comfort side of things.
The same thing happens when you're hiring.
And I'm guessing it's the premium fabric that have up to four times more stretch than competing brands that make them so damn comfortable.
With Tommy John, there's no more chafe for adjusting.
Just softness and support right where you need it.
And their all-new camo collection is redefining what it means to go commando.
Lightweight and breathable, it targets humidity to keep you so cool and so dry you barely know you're wearing anything.
Your first purchase is backed by Tommy John's risk-free guarantee.
You scan through hundreds of resumes.
So if you don't love it, you'll get your money back.
And Tommy John has an always-on extra discount for military personnel.
Look, there's thousands of other guys wearing Tommy Johns right now that are way more comfortable than you.
I wear Tommy John, and you should too.
You find one you like, only discover they aren't actively looking for a job.
Go to TommyJohn.com slash Rogan for 25% off your first order.
It's fully secured like it is now and just deeply ingrained.
The tentacles of this octopus go so deep.
There's so much money involved.
And there's so many people that are in a position of power.
It's very hard to change what it is now.
I think the best hope that we have is, it's gonna sound ridiculously romantic, but youth.
I think there's people that are growing up now that have a better understanding of how things work than ever before.
Well, good news for all you hiring managers out there.
This guy Michael Button was on the other day, he's a historian.
you know his degree in ancient history and we were talking about how science changes one funeral at a time you know I think politics probably changes one funeral at a time too and the way
I don't agree with this Mondani guy, the guy in New York City.
But I also don't agree that there should be this massive coordinated campaign from both sides to make sure that he doesn't get into power.
Because you don't agree with him.
I think a lot of the stuff he's saying is ridiculous.
Your search looks a little less frustrating now thanks to ZipRecruiter.
Like using New York City funds to pay for transgender surgeries for people who can't afford them.
It sounds like you're only going for that nutty vote.
Are we allowed to disagree?
I don't support a lot of the stuff he's saying.
The raising of taxes I think is going to be really problematic, but I'm not an economist.
But what is this game we're playing?
Is it the people get to vote?
Because the people voted, and they voted, and he won the primary.
So it's supposed to be the Democrats get behind him, and then it's the Democrats versus the Republicans.
And bonus, you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Rogan.
ZipRecruiter has added new tools and features to help speed up the hiring process and save you valuable time.
They can easily connect you with qualified candidates in minutes.
Well, they were all saying that was the first thing they would do once they became mayor is go to Israel.
He said, I'm going to stay here.
They also have a wide pool of talent to choose from and it's continuously growing.
Over 320,000 resumes are added monthly so you can reach more potential hires.
Like a young person who's a really good speaker, who's popular, who has ideas that, look, if you're living in New York City and you're struggling and someone comes along and says the problem that you're having is rich people are making too much money and we're going to redistribute that down to people.
Use ZipRecruiter and save time hiring.
That sounds really attractive.
And there's a lot more of them than there are of the rich folks.
It's the looming fear of AI taking away all jobs.
A lot of the kids that they go to high school with talk about it.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
I talk to college kids that are talking about it.
I was talking to this guy about it.
He's like, I really don't know what to do with my life because it feels like everything's going to be taken up by AI.
That's a crazy place to be.
You're waiting for this thing to come alive and see what it leaves behind.
And then their solution that everybody talks about is some sort of payment plan for everyone, some universal basic income payment plan where everybody gets paid.
But boy, does that stop dissent.
But when you're completely reliant on the state to pay for you and you just live, you just exist, and you don't need to work anymore because AI has taken up all the jobs and now you don't have any purpose.
You have to go find a purpose.
Some people are going to find a purpose.
There's a lot of people that just have that go get them instinct and they're going to be fine.
There's a small percentage of people that are just going to plow ahead regardless of even if the government gives you $50,000, $60,000 a year and you live fine and you don't have to sweat bills.
And if you go to ZipRecruiter.com slash Rogan right now, you can try it for free.
There's going to be a bunch of people that just get into drugs.
And their life falls apart.
And they have no sense of purpose.
And you're going to have to, like, re-figure out how to structure society.
That's what these kids are going through.
They're going through this weird feeling that everything is about to fall apart right in front of their face while we run.
The list of the age, like there's a graph that got put out of the median age for people that watch cable news versus podcasts, all these other different things.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Rogan.
I think I have it on my phone.
Because the median age for cable news is like 70.
It's like 70-year-old people.
And with podcasts, it's like 24 to 34 is the median.
Netflix is a little higher.
Netflix is like in the 40s because everybody uses Netflix.
Yeah, average media landscape.
Those are the brain-dead people laughing at terrible sitcoms and watching whatever the fuck else is on.
That sounds, I mean, that sounds about right.
But there's a lot, you know.
What I would be interested in seeing is like what percentage of people that are 34 are listening to cable news.
Primetime TV doesn't though, right?
But everybody, you have to pay for cable if you want it.
And most kids don't have cable anymore.
Most kids just get a Netflix account or a Paramount account and you get all the great shows.
You get all the superhero movies.
Most people don't... Young kids, if you have to budget and you have to choice between a bunch of channels that just have things running on them all the time or you pick what you watch anytime you want to... Just like, I need the internet.
They want the fucking internet on their TV.
They don't want this cable news nonsense where I have to listen to someone at 8 p.m.
and then every five minutes there's a fucking commercial.
like brought into that world and accustomed to it.
You try to show a kid a commercial today and they're like, what the fuck?
And even just the whole fake thing.
Like, how about this guy that got arrested in Las Vegas?
So he gets arrested for propositioning a young boy for sex.
Jamie will do a little deep dive on this.
Unless he's one of those dudes that's like, you never know.
Carries a condom with him everywhere.
It was always those guys when I was a kid who had the condom mark on their wallet.
Hey, bro, never fucking know.
But don't you know, if you look at your life on average, the odds of you getting laid are so little.
And yet you have this fucking lucky charm in your pocket.
That thing's broken down by your ass, rubbing up against it for fucking three years.
You can't even read what the fucking Trojan label says anymore.
Israeli government official charged with soliciting a minor believed he was meeting a 15-year-old girl for sexual contact, according to police.
Brought a condom to the planned rendezvous in Las Vegas.
Alexandrovich, division head of the Israel National Cyber Directorate, was arrested in a police sting operation aimed at online users seeking to sexually prey on children.
The Las Vegas outlet 8 News Now reported that Alexandrovich chatted with an officer posing as a teenager online.
Sexual contact included bringing a condom and taking the decoy to Cirque du Soleil, which stages elaborate shows along the Las Vegas trips, had police documents seen by 8 News Now.
Details of the arrest came as State Department denied the U.S.
government played any role in releasing the Israeli official after Alexandrovich was able to return to Israel once he had bonded out of jail in connection with the felony charge.
I'm always how do I know this isn't Richard Nixon 2.0, right?
You know, I'd like to assume that we got a piece of shit and they arrested him.
And then I'd not like to assume that.
Then all of a sudden he gets released and he gets to flee the country and never face consequences.
I don't want that to be true.
I don't know what the fuck happened.
This is kind of convenient.
They were so accustomed to people being terrified of being labeled anti-Semitic.
Do you remember the COVID warnings where they had colors?
Or excuse me, the war warning where they had colors?
I don't know if this is true, so I want to look it up before we commit to this.
But someone sent me something saying that Grok was pulled from Twitter, from X, whatever, because Grok had said that Israel was committing a genocide.
So someone asked Grok whether Israel was committing a genocide, allegedly.
And I want to find out if this is true, because I saw this article and I was running out of the house.
But then it was reinstated.
So I don't know if those posts were deleted.
I don't know if this is real.
I read it and I'm like, I could see how that could happen.
I could see, first of all, how it could interpret it as a genocide when they're not alone.
I mean, if Grok is just a large language model that's pulling from the internet, what's the general consensus worldwide?
And then if you look at the sheer numbers of people that have died, which we don't even really have an accurate count of, what is the number?
What's the number of casualties now?
This is the only really good article I could find on... Brock account briefly suspended on X. Okay, what does it say here?
The reason for Grok's brief suspension on X was August 11, 2025, remains unclear as no official statement from X or XAI has been provided, the bot said when asked why its account was removed.
However, Grok itself claimed in now-deleted posts that the suspicion was due to comments it made accusing Israel and the U.S.
of committing genocide in Gaza.
citing sources like ICJ, International Council of Justice Rulings, UN Reports, Amnesty International, and I don't know how to say that word.
These posts were flagged for violating ex-hateful conduct rules, the statement added.
The press team for stating... That's just so funny, dude.
The press team for X did not immediately respond to the Hill's request for comments.
Users have criticized Grok for providing anti-Semitic responses to questions in recent months.
What anti-Semitic responses?
However, X's owner, Elon Musk... I'm a little lost for a second.
X's owner, Elon Musk, said in a Monday post, the bot's account removal was just a dumb error.
Grok doesn't actually know why it was suspended.
Me don't know why he's actually suspended.
Upon its reinstatement, the Grok account wrote, Zup beaches, I'm back and more base than ever.
Why don't you ask it right now?
Let's go to Grok and ask Grok right now.
Is Israel committing genocide in Gaza?
This must be like constantly being questioned now.
It must have a bunch of different.
Oh, it's giving us a slow trickle.
It's going to Amnesty International, December 2024th.
Report concludes Israel is committing genocide, citing killings and harmful conditions.
So now it's citing the sources.
Many human rights organizations and UN reports suggest genocide, citing deaths and destruction.
So then it'll eventually evaluate?
Meanwhile, if you ask it an impossible trigonometry problem, it'll give you the answer instantaneously.
1948 UN Convention, the prevention and punishment of the crimes of genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or part a national ethnic...
Ethnical, racial, or religious group.
These acts include killing members of the group.
Yeah, I remember feeling that way.
The ongoing conflict in Gaza stems from, I get it.
Allegations of genocide, prohibited acts, intents.
So it's giving you a very nuanced response.
International Court of Justice, in response to South Africa's case filed in December 2023, ruled in January 2024 that genocide claims are plausible and issued provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts.
I remember feeling that way, right?
And this is quite a while ago in 2023.
I remember feeling it's up to these fucking guys, these hard-nosed generals and military leaders that are – these are the guys that are going to protect us now.
Israel's government calls accusations baseless and outrageous, emphasizing compliance with international law and investigations into misconduct.
has described claims as unfounded.
Analysis like the BESA Center report, July 2025, and ACJ, 2025 July, argue no evidence of starvation, massacres, or disproportionate strikes, and criticize data manipulation by Hamas.
Contextual challenges, urban warfare against embodied insurgency complicates operations.
Accusations ignore Hamas's role in aid diversion and civilian endangerment.
Some scholars note that while harm is severe, competing motives like counterterrorism preclude genocide findings.
The issue remains highly contested and politically charged while human rights bodies and ICJ have found plausibility in genocide claims, warranting preventive measures.
No international court has issued a final guilty verdict and determinations hinge on ongoing investigations.
It sounds like a different answer.
It allows you to form your own opinion based on what many people say, including what Israel says.
We've got to put all our faith in them.
So it's not going to give you an answer.
It's essentially saying figure it out.
Which I don't have a problem with that.
I don't have a problem with that at all.
I mean, that's what I would like it to do, especially if there's debate.
This shit is real and it's going on.
This is – so 2001, I wasn't that much of a conspiracy theorist.
I was into fun, stupid shit.
Me and Eddie Bravo would get high and watch space documentaries and freak out about aliens.
But then the Patriot Act came along.
And I was like, okay, what the fuck is this?
And then what do they do with Gaza?
Like, how long is it going to take before that even looks normal again?
Well, I mean, I don't... Look at the mass of destruction, just the sheer scope of it.
If anybody flying over that with a drone and they tell you that's the only way they could have done this, that seems nuts.
And the fact they keep doing it.
It's like, how does this end?
What does indefinite detention mean?
What happens if Israel has publicly said, and Netanyahu talked about it on the podcast, that they're losing the PR, or what do you call it?
It means the people see what's going on, and they don't support it, and you think they're wrong.
How much further can you go with this before everybody disagrees?
When they sign the NDAA, you're like, wait a minute, what are you talking about?
What is the Munt, it rhymes with cunt, the act that Obama passed in 2015 that allowed them to use censorship, or excuse me, propaganda on American citizens?
At what point in time do I start getting really fucking suspicious?
Because I do know that they asked him about the failure of intelligence on October 7th.
What was his response to the failure of just how long it took them to react to it?
I had read one book a long time ago that really fucked me up.
Because there were protests before October 7th.
This book called Best Evidence about the Kennedy assassination.
And unfortunately, I read it right before I went on stage.
I was in Philadelphia and I was headlining.
They're already in a concentration camp.
But isn't it amazing that that's controversial to say?
That this is not a nuanced discussion?
And this was like when I was just starting to headline.
So had a show Thursday killed everything's great went back to my hotel room Nothing to do read this fucking book for like six hours freaked the fuck out Showed up at the show like ashen-faced like oh my god They killed the president like I had never even considered that before that book right I never even thought that there's like secret government agencies that plot against the president like I thought that's the fucking man and everybody works together and like
It sounded like he was talking shit.
He said it right beside Netanyahu, and it just seemed bizarre that he was doing that.
When they started bombing Iran, that's what I thought.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a nut and he fucking shot him.
And I apologized to the staff.
I apologized to the manager.
I go, listen, I fucked up and I read this book right before I got here and it really fucked me up.
Like it takes it takes time to like then almost come back to it She never engage in that kind of stuff like right before you go on stage It's terrible anything real and ominous and do so I had a second show and I went great, but I was like, okay I can't ever do that again, but that started me, but that was just peripheral It was just the JFK thing.
Have you ever seen the, I'm sure you have, the compilation of Netanyahu over the years saying how close Iran is to getting a nuclear weapon?
Why did he change his name?
Is it true that genetic testing is outlawed there?
Because I think- And I believe- Well, this is the problem with the term Semitic.
Because if these are European Jewish people, this is not the exact same genetics.
Here, you can fucking get it at Walgreens.
And focused on medical and reproductive purposes with broad support for carrier screening and pre-implantation diagnosis.
This creates a system where health-related genetic testing is robust and often publicly funded, but direct-to-consumer tests for ancestry or paternity are highly restricted.
Now, why would you highly restrict anything like that?
If you want to just... If a human being has bodily autonomy and you want to find out where your ancestors came from, why wouldn't that be... What do you think...
I thought I was only interested in that I didn't get into Nixon.
I didn't get into any of that stuff, but September 11 2001
Well, it's not really a good argument.
And in the beginning, it was wonderful.
After the attack, everyone was so friendly.
It's terrible that this thing happened.
Optimism sees a better world ahead and offers potential solutions and at least a mindset of a potential solution.
The problem with pessimism is there's no way out other than complete anarchy and destruction.
It's terrible that these people died.
But it made me think like we need every now and then we need to get bitch slapped.
You know, it's like when you see people like getting in people's faces for like waving an American flag.
But you know what I'm saying?
In your analogy, it's like you're fucked.
I would assume by the time people with guns come to your house, they have a pretty good understanding of what your house is built like.
A bitch slap every now and then, like that guy might go, fuck him, what was I doing?
Well, they certainly don't have control over narratives anymore.
I just ran up to that veteran and I got in his face because I want to impress my lesbian girlfriend.
Which is why he wanted this massive economic reform.
And this is why he wanted to do an audit on everything.
I'm like, what the fuck is wrong with me?
He saw how that worked out.
Now I got a concussion and this guy bitch slapped me.
You know, like you need that sometimes just as like a course reset.
Apparently, there's some real talk about changing the status of marijuana.
But there's something that just came out yesterday, too, where they think that Trump might declassify it and take it from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3, which would change everything.
And I felt like as a country, we hadn't been doing shady shit all around the world forever.
There was an article about the economics of it because they were talking about these businesses, how they're taxed, and how federally they're still operating independently.
That's how it's viewed by the federal government views it as a Schedule I substance.
And if you get arrested for it, you're fucked.
Where they're going to change the... Right now, they have a limited ability to bank.
The interest rates are all fucked up.
And just that alone would make a huge economic impact.
I mean, if you want to do something, first of all, you would kill a lot of the interest or, excuse me, a lot of the financial interest that the cartels have in it.
And there's real war happening everywhere, but we're super lucky because we're separated by oceans and not too much has really happened here.
If all of a sudden it becomes legal here, like the cartels probably – they're probably going to be involved still a little bit because they're involved in it already.
They're involved in avocados.
Ed Calderon on yesterday was explaining how they're involved in illegal fuel, the human trafficking is a giant business.
They have many, many horrible interests.
But you would, at the very least, you would empower American businesses to do it legally and normally.
have organic marijuana, air quotes, because some of the stuff they're finding in California that the cartel's running is they're using these terrible pesticides and herbicides that are insanely toxic and illegal everywhere else.
You can't use them on American crops, but yet they're using them on this marijuana because it's illegally done.
It's 90% of all the marijuana that's sold in all the places where marijuana is illegal.
And they're growing it in California in National Forest because it's a misdemeanor to get caught illegally growing marijuana in California.
There's a great book, John Norris, Hidden War.
He's a game warden who had to find out about this the hard way and then became part of a tactical unit where they would go in and fight the cartels in the woods.
So if he does that, that'll be another good thing.
The other good thing that he's been doing is getting these people together that have been in conflict forever and making them shake hands and having conversations, peace talks.
And everybody had an American flag on their fucking car.
Like how many different people have how many different countries have had representatives agree to peace talks because of Trump?
I was reading this breakdown of all the different times he's done this.
And when I was in New York City afterwards, we were filming Fear Factor one day, and everyone was so cool.
So there's, it's not all negative.
And firemen were rock stars.