The No Pill Podcast

Share on social media:

What do Space, Autism and Cancer have in common? Find out in Episode 13 of the No Pill Podcast. 

[00:00:48] Andrew Hoffman:

Hello, everybody. This is Andrew Hoffman, podcasting from Piedmont, Oklahoma on Memorial Day,   May twenty six, twenty twenty five.   Hope everyone out there is doing well. Sorry it's been been a little time since I lasted an episode.   Got a lot of stuff in there. Hopefully, we can get through it in a way that makes sense for people.   Today's episode, episode 13, we're gonna call billion dollar cover   Ups, What Autism, Cancer,   and Fake Space Have in Common.   So, first of all, I just wanna to give a a flashback   to a story that was covered on Revelations Radio News a few years ago,   and this is DART. Does anyone remember DART?  

Alright. That's just a little refresher here. You can go to NASA's website.   DART stands   for Double Asteroid   Redirection Test.   And what they did, the official story,   is they shot   a projectile,   spaceship complete   with complete with, you know, streaming video equipment   that,   worked just fine millions of miles away.   Launched it in, I believe,   I'll I'll get the dates here,   September.   No. The impact was in September   2022.   They launched it at 10:21PM   Pacific time,   from an air force base in California,   and that was 11/23/2021.   So November all the way till September, so almost a full year.  

And they ran this thing,   to demonstrate   asteroid deflection with a kinetic   impactor.   Alright?   So,   you know, kinetics   not just for warfare anymore. It's also for saving the planet from asteroids. So they shot this thing.   They have, you you know, video. They've got image   images of it hitting the asteroid.   It looks like a parking lot, but   that's that's fine. I'm sure it's a real asteroid.   And,   declared it all a success.   And then,   you know, this is   that was one   big NASA thing,   among many. I mean, this was not this was not the same   asteroid that they   ran   into, scoop stuff up, brought it back, and dropped it right into their own facility, and then had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to open up the capsule   with the special,   you know,   asteroid rock in it. So that's that was that was a different one. But but DART, you know, this is basically a whole,   department.  

And,   you know, a couple reasons why   why it's interesting.   The main group behind it, obviously NASA,   but it is the applied physics laboratory   at   Johns Hopkins.   Oh, that's interesting.   And that all the videos, because this   is 2021,   '20 '20 '2, everybody's wearing masks,   you know, and they're important mission.   But, you know, it's important. We gotta do it, but we gotta stay safe from COVID.   And then,   the the lead guy   died of   they kind of imply cancer   during the project. Don't know if it was turbo cancer or what exactly happened there.   Ray Harvey.  

And now they   they've gone back and named asteroids off of all the people that were involved. Oh, that's pretty awesome.   Awesome for them.   So it's   you know? I mean, these stories,   they don't get a lot of hype.   There's people that are really into NASA stuff that do follow it,   but your everyday person will not have heard of DART.   And I don't necessarily I think they would like it if   if people did pay more attention.   But I think there's   a little bit of just   natural skepticism,   both that it's really happening, and that's that's obviously where I'm at,   but also this is actually a good use   of of so called taxpayer money,   shooting stuff into space and, you know, we   we make movies to put the concept in people's brains. Oh, you know, what if an what if an asteroid's coming to impact the Earth? We gotta go, you know, go blow it up. Go knock it off off its course so it doesn't crash into us, and we'll end up like the dinosaurs. So this is   I think it's   a small part   of a whole lot of NASA propaganda.  

And this goes all the way back to the fake moon landing   and why they had to,   you know, why they had to fake it. I would say   the firmament's a big reason.   But if you, you know, even take the   biblical cosmology view totally out of it. Let's just look at it as a government program.   How many government programs   since going to the moon   have actually finished on time and done what they were trying to do? You know? Had war on drugs, did that did that work out? No.   No.   Yeah. Mission accomplished.   Second Gulf War.   How'd that work   out? And   it seemed easier than going and landing on the moon.  

Supposedly, we did it a bunch of times, '19, you know, sixties, seventies,   and then just we haven't been back in fifty years.   It's it's too hard, apparently. We've we forgot how to do it.   Just a little bit hard to believe. But let's just, for the sake of argument,   regardless if you're on the Matt Walsh side of this or the   the skeptic side of it,   let's just say the original moon landing was fake.   What do you do then?   You know? What obviously,   congress is not going to   be able to to justify   billions of dollars being poured into NASA   if the moon landing is fake. So you gotta cover that up, and you gotta, you know, keep doing stuff. So that's that's how fifty years later, we're still spending money on space.  

Most of the hard work is done by by these art interns, which I don't even think they pay them very much. So where does all the money actually go?   But, you know, showing, oh, this is a galaxy.   It's billions of light years away. Then we know we know what it looks like. We're just gonna show you a picture and pretend that's what it looks like.   So this this has been an ongoing thing.   And,   you know, NASA   why is there a NASA base in Antarctica? I don't know. It's a little strange.   What do they got going down there? They they wouldn't be working on faking twenty four hour sunlight or anything like that. No. What?   That's that's too crazy.  

And then, you know, if if you're wondering,   why go to space, then NASA has a whole whole page on that. You know? Why why go to space?   And I I   start the episode with this this topic.   I haven't had a chance to talk about it too much lately,   but   the concept of spending billions and billions and billions of dollars   on a cover up,   and it becomes its own industry.   You know, at this point,   think of all the different   states that have a piece of the pie, you know,   rockets getting made here and there, and   and different technologists' tax dollars getting getting funneled all sorts of different places. You you know, dart that was launched from California.   So it's not just   a a Florida and Texas thing anymore, even though they used to say, oh, this is where we this is where we have to launch from because of the special,   you know, magical   traject trajectory spot to to shoot out from Earth. It has to be   in Florida or Texas, but,   California, that's fine. We can do it from there.  

So   this is has been going for,   well,   what is it, over   over sixty years at this point from the,   you know, the original   moonshot and, oh, Sputnik. Oh, no. Those those evil Soviets are gonna beat us to the moon.   This whole thing just keeps going and going and going, and money keeps getting poured into it. You can look at the Cold War. Same deal. Right? Same players also.   Very interesting. This is, in some ways, an an extension of the Cold War, but has kept going   even longer.   Now we're kinda back into a   they don't call it the Cold War anymore. Now it's just, you know, ongoing proxy wars in in various places. But   so the   spending billions and billions of dollars making the lie,   just keeping the lie going.  

And we're gonna connect that back to,   to autism, the autism lie.   As far as,   it being genetic.   We can spend billions of dollars if we can just look for that that   that sneaky gene that just all of a sudden started causing autism left and right. You know? We'll we'll talk a lot about that.   Cancer, it's another one. We're not gonna focus on that that tonight, but, you know,   how many billions of dollars have been spent on   on cancer research, and   we're not gonna look for anything cheap that that helps against cancer. We're definitely not doing that. You know? We're we're looking for   expensive treatments   that,   you know, prolong life, prolong the the billing   cycle, and,   don't cure anybody. We don't want any any cures there for cancer.  

So this is   these industries   kinda start from a a cover up where people are asking difficult questions,   like, how exactly did we get to the moon, and and how exactly was the, you know, the president talking on the phone to the guy on the moon, and   and just kinda some some difficult questions there.   How did autism go from   not being   noticed at all to one in ten thousand in the nineteen seventies to   one in thirty one and even   even a higher prevalence than that in in in California   in,   2025.   You know?   What what exactly is going on there? Must be genetics. The genetics changed in that amount of time.   Same obviously, cancer is even even bigger than autism.  

So this this all,   is tied together.   I wanna give a shout out to,   my friend, Will, from the truth is stranger than than fiction.   He did a a recent video called Saved, a Parent Reflection on Autism, Eugenics, and the NIH.   And, if you're   listening for the first time, the odds are that you you found out about this little podcast from Will and from that video. So   welcome to those people that are here. And, Will, thank you for the   the kind words.   Enjoy that as I enjoy all of all of his work. He's got   a two hour,   you know, full documentary out recently as well. So   please go and and check that out. The truth is stranger than fiction. You can still get to it on YouTube, but there are   alternate platforms as well. So   check out his stuff, and let's go let's see.  

So along with spending billions of dollars,   the main thing   I want to focus on is the way   okay. You've got the   you've got the lie that you're telling. You've got your reasons for that.   You've got to cover up the lie. You've got a whole industry based around that.   But then you also need   a a certain type of lie. So if someone is   let's say they are accusing you of or they're   exposing one element of the the system, you need   a new kind of   of lie,   of story   that you can tell   that is   that is going to provide   a a straw man,   a debunkable   straw man.  

And this is true of anything. You know, people say that all flat earth is a, you know, flat earth is a psyop.   Well, I I used to think that too until I until I actually looked into it. Now I'm   a a die hard,   you know, biblical cosmologist   rather than I like that term better than than flat earther, but   but, you put me in the flat earth camp   now.   But there there   is definitely   bogus stuff   floating around in   the the flat earth milieu.   And if you   are are about my age and you remember the nine eleven days and kind of the,   the Zeitgeist documentary, right, we'll throw in some   some stuff that we kinda ripped off from Alex Jones, but we'll throw in some stuff about 09:11   and and, you know, the how the monetary system works,   which was also stolen from someone else. And then, by the way, you know, Jesus wasn't real at all comes from,   I forget, you know, constellations or,   just a totally bogus,   looking back on it, very debunkable   lie.  

But because people were so   thrown through a loop with the nine eleven true stuff,   it's like, wow, maybe this is true too. So it was   it was an effective lie for that reason.   And   with the   on the biblical cosmology flat earth front, one thing that keeps coming up is,   Tartaria.   Okay? Which   doesn't   really have anything to do with it, but you   see stuff on Tartaria from a lot of the same sources.   People that are are   are, questioning the spinning water ball   tend to also be into this Tartaria thing. So Harrison Smith,   you know, he he had the Flat Earth debate on his show there on Infowars.  

I I tend to think he lost that debate with Wit It.   But,   anyway, I I had to give him kudos because I I actually agree with him on,   Tartaria   for the most part, and here's a a clip from him.  

[00:16:07] Unknown:

I'll just I just I just gotta say I quickly I gotta say,   Tartaria is bullcrap.   It's a lie. It's there to cover up the real historical forces   at play   for   very simple   and easy to discern reasons.   Essentially, the the theory of Tartaria is there there was this old world, and then sometime around the turn of the century,   coincidentally coinciding with   World War one, for example,   everything changed. And it's like, yeah, everything changed in World War one. Yes. The world before World War one and the world after are two different worlds. It's not because   a secret empire was covered up and every history book was changed. It's because the world that was created   essentially by Europeans   for the several centuries before the nineteen hundreds,   was shattered and destroyed, and   generations of men murdered   and killed. And a gigantic war   created in order to not just kill all of those people, but destroy the systems of the old world, destroy the monarchies of the old world.  

After all, before   World War one, you had   several different monarchies in Europe that were extremely powerful, the Russian one, the German one. You know, France had gone away a while ago. But   by the end of World War one,   pretty much only The UK   remained as a powerful,   monarchy   left in Europe. And, yes, during the war   effort,   massive amounts of natural resources were destroyed. Natural   or not natural, but inherited genius was eradicated.   The previous   construct of the world as being,   you know, one,   you know, guided, especially in America by, you know, these small groups of people just going out conquering the frontier. It was completely changed   and   forcibly,   you know, altered its trajectory   sort of along the lines of,   Henry Ford and the assembly line, where instead of having master craftsmen creating things with their hands,   you had people as bugs, people as robots just standing in line mindlessly   forming things together. So, yes, the world absolutely   changed dramatically   right around the time of World War I on purpose to become something much less glorious, much less human, much less uplifting.  

And it's no coincidence that, like, 1913, you've got the Federal Reserve being created and the income tax being created and the Rockefeller Foundation being created and the assembly line being invented and the ADL being created   and the first Aliyah de Israel happening. Like, all of these things happened   in one year, and they signify a monumental shift in human consciousness,   not because Tartaria   fell down and, you know, the mud flood happened, but because   human nature was hijacked and warped and perverted, and   the world as we know it was destroyed, and we're living in the dystopian remnants   of a much greater civilization. So it's not Tartaria. It's just history. It's just   normal,   everyday,   run of the mill history.  

So I guess people haven't heard it, so they need to come up with some sort of, bizarre, flat earth conspiracy to come up with it. So, anyway, now we'll move on. I'm glad I got that out of my system. Now we'll move on.   Tartaria is a fake and false and a distraction from looking at the real political and societal and demographic changes that occurred forcibly   right around World War one. So you can look at real history and what was actually going on. You don't have to walk around filming capitol buildings and go, look at the size of that rock. What?   Like, come on, guys. We can pick up big rocks. We can stack big rocks on one another. I believe in humanity. I believe humanity has the capability   to put big stones on top of other big stones. This is not a conspiracy.  

You do not it does not require hidden technology.   Pick up the stone. You put it on the other stone. Problem solved. Okay. Moving on. We're moving on now. But wait.  

[00:20:18] Unknown:

What about the free energy that they discovered and that their tower is harnessed?  

[00:20:23] Unknown:

Well, okay. That's true. Alright. Well, there is that. Okay. You got me there.   You got me there.   Here's what I'll say about that. People point to things like Saint Elmo's Fire showing that,   basically, the air around there's little, like   I don't I don't know how to describe it, but it looks like miniaturized   aurora borealis that will appear at, like, the top of steeples and things, but those also appear at the top of ship mass. It has something to do with maybe it is the ether. Maybe it and I think I think if you wanna talk about Tesla creating free wireless energy in a project that was founded by JP Morgan,   who realized that the entire scheme that they were setting up using oil as a scarce   commodity that could be used to control people, that was a threat to that entire system. So that was buried. Yeah. I believe in that. That's true. But Saint Elmo's fire or things like that aren't necessarily,   evidence of,   you know, churches generating energy somehow. It's just   the world is magical, and sometimes magic things happen like that. My favorite Sometimes  

[00:21:22] Unknown:

magic things happen. My favorite comment, you know what I mean, is is, you know, when people say, well, why why why would people hide something like that? And, you know, the obvious reply from the tartarians   tartarians   is, you know Retardians. Yeah.   Go   on. They have the control. They need the control. They've got the control over you with the oil. Even if it's super expensive to spend all the money,  

[00:21:48] Unknown:

we've got them with the oil. But see, that's what Under our control. This is the frustrating part about Tartaria. I mean, that is true. Right? It is true that they will crush,   you know, inventions of free energy because   the entire world is set up, you know, on this predicate of   oil,   of, you know, the the oil trade. I mean, the control systems   are very real, and they rely on, you know, enforced scarcity of certain commodities. So that is true.   And then they take that instead of just looking at it at a in a practical,   you know, reasonable way of just like, yeah, there's bad people that would rather you suffer and would rather, you know, you be kept away from this,   you know, invention that would improve your life significantly because they can't make money with it. Like, yeah, that's what happens.  

It's not that,   you know, the the Mongols actually invented   free wireless energy, and they were all, you know, zooting around on jet packs   before, the mud floods. Like,   that's the distraction. That's that's the part where they take a real inclination and real questions people have. Gee, could there be free energy, and would they be incentivized to shut it down and keep it from us, just to keep them their power? And it's like you start going down that road, and you can actually find evidence and actual tangible things you could do at this moment to, you know, fight back against it. Instead, they lead you down the,   down the false rabbit hole. It's like you've got a bunch of,   it's like you've got a bunch   of c c c conniving diggers,   creating fake rabbit holes for people to go down. There's no rabbit at the bottom. You're not following the white rabbit. You're following,   an obese man in a in a rabbit suit beckoning you along.  

So chase the real white rabbit, which is, you know, human nature and,   you know, massive geopolitical shifts   for,   ulterior motives, hidden,   clandestine   aims being sought, you know, covered up by the officially accepted narrative of things like World War I. Yeah. Follow that rabbit trail. Follow the rabbit trail of   humanity under attack   basically for the last century and a half or more,   by other humans who,   you know, see widespread,   education and   intelligence and strength as a threat to their   imposition of power.  

[00:24:09] Andrew Hoffman:

There's a couple different tartarian   arguments that I see online. So   the basic one is look at these super fancy buildings. Are you saying they made these with   hammers and chisels and and, you know, look at the look at the pyramids. Look at all this stuff. Although pyramids, that's kind of a separate   conspiracy theory. It's not wrapped into Tartaria.   So,   the argument is if there were   these super fancy buildings, there had to have been   advanced technology and advanced equipment.   It can't just be,   you know, people used to know how to do a lot more stuff than they do now.   And and I definitely   wholeheartedly   reject that, and that's actually,   it's it's kind of a different version of the same   evolutionary   progress   transhumanism   lie, where the the idea of   caveman to current man, and we're going to transhuman   in the in the future.  

That argument of,   you know, we used used to be really simple and dumb, but now we're so smart with our machines.   And I don't think that's true at all. I think, you know, if you if you look at people   a hundred years ago,   they're definitely smarter than we we are now. And there's a lot of reasons for that.   Some of them intentional poisoning, intentional dumbing down, things like that. Or look two year two hundred years ago.   You know, look at presidential debates, Lincoln versus Douglas versus   Trump   versus Biden. Okay? We've we're not going in the,   smarter,   know how to do more stuff direction. Now technology is,   but that to me, that does not mean humanity   is is going in this this new amazing direction.  

So the idea that   we we   weren't able to build complex things   hundreds, even thousands of years ago,   I think is faulty is is a faulty premise. So that's that's the main thing. Look at this fancy building. A lot of times, though, it's like, look at this AI image that doesn't exist anywhere, and we're just gonna tell you it's a Tartarian   city, and you're   somehow supposed to believe it?   And then there is,   look, there's a place called Tartaria   on a map. Therefore,   Tartaria   as we portray it elsewhere   is real. It's like, well, okay. That's one tiny country that then, you know, was known   as Tartaria and then was known as as other things over there in Eastern Europe.  

That   is everything you say is Tartaria, is it located there? No. No. Virtually   none of the things you say are Tartaria   are located in the country you say was Tartaria. So   that's that's kind of a faulty argument there as well.   And just the kind of the whole mud flood thing of, like, look, there's, you know,   they've   flooded stuff to to cover it up and change the history books and yada yada. Well, I think there was a big flood. It was a a,   you know, worldwide flood,   but that was   well before any   any modern   modern cities or what have you. So, you know, there's certainly localized flooding and and stuff like like that does happen. And when you,   blow up a whole continent during a couple of world wars, you do get a lot of damage and end up, you know, building over stuff. And   you build the dam, water flows in, you build you gotta build somewhere else. You   there was a,   you know, a   Columbia River,   Bonneville Dam. When they made that, it it wiped out a a town. You know, they moved people out before   it before it happened, obviously. But, there there was a town there, and then then there a very small town, and then there wasn't.  

And they're like, oh, we'll give you we'll give you some of their land over there. So,   this sort of thing does happen, and if you   excavate it, you would find,   wow, there was houses and stuff underneath   the underneath the Columbia River. I wonder why that is.   So I I don't find the Tartarian argument very convincing.   I don't necessarily   impugn the the motives of the people pushing it,   but I will say I've noticed on,   on X,   on the artist formerly known as Twitter,   there's accounts that   used to do a lot of   like flat earth,   like legit flat earth arguments.  

And then   that same account, I have no idea if it's the same person or not. It's just an anonymous Twitter account.   All of a sudden, it's all Tartarian stuff and just all kind of, you know, what's beyond the ice wall? Well, we're not supposed to that's the point of the ice wall is that we're not supposed to know what's on the other side of it. And that's,   you know, speculating on that doesn't help us out at all. So   this is   I have noticed that pattern. Another example,   x account. And, again, if this is a well meaning person and who wants to reach out to me and   explain why they are making the post they're currently making, I would I would love to hear from him or her.  

HealthBot   on   on x.   Lots of great stuff. I mean, that's why I follow the account.   And then I found kind of back to back just   kind of crazy   things from it being put out as if it's,   as if it's brand new information or, you know, valid new information.   And, I'm going to play these clips because I think it's   instructive on how this type of propaganda   is done.   Propaganda   through the alternative media.   Big t, they know that we don't listen we don't watch the evening news anymore. So if you're gonna convince people of things or get them,   like Harrison Smith was saying, running you know,   digging down the wrong rabbit holes, you've gotta   you gotta throw stuff at them that that sounds good, sounds   oh, man. That's terrible. I'm gonna get fired up about that.  

And   is also easily deb debunkable, so you can point to it and say,   no. That's that's not true at all. See,   you can't believe anything you you read on the Internet.   So we'll play   a couple of these clips. It   is well, let's see.   Brian Artis   is his name. And   I'm not really blaming him. I mean, this this clip is a couple years old. It's just getting put back out there now like it's new.   And he probably,   you know, said he was wrong and   and, like I said, I'm not really blaming him. He's he's done a lot of good things.   But he was talking to,   the surviving member of Diamond and Silk that wasn't killed by the COVID vaccine   and talking about,   this   this this company, which,   we'll we'll talk about the actual company after we're we're done with this clip. Actually, there's a company, a subsidiary  

[00:31:42] Unknown:

company of Pfizer.   It's called Zotis,   z o t I s.   Do you know they've already   mRNA injected a hundred million wildlife in America?   I guarantee you they're doing it to pets too. It's only mRNA technology   funded completely by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife's foundation.   They've been doing it all over the country for the whole last year and a half. ZOTAS is its name. It's a subsidiary of Pfizer.  

[00:32:09] Unknown:

This is some real sugar honey iced tea.  

[00:32:13] Unknown:

You ain't lying. You know what's interesting? When I learned about Zotis   and this sugar honey iced tea, because that's what it was to me. You know who would no. You do you know who were the only people that knew that the wildlife   deer, for example,   elk, for example, were actually being mRNA injected for COVID?   It was all the hunters.   Hunters, it was being published in hunters magazines.   I'm not a hunter, but hunters were aware the whole time that this was actually being done and it was being published inside their literature. I had no idea. But when I discovered it, I was like, what? Why is no one talking about this? When I discovered it on Staten Island,   Zuckerberg and his wife funded a research study. They went out and gathered up a hundred white tailed deer   and then PCR tested them all for COVID and then injected them all with mRNA vaccines from Pfizer with this company called ZOTUS, and then went and did a hundred million animals. A hundred million doses have been administered at that point   all throughout the country, and no one knew it, and no one's talked about it. What's it gonna be like when a hunter goes out and gets the deer and then brings home the venison they think is organic and wild?  



[00:33:21] Unknown:

Pretty disgusting, but I would be worried about that. Gonna put that in their body when they eat it.  

[00:33:25] Unknown:

They're gonna they're already injecting mRNA technology into into vegetables, tomatoes,   avocados, lettuce, gavi. Bill Gates' foundation is already doing that. And in China, they're already mRNA injecting cattle   for our beef supply.  

[00:33:39] Unknown:

This is crazy.  

[00:33:40] Andrew Hoffman:

Quite a few problems with that   that little anecdote there.   First of all, it's not spelled z o t I s. It's spelled z   o e t I s.   And it was a subsidiary of Pfizer until 2013 when it was spun off into its own company.   Let's   let me jump over to the the AP fact check,   you know,   from 2023.   So, again, this is a long time ago. Alright?   And you could tell they're talking about this exact video.   Claim, a Pfizer subsidiary named Zoetis has injected mRNA vaccines into a hundred million wildlife animals in The US.   AP's assessment, false. The company, which was a Pfizer subsidiary but is now independent, does not have any messenger RNA or mRNA vaccines for animals, a representative confirmed to the Associated   Press. The facts. The COVID nineteen vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna for humans   use mRNA to instruct cells to create a spike protein to fight the disease.  

The vaccines are safe and effective, but there have been persistent false and unfounded claims about the technology,   including a recent widespread narrative that they are being added to the food supply via animals.   Notice the fact check does not   does not   address that claim.   In a similar vein, a popular video shared on Instagram this week is erroneously claiming that a pharmaceutical   company is injecting wildlife en masse with mRNA vaccines.   Wild and domestic animals getting mRNA   injected, text on the video reads.   The video shows a clip taken from a February episode of the online show of the conservative talk duo Diamond and Silk,   now hosted by Rochelle Silk Richardson, her sister, Lynette,   Diamond Hardaway died in January. There's a company, a subsidiary company of Pfizer that's called Zoetis, a guest on the show claims.  

They don't even   tell you his his name, which is interesting.   Interesting. Great great journalism,   AP.   They've already,   mRNA injected a hundred million wildlife in America. I guarantee you they're doing it to pets too. He later cites deer and elk   as examples of wildlife being mRNA injected for COVID, but the claims don't check out.   There are no COVID nineteen mRNA vaccines   licensed for animals, the US Department of Agriculture re recently told the AP.   Moreover,   Zoetis, a pharmaceutical   company focused on animal health that is actually Pfizer spin off, does not have   mRNA vaccines against any disease.  

We do not have any mRNA vaccines for any animals, Zoetis spokesperson,   Christina Lued, sent in an email to the Associated Press.   Zoetis has has made an animal vaccine against COVID nineteen, which is not mRNA based that has been used in some animals considered susceptible for the disease,   such as some zoo animals.   Livestock in The US are not legally required to receive mRNA vaccines or any immunizations for that matter. Oh, that's interesting. Okay.   Those decisions are made by ranchers and farmers to protect their animals. Oh, I'm I'm sure they they love those decisions.   Okay.  

Let's go to,   Zoetis' Wikipedia   page. Alright?   Now   Brian Artis said,   funded by which the company   is that owned?   Like, you you don't   you don't fund a company. You own a company or invest in a company. But,   anyway, he he said it was all the Zuckerbergs. Right? So Zuckerberg Chan.   Well, the problem with that, this is   this company is absolutely   massive.   This is a way bigger story than what he's talking about, but for different he got all the details wrong. And then I'm I'm gonna assume that was on accident.   Zoetis   is an American drug company, the world's largest producer of medicine and vaccination for pets and livestock.  

The company   subsidiary of Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, but with Pfizer spin off of its 83%   interest in the firm, it is now a completely independent company. The company direct directly markets its products   in approximately 45 countries and sells in more than a hundred countries.   Operations outside The United States accounted for 50% of total revenue.   Contemporaneous   with the spin off in June 2013,   S and P Dow Jones Indices announced that Zoetis would replace first try as a national corporation the S and P five hundred Stock Market Index,   which I it's grown massively since then. I would assume it's still   part of the S and P five hundred. Yeah. We're just gonna launch you straight into the S and P five hundred.  

You know, you come from Pfizer. We we know you're good for it there. So,   9.3   let's see.   Their revenue in 2024   was $9,260,000,000.   And,   well, let's   skip down all all sorts of   interesting acquisitions.   Let's look at what they've been buying up. Okay?   They bought a portfolio of pet drugs from Abbott Laboratories.   Yes. That Abbott   Laboratories   for $255,000,000   way back in 2013.   And   then they bought,   PetMedics   to bring the benefits of species specific antibody therapies to to pet owners.   Interesting.   And they acquired Basepaws   in 2022,   a privately held genetic genetics company.  

Oh, isn't that interesting?   And let's just look at what they say about themselves. I just grabbed a looked at their little PR releases they've got there. And by the way, way, you know, if you wanna do a story about Zoetis   and your, let's say,   you   know, mainstream news organization,   they'll put it together for you. It says right on the the page there, you know, here's the   media like, inquire for media package. And they'll they'll put the whole story in there. You just, you know, narrate it, put your own little spin on it, maybe joke about taking care of your pets, and and there you go.   Wonderful story.  

But this article comes directly from them,   and it is you know, we're we're putting AI into everything. Right? So   feel free to try and figure out where they where there's actual artificial intelligence in any of what they're talking about,   but the the headline is transforming drug discovery and development with generative   AI.   AI has disrupted nearly every industry, including animal health. Learn how our innovators are harnessing AI and other other technologies to identify, create, and deliver   better and much needed medicines and vaccines.   Or, you know, I should say vaccines first because that seems to be the focus.  

From spotting clues at at a crime scene to predicting and preventing wildfires,   AI is helping humans solve complex challenges.   AI is transforming animal health drug discovery too.   Drug discovery is complicated and unpredictable. There are more failures than successes, said Andrea Gonzales, vice president,   automation and data scientists, and   Zoetis' research and development organization.   It's important to make decisions quickly, adapt, and learn from our our failures as much as our successes.   To do that, we are hoping to revolutionize   our approach to r   and d by unlocking the full value of our data and making the process faster, more precise, and less biased.  

AI, digital tools, and data are enabling that transformation.   Below are three ways Zoetis scientists are working to harness   AI, shrink the timeline from discovery to product launch, and advance animal health around the world.   Number one, exploiting data for better drug design.   Okay. We're just gonna read the headlines here.   Number two, investing in innovation.   Alright. It talks about how they, you know, bought that genetics company, and they're just analyzing all the   all the genes.   It is interesting that the head of Pfizer,   you know, Albert Bourla, is a he is a veterinarian.  

This is definitely,   you know, we we're definitely treated,   more like animals rather than animals being treated like people here.   Number three, bringing together the brightest minds to solve complex problems. Okay. And then we've got a, you know,   some   amazing photographs there.   But, you know, it's it's AI, guys. Would just trust us. We're using AI. It's gonna   revolutionize   everything   and, invest in our company. That's kind of the kind of the message there.   So they   if you look at their ink, go to their website,   and   there is product after product after product after product.  

And they   are behind   much of what's going on with veterinary   care. And it   you know, if if you take   this this goes into kind of the overall thing we've been looking at with,   you know, private equity buying out all these different   companies and putting them into and running them the same way,   you think you're dealing with mom and pop, you know, HVAC shop, and it's really a giant   giant company.   And you don't realize that   this little HVAC shop is   the one across town are actually the same same company because they still have the old names on it. Same same thing with veterinary offices, and I kinda run into this in in my day   job. Because you kind of think, you know,   oh, such and such name Oklahoma Town Veterinary Clinic.  

And you go in there and you see the veterinarians and you think, oh, these veterinarians   run the or own the clinic.   Right?   Very often, not the case. Very often,   you know, they're, well, our corporate is out of, you know, Florida, and you'll have to to talk to them   before we make any changes. And   and it's just   a strange situation.   But,   as people with pets are are familiar, they will push the vaccines. I mean, this is you know,   it doesn't matter what you take your pet in for. They're they're probably gonna push vaccines on   you. Then there is kind of   some collusion   with,   pet boarding places   and   and the   veterinarian   kind of pet vaccine   industrial complex there. Where it's like, well, you know, your your pet has to be vaccinated to stay here. We can't have we can't have someone   it's a dog without the rabies vaccine. I mean,   you know, it's a liability.  

So this is   it's a a little snapshot   into a big deal. But this the company this is the company behind all of it. Right? I mean,   I'm not saying a % of it, but the whole pushing the vaccines like crazy,   and old time veterinarians are definitely noticing   the shift. It's like, what why are we pumping   the same vaccine into a little a little tiny dog as a big dog? And,   you know, if the rabies vaccine works like we've always been taught that it did, why do we need to give it every year? You know?   If   supposedly it works, so why shouldn't it be good for life there?   And, man, you know,   you never used to hear about dogs and cats with cancer. Now you hear about it all the time. And it's weird, kind of that cancer tumor is right where I injected them with the vaccine.  

That's strange.   So this   this is a big deal,   and this is Zoetis is definitely the company behind it.   And   I'm not, you know, I'm not worried about the hundred deer that got injected with experimentally with mRNA vaccines or the the zoo animals that got the,   you know, they got the   COVID vaccines for a PR stunt.   That's that concerns me far less than the massive number   of mRNA   and non mRNA vaccines being pumped into   our entire food supply.   And,   you know,   pigs,   cows, cows, chickens, everything just getting pumped full of vaccines.   And this whole bird flu thing is another excuse to try and   and hype that up. And that,   that actually   takes me to   another tweet from the same account, from the health bot account.  

And this is it's titled something about Idaho farmers. Okay? And this is this is typical panic post.   So we we're gonna pull this from a Telegram channel. We're gonna throw it on Twitter.   No context. No anything. And   look at the con   look at the comments. People are freaking out. Alright?   So let's connect this. You'll actually and there's a slight tie in. Don't don't look too hard for it. But,   talking about those those poor Idaho farmers, and they don't have water. Did you know they they're not allowed to water their crops? Let's let's hear about it.  

[00:47:33] Unknown:

So here's a little prediction about your food based on what's going on in Idaho.   Idaho farmers have been told   that they are not allowed to irrigate their crops,   which means   all of those potatoes on hundreds of thousands of acres are not going to be   getting across the finish line and making it into the food supply.   Being the American people   do not really understand how farming works anymore.   Let me educate you.   So a farmer,   generally speaking, has to go take out an operation loan every year   that   allows them to produce the crops that they are trying to produce.   And   these loans are based on collateral of the entire farm that's been handed down from generation to generation.  

So if you can't   produce the crop   based on the loan that you're getting,   that means your farm is going to be foreclosed.   They're gonna come take the land.   If there is no   declaration of emergency   or anything   that is going to help these farmers,   we're about to see a whole lot of Idaho   go up in flames as far   as loss of farms.   When these farmers   no longer   have anything else to lose,   they are going to turn into what we are seeing in Europe.   And y'all should go look on Twitter or x, whatever it is,   at farmer revolts.   And you'll see what what is happening in other countries   due to regulations   like this   because   if I'm about to lose everything I've got,   I don't have anything to lose at all.  

So   with that said, it also has another effect on you, the American public, that does not really understand how farming works   any longer, which is pretty sad.   Everything   as a result of this kind of   regulation,   everything that you eat is about to get much more expensive,   especially   your potatoes being most of them are coming out of Idaho.   So with that said, pray for Idaho.   Do what you can to help them.   If you're seeing something that's bouncing up saying call somebody,   call them   and tell them to let them irrigate their crops.   Otherwise, you're about to see   the tipping point in American ag start to tip.  

Not only that, we have got a   real problem   with the dollar no longer being utilized for oil.   We have got avian influenza spreading across the country, and   small farms and homesteads are being blamed for it.   That's another issue that we've got, and it's starting to look like an attack on American agriculture as a whole.   So folks,   start paying attention to what's going on around agriculture,   especially with these regulations hitting other states because   it's bad for everybody.  

[00:51:08] Andrew Hoffman:

If you had   no   idea about the Idaho water story   other than that clip, your assumption   is they're not letting   all the farmers   irrigate any of the crops.   That's basically how they make it sound.   And in reality, that,   as you might suspect,   totally not true at all.   In fact, this was more of an issue last year, and it was an issue with one specific   aquifer.   And it was an issue where they they told,   well, I'll   let me go into a story from,   November   of twenty twenty four   from the Idaho Capital Sun.   After months of negotiations, Idaho farmers reached new long term water agreement. Idaho's new water mitigation breaks water allotments into four year increments and requires farmers to conserve water.   Nearly six months after a water curtailment order sent shock waves through Idaho's agricultural   community, farmers ratified a new long term water agreement the two sides confirmed late Thursday.  

Members of the Idaho Surface Water Coalition and the Idaho Groundwater Association signed the agreement,   which state officials first unveiled as a potential agreement on October 28. The new water agreement gives groundwater users their water allotment in four year increments instead of handling things one year at a time.   That allows farmers to plan out and manage their own water usage.   It was a tough year of negotiations, but I never doubted our farmers could get this done,   Idaho Governor Brad Little said in a written statement Thursday. Idahoans have always solved our own problems,   and the new mitigation plan charts a better path for all water users in the years ahead while ensuring Idahoans   maintain control of our water destiny, not other states, the feds, or the courts.  

The new agreement also calls for groundwater districts to conserve a minimum of 205,000   acre feet of water annually.   Navigating the past few months has been daunting. Our members have come in early, yada yada yada.   Okay. So there was a specific,   the Eastern Snake Plain aquifer,   and they issued a curtailment order saying if you are a junior water right holder, in other words, you haven't had water rights as long as the senior water rights holders,   you don't get water,   which is   definitely a problem for those. And there were a lot of people impacted and and quite a bit of farmland impacted.   So this was definitely a problem last year, and it could still be a problem this year if you're on the the short end of that negotiation.  

But this is not   a a new thing that just happened and   and applying to all Idaho farmers. And if you   look at the comments on this one, there are some Idaho farmers in the comments like, yeah, I I irrigate my crops.   So this is   you know, it's it's a problem because   there are totally bogus water restrictions.   You know, thinking to   Oregon where there's plenty of water, but you're not allowed to collect   rainwater on your own property, I   e, you're not allowed to to dig a pond,   you know, without government permission to do so. So   there is there is a lot of government overreach when it it comes to water,   and trying   to make something which,   really, I mean, we should be able to figure this thing out,   far more difficult than than it is, you know, all the crazy stuff in California and what have you.  

But   if you think   of the 50 states, which one is going to stop allowing farmers to water their crops? Idaho is not super high on that list. So   somewhat   blown out of proportion   story.   Obviously, if you're impacted, it's a big deal for you, but the idea that our food supply is now, you know, food's gonna be get way more expensive   because of this,   I do not believe so.   And then throwing in the bird flu propaganda   right at the end, I I didn't really appreciate that. So, yeah, let's let's not treat that as if it's a real thing.   Alright. So we're   it's kind of an example   of of what's going on. You see this stuff all over the internet   and,   kind of with this one it seemed to be a more recent story and it's like why is this fairly large Twitter account pushing this out there like it's   new and real, just clearly no I mean, it   it took me   maybe five minutes to figure out   in in both cases what was actually,   you know, what was actually going on. Very possible that you do that before you tweet something out as if it's your, you know, some   some breaking news.  

And it that's the stuff that get that goes viral too. And this is it's   definitely not an accident.   So we need more,   you know, James Corbett is is not on on   Twitter,   but we need more   James Corbett style analysis   rather   than,   conspiratainment,   crazy,   we're all gonna die   type stuff.   There's   a big problem with the food supply, and it is not that we're not gonna have food. It's that our food is   not very healthy, and there's a myriad of reasons for that.   So it's   kind of a distraction like, oh, you know,   they're not going to be able to water their crops, we're not going to have potatoes anymore.   Alright. Let's look at   oh, let's see.  

Okay.   So   to a certain extent,   the   and the this goes back to the earlier clips.   The mRNA the focus on mRNA,   now I'm no fan of mRNA vaccines,   but there   was definitely an attempt   to separate mRNA vaccines from   the quote good vaccines, you know, the old school vaccines.   And in reality,   all vaccines are   poison.   And   that's anyone who digs in to it with an open mind or with a,   you know, vaccine damaged child,   that's the conclusion you come to.   And I I threw in   a a tweet from,   Toby Rogers there. You don't need new studies to figure out the root cause of autism. You don't need AI. You only need to talk with the moms and dads who have seen it happen   with their own eyes. And that is absolutely   the case.  

And like I said, that's,   in, Will's latest video, he he talks about his own experience as   a parent of a a son with autism there. So this is,   you know, a personal issue for him and and for a lot of us. There's a lot of vaccine damage out there.   And then on the other end of the spectrum,   we've got the mainstream media and, you know, the the billionaires.   Billionaire   why do billionaires all think vaccines are such a great idea?   I don't   know. But, let let's   hear from, Bill Gates and,   well, let's   I'll come back. We'll play the Bill Gates clip,   and then I will   play a clip by Aaron Suri. We'll just play those back to back. So Aaron Suri,   is an attorney. I believe he's he works on much of the litigation for children's health   defense.  

Pretty familiar with with him and unless I got that fact wrong, in which case I apologize. But,   definitely seen his name around quite a bit. So he was testifying   in   in front of congress just talking about   talking about vaccines   and not just COVID vaccines, all vaccines.   So first, we're gonna hear from   from Bill Gates on,   we just need to mess around and then we'll hear from Aaron Surry on why that might not be a great idea.  

[00:59:36] Unknown:

Making the mRNA is really easy and really cheap, and that's the magic of this thing.   But there's no doubt in the next five years,   we can you know, we just need to mess around. There's a lot of lipid nanoparticles,   and some are very self assembly, and there's no inherent reason it's not thermal stable, it's not cheap, and it's not scalable. And so as over the five years, we fix that part of it, mature it, which is very typical,   we'll be able to build factories worldwide   that can make $2 vaccines with even   less lead time   than we've had to have here during this pandemic. And we'll use those as you suggest.  

For every disease that we don't have vaccines, we will try mRNA. In fact, for HIV, we have multiple ways, one that's more of a B cell approach, one that's more of a T cell approach. You know, for malaria, we have multiple ideas. For TB, we have multiple ideas.   And so to fill in the missing vaccines,   we   will we'll make a lot of our bets of of the Gates Foundation and others who care about global health,   will be   mRNA  

[01:00:47] Unknown:

focused.  

[01:00:51] Unknown:

Yeah.   Our our vaccine practice, I believe, which has over 40 professionals,   doesn't represent pharmaceutical companies, I believe is the largest vaccine practice in the world.   When we litigate vaccine cases,   we cannot rely on credentials or fancy titles.   We have to prove our claims   with high impact data and sources.   For example,   I saw a slide put up that showed three million   lives were saved from COVID nineteen vaccines.   The citation to it was to the Commonwealth Fund. If you follow that, that's not a peer reviewed study. That's a blog.   It's a blog   that used the mathematical model to calculate that three million lives were saved.  

So I agree with,   the senator   Blumenthal   that who said, you know, quote, claims   made I think you meant broadening vaccines. We need to examine the evidence,   and that's an example of that. We need to look carefully at the evidence we are relying upon when we are making claims about vaccines.   I don't think that, if I went into court and I was relying on a blog that used a mathematical model, I would be laughed out of court court if I was making those claims about vaccines. But, unfortunately, when it comes   to promoting vaccines,   well, that's what we often see. The underlying data is not typically really   carefully evaluated. Claims about what vaccines   do,   when they're positive because our health agencies are responsible for promoting them,   easily made. Claims that vaccines cause any harms or injuries often get ignored no matter how good the underlying data. I also heard that   deaths sharply declined   in 2021.  

Well, when you look at all cause mortality in The United States,   deaths in 2021 went up compared to 2020. And, presumably,   most of the most frail, the weak among us died in 2020 from COVID. We shoulda had a reduction in all cause mortality in United States. We did not. And those numbers are you can't argue with. They're binary. You're either dead or you're alive. You can argue whether the vaccine killed you or didn't kill you, whether COVID killed you or didn't kill you. But it's can't argue with all cause mortality. And we did not have a reduction in all cause mortality in 2021. We had an increase, and we really need to answer that question. We have sent many letters to our federal health officials trying to get an answer to that. With that said, not only do we need to carefully study the data and science before we go and litigate our vaccine cases, because, again, I don't have a MD or a PhD or an Miles per hour.   We also need to understand the economic and regulatory framework   around vaccines.  

And COVID nineteen vaccines did not just fall into a vacuum.   They fell into a very well developed regulatory and economic framework for vaccines that has developed over the last forty years.   For every product on the market, you can sue the manufacturer for harm, for design defect claims, meaning the claim that the product could have made safer. I mean, literally, look around this room. Planes, cars, pharmaceutical drugs, everyone. There's only one product in America. You cannot sue the manufacturer for design defect claim to claim that it it could have been made safer, and that are vaccines.   I heard, you know, injections, vaccines. My definition of vaccine is any product   for which the government needs to give it immunity from harms. To me, that's what a vaccine is because some infect for infection, some don't. That's what a vaccine is,   meaning it can't survive without that immunity apparently.  

Why did vaccines get this immunity,   which was provided in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act? Because leading up to '86, only three routine childhood vaccines, MMR PV and DTP, and they were causing so much harm and causing so much liability that that,   all the manufacturer were going out of business to stop making them in congress instead of forcing those manufacturers to do what every other product manufacturer needs to do in that situation, which is what?   Make a better, safer product.   Instead said, you know what? We're just gonna move the immunity.  

We're gonna make it so nobody can sue you for those harms.   And you can keep selling your product to the American public no matter how many children it kills   or injures.   And the the issue is is that that immunity was not just given for those three products. It was given for any   childhood vaccine, routine child vaccine that was developed thereafter.   And and I'm I sell you this not to take issue with childhood vaccines, but to explain to you the regulatory framework in which vaccines have developed over the last forty years. We have now gone from three injections   in the first year of life under the CDC schedule in '86 to 29 injections including in utero if a child follows the CDC schedule today.  

Every one of those vaccines, save one, was developed by a pharmaceutical company knowing   they would not be responsible   for the injuries that are caused by those products. So when you have drug trials with pharmaceutical companies, they care about   losing money. They don't wanna lose money on their drugs. They often do multiyear placebo controlled trials before they get on the market because they don't wanna end up upside down. They're there to make money.   But with vaccine products,   because they don't have that financial incentive, they have the, actually, the disincentive.   Almost every childhood vaccine in this country   is licensed based on clinical trials with often with no placebo control, safer COVID nineteen vaccine,   often days or weeks up to maybe six months of safety review after injection,   and are often extremely underpowered. Those trials could never have really confirmed the safest product, and my submission to this committee laid out every single vaccine and put them in detail.  

I will,   since I'm running out of time, I'll just wrap up by saying this.   You might say, well, okay. The pharmaceutical companies did that, but why would con why would the FDA allow it? It's because, unfortunately, our federal health authorities are hopelessly conflicted.   Congress gave them conflicting   structural duties. They're responsible promoting vaccines and for defending them in the vaccine's compensation program. And you also asked them to be responsible for safety. Those conflict. One has overtaken the other.   And and and for the most part, based on our over 2,004 request to federal health agencies over the years on behalf of our client, I can't. I could tell you, our federal health agencies act like partners of pharma.  

They don't they they don't they're not only they encourage their inroads.   They act basically in the shoes of pharma because when the immunity to liability was given to the pharmaceutical companies, congress recognized that apparently and transferred all the safety functions   to HHS and the mandate for safe withdrawal vaccines.   And by doing so, it's made them hopelessly conflicted.   That was very, very quick way to try and convey, the regulatory and economic framework into which COVID nineteen vaccines fell into,   and why, you know, from the pharmaceutical and FDA's perspective,   the COVID nineteen vaccine clinical trials may have been robust, and they were compared to childhood vaccines. But compared to drugs   or anybody that actually wants to accept safety, they absolutely were not robust. They were incredibly anemic.  

And as for post licensure, regulators   didn't do their jobs. Really, they acted like pharmaceutical companies seeking to cover up harms and avoid reputational damage and financial liability. I hope this hearing can help begin the process of changing that. Thank you.  

[01:07:41] Andrew Hoffman:

So Bill Gates' argument is not necessarily   that these vaccines were safe and effective,   just that there's no reason the next batch or the next, you know, the the tenth batch from now or the hundredth batch from now   won't be safe and effective, which is an interesting argument   and one that only works if you have the regulatory   framework that's currently in place, freedom from immunity.   If you had a regulatory   framework   or just   a total lack of regulation   and you just treated it like any other product,   you know, if   you make a product and it   harmed someone   because of either a defect in the way you made it or just it was an inherently   harmful product,   you can get sued. So if you you don't have to you don't have to ban these vaccines, you don't have to,   you know, have government   magically start doing a better job. You just have to allow them to be sued. Let the lawyers handle it.  

And they these big pharma companies will pull the vaccines   off the market   tomorrow.   They will be gone.   All of them.   A to Z.   And that that would be a wonderful thing. We would, you know, not   give it,   give it two generations with no vaccines, no more autism,   and   this   would would be a wonderful thing. That's all that has to happen. You don't have to,   you know, ban anything. You just have to say   no more legal immunity,   for vaccine makers.   And as   as Aaron Siri pointed out, this is   a this is a unique situation. This is   not like any other product,   any other,   you know,   even any other drug.  

For the most part,   and this was a huge scandal.   I believe the the drug was Vioxx,   and it was it was killing people,   and they knew it was killing people.   And so there were internal emails that came out later,   or internal communications of some sort where it's like, yeah, it's killing people.   How do we how much do we think we're going to lose   in the lawsuit?   Well, you know,   this many   this many hundreds of millions of dollars. Okay. Well,   we're making more than that, so we'll just we'll just keep   right on shoving it out there   until the   government forces us to pull it, and then we'll just, you know, absorb the the lawsuit losses is when they   come. And that was an actual calculation.  

So at least make the vaccine   makers make that calculation. Right? At least let them factor in getting sued over these things.   So this is   you know, it's   that is and it's   not just mRNA.   It's all vaccines. And more and more people are are waking up to that.   And so what   I think is happening is while they still have this in place,   while they kind of have the Make America Healthy Again cover,   they're just going to flood the zone. So we're going to get vaccines on vaccines and on vaccines. So if you are in on vaccines,   which I know people listening to this podcast most definitely aren't, but let's say you were,   you know,   a hundred vaccines, not enough. We're gonna make you take 200. We're gonna make your kid take   hundreds and hundreds of vaccine doses   to be on schedule.  

And here's   an example, a new new product just launched, you know.   MMR is kind of a big deal. Like, should we we really have three different vaccines in one? Well, guess what, folks?   We've got the Vaxelis   six in one vaccine.  

[01:11:49] Unknown:

This Thursday, April 17, I wanna share with you a product that's on the market, a vaccine called Vaxelis. I pulled the package insert, and here it is. Is. This is insane. This vaccine has six vaccines in one. Diphtheria,   tetanus, pertussis,   polio,   hemophilus   b, and hepatitis b. Six in one. Let's take a look at the package insert. First of all, they tell us that epinephrine   and other appropriate agents and equipment must be available for immediate use if you're going to be giving this vaccination.   Okay. You got my attention. This vaccine is indicated for six weeks old   through four years old. It goes on to say a review by the Institute of Medicine   found evidence for a causal,   not correlation,   causal relationship between tetanus toxoid, one of the components, and both brachial neuritis and Guillain Barre syndrome. Look that up, Guillain Barre. It's a type of paralysis. It looks a lot like polio. It also says apnea, that's difficulty breathing, you kind of stop breathing, following intramuscular vaccination   has been observed in some infants. Oh, but it gets better. First of all, studies that brought this product to market, there is not a single randomized controlled study with an inert placebo.  

It's only tested against other vaccinations.   Ingredients. You're gonna love this. Three hundred nineteen micrograms of aluminum is used as an adjuvant. That is, it stimulates the immune system to wake up to the antigens that are in this vaccine.   Other ingredients,   formaldehyde,   bovine serum albumin, that's albumin or protein that comes from cows. Then they put some antibiotics in here, neomycin, streptomycin,   polymyxin   b. What could possibly go wrong? And, of course, my favorite part, section 13.1.   It's right here. I'm not making this up. Vaxelis has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility.  

[01:13:34] Andrew Hoffman:

So when you get six vaccines in one, you know, besides the supposed antigens,   it's just a whole lot   of a whole lot of aluminum. And if we dump enough aluminum in there,   your body's gonna react, and we're gonna say, oh, look, antibodies.   You're you're immune now to these things you wouldn't have gotten anyway. Anyway. And now if you develop the same symptoms that we're supposedly protecting you against,   we'll just call it something different.   And as far as,   you know, you being able to have kids someday   and,   and whether or not you'll get cancer. We're we didn't test for that. You know, fertility and and whether it causes cancer, no no need to evaluate whether that,   is a problem or not because   we, meaning the vaccine manufacturer, has immunity.  

And there's six vaccines in there anyway. So, you know, if you got a problem,   what really caused it anyway? What what really caused it? Was it the,   you know, the   what if I don't even remember all all six of them.   But,   yeah, that's that's an interesting approach.   Just one shot. We're just gonna shove six vaccines at once in there.   Did not work out well for the   the poor baby in,   in New York a few weeks ago that passed away right after   getting the the catch up shot. You know, we gotta catch you up on your vaccine. We'll just give them all at once, see how that goes. So,   that's   obviously an ongoing issue. You know,   mRNA   or not, vaccines are poison   and are doing a whole lot of damage.  

And,   two major issues that they cause,   cancer,   autism,   and what do you know? There's autism speaks. Let's let's just spend   tons of money looking for that what the that mystery thing that's causing,   causing autism. Let's let's figure out what it is. Well, you know, it it's probably we're just, we're just diagnosing   things more.   It's probably our always been like this. It's not an not an epidemic. No. It's   it's just probably already always been like this. But just in case, let's look for let's look for a a naughty gene that's out of whack.   So that that leads us into,   two excellent, excellent articles   from Toby Rogers,   Nearly Everything That We've Been Told About Genes and autism is wrong,   and   mapping the entire field of autism causation studies in one big in one article.  

Alright. I'm not gonna read both of them. They're huge.   And if people would if you would rather read it yourself, I'd I encourage reading.   You are more than welcome to stop listening to the podcast and   and pull up the show notes, click through to his,   to to his substack,   and read these for yourself.   Both came out recently, and his page is the Utopian   page. So mapping the entire field of autism causation studies in one article, and,   nearly everything that we've been told about genes and autism is wrong.   I'm gonna read a little bit of the,   everything we've been told about genes and autism is wrong.  

And the the sub headline,   the best geneticists know this, but there is a fortune to be made pretending otherwise.   And that's where the billions come in.   Alright.   To put this debate in context, I want to recap the genetic argument in connection with autism as I have presented it thus far. In the nineteen nineties, it was routine for scientists, doctors, and policymakers to assure worried parents that autism was genetic.   To the extent that anyone ventured to guess, the explanation was autism, ninety percent genetic,   90% genetic, 10 environmental.  

Then the state of California commissioned 16 of the top geneticists in the country   to study birth records of all twins born in the state between 1987   and 02/2004.   Hallmeier   et al concluded that at most genetics explains thirty eight percent of the autism epidemic, and they pointed out twice that this was likely an overestimate.   Blacksil from 2011.   So all of these citations, he's he's got listed at the bottom. It's   it's   very well   sourced, footnoted.   This is not,   random video making claims out of context, throw it up there and get tons of clicks. And so probably, you know, is anyone reading these? I I certainly hope so. But,   you know,   too much work. Right? We we like the the two minute video instead.  

But, anyway, back to it.   In chapter five, I showed a model from Ionitis that suggests only one tenth of one percent of disco   discovery oriented exploratory   research studies,   which include nutrition and genetic studies with massive numbers of competing variables are replicable.   Okay. There's there's a problem with science,   the   the big s science,   and that is you've got all these peer reviewed studies, and you can't reproduce them all. There's too many variables.   There's too much fudging of the data. There's too much interpreting of the data that goes on.   There's too much using   the variables you don't know as a fudge factor to reach whatever conclusion you wanna reach.  

Alright. Back to it.   And yet, a disproportionate share of federal research money in connection with autism is going to study genetic theories of disease   causation. In 2013, the interagency autism coordinating committee spent $308,000,000   on autism research   across all federal agencies and private funders participating in research.   This is a shockingly low amount to spend on research given estimates that autism is currently costing The US Two Hundred And Sixty Eight Billion Dollars a year. When one drills down into how the   IACC   spent the 308,000,000,   it is largely focused on genetic research,   largely focused on genetic research.  

This is in spite of the fact that several groups of leading doctors and scientists, including Gilbert and Miller in 02/2009,   Landrigan, Lambert Lambertini, and Birnbaum in 2012, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists   twenty thirteen,   and Bennett et al. Have all concluded that autism and other neurodevelopmental   disorders are likely caused by environmental trick triggers.   In this chapter, I will provide a brief history of genetics,   show that a gene is an idea of of how biology might work that has not held up well over time,   discuss the unknowns unleashed by opening the Pandora's box of genetic treatments,   and explain more recent breakthroughs in the metaphors used to describe genes,   document the fruitless search for genes that might explain various mental health conditions, and review changes in how scientists think about genetics in connection with autism,   and explore the political economy of genetic research.  

Alright.   I'm   please go and read it for yourself.   It is well worth the time.   I do wanna point out a couple things that really jumped out at me   is this whole idea of genetics. And he, you know, he goes to the the version we all got in high school, Gregor Mendel in eighteen sixties and pea plants, and oh, look at that. You know, it's simple as that. Fruit flies. Okay.   And then,   James Watson, Francis Crick, nineteen fifty three, described the double helix model   and structure of DNA   and were later awarded a Nobel Prize in Physiology for this discovery.   At last, it seemed the location of the gene had been found.  

It was just a question of figuring out which DNA molecule coded for what phenotype.   Alright. So there   so   fast forward to 1984,   and congress authorized the Human Genome Project.   Oh, Francis   Collins.   In 1984, and it officially launched six years later. The aim of the $3,000,000,000   project was to map for the first time the more than 3,000,000,000 nucleotide base pairs that make up the human genome.   The hope was that that in doing so, it would enable scientists to identify the genes responsible   for everything from heart disease to cancer   and develop treatments to improve health and extend life.  

The theory behind the Human Genome Project, that genes cause many types of   disease, seemed promising prior to the completion of the h g p.   Single nucleotide polymorphisms had been identified that increased the risk of cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia,   and Huntington's disease, a single gene variant that had also been associated with Alzheimer's disease and mutations to two genes,   BRCA one and two, are are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.   It is little wonder then that when autism became a public health concern in the late nineteen eighties, many in the scientific community reached for genetic   explanations.  

When the first draft of the human genome sequence was announced in June 2000, president Clinton called it the language in which God created life. He continued saying that this discovery would revolutionize the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of if of most,   if not all, human diseases.   At a news   conference, Francis Collins announced that genetic   diagnosis of disease would be accomplished in ten years, and treatments would start five years after that,   which would be, 2015   and   dot dot dot, not so much there.   William Hazeltine, the chairman of the board of human genome scientists, which participated in the genome project, assured us that death is a series of preventable diseases. Immortality, it appears, was around around the corner.  

But even as the Human Genome Project was nearing completion, there were signs that those claims were overblown.   Craig Venter, whose privately funded company Celera Genomics,   had competed with the publicly funded Human Genome Project, said in 02/2001,   we simply do not have enough genes for this idea of biological determinism to be right. The wonderful diversity of the human species is not hardwired into our genetic code. Our environments are critical.   But a wave of funding rushed in regardless as various biotech companies attempted to turn genetic research into patentable,   profitable cures   or   or treatments. Right?  

We don't need cures. We just need treatments.   In the early two thousands, researchers were largely limited to candidate gene association studies.   These studies are relatively inexpensive to conduct and begin with likely genetic targets,   usually because they've been associated with disease in previous animal   or human studies, and then test human subjects who have that disease to see if those same DNA sequences show up. More than 600 associations between particular genes and various diseases were reported,   but the replication rates were abysmal.  

They found that only three point six percent of reported associations were successfully replicated, and even there, the usual caveat applies that correlation does not equal causation.   Soon, however, the cost came down on genome sequencing, and hundreds of genome   wide association studies were launched to identify the genes associated with about 80 different diseases. As the name suggests,   a GWA   study compares the entire genome between different individuals and looks for associations between   common traits and particular DNA sequences.   Alright.  

Skip forward a little bit. But then a curious thing happened. In the face of overwhelming evidence that CGA and GWA   had failed to find an association between genes and most major diseases,   genetic researchers regrouped and declared that genes for various diseases surely must exist.   The problem was just that the tools for finding them were either inadequate   or the genes were hiding in unexpected places. Oh, those little hidden genes.   So you don't just need the Human Genome Project to map all the genes, you need to find those hidden genes.   Geneticists   started calling these unseen genes   dark matter. Hey. If physics can do it, why not genetics?  

With the justification   that one is sure as it it exists, it we can detect its influence, we just can't see it.   Investors and government seem seem persuaded by this dark matter theory and continue to pour billions of dollars into genetic and genomic research.   But a growing chorus of critics has stepped forward to make the case that genetic theories of disease   represent an outdated, unscientific,   or ethically   dubious paradigm that should be replaced with more accurate representations of biological   systems. Krimsky and Gruber   gathered 17 of these critics in the edited volume,   Sense and Nonsense, and I build off their work in the rest of this chapter.  

I almost wanna read that book. That would be a good one.   Because   if you will hearken back to your,   your history, especially your,   reality,   I guess,   conspiracy   conspiracy way of if you're a conspiracy realist the way you look at history,   we jump from   we jump from the old eugenics   and, you know, Darwinian evolution into eugenics and then,   got some bad PR from that Hitler fellow in World War two, so we just changed it to genetics. But this is the same   ideology.   It really is. It's the same stuff,   the Nazis were into and the Rockefellers were into and all the way back to the Galtons and Wedgwoods and the whole, you know,   we can   we know that people are poor because their their genes are inferior,   e even when it was, you know, called stock   before it was,   we had the idea of the gene.  

So this   the newer stuff though,   in   among people that, you know, actually   look at it,   they say this is not a case of   computer code   equals genetic code and the genes just cause things to get spit out. It doesn't work like that.   It's an interactive system, and if you're seeing   a certain gene, that could be an effect   rather than a cause.   So it's not genetics determine everything. It's, well, maybe genetics   influence some things, but they certainly don't   determine everything. And so this is   he covers this in detail,   well worth reading.  

And   it goes back to the idea of   the same way if you   challenge the underlying assumption, let's say the virus. Right? The virus causes disease.   Depending on how you evaluate that,   you can either   basically   throw out,   everything that is built on that theory. If you re if you end up determining that that theory is false, you can throw it all out. Same thing with this.   If   we decide as   the actual science is definitely going in this direction   that,   you know, there   are there is no genetic blueprint that influences everything about you. You know,   a certain gene means you're gonna get cancer when you're this number of years old and and all that sort of thing, that kind of, biological determinism way of of viewing the world.  

Viewing   the   world,   well, all of a sudden,   how we live is becomes   much more important. What poisons we're ingesting becomes a lot more important.   And,   billions of dollars into genetic research becomes much, much less important. And that is why,   they maintain   the the course that they're on. It's a giant industry.   Same thing with cancer research. Same exact you can you know, if it's   if it's   parasites or it's something else that's   causes cancer or just, you know, general   unhealth and and stuff that can be can be corrected,   cheaply and   and should be easily,   then   the industry goes away.  

So let's   we won't look at those. We'll only look   at the, massively   expensive things that only hospitals   and research facilities   that only they can do.   You know? Only they have the budgets for for and governments and what have you. So   that's what's going on.   This is you know?   Like he said and he, you know, he's got the tweet, which I guarantee you, the the tweet where he says,   you don't need new studies to figure out the root cause of autism. You don't need AI. You only need to talk with the moms and dads who have seen it happen with their own eyes.   Very simple. That's gonna get much more traction than these two   giant   articles that came out of his,   doctoral,   thesis there. So it's   well worth checking out, well worth   reading. And,   let's see. I I did want I don't think yeah. I've not played it yet.  

I thought this clip   was good.   Not so much the   the stuff she throws in at the end, but   this this is   gal is a former   doctor,   Mel Thacker, and she just talks about her frustrations from within the system.   And this really struck a chord with me as far as, like, yeah, this is this is definitely intentional.   This is,   there is a reason why   doctors are miserable,   and especially if they're doctors trying to do the right   thing. And we've we can go back to the,   Obamacare era of Revelations Radio News, and we we talked about,   Obamacare being the   exact worst of both worlds. So you had the   the socialized   too much government, too much control,   but you had the worst of both worlds where you still have the giant corporations and the insurance companies that were really running everything,   you know,   privatized profits,   tons of money   getting dumped in from the government, just an an absolute nightmare.  

So nightmare for doctors, nightmare for patients.   And the result of that,   you know, several years later,   you get,   COVID nineteen eighty four. And   that that part of it is definitely not going away.   If anything, it's just expanded into now your veterinarian is is under a similar system and,   your pets are getting cancer from the the vaccines too. So,   let's we'll play this clip, and I'll try to think of something a little cheerier to to end on here.   This clip, she she talks about the concept of moral injury,   which I've seen a similar   definition that she gives for for moral injury to,   to the cause of stress.  

When you have lots of responsibility,   and culpability   and no autonomy.   No ability to no power. No ability to   to make things the way you think they should be.   That causes   definitely stress and, as she describes it, moral injury.  

[01:34:13] Unknown:

So I recently   left my career as a surgeon,   And   I wanted to share that the primary reason I did that   is because of moral injury.   I love how Wendy Dean describes   moral injury in her book If I Betray These Words   as all of the responsibility,   and all of the accountability,   but none of the autonomy.   And that really resonated with me because that just captures exactly what I felt like. I felt powerless.   I wanted to prescribe   a very cheap medication to my patients, like budesonide.   And   their insurance company would deny it,   and the pharmacy would tell them it would cost them $300   And I couldn't tell which patients had the insurance that would do that and which ones didn't.  

That's just one tiny little example. But multiply that   by   thousands and thousands of   encounters, of interactions, of trying to either prescribe a medication   or prescribe a treatment plan or do a surgery,   and to just be met with roadblocks and layers of bureaucracy   that are quote unquote meant to keep, you know, healthcare costs down or a patient safe, but really don't. They just drive a wedge. Multiple, multiple wedges between   the physician and the patient. And   when we keep layering in   these roadblocks,   preventing the doctor and the patient from having an actual relationship,   that's when we make mistakes.  

And so how do we fix this?   We got to get business out of medicine.   Healthcare   needs to go back to   relationship building, to trust. Trust between the physician and the patient.   They need to be put on the pedestal,   we need to start there,   not with the shareholders,   not with all of the bureaucratic tasks that are meant to keep patients safe, but just increase costs.  

[01:36:17] Andrew Hoffman:

So the current health care system,   you know, you you feed everyone poison to make them sick. And, again,   this goes back to something we we talked about in our relations radio news a long time ago.   But you would think insurance companies   would want healthy people because that would keep their cost down, but they don't.   They want a bigger market.   And sicker people equals   the ability to charge more for their their services,   for insurance.   If you in the example that that came up at that time, I forget who gave it, but   if you've got   ship if you sell shipping in insurance,   you want there to be a significant number of shipwrecks because then it's an important,   you know, an important product.  

If no one ever wrecks their ship, they don't need shipwreck insurance.   So same thing with with health insurance and, hey, if you can get the government to mandate that people buy your product, even better.   So that's that's where it is,   and, obviously, it's a terrible system. Everybody can see it's a terrible system.   You know, health care CEOs getting shot in the street. This is is not a healthy situation.   So the the only kind   of   the only way that it keeps going in this horrible,   worst of both worlds manner   is that you've got one side saying, well, you know,   there needs to be more government, and the other side saying there should be less government.  

And in reality, you know, he threw the whole thing out,   and   let's have actual you know, you go to the doctor, you pay the doctor. What a what a novel concept.   And that's very possible with,   non Rockefeller medicine, you know, with more homeopathic   or naturopathic   type   treatments and and methods,   rather than everything being   super expensive prescription drugs and and surgeries.   So, anyway, it's not gonna get it will never get fixed. It's not supposed to get fixed. It's supposed to make sure that if you're,   you know, a kind of middle class   businessperson   that they're able to suck every last penny out of you, before you die with the lung disease, before your death. Gotta make sure that   that that those   middle class folks don't pass along any any generational wealth there. So you gotta   get rid of that before you before you pass on,   if we can't talk you into   into wasting all the money on   whatever else. So,   I promise some good news, so let's have some some good news before the end.  

As as many of you   probably have followed along as well,   Both Tim and I   both listened to the No Agenda podcast. Tim told me about it I don't even know how many years ago.   But, very good podcast, and   one of the   one of the hosts, Adam Curry,   the same Adam Curry that was on MTV way back in the day   and was not not at all a Christian, not a, you know, professing or for actual Christian,   became one during the course of that podcast.   And you could   kind of follow along with it during the during the show. It was really neat to see.   And, one thing that we've we've talked about   is, man, it would be it would be   quite amazing if Joe Rogan ever did the full one eighty from   mocking Christianity   and and all religion   to to full   on, you know, follower of Christ. So   and   I didn't especially have a a lot of hope of that   happening, to be honest, but, there's there's little there's some green shoots. So,   this comes from the Western Journal,   from Brian Chai.  

Apologies in advance, but for lack of a more journalistic term, this is pretty neat. UFC announcer and podcast mogul, Joe Rogan,   easily one of the most influential people in the world currently, is apparently regularly attending church now.   It's a bit of a winding tale, but Rogan first started to turn toward the teachings of Christ after a three hour plus conversation with Christian apologist Wesley Huff in January.   I would say it was happening quite a while before that.   You can look at the original Adam Curry interview among others, but   or actually,   not the original one, but the one where Adam Curry talked about his own his own conversion there.  

There. At the very least, it's clear a light went off in his head, and sometimes that's all it takes. This was notable because Rogan,   long as self professed agnostic, has long denigrated and mocked the church.   Everything is mythology, he once argued, citing the lack of evidence as to why he found religion such a folly.   Fast forward to this Tuesday's episode of Know What You Believe with Michael Horton,   And Huff, a guest, revealed that Rogan's brush with Christian theology   had left a lasting impression.   Have you talked to Joe Rogan since your conversation with him? Horton asked Huff. Well, my conversation with Rogan went three hours and fifteen minutes.  

But, yes, Joe Rogan and I have had have had on and off communication since then. And I can tell you for a fact that he is attending the church and is that has been a consistent thing. So things are happening. He's a very inquisitive individual and I think for the   better in that he's communicating with me and other people in his life who are influences   that can speak into these issues.   Huff then recounted an anecdote of a brick and mortar Christian bookstore telling him that young people, a big part of Rogan's demographic, have been clamoring to purchase Bibles because all my friends are reading this thing.   Huff continued if the Bible is becoming popular with teenagers and something is happening and the Lord is moving.  

Again, for lack of a better term, that's pretty cool.   Alright. So it's   so pray for Joe Rogan and the the youth and,   you know,   God can work when when he chooses to work. He doesn't need perfect   ambassadors or perfect,   you know, perfect messengers.   So he   he can   he can reach people   through the rocks if he really wanted to. So he can definitely use   use each of us in our own our own little ways there. So,   definitely pray for   pray for that to keep along the the same path. And, I mean, it is such a rare   I mean, statistically, it's a very rare thing for someone to,   to become a Christian at a at a later age, you know, in in their fifties to change their   to change that drastically, their outlook on the world. So,   it happened with Adam Curry, and hopefully, it will happen with Joe Rogan as well.  

And with that, I would like to thank everybody for listening to another No Pill podcast.   If you are you are here, you have you have found it, the Niche Podcast of Niche Podcast. So thanks for listening to the whole thing.   Have a great week, and I will talk to you soon. Bye.