I Invaded the Podcast Bro Space (They Hated It)

Hey everyone. Many of you are aware of my strong distaste for podcasts that endlessly platform science-denying charlatans to the detriment of the public. Naturally, I'm talking about Joe Rogan first and foremost, plus all of his copycats. Well, I recently attempted to invade this alternate reality. Would you like to hear about it? Of course you would. Let's get started.

In case you're new to my content, I debunk frauds who lie to the public about science for financial and/or political gain. Flat-earthers, antivaxers, electric universe grifters, climate change deniers, pseudoarchaeology toolboxes, creationist douche nozzles, and all the rest. They make the world measurably worse. Even the most benign forms of science denial poison public perception of science and polarize people against legitimate sources of information. This fosters a public that is hostile towards science and votes for administrations that actively attack the scientific community, which is what we are seeing with Trump and Bobby Kennedy. Slashing budgets for science in half. Trump firing the entire National Science Board, Bobby firing thousands of people at CDC and FDA, axing the entire ASIP vaccine panel, basically just purging the government of anyone who will not bow down to the state-sanctioned narrative that is determined by what is most profitable for the oligarchy that put them there rather than scientific facts. And of course, let's not forget the monsoon of antivaccine propaganda that is unlike anything in human history, which has caused a resurgence in child deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases and quite likely the evaporation of measles eradication status. People are dying. Everyone is less safe. Scientific progress is stifled. And these toxic frauds are to blame.

Now, where you might ask, do these frauds build up their public influence? Where oh where can these narratives gain traction? Which media do they use to disseminate their propaganda and brainwash the masses? Newspapers? Television? No. Podcasts? Dozens and dozens of dogshit podcasts. Joe, right place, right time, Rogan is the meathead who perfected this format first, and countless copycats have been chasing him ever since, guided by the almighty dollar. An endless parade of lying frauds line up for these shows, spew a bunch of tantalizing bullshit of one variety or another. People fall for the bullshit and become addicted to it. The host gets rewarded with revenue and sponsorships thanks to the eyeballs. And the fraud has their grift inflated or in many cases launched from the ground thanks to the exposure from these shows. And podcasts don't necessarily have to begin with this mission statement. It happens naturally due to audience capture. They prioritize the guests that get them the most views. And that tends to be the ones with sensationalist claims that contradict established scientific knowledge. You know, the whole "I know the super secret truth that the establishment won't tell you" kind of stories. The podcaster absolves themselves by exclaiming that they didn't sign up to be the arbiter of truth. They're just having conversations. And the entire podcasting space is slowly polarized in the direction of exclusively platforming fraud. This has been happening for the better part of a decade now, accelerating rapidly once the COVID pandemic hit. And it is showing no signs of slowing down. We are at the point where people who religiously listen to these podcasts are operating in an alternate reality with an alternate set of facts. In their world, anthropogenic climate change isn't real. The pyramids aren't tombs and nobody knows how they got there. Vaccines cause autism. COVID vaccines caused millions of deaths. SARS Corona Virus 2 leaked from a Wuhan lab. All of legitimate medicine is an evil pharma plot and all of the untested, unregulated supplements the podcasts pedal are the only way to stay healthy and maximize your manliness. These people are totally impervious to scientific facts and the concept of scientific consensus. In fact, they have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to recoil upon merely hearing the word "consensus" because the charlatans they worship need for them to reflexively reject the reliable body of empirical knowledge that the scientific community has developed over several centuries. They can't compete with real science or be viewed under any actual scrutiny from those who understand science. So, they need their targets to begin to feel nauseous at even the thought of real scientists and the things they say. This is the purpose of catchphrases like "establishment shill." This is the basis for the hostility towards academia under the guise of crusading against wokeness. This is an all-out war against the concept of expertise and the idea that the millions of people who study something for a living are the ones who actually know about that thing rather than whatever jerk was on Joe Rogan last week.

This podcast bro ecosystem has grown to this massive size because scholars have chosen to ignore it for so long. And I don't necessarily blame them. They're busy with their jobs. The audiences are highly toxic and harass any expert who sticks their nose in there until they give up and go back to ignoring them. Very few of them have the stomach and the skill set to spar with these ass clowns for any appreciable duration of time. This is the problem. Enter the career science communicator. Me. My job is to nurture scientific understanding among the public. My job is to facilitate the transmission of concepts from the scientific community to the public. I do this every single day on my channel. But how do I get through to the podcast bro crowd? They won't watch my content. They visit the comment section of my content to whine about what a big dumb jerk I am for exposing and humiliating their idiot fraud heroes, but they never find the courage to press play and watch me do it. If only there was some way to invade their space, to use the platforms they engage with to disseminate factual information. But is such a thing possible? Joe Rogan is the Supreme Chancellor of this parallel dimension. What are the odds I could get through to him?

>> Did you see this bullshit? Um, you know, Godfrey, >> the the comic. >> Yeah. So, he had um I forget the name of the scientist, but he had like a scientist come on and debate Lord Jamar. Lord Jamar is a flat-earther >> and it didn't go it didn't go well. >> Of course it didn't. >> You know >> that doesn't make any sense. Was that that Professor Dave guy? >> Of course have to be a Professor Dave. >> Yeah, Professor Dave's done quite a few of those. He's doing the world a nice favor.

Okay, so Joe knows who I am, but he seems to be exclusively aware of my flat-earth debunking, which means he doesn't know how often I take a gigantic dump on him for platforming an endless string of worthless frauds and amplifying their reach to the immeasurable detriment of human civilization. That's probably good, as I would prefer to not get punched in the face by him. At any rate, I don't anticipate an invitation from Joe in the foreseeable future. What about someone else? Lex Friedman hit me up once to talk about James Tour and a Biogenesis stuff, but it fizzled out. Will anyone in the podcast bro space find the courage to let me infiltrate their dojo?

Then, like a glorious phoenix, a hero rose up among them, Danny Jones. A quick scroll through his back catalog will identify him as one of the Joe Rogan clones I mentioned earlier. Endless pseudoarchaeology frauds, antivaxers, UFO nuts. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more Roganesque roster. But unlike Rogan, this was a man willing to sit down with the enemy. Perhaps not his personal enemy, but the sworn enemy of 99% of his viewers, no doubt. He asked me to go on his show, and after some contemplation, I decided to do it. So, I did, and the episode went live a few weeks ago. My thought process in accepting the invitation was as follows.

First, as I said, it's virtually impossible to get the sheep who fall for these frauds to listen to me since they refuse to watch my content. By invading their space, I stand a better shot at being heard and perhaps convincing some small percentage of the flock that is not yet so far gone. But second, Danny seemed to me to be showing signs of interest in diversifying his content. His producer told me that he doesn't want to be a Rogan clone. He wants to host many different voices. He doesn't want to exclusively platform and elevate frauds. And I had two specific examples from his show to believe this might be the case.

First, he had Ashton Forbes on, and instead of falling for his grift, Danny humiliated him. He ambushed him with footage that I also showed in my videos debunking Ashton that prove his videos are fake. Ashton floundered and looked like a chump, and his influence was measurably diminished. Great job, right? Then, those of you who watched my two-part series debunking Bart Cybil, the moon-landing denier douchebag, you'll recall that part two featured his two appearances on Danny Jones. In the first, Danny kind of drank the Kool-Aid, but in the second, he came prepared, challenged Bart with some irrefutable facts about shadows and other things, and Bart looked like a chump. Influence diminished. So, yes, Danny has on countless frauds, but sometimes he debunks the frauds, so maybe he would be receptive to me debunking other frauds and promoting more fraud debunking, right? I made it a point in the episode to commend him for the two actions I just described and explained how the podcast bro space has to platform at least as many debunkers as frauds in order for society to bounce back from the record levels of reality denial it's currently engaging in. Can you imagine if Joe Rogan regularly platformed a real expert the very next day after a fraud to walk him and his audience through the script of lies? Or can you imagine if Joe actually pushed back on the frauds he platforms if he fact-checked them in real time? What if Aaron Siri spewed his bullshit about vaccines never being tested against saline placebo? And instead of Joe nodding his head like a buffoon, he Googled it in real time, immediately saw that Aaron is lying and asked him point blank why he would tell such a blatant lie on his show. What if he did the same for Bobby Kennedy or any other such disgusting lying fraud? The world would be different. That's how the podcast space needs to be. I want to promote that reality and do anything I can to influence the podcast space to become that way. That was my reasoning for going on Danny's show.

Now, we're going to talk about some of the key moments in my episode in a bit. I was as polite and calm as possible to give his followers no excuse to ignore me. And overall, I felt that it was a relatively constructive and predominantly good-faith conversation, even if his viewers had a complete meltdown about it. Knowing their psychology quite well, I wasn't surprised in the slightest. But I have to admit that I was slightly surprised to hear what Danny had to say about me in a later episode. Check this out.

>> The other day, we had this dude on the podcast who um he's like a an academic attack dog. He's like an attack dog for academic consensus. Okay, we are already mischaracterizing a bit. Scientific consensus is not strictly from academia. I explain this quite clearly in my episode. Scientists work for various governments around the world and in the private sector as well. For example, what all the chemists in the world agree is true about molecules, whether they work at Harvard or CDC or General Electric, is what humans know about molecules. They do research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals such that everyone else can read and independently validate the findings if they so choose. People who deny these facts about molecules are science deniers. And when their science denial jeopardizes public health, it's my job to step in and do my best to clear up the confusion and shame the frauds who caused it. So yes, I am an attack dog for the scientific community. Scholars have spent decades being overly diplomatic or downright ignoring all the frauds poisoning society with science denial and turning them against the scientific community. I do the job they can't do, don't want to do, or simply don't do in high enough volume. I will be aggressive on their behalf and any crybully who wants to protest can fuck themselves. Darwin had Huxley and today they have me. It's an important full-time job and I do it with pride.

And so like normally online all of like the alternative stuff like the alternative history um all of the any anything that doesn't go anything that goes against like scientific consensus or norms, right? Seems to get the most attention online like exposing corruption, >> right? >> No. No, Danny, you were describing bullshit. Anything that goes against legitimate science is bullshit. It's not fighting corruption. In fact, quite a lot of science denial is born of corruption and used to further corruption. This is a big miss. And yes, the bullshit that people like your guests promote on shows like yours gets a lot of attention because people are stupid and fall for frauds on the internet. They like the dumb stories the frauds tell and then they want more such stories which you provide by continuing to platform the frauds who tell them until millions of people are so far down the rabbit hole that they can't tell their ass from their elbow. It's a vicious cycle.

>> Talking of like stuff that Graeme Hancock talks about like ancient civilizations, the possib Like when you use your imagination and you try to say, you know, what if they were wrong? What what if the what if the textbooks in the schools aren't actually what's what the truth is? What if there's more to this story? That's not imagination, Danny. That's called grifting. Graham Hancock is a grifter. We talked about this when I sat across from you. He's a fraud who lies about archaeology for money and polarizes the public against real archaeologists in order to insulate himself from criticism. So when he says things that contradict legitimate science or textbooks or however you want to frame it, it's not because he's a bold visionary with imagination. It's because he's a grifting fraud who lies to make money. Okay. >> Right. >> Right. And and this guy is like the one that goes online and like publicly humiliates and belittles that group of people. And I was like I'm like what if we just like went completely against the grain and had this guy on the podcast. The guy that everyone >> the guy that everyone who listens to my show despite would despise and hate this guy. I'm like let's let's let's give it a shake. See how it goes. >> Yes. I am the guy who your audience hates because I expose and humiliate the frauds you regularly platform and who your viewers worship because they value stories over facts, feelings over truth. You had the courage to have me on and I applaud you for that. Most podcasters in your position would not do that. Again, I thought it went fairly well. You said the same to me in private. Have your feelings changed at all in the past couple weeks? And um I thought it might like open up a portal, but it didn't. It was just like a brick wall. >> Yeah. >> Yes. I was hoping to knock some sense into you about your knee-jerk acceptance of any narrative that villainizes scientists or industry in order to sell supplements or shitty stories, but you were somewhat of a brick wall about it. Perhaps you've had an epiphany since then. And you know, I mean, we got into some we were talking about everything from like the pharmaceutical industry to to ancient civilizations and Graham Hancock and stuff like that. And um this guy was like I was asking him like is there anything is there any thing that you looked at originally that you thought was 100% a bonafide fact that you were able to come around on and change your mind on with other with other evidence? like is there are there any of these crazy fringe things that you hated at first that you were able to change your mind on? He goes, "No, never." And he's like, "I don't think it'll ever happen either." Like he thought like he thinks he's absolutely right. So like, "Sorry, what was that? You just said two completely different things. Did I ever think something was a fact and then found out it wasn't is a completely different question from did I ever debunk some piece of bullshit fraud only to find out they were right." The answer to the first question is obviously yes and the answer to the second question is obviously no. Science is constantly in flux and our understanding can change, especially about trivial details. But the frauds that I debunk are objectively pieces of shit frauds. So why don't we take a look at what you actually asked me?

>> Let me ask you this. Sorry to change the subject. Has there ever been a conspiracy theory that you turned around on did a 180 on that you maybe maybe maybe something like this that you absolutely thought was bullshit maybe made a video attacking and then did and turned around on it. >> I don't I can't think of one. >> Nothing. >> Nothing. Did I ever debunk someone and then turn around on it? That's what you asked me. And the answer is obviously no. I debunk frauds. I don't debunk people I'm on the fence about. If I debunk someone, they're a fraud. Take a look at who Rogan has on his show. Aaron Siri, RFK, Robert Malone, Brett Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Suzanne Humphre, Pierre Corey. Every goddamn piece of shit antivaxer in modern history who all spread lies for money that kill people. Then the pseudoarchaeology douchebags, Ben van Kirkwick, Michael Button, Dan Richards, Jimmy Corsetti, and of course Graham Hancock. Then other miscellaneous frauds, Avi Loe, Kai Dickens, Bart Cibbril. The list goes on and on and on. Then look at your roster, Danny. Brett Weinstein, Diane Powell, who supplies Kai Dickens with her bullshit script, Stefan Burns, Avi Loe, Bart Cibbril, Ben Van Kirkwick, Randall Carlson, Jimmy Corsetti, Dan Richards, Billy Carson, crazy pyramid conspiracy, crazy blue light conspiracy, crazy alien abduction conspiracy, crazy CIA conspiracy. It's the same brain rot and the same bullshit as Joe, just without the stand-up comedians in between to pad things out. These are the characters that are platformed by Joe, you, and the 50 other podcast hosts just like you. These are garbage people who spew objective falsehoods wholesale. I can't spell it out any clearer. They are frauds, and I prove it every time with my debunks that compare their spurious claims to mountains of real science. So, this desperate attempt to paint me as closed-minded, like your audience undoubtedly wants to hear you conclude, is completely disingenuous and a little shocking.

It really illuminated to me that this whole sort of like podcast ecosystem is its own separate universe from a whole another part of reality. And I don't know if it's a a fact that the people like him, the people that are in academia, the scientists that work on in labs all day every day that don't pay attention to the media, like are are they like are they so disconnected? is are are they in a completely separate universe and reality from what the this podcasting world is? >> Jesus Christ. Yes, Danny. Legitimate scholars do legitimate science. That's one world. The podcasting space is a bunch of science-illiterate morons jerking each other off and telling dumb stories for midwits to feel intelligent while commuting to work. That's the other world. They are completely disconnected. When pseudoarchaeology frauds go on Rogan or your show or any other and talk about how dumb and wrong archaeologists are, they are just announcing that they're clueless ass hats who don't know the first thing about archaeology for an audience of clueless ass hats who don't know the first thing about archaeology. It has no bearing whatsoever on the world of legitimate scholarship. Or it didn't until the clueless ass hats voted into power an orange maniac who started slashing funding for science and dismantling critical scientific institutions. The ramifications of a public that is not only science-illiterate but actively hostile towards science are now being felt by the scientific community who is finding their ability to do science being diminished by the movements supported by that same public. That's why this schism is a problem. This is why it's bad for these two parallel realities to exist. And if you don't understand that yours is the shitty one, it's because your bank account is preventing you from seeing it.

>> Like if if you were in to introduce them into this or inject this world into their veins, would it be like a total disconnect? Would there be would it be like what is this? This is completely not real. This is completely disconnected from my reality of what I see every day working in the lab with my hands on >> science and looking at atoms and all this stuff. You're so close to the epiphany, Danny. Yes, if you made every scientist in the world listen to the frauds you platform, they would unanimously agree that it's total bullshit that contradicts everything we have come to understand about the universe through empirical science. That's the point. And that's why rational people reject the pseudoscience peddlers. Understanding how science works and having a modest working knowledge of scientific facts renders one more or less immune to the narratives the frauds are selling. I know you told me that most scientists are not interested in coming on your show and I genuinely sympathize with that hurdle, but you should keep trying to entice more of them so that maybe a few can help you understand what I wasn't able to.

>> They shouldn't. I mean, and there's some of those guys have podcasts, right? >> Some of them do. Yeah. >> Some cool sciency people and astronomers talking about other universes. >> And this guy's take is all those people are grifters. >> What the fuck are you talking about? No. Legitimate scientists who have podcasts are not grifters. Shawn Carroll is not a grifter. He's a scientist who has chosen to do some public outreach and he even dabbled a little bit in exposing frauds as so many people saw when he humiliated Eric Weinstein on Piers Morgan as I covered in this video. When scientists do science communication, it's a great thing. The problem is that there are also grifting frauds who have podcasts or appear on them with great frequency. And it's not always immediately transparent who the frauds are. Avi is a Harvard astronomer, but he's a fraud. How do we know that Avi Loe is a fraud, but Shawn Carroll isn't? By examining what they say. Shawn explains science so that the public can understand it. He elevates the scientific community. Avi spews horshit in preprints that contradict peer-reviewed literature and whines about stupid closed-minded academia, which he is a part of, that ignores his super hot truth that is actually just a script of lies. That's the difference. Qualified scientists are much less likely to be grifters than random, uneducated, unaccomplished losers. But it's not a flawless metric. Luke Montany has a goddamn Nobel Prize and he's a grade-A crackpot that nobody should listen to ever again. So, no, Danny. I'm not saying that everyone with a podcast is a grifter. I'm saying that grifters are grifters, and I methodically expose their grift using mountains of real science. You're working really hard to misrepresent me, and I have no idea why.

Like, anyone who does real science who goes on a podcast is most likely a grifter because the fact that they're going in front of a microphone means they have some sort of a financial gain. >> Tyson or whatever, Carl Sean. This is just pathetic. Even if a scientist has a financial incentive to go in front of a microphone, it doesn't make them a grifter. And I never said anything like that. Sean Carroll or Neil Degrasse Tyson or some other respected figure might want to go on Joe Rogan because they have a new book out and they like making money from books. That's fine. And do you know why? Because their book is full of facts, Danny. It's full of legitimate science that can help people learn how science works and what scientists do. It has the capacity to improve public perception of science in the scientific community. This is the polar opposite of Avi Lobe, whose books are full of lies, and it's definitely the polar opposite of some unqualified schmuck like Graham Hancock, who pedals bullshit stories while endlessly crapping on real scholars. This is shockingly difficult for you to understand, and your guest is just going on your botching of my position, so it's not his fault. But the implication that I would consider Carl Sean a grifter is laughable.

>> I don't think so. I think some are like public educators. >> Yeah. >> You know, and it's it's thrilling, especially with kids, to tell them about what's going on in the in the I mean, I understand what they mean. >> I mean, the guy had like no imagination whatsoever, >> right? No imagination. That's funny because you're the one who can't seem to imagine the possibility that all these frauds you platform are just lying to you and I'm the one who actually understands and defends real science. Is that really beyond your capacity to imagine? You can't seem to imagine that when you defend Bobby Kennedy for claiming that poppers cause AIDS rather than HIV, an actual thing you did in our episode, that you just sound like a complete moron. You can't imagine the idea that people who study and do science actually understand science and that if you were to educate yourself, you could understand it too and see how pathetic these narratives are that entrance you and your viewers. I guess the concept of applying yourself and learning things is just a little bit beyond your imagination, huh?

And the fact that he can't change his mind about anything is not he's not a real scientist then. You know, what what the podcast universe can do, the thing I think it most valuable for is kind of uh uh exercising the what if muscle in people's brains. What if this? >> What if that? Yes, random weirdo. What if? What if all of the scientists in the world are wrong and this bullshit on Joe Rogan is right? What if these dumb stories that make me feel smart and special are true and I'm not just being manipulated by malicious frauds for financial and political purposes? What if this infantile delusion of pretending that I understand subjects I've never studied for a single second better than the global community that studies them every day is actually not infantile, but is actually true. Because this is a simulation and I'm a glitch in the matrix and Elon's alien parents are coming to whisk me off to the breakaway civilization around Proxima Centuri where there won't be any woke lip tarts. What if indeed you guys do you remember Art Bell? Were you around for him?

>> Of course. Yeah. So you do an Art Bell thing with people which I like which is even if they're going off and it's like well these these these people are enslaved for the gold and bring it to the other thing and but you you stay with them not not necessarily positive reinforcing whatever but okay and then what and then why would that and so you you follow them logically through their thing and try Why don't you try it on? At least totally. Danny is just like open-minded Art Bell, and that's a good thing. When Art Bell platformed Courtney Brown and he claimed that the comet Hailbop was bringing a UFO because of remote viewing pseudoscience bullshit and Brown's claims were used by the Heaven's Gate cult to justify the 1997 mass suicide because the UFO that experts agree is coming was going to bring everyone to heaven. That was totally kick-ass. No harm done, right? Danny is totally like that. He platforms disgusting pieces of shit frauds like Kevin Mccernin, one of the fuckers in Peter McCulla and Nick Holshire's crew who tell lies about turbo cancer and Ivormectin to profit off of human lives. Hooray for platforming crackpots and frauds who spread lies that kill people. Go Danny, go.

Anyway, this little segment is what prompted me to make this video since I was a little surprised to hear Danny change his tune like this. I was hoping to nudge him ever so slightly in the right direction by praising him for the handful of times he took on the role of the skeptic and pushed back on his guests. And by text, he privately exclaimed that he thought the episode was great. He followed up on wanting me to debate Brett Weinstein on his show, who presumably declined like he already has before on Piers Morgan since he's a cowardly little wiener. We talked about Max Zamalov, who debunked Ben Van Kirkwick's ultra-precise vase bullshit on Danny's show, who I also talked about in my video on Ben. It was all gravy. So, this 180 pivot only makes sense to me in the context of an avalanche of pushback from his audience who of course never want to hear from me and my facts again, but also needed assurance from Danny that I'm a stupid closed-minded establishment shill buttface. And he gave it to them, just like Rogan, who praised Flint Dibble during the debate where he humiliated Graham Hancock, only to turn around and start slandering him the first chance he got. Perhaps the dark side is too strong with Danny Rogan Jr., so he succumbed to the pressure to placate the lemmings and protect his income. He threw me under the bus and then back to the alternate reality grifter pipeline he must return. Anyway, shall we now visit my episode and go over some highlights? Should we examine my outrageous rhetoric that prompted such a strong reaction? Let's check it out.

>> Recently, I watched one of your videos on like on on ancient Egypt. I think it was about Jimmy Corsetti. Um >> I like Jimmy. He's he's I've always he's always been pleasant to me. Um I get along with him. Uh >> if this was about any of my friends, I would laugh my ass off about it. It was it was very entertaining. >> Um and I I couldn't help but like share it with a bunch of my friends. Like, dude, have you seen this? Like it's great. Like even though like I don't think the pyramids were tombs, this guy's great. Like this guy is funny. And I think there needs to be people that are like this. >> Well, Jimmy is objectively a toxic piece of shit. He's just nice to you because he wants access to your platform. And the pyramids are objectively tombs. You just fell for lies from frauds while remaining ignorant about the millions of artifacts like mummies and sarcophagi and funerary text inscriptions and all the other stuff that prove they're tombs. But it's at least refreshing to hear that you appreciate my content existing for whatever unknown reason. Because like I I I don't think that you should be even though the way it is is everyone's kind of like siloed into their own ideological bubbles on the internet which is kind of like what's the what the algorithms have done. It's kind of like like siloed people away for for whatever algorithmic reason to get more >> um engagement on stuff or to monetize it better. Who knows why? But that has been the byproduct of it. >> It's pretty easy to wrap your head around. I mean the the you know sensationalist >> uh content uh is is rewarded so you end up getting audience capture and so I mean that's why I'm was reticent to come but ultimately decided it was was a good idea because it sounds like you're trying to not necessarily follow you know the Joe Rogan path of just exclusively platforming grifters because of you know because of the the revenue that it brings. um people want to see this stuff that you know and Jimmy's nice to you because he wants access to your platform but he's a very toxic individual and that whole cult the pseudoarchaeology cult which you know you've platformed a bit uh you know Joe Joe Rogan platforms endlessly it's an extremely toxic uh cult and uh you know I'm sure your listeners that have watched all these guys on your show and other shows don't want to hear that but it's absolutely the case and I have made videos on Graham and his underlings and all of these other uh people I'm starting to move on to other figures because those are not as relevant anymore and there's other people that are kind of cropping up in the space and it's just sensationalist clickbait content. Anti-establishment archaeologists are all idiots and they don't know this like super special secret truth that I'm offering you. It's very it's tantalizing. It's a tantalizing narrative. I'm going to try my best to not just say stuff and then play a clip of me saying the exact thing I just said, which is tough because what comes to mind in watching this back just ends up being the thing I said in real time anyway. So, by all means, go watch the full episode on Danny's channel to hear all the things I said. Rest assured, more views on my episode will only reinforce the idea that people like me do belong on these shows, which was the whole point of me being there. Anyway, let's see how Danny reacts to what I just said.

Podcasts favor charlatans who tell fun stories full of lies, and pseudoarchaeology frauds in particular are giant douchebags.

>> This all probably started as far as like the ancient archaeology angle of it. I think um when Joe Rogan probably had Graham Hancock on over 10 years ago >> just over and over. >> I think that's the kind of when the internet really exploded with this stuff. I I mean that's I think Joe actually has said that that's like when his podcast really took off when he had Graham Hancock on. Joe's podcast, which consisted of shooting the shit with random comedians, suddenly started becoming huge when he platformed his first grifting fraud who lies about science for money, thereby establishing the model that dominates the podcast space today. Pretty interesting, huh?

>> I kind of dissented from the norm on Joe's podcast with Flint. I thought Graham bodybagged I mean, I'm sorry. I thought Flint bodybagged Graham in that debate. that that was my I really learned a lot from it and I thought Flint actually did a good job as insufferable as he some people think he may be. I personally liked him. Um >> I mean I don't like what's insufferable about providing a mountain of facts and empirical evidence to disprove a grippy >> he's very toxic online. He's kind of I mean he's just as loud as Jimmy but on the in the complete opposite direction. >> Yeah. These are people who have, you know, encouraged people to contact his place of work and try to get him fired. And like there's just after that debate began this entire narrative of Flint is a liar. Flint is a liar. Joe said it on his show, had Graham on a bunch more times to talk about what a liar Flint is and then all all the other underlings uh, you know, repeating this narrative. It's just it's just damage control. He humiliated Graham on Joe's show. That's what happened. You know what I mean? Danny pretending that Flint is toxic online is bananas. He's been smeared and slandered on a daily basis since the debate just for having exposed Graham on the very platform that ballooned his following. And all he does in return is stand his ground. Flint's a badass. And we need more experts in their respective fields to stand up to bullies and expose them like he did.

>> Yeah. I think I think where it gets squirrely is when you have science and you have academic institutions and you have that are all intertwined with governments and then you have financial entanglements with all of that stuff. There's financial entanglements in every single aspect of science whether it be climate science whether it be vaccine science or or pharmaceutical companies. This is kicking off a very long section that can basically be summarized as government bad and big business bad. So all science probably bad because money thing. It's just a black hole that can be applied to any science that any grifter wants to call into question because everything costs money, including scientific research. In reality, researchers have to cite potential conflicts of interest and anything controversial is being studied by many different groups around the world under many different funding sources. It also allows charlatans to cherry-pick which science they want to accept and which they want to reject, which authorities to affirm and which to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. Now, listen to the main thesis that I present to Danny. This way of painting the scientific community as this cabal, you know, that's beholden to blah blah blah. What it's a global scientific community operating uh in, you know, uh in academia, in the private sector, under many different countries, many different, you know, uh political apparatus. There's no way to that that is why the consensus of the global scientific community is what you go by at all times, right? Anything that is that is contradicting the global scientific consensus, that's what you want to be skeptical about because can you get one scientist to lie? Absolutely you can. Andrew Wakefield, >> sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. Sure. I want to make sure I'm clear on this. You think anyone who is who is questioning or skeptical of the global >> contradicting Yeah. or of the global consensus. >> The global scientific consensus. Yeah. >> What about that person? Should you be you should be >> you should be very skeptical of that person. Right. You you should there they are making claims that contradict the entire body of scientific knowledge. It doesn't 100% guarantee that they're wrong, but it's they're very unlikely to be right. And especially if they're not scientists themselves, they're almost certainly not right. What you're saying seems pretty common sense. No. Pretty hard to deny or misunderstand. No. Well, Danny is going to wrestle with it for about an hour. Let's watch.

>> So, are you holding the the people in power as your north star of truth? Do you are you like defending >> scientists are not are not in tremendous positions of power, right? Right. >> They're just people doing a job, >> right? And so this thread starts to evaporate when you say, well, this government made the scientists do the thing, whatever. Okay, which government? We got these vaccine studies. This one's from Sweden. This one's from China. This one's from Argentina. This one's from like which government? What are you talking about? The global like the the Illuminati government like what about grants, scientific grants for that scientists? One of the biggest ways scientists get funded is by grants from pharmaceutical companies. >> And thus begins the pharma bad segment. Big pharma isn't funding all the science in the world. That's insane. For highly specific biomedical research with obvious medicinal application, it's a sizable percentage. But that mainly refers to R&D in-house, not grants being doled out to academia. Relevant general research is funded largely by NIH. Let's see what happens when Danny finds out there's a boogeyman that's much bigger than big pharma. This painting of pharma as this unbelievable boogeyman with all the money in the world, right? Do you know that the alt-health industry is significantly larger than the pharma industry? >> The alt-health. >> The alt-health untested, unregulated supplement industry, right? >> No. >> Yeah. It's a trillion-dollar industry. It makes more money than the than the pharmaceutical companies. >> More money than pharma. Yes. >> You got to find this, Steve. >> It's the insurance companies and these pharmaceutical companies that are raking in trillions of fucking dollars, right? And they have immunity. >> This is why I'm trying to tell you about the alt-health industry, right? They're making more money and they're peddling lies and selling complete. So everything you're saying about testing and everything, these are products that are not tested on anything. They It's not labeled as medicine, so they don't have to do anything. And there's all these, you know, so there's not only supplements that are actively harm people um because they're not tested. They don't go through any clinical trials. There's no safeguards of any kind. So you want to talk about that one drug that slipped through clinical trials and some you know unforeseen, not that you know pharma went through the checks and balances here. Here we go. We did these clinical trials and something didn't show up and somebody got harmed. Okay, well lawsuit great. Go for it. Get the money. Um, but we're talking about an alt-health industry. All of these products are completely untested. They do measurable harm and they pull people away from legitimate uh medical attention that you know Ivormectin would be you know although that is a real drug the Ivormectin craze would be a great example of that. So this is what is this Google's AI or whatever summing it up the broader this this is what Google's saying the broader global wellness industry which includes alternative health wellness tourism nutrition and personal care is significantly larger than the pharmaceutical industry estimates place the global wellness market at over $6 trillion which is several times larger than the estimated 1 to 2 trillion global pharma that's the global pharmaceut so is this this is not in the US this is global Yeah, Danny is not thrilled to read this. Big bad pharma is supposed to be the biggest baddest thing there is. But what's this? The awesome rebels with their super secret cures that pharma doesn't want you to know about, they're actually bigger and more profitable than evil pharma. Well, that just puts a big wrench in the whole narrative now, doesn't it? How many people do you know that are regularly taking tons of prescription drugs versus how many people do you know that follow a bunch of uh, you know, health influencers and buy the supplements they >> Everybody I know has been on fucking Adderall since they were like 12 and they were prescribed it >> pretty quick dodge. Sure, Adderall was likely overprescribed. If done so deliberately, that's bad and people should get in trouble for it. But I asked how many people Danny knows that follow any number of health and wellness influencers that pedal all kinds of bogus supplements. Supplements that are totally untested and unregulated, unlike pharmaceutical products that are rigorously tested and stringently regulated. Supplements that are deceptively advertised far beyond anything even remotely possible in a regulated industry. Supplements that yield a greater market share than pharmaceuticals. Why would he be so quick to change this subject? I think I know why.

Broadly speaking, it is it's it's it is harmful. >> I'm not in my 20s anymore. Even though I've improved my workouts and my diet over the years, I've still noticed a drop in my energy and my motivation. And then one of my friends told me it sounded like a testosterone problem and told me he was using a natural pill. And that's what led me to Marsmen. Ketone IQ comes in a pouch or a shot you can take once a day and provides fuel that is produced by the body. That's why I've been taking Row Nutrition's liposomal NAD, and the difference is real. That's why I keep Liquid IV's hydration multiplier with me at all times. They're packed with natural neutropics that help boost my focus and my mental clarity. For maximum effect, bundle with the Revive Plus Max Growth Kit and Biotin gummies, which works great with the red light wavelengths. Blood Flow 7 boosts nitric oxide levels 230% in just 3 hours, and it opens up arteries up to 62%. Remember a few years ago when some high-profile media personalities and medical professionals were putting the spotlight on ivermectin? They called out the establishment and then boom, millions of people who had never even heard of the drug got super curious. What if I told you 80% of the world's ivermectin supply comes from Asia, but not at the wellness company. Introducing American-made ivermectin. Safe, trusted, tested, and produced locally right here in Florida. Ivermectin has been prescribed globally for more than 30 years and even earned a Nobel Prize in medicine for its proven ability to eliminate parasites. But after treating a recent serious respiratory virus and other illnesses, emerging research shows that this wonder drug can help with everything from rosacea, arthritis, and even cancer. If you started bad-mouthing the supplement industry and calling it out for the sea of snake oil that it is, would these brands keep buying ad space from you, Danny? Probably not. Who's the corrupt one now?

>> My whole problem with all the co stuff was all the censorship and all of the mandate stuff. And you know, basically, I I'm not down with the idea of having to wake up in the morning and turn on your TV to find out what your governor is telling you you're allowed to do today, including taking your kid to the park or going to the beach or whatever the fuck it is. Um, I think that's totalitarian. I think that's a slippery slope. And I think once you give them that power, I don't think you ever get it back. This narrative about totalitarianism when governments take the most meager measures imaginable to minimize infection risk during a global pandemic is one of the most idiotic lines of thinking the podcast bro has ever produced. I don't know all of Danny's politics, but in general these are people who will cry tyranny when presented with the light suggestion that they not gather in large groups and cough all over each other for a few.

months, but then have no problem with ICE domestic terrorists murdering peaceful protesters in cold blood. It's [ __ ] insane.

No policy during COVID was without precedent and none of it should have been even remotely controversial. Much more stringent and forceful lockdowns occurred in other countries and states where more public places closed had fewer mortalities.

And then also on the on the Ivormectton stuff, I had a woman just is just popping into my head uh Mary Bowden. I famili familiar with her?

I have. She worked at Houston Methodist Hospital and her hospital that she worked at was the first hospital in the country to mandate the shots and she treated something like it was more than 6,000 patients for it. She was a respiratory specialist.

I just want to jump in here since in the moment I had never heard of this person so I could only push back on what he presented about her. But upon some follow-up, Mary Bowden is very obviously a complete fraud. She's in the same camp as Pierre Corey and Peter McCulla. [ __ ] who have been pushing ivormeckin as a miracle cure for literally everything under the sun. Here she is very recently pushing ivormectin for haunt virus. Why? Because it's in the news and ivormectin cures everything. So she's farming for clicks. Notice the community note debunking her [ __ ] on the basis of basic viology. Here she is spewing [ __ ] about turbo cancer, which is not a thing. This is Nick Holshire's grift, Peter McCulla's sidekick, who we debunked already. She got her medical license revoked after she was caught pedaling Ivormectton with no prescription on the internet. Mary Simone Gold, Pierre Corey, all of these people are grifters, as I've demonstrated in other content, just like anyone else pedaling Ivormectin for COVID or cancer or literally anything other than river blindness.

Let's see if Danny can wrap his head around this. I understand that like none of the scientific journals have published any sort of studies that say Ivormectin is effective, right? They they none of them do. I I listened to your interview with Pierre Corey >> um and I've listened to other interviews and that's what people seem to be frustrated by is that the >> there's no like placeboc controlled trials that say that it did work for it. Um >> right, they're always using very shady trials very, you know, small small cohort um no controls. Uh the first one was just like high like high dose in vitro which is not applicable to to you to a human system. It just >> what the the the kernel that they used and then and then expanded upon was was not legitimate and then mountains of legitimate science is done after the fact because of the fervor that crops up to demonstrate conclusively that it is not effective both Ivormectin and hydroxychloricquin. And so all you can do, all you can do against this mountain of sites is performed all over the world, all these different countries all over the place is just go big giant conspiracy. Pharma paid the blah blah blah, whatever. That's all you can do.

But what about people like her who treated over 6,000 patients? And she did say that it worked in combination with vitamin C, monoconal antibodies, steroids, all that.

Okay, so what's the difference between that and it didn't work at all and other things worked? You know what I mean? Like that's that's not how you do science, right? You don't go, I gave them five things and they got better. So this one must have worked, right? That's that's not how that's not how science works, you know?

Uh, >> sure. >> You have to do very rigorous trials where you control every single variable, right? You this is how you test drugs.

So, do you ban ivormectin? Is that the answer?

Well, first of all, absolutely not because it's a legitimate drug.

Should she be allowed to give it to prescribe it to her patients? I don't know how how bureaucratic stuff works, but I definitely would look down on any doctor that was prescribing it for COVID because it was shown to not work conclusively that hydroxychloricquin and that is when those drugs enter the alt health space that is so that's what I what I wanted to say about that.

I mean she wasn't on like Ivormectin's payroll or anything like that. She didn't make it.

Well, okay, first of all, you don't know that, right? You have all of these, you know, the frontline doctors, these organizations. I don't know who that person is. I don't know what her affiliations are. It's very easy to just pre present yourself as the, you know, the underdog fighting the big bad system. And what do you know? It turns out that Mary is exactly like the other grifters I listed and was just lying about Ivormectin to make money. So yes, Danny, she is on Ivormectton's payroll, which is to say that she lied about what it does to make money on the internet despite even the original developers of Ivormekin merc telling the world emphatically that it does not treat COVID or anything else but river blindness. Funny how pharma bad make money is so easy for people like Danny to swallow, but random grifter bad make money just seems too far-fetched for him to comprehend. Huh? How could it be that the super awesome underdog rebel fighting the big bad whatever is actually the liar? How could they take me on this roller coaster ride of emotions only to let me down in the end? Well, that's life, kids. Some people lie. Grown-ups have the ability to accept when they're being lied to, even when it's a lie they want to hear. the podcast bro universe desperately needs to acquire that skill.

When you see an administration that is appointing all these people to these cabinet posts, right? That's it takes a very large grassroots political movement to number one recognize the problem, right? Anybody who can't see that RFK is a nightmare, that's very problematic, right? That society can't can't unanimously agree that RFK is a nightmare.

A nightmare. >> Okay. He's completely 100% antithetical to public health. Everything about him, he as if one of those I insane Tik Tok wellness influencers became the head of HHS. Did you just get the same amount of whiplash that I did? Danny doesn't know that RFK sucks ass. Let's see if we can get him on board.

Right. So, >> he's not a Tik Tok influencer. He's been suing public health people for for decades. >> No. Yeah. One of his main sources or his main source of income is is is lawsuits. He gets finders fe fees for lawsuits, but none of those lawsuits actually demonstrate harm from vaccines or anything. They're all just >> Well, it's not just vaccines, but also um glyphosate, right? Wasn't there a guy >> right over for Monsanto? He he's deregulating. He's deregulating. I was pretty surprised when Danny brought up glyphosate since that's the main issue now causing a mutiny amongst Maha Morons. Bobby used to rage against glyphosate largely for [ __ ] reasons anyway. But then in February, when Trump snapped his fingers with an executive order to increase domestic production of glyphosate for the kickback, Bobby wagged his tail and ate the treat, completely reversing his previous position, much to the dismay of angry parents across the country. He he he waves this flag of like I'm a champion of the people. He absolutely is actually doing the opposite. He's d I mean, not only is he firing everybody from all these institutions CDC and FDA FDA that have any >> He's firing everybody. I mean, not everybody, but I mean, yeah, like like thousands upon thousands of >> He's just like fumigating all the [ __ ] corruption out of there. >> No, he's No, he's making it corrupt by fumigating out all the legitimate scientists.

Yeah, but how do you know how do you know he's not fuming? How you know he's not getting the corruption out of there?

Because the output of these institutions is now exclusively medical misinformation. It's like listening to a small child talk about their hero getting all the bad guys. Danny asks how we know that Bobby isn't just fuming out all the corruption. He fired thousands of people across HHS in cavalier and indiscriminate fashion, leaving important functions totally empty and generating complete chaos. He fired the entire ASIP panel, which advises CDC on vaccine policy and filled it with unqualified douchebag antivax frauds like Robert Malone and a bunch of people with direct conflicts of interest. CDC director Susan Manarez was fired for her refusal to dismiss vaccine experts. Top NIH scientist Gene Morazzo was fired for her whistleblowing about the new administration's antivax propaganda. Top FDA vaccine regulator Peter Marx was forced out under similar circumstances. These are eminent experts who were ousted simply for refusing to bow down to the new mission of misinforming the public and eliminating life-saving research only for Bobby to start announcing totally unsubstantiated [ __ ] like Tylenol causes autism. Now, you know, Danny, it's a nonstop circus sideshow of a guy who definitely has no idea what he's talking about. I mean, everything the guy said, I mean, he's like an HIV deniialist, you know, all like really insane stuff.

What did you find? What are you looking for?

He's an HIV deniialist. >> He He is an HIV. >> Of course, Google's going to say this, bro. What did he actually say about it?

Of course, Google is going to throw Bobby under the bus. They're in bed with Pharma and they're trying to take him down for spreading the truth about AIDS. What did he actually say, bro?

He has asserted that his initial AIDS epidemic was linked to the use of poppers uh in the gay community rather than the virus. So, he's saying AIDS is not the exclusive cause, which that makes him an HIV deniialist.

Of course it does. HIV is causes AIDS, right?

Well, he's not denying that HIV also causes AIDS. He's saying it's not the exclusive cause.

Okay. But what he's saying is absolutely insane and it it doesn't make any sense at face value anyway, right? It is it is a is a is a disease caused by a virus caused by the HIV virus.

That's what it is. This is well known for >> but he's saying it's also other things, right? But >> how do you know that it's not?

Because it's caused by virus. It's a viral disease.

Have you talked to AIDS experts on this?

Dude, come on, man. Every like this is such a laughing stock talking point, right? We look at where we >> I don't know jack [ __ ] about AIDS. >> Look at where we have come with AIDS treatment. Why do you think that whereas AIDS was a death sentence in the 80s and '90s that now it is not? That through the use of various therapeutics, it's very right because we know what how it's caused. We we have drugs that target every single step in the replication cycle of the virus that that uh you know are inhibitors of this step and this step. We understand very very well. This is what I'm talking about when you say when you So what's alarming is what you just did. I want everyone listening to to not do that, right? to you. What you have to have is this incre this this intense skepticism when somebody like RFK says something like that poppers cause AIDS. This is insane because and if you don't know a lot about AIDS and but you can look into it, right? You can look into what these drugs do, how they affect the replicative cycle of the virus, how well we understand HIV and AIDS and that's why we are able to treat it so effectively.

Well, here's the thing.

This exchange was absolutely maddening. I shouldn't have to explain that HIV causes AIDS any more than I should have to explain that the earth isn't flat. As I said, AIDS drugs work because they inhibit HIV. There's no such thing as non-HIV AIDS, just like there is no such thing as non-influenza flu. Danny's attempt at exonerating Bobby for this insane science denial is just really breathtaking. This is the opposite behavior of what I came here to encourage from Dany. Instead of asking, "How do you know about objective scientific facts," he should be asking, "How do you know?" to all the idiot frauds peddling sensational falsehoods. The inability to apply skepticism universally is an enormous blind spot for people like Danny.

I think that you should be skeptical of everything. I think that anyone who's making the rules, anyone who is in charge, the principal of your school or uh the people that are making the laws in your country, you should absolutely hold their feet to the fire and question what they're doing and try to hold them accountable for things.

The principal of your school, you sound like a 12-year-old who got detention, probably for being disruptive during biology class. I just scolded you for not being skeptical of everything and you just claimed to support being skeptical of everything, but you just aren't. You're skeptical of legitimate science and endlessly accommodating towards [ __ ] just like Joe and just like every other carbon copy of him. You're sitting here arguing with me about how we know that medicine works the way we know it works and never applying that scrutiny to the supplements you pedal or any of the frauds you platform. You're so hopelessly biased that you can't even see your own bias.

You're also immaculately immaculately describing whatever jerk was on Joe Rogan last week. Right. What you just described is exactly what I want people to do to the person feeding them these narratives on whatever podcast they're watching. Right. Approach that person with >> skep

What do you mean jerk that was on Joe Rogan? What do you mean?

I'm saying whatever fraud was on Joe Rogan last week telling them this narrative about COVID or Ivormectton or whatever it is, >> right? approach that person with extreme skepticism.

Everybody you should approach with extreme extreme skepticism.

Yeah. I mean when you approach the entire body of scientific knowledge with skepticism. I mean you can do that if you want but then what you inevitably doing is you start learning science right? If you like how does AIDS work? Great. How does AIDS work? Everybody Google that and learn how AIDS works and then you will see that what RFK said is insane. Right? So find I mean I want to encourage learn if you come to learning from a from a position of skepticism fine. I don't care. Whether you're like, I want to see how AIDS works, or whether you're like, I bet it's not true. Let me learn it. You know, whatever. Learning is learning. But the true skepticism should be applied to whatever institution you're talking about, but also whoever is feeding you these narratives, these just at this point, it's such a trope, the anti-establishment narrative. You have the big bad whatever, fill in the blank. I'm the truth teller on the podcast that's whistleblowing or whatever it is. The people that are making these rounds on the podcasts, right? You have to scrutinize what they're saying. You have to follow up. You have to look at, you know, and um

so of course says Danny, of course, everyone should scrutinize podcast guests, a thing that podcast hosts almost never do in real time and which their viewers absolutely never do, which is the primary reason that science denial has gotten this bad. But maybe Danny the podcast host wants to play devil's advocate for a moment.

Of course. But why do you pick on Joe Rogan so much?

because he just excl almost exclusively platforms frauds, you know,

exclusively >> Anytime we're talking about in in like with medical stuff and like with the pseudoarchchaeology stuff, right? He just very very very heavily leans in that direction.

I think he just talks to people that he's really interested in genuinely. I don't think he I don't think he's trying to deceive anybody. I mean,

I probably don't think that, but uh >> there's no way. >> But he may not. But it doesn't matter because >> he doesn't have anyone telling him who to have on his show. Like he does it all himself.

Sure. But he but he likes these stories. I love how he brings up the fact that nobody tells Joe who to have on his show that he created. Of course there's nobody telling him what to do. Who gives a [ __ ] Joe out of his own accord endlessly platforms grifting frauds. That's why I blame him for doing it and not some boogeyman overlord. Joe is the one doing it. And I just explained to you why he does it. because he's an idiot who genuinely falls for this [ __ ] and because he loves the money he gets to continue doing it. It's not that hard to understand. Podcasts in particular Joe's are a vehicle by which enormous amounts of disinformation spread. High volume very rapidly all over the place and Joe has these people on every week. Uh that's part one >> and he should >> I should he what do you mean he should >> he should he should he should have frauds that people >> frauds he should it doesn't that's not the point. The point is he should have as many people on as he thinks as possible as as many interesting people on as possible and as many as he wants to. It's not his job.

Are they interesting?

I mean, is a grifter interesting?

It's not his job to attribute motive to that person.

His job is to do is to make money like he's just making money on his show and he's has a unbelievably large net worth to show for it. Um, you can he can do whatever he wants, right? He's he's a free agent. you should be able to and there's no there should not be any limits on that should be able to there's I'm not saying look the point is there's not it's not about he shouldn't get to have a show or this per you know that person whatever the endless glazing of Joe like he's some kind of free speech hero is just too much to bear he's a random jerk who platforms frauds that brainwashed the public by the millions every week. Should he be put in jail? No. Should his podcast be illegal? No. But it's a bad show. It does harm. We would be better off if it didn't exist. And people who put effort towards neutralizing the harm he causes shouldn't be vilified for doing so. That's antithetical to the free speech they're pretending to champion. But every Rogan copycat knows exactly who they are and where they stand in Rogan's shadow. So, not a single one of them will ever be honest with themselves and their viewers about what Joe really is and the immense harm he causes. because that would also be an indictment of themselves who are doing the exact same thing on a smaller scale. I had hope for Dany because like I said, he has exhibited more admirable behavior a small handful of times like platforming Max Zamalof who debunked Ben Van Kirkwick.

Now the evidence is in the other court. Like I can't [ __ ] say these things are ancient anymore. I until I see evident more evidence >> it goes to the contrary.

So a couple of things. Number one, I applaud you for that. Number two, um, if every podcast in this space operated as you describe, then we I I wouldn't be saying anything about it and we wouldn't have such widespread science denial as we do today. Right. Joe doesn't do that.

Very rarely, right? He'll have Flint on. He did it with Flint.

Yeah. Well, he did it with Flint and then after the fact started this giant smear campaign, Flint is a liar, whatever, and then never had him back on and then just had fraud after fraud after fraud. pseudo archae pseudo the pseudo archaeology spacesh >> you know thrived on Rogan first um >> but uh so look once again like you you know you did that right you had this guy says this this guy says this you're giving equal attention to you know you're you're not the one that has to be the arbiter of what's true right you hear people making claims so I I want to encourage that and it's very important especially for people like you to do that because you have in the past have have had these people on and I think that a lot of your viewers put a lot of stock in some of these figures and so for you to have someone on that's that's debunking this narrative this claim that ends up being very because you can have it on a lot of different uh you know somebody can write a paper about it people are not going to read the paper that people don't read scientific journals >> um it has to like this this is what the podcast landscape has has to transform into >> is having credit credible people on uh that and it's it's hard because you don't like you know I said Audi Loe earlier he's a Harvard professor how do you know he's a grifter well he is you know Harvard professor can be a grifter surprise surprise you know it happens it it does happen I don't have much else to say here I just wanted you to hear me tell Danny all that [ __ ] because it's the precise message I was hoping would encourage him to continue moving in a particular direction so nobody can say I didn't try and maybe he will one day but I don't think I would put money on it anyway Anyway, that's about it.

The last half hour or so involved pivoting over to talking about Israel where we finally found some common ground since this is probably the only topic that the podcast Bro Space seems to get right. We talked about government surveillance, Christian nationalism, the oligarchy, and other stuff that's easy for even them to see because the narrative has the same format as the lies they fall for. Big bad blank is doing blank evil thing. It just happens to be right. Broken clock is right twice a day sort of stuff. But in all honesty, I am genuinely thankful that not even the gullible podcast bro masses fall for Zionist propaganda in this day and age. It gives me a sliver of hope for the future. And if we can get them to see that the anti-science rhetoric is essentially the same, they might be shaken out of their coma and motivated to actually learn something. Thus ends my experiment invading the podcast bro. Was it worth it? Maybe. Would I do it again? Maybe. Depends who and under what circumstances. In the meantime, I'll just be over here continuing to do what I do best, exposing piece of [ __ ] frauds who lie about science for money.