The No Pill Podcast

Share on social media:

In this episode of the No Pill Podcast, host Andrew Hoffman delves into the concept of "algocracy," a form of governance driven by algorithms and AI, and its implications on government efficiency. He discusses how the Biden administration's policies have set the stage for a technocratic approach to governance, paving the way for the Trump administration's initiatives. The episode also features a critical examination of the inefficiencies in federal broadband funding, highlighting the bureaucratic hurdles that hinder progress. Hoffman references discussions from Jon Stewart's podcast and explores the broader implications of these inefficiencies, suggesting that they may be intentionally designed to foster public demand for a more technocratic system.

Hoffman also touches on the controversial topic of vaccines, questioning the foundational theories of virology and the legitimacy of vaccine efficacy. He presents arguments against the traditional understanding of viruses and vaccines, suggesting that the entire framework may be flawed. The episode includes testimonies from parents of vaccine-injured children and critiques the current healthcare system's reliance on AI and technocratic solutions. Hoffman encourages listeners to explore alternative perspectives on health and governance, recommending resources like James Corbett's podcast on algocracy and the documentary "In Silico: The Battle for Body and Soul."

[00:00:48] Andrew Hoffman:

Hello, everybody.   Thank you for listening to the No Pill podcast.   This is Andrew Hoffman, podcasting from Piedmont, Oklahoma.   And we've got episode eight,   algocracy   and government efficiency.   And if the word algocracy is new to you,   stop listening to this podcast   and go listen   to James Corbett's   episode on algocracy,   and then everything   else will will will build from there.   But, most knowing knowing my   my listeners,   many of you already have and probably were even aware of that term before,   before James Corbett did a whole episode on it. So the basic idea is   it's kind of   a AI,   technocratic   government, the oligocracy.  

So right up there with the other ocracies,   the other types of rule.   So the which, you know, my my personal favorites are   what's the are kleptocracy,   ruled by thieves,   and cachistocracy,   rule by the worst people. So that's those are pretty accurate terms, but, algocracy,   I think, will   will make some waves, and I I do encourage people to check that out. I'll have the   episode linked in the show   notes, but I I really enjoyed that episode from James   as with all his work. And, I haven't talked too much about his new   his new book, fifteen years in the making, Reportage.  

It's because I'm still reading it. And hopefully, once I'm I'm done with that,   I will I'll at least talk about it, but maybe I'll even talk to James about it. So looking forward to that. So for tonight   on the oligocracy   topic,   I want to first look at   how the Biden administration   really teed up the ball for the Trump administration   to   take off on this whole department of government efficiency,   and, you know, supposedly making the government more efficient, all all this stuff,   which is,   I I suspect,   exactly what we don't want,   but was purposefully   set up not necessarily   by   Joe Biden in quotes there,   but the Biden administration, I think, had a very   particular role to play. And the Trump administration   has a role to play,   and   what he's doing now would not have been possible if his second term had been right after his first.  

And I'll I'll talk about why that is, but let's   let's, of of all places, go to,   Jon Stewart's   podcast,   and he is talking to Ezra Klein about the   he he talks to him about about a few different things, but in particular, this clip is about the broadband funding part of the,   what was originally the Green New Deal or Build Back Better, and then it became,   whatever, the   Inflation Prevention Act,   which was just, you know, trillions of dollars of supposed government   spending. But we'll find out that the   the lack of efficiency, and I would say   purposeful lack of efficiency,   made it so everything just kinda sat for four years   in this bureaucratic   morass   of no movement. And so   this is an example.  

I I wasn't particularly   aware of,   the program that Ezra Klein is talking about, but I'm familiar with federal broadband funding and how   ridiculous and inefficient it is in general. So here's the clip.  

[00:04:44] Unknown:

We have to issue the notice funding opportunity within a hundred eighty days. That's step one. Step two, which all 56 state,   applicants completed,   is states who wanna participate must submit a letter of intent.   After they do that, they can submit a request for up to $5,000,000   in planning grants.   Then the NTIA step four has to review   and approve and award   again, planning grants, not broadband grants,  

[00:05:12] Unknown:

planning grants. And it's still at the NTIA. It's still at the first  

[00:05:16] Unknown:

step. Alright. So the NTIA   must issue a NOFO within a hundred and eighty days. States who wanna participate must submit their letter of intent.   Step three, they can request up to $5,000,000   in planning grants. Just planning. Just planning. Step four,   the requests are reviewed,   approved, and awarded by the NTIA,   which currently, all 56, you know, three years later, all 56,   applicants had   passed through at least step five.   It took at least well, it took more than three years. So it's a long time. States must submit a five year action plan. So the states kinda go back, and they kinda think about how they're gonna do this. And they don't just say, okay. You know, thank you for the money. We're gonna spend it, and you can see how it worked out later. We're like, here's our five year action plan. Then the FCC,   must publish the broadband   data maps before NTIA allocates funds. So having done the NOFO, the letters of intent, the the the request for planning grants, then the review,   approval, and awarding of the planning grants, then the five year action plans. In between that, the federal government has to put forward a map saying where it thinks we need rural broadband subsidies. And then, of course, the states need an opportunity   to challenge the map for accuracy. And you can imagine this doesn't all happen in, like, a day. Okay. So then the NTIA,   step seven, has to use the FCC maps to make allocation decisions.  

Then having already done their letter of intent, the request for planning grants, it's hard even to talk about this, man. Step seven is NTIA must use the FCC maps that were already challenged for allocation decisions.   Then having submitted all this, I think this one is actually quite amazing. Yeah. Having submitted their five year plans or letters of intent,   step   eight is states must submit an   initial proposal,   an initial proposal to the NTIA.  

[00:07:09] Unknown:

Then Is that the result of their $5,000,000  

[00:07:12] Unknown:

planning fund, this initial proposal? But then what was the five year plan? And what what was their NOFO? Like, if the five year action plan isn't the initial proposal, then what's the five year action plan? Forget NOFO.   Okay. Step nine,   NTIA must review and approve each state's, again, initial proposal.   By my read, we have had at least two initial proposals here, but that's a different issue. Oh my god. Step 10. States must publish their own map and allow internal challenges to their own map. So the government has published a map. They have invited the states to challenge the map.   Then states have submitted initial proposals,   and, they then have to publish their own map and allow challenges. Wait. Who's challenging it within the state?  

Well, you know, organized interest groups, environmental group. Like, I don't know who specifically, but any literally anybody. This is Right. I wanna say something because it's very important I say this. This is the Biden administration's   process for its own bill. They wanted this to happen.   This is how liberal government works now. This is something they instituted   for this bill. For their bill. This is a bill   passed by Democrats   with a regulatory structure written by Democratic administration. Okay. Right. Step 11. The NTIA must review and improve   the challenge results in the final map. So the NTIA has put forward a map. The states have challenged that map. Then the states have put forward their maps, had other challenges. And now the NTIA   must review and approve the challenges to the state maps. Okay. So step,   we've done step 11. NTIA must review and approve challenge results and final map. We've lost nine of the, applicants at that point.  

Step 12.   States must run   a competitive   sub granting process. Oh my  

[00:09:02] Unknown:

at step 12 at by after all this has been done.  

[00:09:05] Unknown:

Yeah. None of that could have happened along the way here. We have now lost 17 more,   applicants. So now 30 of 56   have completed step 12.   Step 13,   states must submit a final proposal.   This all all the proposals weren't enough to NTIA.   Now that goes to three of 56.   So we've gone in the last couple steps from 56 had gone to this point   to three of 56. Step 14.   The NTIA   must review and approve   the state's final proposal,   and that is three of the 56 jurisdictions   and states are there. In summary, colon,   states are nearly   at the finish line.  

And it says to stop their progress now, or worse to make them go backwards   would be a stick in the spokes   of the most promising broadband deployment plans   we have ever   seen.   End scene.  

[00:10:08] Andrew Hoffman:

So if you were   Elon Musk   and Peter Thiel   and the people above above those guys and Jeff Bezos and the rest of it, if you were part of the billionaire class and the the the tech class and the people that own them, can you imagine a more perfect setup   for an oligocracy   than the Biden administration?   I mean, it is   if it were intentional   incompetence, it wouldn't you know, I don't know if it was intentional or not,   but, it it couldn't have been any worse. Right? It couldn't   more perfect for this whole   Doge government efficiency, which, again, is doing nothing, and we just pushed out, you know, and we passed a nine month continuing resolution plan. So all the same spending, all the same government programs, all the same war,   same federal reserve. None of that changes. We're just we're just pretending.  

But we are most definitely   creating the desire for something different, creating the desire for   algocracy.   You know? All these all these boneheads and all these   ancient boomers   messing everything up,   we need someone who knows what they're doing. We need, you know, computers.   And people are are being trained   to trust   supposed AI, large language models, and whatever the AI spits back at them. You know? Oh, look. Grok told me. You know? Grok told me x y z. Therefore,   that means it's it has validity because   some large language model picked the most   most,   likely term to come after the terms you put in, and and that means it's true. Most definitely not. But so I'd this   is it's leading into something much different,   but right now, it's at a a very cartoonish level.  

And this is not where all this leads. I'm not saying,   Trump is a   dictator   or Elon Musk is a dictator. This is the the cartoon level   that will will be in its own right such a spectacular   fail   that people will demand something   better, something more efficient, something, you   know, that they'll demand technocracy.   And,   you know,   with this weird in between time,   we've got   this pseudo algocracy,   pseudo technocracy,   you know, new world order being cheered on by the same people who were opposing the new world order.   And the epitome of that   is kind   of this Trump MAGA cult thing and then the because there there are a few people. I mean, the vast majority of Trump supporters are just like,   you know, it's not Biden. Let me go with Trump sort of thing. Right?  

But there are there are a few hardcore ones that are are they're all in. Trump could do no wrong, trust the plan, five d chess, the whole deal. And same thing with Elon Musk. I mean, there's people that just literally   worship Elon. And if you say,   Andrew,   why did you say literally? You didn't mean literally.   And,   actually, I did mean literally, and here's the proof.  

[00:13:33] Unknown:

He gave us cars that drive so fast,   made rockets   built to blast.   Oh, thank you, Elon Elon   Musk.   He took   over Twitter's reign.   He saved free speech for all.   Eliminating   woke   pain.  

[00:14:01] Unknown:

SpaceX  

[00:14:03] Unknown:

flies, Tesla's self drive,   Starlink   beams with laser   dreams.   He's got   a master plan for our   lives.   Let's occupy   Mars.   Let's occupy   Mars.   Save the day. Oh, thank you,   Elon Musk.   Fighting fights for freedom's sake.   Politics,   he's not afraid.   He won't just sit and watch.   SpaceX flies,   Tesla self drive,   more brand   Launching rockets with just one hand   Optimus   Cybercap   to what can't this man do   It's taxes fraud, some solid   memes. Corruption   won't stay,   and no saving   USA.   So here's to you, our tech tycoon,   saving Earth and Mars real soon.   We thank you,   Elon   Musk.  

One more kid,  

[00:16:21] Andrew Hoffman:

So there's the first,   hopefully the only, worship song,   for the Algocracy   for Elon.   But,   like I said, I think this is the   pseudo   Algocracy   that's very cartoonish, and, yes, it's obvious that Elon Musk should not be worshiped. Right? Obvious to 99%   of us. But it's   it's all part of part of the process.   And you might be able to say, well, it's ridiculous. Like, to occupy Mars, that makes no sense.   You know? I mean, without even going to the space is fake part, it's like, well, why would it be easier to establish a permanent civilization on Mars   than on the moon?  

And or how about just, you know, keeping Earth livable   for civilization? Would would that be too too difficult?   But even if you're not   ready to worship   Elon or give government over to a computer at this point,   you are most likely,   like me, like most people,   fed up with the with the way the system is. And if you're gonna make change,   people have to be demanding change. And, unfortunately,   it's not not gonna be the change that we would like a more, you know, humane, fair,   free   society.   It's gonna be quite quite the opposite,   but it you have to make people beg for it. You can't you can't go along and   and force it on people. I mean, the the Biden administration,   looking back at it,   it was it was a purposeful   failure.  

And I I think, you know, from   however many millions of charging stations they're supposed to make and they made one to the rural broadband thing we heard the example of   where no one actually got any broadband funding.   Nothing was actually built. So there's all this money allocated for it, billions of dollars, I think $7,000,000,000.   And some of that got passed out in grants for   bureaucratic   tasks, but nothing actually   no one got faster Internet   from that.   And, yes, we we want something different,   but this is not   what we're what we're being   prepped to demand.  

It's something more efficient. Right?   No. Not not freedom. You can have free speech, whatever that means. It's like we're not gonna take your Twitter account away, but we just won't let people see it   if it's not espousing views that we want shared.   If you, you know, you could do an experiment if you want where you you get on x and just say nice things about Elon, and I can guarantee you you're gonna   attract,   lots more views and followers very quickly.   And the reverse of that is is also true.   But, you know, the the little things, the little tiny meaningless things,   we get thrown the bone by the Trump administration, but the meaningful things   don't happen.  

And this goes way, way   back beyond   Trump, Biden,   Bush, Clinton, any any modern anything. This is this is an eternal   battle that's going on. And this next   clip kinda shows that.   And, this is on the Alex Jones show, which, you know, people have some people   really can't stand Alex Jones. Some people like Alex Jones. I've I've always been more on the the I I like Alex Jones. I think he's,   at least in the past, meant well,   but he's definitely got some big blind spots.   And some of the whole, you know, reach for the stars,   Elon fanboy, Trump fanboy   stuff is definitely some big blind spots. But some other stuff that he's he's always kind of been into,   is very much related to this,   this clip that we're gonna play. So he had a a guest on, named Jay Anderson.  

And I'll play the clip, and then we'll we'll talk about it here. What we're witnessing, in my opinion, in our time  

[00:20:36] Unknown:

is the resurgence of ancient knowledge being scrutinized by the lens of modern science   and forcing our institutions with their established models and their dogmas and their doctrines to acknowledge that we may have been here before. This might not be our first time around the old civilization   development block. And that's what this finding with the Giza Plateau, if empirically proven, will provide significant evidence for.  

[00:21:04] Unknown:

Well, let's talk about the Sumerians real quick then. I mean, if you read what when they were able to finally decipher all of their stone tablets,   it was all about gods coming here and mining things and doing things, and and then it's basically the same story about the garden and all of that.   How does that tie into it?  

[00:21:25] Unknown:

Well, I think that there's you know, this is all echoes of a past that might have actually been a reality,   not just a a mythic fable or a folklore. The Sumerian stories of the Anunnaki   coming down from the heavens and essentially   geoengineering   us is what we would understand,   geoengineering the planet and engineering humanity to be subservient to them. This is something that I've discussed with some very interesting people, including a man called doctor Salvatore Pais,   who's a US Space Force aerospace engineer and is responsible some for some very exotic patents   in the classified technology world. He is convinced as well and many others actually within the intelligence industry.  



[00:22:04] Unknown:

By Buzz Aldrin.   He said the pyramids are are connected to a civilization on Mars Right. And that there's a obelisk. That's where they got 2,001   from on the one moon of,  

[00:22:14] Unknown:

of Mars, and that's Buzz Aldrin telling me this. I mean, it is it is hinted in so many different ways throughout the institutions of space exploration, especially in America. NASA loves to kind of flaunt this kind of, like,   reference to the Greek gods.   And if you're plugged into the UFO conversation that's been unraveling for the past few years, you know, people like Tom DeLonge who jump started that in the public eye, talking to people in the Pentagon, and they're telling him that the Greek gods were real, that they were, you know, a civilization   that existed previous to us that basically   left the Earth when there was a cataclysm and has interacted with us throughout time. You know, these are all the kind of stories that we get, whether it's through theology   or ufology or simply mythology   that are starting to come together, and they start to feel like reality. And I think we're coming to a position in the human story where some very disruptive truths in pretty much every sector you can name, and I know you know this, Alex, because you're plugged into all of these different things.  

Everything is facing major disruption, and I'm very happy to see ancient history and archaeology,   facing these kind of challenges to the status quo because, honestly, I actually think that this is so important for our present and our future to understand these implications.   Terence McKenna, a fantastic,   you know, explorer of psychedelic states and philosophy, would call this the archaic revival.   We can call it techno shamanism. What we're witnessing, in my opinion, in our time   is the resurgence of ancient knowledge being scrutinized by the lens of modern science   and forcing our institutions with their established models and their dogmas and their doctrines   to acknowledge that we may have been here before. This might not be our first time around the old civilization   development block. And that's what this finding with the Giza Plateau, if empirically proven, will provide significant evidence for.  



[00:24:04] Unknown:

Well, I mean, I'm just reminded   thirty, forty years ago and right through where they would, every once in a while, let,   ground penetrating radar helicopters over it or they bring it in and they would find new chambers and they'd shut it down. And then just why would you not wanna discover this? And and now as the technology gets stronger, the processing exponentially faster,   why I mean, as you said, what are they gonna do as even civilian   satellites get so strong and they start finding all this stuff all over the world? I mean, they they they got a problem.   Why do you think this is coming out now?  



[00:24:41] Unknown:

I mean, call it natural evolution   demanding that we move out of a pattern because we have been in a rigid pattern in so many different sectors, including archaeology and history,   evolutionary story   where it can't continue. It literally the weight of evidence, the weight of,   technological development, like you said, we're able to circumvent the control structures of the previous   previous eras   because we're now more free to reign around and use these private space corporations if we have the money for it and you have the backing for it. So there is a grassroots,   revolution, I would say, going on in these different industries and these different sectors and disciplines. And academia is, you know, they don't like to think it, but they're so rigid and and almost religious with their beliefs and their models. It's extremely difficult to get them to pass over onto another type of idea, but this can force their hand. And, eventually, the preponderance of evidence will force their hand. This is just one more step.  



[00:25:42] Andrew Hoffman:

Alex Jones and David I can't get along anymore, so I guess he's got this Jay Anderson guy to to fill that role now.   Let's see. Pushing   techno shamanism.   Pushing   space stuff. Yeah. Buzz oh, Buzz Aldrin told you all that. Yeah. Reliable source there. And we we all go back to the, you know, the Pyramids, and and   this whole thing is supposedly   some   ground penetrating radar or something is oh, there's a bunch of caverns underneath,   and there's it's this whole underground civilization. How did it get there? Must be   must be aliens. Must be whatever.  

So this is   it's ongoing. I mean, if you've paid attention   in this sphere, this is nothing new. They just come out every couple years   or   even more frequently   and push the same old, whether it's a Tic Tac video or or whatever,   orbs in the sky,   and just act like it's new. And, oh,   the the Pentagon?   We would talk to whistleblowers from the Pentagon. He were telling us aliens are real. Like, oh, really? That's interesting. It's almost like the Pentagon's main mission is to convince you aliens are real. Shouldn't that raise some suspicions? But this   this is a topic that we talked about Revelations radio news a long time.  

And if it is   if you're not sure, you're, well, maybe that could be real or that what's what's wrong with all that? I would need I've got a friend   projects   day, I guess, on the podcast here. So we we talked about Alec Gaughersee from the Babe Ruth of podcasting, James Corbett.   And, my good friend, Will, put out a full length   video on YouTube called Insilico,   the Battle for Body and Soul. So   covers many of these topics,   shows how this all goes back to Kabbalah,   goes back   to mystery school religion stuff.   Anything,   you know, space related, yeah, it goes back to the Greek gods and what have you because the Greek gods goes back to   what the what the fallen angels, what the what the demons were telling people thousands of years ago. They just changed their story to to   update it with technology. Oh, we're we're space aliens. Oh, we're creatures from another dimension. Oh, we're gods. You know, whatever the the story that fits the the time   is that's what they tell people and   believe it or not someone because they work for the government not a reliable source. Someone who   takes   like Terrence McKenna, oh, let's get into psychedelic drugs and then believe the things that we learn while on on the trips,   maybe not a good idea. So the I don't know why the possibility   that these, you know, whether it's the Alice Bailey   masters or   or any type   of spiritual encounter,   why people always have a tendency to believe   and be like, well, you know,   it it's outside the   the kind of fake scientific determinism   world of, like, there's just chemicals and dirt and that's it. And then that's not the real agenda. Right? That's that's never been I mean, that was used to get people away from God, but   most people will acknowledge there's a spiritual reality.  

But that doesn't mean that anything you hear from a spiritual being is reliable,   is true. And so we've got a, you know, the whole u f ufology thing.   And I'd   anyone who's like, oh, it's a good idea to take some mind altering substance,   same same deal. Yes. You're going to have a spiritual experience, and you're going   to have your mind opened up to things, but that's that's not necessarily a good thing and very easy to be deceived.   So I would encourage people   check that out. It's the truth is stranger than fiction channel on YouTube,   and the documentary is Insilico,   the battle for body and soul. And he's talking about AI and then   what that branches into. So it ties in very well with   algocracy and what we're talking about on this podcast.  

Before we get into some   some good old anti vaxx material,   I wanna follow-up on the   the story of the incoming CDC director.   His last episode, we talked about Dave Weldon   having to with having the administration,   stab him in the back and withdraw his nomination for no reason.   And him talk about, well, you know, if they if you think Big Pharma has something to do with this, they they probably do.   And then there   was talk about, oh, maybe it'll be,   Joseph Vladepo, the surgeon general   of of Florida, which   he's friends with,   RFK Jr.  

Also, you know,   the   And then out of left field, we didn't get either one of those people.   We got,   we get   oh, what's what's her name?   Susan Menares.   And just to   I mean, there are some great   tweet threads of people   just complaining about this decision   for good reason. And if, you know, if there was any doubt,   like, well, you know, it's some of the nominations seem pretty good. I certainly would not have predicted   RFK Jr getting in.   I've I've listened to RFK Jr's podcast for   years. I know where he stands on stuff, the guests he talks to.   I've   I am really surprised he got in.  

And then   this nomination   combined with kind of the rumors of more RFK Junior blackmail   stuff,   there's   there was definitely an agenda to   okay. The ones that we think we can chase back out, we'll let in. Or the ones we think we can blackmail and control, we'll let in.   The ones who maybe we can't, maybe maybe Dale Dave Weldon was in in that camp,   we'll just keep out. And we talked   about Bill Cassidy and how in the tank he is for Pfizer, and he controls that that committee.   And I think after letting   Jay Bhattacharya   through,   he got rid the riot act. I mean, you could tell he was scared talking to Jay Bhattacharya,   and he wasn't scared of Bhattacharya. He was scared of his   his Pfizer   money people and and the questions that he was told to to ask to take this guy down. And I that was the end for for Dave Weldon. I think he got he got the message that if he wants to   remain   living on on the earth,   that he should probably   stop letting these these Mayha   appointments go through,   and and he did. So he shut down Dave Weldon, and here is just a clip from the the gal   in who we get instead   and see if this would be a person you would pick for,   leading into an algocracy   or someone who you would pick to make America healthy again.  



[00:33:29] Unknown:

We think about advancing   AI for health care in a number of different facets. So some are direct to the patients. What tools and what capabilities   can we develop to help them really understand   where they are in their health care journey and empower them to make great decisions.   We also think about AI from the provider side. So how can we help providers better understand their patients? How can we help providers   optimize their time within the health system as they're seeing patients, as they're trying to make complex decisions   to create the conditions   for improved patient health outcomes.  

We also think about AI from the defensive side. So we understand that there is a great vulnerability within the health within   the health ecosystem.   More and more is coming online in the Internet of Things that are going to have an   incredibly positive effect, but we also know it creates vulnerabilities. And so we're using that same AI technology   to help defend against those vulnerabilities, to anticipate   the negative implications that are happening within the health systems   and to try to stay ahead of it. ARPA h takes on the entirety of the health ecosystem.   It's not just biomedical research. It's not just resilient systems. It's not not just investing in the tech of the future.  

It is all of those. And what we do is we actually go out and we seek these incredible innovators. We call them our program managers.   And they come to us and they say, you know, here are the big problems that we're seeing in the health ecosystem space. We will fund anything across the health ecosystem so long as it helps further our mission, which is to improve health outcomes for everyone.   So the AI cyber challenge fits so well within the mission of ARPA H and that we are funding   traditional type programs,   which are big and bold and ambitious. We also fund these challenges   where we know that there is a   large problem   within the health ecosystem,   and we need to have the most innovative solutions come to the table to come in and look at that problem set in an entirely different way. And we have said, here are what we understand are those problems, and we've given them the access to so much of the capability   that that we see here at Defcon. And we say,   we are going to tell you what the solution is. You tell us how you would solve that problem, and we incentivize it through this challenge structure.  

The incredible benefit that ARPA h is gonna get   from launching this type of a challenge is that we are gonna see a diversity of solutions that come out from all of these challenged competitors   where they don't look at the problem the same way. They each come with their own perspective, and they say, here's how I would solve this problem. Here's the vulnerability that I'm finding, and we will be the beneficiaries.   And, ultimately, and ultimately, the whole health ecosystem will be the beneficiaries   of what they're developing.   So through this first year where we're getting to the semifinals and then through the next year, we're actually getting to those finalists,   we're already seeing some incredible   work that's coming out of these competitors, and we're leveraging it to help solve some of these big problems.  

Coming into the AICC   city is,   I think, so well choreographed   to to understand   the vulnerabilities   that exist across the health ecosystem.   So whether it is a clinical care site, an emergency room, provider back office,   all of that is collectively   now represented   in AICC.   So the cleverness   of who came together to think about what needs to be present   to create a health ecosystem   to drive the competition   so that AI cyber challenge   really is well represented   by what we see in the infrastructure   of this village   is   incredibly well formulated.   It is so thoughtful. It should allow anyone who is wondering what does it look like in a health care ecosystem   to   understand the vulnerabilities that are present in a way that maybe they've never even been able to think about. They've never experienced. They never   understood.  

Where do those vulnerabilities come from? How do you identify them? How do you,   bend against them? That is all represented   here in the AICC village. But this space is moving so fast that we're also hoping that it illuminates   something that can help us anticipate   what is the threat space of tomorrow   or two years from now or five years from now. And so as we build the capabilities over the next year of AICC,   it was going to help lead us to what are we doing in our program portfolio   in 2027   or 2029   or 02/1935,   because it is going to continue to evolve. And this is the place where we really think that we can drive   technical understanding   of how this is evolving.  

And what do we need to do now to shape the future,   to be able to continue to have safe operations within our health systems.   One of the other great benefits of having ARPA h here and really being at the forefront of this technology,   as part of our core principles as an agency,   we really wanna make sure that the capabilities being developed are democratized in such a way is that they will benefit not just the large health systems, those that have revenue margins where they can bring on the greatest   technology is to be able to create a safe and secure environment, but also those who operate on a very low margin. So those in the rural environment, critical access hospitals,   FQHCs,   all of which have the same sets of vulnerabilities.  

Now when we create these capabilities,   our goal is to make sure that they are accessible   and they are affordable and implementable   so that we create a safer space across the health ecosystem.   We also wanna make sure that we are recruiting program managers   that come in with the same level of energy and excitement   to really identify   critical   problems   that they see within the health ecosystem,   that they wanna help be part of the solution. And when they come to ARPA h, we give them the capabilities   to drive forward in   significant ways to be able to address those problems.  

It has just been an awesome experience, and I'm so   excited that ARPA h is now part of this,   collective Defcon and AICC.   And I'm looking forward to many opportunities,   to come in the future.  

[00:40:06] Andrew Hoffman:

I apologize for making you listen to that whole thing, but   I have to say Susan Menares   certainly sounds like someone   more in line with, you know, back to the very first episode of this podcast   where we talked about the whole,   project Stargate   and $500,000,000,000   for   AI vaccine development and the the rest of the AI garbage. The the creation of Algocracy,   looking back at it. Right? This is   it all is supposed to lead into that,   and   we're supposed to be excited about the AI vaccine   development for for cancer that the vaccines are causing.   But this is you know, even if you see through that part of it, they're they're just that's just the excuse.  

They want to build the   algocracy,   and   they think   that, oh, you know, people we'll we'll tell people they'll get better health care out of the deal. You know? All these inefficient humans,   clearly, what we need is AI transcription   and and just tell the doctors,   you know,   which the the old joke is,   doctors usually   have something   in their office that says, you know,   my metal   my medical degree, your five minutes of Google searching.   And   the the reality is it's   the patient's   Google search versus the the doctor's Google search, right, or or looking it up on WebMD   or   or now we're into just ask the ask Grok, ask the other   AI models.  

But this is   that's where they want to go.   And vaccines are one microcosm   to to look at that, and I I think it's a a very important issue on its own,   but in the larger context   of what the idea of   vaccines   allow them to get away with. In this case, it's   spending billions and billions of dollars   developing   AI data centers to to track everything, but it's and to, you know, just see what's in your blood. It's for your own good, though. Right? We've gotta see if those,   imperceptible   cancer   tumors are   are getting stuff in the blood, and then we can give you the vaccine for it ahead of time, that sort of thing. So let's go let's go back in time twenty five years,   and this is just some some clips of parents talking about their,   vaccine   injured   and now autistic   children.  

And   twenty five years later,   we're are still at the point where according to the mainstream media,   it's proven   that vaccines do not cause autism.   And it's, you know, basically, you're a crackpot conspiracy theorist if you say otherwise. So let's go back twenty five years ago, and then I'll just follow it up up with the interview with the mother of Mason Bundy.   We   I went through her her story, but this is her telling it and also providing some additional   encouragement   for,   for mothers and and parents in general out there and pointing out some very good things that,   you know, you're the people pushing the vaccines are not gonna be there for you when the vaccine causes harm. They're just not. They're gonna deny that it ever happened. So let's go back,   twenty five years ago and then the more recent   recent  

[00:43:34] Unknown:

clip.  

[00:43:36] Unknown:

You have never seen a woman on a mission until you've seen a mother   determined to save her child. There there's no match for a mother's love. She read, she researched, she investigated  

[00:43:44] Unknown:

While I try to come to terms with the idea that I might never be able to shoot hoops with my son  

[00:43:48] Unknown:

I know there are things   that my son wants to say to me   And as he gets older, I can I can look into his eyes And I can see the frustration and the confusion   There's a little boy   inside of him somewhere, but   he's it's like he's lost? And this is really what it's like.   It's like being in a mall with your child, and you look down and you discover they're not there anymore.   That that sickening feeling you get in the pit of your stomach.   Excuse   me. Except every once in a while, you catch a glimpse of the real boy. You know, the way his his eyes light up when you bring the Christmas tree home. The way he smiles when he jumps into the pool or the way he sits perfectly still and raptured when we go to see the symphony. He loves music, he loves animals, he loves trains, he loves books, swings, ice cream.   Even his family, of course.  

But   he can't tell me his favorite color or how his day at school was or what hurts when he falls off the swing set. Liam was a normally developing baby until 06/27/1997  

[00:44:46] Unknown:

when he received his MMR and Hib vaccines.   He was constantly taking off his shoes, he screamed if we dressed or undressed him, he would stare for hours in front of a television, and wouldn't move if he blocked the The same day, Jacob and Jesse both received their first DPT,  

[00:45:00] Unknown:

polio, and hip vaccination. Day on, Jacob was constantly coming down with one ear, respiratory, or sinus infection after another. 08/09/1990,  

[00:45:09] Unknown:

Jackson would begin a journey into silence, bewilderment, and a medical enigma. That was the day he received his MMR immunization. He would not sleep that night. In the days to follow, he would develop unexplained rashes and horrible constipation and diarrhea. Next week, he'd slip away. Unable to listen or speak, he retreated  

[00:45:26] Unknown:

into what we now know as autism. And somewhere along the way, he developed chronic nonspecific diarrhea,  

[00:45:31] Unknown:

sometimes eight to 10 times a day, and still suffers from that three years late. Not express even the most simplest needs or wants. He could not ask for juice or something to with these children can be hell. They can destroy your entire home. You can't keep anything nice around. They will ruin your rugs. They will jump off the furniture. They will move the furniture around the room, push it over, and they do nothing  

[00:45:52] Unknown:

with with any intention of no no malice whatsoever. When Jacob is overloaded from sounds, colors, or lights, we cannot go anywhere. Autism does not only isolate the individual that it affects,  

[00:46:02] Unknown:

it isolates the entire family. Just three miles from Duke University Medical Center. Yet for one of the most effective treatments for get Jackson's gastrointestinal   problems,   I drive twelve hours for a procedure that takes  

[00:46:15] Unknown:

five minutes. Integration therapy, vision therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, sensory integration therapy. Had CAT scans and allergy testing and stool analysis and urine analysis and all kinds of blood analysis. Jacob's countenance left when he was 16  

[00:46:28] Unknown:

old.   The light behind his eyes was replaced   with a blank lost  

[00:46:34] Unknown:

bewildered stare. How do I put a cost on not sleeping for six years?   How do I put a cost on attention not paid to my daughters because I'm seeing to the needs of my son?  

[00:46:43] Unknown:

How do I put a cost on locking every door and window at all times for fear of him wandering out of the house? I need someone to explain to me why it's acceptable to have products on the market that expose my son to thirty seven point five micrograms of mercury in one day at a time when he should not have been exposed to more than point five nine micrograms  

[00:47:01] Unknown:

of mercury given his body weight. I should have taken the time to find out what his risk of contracting hepatitis b at only one month old was. I didn't do that. I should have known back then what I do today. I did not. I trusted his pediatrician. I trusted the CDC.   I was persuaded to believe that I was doing the best thing I could do to protect my child. Can no longer be ignored.  

[00:47:21] Unknown:

Thousands of parents who claim their children were developing normally until the MMR vaccine   should no longer be ignored.  

[00:47:28] Unknown:

We all can't be wrong. Personally, if I could strike the belief that my son's autism sprang from a routine childhood vaccination that I held him down on the table for and had to go back to the Russian roulette of genetics,   I would take it in a heartbeat.   Because the pain knowing that I inadvertently   caused him harm due to the blind trust in the medical community or a matter of inconvenience of yet another office visit, taking time away from my job is nearly unbearable.  

[00:47:57] Unknown:

I I had every night   kissed him good night. I felt that his cheek was extremely cold,   and I knew that he was dead. He was born at 35.   And even though he was a little early and really small, he didn't require any NICU time, which was pretty amazing considering how tiny he was.   He came home and he was a healthy, happy, normal baby   until his first round of shots when he got really fussy.   He had RSV in the February.   And   on March 1, which is just two weeks later, we went to his pediatrician   for a normal checkup,   a checkup I didn't expect to turn into a vaccine appointment given that he just been sick.  

My oldest child was almost six years old when I took Mason to this appointment.   And when she was an infant,   I was told that you didn't give vaccines if the child had a fever or had recently been sick. So it took me by surprise that the pediatrician   wanted to do,   you know, the routine vaccinations.   One was a five in one. I was I was aware of how many there were, which is why I was concerned.   And   even though I had my hesitations,   the doctor turned right to my husband who is very quiet and an introvert and was obviously the easier parent to target with this,   said, you know, he's just been really sick with RSV in the hospital.  

If you guys don't give him these vaccines, most notably the DTaP vaccine, he you're signing his death certificate. He's he's probably gonna get whooping cough and die. My husband and I were 23 years old when we were at that appointment.   It was scary to hear that from a doctor. So   I saw the fear in my husband's face,   and I just went ahead with it. I said okay.   A few days later, just after midnight,   March fourth going into March 5,   I went upstairs   to go to bed. I bent over his pack and play like I had every night,   kissed him good night so I could go to bed,   and   I felt that his cheek was extremely cold.  

And I knew that he was dead. I just started screaming, he's dead. He's dead.   And my husband pushed me back.   He grabbed Mason, and he ran out of the house and drove off with him.   And for thirty minutes, I just stood in the darkness of my street realizing   I had a five year old and a one year old inside the house sleeping, and I had to wait for someone to get to me.   And by the time I got to the hospital,   Mason had one leg that was very swollen from all of the epinephrine and and shots that they were giving him as they did CPR trying to get him back, but it was really obvious.   We weren't gonna get him back.  



[00:50:46] Unknown:

What is your message   to those young mothers, the young mother you used to be, I used to be that were blinded by the white coat doctors?   What what do you have to say to them? You have to understand.  

[00:50:59] Unknown:

These doctors   are not reading science. They are not reading studies.   They are being trained by the pharmaceutical companies that make the product.   They are being trained like a car salesman.   These are the features. This is the data. These are safe and effective. These are safe and effective.   The doctors that are saying this don't have time   to read the science, and they're not reading the science. In the aftermath of injury,   those doctors are not there. They are not going to be there for you. Whether you're like me with a child that dies   suffering through complex PTSD   that affects your surviving children,   your marriage,   your relationship with every friend and family member you ever had,   or if you have an adult child with autism   that you can never leave, that you have to get care for to leave with your husband for one day if you are lucky enough to be able to even find that help.  

Nobody is gonna be there for you in the end.   It's that's the most horrific part for me is watching   my friends and my parents and the movement that have kids that are deteriorating from injuries.   They're either going to die young, they have taken their own lives because they could not handle the stress of their injury anymore.   It's devastating.   And the doctors screaming safe and effective are nowhere to be found.  

[00:52:20] Andrew Hoffman:

I've got a feeling that the doctors screaming safe and effective won't be found,   as it relates to this recent story from Phoenix, Arizona   as well.   So just,   let's see. March 19,   within one hour,   three babies found dead.   No foul play,   not drownings. This was 05:30AM   to 06:30AM,   all within a relatively   close geographical   area.   And,   you know, they're not releasing information   on how old they are, but I'm just gonna   just   taking a guess that there   was well child visits probably at the same location   because this is even for, you know, typical vaccine damage, which all vaccines do damage,   three deaths   within a one hour period is extreme. So there's   there's probably a bad batch, and it just happened to go to the,   you know, Phoenix, Arizona   metro area. It was,   yeah, actually,   three at there were four incidents,   but three were in this very, very close together.  

So that's   I've got the local news story on that and,   the general tweet.   Let's just read read read through it here.   In the Broadway Road case, an infant died after being rushed to the hospital. The child found in West Phoenix also died at the hospital, and the child involved in the last case died at the scene. Police said the incidents are not related to drownings.   The cause of death in each case will be determined by the medical examiner's office. Yeah. That's   that's,   and there was another death in Chandler, which is,   it's not   you wouldn't expect   that child to have been at the same clinic,   but it's, you know, it's possible that   the same bad vaccine batch was passed out to   multiple clinics in in the valley there. So,   but, you know, is there any, like, hey. Maybe we should hold off on vaccinations till we find out what's going on and and figure out what killed these four kids.  

No. None of that. Just, it's a mystery. It's a mystery. All the, you know, all the post COVID vaccine vaccine issues, oh, the turbocancers,   it's a mystery.   Scientists are mystified. Doctors are mystified.   Well, we we   I don't think anyone's mystified. I think a lot of people know what's going on. And,   you know, they're gonna try to rescue this whole operation with AI. And, okay, the vaccines were bad before,   and no one should be forced to take a vaccine. But you're gonna wanna take the vaccines because they're they're made by AI now, and they're so smart and and worthwhile.   And that that leads us into   this next   next topic,   the underlying   reasoning behind vaccines.  

It's the the idea that,   virus you can get a virus, it makes you sick. The virus replicates,   keeps replicating, keeps replicating.   And then instead of killing you, eventually, it goes away. Your body fights it off.   But we can mimic some of that with the vaccine, and so your immune system learns it and is, you know, magically prepared to fight it off. And it's totally not that we just call it something else if you've been vaccinated as opposed to not vaccinated.   But the the underlying   theory is virology.   And this goes back to, you know, vaccines are older than virology, but they were   working on the idea that that there was some little thing that was transmitted person to person that that makes you sick,   and   we ended up calling it a virus. And it seems like it, you know, it makes sense. I mean, people get sick around each other.  

The the problem is, as you'll hear from these next couple of clips,   there's no actual proof that the virus theory   that virology is based on   is actually correct.  

[00:56:28] Unknown:

Do you know how viruses are discovered?   You might think virologists find a sick person,   take a sample of their mucus, and extract a virus from it. If you thought this, you'd be wrong.   What they actually do is take a sample from a sick person,   add it to a cell culture,   mix in toxic chemicals, and then reduce the nutrients,   thus starving the cells.   When the cells start dying, the virologist claims a virus must be responsible.   Next, they take a sample from this toxic soup, put it through a sequencing machine that detects fragmented genetic material,   and then they use software to piece those fragments together into what they call a viral genome.  

Does this sound like valid science to you? And then in 1954,  

[00:57:14] Unknown:

this was the fundamental experiment, enders and peoples, that I   I feel like many people in the medical field haven't   familiarized themselves with, surprisingly, but this is the fundamental experiment, the fundamental methodology that's now used to   isolate a virus. And I would argue the definition of isolation is is improper,   but it's their way of identifying a that a virus exists,   which is taking fluids from a sick person and then putting it into a what's called a cell culture, but it's a soup of material that has lots of toxic stuff in it, like antibiotics. It also has monkey kidney cells, and it can differ depending on the experiment. But when they take the fluids from a sick person and put it into that soup of material,   the scientists find that,   some of the cells break down.  

And their conclusion is, well, there must be a virus in there because cells broke down.   The problem there there are two big problems that we'll call it the novirus community will point to this, and these are really just questions of the scientific method,   not even medicine in a way. This is just logic.   If you're gonna take fluids from a cell person from   fluids from a sick person and claim that there was a virus in there that caused cells to break down in the soup,   you need to isolate. You need to have just a virus that you put into the soup because there could be other things in the fluids from a sick person that cause breakdown in this in that soup.   How do you know it was a virus if you didn't isolate a virus first? Where in this case, I'm referring to the traditional definition of isolation, which is to separate from other things.  

In in the case of the traditional experiment, they're not separating you from other things first. It's just fluids from a sick person. Even their if they're partially filtered fluids, how do you know it's just the virus that causes the cell cellular breakdown?   And the other problem   so so the that's problem number one, which people would say is a lack of an independent variable,   meaning the variable you're gonna introduce in the experiment to see what happens in the experiment.   That's pretty basic for the scientific method to have an independent variable isolated,   and it doesn't seem to be happening since 1954 because that's the the method that's been used. The second   is the lack of a proper control,   which is also a basic thing in a scientific experiment. Now, fundamentally, if there's no independent variable,   how can you even know what a control is if you haven't if you don't know what you're controlling against? So it's it's basically impossible to have a proper control. But from a more traditional perspective,   definition of a control, you might look at, well, what happens to that soup of material by itself if nothing is introduced to it? Or if we add, like, Stefan Lanka, he added yeast RNA   in one experiment to the soup. He didn't add a virus,   and the cells broke down in the soup with yeast RNA, not a virus. So these are the sorts of things that seem to be overlooked   in many of the experiments   that are done today because they follow that same method. And one of the reasons that this experiment and methodology caught on   is that Enders   won a Nobel Prize in 1954   for something else. But so this guy had all this he was a very prominent person, and then and he had done an experiment on a new method for, quote, unquote, isolating a virus. So the methodology   combined with,   this newfound   belief in   in DNA and the double helix structure, it gave a new explanation. And one more thing I'll add with regard to the history   is that bacteriophages   had been discovered at this time.  

And   years later, I believe it was 1969,   the Nobel Prize was run won on that. And the the the   website still exists for,   like, the significance of that event. And they said   the bacteriophage   served as a model for viruses elsewhere. And a bacteriophage is moderate is is usually believed to be a virus like particle for bacteria, even though many people would dispute that it's actually virus like. But a bacteriophage is something that many people acknowledge has been isolated,   and it's sort of this parasitic particle   for bacteria.  

So   this was discovered in the nineteen forties, and then the discoveries continued on even though the Nobel Prize came later. So now there was a model for what a virus could be. It could be like a bacteriophage   plus the genetic stuff from Watson and Crick, and now Enders and Peoples had a method for, quote, unquote, isolating it. Now science had   basically an explanation for this mystery that had persisted for a long time of people were saying, there must be something going from person to person that we can't see. Now there's a model for it, and it seems like that model stuck.  

[01:01:34] Andrew Hoffman:

The guy talking in that second clip is Mark Gober,   and he wrote a book called,   An End to Upside Down Medicine,   Contagion Viruses and Vaccines, and why   consciousness is needed for a new paradigm of health. So that's where that clip came from.   And, overall, this comes from   a thread put out by doctor Wojak, MD, an anonymous   Twitter account.   And he's got virology is a sham explained for every attention span video edition.   So the clip that I played is the   forty second clip and then a a four minute clip, but it goes all the way through full length documentaries,   depending on   how long your attention span is and how much convincing you need, I suppose, So how much interest you have in the topic.  

But the I I do think it is worthwhile   investing some time if you, you know, like I like me,   just assume   that that's what that's how people get sick is they get a virus, and then they pass it around, and then it it replicates. And then, you know, fortunately,   magically, you stop it. Otherwise, it would would kill you.   And   that's kind of, you know, mainstream science, and   it makes sense that a vaccine could work if that was   if if viruses were   the actual mechanism for disease.   So if if there's a question about that, which I I hope, you know, even from those short clips, you can definitely acknowledge that there's   a question about it,   deserves   a full investigation there. So I I do think it's a worthwhile topic to dig into   because if you dig into   virology   and the the virus theory and see where that comes from and and how shaky it of ground it's on, vaccines are obviously built on that theory. So if virology is a sham,   then vaccines are obviously a sham. And that's true   most importantly for for vaccines for people,   but it also turns out it's a it's a scam for your pets as well. So that's this next clip.  



[01:03:48] Unknown:

That whole   pattern of  

[01:03:51] Unknown:

you gotta take the dog in every year for its shots. You gotta, you know, do all of that stuff. That's all. It's a it's a scam. I mean, the thing is now what's happening even worse is the corporations are buying up the vet practices. In the old days, I won't say I'm that old, but I'm a practicing forty years and it was still in place. Just more and more vaccines are coming in. But what I hear from the generation before me, they gave one or two vaccines. That's it. They don't keep doing it. I mean, now it's even worse. They do blood work twice a year. It's just to generate more money. It's crazy. I mean, I do blood work or recommend blood work when there's a problem. But if everything is great, you don't have to bring them to me. You don't have to bring them out. The person talking there is  

[01:04:31] Andrew Hoffman:

a holistic veterinarian   named Marcy Falick,   and that was an interview by Children's Health Defense as well.   So the that's an interesting thing.   There's a couple connections there. First of all, the idea that   these vet practices are getting bought out by private equity, that goes back to our   our topic a couple weeks ago with,   oh, what's that gal's name? It's, Tiffany Sianci.   And she she was on Harrison Smith and and talked about about her story, and I thought that was was worth listening to if people wanna check that out. I did have a clip for it, but I think I'll I'll leave it leave it on the the cutting room floor as they say. So,   but definitely check that out. But besides the private equity aspect to these veterinarian prac practices,   it's an interesting   microcosm   of what's going on   as a whole. So it's   private equity, which is very detached   from the veterinarian   and the patient.  

Right? I mean, they they never see the actual dogs. They never see the families.   There's   more of a space, and the same thing is happening   with, orthodontics   offices, doctors' offices, even emergency rooms.   It's easier to put policies in place which are   are, you know,   maybe maybe make sense financially, but are not,   person to person something that you would do just dealing with real people.   And so that that's a part of it, and it's   I think, to try and tie it in with what we've talked about today, it will eventually, instead of just   private equity, some far off group of of people somewhere, it'll be like, well, you know, kind of the it was analyzed by AI, and that's what we gotta do. And and, yeah, if you're not gonna give your dog vaccines, you can't can't bring them in. We can't do boarding if your if your cats haven't been vaccinated.  

There's all these policies, and it's easier to get them through on the the pets. They they wanna chip your pets too. Right?   So all the microchipping, so all the same agendas that they wanna push through for people,   they're they're doing on the pets first. And pets,   also livestock,   you get the mRNA   vaccines for livestock.   You got the tracking for livestock. All all these same issues, the same agenda keeps marched along.   And, you know,   you gotta fight it where it's at, but I think it helps to have a comprehensive reason,   to argue against stuff.  

And if vaccines are a total fraud, start to finish, every single vaccine   because virology   is a fraud, then you're not gonna get fooled into, well, maybe this vaccine, maybe that vaccine, maybe the new AI fancy mRNA vaccine. So the the whole if the whole thing is a sham, we can throw all of it out.   And I think the   this is   it's gonna be the battle going forward,   and all they're gonna be able to do   is what they've done in the past is   eventually   I mean, the quote, unquote free   Twitter, free   ex, Elon Musk giving us our free speech, that's that's all going away. And this,   one example   of,   you know, why that has to go away.  

Sean Hartman,   he was a Canadian   hockey player, young hockey player, young kid, 16 or 17 years old, and he he wanted to play sports. I think it was hockey. I could just be stereotyping that, but he he needed to have the COVID vaccine to be able to participate in sports that he wanted to play, and then he died.   And so his family   has been seeking justice for that.   And the   the, Canadian court,   Canadian judge just ruled against them,   said, no. You know, I mean, it we can't expect them to take responsibility   for killing your son. It's just, you know, would it had to be done. It was a pandemic.   So it's it's no,   no liability   for anyone involved in in killing Sean Hartman. So that's those are the type of stories   that   that can't keep getting out there. Right? I mean, not everyone has to wait until it happens to them to figure out what's going on. Eventually, if if you hear the stories of   whether it's parents whose children have autism or   or or parents whose   kid died from vaccines,   if, you know, these are very believable people. I mean, there's no motivation to lie, where on the other side of things, there's huge motivation to lie. There's livelihoods at stake. There is entire,   you know,   transhumanist   agendas at stake for   pushing for keeping these things going. So that's that's kind of the   the wrap up there. Hopefully, it made sense. And thank you so much for listening to this whole thing.  

I really appreciate all of you. Got a new new subscriber on the sub stack. That's appreciated as well. Thank you   subscriber on the substack. That's appreciated as well.   Thank you all so much for supporting and listening.   And check out those those two things that I mentioned, Algocracy,   the podcast from James Corbett,   and In Silico there from,   Insilico, the Battle for Body and Soul from The Truth is Stranger than Fiction.   And just remember, it is okay to be an anti vaxxer.