Transcript of The War on Science: Exposing Fraud and Misinformation | Professor Dave DSH #1213

Keep going back to that Wakefield study. And RFK does it, and he's now part of the cabinet, and he's just regurgitating these long, long debunked ridiculous anti-vaccine talking points. It's really scary that he has any control over any health-related organization, this guy. I mean, it's just insane.

All right, guys, out here in Los Angeles, here with Professor Dave, not my usual type of guest. So thanks for coming on, man. Happy to be here.

Thanks for having me.

I appreciate you for coming because you've probably seen some of the episodes, and it's a lot of people you fight against.

I took a peek at a few, and I was like, All right, this seems like a mixed bag.

Let's see what happens. We're going to explore the other side today. Billy Carson is actually one of my most viewed guests. I wanted to start with him because you've made quite a few videos about him, right?

Well, I made one about him, and then I made two more about him and Terrence Howard together because they are thick as steeds, those two.

What is your biggest with Billy Carson?

Well, he's a conman. He's a complete fraud and conman.

When you say conman, do you feel like he's just portraying misinformation on purpose, or how do you view him?

Yeah, he spews a script of lies to trick people and get them to buy things.

But you think he's aware of that or you think he's just-100% aware of that.

He's a common man. Interesting. Yeah.

Wow.

Of course he is. I watched the West Health debate. Did you see that?

I didn't watch it, but I know what happened. Billy lies about two different things. He lies. He pretends to be a scholar of mythology and religious scripture and things like that. He's not. He has no idea what he's talking about. He pretends to be an expert in quantum physics and all kinds of science. He's not. He has no clue what he's talking about. I'm a science communicator. When I debunk him, I mentioned where he contradicts what we know historically and scripturally and things like that, but it's not my area. It's like, Wes Huff, he's an apologist, but he is He was genuinely an expert on that scripture. You got a guy who is an expert on this, a guy who's pretending to be an expert but has no idea what he's talking about. We got humiliated. Then there was the whole backlash from that where he went to somebody's house in the middle of the night and was like, You got to take it down, or something like that. The guy is just imploding. But I'm a science communicator, so I focus on the idiotic things he says about quantum physics. He says, I have these certificates from Harvard and MIT.

They're free online courses that anybody take. He says, Oh, I studied quantum physics at Khan University. It's Khan Academy, the YouTube channel. He pretends to know things, and he doesn't. I mean, he's just... Even the things that he is lying about, they're just recycled, like all this emerald tablets crap. Maurice Doreal was the guy who invented that stuff. They don't exist.

Wait, emerald tablets don't exist?

That's not a thing. No, they don't exist. I thought they did. He made it up in the early 20th century. He's just recycling that. Then all this Anunaki crap, that's Zecariah Sitchin. He just repeats just other grifters. He's not even original with his grift.

Are there any ancient texts that actually exist on?

Well, yeah. No, there's definitely ancient texts that archeologists and historians study and read and translate and understand. He's not part of that. He's not in that community. He's just a con man. He pretends to be able to read cuneiform. He can't. He pretends to know what all these books say. He doesn't. He's just spewing this ancient alien's sensationalist crap to trick people into thinking he's knowledgeable and then either buy his ludicrously overpriced Egypt trips where he just goes and like, Hey, here's all some stuff. Wow, cool. He just lies to them. Or he has all these products, all these bogus products on his website. It was books and then it was like water filter thing. Just ridiculous crap.

Monatonic Gold.

Yeah.

Elixirs and potions. He says a lot of stuff that I want to believe in, if that makes sense. Like, teleportation, that'd be sick. Like, Star Trek. He said that exists. I don't know, alien stuff is fascinating to me, but you probably don't believe in aliens, right?

Well, no, I certainly believe that life exists outside of Earth. I don't think it's been here. I don't think we've interacted with it, but I would be shocked if there was no other life in the universe that would be statistically ridiculous to me.

That's a logical take.

Statistically ridiculous to me. I don't I know for certain that it's there, but I would bet so much money that the universe is teeming with life.

It's just so big, the odds of it.

How could it be? The way that we look around even just our solar system and see that there are conditions where microbial life may exist and likely exists, and hopefully we'll find it, maybe even within our lifetime, we'll find microbial life on Europa or maybe even more. We don't know what's under in that subsurface in Europa. There could be multicellular life there. We don't even know. That's in our solar system. There are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way and at least 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. It's just the astronomical opportunities for life to exist. It can't be ignored, but I don't believe that we've encountered it.

Absolutely. I think one of your most viewed videos is debunking the flat Earth stuff. What was, I guess, your message that really put the nail in the coffin for that debate?

I mean, it's a lot of things. Things. I got dragged into that just because I made a video for my astronomy series where I was just saying, Hey, I heard that there are some flat Earthers. Well, it's not. Here's how we figured out that it's a sphere 2,500 years ago in classical Greece at the latest. Just simple observations looking at the celestial sphere. I think I do a couple of things. One thing I do is explain with crystal clarity how, based on naked-eye observations and basic spatial reasoning, that we know it's a sphere, the way When you look at what the stars do, what the sun does, all this stuff, it's obviously a sphere. That's why we figured it out so long ago before we figured out almost anything else. Then I go and I take flat Earth talking points, which eventually I did familiarize myself with. I eventually learned about all the dumb things they say, and I just debunked them one by one. They deny the existence of gravity and they just all this ridiculous stuff that amounts to them not understanding middle school level physics or other science concepts. Then I debated a couple of them and just humiliated them.

That has an impact, I guess.

Well, they don't have facts and data, right? No, it's all hypothetical.

Well, they pretend to. I mean, they'll say, Oh, we shouldn't be able to see this thing. It's this far and then 8 inches per mile squared, and it should be covered. But most of it is just we see too far. We shouldn't be able to see this thing. But they're either not doing the math correctly, or they're lying about how far away it is, or they're not accounting for refraction because it's something that's done. The They love to say, I shouldn't be able to see the Chicago skyline from across that Lake. Well, it's only 50 something miles or whatever it is, and it's over water, so a fraction is a vector. And guess what? You can only see the top halves of the buildings. Why are the bottom halves covered? Because they're hidden behind the curvature. It's really a circus sideshow with these guys.

That's probably easy for you to debate.

It's the easiest thing in the world. I do drunk reaction videos where I drink whiskey and put on a flat earth video and just pause it and mock it and stuff. Other stuff that I debunk requires research, and I have to read primary literature, and I have to contact scientists and really dig into stuff. But flat earth is the absolute bottom of the barrel. There's nothing dumber than anybody could possibly fall for.

What was your most challenging debunk that took you the most time?

There's this guy, James Tor. He's a chemist at Rice University, and he is part a very coordinated movement. He's paid by the Discovery Institute, which is a Christian propaganda mill out of Seattle. Traditionally, you know how Christian propaganda in the biological sciences has all been anti-evolution. Evolution is ridiculous, blah, blah, blah. But there's also this kernel in those sciences that is a biogenesis or the origin of life. How did life begin on Earth? They had no personnel that was able to really tackle that in a convincing way. This guy, James Tor, is a chemist, so he can speak chemistry speak. He developed this whole plethora of ridiculous talking points that is very convincing to people who don't understand chemistry and also took a lot of effort to tackle. I had to talk to Origin of Life researchers. I had to read a lot of papers and then try to take all that science and it intelligible to the common viewer. That actually culminated in a live debate as well, which was a complete debacle over at Rice University.

You did it in front of their students?

Well, yeah. Half of the room was students and Rice students and faculty. Then the other half was actually his church group that he bused in to try to stack the audience. He reserved three rows of seats. It was a very concerted effort to try and make his grift seem credible in a live format. It failed miserably, mainly because of how hot-headed he is. He just lost his mind and was shrieking at me and just acted like a toddler. He made himself look bad. Then there was a part of me holding his feet to the fire about all the lies that he told for this. It was after several years of videos back and forth. That was the most energy-intensive. I really had to read a lot of papers. My response videos took weeks and stuff. That's the polar opposite of just like, never seen this video before. Press play, make fun of it because I've heard all these talking points. They're so ridiculous. But yeah.

Have you ever went into a debate, started research, and you were like, Wait, maybe these guys are onto something? No.

So it's always just-No. My targets are frauds, conmen, apologists. The degree to which certain flathearthers or or something believe what they're saying is debatable. I'm not a psychologist, but everything... I'm attacking people who are poisoning the public with science denial, false rhetoric, this stuff. I'm not going after frontier science where we're not sure this could be right. That's a conversation that the scientists have in the primary literature. Me as a science communicator, I don't do research or anything like I'm here to understand what the scientific community is doing and convey that to the public. Part of that involves identifying the bad faith actors who are lying about science for financial gain, political reasons, whatever it is, and expose them. I do it very aggressively, possibly the most aggressively of any science communicators out there. I have a reputation for that. But I have a very strong sense of duty to do that.

I agree. I saw you talking on another show. You're able to do this because you're not tied to an organization, basically. Right. I'm just some guy. Or they're scientists or they don't want to lose their job.

Right. It's not so much that they would lose their jobs. It's just that there's a lot of bureaucratic hassle that goes along with it. They have bosses. I don't I don't have any bosses. Then also they don't want to... When you do what I do, you get targeted and attacked. I get harassed all the time. But I'm just a guy on YouTube, so I can deal with it. There's not a concerted effort to attack a particular institution in a way that would affect funding or anything like that. I make YouTube videos. I make a living on AdSense revenue. I do whatever I want. I say whatever I want about whomever I want. You can't stop me.

Do those attacks get you, though? Because it must be tiring, right?

I mean, you get numb to it after a while. It's a minor hassle at this point.

Yeah, I agree. It used to get to me early on. I'm like, All right, this is inevitable. No matter what I say, I can't please everyone.

Right. Yeah. You certainly can't please the people who you are exposing or the people who fell for them and are mad because they feel like their identity is being attacked when you expose their preacher, their hero.

You saw that with Billy Carson.

Yeah, a little bit of that. That was very curious to get all these, you're racist, you're the black man who is getting the real knowledge that the white man doesn't want the black man to get. Dude, he's just making up bullshit. It's not...

I'm not a fan of the race card. I think that's a low-level IQ argument. For sure. When people pull that out, I just stop talking to them.

Plus, these people clearly have not looked at my back catalog. I've debunked 70 white people, and then I hit Terrence Howard and Billy Carson, and all of a sudden, I'm racist. Give me a break, man.

What caused you to go after Terrence? Was it the Rogan episode?

I was trying to figure out I could do something a little more timely, and I was rewarded for it because everyone was talking about that first Terrence Howard, Joe Rogan episode, and I was like, Screw it. I'm going to do it. I turned it around real fast a couple of days. It was the top search result on YouTube for Terrence Howard for maybe a week, maybe a little less than a week. He took over his name. Yeah, that was a little bit viral. I got about 2 million views in a few days or a little under a week. I I was like, All right, I'm going to do this a little more often in a more timely manner address. I mean, honestly, a lot of Joe Rogan guests because he has a lot of those people on. But that Terrence Howard episode was just so ridiculous. As patently absurd as it was, everything that he said, I was shocked to get any blowback at all. I could not believe that there were actual adults that listened to him talk and don't understand within 10 seconds that he's completely talking out of his ass. He has He's no idea what he's talking about.

He can't even do second grade math. The guy is totally clueless, but it's this delusional narcissism. He's convinced himself that he's a genius, that he's revolutionized physics and math and chemistry and all of these things. It's really sad.

Did you see his debate with Weinstein a few weeks after?

Yeah, I did a piece on that, too. It wasn't a debate so much as Eric Weinstein. Eric Weinstein is also a fraud. But he thrives on this anti-academia narrative, the ivory tower. He had to play in a way to position himself above Terry intellectually, which is very easy because Terry's an idiot and Eric Weinstein is intelligent.

So you'll admit that, at least.

No, yeah, he's smart. He's a smart guy, and he understands math. He has a doctorate, and he understands math. He's not this mega genius. He understands math as well as anyone else with a doctorate in mathematical physics. He understands math. But he had to position himself above Terrence while at the same time validating this anti-academia thing like, Oh, you sent it. I was astonished that people reacted the way they did. Terry, he's an autodidact, and he is multi-town. He's an idiot. He has no idea what he's talking about. He sent the thing to Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Neil deGrasse Tyson gave this very classic A charitable response. Eric was like, That was so realistic. What do you want him to do? Terry is completely clueless and thinks that because Neil is Black, he'll be like, Yey, go Black geniuses. No, he's a scientist. He's going to tell you as politely as possible, You have no idea what you're talking about. Please leave me alone. He's a classy guy. He did it in a much more diplomatic way than I do. I just, you're a moron. You have no idea what you're talking about. But yeah.

I wonder what Terrence Howard's angle was. That's where I try to think, why would he do that? You know what I mean?

I think he is genuinely mentally ill and genuinely believes himself to be a genius. I think he genuinely believes that he has revolutionized. He doesn't even know. He says that he has quantum field equations. He does not know what those are. He does not know what that is. Because he doesn't understand even intermediate math, his way of rewriting math. Eric Weinstein has his theory of everything and the hinges on the sciab operator and all this stuff. That's been thoroughly debunked as not even a valid theory. He's not even saying anything, but he can dress it up. It looks like there's real math in it, and it's high-level math. If you don't understand high-level math, you can't look at it and go, Oh, this is obviously ridiculous. You have to understand high-level math to see that it's not doing anything. Terrence, he has to lie about arithmetic. He has to say 1 times 1 equals 2 because that's the only level of math he has access to. He can comprehend arithmetic, so he's trying to rewrite that because that's the highest paradigm of math that his brain has access to. He can't even do algebra, let alone calculus or something.

The 1 times 1 equals 2 messed up a lot of people.

I mean, come on. You listen to the guy talk about that, and then all this, why is root two cubeed to root 2? It's like, well, if you understood math, you would see that there's no problem with that.

I saw you say on another show, the guy that funds Eric Weinstein is Peter Thiel. Is that true?

Yeah. No. I mean, it's common knowledge that he worked for Peter Thiel, and he wasn't managing a hedge fund or something or whatever. I don't know. His job was unclear. My understanding is that he is just paid. He was, or maybe still is, paid by Peter Thiel to spread anti-establishment rhetoric. There's a war going on culturally right now. It's a war on science. It's a war on fact. It's a war on reality. The idea is to get the public to distrust anyone who could rationally be seen as an authority. We're not talking about government figures. Any scientist. The papers, there's corruption in the papers. There's a crisis There's a crisis in peer review. There's a crisis in reproducibility. Universities are indoctrinated woke centers. Anyone who, we all should agree, knows what they're talking about, people who study something their whole lives, don't listen to them. Listen to us. We'll tell you what's true. That goes for every area of science, especially the areas of science that cross over into public health and things that we should be concerned about. But just in a very general way, the The James Webb Space Telescope proves the Big Bang didn't happen.

No, it didn't. No, it didn't do that at all. That's absolutely ridiculous and made up. But if that story spreads, even though it doesn't seem like it affects public life, like climate or vaccines or any of these more hot button issues, it sows this seed of scientists are clues, so I have no idea what they're talking about. This new discovery proves all of physics wrong. No, it didn't. No, it didn't. But if you can implant that in someone's mind, well, Well, then all of physics is subject to revision at any moment. So I shouldn't learn any physics because it'll all be wrong tomorrow. Then I can trust this jerk about whatever he's saying because it's worth more than all of the knowledge that suddenly evaporated because it wasn't worth anything.

When do you think this war on science started happening? Was it recent or has it always been that case?

I mean, no. It's been about 100 years. Oh, wow. I'm actually planning a piece on this, the history of the war on science, and in particular, the Christian nationalism. I wish that I had done more work on that. If I knew you were going to ask me on that, I would have been able to rattle off all of this stuff. But it definitely ramped up in the '50s and '60s. Then there's been a lot of effort by Christian nationalists to… There's an interest in eroding the separation of church and state. A big way of doing that is promoting evangelical ideology above above empirical science. One entry point is trying to get religion taught in public schools, intelligent design alongside evolution, which is just rebranded creationism and all these kinds of things. Then that also is behind the assault on women's rights, reproductive rights, and all these things. It's a multifaceted but singular endeavor. The goal is to get people to distrust anybody who knows what they're talking about.

Yeah. I'll say this, playing devil's advocate a little bit. I'm in the health and biohacking space. There's a lot of distrust there with the people in that space in science, because when you look at some of these food studies and who's funding them, it'll be literally a brand related to the food study to make that company look like a good light. Does that make sense?

Sure. I'd have to see a specific example. Yeah.

A big one that comes to mind for me is the food pyramid.

Yeah, I think that's been a little bit deconstructed, Yeah, probably.

Food pyramid, Chirios and the Heart Health one, that's a classic one.

Keeping the grains on the top.

But no, just when you look at who's funding it, whether it's a soda company or whatever, it makes them look like they're a healthy product. Sure. It's true.

Yeah. But then the flip side of that is that there are thousands and thousands of self-proclaimed gurus on the internet that are totally full of shit. I have no idea what they're talking about. Talking completely out of their ass about nutrition to make money.

Agreed. You get that, and I know you've called out a few of them. The structured water one, I saw you call that the hydrogen water bottles, right? That's all BS.

I did all of the special waters, alkaline water, oxygen water, hydrogen water, all of those things. Those are the products. Obviously, alkaline water, this idea that it regulates the PH of any fluid in your body is insane. Your gastric acid is PH Two, as soon as it hits your stomach, any base is neutralized. That's ridiculous. People think it regulates the PH of your blood or something like that. First of all, that's already self-regulated. You're not going to drink water to regulate the PH of your blood, but also it can't do that. Oxygen water. The idea that you would drink water as opposed to just going like this is ridiculous. Hydrogen water was the only one where I was like, Wait, there's one little I remained not completely decided on that. But then there's all... I did three parts. I did water fluoridation and then the special water products and then the structured water. Structured water is this ridiculous crap that's pushed, unfortunately, by a couple of actual scientists. Some of them are crackpots. One of them was a virologist, the one who first isolated the HIV virus and just got Nobel disease and went completely insane and is commonly known to be a total crackpot.

But then also pushed by, there was the Masaru Emoto, We Whisper the prayers and the different music, and it makes these different patterns.

If you talk positively, the plant grows and then...

Yeah, total hoax. I mean, he just, first of all, the guy is not a scientist or a doctor at all. He's just some guy. Then also, he just said he did that and then showed random pictures and put them however he wanted. He froze water under differing conditions, pressure, and stuff like that, and then just set him. James Randy offered him a million dollars to go on TV and reproduce the experiment under controlled conditions, and he said no. I wonder why.

Do you think these health influencers or groups should be somewhat liable for their information?

I mean, I think so. It's hard to know how to do this here because we have regulations for medicine, but when you go into the alternative medicine space, it's not medicine. It's not subject to what the FDA does and things like that. But we need to figure out a way to... I don't know. I don't know a lot about law and civics and things like that. I just call out the bad science. This is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, and hope that that makes an impact in the collective consciousness. But I don't know how we can go about regulating these things, but we need to be able to because if you got somebody that's trying to do Reiki or something, and they say, Oh, it'll make you feel better. Okay. I mean, maybe you did. Maybe you got a placebo effect and you felt a little better. You can't tell people that they did or didn't feel better. But the danger is that people start undergoing these kinds of fake treatments when they have cancer or something where... I mean, there's just so many people that let cancer get to stage 4, and they think they're going to eat this root and do the reiki and whatever it is.

It's not going to do shit. It will do nothing. Then now it's too late and you're going to die. Steve Jobs did that famously. That's why so many of them are very careful about the claims that they make. But there's a difference between the claims that you put out there in writing versus what you say privately and what you imply and people infer. I don't think that everybody out there doing Reiki or any of these other alternative treatments is pretending that they can cure cancer or are telling their patients, You don't need to go to a hospital or see a doctor Sure, you just do this. I think many or most, maybe, I hope, are responsible enough to not speak that way. But there are definitely people, there are frauds on the internet that are very vocal and very influential that are not just doing the mom and pop thing. They're going for the empire, and they're enormously toxic influences on society.

I can see that. I tried Reiki once. I know how powerful placebo is, though. I don't know. For me, I did feel better after. Who knows, though?

Who knows? You had a headache and the headache went away. That placebo can do that.

You mentioned FDA earlier. There seems to be an attack on them right now, especially with the biohacking health community.

Sure. I don't my finger on the pulse of it, but the current administration is definitely trying to undermine all attempt at regulation. That's for sure. It's not just Trump. This has been going on. I mean, it's been going on for decades and then heavily since Reagan. Reagan was the first to make really big steps towards massive deregulation, which led directly to the corporatocracy today. But Trump is That's totally in line with that, wants to completely undermine FDA, CDC, all of these institutions that we need. You can say what you want about the FDA, and you can cite maybe an individual instance where something didn't go right. But the alternative is completely unregulated marketplace. Prior to the FDA, people could say whatever they want, Drink this, it'll cure you, whatever. No ramifications, right? Now there are regulations. If you make these claims, you have to go through clinical trials. You have to demonstrate the efficacy of your product. There are a lot of hoops to jump through for a good reason. We don't want people just taking harmful substances, thinking that they'll do something that they don't do. But it's just that it's hard to even talk about this with a science-illiterate general public because they're so trained to have this knee-jerk reaction that any government institution is evil.

Anything that has anything to do with the government is evil. I'm here to criticize the government in many ways as well, but to just say none of these institutions that are there for safeguarding, they're regurgitating rhetoric from those who want deregulation to get the public to agree to it, to coalesce with it. It's a very underhanded psychological manipulation.

I wonder what's going to happen if they actually fire 80% of the FDA and CDC.

I mean, it'll be mayhem. You think so? I think so.

Wow. They are exposing a lot of corruption, though. I'll say that. Did you see the Social Security one that came out yesterday? I did not. We'll put an image up on the screen. But basically, there's millions of people claiming Social Security that aren't even alive, which is just fraud. They are exposing stuff like that, which I think is useful for people to know.

Sure, if that's true.

No, it is. Okay. We'll link it below. I know you're scientific and you can see it, and you can throw an eye.

The problem is that today we are in the post-truth era, and there are There's so many outlets on the internet and even the President himself who just say things and pretend that they're real. It's just these days you can't just... I'm not saying what you're saying is not true. It very well could be. I know What do you mean?

It's hard to take things at.

You can take literally nothing at face value these days.

Even that, if you read certain studies, that could be bullshit, too. If you read certain articles or you read certain information, that could be false as well.

No, there's almost no source of information that can be trusted in a vacuum. You need to read that. You need to read other similar things. You need to expose yourself to anything that's claiming that's false and consider that as well.

Do you use Twitter at all?

I was on Twitter and was tweeting a lot, and then I got my account suspended. Oh, really?

Under Elon or was it before that?

No, it was under Elon.

Really? I thought he was about Did they tell you what you did?

Well, it was after October seventh, for about six months, I was relentlessly countering Zion's propaganda every single day because it's just this massive campaign of Zionists to manipulate the public into granting them the green light for war crimes and genocide.

They have these paid actors that just sit there every hour just spewing the narrative. I was very aggressively countering all that. Then I was anti-Sumite of the Week and all this stuff. Then eventually, I just got dog-piled with reports and it got suspended.

That was literally my question for you. Have you seen all the misinformation on X? But you're already suspended Yeah, so I don't go on there anymore.

I mean, a little bit of me was relieved because it was affecting my mental health because I'm very invested in Palestine in this situation there and the genocide. Just having to look at the way Israeli media and those figures are distorting the truth at every turn, just like I was angry all day, every day. It wasn't good for me, my health. When I got suspended, I was like, All right, I don't have to do that anymore.

What were their methods for distorting it? Because I've heard they own the news networks, right? That's pretty not at this point of view.

Well, I mean, there's like, Herets, which is on the fence and exposes some of their stuff.

But I mean, it's not really about media. It's just about these media personalities that they just lie.

Everything is a lie.

I mean, early on, some of this stuff, I was like, First of all, everything is Hamas. Everything that they want to bomb is Hamas. That hospital, Hamas, that school, Hamas, they bomb every... Isn't that convenient that just everything that you want to do to wreak havoc on civilians happens to be Hamas? Then there was Al-Shifa Hospital where they were like, This is the super mega Hamas base. And they had these CGI, all these terrorists on this underground tunnels right under Al-Shifa. They finally go in there and they planted a couple guns in a corner. See, there's guns there. Then they went downstairs. They're like, Look, it's a list of terrorists. It's literally a calendar. The level, it was so bad that even CNN was like, All right, we're not running your propaganda on this, guys. We're going to actually expose you because you're looking so bad that we have to flip to retain any ounce of journalistic integrity. So it's just all this. They openly call for genocide, and then from the river to the sea, which is resistance to genocide. That's a call for genocide while you are committing genocide. It's just... Yeah, I just...

I don't know.

It's rough. It's rough. And I lean conservative, but I know a lot of conservative support is real, obviously. That's probably my biggest thing. I don't really speak on that too much.

Yeah.

It's rough.

Well, you got it now.

Yeah, I didn't vote this election, but I voted all these conferences, and I see it all over, it's nuts.

Yeah. I mean, that's the main platform with which that is spread. It's very effective. You get people all the time denying that it's a genocide. I don't know how much more clear we can get human rights watch Amnesty International, UN, ICJ, International Court of Justice. Everybody agrees that it's genocide, except Israel and America. Isn't that convenient?

Do Israel. Do you have any faith in Trump that he might put an end to that?

Absolutely not. Are you kidding? Of course not. He's bending over for Israel already.

Wow. He always has. A lot of people think he's going to help put that to an end. Absolutely. He don't think he will.

There's nothing he's going to do that is going to be beneficial to Palestinians. He says he wants to keep Gaza, right? No. Okay. That's helpful, sure. The only thing that a president could do that would be helpful would be to cut off all funding, all financial support and weapons Yeah.

Because it doesn't look like it's going to happen, right?

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. Not just him, but I think any president that openly planned to do that would be assassinating any candidate who was out spoken about that would be murdered well before the election date with you.

Anyone in Trump's cabinet you like? Because I know you're talking about RFK, which we'll dive into, but do you like anyone on his cabinet?

I have to admit, I don't know his whole cabinet. I I think at some point I will... Because the thing is, I'm a science communicator, so I only delve into politics where it is science-related, which happens sometimes because there's legislation on scientific topics. I try not to just do raw political commentary. It's not my area. Like I said, I'm a person and I have opinions, so if you ask me questions about politics, I'll tell you my answer, but I'm not staking my reputation on that. I stake my reputation on my analysis of scientific topics. So We're having a conversation, so whatever you want to ask me, I'll tell you what I think. But I also just am so busy all constantly doing content creation that I'm not really on the pulse with the news so much. Yeah, so that's probably good then.

Yeah, I guess. I don't know. I still have an RFK, though, because obviously, I don't know if he started the anti-vaccine movement, but he was a big part of it. Yeah.

Well, he didn't start it, but he's the premier anti-vaxxer alive today. I mean, one of the most vocal and most powerful, obviously.

Is that your It's a nice issue with him?

Yeah.

The anti-vaccine start. Of course. And what would be your argument to him? I've seen you say on other shows, you want to debate him.

I mean, I would, I guess.

Yeah, that would be a pretty...

I mean, I can't imagine why he would do that, why he would agree to that, but that'd be a good opportunity for me. He's just completely full of shit. He just spues long debunked anti-vaccine talking points. He's still doing the Andrew Wakefield MMR Autism thing, just long debunked. One paper retracted many studies proving it's not legitimate. The study was fraudulent. Everything about the study was fraudulent. He was brought by injury attorneys to make a case for suing.

But autism is increasing, though, right?

No, it's not. I mean, diagnosis might be, but that's just because people who are autistic 40, 50 years ago weren't diagnosed. They were just weird. This is what it is.

It's a diagnosis?

It's a diagnostic. Really? Yes.

I don't know.

You would know more than me.

There's certainly not some thousand-fold increase in autistic people. That's insane. That's not happening. Also, autism is genetic. There's no substance in a vaccine that is going to give you autism. That has been so unbelievably conclusively debunked. It all comes back to that one Wakefield study, which was fraudulent. He was bribed into lying in the study.

It was somehow got it in the Lancet.

I don't know how the hell that happened. It was rapidly retracted. Many studies since then, which we all knew had that vaccine, had another new thoughts on, but they did the study anyway just to appease the public, conclusively showing no relationship. But people keep going back to that way, feels silly. And RFK does it, and he's now part of the cabinet, and he's just regurgitating these long, long debunked ridiculous anti-vaccine talking points. It's really scary that he has any control over any health-related organization, this guy. I mean, it's just insane.

They're already rolling back language about vaccines andYeah.

Yeah, we'll see what changes come. Now, with the vaccine schedule for children right now, I've heard ages zero to 18, they got to get over 50 vaccines. Now, I'm not sure if that's true or not. That's not true. It's not? Do you know the exact number, then?

I mean, a dozen or eight or well or something.

I don't know. See, that's reasonable. Both of my boys got all their vaccines, and I think it's like two doctor visits, maybe three.

Okay. That's reasonable to me. I've had everyone here and say it's 70.

No.

Okay, so that's not true? No, it's not true. Got it. That's where I was like, That's way too many. No. 8, 12 is... I'm not sure I got around.

Also, why would somebody react that way just to a number without even understanding what they're being vaccinated against. There are things that are very important to be vaccinated against, and then things that aren't as much. We don't get mass vaccinated against smallpox anymore because we already did that, and now smallpox doesn't exist. We don't take polio vaccines because that was more or less eradicated. But guess what? It's coming back. And under RFK, I wouldn't be shocked to see some polio outbreak, even in America. There was one in Gaza. There was a polio outbreak in Gaza. That It's scary.

Because I could spill fast, right?

Yeah, and it's absolutely devastating. This is the problem, is that young people today, people my age or younger, they don't even know what smallpox is. They don't even know what polio is because it was eradicated before we were born. We don't know the horrors of some of these pathogens, some of these diseases. And vaccines are very obviously a candidate for the most important and best invention in human history. Wow. Yes. At the turn of the 20th century, our newfound ability to contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses basically doubled the lifespan, the human lifespan. It changed the quality of human life in unimaginable ways. We used to die all the time from pneumonia and crap like that. Now we have antibiotics, and we have vaccines and antivirals and all these things. Our command over pathogens is the most incredible thing that humans have ever done.

I will say I almost died from pneumonia. I probably would have without antibiotics. I'll always be grateful to Western matters.

Yeah, I had a real bad one when I was seven.

Dude, I had terrible downcoated. Yeah. So bad. Okay, COVID vaccine. Yeah. You probably get asked about this all the time. Sure. Are you defending that one?

Yeah. Really? It saved a ton of lives.

Wow. That's a hot take, man.

I mean, it shouldn't be. It's just that we're in this post-truth era where people just repeat over and over and over and over again. Clock shot, clock shot. It killed all these people. Myocardium. All of it is fabricated. All of it. Virtually, all of it is fabricated. Not all of it because you can have... There are side effects to any vaccine, but there were not appreciably more adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines than any other vaccine that was that widely applied. I mean, one thing is that no No other vaccine has ever been that widely distributed. But something like 5 or 6 billion people took it. So that's the most people who have ever taken any vaccine. But no. So if you take the raw number of adverse effects, it was the most. But you have to scale it. It's a percentage. Percentage-wise, there were not appreciably more adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines than any other vaccine. Really?

Because they rushed that one, right?

They didn't rush it. They were trying to get it out as fast as possible.

Well, in comparison to how long other vaccines took.

But people don't understand that it went through clinical trials. The clinical trials, all that happened is that there are three phases of clinical trials. They were allowed to overlap. Usually, you do one phase, you analyze. There's red tape, got it clear. Then you go phase two. Finish phase 2, then more stuff, checking stuff. Then phase 3. This time we went boom, boom, boom. They were all overlapping. We weren't in a light because we're trying to get it out as fast as possible. It saved, I don't know, 10 million lives. Absolutely.

You think it's possible something like that could happen again, COVID in our lifetime?

Yeah. Why couldn't it?

That's terror, dude. Yeah, it doesn't seem like be placed any measures to prevent that phenomenon.

No, and furthermore, it won't. I shuttered a thing, what would happen if a pandemic of the scale of COVID or greater broke out tomorrow, it would be pandemon. Nobody would be listening to any scientist. It would be insanity. Because of what do you think part of this? Just the distrust and the paranoia and the conspiracy theories and everything.

Well, Sachi, people do not look Sachi. I know. How do you feel about him?

I mean, he's just a guy. It's just there's so much mythology that gets wrapped up in, okay, Fauci, at the beginning, he was like, no, don't get the masks because he didn't want everyone to panic by the masks because he was afraid that it wouldn't be enough for health professionals. Okay, fine. That was a little bit of a weird thing to say. Fine. But this complete... They turned him into Satan. It's just ridiculous. Well, again, the same thing with the tech, too. It's gene therapy. These people, they don't know what gene therapy is. It's not gene therapy. We were all supposed to learn what mRNA is in ninth grade. We all did, but people forgot, and so they need a refresher. But you have the mRNA transcript that gets translated into the viral protein is only one step different from injecting the viral protein. It's pretty much the same thing. So the tech itself, too, people don't understand that. They say it's not really a vaccine, right? It's an experimental gene therapy. No, it's a vaccine. You just don't know what vaccines are. I'm All right.

Do you think the mask actually helps to stop the spread?

Yeah.

You think so? Of course. What about the 6-foot thing? I follow Kyle's group, 6-foot rule.

I mean, what's weird about that? That really, I have the hardest time wrapping myself my head around. It's like, we have a communicable disease that is spread by people coughing on each other, and you think that not staying away from each other, you think that staying away from each other is not a good idea? Yeah. I mean, it's 6 feet, Fine, 6 feet is made up, but it's just like, Hey, we want to minimize contact. We want to minimize-I mean, I'm the worst person to be talking because I got COVID four times.

Yeah.

So I shouldn't even be talking about it. I mean, I got it once. The problem is that for reasons that I don't fully understand, that particular, Virion was subject to a higher rate of mutations, so we had many strains. I call it that one. The problem is that... I mean, we all got the Omicron. That's the one. That's the only time I got it. But I mean, the problem is that people are looking at enormous amounts, percentage of people not getting a vaccine, you have this enormous host pool where it's going around and has all these opportunities to mutate, you get new strains. And when you have new strains, the new strain has a new viral protein, then the existing vaccine is not going to work on it.

Why are those four vaccines?

Sure, I don't know how many they did. They got a fifth on it. I mean, I got one, I think.

So you didn't even get the other.

I had gotten some, but it's like the flu shot. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I forget. I mean, whatever. Now, at this stage, COVID is like the flu, more or less, in terms of severity. No, it's a different family of viruses. People who say it's the flu. No, it's not the flu. You have coronaviruses, you have influenza viruses. They're morphologically different.

But yeah, The studies undeniably show that it saved lives.

I mean, there's no two ways about it.

I watched this document, and you probably heard of it called Die Suddenly.

. No.

I do have a thought on it. It just showed People pulling butt shit. People pulling stuff out of their body for a year. I don't know. I would look into that.

Like COVID-infected employees?

Well, the clot shot stuff is for E.

You never know who funds these documentaries, right? That's the No. And invariably, they're just grifters that are trying to put it up on Rumble or Bitshoot and gain a following. I mean, it's a proven business model these days. What's this shoot? I don't have it on. Bitshoot is like Humble. It's like where people go if they can't put their content on YouTube because it violates community guidelines because it's just a bunch of lies.

Well, if it's not on YouTube these days, you got to be really talking about some nonsense because, yeah, I actually find it on YouTube. Exactly. I have some controversial I haven't gotten a strike in a while. I will say during COVID, I could not talk about the vaccine in a negative spotlight. They were taking those down. I will say. Okay. But ever since then, smooth sailing.

Yeah.

Have you ever had issues on YouTube?

No, just like... No. Sometimes a couple of videos have the 18 up just for language. Because I did one where I debated the rapper Flat Earth or Lord Jamar, and he was swearing a lot. I've heard. I swore a little bit, too. But there's just an amount of swearing that they do 18 plus.

I've heard of that graph.

Yeah.

Do you get a lot of hate from the Christian community?

Yeah, of course. What's their biggest issue? Well, because I do a lot of work debunking creationism I mean, Young Earth creationism, but also intelligent design, which is a propaganda movement. It's creationism rebranded. It's creationism in a tuxedo. It's their best attempt at making a sophisticated case for creationism. That would be another example of content where when they lie about primary literature, I then have to read the primary literature and show how they're lying about it, which takes a lot of effort. Do you already did the whole Bible? No, no, no. When I say primary literature, I mean scientific articles. Oh, scientific articles. Okay. No. So intelligent design tries to distance itself from an evangelical approach because they're trying to see very rigorously scientific. We're We're scientists, and we're talking about controversies within science that has nothing to do with religion. I mean, it does. And they're lying the whole time. They're doing nothing but lying. They're distorting whatever science they're talking about. So that's a very popular concept. I've done on Discovery Institute, where I just go down their roster and I just take each of them, take videos of them spewing their script and explain with crystal clarity how it contra...

They're lying about a paper, and not only do I explain how they're lying about the paper by showing the part the paper they don't show you, but also I'll get a statement from the author that says, Yeah, that guy's lying about my paper. He's saying the opposite of what the paper says. So they can't stand me. Their followers can't stand me.

I feel like there's always been that divide with religion and science, though. That's been since...

Only on the side of religion, not on the side of science. Science is not trying to disprove religion. Science is trying to figure out what's true about the physical world. If that contradicts your religion, that's your problem. Science doesn't care. Science certainly is not trying to disprove God. There are plenty of religious scientists. Really? Yeah, of course. But to be a religious scientist, you have to have a worldview that does not contradict science. Belief in God does not counterdicts science, belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old does. You can't be a young Earth creationist geologist. That doesn't work.

There's people that believe the Earth is 6,000 years old? Yeah. Real? Yeah. I've never heard that say.

It's called young Earth creationism. Wow.

I know. Looking at that one.

That's crazy.

Yeah, it's crazy.

Are there dinosaurs or anything? No. Well, so there were dinosaurs, but they lived alongside man. Oh, wow. Yeah, all this crap.

I feel like we would have heard stories about it or something.

So, yeah, they pretend that there's mention of it, they distort or reinterpret something in the bio. That's talking about a dinosaur or something. So Young Earth Creationism is a much dumber version. And then Intelligent Design is this more sophisticated version where they're Young Earth creationism is just denying all these scientific fields like geology and paleontology and anthropology, whereas intelligent design propaganda tries to work within it and make some concessions. They don't outright state it, but they don't argue about the age of the Earth and stuff like that. They try to make it a more scientific version, but they go into the primary literature and distort it to try to undermine it, basically. You have to go in the literature and show outererline.

Got it. Wow. That's interesting. Yeah. Have you done a video on Brian Hancock yet? He's been on the show.

So he's been here?

He's been in this exact... Okay.

So I'm planning one. It's going to be epic. Oh, no. It's going to be big. So I mean... They, too, got it. To put it bluntly, Graham Hancock is completely full of shit. He's a fuck.

Wow.

Yeah.

He's the one I broke in most of you guests up. I know. Over 25 minutes. You sound crazy. Yeah. What's your biggest issue with He just distorts and lies about legitimate archeology.

I mean, again, these are all proven business models, right? You pick a field, pick a field of science, and say the establishment is wrong and close-minded and ignoring these incredible other discoveries. Whereas what you're what you're pointing at is just some bullshit you made up.

When you hear about these ancient civilizations, that's what he's known for, like a vanus and stuff. You think all that's just is bullshit? Bullshit. They never existed? Yes.

Wow. It's a story.

Yeah, I guess, scientifically, there's really no evidence.

No, there's none whatsoever.

What if some evidence came to light? Did you train your stress?

If archeologists acknowledged it as religious evidence, which why wouldn't they? There's this idea that there's some suppression within the establishment of this evidence for Atlanta. Why would they do that? They discovered a thing. They're archeologists. You would be the most famous archeologist. We're like, look at all these artifacts. Facts I uncovered. The narrative doesn't play. This victimization being ignored by the ivory tower because they can't handle my truth or it's being for what reason? What are you talking about? We find new civilizations all the time. You find new Mayan ruins or new Mohenjo D'Auro over here or a new African thing or new anthropological finds. We figured out that Homo sapiens is a little older than we thought because of the J'Abel Orhoud remains in Morocco, pushed the origin of Homo sapiens back. It's all revisionary. Science is revisionary. We discover new things and we revise. It doesn't totally undermine everything. What we know is what we know, but then we find new things and it slightly changes to fit that. Our understanding is updated all the time. We make new discoveries all the time. To pretend that I have this secret knowledge and the establishment is ignoring me is totally idiotic.

When you hear someone talk that way, your default response should be to assume that they're a charlatan. You can feel free to look into what they're saying more and then compare to what actual experts are saying, and maybe One time out of a thousand, they have something. But your default stance should be this person is a grifter. They're completely full of shit. And that's where Graham Hancock is.

Did you see his debate with mine?

Yeah. I only skimmed it, but my a piece. I'll be working with Flint. But yeah, Flint just wrecked him, but then they repackaged it. There's a couple of other guys. There's a wide cast of characters. We'll wait for that video to come out, but it's going to be good.

Yeah, I will say it'd be hard for every archeologist to team up together and decisively decide on not exposing this at the same time. Exactly.

And that It goes, by the way, for biologists and physicists and any field of science. People tend to think that the scientific community is this one room with a couple of dudes making decisions. They're like, It's not. There's scientists in 100 developed nations working under the government, some in the private sector, some in academia. You can't buy off an entire field. You can't buy off archeology. You can't buy off physics. You could buy off one person, somebody bought off Andrew Whitefield to pretend that he was a gastroenterologist, and then they bribed him half a million pounds to pretend that autism was linked to the MMR vaccine. You can buy off one guy. You can't buy off 200,000 in all these different countries How do you think scientists can get their respect back? That's a very good question. I do what I can. I'm not a scientist. I'm a science communicator. I work with the scientific community. I view myself as an ambassador to the scientific community. I interface with them a lot.

I am always, always encouraging scientists to do more scicom and to stand up for themselves when their field is being attacked, when their work is being attacked, In fact, I want to see more engagement from them.

Historically, they haven't really done a lot because number one, they see themselves as above the fray. There's all these conspiracy theories here, but there are actual scientists doing actual science. They don't need to concern themselves with this. But I think some are coming around now because they're seeing that with this current administration, slashing NIH funding. I go to universities and I give talks, and I hear the panic in their voice where they're like, We don't know what's happening. All of this funding is frozen. It's completely unprecedented. We don't know what we're going to do. They see the urgency with how public perception of science influences voting voting behavior that votes in administrations that are detrimental to science, and that they don't really have the liberty anymore of ignoring public perception of science. So, yeah, I could do what I can do. Me not being a scientist, the public sees that as both a pro and a con. It's a pro in that I'm not of the establishment. I'm just some guy working in my house. But then it's when they want to, they call it a con because I don't have a terminal degree in a particular field that I'm commenting on or whatever it is.

So they won't take you serious.

Well, if they don't want to, they'll take some other jerk seriously who didn't even graduate college. But yeah, I don't have a PhD, so I can't be listened to. They have the opposite situation. Their pro is that their experts, their credential experts, feel the con is that they are part of the ivory tower or whatever. No matter who you are, the science scenario can find an angle to deny what you're saying. But I don't see any way around this other than just a really concerted high volume effort from a lot of career science communicators like myself. I go to schools and encourage students to go into sci-com as career to do what I do, as well as scientists speaking from their place of expertise and making content or just tweeting or whatever it is, getting out there. We have to fight fire with fire. There are a lot of very, very, very vocal charlatans out there, and we just need more people doing the same with the same intensity, the same fervor. We got to fight this.

I'd love to see more of you guys on social media. I grew up loving science. Bill Nine, Neil deGrasse Tyson. I don't know how you feel about those guys, but...

I mean, they're colleagues. They're my two most famous colleagues, and they're very good at what they do.

Love their stuff. Neil's got a good podcast, so I'd love to see more like I know you need that to counterbalance all the Charlie. You do. For saying. And you're seeing that with the election, I think that's a big part of the reason Trump won. There wasn't as many Democrats pushing content on social media.

Yeah, I think that might be part of it.

I mean, it wasn't even close. If you look at just podcast alone, it was probably 80/20. Sure.

Yeah. Yeah. I think certain narratives and certain voices and certain styles are rewarded on social media, and that is not always the truth, unfortunately.

Well, Dave, what's next to you, man? What's your next debunk? Where can people find you?

Oh, yeah.

Professor Dave explains on YouTube.

I got a bunch of stuff in the works. The Graham Hancock one is coming.

I'm going to watch that one. Yeah, it'll be good. All right, guys. Check out his stuff. We'll link it below. See you next time.