Do Vaccines Cause Autism? The Best Arguments — Then the Evidence - Medical Conspiracies

[0:00] Jason: Let me ask you something uncomfortable. Do you believe in conspiracy theories?

Kathy: It depends. Are we talking about college football playoff selections? Then yes.

Jason: Okay. But some conspiracies are fake and some are misunderstood, and there’s just a few — like your crazy uncle or grandpa believe — that are completely real. Well, today we’re going to do the most annoying thing possible.

Kathy: That’s right. We’re going to give medical conspiracy theories their best possible argument.

Jason: Yeah. Then we’re

[0:31] going to stress test them with biology, incentives, and reality. Do vaccines cause autism and Big Pharma is just covering it up? Is the government secretly hiding the cure for cancer? Yes, and then in the end we’re going to see if these conspiracy theories hold up to real evidence. Which means by the end of this episode you won’t just know what to believe. You’ll also know how not to get played. This is the PTCH.

Kathy: What happens when a chiropractor and a physical therapist get together to make

[1:01] a health and wellness podcast?

Jason: — and physical therapists don’t like each other.

Kathy: Oh, think again. I’m Dr. Kathy Lynch, physical therapist who likes to help people move and get stronger.

Jason: I’m Dr. Jason Young, an evidence-based chiropractor who uses humor just as much as adjustments to help people get better. Welcome to the PTCH Podcast.

Kathy: Remember, there’s no “I” in PTCH. So let’s go.

Jason: Okay, welcome back everybody to the PTCH Podcast. I’m Dr. Jason Young.

Kathy: And I’m Dr. Kathy Lynch.

Jason: Okay, and we are your hosts. And then

[1:32] over in the booth engineering for us we have our engineer Raul.

Kathy: Let’s go, Raul.

Jason: Yes, welcome Raul.

Raul: Hello everyone.

Jason: Okay. So, Kathy, we have a very interesting episode. I think that we should throw out the disclaimer early — early, early in this one — because this episode could rock the whole world.

Kathy: Yes, this is going to be controversial.

Jason: What’s the disclaimer? What’s the disclaimer?

Kathy: This is for entertainment purposes only. We are not giving medical

[2:03] advice.

Jason: No, no, no, no. But I think that some of the arguments that we’re going to have are going to be pretty darn compelling. So, conspiracy theories — like, I feel like this could get us on like something like YouTube. The YouTubes might—

Kathy: Yeah, the YouTubes.

Jason: Yeah, the TikTokies. Maybe even the Netflix.

Kathy: Maybe. Yeah, maybe. So, but I think people love conspiracy theories. Like, do you ever watch X-Files?

Jason: I did.

Kathy: Oh my gosh, “the truth is out there,” you

[2:35] know?

Jason: And people love unanswered questions. And I think that the human brain just has a tendency to want to kind of put patterns and pieces of puzzles together, and I don’t know. Why do you think conspiracy theories even exist?

Kathy: I feel like there’s a dopamine rush that comes with it.

Jason:

Kathy: It’s like a dopamine hit, like, “Oh yeah, the whole world is against us, and this is why.” Yeah. Well, and I think some people are maybe trying to explain away

[3:06] things that they aren’t happy with or that they aren’t comfortable with.

Jason: Yeah. Man, I remember — shoot, a few months ago I was sitting at my son’s JV football game, and the lady — the old lady sitting behind me — holy smokes, another lady sits down next to her and she goes, “So, what’s the conspiracy theory? What’s going on?”

Kathy: What are we doing today?

Jason: And she’s like, “I’m so glad you asked.”

She launches into this whole big thing, like heavily referenced and indexed, and

[3:38] it was all about like the Middle East and oil and world domination and secret governments and cabals and everything. It was impressive.

Kathy: Wow. And it also sounded like complete garbage to me.

Jason: Did you believe her?

Kathy: I did not believe a single word of it, but it was so impressive just listening to how thorough she was. She had names, she had dates — she had, for some reason, this lady from Lebanon, Oregon, had detailed information about meetings —

[4:10] secret meetings of high-ranking world leaders.

Jason: Like, yeah, it was amazing.

Kathy: Maybe she was on a Signal chat with them.

Jason: I guess these days it’s not so hard to get to these high-ranking government meetings, huh? Oh my gosh. Yeah, so today what we want to do is we want to go over a couple of maybe the biggest medical conspiracy theories that are out there, and we’re

[4:40] going to make the case for them. And then we’re going to see if those arguments hold up, okay? And when I asked you about this, like, you’re like, “Let’s do vaccines.” And I was like, “Holy crap, Kathy. You can’t just talk about vaccines.”

Kathy: Into the fire.

Jason: Yeah, it’s like — you don’t discuss, like, what? Religion? You don’t discuss the Fighting Irish?

Kathy: Politics.

Jason: Yeah, and vaccines, right? Those are the things. So yeah, so we’re going to do this, right?

[5:10] It’s a hot point. You have a topic, I have a topic. We’re going to work together on this, but let’s start by making the case for your conspiracy theory that you picked — which you definitely went straight to the big leagues.

Kathy: I did.

Jason: Yes, you did. You didn’t even tiptoe around.

Kathy: No, let’s get into it.

Jason: Give it to us. What’s the conspiracy theory?

Kathy: Vaccines are the cause of autism.

Jason: Everybody knows it’s actually Tylenol. What are you talking about?

[5:40] Kathy: New studies.

Jason: No, that’s for a different episode.

Kathy: Apparently, yeah, that’s next episode. Tune in.

Jason: Premium content.

Kathy: Premium content — where we prove Tylenol— Yeah, Tylenol is the root of all evil. No. You know that’s going to get put on TikTok and people are going to be like, “You need to make podcast equipment more expensive.”

Jason: Yeah.

Kathy: And let’s get rid of the chiropractors, right? Tylenol could be a sponsor.

Jason: Yeah, nothing like being taken out of context. It’s wonderful. Yeah. You hear us, Procter & Gamble? Are they the Tylenol people? I think so.

[6:11] Kathy: Mm-hmm. Or is it Pfizer? No, I don’t know. I think it’s Procter & Gamble, P&G.

Jason: P&G, all right, sweet. Okay. And actually I have a source.

Kathy: You do?

Jason: My cousin works at P&G.

Kathy: A secret source?

Jason: Oh, no, you just — it’s your cousin. It’s your cousin.

Kathy: Hey, outed him.

Jason: You — dang. Sorry, cousin. Run for your life, cousin. He’s not listening.

Kathy: Neither are the people at Procter & Gamble, so he’s totally safe.

Jason: Uh-huh. All right, so I want to hear this. I want to hear this. Vaccines cause

[6:41] autism? Did this start? This start? This started in 1998. Okay. With an article published in a very prestigious journal called The Lancet. Yes, it is a good journal. It it really is. I think a lot of our listeners read medical journals, but The Lancet is — it’s one of the top ones. It’s it’s it’s well-respected, well-referenced. Well-referenced, well-respected. Quoted. Quoted, prestigious. Lead author

[7:11] Andrew Wakefield. Mhm. We’re going to have to come full circle on Andrew Wakefield in just a minute, but yeah, go ahead. Yes, tell us. Yes, tell us about Andrew Wakefield. So, this study involved 12 children. Mhm. Okay, that number will become relevant later. Okay. And it suggested a possible link between the MMR vaccine — Mumps, Measles,

[7:43] Rubella. Yes, thanks for breaking that down. And developmental regression, which is seen in people with autism. Okay. You know, most developmental regression we see with young people when they are eventually diagnosed with autism starts between I think 15 and 25 months of life. Yeah. And so it’s also coincidentally when most vaccines are given for the very

[8:13] first time, right? You’re already starting to debunk. Oh, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. We’re building the case. Okay, I’m sorry, sorry, sorry. I will — I’m going to shut my mouth. GO AHEAD. SO, WHY DID THIS LOOK credible at the time? This theory, right? It was published in The Lancet. Yeah, like we said. Good journal. You know, nobody — we’re not getting published in The Lancet. You can’t just willy-nilly get published in The Lancet. Anymore. Not not anymore. Not now. Not now.

[8:44] It used very very fancy medical language. Right. And at the time in 1998, autism diagnoses were becoming more visible. Right, okay. So, more more more diagnoses of autism. It was on the radar now. It was becoming a more common diagnosis, right? So, how did

[9:17] this continue to spread? Well, the media — shockingly. Yeah. What? — took this one line, you know, and ran with it. Yeah, because it’s it’s shocking and potentially terrifying, because who gets the MMR vaccine? Oh, just everybody. Just everyone. You have to get it to enroll in school. Yeah, can’t go to school without MMR. That’s right. Mhm. So, the headlines simplified the

[9:47] message and basically said MMR vaccine causes autism. Yes. And that’s all people needed to hear. They didn’t click — well, we weren’t clicking on anything in 1998. Sure, right. No, there was no — we were turning the page. Yes, this is page one news. Yeah, it was page one. Above the fold. Uh-huh. See page eight for the rest of the story. Yes. Nobody saw page eight. The rest of the story. Saw the headline, because some things don’t change, right? This is true. I don’t need the article, I have this headline. Yeah, yeah. And why did this stick? Well, it’s

[10:19] scary to think about your child. You know, you want to do the best for your child. So, we’ve been told vaccines help save lives. So, I’m going to vaccinate my child, but now you’re telling me that this could possibly cause some developmental issues in my child. So, it’s scary. Well, and I think, you know, just anecdotally, I think most people know somebody who has a child who has been affected by autism or some sort of developmental delay or something like

[10:51] that. And so, very easy to understand why there would be some concern over — are these two things related? So, Yeah. Yeah. And and to add, you know, to this conspiracy theory, who is quote-unquote profiting off of vaccines? Yeah, big pharma. Big pharma. The biggest pharma. Yeah, another conspiracy. I — I don’t know if this is just like bullet point conspiracy theory — that doctors — oh, gosh. Yeah. Doctors are basically

[11:21] getting rich. Yeah, Dr. Christy Roberts told us. Oh, yeah, every single vaccine she gives, she gets like $120,000, right? So, oh no, we can’t move into the debunking, right? We’re still building the case. We’re not debunking. So, okay, let’s say we know for a fact though pharmaceutical companies make money from vaccines. Do they? Yes. Okay. Yes, they do. That’s not a conspiracy. Yeah. Yeah, and we also know for a fact that part of a pediatrician’s

[11:51] job is to deliver vaccines. Yes. So, right now we’re building the the pro-conspiracy side. And those are legit points, right? So, there is something to be gained — right — by everybody taking the vaccine. And is there something to lose — right — by something being wrong with the vaccine? Is there something to lose? Yeah, for like big pharma, there’s something to lose. There is. Money. Oh, yeah. Cash money. Yeah, and and trust, and

[12:23] there’s legislation about these things. And so, yeah, I think that they have a dog in the fight whenever it comes to basically — basically covering themselves in this, right? Let’s get into some of the details. So, for example, right? In 1998, when — when the study came out — You’re right, right. When the study came out, sorry. The vaccines have been around for a long — you’re right, right. What was in the

[12:54] vaccines that made people think, oh, this could possibly be the link? You must be talking about mercury. I am. Quicksilver, right? Which — mercury, back in the day, very long time ago, used to be a medicine. Yes. Right? You’ve got — fill in the blank — let’s just get some of this shiny metal water. Yes. And you know, rub it on there. But, not so. No. Mercury is a neurotoxin. Do not drink mercury. Right, mhm. And so, was

[13:25] there mercury in the vaccines? Mhm. There was. There was. Yeah, and so, you might think, holy crap, yes, this is it. Yep. We’re putting this poison in every single vaccine, in every single baby. Right. Right. So, there’s — there was a response to this, right? And it’s kind of more evidence that pharmaceutical companies might have thought that yeah, maybe it is a mystery, right?

[13:56] And it was in 1999, they did what we call the silent recall. Right? What did they do with the mercury? They took it out. They took it out, yeah. It’s definitely the mercury. Right, and so, I think a lot of people saw that as an admission that, guys, they took it out. Like, why would they take it out? And when they were asked, the answer was, out of an abundance of caution. Yeah. It’s just a precautionary measure. We don’t need it in there. Yeah, it’s like when you’re on a flight and like

[14:27] there’s a great big bump and a small explosion and now the cabin smells like smoke. Yes. Yeah, and then the pilot comes on, uh, ladies and gentlemen, we just want you to know that there’s nothing to worry about. It’s like, okay, but okay, brother. There’s nothing to see here. Yeah, uh-huh, everything’s fine. Put your seat belts on. This is the most normal thing ever. Yeah. Yeah, those masks that just dropped down from the ceiling, no big deal, right? So, a lot of people thought that that was kind of the smoking gun, right?

[14:58] See, I told you. Yeah. Yeah. It’s not such a big deal. Right. It caused it. I know it did. Exactly. Yeah. And then there were some other events, like something called the Smallwood conference. No, not the Smallwood conference. Don’t, don’t, don’t. Right, so it was a conference of 52 scientists. 52? In Georgia? Is there a coincidence? 52 scientists, 52 weeks in the year? 52 playing cards? 52 — I don’t know what it means, but it

[15:29] must mean something, right? I’m a numbers person. So, these scientists get together and they’re discussing the data. And I think I have a quote here. There’s a transcript of this secret meeting between these 52 scientists. And one of them, Dr. Thomas Verstraeten — I hope I said that correctly. Sure. This is his quote from the transcript. He’s a CDC epidemiologist and he was presenting their preliminary data on their

[16:01] examination of the link between vaccines and autism. And he said, “It is just impossible to explain this. There is some statistically significant relationship between the exposure and the outcome.” Smoking gun much? Again. Yeah. Yeah. However, the cover-up is always worse than the crime. Yeah, right? Because what did they vote to do after that conference? Don’t tell anybody. Yeah, they embargoed

[16:33] the information. So, that information never made it out to the public and so it’s clear that there was some sort of cover-up, right? And then let’s see. Oh, we have Hannah Poling. Yeah, Hannah. Yes. So, 2008 — did you know that vaccines have their own court? I learned this — yes — today, recently.

[17:04] Yes, so there is something called vaccine court. So, if you have a vaccine injury, which they happen, right? Because sometimes people have a bad reaction to a vaccine or something in it and it’s really rare, but it happens. If you wanted to then sue the pharmaceutical company, there is a special court that is set up for dealing with vaccines. And people think this is shady, right? Why do you need a special court? Right. Why are we protecting pharmaceutical

[17:34] companies? Right, and isn’t it private? It is, yeah, right. And yeah, they’re closed proceedings. So, you know, whether there’s settlements there, wins, losses — as the public we don’t get the information on what happens in these courts. So, the Hannah Poling case though — we know about that legal victory. She’s a 9-year-old girl. Okay. She got five vaccines in one day. Wow.

[18:04] And then she had a rapid regression into autism. And so, she got $1.5 million up front and she gets $500,000 a year up to $20 million. Wow. Smoking gun. Yeah. Mhm. Yeah. Adding to the conspiracy theory. Yes, yes. I mean, there’s a lot of evidence that’s stacking up. Yeah. Can we talk about the Geiers? Geier — I think it’s pronounced Geier. Geiers, rhymes with fire. The Geiers, the Geiers, the Geiers —

[18:34] father-son duo. Yes, and Daddy Geier I think was a geneticist. And they dug through — so, there’s a database where they track vaccine injuries. It’s called VAERS, V-A-E-R-S. Okay. And they data-mined a bunch of that information and they synthesized it and they published — I think it was like 13 studies, or no, it was more, it was like dozens

[19:04] of studies where they showed some associations between thimerosal, which is the mercury part of the vaccine, and autism. And so, they kind of gave this whole movement some scientific backing, too. Yeah. So, ouch. Yeah. Right. Right. So, I mean, if the Geiers said it — The Geiers, right? Because everybody’s heard of them. Yeah, it must be true. Okay. All right. Have we proved the point? Have we proved

[19:34] that it’s real? I think that there are some people here that are probably convinced. They may be feeling sick that their parents ever got them vaccinated. Right. It’s a lot of things. So, let’s back up a little bit and talk about vaccines, because we discussed this on the episode with Christy Rivers about whether vaccines work, whether they’re valuable, and you know, we could go through very easily and we could look at the data that exists in terms of the effectiveness of vaccines. You mentioned Texas — how they’re having a big outbreak of measles. Yes. And that big outbreak correlates

[20:06] pretty well with lower rates of vaccination. Of vaccination. Right. And do you know anybody with polio under the age of what, 60, 70 now? No, thankfully. No, you do not, because that polio vaccine worked really well. So vaccines are proven technology. From a public health standpoint it’s very important, right? Which is why that special vaccine court exists — because if all those proceedings happened out in

[20:36] the open, there’s a good chance that it just hurts the public’s perception of vaccines, which there is significant scientific data behind. Sure. But not everybody reads scientific papers. Read the headlines. Yeah, there are people out there that are Googling Lancet and they’re like, “L-A-N-S-I-T,” right? And that’s not even how it’s spelled. So it’s not stuff that’s easily understood, and so that’s why this separate court exists so that, you know,

[21:06] not all that has to happen out in the open. Some people feel great about that. Some people think that’s totally shady. And I’m neither here nor there on it. Yeah. So tell us about the Wakefield thing though, because that seems pretty convincing. Jason: Yeah. Right. You got this guy published in a reputable journal. Kathy: Mhm. Jason: Says that there’s a link between autism and these thimerosal-containing MMR vaccines. Well, Mr. Wakefield — was he

[21:38] even a doctor? I don’t even know. Is he a nerd? Kathy: Jason: So let’s talk about this. Well, first of all, this is a poorly set up study anyway. Kathy: Yeah, you said something about the number 12. Jason: There’s only 12 kids. Kathy: 12. Yeah. Jason: Okay, that’s not a big enough sample for us to make sweeping healthcare decisions. Kathy: Yes, it’s essentially anecdotal evidence. Jason: Literally. Kathy: Mhm. Yeah. And there was no control group. So they just

[22:08] had 12 kids vaccinated. Jason: Yeah. And that’s it. Kathy: We might need to explain what a control group is to people. Jason: So there’s two groups, the experimental group and the control group in a good study. Yeah. And so the experimental group in this case gets a vaccine and the other group, the control group, basically has nothing done to them. Yeah. Or maybe like a sham vaccine. A sham scene.

[22:39] Kathy: Sham. Yeah. A sham scene. They get the sugar water injection. Jason: Got sugar water. Yes. And so in this study, if you can call it a study — it’s not a study if it doesn’t have a control group. Kathy: Yeah. So there was no control group. I mean, it’s still a study, but you just — there’s certain conclusions that you cannot draw from it. Jason: Right. One of those being you can’t make a causal link between this and this when you have no control. Right. Kathy: So yeah, you need a randomized controlled trial. That’s how you establish causality

[23:10] outside of that — very difficult to do. Jason: Difficult. There were data inconsistencies, which we’ve since found. Kathy: Yeah, you mean like the data inconsistencies where he later admitted to falsifying the data. Jason: Just made it up. Kathy: Oh, those data inconsistencies. I’ve got it. Okay. Yeah. So Wakefield was a doctor, because my research tells me his medical license was revoked. Jason: It was. Yes. Kathy: Mhm. And the paper

[23:42] was fully retracted. Jason: Yes, it was. Yes. Kathy: So, uh-huh. And so what is he doing now? That’s a really good question. What is Andrew doing? I do believe that he was hired by none other than RFK Jr. Jason: Kathy: Actually. Yeah, I’m trying to find it, but I saw — Jason: You’re right. Kathy: Yes. He is part of our — yeah, he’s all up in — Jason: Human Health Services.

[24:13] Kathy: He’s all up in the HHS. Wonderful. Yeah. Jason: This is great news. So yeah, that’s — Kathy: — the best and brightest. Jason: That’s a little bit terrifying, right? Kathy: Normally, under normal circumstances, when it’s discovered that you falsified data, that destroys your professional career. Like nobody ever hears from you again. Jason: You are shamed. But the medical miracle here is that somehow Wakefield is still relevant. Kathy: Wow. Jason: Yeah, but should he be? I don’t think so. Kathy: That we’re going to leave that for the

[24:43] people to judge, right? Jason: Yeah, based on the fact that he lied — Kathy: Jason: — about a study that was not very well done to begin with. Kathy: Yes. Jason: Oh, yeah. Kathy: So okay. Jason: Yeah, okay. I’ll keep my judgments to myself. Kathy: Jason: Now, could I get into the thing about the mercury? Kathy: Please, let’s talk about mercury. All right, Jason: Kathy: before we get into the mercury, let’s talk about alcohol. Jason: Mhm. Kathy: Okay. Jason: Kathy: Oh, Jason. Now there’s a couple — — well, there’s not just a couple kinds of

[25:14] alcohol. There’s lots of kinds of alcohol out there, but they’re not the same. So when we think alcohol, normally we’re thinking like — yeah, I just went on a cruise, right? I saw lots of people enjoying their alcohol until they weren’t. Okay, so — Jason: Then you weren’t. Kathy: Yeah, and that kind of alcohol is ethyl alcohol. That’s what we find in like a beer or wine and things like that. You drink some ethyl alcohol, your body’s going to clear it in a few hours to a few days depending upon who you are. Then there’s also methyl alcohol. Methyl

[25:45] alcohol does appear in some drinks. Jason: Yeah, that drink would be moonshine. Kathy: Yes, and moonshine will make you go blind — Jason: Kathy: — because your body doesn’t deal with it so well. And so they’re both alcohol — Jason: Uh-huh. Kathy: — comparatively one is a lot safer than the other. Okay? They don’t have the same effect on the human body. Jason: Right. So I bring that up because with mercury, it’s important to know the difference between ethyl mercury and methyl mercury. Okay?

[26:15] Jason: So methyl mercury and ethyl mercury are not handled by the human body the same way. Methyl mercury accumulates. So methyl mercury is like — they’re like, “Hey, careful with your tuna fish, because it’s got mercury in it, right?” And that’s a thing. It bioaccumulates in fish and it gets passed on to us — Kathy: — which is why I quit eating tuna fish. Jason: That may be the flavor. Kathy: So — Jason: Yeah, and — Kathy: — age. And so there’s some definite — like there’s some health consequences that can come with that, but you’ve got to get a

[26:45] lot, a lot, a lot, a lot. Okay? Jason: Ethyl mercury — our body will clear it in 3 to 7 days. Okay? Our body has systems for eliminating ethyl mercury. Kathy: The liver? Jason: Yes, the liver. You’ve heard of the liver? Kathy: Oh, you’ve heard of the liver. Jason: So the thimerosal — the ethyl mercury half-life is 3 to 7 days in the body, and that matters because it doesn’t bioaccumulate, which — that bioaccumulation

[27:15] is one of the things that contributes to the poisonous effects of methyl mercury in our bodies. Okay? Yeah. So when you look at this too, when you’re looking at the dosage in a vaccine, you’re having 0.1 micrograms of ethyl mercury, which your body’s going to clear. Okay? Now an infant in the first 6 months of their life, they’re going to get between 187 and 360

[27:47] micrograms of ethyl mercury — or sorry, methyl mercury — from their mama. Kathy: What? Jason: Yeah, in the breast milk. Kathy: No. Jason: Yeah, because it bioaccumulates — like mommy ate a lot of tuna or something like that — then the baby’s going to get some of that through the breast milk. Okay? And so are we saying that breast milk is dangerous? Like we should stop breastfeeding? Kathy: Are we? No, I hope not, right? So — Jason: going to go viral again? I said probably. They’re going to call us dumb chiropractors.

[28:17] Jason: Yeah, that’s going to be the clip. You’re going to be — “breast milk kills babies.” They’ll be going — Take that. Now, so I mean an average healthy, totally normal baby —

Kathy: Okay.

Jason: — is going to get 360-ish micrograms in the first 6 months of their life through breast milk, and we think that 0.1 micrograms

[28:48] of ethyl mercury —

Kathy: Mhm.

Jason: — in the vaccine shot is just a little too much. It’s just — it’s the tipping point.

Kathy: It is. Yes, it’s the tipping point.

Jason: Yep. And so that’s the thing that doesn’t really hold up. Okay? But Kathy, what about this? What about when they just took the mercury out?

Kathy: Yes. I would think that when you take the mercury out, what happens?

Jason: Autism drops. Autism goes away, shouldn’t it?

Kathy: Should be gone. If that’s the cause, so what happened?

Jason: It didn’t change. It didn’t change. In

[29:18] fact, it went up, right?

Kathy: More diagnoses. And let’s talk about the diagnosis thing. So why are there more autism diagnoses today than there were in the ’80s?

Jason: Mhm. We’ve learned more about it. We’ve learned more about it, right?

Kathy: We’re ever evolving. We called it something different —

Jason: Yes.

Kathy: Yes, we did.

Jason: Say it.

Kathy: We’re not — we can’t say it. We’re not saying it. But yeah, so that is part of the issue too, is that our understanding of autism has

[29:48] evolved. We have people who are autistic and very high functioning, yes, right? And we have people who aren’t very high functioning, and they’ve always existed. It’s not like autism was invented by vaccines. We’re talking about vaccines. Yep, we’re back to the vaccines. Okay, yeah. I might have had one too many. Was it that or the Tylenol?

Jason: Okay, so let me ask you about this then.

[30:18] Kathy: Mhm.

Jason: The Simpsonwood affair in Georgia. Yes. The one — the closed conclave of 52 scientists in one clandestine meeting, which was later redacted, where the guy admitted that there was a signal between the thimerosal and autism. Yes. What do we make of that though? Well, Verstraeten —

[30:48] if that’s how you say it. We’re going with that.

Kathy: We’re so sorry if your family’s listening, Mr. Verstraeten — Verstraetenblation.

Jason: Yes. Mhm. He was presenting raw data. Okay. And so when he presented the raw data, there’s no interpretation of that data.

Kathy: Yeah.

Jason: When they did the next phase of this study — which, did you try and control for something?

Kathy: Yes, you try to control for things.

[31:19] That statistical link — that famous quote — disappeared.

Jason: Yeah. Because I think in this case, the thing that corresponded with it was — the ones who also developed autism also had low birth weight, or they were premature, or their mothers were in bad health.

Kathy: Yeah, or older, yeah. And so when you remove those from the sample and you look at everybody else, there’s no signal there.

Jason: Yeah. So the thinking is it has

[31:50] more to do with the health of the mother and the other circumstances than the presence of the vaccination.

Kathy: Right. Oh man, we’re running out of legs to stand on with this theory.

Jason: Okay, Hannah Poling. Hannah. Yeah. I mean it’s tragic.

Kathy: It is, definitely.

Jason: It’s definitely tragic. A 9-year-old — it’s rare to see a regression —

Kathy: Absolutely.

Jason: — at that age. And it’s heartbreaking.

Kathy: It is. It really is.

Jason: But what they found out later —

Kathy: Mhm.

Jason: — as they studied it, Hannah had a

[32:20] mitochondrial disorder.

Kathy: Yeah.

Jason: That predisposed her to autism. And what happened was the fever caused by the vaccines — because we all have had vaccines and we get some side effects, right?

Kathy: Yeah, I got the COVID vaccine.

Jason: Yeah.

Kathy: Like, knocked me out for the day. So tired. Some of the best sleep I’ve gotten though. So thanks, COVID vaccine.

Jason: Yeah, so the fever caused by the vaccines — and this is kind of why they ruled in her favor —

[32:51] triggered a metabolic crisis that then aggravated her underlying condition.

Kathy: Yeah. So this was very, very, very rare.

Jason: Yeah. But yes. And there are some people that a vaccine is probably not safe for, or the schedule that they have them on maybe isn’t safe for. I’m not an expert on vaccines, and so do not listen to this and think that we’re giving advice about that. But I think those people do exist where it’s like taking that medication is a catalyst for it. That being said, there are no health

[33:21] care interventions that are 100% safe — except physical therapy. Yes, 100% safe. It’s a lie. Proven by randomized controlled — — randomized uncontrolled, just random trials.

Kathy: We just do random stuff.

Jason: Yeah, published in the — — Journal of Articles and Witchcraft.

Jason: All right, but yeah, so Hannah Poling — very, very unfortunate case.

[33:51] Kathy: But she could have gotten the flu. And the same thing.

Jason: Exactly, right? Yeah. And all right, so I think the last thing that we have left — and this is probably the best hope because these are scientists — the Guyers. A geneticist, Guyer and Guyer, all right?

Kathy: These guys?

Jason: Guyer and Guyer, save us. Save the conspiracy theory.

Kathy: Come on. All right, here’s what happened with the Guyers.

Jason: Oh, tell me.

Kathy: In 2011 the Maryland Board of Physicians revoked Mark Guyer’s medical

[34:22] license.

Jason: Wait, did he get hired by the government too? Is he with HHS?

Kathy: I hope not. Holy smokes.

Jason: Ask me why.

Kathy: Yes, so why? Well, first of all, let’s talk about their research. So they published dozens of these articles. One of the things with science is it’s cool if you can do a study, publish it, and everything like that — they need to be published in what’s called a peer-reviewed journal. A peer-reviewed journal is where other medical professionals, other scientists get a chance to look at your data, to look at

[34:53] your process and comment on whether it’s valid or not. Would any other scientist do this? Did you follow the scientific method? Are you using good procedures, techniques, things like that? His work was unreproducible.

Jason: Unreproducible.

Kathy: Yes. He used very irregular methods for mining his data, and the guy had something to sell.

Jason: Ah.

Kathy: Yes.

Jason: Money.

Kathy: Yes, he did. So his theory was that testosterone —

[35:23] was binding the mercury. Kathy: Okay. Okay. And so the treatment that he was selling is pretty horrific and this is why he lost his license. He was using something called Lupron, which is a drug that is used for chemical castration. Right, so sex offenders, things like that. They use Lupron to chemically castrate these people and he was using this on children. Oh my gosh. Jason: Yes, to try to reverse the effects of this, remove the mercury from their

[35:53] body. And so yeah, so that’s why he lost his license. Kathy: Okay, Guyer. So trustworthy source? No. I doubt it. So let’s see, is there anything left? Have we — we built up the steel man, right? We laid out the theory, we gave the best evidence for it. Is there anything left? I don’t think so. Okay, so I don’t know. What can we say about this one? Do we leave the judgment to the listeners? Jason: That’s what we have to do. Kathy: We’ll leave it a hanging conclusion here. Jason: We’ll leave the hanging conclusion

[36:23] because that’s the way science works — we don’t have to tell you what it means. We just have to tell you what it looks like, right? So yeah, that’s our arguments. Decide for yourself. Kathy: Yeah, make your own decision. Jason: Yeah, for entertainment purposes only. Only entertainment purposes. All right, should we get to mine? Let’s go. All right. So there is the argument. And this is going to hit home for a lot of people because I don’t think that there’s probably anybody out there

[36:53] that hasn’t been touched by cancer in some way, shape, or form. My own mom died from cancer and it’s just — it affects people all over the world. And one of the like the holy grail of medical treatments is the cure for cancer. Kathy: Absolutely. Right? So there is a conspiracy theory that the government has the cure for cancer. And if not the government, Big Pharma — Jason: Yes. Kathy: — has the cure Jason: Yes. for cancer. Yeah. And

[37:23] what they’re doing is they’re holding on to this because the cancer industry is so profitable. Jason: Right. So let me tell you what I mean by the cancer industry. There is a whole industry around cancer. There’s researchers. Kathy: Yes. There’s oncologists, pharmaceutical companies have chemotherapies, there’s surgeries, there’s just — you name it. Jason: There’s whole departments. Yes. There’s medical devices. Mhm. There’s medical

[37:53] equipment. Kathy: Entire wings of hospitals. Jason: Entire wings. Kathy: Yes. Jason: Yes. And so there is an industry around cancer — as well there should be, because it affects so many people. Right. And like if cancer went away tomorrow, the world is so different, right? Kathy: Yes. There’s a significant number of people who are listening to this podcast that will one day die from cancer unless there’s a cure found for it, okay? So let’s look at the economic motive for why you would

[38:24] would do this. There is something called the Goldman Sachs admission. So there was a calculation that was supposedly done by somebody at Goldman Sachs — April 2018, there’s a report that was published by an analyst. His name was Salveen Richter. And he titled this “The Genome Revolution.” Jason: Richter. Kathy: The Salveen Richter scale. And his report explicitly asked: is

[38:55] curing patients a sustainable business model? Right, so Goldman Sachs — if you don’t know, that’s not a hospital, it’s a bank. It’s a banking institution. So he’s looking at this like an economist, okay? And his kind of rationale or theory was, “Hey, if you’re curing all the cancer — Jason: Kathy: — like, you’re going to run out of people to treat. So is that sustainable as a business model?” And so partially because of this — and he

[39:25] wasn’t the first person to kind of put this out there — but partially because of this, there are people who think that there is an industry around keeping people sick with cancer so that we can treat them, which is horrific, but maybe he has a point. Jason: Not wrong. Kathy: Okay. Not completely wrong. There is another aspect to the theory which is what we will call suppressed genius. All right. So suppressed genius would be something like a guy named Royal Rife. In 1930,

[39:56] not the first Royal on this podcast. Jason: Yes. Kathy: This is maybe a cousin to Royal Burpee. Jason: Yes. So now Royal Rife claimed that his beam ray could destroy cancer viruses by using specific frequencies. His lab was shut down, his devices were confiscated, and there are people that think Royal Rife had the solution. They shut him down because they didn’t want the competition. All right. There’s Harry Hoxsey — in 1950 he sold an herbal tonic, the Hoxsey

[40:26] formula, that he claimed cured cancer, and he was sued by the FDA. Right? And then there’s — oh, this guy — I’ve seen him on like 60 Minutes or something — Stanislaw Burzynski. Have you heard of him? Kathy: I’ve heard that name. Yeah. Jason: And the antineoplastons. So he claimed that the FDA is trying to shut him down because he has been using this to outperform chemotherapy and trying to break up that monopoly. So

[40:58] yeah, competition. We’re back to the economics of it. There’s also the fact that President Nixon — he declared war on cancer. As well as drugs. But oh no, it was Reagan — the war on drugs. Yeah. Yeah. But he got the idea from Nixon Kathy: Jason: who declared war on cancer. All right. It was an act of war. And that was 1971. Since then there’s been 200 billion dollars spent on cancer research. Okay.

[41:30] And so the idea is that 50 years and 200 billion dollars — like, we put people on the moon. Kathy: Absolutely. So how could you spend 200 billion dollars in 50 years and not find a cure? That doesn’t make sense. It’s just not logical. I saw a video once with Melissa Etheridge — the artist — and she said, “I am convinced that if we could just raise another 100 million dollars in breast cancer research, we would find the cure.” As if breast cancer is holding

[42:02] women hostage — if we just paid 100 million dollars. Best and brightest on it, I guess. I think that there’s some validity to that thinking. How could we spend so much and so much time and not have the cure? Like, it just — if there is a cure, wouldn’t we have it? Wouldn’t we have it? Yeah. And then there’s something called the simplicity theory. So it’s the idea that we don’t even understand what cancer is. We are treating it completely wrong. There are some people that think that cancer is a fungus called Tullio

[42:34] Simoncini. Yeah, it’s hard to say. Excuse me. There’s some people that think that cancer is a vitamin B17 deficiency. That’s a really old one. There’s some people that think that it has to do with pH imbalance. So that we’re just really treating the wrong thing, right? And that we’re intentionally being led to look at the wrong things and that’s the problem. Have you checked your pH level recently? So the pH thing is funny. So like the as

[43:06] an aside, yeah, as I’ve never done on this podcast. Like those pH waters. Holy crap. I mean, come on. All right. If you have an alkaline water and you pour it down your gullet, where’s the first place that water’s going? Second place? First place is your mouth, right? Second is your esophagus. Okay. Third place is your stomach. You know what the pH balance of your stomach is? Two. It’s extremely acidic. Yes. And I promise you there’s enough stomach acid

[43:36] to neutralize whatever you’re throwing in there, okay? So you get zero positive health effects from drinking alkaline water. Stop that crap. Stop it. Anyway. Okay. That’s the premium content. Premium content. Yes. We’ll do some randomized uncontrolled trials with pH water. Okay. Anyhow. You can drink all the pH water you want. Like I don’t think there’s a problem with drinking it. It’s just if you’re doing it for health reasons —

[44:06] No. If you’re doing it because it tastes better, great. Yeah. Sure. Mhm. Whatever. So let’s peel back some of the layers of this onion here. Let’s start with what cancer actually is. Okay. So cancer is not a single disease. There are different types of cancer and they’re not treated the same. So looking for a cure or the cure for

[44:36] cancer like it’s in a pill bottle and the pill bottle is made of gold and you open it up and a light shines out of it like the suitcase in Pulp Fiction, right? So if that’s what we’re thinking in terms of the cure for cancer, the problem is that there is not cancer. There’s many types. There’s lots of types. Leukemia is not the same as breast cancer which is not the same as prostate cancer. And so you might find a treatment for a type of cancer but there

[45:07] is no one cure-all for all types of cancer. Now, hear me carefully. I’m not saying that all types of cancer can’t be cured. Saying there’s not one cure-all that works for all of them and there’s a single mechanism that we’re answered. So it’s an umbrella term for about 200 distinct genetic diseases. Okay. Now, that being said, let’s get to the war on cancer argument to say that we haven’t found a cure for cancer in 50 years and 200

[45:38] billion dollars is not true. Because there are cancers out there that used to kill people routinely that are now like 90 to 95% curable. Okay. I have a very good friend who just went through leukemia. The type that he has, 98% cure rate. He had a massive tumor around his aorta and went through 6 months of chemo and he’s going to live the rest of his life. Okay. A lot of advances in breast cancer. Tons of advances in breast cancer, right? Prostate cancer kills almost no one anymore. You die with it

[46:09] not from it. Yeah, leukemia. Your child gets leukemia? Your child has an excellent chance of survival. Okay. Now it’s not to say that everybody survives but most people survive from a lot of different types of cancer. Okay. The thing with that is — and this is very important. This is good information to listen to. If you want to maximize your chance of surviving from cancer, you have to find it early. The way that you find it early is screening. Okay. So you go get your

[46:39] colonoscopy. You do your self checks. You get your prostate exams. All those kinds of things. What about the mammograms? The mammograms, right? Mammograms get controversial because the recommendations have been changing and there’s some chiropractors out there with some wacky ideas about mammograms. So I’m not going to touch on mammograms but — get your mammogram. Kathy. Kathy. You heard it from Dr. Kathy. PT, DPT. That’s right. Find it early. Yes. So but

[47:09] in any case, like there are so many efforts and so many ways that we can screen for early onset of these problems that if you do that, you are drastically increasing your chances of survival nigh unto a cure for cancer. Okay. Like if you get prostate cancer — prostate cancer used to kill men all the time. Now like you just — you don’t have to have a surgery and so many of these things are so

[47:39] treatable if you get there early. Okay. So here’s an analogy. Asking for a cure for cancer is like asking for a cure for infection. Right. There’s different types of infections. If you have a viral infection, you take antibiotics — your antibiotics are not treating that virus, right? You need an antiviral, right? So with cancer, same type of thing. You need the right kind of treatment. Okay. There is something else that applies to both of these conspiracy theories and

[48:09] really all conspiracy theories and it’s something called the Grimes equation. This is from a physicist from Oxford. His name is David Robert Grimes and he published an algorithm and the theory is this. When you have a conspiracy or something that you’re trying to hide or cover up, if you and I have one and we’re like, hey, pinky promise we’re going to keep this a secret, right? There’s a very good chance we’ll be able to keep that secret between us. We could bring in Raul, right? Still a pretty good chance —

[48:41] yeah, pretty good chance that Raul is going to be able to keep the secret with us. Now, what if we expand that circle of our conspiracy to 714,000 people which, you know, represents roughly the amount of researchers, doctors, pharmaceutical employees, executives, all that kind of stuff. The chances that we will be able to keep that secret become very low. Very low. So the Grimes equation — yeah, so the Grimes equation predicted that if that were the case, 3.2 years is how long it would

[49:12] take for that conspiracy to be out in the open. And so unless this happened like we got the cure, you know, a couple years ago, very good chance that nobody’s going to be able to sit on that for that long. So with any conspiracy theory, whether it’s government, health, you know, aliens, whatever, right? You have to think about the Grimes equation. When you have a lot of people who would have to keep it a secret — like there’s lots of conspiracy theories around COVID and that it was a way for

[49:43] the Americans to control, but what about the rest of the world? Everybody experienced that. So you’re telling me that somehow all of a sudden the United States of America was working with China and Russia and Germany and South Korea and — let’s throw North Korea in there. Yeah, exactly, and so we’re all perpetrating the hoax on everybody. It’s ridiculous, right? So cancer research falls into that, especially because of the reason that some people get into cancer research is because cancer has hurt them personally. There’s no way on earth that these good, moral,

[50:15] hardworking people would keep the cure for cancer from people who need it, okay? All right. There’s also what I’d like to call the Steve Jobs test. Because the idea is, hey, we’re just saving this cure for the elite, right? The rich people — what was it from So I Married an Ax Murderer — the triumvirate, right? Do you remember that?

[50:45] This is one of the best parts. So like — — Mike Myers — I can’t remember the guy’s name. Did you see the movie though? Oh, that’s your homework. Watch So I Married an Ax Murderer. Oh, it’s so good. But his dad — his dad is this old Scottish guy and he has this theory that there’s this group called the triumvirate and they meet and they like settle all the world markets and everything. So anyway. So if you have these elites who are supposedly benefiting from holding back this cure for cancer, who should survive cancer every time?

[51:17] The rich people. Steve Jobs should be alive. Very alive. The guy — that’s my new conspiracy. That’s who’s jacking up my text messages. I call that the ghost of Steve Jobs anytime my autocorrect gets — yeah. So yeah, that guy should be alive. Paul Allen. Billionaire — should be alive, right? Or if you want to look at political power, like Joe Biden’s son, right? Beau Biden? Yeah, like why wouldn’t Uncle Joe pull the strings for his son?

[51:48] Big pharma companies — none of those guys should die of cancer. They die of cancer, right? And so if they’re saving it, what are they saving it for, right? If not the rich people — like, you know, the good seats, courtside seats, right? Then in terms of this Goldman Sachs theory where it’s like, hey, we’re making all this money off of treating cancer, let’s not screw that up — B to the S, all right? If a company were to patent

[52:20] a cure for cancer — a guaranteed silver bullet cure for cancer — that company will be making a hundred trillion dollars, because that cure is going to go all over the world. All over the world. And the big risk — it’s like the prisoners’ dilemma game, right? So if I have a pharmaceutical company and we find the cure for cancer, and you have a pharmaceutical company, I now have to worry about you finding the cure and you not deciding to just play the

[52:52] “hey, let’s sell some more chemo” game — and you go out and you patent it. Now my cure is worthless for the next 20 years, right? Because I have to wait for your patent to expire. And then when it does, the price of that cure drops. There is no economic advantage to not coming out with the single most coveted drug ever. Yeah, look at Ozempic, right? Ozempic — so diabetes, like sixth biggest killer —

[53:22] Ozempic sells like crazy. Americans get gouged on Ozempic. It can cost ten times more in the US than it does anywhere else, and it is printing money, right? And those guys aren’t like, “hmm, this insulin is really doing well.” Yeah, that doesn’t happen. So BS on that, okay? You have so much more money to make if you find the cure for cancer. Okay, I’m almost there. The natural cures — the problem is that they’re not reproducible. They try these

[53:53] cures, and some of these cures are as dangerous as the cancer. Now I understand chemotherapy is like the strategy of let’s almost kill you to kill the cancer. And chemo does not work for all cancers, right? But the difference between chemotherapy and some of these natural cures out there is there was a ton of science behind chemotherapy. It’s reproducible. There are protocols out there. There are those 714,000 people that

[54:24] are working to make it work, and it doesn’t work for everything. It doesn’t always work great, and it’s excruciating to go through, and it’s almost as excruciating to watch a loved one go through it. But with these other things — like, you could do them and get better, but how do you know that it was the thing that you took? You don’t, because you don’t have the science. And there’s science out there being done — like, nobody’s not interested in finding a cure for cancer. And I think that’s it. I think that the —

[54:54] well, we got to leave it up to the people. But I think it would probably be one of the most heartbreaking and evil things that I can imagine — some person or organization had the cure for cancer and they didn’t share it. If I found the cure for cancer — I said it’s a hundred trillion dollar drug — I had it, I would Jonas Salk that. Do you know what I mean by that? Jonas Salk is the scientist who

[55:25] discovered the polio vaccine. He gave it away. Yeah. That’s just so beautiful. Like, think about that — you have a world where children don’t have to be afraid of getting polio and losing their life, right? And so most people will never meet anybody with polio. I’ve treated some patients with post-polio, but my associate who just started working for me — she probably will never — yeah. And one amazing thing, because he

[55:55] didn’t — he didn’t want to make — I think he made a dollar off of it. And man, like, that would be awesome. Find a cure for cancer, just give that away. Give it away. That’s generational wealth. They’re bad people. I don’t know. Hey, listen — Salk, we love you. We love you. So, all right, Kathy, I’m feeling like this is becoming a very long episode.

Kathy: Yeah.

Jason: Holy smokes, we’re up over an hour. We got to land this plane. I think it’s a great time to play a

[56:26] game, okay? And I really liked how last week we did you versus Raul. Do you want another shot at the title? All right, Raul, are you up for this? You know, he had the strategic advantage last week because I answered the questions first and I should have taken the backseat. Okay. Here’s what we’re going to do. Yeah, okay, so here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to do

[56:56] On the count of three you’re going to put up your finger for the answer on this one, okay? And what we have is we’re going to play a game called Conspiracy Court. You be the judge. Is this a real, life-proven conspiracy theory? So there are fake ones out there, right? Some of these might be actual conspiracy theories that have not been proven, but there’s going to be one answer that was a conspiracy theory and has actually been proven. Okay? Okay, so it was a conspiracy

[57:26] theory and now proven, okay? So here we go. You’re going to answer one, two, or three, and I’m going to count down — count of three — and you’ll put up your answer. For the people not watching, I will announce who got the points, all right? So we’re going to do this in three rounds because we don’t want the possibility of a tie. All right, government edition, round one. Answer number one: the US government secretly ran mind control experiments on civilians using psychoactive drugs

[57:57] without consent. Okay, that’s number one. Number two: the moon landing was staged on a film set to beat the Soviets. And number three: chemtrails are used to alter human behavior and control population health. Okay? So which one is true? Which one is true? Okay, on the count of three you put up a one, a two, or three. Ready? One, two, three. All right, they both scored. That is number one. The US government secretly ran mind control experiments.

[58:29] It was real, documented later, it was admitted. The people were dosed without consent. Files do exist and congressional hearings happened. So yeah, that was a real thing. Dun dun dun. Okay, let’s see. Let’s go to this one. Medical and health edition. Okay, number one: doctors suppress natural cancer cures to protect pharmaceutical profits. Hmm, that sounds familiar. Number two: the US government intentionally infected

[59:00] people with syphilis and withheld treatment to observe disease progression. Or number three: 5G cellular networks cause COVID-19 by weakening the immune system. Okay? Here we go. On three. One, two, three. Ah, it’s a tie again. Yes, number two is true. Yes, that’s right. That was the Tuskegee experiment, and it was gross. So,

[59:31] all right, let’s see. Okay. What’s going to be a hard one? Oh, here we go. Let’s go science and space edition. Yes. All right, this is going to be our final one. Hopefully it doesn’t end like soccer in the — time. All right, number one: the government is hiding proof of alien contact at Area 51. Do I need to read the rest of them? Number two: the US government intentionally exposed soldiers to radiation during nuclear weapons testing without informed consent. Or number

[60:02] three: climate change data is fabricated by scientists to secure grant funding. Which of these has been proven? Proven. Which of these has been proven, okay? Ready? One, two, three. Oh, Raul chose number one and Kathy chose number three. And we are playing soccer because the correct answer is number two. I guess that means I win. Are you serious? What was number two? Yes.

[60:33] That was: the US government intentionally exposed soldiers to radiation during nuclear weapons testing without informed consent. So. But — yep. Okay. Well, oh, Kathy, this feels like a marathon, and we talked about that in the last episode. So if that was one of your New Year’s resolutions, check it off the list. We did the marathon. Yeah, I think everybody’s probably asleep by now. Really quickly, let me just go over a couple of things about

[61:04] how to tell if a conspiracy theory is likely false, okay? Number one: the scale test. So I talked about that Grimes equation — how many people have to shut their mouths in order for it to stay a secret? Yeah. Okay? So when you think about it, when you read something, if a lot of people would have to be in on it to make it work — right. Okay. The next thing is the incentive question: who stands to gain by you

[61:34] perpetrating this conspiracy? The third thing is the mechanism test. So does it violate the laws of biology and physics — such as the methyl mercury and ethyl mercury, right? The evidence test: you have to balance anecdotes — like that lone wolf voice in the wilderness — versus the huge body of data and science that exists, okay? And then there is a difficult one, which

[62:04] is called the update test. And this is for everybody to kind of run with themselves. So pick a conspiracy that you believe in. Oh, what? Notre Dame should have been in the college football playoff? Okay. All right, so the update test. Miami, BYU — yes. Oh, no. Oh, oh yeah. Oh yeah, they paid their way in, yeah. They paid their way in and kept Notre Dame out. Okay, so if that’s your conspiracy, what information would it take for you to change your mind about that?

[62:35] Mhm. Proof, I suppose, that those payments don’t exist, but the money is there. Okay, see, so — follow the money. That is something that’s called being unfalsifiable. So proof that something doesn’t exist is very difficult to have, right? So I could show you that it doesn’t exist and you would just tell me it’s hidden somewhere. It is. So then whenever we’re looking at conspiracy theories, we have to think about: what would be the piece of information that you could put in front

[63:06] of me that would change my mind about all of this? And if you can’t think of something, then you have to be careful — what you’re doing is you’re putting yourself on the hamster wheel. Or it’s like forever you could just roll this over and over and over because nobody can ever prove you false, right? And so yeah. So that’s how to protect yourself from conspiracy theories. Take-homes. Yes, the take-home is don’t fall for them. Yeah.

[63:38] You just kind of — I think you hit it on the head there. That was the one. That was the one. Mhm. Lone wolf versus huge body of evidence. Yeah. Choose your warrior. Choose your warrior, yeah. And — to be with? And I think the take-home for me is that it has to be — it’s a number of these factors, right? It’s kind of like the court of law — you’re piling on evidence, and a lot of times you could waste a lot of energy just chasing things that aren’t real,

[64:09] probably aren’t real, might not be real, but it’s not even in your power to discover whether it is or not, so. I believe in: take care of yourself, take care of your neighbor, and everything else will take care of itself. So. One more thing? One more thing. Yeah. There’s no “I” in PTCH.