A Nashville hotel employee is arrested on charges of assaulting a guest's toes. A Canadian man attempts to start a pop-up selling all manner of illegal drugs. In an historic first for the United Kingdom, scientists create a child with DNA from not two, but THREE separate parents.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noela.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Alexis codenamed Doc Holliday Jackson. Most importantly, you
are here and that makes this the stuff they don't
want you to know. It's the top of the week,
so before we lead into episodes, we like to catch
up with each other and most importantly you, fellow conspiracy realist,
(00:50):
about news that didn't quite get the attention it deserves,
or news that was sort of below the fold, to
use the old school journalists speak. Going to learn about
a small business owner in Canada who has a little
bit of legal trouble and perhaps a larger scheme. We're
going to learn about some groundbreaking Gadaga level stuff, which
(01:13):
we always told you was on the way sooner than
you think. And before we do any of that, we're
going to travel to my hometown of Nashville, Tennessee, to
a hotel that I guess, not to shame anybody, but
I don't think any of us want to visit there.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Ah, well, Nashville, I'm interested in the hotel. Oh, the hotel.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
Okay, I'm literally going to Nashville tomorrow. So what am
I welc here?
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Well, No, We've got good news for you and a
little bit of a story that rips right from season
four of Thirteen Days of Halloween, which is coming back
this October, by the way, so get your ears prepared
for that. We're going to travel today to one twenty
one fourth Avenue South in Nashville, Tennessee. It's the perfect
place you, guys, to build and operate a large four
(02:03):
star hotel, a very specific hotel, the Hilton Nashville Downtown.
Across the street to the north, you're going to find
Robert's Western World. I love it.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
It's the best place in the whole wide world. It's
my favorite honkue tnk on the strip.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
I know you were going to say that, Noel, and
it is one of the greatest places. But it's right
across the street from this location. To the east, you'll
find the Johnny Cash Museum. To the south, the Country
Music Hall of Fame, and museum and to the west,
and I think this is really messed up and strange
and funny for this episode the Bridgestone Arena, home of
(02:38):
the NHL's Nashville Predators. You'll see why that is funny
to me in just a moment. So let's imagine that
all of us, you especially, have an extra two hundred
and fifty to three hundred and fifty dollars to spend
nightly at a four star hotel while you're visiting Nashville, Tennessee.
And for that price, my goodness, you'd expect to feel
(02:59):
quite at home. Even when you head back to your
room at night, you close that door, those hotel doors
that lock up so nicely, and get a little shut eye. Well,
today we're going to travel back to the early hours
of Thursday, March thirtieth, around five am Central time, and
we're gonna put you in a little scenario here. So
imagine you're in this nice, lovely hotel. Imagine that all
(03:23):
of a sudden, out of nowhere, you're awakened in your bed.
It's dark at first, you're not sure what's going on,
but there's a strange feeling. Can't tell what it is
quite yet, your foot.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Feel it in my fingers. Oh wait, it's in my toes.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Yees to set you see, your foot feels wet. You
hear movement at the end of your bed and you freeze,
you know that feeling like, oh crap, what is going on?
Then you realize it someone else is in your room
and they're actively sucking on your toes.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
Oh god, Nashville toe sucker.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
So you kick your legs violently, throw off the covers,
you spring out of bed, hit the nearest light switch,
and you do realize in that moment there is definitely
a man in your room and he was sucking your toes.
But then you realize that you recognize this dude. He
was in your room yesterday helping to fix your TV
in there. It's David, the hotel's night manager. WHOA. I know,
(04:27):
this sounds like a nightmare scenario, and it is. It
really is. This is what allegedly happened to a man
named Peter Brennan on that day, March thirtieth. Guys, So anyway,
anything like this ever happened to y'all.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
No, but yeah, it sounds like it's like the lyric
of that Tenacious D song where it's like, then you
feel something down by your feet, it's me.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
It's kg. I'm sucking up on your.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Toes, you know.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Oh yeah, it's only.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
That's sort of my guess.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
Consensual maybe, but this is sexual assault. What you're just
this is horrific, bad, bad times, not the fodder for
comedy songs at all.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
To answer your question, Matt, yeah, I have been in
situations where I was staying in a hostel, a hotel,
or private domicile. Uh, and someone did enter with the
idea that they I didn't. Thankfully there was not physical
contact of an assumably sexual nature. But yeah, you have
(05:27):
to be careful. You know. It's not uncommon that someone
might try to enter a place when you're in a
vulnerable position, usually for a robbery or something like that.
But I would ten ten prefer to fend off an
attempted robbery then wake up with a very vulnerable part
(05:50):
of my body in a stranger's mouth.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Yeah. Yeah, the toes nobody no, very vulnerable. Not cool.
So let's tell you, at least according to the Metropolitan
Nashshville Police Department, what happened. They said that according to
David Neil, the night manager there, he created a card
the way you would create a card for any guest
at a hotel, you know, you just put it through
the little machine there it gets coded for a specific door.
(06:16):
He made one of those, then entered the guest room
around five am, and according to him, it's because he
smelled fire and he needed to go and check the
room and the potential victim of a fire. Okay. He however,
did not report the issue to security, and there were
(06:37):
no other reports from anyone in the hotel about the
smell of smoke. When David Neil was asked where the
key was that he used to enter Peter's room, he
said that he had thrown it away and it was
not recovered by anyone, which is.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Also not standard operating procedure.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
No, none of that really is. Nope. So anyway, this
guy ended up being hauled away to jail and his
bail was set at twenty seven thousand dollars. You can
find a picture of Neil Ben You shared with us
a picture of Neil that you found on Twitter.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Yeah, a picture of the accused made the rounds on
social media and took the story viral. But I think Matt,
you have a lot of details that were missing from
the discourse on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Well, sure, we can go to reporting from WSMV, a
local NBC affiliate out there in Nashville, in Wilson County
where this occurred, and they have information on this person,
David Neil, apparently not that long ago. In actually, I
guess it is a while ago. Nineteen ninety seven, David
(07:49):
Neil was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter for killing his roommate,
and you can and through this reporting, you know, you
can read about it. He killed his roommate allegedly after
some kind of altercation, a long night of fighting basically
that turned into a dangerous situation, and according to David Neil,
(08:10):
he was forced to go into his bedroom, take out
a gun and shoot his roommate multiple times, killing him.
And you can find through casetext dot com State versus Neil,
and you can find this. It was posted January eighteenth,
two thousand, or at least that's when this was created,
(08:31):
and you can read the I guess, the statement from
David Neil about what had happened, the entire thing there,
which just feels a little strange. It makes me feel
like it's even more suspect now knowing these actions that
he took after he got out of prison and you know,
got a job as a night manager there at that
(08:52):
very nice Hilton hotel. It's just very strange to me.
I guess that you could deal with something like that, right,
killing someone in your home who happens to be your
roommate with a gun, get charged with voluntary manslaughter after
you admit to killing this person, go to prison for
a while, get out, and then I guess be in
(09:13):
charge of a large hotel like that. That's a bit
strange to me, but I don't know. It was also
strange to Peter, the man whose toes got sucked, because
now he is suing. He is suing I believe the
Hilton itself for hiring this person as a night manager.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yeah. I saw somewhere that his legal representatives are saying
he suffered from quote severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment,
past and future medical expenses, plus a loss of earning capacity,
which I mean it sounds maybe hyperbolic to some people,
(09:53):
but consider all the health risk involved, you know, consider
consider whether or not this guy is going to be
able to sleep comfortably in any hotel for a while.
You know what I mean, and it makes sense that
he would. I mean, again, we're not lawyers, but it
makes sense that he would take legal action against Hilton
(10:15):
as well, because they're the ones who hired him and
put him in that position of responsibility.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Yeah, According to that same WSMV reporting, I'm going to
read from an article titled Nashville hotel employee he's snuck
into hotel's room previously convicted of manslaughter. Lawyers say they've
got information from Peter Brennan's lawyers. I'm going to read
verbatim a bit from this. Brennan's lawyers were told that
the hotel employee was fired from the hotel because he
(10:43):
refused to give a statement regarding this alleged occurrence of
assault and breaking into somebody's room. They are currently, at
least when this was written on the fourth of May
this year, they were waiting on surveillance footage from the
hotel to confirm the whereabouts of Brennan and his movements
that evening. And just add a little bit more, here's
(11:05):
a quote from Brennan quote. I just feel like Hilton
has not been helpful or forthcoming whatsoever. And I don't
know why, but it's very disconcerting. And he went on
to say that the hotels management alleged this lack of
cooperation that Peter Brennan is alleging makes him concerned for
all future guests of the establishment.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
I mean that all sounds spot on to me. Those
are very reasonable things. Additionally, we know one of the articles, well,
it's gone out through a couple of different articles. I
know CBS News did hear back from a representative of
the Hilton, right, and they're already cauterizing the wound. They
(11:48):
said that quote, Hilton Nashville Downtown is independently owned and
operated by a third party. No Hilton entity employee staff
at this property. AKA, this is not our burden.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
So weird, so weird the way that works. Sometimes you
got to just borrow that name, slap it on a hotel.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Right. One day off air, I'll tell you guys about
how I ended up in a place that was definitely
not a days In but called itself days In and
had apparently gotten in so much trouble. They had a
little placard that said they were legally required to notify
me they were not affiliated with days In. They were
(12:32):
like a days In, but not the days in.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
You get it.
Speaker 4 (12:35):
Well, yeah, so is that pretty standard? Like, you know,
when there's a franchise of any large corporation, like they
are indemnified, Like it's entirely the burden is on the
franchise holder and the actual corporation is no longer in
any way, you know, in the line of fire.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Legally speaking, I guess it would be the people who
actually operate the hotel, you know, And in this case,
this is one of the higher level people at the
hotel at that time.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Right, someone in the position to clone a key to
give refunds, you know, to comp rooms, which I guess
many you know, this makes me think, Matt, it might
be interesting for us to do an episode on stuff
hotels don't want you to know.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Hey, that's a good episode. Let's do that for sure. Definitely,
all right, well, there's not much else to add here, guys,
just horrifying in my mind. At least nobody got hurt
except psychologically mentally physically PTSD. Oh no, some Peter got
hurt for sure. And now I'm never going to fall
(13:47):
asleep in hotel room unless it's like triple locked. Okay,
we're gonna hear a word from our sponsor. Will be
right back with more strange news.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
And we're back with another piece of strange news. And
this is one that on the surface might just seem
like a real kooki fella trying to skirt the law
and do something to make some headlines. Okay, So in Vancouver, Canada,
we've reported on this in the past. They have some
(14:23):
pretty progressive drug laws. You may have seen it reported
as Vancouver, Canada. British Columbia legalizes all hard drugs, and
well that's not entirely the case. They have decriminalized possession
of up to two point five grams of opioids, crack cocaine,
(14:46):
powder cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. Heroin is not included on
the list that I have here in front of me,
but I do believe that that, yeah, opioids, so that
would be include in opioids. This is a decriminalization policy
that kicked in in January over there in British Columbia.
(15:09):
What was not part of this was the sale and
distribution of said narcotics. But there is a man in
Vancouver who is trying to not necessarily change well yeah,
big picture changed that. Jerry Martin, a fifty one year
old man, recently opened a shop called the Drugs Store,
(15:35):
operating out of a mobile like kind of you know,
food truck type situation, and the Drugs Store offered or
the idea was that you could buy up to two
point five grams of all of the aforementioned substances.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
The key here being.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
That they were all all of the stuff that that
Jerry was pedaling there had been tested for purity that
he was you know, giving a guarantee of purity and
more and most importantly, lack of adulterance. And when we're
talking about adulterance, we're not only talking about things that
are used to increase the weight of a product while
(16:17):
decreasing the actual you know, narcotics contained therein. But we're
talking about horrible things, things like fentanyl, things that are
killing people, specifically in British Columbia. And you know, especially
since this decriminalization stuff kicked in a lot of overdose deaths,
because just because the drugs are decriminalized, that does not
(16:41):
mean that people are getting them from more reputable, for
lack of a better word, sources. They're still getting them
from the same networks of black market drug dealers who
are getting them from who knows where and whose purity
levels and adulterant levels are completely to There actually is
(17:03):
a place that has been open in British Columbia for
some time where you can test your drugs. It is
literally called I think it's just literally called test your
drugs here or something to that. Yeah, get your drugs
tested is the name. It is a free I guess,
not really a clinic, but it is a lab. It's
(17:23):
a very small kind of sore front next to what
appears to be a coffee shop on a main drag
there in Vancouver, where you can take your drugs that
you've purchased on the street and get them tested for free.
And a guy named Dana Larson, who is a cannabis
and drug policy reform activist, started this place and the
idea being that you know, it would reduce overdose deaths
(17:47):
and frankly just death from people that are being poisoned
by stuff that's in their drugs because a lot of
what's considered overdose deaths it's kind of semantic, I guess,
but you know, they're not necessarily overdosing on the drug
they think they're buying. They're overdosing on something that's put
into the drug, or they're just outright being poisoned. So
back to Martin, he I actually heard an interview with
(18:09):
him with the CBC, the Canadian broadcasting company, where he
was asked by a journalist why was he doing this, Why,
you know, put himself in the line of fire, because,
as we said, not legal to sell this stuff out
out of a storefront. And when asked why he was
doing this, Martin said, well, he had lost two brothers
(18:31):
to drug related activities, one of whom died because of
violence associated with drug deals a drug deal, and one
who overdosed recently or died recently.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Due to an accidental overdose.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
He blames this on the fact that, you know, despite
drugs being decriminalized, folks can't really depend on what they're getting,
and they are if they're not taking it upon themselves
or if they're not educated properly to you know, get
the drugs tested or to you know, make sure they're
being incredibly safe in terms of their use.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
I mean, no drug use is.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
Safe, but we know that, you know, there are things
that you can keep on hand, like the drug can
revive you, nar can exactly that can revive someone in
the event of an accidental overdose. And so when you're
talking to CBC, he cites these reasons that he is
doing this, that he was just recently as the time
(19:29):
this recording, I think it was just a couple of
days ago he was arrested, not I think just a
couple of days after his shop opened for a business
And when he spoke to the CBC, he essentially implied
that this was part of the plan that by getting arrested,
by putting himself out there, he could become sort of
(19:53):
the beginning of a new conversation. Okay, so obviously the
drug policies there in British Columbia are incredibly liberal, let's
just say, or progressive. But he's saying that that policy
doesn't really go far enough, Like it's one thing to
not uh, you know, to not persecute drug users and
get them into the prison system, but it's another thing
(20:15):
to actually employ policies that help save their lives. And
he hopes and uh, and the the activists that I
mentioned earlier who had to test your drugs facility, they
believe that this is this is accurate, This could potentially
open that conversation up and with given the government's position
already possibly lead to some further, uh, further examination of
(20:39):
you know, all of this and and guys, I want
to hear y'all's.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Take on this.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
But it reminds me of things that you hear about,
like in places where certain drugs are a real problem,
where there will be things like needle exchanges where you know,
rather than using sharing needles potentially getting blood borne illnesses,
you know, and diseases that can kill you, you can
actually exchange your dirty needles for clean ones. And there
(21:03):
are some on certain sides of the debate that think
that's too much, that's like, we shouldn't be helping quote
unquote these people, you know who, I would argue, you
have a legitimate condition. You know, drug addiction is something
that it can be treated and should be treated as
a disease in and of itself. So, I don't know,
(21:24):
this is interesting stuff to me, and I think in
a lot of ways, very brave move for this fellow
to put himself out there like that in the in
the name of trying to move the you know, policy forward.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Yeah, it is really interesting to me. The statements put
up by the government there in British Columbia about decriminalization
is not the same as legalizing, right, because you're you're
talking about the possession of drugs when you're talking about
decriminalization versus the trafficking of drugs, which is why it's
(21:56):
still Yeah, that's why it's still legal. When it comes
to harm reduction and things. Remember when we had a
host of psychoactive on and he was talking a lot
about some of the things that can be done to
reduce harm.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
Right, I'm really glad to use the term harm reduction
as well.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Yeah, well, yeah, I mean that's what he preaches, right.
Ethan Nadleman has spent decades looking at that very thing,
harm reduction, And you know, there are a lot of
very intelligent people out there trying to figure out how
to actually enact this these kinds of practices in cities
across the world. How do you actually effectively do that
(22:35):
allow people to safely take drugs but also attempt to
help people get out of addictive behaviors and get off
of addictive substances. It's it's a it's not an easy thing.
That's why we haven't solved it yet, right, But I
do like this person's I don't know what you call it,
gusto moxie, Yeah, whatever it is.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Well, yeah, I'm with you on that. That because when
I was originally reading about this story, one of my questions,
and this occurs to some of our more cynical audience
members as well, is was this his intention going in right?
Or was this? I mean, I feel like it must
(23:17):
have been, because you would know obviously that this would
eventually lead to legal problems. Hopefully will spark a larger conversation,
because one thing that I find somewhat problematic about the
personal responsibility argument that is foisted so often, or hoisted rather,
(23:42):
is the idea that someone in the grips of addiction
right needing a substance will stop long enough, will delay
the ingestion long enough to say, hey, let me go
across town to get a safety check, or hey let
me vet this provider of this thing. So if we're
(24:05):
not treating if we're treating addiction as an illness, which
it is, rather than a crime, then the most efficient
and the most efficacious way to address that is to
make it easier to be safe. And unfortunately it doesn't
get the votes. I would imagine what we're looking at
(24:25):
is the quarreling of multiple addictions. The politicians making these
laws are addicted to power. They're addicted to easy votes
just as much as someone may be addicted to a drug,
and so of course they're not going to be incentivized
in many cases to actually help the people. Now, would
that change if there was a large voting block of
(24:49):
people who thought of addiction this way, or if there
was a large voting block of people who were addicted
in some substance or in recovery, I would say yes.
But to your question, at your excellent question, why isn't
this getting fixed? I think it's because the system as
it exists now is incentivized to continue the punitive approach
(25:14):
rather than the rehabilitative approach.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
Yeah, I mean, certainly that's the case in the United States.
I one hundred percent agree, and I think probably to
a lesser degree the case in Canada as well. The
thing that's interesting here too is Martin's lawyer, Paul Lewin,
said that this was his intent from the start, and
that he has a whole constitutional argument ready to go
(25:38):
if and now when he gets criminally jo he hasn't
been criminally charged yet, He just has he's been he's
been detained, you know, and his business has been shut down,
which of course was not operating with a certainly not
operating with with a legal business license. But this is
what his lawyer, Paul Lewin, had to say. If mister
Martin is charged with selling controlled substances, it is his
(26:00):
intention to challenge the constitutionality of those laws. And the
laws we're talking about are section seven of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, which is what decriminalized possession of narcotics.
He goes on, he would allege that laws that prevent
a safe supply and result in death by poisoning contravene
(26:22):
Section seven of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
must be struck down because and this is from reporting
in Vice. That's reporting on quite a few other sources,
including statements from Martin, and his lawyer has this to say.
Section seven of the Charter states that all Canadians have
quote the right to life, liberty and security of the person,
(26:44):
and the right not to be deprived thereof except in
accordance with principles of fundamental justice. Now forgive me this
Section seven is obviously just more of a constitutional thing.
This is not specifically, this is not sipeificly language from
the Act that legalized, or rather decriminalized possession of certain
controlled substances. So he is arguing that by decriminalizing the
(27:07):
controlled substances, they are essentially not They're talking about two
sides of their mouths. They're saying, yeah, it's okay it
possessed this, but we're also not going to do anything
to make sure that you are able, you know, given
the new law, to be guaranteed that life, liberty, and
security of the person. Yeah, and it says not to
(27:28):
be deprived there of accept in accordance with the principles
of fundamental justice. So interesting. I think it's an interesting,
an interesting maneuver.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
And I figured it out, guys, I figured out the problem.
I know how to fix it. Here we go. You're ready.
We're heading towards some form of universal income because none
of us are going to have jobs anymore, because the
machines are going to run everything. Right, this is inevitable.
We all know this.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Eventually. I want to positive not to interrupt with interject
mat because I think, I think I my spider sense
tells me where you're going.
Speaker 4 (28:03):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
The post work economy will eventually exist, but it's going
to be a post worker economy first, and ubi the
current models of it, they're not ready.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Yeah, but anyway, none of this is ready, None of
this is even real. I'm joking to a large extent,
just putting this out there. What if there were incentives
to not do drugs in uh, you get more money
if when you get drug tested or whatever, you have
no cocaine in your system, you have no heroin or
opioids in your system, you have no marijuana system, and
(28:40):
you get it's a tiered system where you get more
and more money on that universal income thing, the fewer
and fewer vices that you have. Whoa dude, we can
do this.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
What about the lower your likelihood of certain genetic diseases
that's the into.
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Yeah, that's a good that is a good point. Yeah,
you're the right place there. You're thinking, No, there's something
to that. I would argue if but but again then
that starts to other people who are, you know, perhaps
more predisposed to have these kinds of uh, you know,
proclivities towards substance abuse. So I know we're not try
(29:18):
I'm not not I know you're not I'm just saying
like it is a slippery slope. But if if you're
if you're if you're giving someone a benefit because they're
not afflicted with something that you know, you could argue
is either genetic or learned, then it's it just doesn't
really have looked like an even playing field. But I
do think there's something to that in a way as well,
and I think you're asking the right questions in terms of,
(29:39):
you know, incentivizing and how do you I think that
the most important part about that, the very least is
education and giving people the resources they need if they
really want to get clean, you know, to help them
do that, whether that be through counseling or mean obviously,
we know things like rehab are prohibitively expensive and it's
just nearly out of reach for a lot of people,
(30:00):
and then you hear about people of means who do
it like a bunch of times and still can't kick
the habit.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
I just want to take a second to note shadow
Berneze here. My take, my unsolicited take, is that the
way to address these things is through not just financial pressure,
which you're onto something there, Matt, even as a thought experiment,
it's social dynamic pressure. The reason cigarettes worked is because
(30:29):
they were made to look cool, So you just make
something else look cool. Bernez was right. Propaganda and crystallizing
public opinion are free to read online right now.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
I yield my time. And also, by the way, Ben,
your takes are always solicited. That is the whole nature
of the show, and I think that is a very
very good one. And the last thing I'll add though,
is when it comes to the responsibility of the government,
you know too at citizens, whether it be in Canada
or the United States, is you know, in Canada and elsewhere,
(31:00):
you know, we're hearing about things like heroin being tainted
with fentanyls. We know it takes a very very small
amount to be fatal, but not only is the heroin
being tainted with fentanyl, the fentanyls being tainted with benzo diazepines,
which are things like xanax, and you know, at a
van maybe I think I forgive it. There's certain ones
(31:22):
that are anti anxiety medications and they they're very they're
not opioids, they are benzodiazepin. They're more like tranquilizers kind of,
and it's created a whole new drug that's being referred
to as benzo dope, And so when people are taking
heroin that's laced with fentanyl, that's laced with benzodiazepins, they're
(31:44):
much more likely to black out, to open themselves up
to being sexually assaulted or robbed or you know, injured
in ways that would be much worse than if they
were just high on the rug they thought they were getting. So,
you know, I just think this is the right direction
given all of this, all of these different conditions that
(32:08):
are at play, you know, all all around the world.
So I yield my time as well. So let's take
a quick break and we'll hear a word from our sponsor.
Then'll be back with another piece of strange news.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
And we have returned, Fellow conspiracy realists. This one threw
me for a bit of a loop, and it's kind
of why I was foreshadowing Gatika just a little bit. Here.
We are living in an exciting time. Good science fiction,
as we always say, is only fiction for a certain
interval before it becomes factual. Right now, as we're recording,
(32:51):
we want to wish a very happy, very belated birthday
to the first child in the United Kingdom born with
three parents Wow, yep, genetically a free Yeah, he's got
the mom, he's got the dad, a five month old
biological male and has another mom. And this might sound
(33:16):
like the kid is a kmara, you know, in the
human species. Kimara describes where a single individual might have
different DNA in different parts of their body. It's winning
a very weird lottery. It's quite rare, but those people
can live full lives. Here's what happened. This kid might
(33:37):
have had was under kind of a dark cloud as
they were developing in their mother's womb. Doctors realize the
kid might suffer from a mitochondrial disease. This can spell
doom for children. Doctors took an unprecedented step and said, hey,
(33:58):
what if we can do something to remove that bad
mitochondrial DNA and slot in something else. This DNA is
not evenly split. It's not a you know, like thirty
three point three percent each parent kind of thing. Instead,
(34:19):
the majority of the DNA comes from the two parents
and abou zero point one percent comes from a third person,
a donor, a woman. And the idea is that mitochondrial
DNA can be replaced via this donor using IVF in
vitro fertilization, and you can read some great articles on
(34:43):
this in the BBC. The news just broke as we're
recording today, May tenth, twenty twenty three. Shout out to
James Gallagher and shout out to all the other journalists
who have been reporting this. First off, first question, would
you all consider doing this, not just not just us
on the show today, but us listening along at home.
(35:05):
Would you all consider inviting a third person to donate
DNA to your child if it prevented a disease?
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Yeah? I think this is an amazing breakthrough, Absolutely great. Same.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Yeah, I'm glad, glad it's not controversial.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Well, because it's it's going to be, like you said, Ben,
the tiniest amount of that person is going to be
in your child. So I think that would be the
biggest thing, you know, for me personally, Like having a
having a child where it's like either the mother's egg
or the father's sperm is one of them's not viable
(35:44):
and then you still want to have a baby. That's
tougher for me just personally, But in this case, it's
a no brainer. If you can, if you could prevent
like diseases that you know are potentially present, right, And.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
It's not alter important point there, Matt. It's not all
during the appearance of the child of the issue you
would call it if it's nobility. But the question still
brings up a lot of weird stuff and one of
the things that we haven't talked about at length on
the show in over the years. It's unbelievable. It's just
(36:21):
how weird mitochondria is. Mitochondria, back in the day was
a bacteria. So mitochondria is a stranger in a strange
land to quote Highland. Once upon a time it was
completely separate from the human body. And of course if
you grow up in the West, the number one thing
you know about mitochondria is it's quote, the powerhouse of
(36:43):
the cell. Right. Did you guys hear that through a
biology Yeah?
Speaker 4 (36:48):
Well yeah, I mean I'm obviously not a geneticist or
a biologist of any stripe, but it always consistently blows
my mind to think about these little bugs inside of.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
Us that are so dang smart. There are thousands of
them per cell. Hey, oh yeah, you're right, Ben, They're
like tiny little batteries. They're just hanging out making sure
your cells got what they need. So yeah.
Speaker 3 (37:10):
So shout out to Thomas Cavalier Smith, who in two
thousand and six wrote a paper with the title you ready,
origin of mitochondria by intercellular enslavement of a photosynthetic purple bacteria.
So yeah, yeah, doctor CS is not pulling punches here.
(37:32):
First line of the abstract is mitochondria originated by permanent
enslavement of purple non sulfur bacteria. I don't think that's
the thing a lot of people want to consider, you know,
when you think about your own body. But we've already
talked about how the body is a universe or a
city of its own, and their human cells are vastly
(37:53):
outnumbered by all the bacterial cells. I am one hundred
percent on board with this treatment, and I'm glad that
it's like all of us on the show here are
as well. Because there's a plot twist. This is the
first child born in the UK with three parents. The
actual first child born by this technique dates back to
(38:17):
twenty sixteen, when a Jordanian family had the same treatment
in the United States, also to save their child. So
it's still cost prohibitive, but it's real. The science fiction
of designer babies is no longer science fiction, and it
got me thinking of a world in which you can
(38:39):
kind of choose how many parents or what traits you
want to have for a kid. There's a great documentary
about this on Netflix, a series, I should say, episode
four of Unnatural Selection for anyone who wants to learn more.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
It has this scene.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
I think it starts with this scene where there's a
doctor in Ukraine who was doing the IVF procedure to
help stave off mitochondrial disease from this kid and replace
that tiny bit of mitochondrial DNA, and it opens with
him saying something like, Okay, now this is my favorite part.
I'm using the laser. Obviously this is everybody's favorite part,
(39:21):
and props to the makers of that show. But it's
a great place to learn about this. And the way
they like to phrase it is not necessarily three parents,
that's more news headline. They like to phrase it as
babies with donated mitochondria. And there are some researchers, leading
(39:41):
edge experts who are talking about this stuff, and in
their conversations, both in the studies they published and in
their interviews that are more for the general public, they've
said things like, if we were talking about this one
hundred years from now, you would find offensive for me
(40:02):
to say we shouldn't have designer children or designer babies.
And I just keep going back to it.
Speaker 4 (40:09):
It's it's something to subject them to the cruelty of
nature if we're going to do something to prevent it.
Speaker 3 (40:16):
Right, Look, how hey, how about this. This is a
very base comparison, But look how popular character customization is
in your favorite video games. People already pay extra to
alter the appearance of the things they create, and I
don't see how human species would examples of the human
(40:38):
species would be any different. You know, there's a world
in which it becomes kind of like the options when
you buy a car. Certain things start as options and
then they become factory standard, like seat belts. You know what,
if I mean obviously anybody, most people, I would say,
who are going to have child? If given the opportunity
(41:03):
to genetically alter that child in a way that maybe
reduces likelihood of cancers, reduces likelihood of dementia, or addresses
some kind of genetic condition. If they're given that ability,
most people will say yes, unless they're spiritually or ideologically
opposed to the concept in general. But at this point,
(41:24):
we have to ask, hopefully without sounding like a broken record,
do you guys think this is part of an inevitable
trend or do you think it'll stay here just mitochondrial donation.
Speaker 4 (41:37):
I think it's going to go as far as it's
possible for it to go. You know, I don't think
progress is ever going to be intentionally stimy, and if
someone's going to be out there working under the radar
figuring out how to push it further. Have you all
heard of this new Amazon series Dead Ringers. It's based
(41:57):
on the David Cronenberg film from I think the late
eighties early nineties starring Jeremy Irons as like twin gynecologists,
and it's, you know, it's a dark, twisted kind of
horror sci fi thing about you know, genetic manipulation and
about implanting infertile women with children and all of the
(42:19):
god complex that can go into that. So it's sort
of like a really nihilistic gatica in some ways. But
the series I only see the first two episodes, and
it tackles this stuff head on the dark side of it,
but also the like positive side of it, and like,
you know, what the the I guess benevolent version of
what this is. But inevitably you're going to have these
(42:40):
bad actors who just want to figure out how to
make a bunch of money on it and have it
be only for the super elite.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
So I'm going forward seeing where the series goes. But
it made me think of that immediately.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
Yeah, it's creating a new cast system potentially right, such
that there is the potential for a world in which
the top couple percent inch points of humanity are faster, smarter, stronger,
longer lived, less prone to disease, to the point where
(43:10):
you could make an argument that speciation begins. Speciation being
when an origin species starts to diverge due to environmental
pressures into two separate kind of organisms. And this goes
pretty far. I mean, it's part of evolution, but it
gets to the point where those two formerly related things
(43:32):
can no longer even interbreed. Also, we should say the
fancy name for this, if you want to put a
tie on it, is pro nuclear transfer. And it's controversial
because wrapped up in the process you have to destroy
some embryos, so you have to break a few eggs
to make it up quite literally. Just so yeah, so
(43:54):
people are against it for that reason. If you want to,
if you want to read some of the work of
the experts, you're going to look at people like Professor
Doug Turnbull, who heads the center in Newcastle that pioneered
a lot of this research. And you guys know, I've
been going through a kick of obscure research from days
(44:20):
of your the stuff that just got kind of proven
in concept and then never really followed through due to
one concern or another. I'm thinking specifically about brain surgery
on the octopus. Still, someone do it. Someone smarter than
us do it. We need a fifty eight year old octopus.
I think they could make it to sixty nine percent.
(44:41):
I mean, you know, one one would like to believe.
Speaker 4 (44:43):
No.
Speaker 3 (44:43):
I wonder what they would say. I wonder what they
would say, but this right, they would speak in chrematoform.
Speaker 2 (44:51):
Definitely would Yeah.
Speaker 3 (44:52):
But the point that you're making about the money factor,
the fees associated those could be a huge, huge chasm
for humanity to cross, just like you were saying earlier, Matt,
regarding the replacement of jobs right with algorithms. I don't
(45:12):
know what the next iteration of human society is going
to look like. But it does seem that right now
we have all the ingredients to make a really good civilization.
Are really cool when or all the ingredients to just
roll it down a pavement of good intentions all the
(45:36):
way all the way to extinction. And at this point
there's I don't know. I guess we'll just keep doing
our show. We'll do our show, see how it goes.
As long as natural born podcasters meatbags could be around, right.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
Guys, speaking of meatbags, yes, okay, don't does it blow
your minds that are in this realm wherever it is
this place is that we exist helmets. You got two
different of these humans. They have different downstairs bits. All
they have to do is rub those bits together for
(46:14):
a while until that's over simple, well, until both of
their internal bits attached to those other bits eject a thing,
a tiny tiny bit of DNA and those little bits
just have to touch in the right way.
Speaker 4 (46:32):
And then all.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
They make a whole entire human. This is it? How's
that real?
Speaker 3 (46:41):
Well, it's uh, it's it's funny you say that, Matt,
because for any you know, I've often called the lottery
attacks on being bad at math, which is what it is.
But if you think about it. Maybe we end it
this way. Let's end with two positive things to your point, Matt. First,
anytime you're feeling down, remember that you are the winner
(47:05):
of a lottery that is way more difficult than any
power ball you could imagine. Right, I think of all
the decisions that led to you, you know what I mean,
it's kind of inspiring. The odds were against you and
you're here. And then, second, maybe a little out of
character and a motive for me, if you're ever feeling
really down you're looking at yourself in the mirror, remember
(47:27):
that your face is inherently made up of all the
faces of all your ancestors, all the people who liked
that some version of your face enough to fall in
love and reproduce or reproduce okay.
Speaker 2 (47:44):
Together, you know I mean, but hey, don't take the
poetry there.
Speaker 3 (47:48):
That's a guy ending like.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
You just rubbed the bits together and it happened.
Speaker 3 (47:55):
Sometimes you got over the hard part. You got over
the most traumatic event of your life, which is being born.
We are glad you are here, and we can't wait
to hear what.
Speaker 2 (48:05):
You think about this. Oh, I can't say say before
you close it up.
Speaker 4 (48:08):
I just have to add, it reminds me of the
lyrics to a really wonderful Monty Python song from the
Meaning of Life. It says, just remember that you're standing
on a planet that's evolving and revolving at nine hundred
miles an hour. It's orbiting in nineteen miles a second,
so it's reckoned that the Sun is the source of
all our power, et cetera. Goes on, and it goes on,
talks about the universe, but then it says, so remember,
(48:28):
when you're feeling very small and insecure, how amazingly unlikely
is your birth, And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere
out in space, because there's bugger all down here on Earth,
that's all.
Speaker 3 (48:38):
And before we go out, I just want to reiterate
again if you're feeling down, life is increasingly difficult all around.
But if you are feeling down, remember you've already won
the lottery. You're here. We're glad you're here. We cannot
wait to hear from you, and we try to be
easy to find online.
Speaker 4 (48:58):
We do doesn't require any kind of genetic lottery system
at all. So far you can not well, yeah, you
can find us at the handle Conspiracy Stuff where we
exist on Facebook, on YouTube and on Twitter, Conspiracy Stuff
show on Instagram and TikTok.
Speaker 2 (49:13):
Hey do you like phones, Well, give us a call.
Our number is one eight three three std WYTK. When
you call in, you've got three minutes to leave a voicemail.
Start the clock as soon as you hear that beat.
Let us know what your code name is. Let us
know if we can use that name and your message
(49:33):
on the air. If you'd rather not talk on the phone,
why not instead send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3 (49:38):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (50:00):
Stuff they Don't want you to Know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noela.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Alexis codenamed Doc Holliday Jackson. Most importantly, you
are here and that makes this the stuff they don't
want you to know. It's the top of the week,
so before we lead into episodes, we like to catch
up with each other and most importantly you, fellow conspiracy realist,
(00:50):
about news that didn't quite get the attention it deserves,
or news that was sort of below the fold, to
use the old school journalists speak. Going to learn about
a small business owner in Canada who has a little
bit of legal trouble and perhaps a larger scheme. We're
going to learn about some groundbreaking Gadaga level stuff, which
(01:13):
we always told you was on the way sooner than
you think. And before we do any of that, we're
going to travel to my hometown of Nashville, Tennessee, to
a hotel that I guess, not to shame anybody, but
I don't think any of us want to visit there.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Ah, well, Nashville, I'm interested in the hotel. Oh, the hotel.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
Okay, I'm literally going to Nashville tomorrow. So what am
I welc here?
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Well, No, We've got good news for you and a
little bit of a story that rips right from season
four of Thirteen Days of Halloween, which is coming back
this October, by the way, so get your ears prepared
for that. We're going to travel today to one twenty
one fourth Avenue South in Nashville, Tennessee. It's the perfect
place you, guys, to build and operate a large four
(02:03):
star hotel, a very specific hotel, the Hilton Nashville Downtown.
Across the street to the north, you're going to find
Robert's Western World. I love it.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
It's the best place in the whole wide world. It's
my favorite honkue tnk on the strip.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
I know you were going to say that, Noel, and
it is one of the greatest places. But it's right
across the street from this location. To the east, you'll
find the Johnny Cash Museum. To the south, the Country
Music Hall of Fame, and museum and to the west,
and I think this is really messed up and strange
and funny for this episode the Bridgestone Arena, home of
(02:38):
the NHL's Nashville Predators. You'll see why that is funny
to me in just a moment. So let's imagine that
all of us, you especially, have an extra two hundred
and fifty to three hundred and fifty dollars to spend
nightly at a four star hotel while you're visiting Nashville, Tennessee.
And for that price, my goodness, you'd expect to feel
(02:59):
quite at home. Even when you head back to your
room at night, you close that door, those hotel doors
that lock up so nicely, and get a little shut eye. Well,
today we're going to travel back to the early hours
of Thursday, March thirtieth, around five am Central time, and
we're gonna put you in a little scenario here. So
imagine you're in this nice, lovely hotel. Imagine that all
(03:23):
of a sudden, out of nowhere, you're awakened in your bed.
It's dark at first, you're not sure what's going on,
but there's a strange feeling. Can't tell what it is
quite yet, your foot.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Feel it in my fingers. Oh wait, it's in my toes.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Yees to set you see, your foot feels wet. You
hear movement at the end of your bed and you freeze,
you know that feeling like, oh crap, what is going on?
Then you realize it someone else is in your room
and they're actively sucking on your toes.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
Oh god, Nashville toe sucker.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
So you kick your legs violently, throw off the covers,
you spring out of bed, hit the nearest light switch,
and you do realize in that moment there is definitely
a man in your room and he was sucking your toes.
But then you realize that you recognize this dude. He
was in your room yesterday helping to fix your TV
in there. It's David, the hotel's night manager. WHOA. I know,
(04:27):
this sounds like a nightmare scenario, and it is. It
really is. This is what allegedly happened to a man
named Peter Brennan on that day, March thirtieth. Guys, So anyway,
anything like this ever happened to y'all.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
No, but yeah, it sounds like it's like the lyric
of that Tenacious D song where it's like, then you
feel something down by your feet, it's me.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
It's kg. I'm sucking up on your.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Toes, you know.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Oh yeah, it's only.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
That's sort of my guess.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
Consensual maybe, but this is sexual assault. What you're just
this is horrific, bad, bad times, not the fodder for
comedy songs at all.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
To answer your question, Matt, yeah, I have been in
situations where I was staying in a hostel, a hotel,
or private domicile. Uh, and someone did enter with the
idea that they I didn't. Thankfully there was not physical
contact of an assumably sexual nature. But yeah, you have
(05:27):
to be careful. You know. It's not uncommon that someone
might try to enter a place when you're in a
vulnerable position, usually for a robbery or something like that.
But I would ten ten prefer to fend off an
attempted robbery then wake up with a very vulnerable part
(05:50):
of my body in a stranger's mouth.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Yeah. Yeah, the toes nobody no, very vulnerable. Not cool.
So let's tell you, at least according to the Metropolitan
Nashshville Police Department, what happened. They said that according to
David Neil, the night manager there, he created a card
the way you would create a card for any guest
at a hotel, you know, you just put it through
the little machine there it gets coded for a specific door.
(06:16):
He made one of those, then entered the guest room
around five am, and according to him, it's because he
smelled fire and he needed to go and check the
room and the potential victim of a fire. Okay. He however,
did not report the issue to security, and there were
(06:37):
no other reports from anyone in the hotel about the
smell of smoke. When David Neil was asked where the
key was that he used to enter Peter's room, he
said that he had thrown it away and it was
not recovered by anyone, which is.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Also not standard operating procedure.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
No, none of that really is. Nope. So anyway, this
guy ended up being hauled away to jail and his
bail was set at twenty seven thousand dollars. You can
find a picture of Neil Ben You shared with us
a picture of Neil that you found on Twitter.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Yeah, a picture of the accused made the rounds on
social media and took the story viral. But I think Matt,
you have a lot of details that were missing from
the discourse on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Well, sure, we can go to reporting from WSMV, a
local NBC affiliate out there in Nashville, in Wilson County
where this occurred, and they have information on this person,
David Neil, apparently not that long ago. In actually, I
guess it is a while ago. Nineteen ninety seven, David
(07:49):
Neil was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter for killing his roommate,
and you can and through this reporting, you know, you
can read about it. He killed his roommate allegedly after
some kind of altercation, a long night of fighting basically
that turned into a dangerous situation, and according to David Neil,
(08:10):
he was forced to go into his bedroom, take out
a gun and shoot his roommate multiple times, killing him.
And you can find through casetext dot com State versus Neil,
and you can find this. It was posted January eighteenth,
two thousand, or at least that's when this was created,
(08:31):
and you can read the I guess, the statement from
David Neil about what had happened, the entire thing there,
which just feels a little strange. It makes me feel
like it's even more suspect now knowing these actions that
he took after he got out of prison and you know,
got a job as a night manager there at that
(08:52):
very nice Hilton hotel. It's just very strange to me.
I guess that you could deal with something like that, right,
killing someone in your home who happens to be your
roommate with a gun, get charged with voluntary manslaughter after
you admit to killing this person, go to prison for
a while, get out, and then I guess be in
(09:13):
charge of a large hotel like that. That's a bit
strange to me, but I don't know. It was also
strange to Peter, the man whose toes got sucked, because
now he is suing. He is suing I believe the
Hilton itself for hiring this person as a night manager.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yeah. I saw somewhere that his legal representatives are saying
he suffered from quote severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment,
past and future medical expenses, plus a loss of earning capacity,
which I mean it sounds maybe hyperbolic to some people,
(09:53):
but consider all the health risk involved, you know, consider
consider whether or not this guy is going to be
able to sleep comfortably in any hotel for a while.
You know what I mean, and it makes sense that
he would. I mean, again, we're not lawyers, but it
makes sense that he would take legal action against Hilton
(10:15):
as well, because they're the ones who hired him and
put him in that position of responsibility.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Yeah, According to that same WSMV reporting, I'm going to
read from an article titled Nashville hotel employee he's snuck
into hotel's room previously convicted of manslaughter. Lawyers say they've
got information from Peter Brennan's lawyers. I'm going to read
verbatim a bit from this. Brennan's lawyers were told that
the hotel employee was fired from the hotel because he
(10:43):
refused to give a statement regarding this alleged occurrence of
assault and breaking into somebody's room. They are currently, at
least when this was written on the fourth of May
this year, they were waiting on surveillance footage from the
hotel to confirm the whereabouts of Brennan and his movements
that evening. And just add a little bit more, here's
(11:05):
a quote from Brennan quote. I just feel like Hilton
has not been helpful or forthcoming whatsoever. And I don't
know why, but it's very disconcerting. And he went on
to say that the hotels management alleged this lack of
cooperation that Peter Brennan is alleging makes him concerned for
all future guests of the establishment.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
I mean that all sounds spot on to me. Those
are very reasonable things. Additionally, we know one of the articles, well,
it's gone out through a couple of different articles. I
know CBS News did hear back from a representative of
the Hilton, right, and they're already cauterizing the wound. They
(11:48):
said that quote, Hilton Nashville Downtown is independently owned and
operated by a third party. No Hilton entity employee staff
at this property. AKA, this is not our burden.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
So weird, so weird the way that works. Sometimes you
got to just borrow that name, slap it on a hotel.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Right. One day off air, I'll tell you guys about
how I ended up in a place that was definitely
not a days In but called itself days In and
had apparently gotten in so much trouble. They had a
little placard that said they were legally required to notify
me they were not affiliated with days In. They were
(12:32):
like a days In, but not the days in.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
You get it.
Speaker 4 (12:35):
Well, yeah, so is that pretty standard? Like, you know,
when there's a franchise of any large corporation, like they
are indemnified, Like it's entirely the burden is on the
franchise holder and the actual corporation is no longer in
any way, you know, in the line of fire.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Legally speaking, I guess it would be the people who
actually operate the hotel, you know, And in this case,
this is one of the higher level people at the
hotel at that time.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Right, someone in the position to clone a key to
give refunds, you know, to comp rooms, which I guess
many you know, this makes me think, Matt, it might
be interesting for us to do an episode on stuff
hotels don't want you to know.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Hey, that's a good episode. Let's do that for sure. Definitely,
all right, well, there's not much else to add here, guys,
just horrifying in my mind. At least nobody got hurt
except psychologically mentally physically PTSD. Oh no, some Peter got
hurt for sure. And now I'm never going to fall
(13:47):
asleep in hotel room unless it's like triple locked. Okay,
we're gonna hear a word from our sponsor. Will be
right back with more strange news.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
And we're back with another piece of strange news. And
this is one that on the surface might just seem
like a real kooki fella trying to skirt the law
and do something to make some headlines. Okay, So in Vancouver, Canada,
we've reported on this in the past. They have some
(14:23):
pretty progressive drug laws. You may have seen it reported
as Vancouver, Canada. British Columbia legalizes all hard drugs, and
well that's not entirely the case. They have decriminalized possession
of up to two point five grams of opioids, crack cocaine,
(14:46):
powder cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. Heroin is not included on
the list that I have here in front of me,
but I do believe that that, yeah, opioids, so that
would be include in opioids. This is a decriminalization policy
that kicked in in January over there in British Columbia.
(15:09):
What was not part of this was the sale and
distribution of said narcotics. But there is a man in
Vancouver who is trying to not necessarily change well yeah,
big picture changed that. Jerry Martin, a fifty one year
old man, recently opened a shop called the Drugs Store,
(15:35):
operating out of a mobile like kind of you know,
food truck type situation, and the Drugs Store offered or
the idea was that you could buy up to two
point five grams of all of the aforementioned substances.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
The key here being.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
That they were all all of the stuff that that
Jerry was pedaling there had been tested for purity that
he was you know, giving a guarantee of purity and
more and most importantly, lack of adulterance. And when we're
talking about adulterance, we're not only talking about things that
are used to increase the weight of a product while
(16:17):
decreasing the actual you know, narcotics contained therein. But we're
talking about horrible things, things like fentanyl, things that are
killing people, specifically in British Columbia. And you know, especially
since this decriminalization stuff kicked in a lot of overdose deaths,
because just because the drugs are decriminalized, that does not
(16:41):
mean that people are getting them from more reputable, for
lack of a better word, sources. They're still getting them
from the same networks of black market drug dealers who
are getting them from who knows where and whose purity
levels and adulterant levels are completely to There actually is
(17:03):
a place that has been open in British Columbia for
some time where you can test your drugs. It is
literally called I think it's just literally called test your
drugs here or something to that. Yeah, get your drugs
tested is the name. It is a free I guess,
not really a clinic, but it is a lab. It's
(17:23):
a very small kind of sore front next to what
appears to be a coffee shop on a main drag
there in Vancouver, where you can take your drugs that
you've purchased on the street and get them tested for free.
And a guy named Dana Larson, who is a cannabis
and drug policy reform activist, started this place and the
idea being that you know, it would reduce overdose deaths
(17:47):
and frankly just death from people that are being poisoned
by stuff that's in their drugs because a lot of
what's considered overdose deaths it's kind of semantic, I guess,
but you know, they're not necessarily overdosing on the drug
they think they're buying. They're overdosing on something that's put
into the drug, or they're just outright being poisoned. So
back to Martin, he I actually heard an interview with
(18:09):
him with the CBC, the Canadian broadcasting company, where he
was asked by a journalist why was he doing this, Why,
you know, put himself in the line of fire, because,
as we said, not legal to sell this stuff out
out of a storefront. And when asked why he was
doing this, Martin said, well, he had lost two brothers
(18:31):
to drug related activities, one of whom died because of
violence associated with drug deals a drug deal, and one
who overdosed recently or died recently.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Due to an accidental overdose.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
He blames this on the fact that, you know, despite
drugs being decriminalized, folks can't really depend on what they're getting,
and they are if they're not taking it upon themselves
or if they're not educated properly to you know, get
the drugs tested or to you know, make sure they're
being incredibly safe in terms of their use.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
I mean, no drug use is.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
Safe, but we know that, you know, there are things
that you can keep on hand, like the drug can
revive you, nar can exactly that can revive someone in
the event of an accidental overdose. And so when you're
talking to CBC, he cites these reasons that he is
doing this, that he was just recently as the time
(19:29):
this recording, I think it was just a couple of
days ago he was arrested, not I think just a
couple of days after his shop opened for a business
And when he spoke to the CBC, he essentially implied
that this was part of the plan that by getting arrested,
by putting himself out there, he could become sort of
(19:53):
the beginning of a new conversation. Okay, so obviously the
drug policies there in British Columbia are incredibly liberal, let's
just say, or progressive. But he's saying that that policy
doesn't really go far enough, Like it's one thing to
not uh, you know, to not persecute drug users and
get them into the prison system, but it's another thing
(20:15):
to actually employ policies that help save their lives. And
he hopes and uh, and the the activists that I
mentioned earlier who had to test your drugs facility, they
believe that this is this is accurate, This could potentially
open that conversation up and with given the government's position
already possibly lead to some further, uh, further examination of
(20:39):
you know, all of this and and guys, I want
to hear y'all's.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Take on this.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
But it reminds me of things that you hear about,
like in places where certain drugs are a real problem,
where there will be things like needle exchanges where you know,
rather than using sharing needles potentially getting blood borne illnesses,
you know, and diseases that can kill you, you can
actually exchange your dirty needles for clean ones. And there
(21:03):
are some on certain sides of the debate that think
that's too much, that's like, we shouldn't be helping quote
unquote these people, you know who, I would argue, you
have a legitimate condition. You know, drug addiction is something
that it can be treated and should be treated as
a disease in and of itself. So, I don't know,
(21:24):
this is interesting stuff to me, and I think in
a lot of ways, very brave move for this fellow
to put himself out there like that in the in
the name of trying to move the you know, policy forward.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Yeah, it is really interesting to me. The statements put
up by the government there in British Columbia about decriminalization
is not the same as legalizing, right, because you're you're
talking about the possession of drugs when you're talking about
decriminalization versus the trafficking of drugs, which is why it's
(21:56):
still Yeah, that's why it's still legal. When it comes
to harm reduction and things. Remember when we had a
host of psychoactive on and he was talking a lot
about some of the things that can be done to
reduce harm.
Speaker 3 (22:12):
Right, I'm really glad to use the term harm reduction
as well.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Yeah, well, yeah, I mean that's what he preaches, right.
Ethan Nadleman has spent decades looking at that very thing,
harm reduction, And you know, there are a lot of
very intelligent people out there trying to figure out how
to actually enact this these kinds of practices in cities
across the world. How do you actually effectively do that
(22:35):
allow people to safely take drugs but also attempt to
help people get out of addictive behaviors and get off
of addictive substances. It's it's a it's not an easy thing.
That's why we haven't solved it yet, right, But I
do like this person's I don't know what you call it,
gusto moxie, Yeah, whatever it is.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Well, yeah, I'm with you on that. That because when
I was originally reading about this story, one of my questions,
and this occurs to some of our more cynical audience
members as well, is was this his intention going in right?
Or was this? I mean, I feel like it must
(23:17):
have been, because you would know obviously that this would
eventually lead to legal problems. Hopefully will spark a larger conversation,
because one thing that I find somewhat problematic about the
personal responsibility argument that is foisted so often, or hoisted rather,
(23:42):
is the idea that someone in the grips of addiction
right needing a substance will stop long enough, will delay
the ingestion long enough to say, hey, let me go
across town to get a safety check, or hey let
me vet this provider of this thing. So if we're
(24:05):
not treating if we're treating addiction as an illness, which
it is, rather than a crime, then the most efficient
and the most efficacious way to address that is to
make it easier to be safe. And unfortunately it doesn't
get the votes. I would imagine what we're looking at
(24:25):
is the quarreling of multiple addictions. The politicians making these
laws are addicted to power. They're addicted to easy votes
just as much as someone may be addicted to a drug,
and so of course they're not going to be incentivized
in many cases to actually help the people. Now, would
that change if there was a large voting block of
(24:49):
people who thought of addiction this way, or if there
was a large voting block of people who were addicted
in some substance or in recovery, I would say yes.
But to your question, at your excellent question, why isn't
this getting fixed? I think it's because the system as
it exists now is incentivized to continue the punitive approach
(25:14):
rather than the rehabilitative approach.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
Yeah, I mean, certainly that's the case in the United States.
I one hundred percent agree, and I think probably to
a lesser degree the case in Canada as well. The
thing that's interesting here too is Martin's lawyer, Paul Lewin,
said that this was his intent from the start, and
that he has a whole constitutional argument ready to go
(25:38):
if and now when he gets criminally jo he hasn't
been criminally charged yet, He just has he's been he's
been detained, you know, and his business has been shut down,
which of course was not operating with a certainly not
operating with with a legal business license. But this is
what his lawyer, Paul Lewin, had to say. If mister
Martin is charged with selling controlled substances, it is his
(26:00):
intention to challenge the constitutionality of those laws. And the
laws we're talking about are section seven of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, which is what decriminalized possession of narcotics.
He goes on, he would allege that laws that prevent
a safe supply and result in death by poisoning contravene
(26:22):
Section seven of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
must be struck down because and this is from reporting
in Vice. That's reporting on quite a few other sources,
including statements from Martin, and his lawyer has this to say.
Section seven of the Charter states that all Canadians have
quote the right to life, liberty and security of the person,
(26:44):
and the right not to be deprived thereof except in
accordance with principles of fundamental justice. Now forgive me this
Section seven is obviously just more of a constitutional thing.
This is not specifically, this is not sipeificly language from
the Act that legalized, or rather decriminalized possession of certain
controlled substances. So he is arguing that by decriminalizing the
(27:07):
controlled substances, they are essentially not They're talking about two
sides of their mouths. They're saying, yeah, it's okay it
possessed this, but we're also not going to do anything
to make sure that you are able, you know, given
the new law, to be guaranteed that life, liberty, and
security of the person. Yeah, and it says not to
(27:28):
be deprived there of accept in accordance with the principles
of fundamental justice. So interesting. I think it's an interesting,
an interesting maneuver.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
And I figured it out, guys, I figured out the problem.
I know how to fix it. Here we go. You're ready.
We're heading towards some form of universal income because none
of us are going to have jobs anymore, because the
machines are going to run everything. Right, this is inevitable.
We all know this.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Eventually. I want to positive not to interrupt with interject
mat because I think, I think I my spider sense
tells me where you're going.
Speaker 4 (28:03):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
The post work economy will eventually exist, but it's going
to be a post worker economy first, and ubi the
current models of it, they're not ready.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Yeah, but anyway, none of this is ready, None of
this is even real. I'm joking to a large extent,
just putting this out there. What if there were incentives
to not do drugs in uh, you get more money
if when you get drug tested or whatever, you have
no cocaine in your system, you have no heroin or
opioids in your system, you have no marijuana system, and
(28:40):
you get it's a tiered system where you get more
and more money on that universal income thing, the fewer
and fewer vices that you have. Whoa dude, we can
do this.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
What about the lower your likelihood of certain genetic diseases
that's the into.
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Yeah, that's a good that is a good point. Yeah,
you're the right place there. You're thinking, No, there's something
to that. I would argue if but but again then
that starts to other people who are, you know, perhaps
more predisposed to have these kinds of uh, you know,
proclivities towards substance abuse. So I know we're not try
(29:18):
I'm not not I know you're not I'm just saying
like it is a slippery slope. But if if you're
if you're if you're giving someone a benefit because they're
not afflicted with something that you know, you could argue
is either genetic or learned, then it's it just doesn't
really have looked like an even playing field. But I
do think there's something to that in a way as well,
and I think you're asking the right questions in terms of,
(29:39):
you know, incentivizing and how do you I think that
the most important part about that, the very least is
education and giving people the resources they need if they
really want to get clean, you know, to help them
do that, whether that be through counseling or mean obviously,
we know things like rehab are prohibitively expensive and it's
just nearly out of reach for a lot of people,
(30:00):
and then you hear about people of means who do
it like a bunch of times and still can't kick
the habit.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
I just want to take a second to note shadow
Berneze here. My take, my unsolicited take, is that the
way to address these things is through not just financial pressure,
which you're onto something there, Matt, even as a thought experiment,
it's social dynamic pressure. The reason cigarettes worked is because
(30:29):
they were made to look cool, So you just make
something else look cool. Bernez was right. Propaganda and crystallizing
public opinion are free to read online right now.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
I yield my time. And also, by the way, Ben,
your takes are always solicited. That is the whole nature
of the show, and I think that is a very
very good one. And the last thing I'll add though,
is when it comes to the responsibility of the government,
you know too at citizens, whether it be in Canada
or the United States, is you know, in Canada and elsewhere,
(31:00):
you know, we're hearing about things like heroin being tainted
with fentanyls. We know it takes a very very small
amount to be fatal, but not only is the heroin
being tainted with fentanyl, the fentanyls being tainted with benzo diazepines,
which are things like xanax, and you know, at a
van maybe I think I forgive it. There's certain ones
(31:22):
that are anti anxiety medications and they they're very they're
not opioids, they are benzodiazepin. They're more like tranquilizers kind of,
and it's created a whole new drug that's being referred
to as benzo dope, And so when people are taking
heroin that's laced with fentanyl, that's laced with benzodiazepins, they're
(31:44):
much more likely to black out, to open themselves up
to being sexually assaulted or robbed or you know, injured
in ways that would be much worse than if they
were just high on the rug they thought they were getting. So,
you know, I just think this is the right direction
given all of this, all of these different conditions that
(32:08):
are at play, you know, all all around the world.
So I yield my time as well. So let's take
a quick break and we'll hear a word from our sponsor.
Then'll be back with another piece of strange news.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
And we have returned, Fellow conspiracy realists. This one threw
me for a bit of a loop, and it's kind
of why I was foreshadowing Gatika just a little bit. Here.
We are living in an exciting time. Good science fiction,
as we always say, is only fiction for a certain
interval before it becomes factual. Right now, as we're recording,
(32:51):
we want to wish a very happy, very belated birthday
to the first child in the United Kingdom born with
three parents Wow, yep, genetically a free Yeah, he's got
the mom, he's got the dad, a five month old
biological male and has another mom. And this might sound
(33:16):
like the kid is a kmara, you know, in the
human species. Kimara describes where a single individual might have
different DNA in different parts of their body. It's winning
a very weird lottery. It's quite rare, but those people
can live full lives. Here's what happened. This kid might
(33:37):
have had was under kind of a dark cloud as
they were developing in their mother's womb. Doctors realize the
kid might suffer from a mitochondrial disease. This can spell
doom for children. Doctors took an unprecedented step and said, hey,
(33:58):
what if we can do something to remove that bad
mitochondrial DNA and slot in something else. This DNA is
not evenly split. It's not a you know, like thirty
three point three percent each parent kind of thing. Instead,
(34:19):
the majority of the DNA comes from the two parents
and abou zero point one percent comes from a third person,
a donor, a woman. And the idea is that mitochondrial
DNA can be replaced via this donor using IVF in
vitro fertilization, and you can read some great articles on
(34:43):
this in the BBC. The news just broke as we're
recording today, May tenth, twenty twenty three. Shout out to
James Gallagher and shout out to all the other journalists
who have been reporting this. First off, first question, would
you all consider doing this, not just not just us
on the show today, but us listening along at home.
(35:05):
Would you all consider inviting a third person to donate
DNA to your child if it prevented a disease?
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Yeah? I think this is an amazing breakthrough, Absolutely great. Same.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Yeah, I'm glad, glad it's not controversial.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Well, because it's it's going to be, like you said, Ben,
the tiniest amount of that person is going to be
in your child. So I think that would be the
biggest thing, you know, for me personally, Like having a
having a child where it's like either the mother's egg
or the father's sperm is one of them's not viable
(35:44):
and then you still want to have a baby. That's
tougher for me just personally, But in this case, it's
a no brainer. If you can, if you could prevent
like diseases that you know are potentially present, right, And.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
It's not alter important point there, Matt. It's not all
during the appearance of the child of the issue you
would call it if it's nobility. But the question still
brings up a lot of weird stuff and one of
the things that we haven't talked about at length on
the show in over the years. It's unbelievable. It's just
(36:21):
how weird mitochondria is. Mitochondria, back in the day was
a bacteria. So mitochondria is a stranger in a strange
land to quote Highland. Once upon a time it was
completely separate from the human body. And of course if
you grow up in the West, the number one thing
you know about mitochondria is it's quote, the powerhouse of
(36:43):
the cell. Right. Did you guys hear that through a
biology Yeah?
Speaker 4 (36:48):
Well yeah, I mean I'm obviously not a geneticist or
a biologist of any stripe, but it always consistently blows
my mind to think about these little bugs inside of.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
Us that are so dang smart. There are thousands of
them per cell. Hey, oh yeah, you're right, Ben, They're
like tiny little batteries. They're just hanging out making sure
your cells got what they need. So yeah.
Speaker 3 (37:10):
So shout out to Thomas Cavalier Smith, who in two
thousand and six wrote a paper with the title you ready,
origin of mitochondria by intercellular enslavement of a photosynthetic purple bacteria.
So yeah, yeah, doctor CS is not pulling punches here.
(37:32):
First line of the abstract is mitochondria originated by permanent
enslavement of purple non sulfur bacteria. I don't think that's
the thing a lot of people want to consider, you know,
when you think about your own body. But we've already
talked about how the body is a universe or a
city of its own, and their human cells are vastly
(37:53):
outnumbered by all the bacterial cells. I am one hundred
percent on board with this treatment, and I'm glad that
it's like all of us on the show here are
as well. Because there's a plot twist. This is the
first child born in the UK with three parents. The
actual first child born by this technique dates back to
(38:17):
twenty sixteen, when a Jordanian family had the same treatment
in the United States, also to save their child. So
it's still cost prohibitive, but it's real. The science fiction
of designer babies is no longer science fiction, and it
got me thinking of a world in which you can
(38:39):
kind of choose how many parents or what traits you
want to have for a kid. There's a great documentary
about this on Netflix, a series, I should say, episode
four of Unnatural Selection for anyone who wants to learn more.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
It has this scene.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
I think it starts with this scene where there's a
doctor in Ukraine who was doing the IVF procedure to
help stave off mitochondrial disease from this kid and replace
that tiny bit of mitochondrial DNA, and it opens with
him saying something like, Okay, now this is my favorite part.
I'm using the laser. Obviously this is everybody's favorite part,
(39:21):
and props to the makers of that show. But it's
a great place to learn about this. And the way
they like to phrase it is not necessarily three parents,
that's more news headline. They like to phrase it as
babies with donated mitochondria. And there are some researchers, leading
(39:41):
edge experts who are talking about this stuff, and in
their conversations, both in the studies they published and in
their interviews that are more for the general public, they've
said things like, if we were talking about this one
hundred years from now, you would find offensive for me
(40:02):
to say we shouldn't have designer children or designer babies.
And I just keep going back to it.
Speaker 4 (40:09):
It's it's something to subject them to the cruelty of
nature if we're going to do something to prevent it.
Speaker 3 (40:16):
Right, Look, how hey, how about this. This is a
very base comparison, But look how popular character customization is
in your favorite video games. People already pay extra to
alter the appearance of the things they create, and I
don't see how human species would examples of the human
(40:38):
species would be any different. You know, there's a world
in which it becomes kind of like the options when
you buy a car. Certain things start as options and
then they become factory standard, like seat belts. You know what,
if I mean obviously anybody, most people, I would say,
who are going to have child? If given the opportunity
(41:03):
to genetically alter that child in a way that maybe
reduces likelihood of cancers, reduces likelihood of dementia, or addresses
some kind of genetic condition. If they're given that ability,
most people will say yes, unless they're spiritually or ideologically
opposed to the concept in general. But at this point,
(41:24):
we have to ask, hopefully without sounding like a broken record,
do you guys think this is part of an inevitable
trend or do you think it'll stay here just mitochondrial donation.
Speaker 4 (41:37):
I think it's going to go as far as it's
possible for it to go. You know, I don't think
progress is ever going to be intentionally stimy, and if
someone's going to be out there working under the radar
figuring out how to push it further. Have you all
heard of this new Amazon series Dead Ringers. It's based
(41:57):
on the David Cronenberg film from I think the late
eighties early nineties starring Jeremy Irons as like twin gynecologists,
and it's, you know, it's a dark, twisted kind of
horror sci fi thing about you know, genetic manipulation and
about implanting infertile women with children and all of the
(42:19):
god complex that can go into that. So it's sort
of like a really nihilistic gatica in some ways. But
the series I only see the first two episodes, and
it tackles this stuff head on the dark side of it,
but also the like positive side of it, and like,
you know, what the the I guess benevolent version of
what this is. But inevitably you're going to have these
(42:40):
bad actors who just want to figure out how to
make a bunch of money on it and have it
be only for the super elite.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
So I'm going forward seeing where the series goes. But
it made me think of that immediately.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
Yeah, it's creating a new cast system potentially right, such
that there is the potential for a world in which
the top couple percent inch points of humanity are faster, smarter, stronger,
longer lived, less prone to disease, to the point where
(43:10):
you could make an argument that speciation begins. Speciation being
when an origin species starts to diverge due to environmental
pressures into two separate kind of organisms. And this goes
pretty far. I mean, it's part of evolution, but it
gets to the point where those two formerly related things
(43:32):
can no longer even interbreed. Also, we should say the
fancy name for this, if you want to put a
tie on it, is pro nuclear transfer. And it's controversial
because wrapped up in the process you have to destroy
some embryos, so you have to break a few eggs
to make it up quite literally. Just so yeah, so
(43:54):
people are against it for that reason. If you want to,
if you want to read some of the work of
the experts, you're going to look at people like Professor
Doug Turnbull, who heads the center in Newcastle that pioneered
a lot of this research. And you guys know, I've
been going through a kick of obscure research from days
(44:20):
of your the stuff that just got kind of proven
in concept and then never really followed through due to
one concern or another. I'm thinking specifically about brain surgery
on the octopus. Still, someone do it. Someone smarter than
us do it. We need a fifty eight year old octopus.
I think they could make it to sixty nine percent.
(44:41):
I mean, you know, one one would like to believe.
Speaker 4 (44:43):
No.
Speaker 3 (44:43):
I wonder what they would say. I wonder what they
would say, but this right, they would speak in chrematoform.
Speaker 2 (44:51):
Definitely would Yeah.
Speaker 3 (44:52):
But the point that you're making about the money factor,
the fees associated those could be a huge, huge chasm
for humanity to cross, just like you were saying earlier, Matt,
regarding the replacement of jobs right with algorithms. I don't
(45:12):
know what the next iteration of human society is going
to look like. But it does seem that right now
we have all the ingredients to make a really good civilization.
Are really cool when or all the ingredients to just
roll it down a pavement of good intentions all the
(45:36):
way all the way to extinction. And at this point
there's I don't know. I guess we'll just keep doing
our show. We'll do our show, see how it goes.
As long as natural born podcasters meatbags could be around, right.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
Guys, speaking of meatbags, yes, okay, don't does it blow
your minds that are in this realm wherever it is
this place is that we exist helmets. You got two
different of these humans. They have different downstairs bits. All
they have to do is rub those bits together for
(46:14):
a while until that's over simple, well, until both of
their internal bits attached to those other bits eject a thing,
a tiny tiny bit of DNA and those little bits
just have to touch in the right way.
Speaker 4 (46:32):
And then all.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
They make a whole entire human. This is it? How's
that real?
Speaker 3 (46:41):
Well, it's uh, it's it's funny you say that, Matt,
because for any you know, I've often called the lottery
attacks on being bad at math, which is what it is.
But if you think about it. Maybe we end it
this way. Let's end with two positive things to your point, Matt. First,
anytime you're feeling down, remember that you are the winner
(47:05):
of a lottery that is way more difficult than any
power ball you could imagine. Right, I think of all
the decisions that led to you, you know what I mean,
it's kind of inspiring. The odds were against you and
you're here. And then, second, maybe a little out of
character and a motive for me, if you're ever feeling
really down you're looking at yourself in the mirror, remember
(47:27):
that your face is inherently made up of all the
faces of all your ancestors, all the people who liked
that some version of your face enough to fall in
love and reproduce or reproduce okay.
Speaker 2 (47:44):
Together, you know I mean, but hey, don't take the
poetry there.
Speaker 3 (47:48):
That's a guy ending like.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
You just rubbed the bits together and it happened.
Speaker 3 (47:55):
Sometimes you got over the hard part. You got over
the most traumatic event of your life, which is being born.
We are glad you are here, and we can't wait
to hear what.
Speaker 2 (48:05):
You think about this. Oh, I can't say say before
you close it up.
Speaker 4 (48:08):
I just have to add, it reminds me of the
lyrics to a really wonderful Monty Python song from the
Meaning of Life. It says, just remember that you're standing
on a planet that's evolving and revolving at nine hundred
miles an hour. It's orbiting in nineteen miles a second,
so it's reckoned that the Sun is the source of
all our power, et cetera. Goes on, and it goes on,
talks about the universe, but then it says, so remember,
(48:28):
when you're feeling very small and insecure, how amazingly unlikely
is your birth, And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere
out in space, because there's bugger all down here on Earth,
that's all.
Speaker 3 (48:38):
And before we go out, I just want to reiterate
again if you're feeling down, life is increasingly difficult all around.
But if you are feeling down, remember you've already won
the lottery. You're here. We're glad you're here. We cannot
wait to hear from you, and we try to be
easy to find online.
Speaker 4 (48:58):
We do doesn't require any kind of genetic lottery system
at all. So far you can not well, yeah, you
can find us at the handle Conspiracy Stuff where we
exist on Facebook, on YouTube and on Twitter, Conspiracy Stuff
show on Instagram and TikTok.
Speaker 2 (49:13):
Hey do you like phones, Well, give us a call.
Our number is one eight three three std WYTK. When
you call in, you've got three minutes to leave a voicemail.
Start the clock as soon as you hear that beat.
Let us know what your code name is. Let us
know if we can use that name and your message
(49:33):
on the air. If you'd rather not talk on the phone,
why not instead send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3 (49:38):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (50:00):
Stuff they Don't want you to Know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.