May 17, 2024 • 29 mins
A screaming match occurs in a committee hearing between AOC, Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Jasmine Crockett. Meanwhile, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya joins us to discuss the WHO urging the US to commit to a new global treaty to prevent and manage future pandemics.
Please visit our great sponsors:
Ammo Squared
https://ammosquared.com
Ensure you are prepared for whatever comes your way with ammosquared.com
Black Rifle Coffee
https://blackriflecoffee.com/dana
Use code DANA to save 20% on your next order.
Goldco
https://danalikesgold.com
Get your free Gold Kit from GoldCo today.
Hillsdale College
https://danaforhillsdale.com
Visit today to hear a Constitution Minute and sign up for Hillsdales FREE Imprimis publication.
KelTec
https://KelTecWeapons.com
Sign up for the KelTec Insider and be the first to know the latest KelTec news.
Lumen
https://lumen.me
Use code DANASHOW to get $100 off your Lumen.
Patriot Mobile
https://patriotmobile.com/dana
Get free activation with code Dana.
ReadyWise
https://readywise.com
Use promo code Dana20 to save 20% on any regularly priced item.
The Wellness Company
https://twc.health/dana
Get 15% off with promo code DANA.
Please visit our great sponsors:
Ammo Squared
https://ammosquared.com
Ensure you are prepared for whatever comes your way with ammosquared.com
Black Rifle Coffee
https://blackriflecoffee.com/dana
Use code DANA to save 20% on your next order.
Goldco
https://danalikesgold.com
Get your free Gold Kit from GoldCo today.
Hillsdale College
https://danaforhillsdale.com
Visit today to hear a Constitution Minute and sign up for Hillsdales FREE Imprimis publication.
KelTec
https://KelTecWeapons.com
Sign up for the KelTec Insider and be the first to know the latest KelTec news.
Lumen
https://lumen.me
Use code DANASHOW to get $100 off your Lumen.
Patriot Mobile
https://patriotmobile.com/dana
Get free activation with code Dana.
ReadyWise
https://readywise.com
Use promo code Dana20 to save 20% on any regularly priced item.
The Wellness Company
https://twc.health/dana
Get 15% off with promo code DANA.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Dana Lashes of surd Truth podcast sponsoredby Keltech. It's his laugh mission to
make bad decisions. It's time forFlorida Man. So I'm trying to get
my head around this headline. FloridaMan is accused of stealing thirty thousand dollars
in Pokemon cards and is foiled bya topless MMA coach. There's a lot
(00:24):
of stuff happening here. First off, I'm I know a little bit about
Pokemon because when my kids were likesuper little, they were into Pokemon and
they had the cars and all that. So I know that some of them
are very valuable. But thirty thousanddollars in Pokemon cards? Like do what
cars were you going for? Youknow what I mean? Like what he?
So this was earlier, actually tento two weeks ago. The guy
(00:47):
entered pro Play Games in Miami.He wanted to see a binder full of
Pokemon cards. He snatched them,attempted to flee. The store's general manager
said that they felt so helpless.It was like watching thirty to forty thousand
dollars with their hard work just walkoff. And then by standards confronted them.
And then so they say topless,they make it sound like it's a
woman. It was a shirtless MMA. You do, it's newsweek? What's
(01:11):
the matter with you? A shirtlessMMA guy? He the shop owner,
I guess, was yelling outside becauseit was kind of a strip mall thing,
and two March Martial Arts coaches wentout to help and they caught him
and they whipped it on camera.It was pretty entertaining video. But h
yeah, that's how. Yeah,they they can be like super super like.
(01:33):
For instance, there there's like,what is it a PSA Grade ten
illustrator card that that one dude who'son YouTube got for like five point two
the most expensive card ever. That'swild. Like you thought beanie babies were
bad? I never remember those.That was a big deal in the nineties,
wasn't. I just remember as akid, and it wasn't kids who
had beanie babies. It was likeadults who had them. It was weird.
(01:53):
It was like those little porcelain thingsthat people would collect. What were
the name of those? They werelike little dolls or something precious moments.
I don't know, do they havethe big eyes? A Florida man busted
for battery This is gross. No, No, this guy used his soiled
(02:15):
diaper as a weapon. According tothe Smoking Gun, UH, this happened
UH with an eighteen year old DamienCaston who's arguing with his brother and cast
In, cops reported is paralyzed butambulatory by using his upper body and reading
the charging docks. Cast In damagedwalls. He apparently I took his diaper
(02:43):
off and threw it to his brotherand struck his brother in the chest and
then that so now he's charged withdomestic battery. I am fascinated by this.
The guy, the guy with thewheel chees he because he took his
diaper, threw his diaper and becamea weapon. And that's like a sault.
The hell's going on? It's comeon. It's our friends over at
Keltech the Sub two K and thisis the third generation, now the Gen
(03:05):
three. It's been shipping now.It's a nine milimeter carbine and it's easy
to store, easy to deploy,super accurate, and it's fun on the
range. It's like I said,nine milimeter carbine. Previously, with the
other iterations you had to take youroptics off, but you do not with
the Gen three version. No moreattaching and reattaching your favorite optics because with
a simple twist and fold motion ofthat patent pending rotating fore end, the
(03:25):
whole thing folds and half optics andall it accepts glockmags, glock nineteens,
fit flush glock seventeen and stick magswith the mag going past the grip.
All fits and redesigned trigger mechanics,lightened five pound pool. The action has
been updated easier to rack. Also, the internal buffer means softer recoils.
This is just a great carbine forthe whole family, and it's made right
(03:46):
in America, family owned, Floridabased values at their best. To learn
more about Keltech's sub two K Genthree, visit Caltech Weapons dot com that's
k E l t Ec Weapons dotcom and tell them Dana send you.
You just voted voted order to getclear case. Look at calm down,
(04:11):
calm now, no, no,no, because this is what I don't
do this procket. You're not recognized. Your yelling, don't want mom down,
Please call down me to calm down. How's y'all top conto and then
you're out of control? Chair kayorder chair now recognizes miss Green for for
(04:34):
four minutes and twenty one seconds.Four minutes. Let miss Green talk and
then you all can I'll recognize.I moved to strike her words for a
second time based on her second setof personal remarks attacking another member. Chairman
call, because you all cannot seeto the committee. We have to do
(04:55):
this every time I'm recognized. I'mrecognized, I'm gonna go ahead. Look,
I know, I know. Look, I don't know if you've noticed
this two here today. I'm verydaff I'm not understanding everybody's yelling. I'm
doing the best I can. Canwe not recognize miss Greendon letters not because
of the rules of the committee,mister chair that is that is what I'm
(05:16):
trying to communicate. In the presentmoment, we have a mo okay,
which as opposed to any other moment. Hell so so it this is the
thing that is most entertaining to metoday because this is the snapshot of politics.
All hell broke loose in the House. And I like the joke that
Babylon B said, we just needto have like its own girl Congress.
(05:39):
Just have girl Congress and then theregular Congress, and then the girl Congress
can fight about stuff, because that'show it started. Welcome back to the
show Dana Lash with you top ofthe second hour. Can we this is
I will say, this is howit started. Can we play? Just
play? Because this is this ishow all of this started. It had
to do with eyelashes. Listen,do you know if any of the Democrats
(06:04):
on this committee are employing Judge Mershawn'sdaughter. Please send me what it has
to do with Mary Garland? Isshe a point star? Oh Goldman,
that's right, he's advising. Okay'sadvising. Do you do you know what
(06:28):
we're here for? You know we'rehere, Chris, what you're here for?
Well you want talking about I thinkyour fake eyelashes are messing up nothing.
Order, mister chairman. Order.I do have a point of order,
and I would like to move totake down Miss Green's words. Gets
(06:48):
crazier. Now, that is absolutelyunacceptable. How dare you? I mean,
are your feelings her words down?Oh girl, baby girl? Really
don't even play, baby girl.We are gonna move and we're gonna take
your words down. My second motionso so sick? What is that that
(07:11):
Miss Green agrees to strocker words?I believe? Hold on then after mister
Perry's You'll be recognized. I'm notapologized. I am not. I mean,
Comer is just like the hell,I just want to get done with
this, and then he comes He'slike, I'm deaf. I just want
to get done. Oh my gosh, it's Congress. Everybody, Your tax
(07:36):
dollars pay for this. Welcome backDana lash again, Oh man of Congress.
Yeah, the greasy skids of Congress. Greasy for who knows why.
But I again, I do agree. I think we need a separate girl
Congress. Just take y'all's drama overthere. I don't even know. This
had to do with the uh whatwas it? The ongo? Like could
(08:01):
Green had asked, she was lookingto see if anybody there in sitting in
the committee had actually been working withJudge Rashaan. That's Jennifer van Lahar's independent
reporting that was stolen by some plasticcenegrifters, and you know, try to
they try to pass it off astheir own original reporting. But she's the
one who broke all that stuff overat Red State, and she was asking
(08:28):
as to whether or not any ofthe Democrats on the committee had benefited from
that lady's fundraising. You know,Steve's right, I mean, I was
waiting for somebody to go Jerry,Jerry, je just waiting for it,
waiting for a chair to get thrown. There was always a chair to get
thrown. I wonder how many chairsthey went through. It's always a chair
to get thrown. But did theyget it back on track after that?
(08:50):
I don't know. I just wantedto, you know, I don't know
did they get it back on track? I mean, I am just mesmerized.
And I said earlier, I don'tknow how I feel about stuff like
this because as someone, I mean, I told you yesterday, I cut
(09:11):
my teeth inactivism in the streets inSaint Louis, like literally running around raising
money and raising hell. And I, you know, I kind of always
felt that the stuff in Congress,there's a lot of very improper things that
happen and are done and carried outover the American people, and they're given
(09:31):
this veneer of propriety from the processesthrough which it happens. Now they sit
there and their businesswear at their littleoak desks, and they sit in this
committee room, and they gavel inand they gavel out, and they go
through all these processes and it looksvery official and very orderly. But the
stuff that's being done is neither orderlynor official, nor is it nor is
(09:54):
it moral, nor is it halfof the constitutional And they go through this
whole, this whole Rube Goldberg ofthe appearance of propriety, and yet what's
being done to you isn't proper atall, what's being done to taxpayers isn't
proper at all. And so it'slike they think that somehow though keeping it
there ensconced in the well carpeted committeerooms, that that makes it somehow more.
(10:20):
It makes it right, it makesit proper, it makes it moral,
makes it good right, And Ijust don't know. I just so
part of me is like I understandthat civility is really the last line of
defense against a completely just broken downsociety. But at the same time,
there are a lot of people whodon't deserve civility, and I'm not in
a position to indulge people with thewelfare of giving it when I don't feel
(10:41):
it, So you know what Imean, Like, I don't know,
right, right, am I beingwrong on this? Or should we be?
Like? No, this is youknow, they can't act like this,
everybody be Adults should always strive totreat people fairly, Dana. I
think people should be treated as theydeserve. That's me. Yeah, there's
actually an argument where my very diogenisticcynicism comes in, but most of mine.
(11:05):
The reason I go that route isbecause you know, it's like anger
is like drinking poison, expecting yourenemy to die. It's not going to
happen. Gotta you gotta gotta finda center, gotta finds. They just
get dramatic over everyone. That's whatI mean. That's this is the lesson
for them, is what I'm saying. I do think that the eyelash thing
that was like kind of wisome weaksauce. I mean, you didn't have
(11:28):
to strike those words, but stillto strike those words, It's like,
I don't know if was that disparaging. She's like, she just said,
maybe you're were a large eyelash.Yeah, she's like, maybe your eyelashes
are doing this. I mean they'relike stage size. You know. I
don't know, to each to theirown, but you know, I'm just
saying, you know, the timeis now to revolutionize how you approach health
(11:48):
and wellness. So I want tointroduce you to Luhman. It's a groundbreaking
handheld metabolic coach, and with Lumenyou can track your metabolism through your breath
and get real time insights on whetheryou're burning fat or carbs. And the
best part is that the Lumin appprovides tailored guidance to enhance your nutrition,
your workouts, your sleep cycles,even stress management. So it works pretty
(12:11):
easy. You just breathe into yourLumen device first thing in the morning and
you get the snapshot of your metabolismfor the day along with a personalized nutrition
plan. And plus you can useit before and after workouts and meals,
ensuring that you're always in tune withwhat's happening in your body. It helps
to helps your body, helps youread your body's signals, and it gives
you an accurate metabolic reading whereas usuallywould have to go to a lab for
(12:35):
that. Your metabolism is your body'sengine and it powers everything that you do,
so optimizing it with Lumen means easierweight management, improved energy levels,
better fitness results, better sleep.So if you're ready to take the next
step in your health journey, headover to lumen dot me and use code
Dana Show for one hundred dollars offyour lumen device. Remember that's Lume in
(12:58):
dot me lumen dot emmy, anddon't forget to use code Dana Show for
one hundred dollars off. Thanks toLuman for sponsoring this episode and helping everybody
achieve their health goals. And nowall of the news you would probably miss,
it's time for Dana's Quick five.I don't like robots that do human
stuff. It's like weird and thinkfor themselves. And so in this freak
(13:22):
robot that apparently was made in Chinacan learn I don't know, really was
it or is this China being likeno, no, no, we don't
have like crappy tech at all.I don't believe when I read stuff like
this. But they said, apparentlythey're trying to expand this humanoid robot offerings
that they have, and they havethis S one and apparently it can actually
(13:45):
handle hold twenty two pounds per arm. It can go at a pace of
thirty two point eight feet per second, and it's so it's only wires and
metals right now, but they andthey said apparently even can do calligraphy and
open and poor wine, flip asand which in a frying pan. And
it also folds an iron's laundry.That's I don't want it to do all
(14:05):
that stuff. Just don't. Idon't need all that Humans. You got
to be careful here. You're gonnaoutsource everything you do in life to robots
camp I cannot wait for the SouthPark is gonna tackle because of Cartman,
the Ozimbic craze in an End ofObesity special the Seventh Paramount plus South Park's
storyline and data has been announced andthey're calling it the End of Obesity.
(14:26):
And so Cartman has denied access tolife changing medication and the kids jump into
action. And so he's being toldthat he's his weight is out of control.
He needs to get on smeg litude, smug gluten, whatever that is.
He needs to get what is thatlike a derivative of it. He
needs to get on that. That'swhat he's got to get on. So
this is going to be so I'mso watching this. Also, inflation is
(14:50):
a problem, but I don't knowwhat's going on in Amazon. Amazon workers
say they're struggling to afford food andbreadth. They're also struggling to not run
their trucks headfirst into people that Iknow. I'm just saying, but they
said that they're having their their warehouseworkers are struggling. I don't know.
I always like wonder when I youknow, when you kind of do wonder
this stuff, like how it's morethan Amazon? Yeah? Like what?
(15:13):
Yeah? Like how's it going therein the Amazon warehouses? Frozen human brain?
T is you brought back to lifein a major breakthrough? I feel
like we shouldn't be doing this.They said that they may be able.
Scientists may someday be able to freezebrains bring them back to life following a
major breakthrough in cryogenics. This wouldexplain some of the stuff I've been seen
on Twitter lately in terms of behavior. Again, though, this is one
of the things where they say,well it's researchers. Some of the researchers
(15:35):
are from China, which makes mequestion the viability of any of it.
We have a lot more on theway, including the latest we got culture
and a Saint Louis police officer underfire because he lit a cigar while arresting
a suspect. Welcome back to theprogram, Dana lash with you at the
bottom of this second hour, andI've been very eager to talk to our
next guest, because when we wentinto it, when pandemic and lockdown and
(15:58):
everything else happened, we live inan era where we have more access to
information than we ever have before,and you would consider this such a great
period of enlightenment, a great periodof being able to ask questions and get
answers and have honest discussions and nottry to relegate people who are simply asking
questions and wanting transparency, relegating themto the trash heap of censorship. And
(16:18):
in fact, what we got wasthe exact opposite, which then made people
distrust everything that they were hearing evenmore, and as it turns out,
for good reason. Joining me rightnow, you're very familiar with doctor j.
Badataria, professor at Stanford School ofMedicine, and he's been very outspoken
with all of this, particularly toowith the censorship. Obviously we've talked about
(16:41):
Biden v. Missouri or Murphy v. Missouri at this point, and also
his new piece that he has overat Real Clear Policy talking about the World
Health Organization now urging not just US, the United States, but over one
hundred and ninety other governments to agreeto this global treaty to pre event and
manage future pandemics. And I gotto say, doctor Bodataria, I'm a
(17:06):
little surprised by this because aren't westill conducting our own inquiry into this.
How can we even come to aposition of entering into a treaty with them
when we're still doing looking at everythingthat we did wrong. I mean,
Dan, I think you hit itright on the head. The problem is
that the WHO failed during this pandemic. They absolutely failed. They failed,
(17:26):
they and they've elevated the people whopotentially may have been contributed to causing the
pandemic. The chief scientific advisor ofthe WHO is a man named Jeremy Farrar,
who was a was the head ofWelcome Trust, which supported the Wuhan
Lab and the Ego Health Alliance.The WHO mismanaged the pandemic, recommending lockdowns
(17:48):
at scale, essentially copying the Chineseapproach. We should not be trusting them
with more power, and that isexactly what this WHO treaty is asking for,
that we should give them more powerover our health decisions, over our
management of future pandemics. It's notwrong to have international collaboration on pandemics.
I mean, I want to makesure people understand, that's clear, But
(18:08):
the problem is that these people donot deserve our trust, and to come
now around and say we should keepthe same people in charge as if they
did nothing wrong before we've done anhonest investigation of all of the problems that
they caused. I think that's justa tremendous mistake. And it's interesting too
where you mentioned some of the misleadinginformation the government gave, particularly with gain
(18:30):
of Function, because even though we'veknown it the whole time, now the
stories are coming out, Oh it'sofficial National Institutes of Health. They came
out and said, yes, youknow, we did fund gain of function
research even though we were denying it. It makes it difficult to believe them.
And to your point too, withthe WHO. Correct me if I'm
wrong on this, but I rememberdistinctly when China was talking to the WHO
(18:51):
about entering into kind of group projectslike this with other nations, Taiwan was
excluded, even though they had beenleading in terms of contamination and prevention and
reducing numbers of infections, but nobodywanted to talk to them about what they
were doing because of the animosity withChina and Taiwan. Oh No, that
definitely happened, and the WHO Taiwanis persona nograda or guess country non grada
(19:15):
in WHO because because of the Chineseinfluence there. In fact, there was
a very awkward moment of one ofthe lead sort of the lead officials of
the WHO, this name man namedbris Bruce Allward, was in being interviewed
by this journalist and she asked himabout Taiwan. This is like early twenty
twenty, and he pretended to nothear her and then like logged off the
(19:36):
zoom call because he couldn't talk aboutChina about Taiwan. I think a world
organization devoted to health is a goodidea. We need honest, transparent leadership,
We need open communication. We shouldnot be having the kind of sort
of anti science decisions not being checkedby by by you know, other scientists
(19:59):
and certain we should not be havingthis leadership that led us through it very
poorly. This pandemic. Just getmore power. I mean, the premise
seems to be of this WHO treatyis that the only problem was they didn't
have enough power, that they didn'ttake over the decision making of countries enough.
And I have no idea why anyonein the United States thinks it's in
(20:21):
an American interestitut effectually for all onehundred and ninety countries. Anyone that's listening,
I'd recommend don't sign on. Askmore questions, demand more answers before
you say yes, please take mysovereignty. Yeah, especially when, as
you've noted as well, there's alot of questions as to what actually this
entails, because you said that whenyou read the current draft of this whole
treaty itself, it doesn't talk aboutharm prevention. It talks about things like
(20:45):
fighting misinformation, which you have someexperience, right. I mean their problem
they think that the problem was thatthere were outside critics of their anti science
policies. They changed the definition ofthe vaccine during the vaccine is during the
during the pandemic. They changed thedefinition of her immunity. Uh. They
embraced social distancing with no science,admittedly absolutely no science behind it. They
(21:08):
recommended lockdowns to the poorest countries wheremillions of people starved as a consequence of
it. So they you know theproblem, and you know it's fine.
I guess that in science you canbe wrong. The issue is like science
corrects itself by allowing people to criticizeeach other, to talk to each other.
What the Double wants to do isessentially silence criticism. That's what when
(21:30):
they write we want to suppress misinformation, what they mean is they want people
to stop criticizing them effectively. Uh. And that's and they essentially are leaning
into this movement, unfortunately worldwide movementto censor people who disagree with government policy
and to use their control over socialmedia to do that. Yeah, and
(21:52):
which which you've been censored. You'vebeen targeted just because you've been asking questions
and sharing transparently information, which ifthat's the goal. I love that you
said, you know, science correctsitself, which it does. I mean,
if this is purely academic and it'spurely you know, to to find
answers and to remedy these issues,well then there's no then you want to
take all good ideas and you wantto have those answers. But that's not
(22:12):
what was wanted. No. Andin fact, that as you mentioned with
Missouri the Biden or Mithew Murphy viewMissouri at the beginning of the of your
of your segment, that that essentiallyjust so listeners understand, I'm sure your
listeners understand data, but like weactually have. Andrew Bailey is going to
be on later later the social area. It's amazing. He's he's one of
(22:32):
my heroes. I love I lovethe I love what he's done. And
so what what what? What?What that case found was that the US
government, the Biden administration, essentiallywas going to social media companies and telling
them you censor these people and theseideas, or else we're going to go
after you. We'll use our regulatorypart to destroy you. This is the
threats to social media companies, andof course they complied. I was put
(22:55):
on a Twitter blacklist the day Ijoined Twitter for the crime of sharing the
idea that lockdowns were a bad idea. I think. I think that the
COVID era has revealed powers that ourgovernment shouldn't have, and it is in
common on ourselves to to hold thegovernment to account and to put in place
(23:18):
traditional American notions of checks and balances. I mean, the First Amendment is
a great idea. The problem iswe didn't have one during during the COVID
era, and I think that that'spart of the reason why the United States
fared so poorly, the world faredso poorly and the who. What it
wants is a power graph that wantsto suppress speech. It wants to censor
people so that people won't criticize them. I mean, it's not that all
(23:41):
the criticisms are there or good orwrite. I mean, but that's just
the way that the marketplace of ideasworks. The good ideas rise to the
top because they're true, the badideas don't. You can't ex ante say,
oh, I know exactly what whatwhat good ideas and bad ideas are.
I'm the government, Therefore you shouldn'tcriticize me. That is a recipe
(24:03):
for catastrophically bad decisions. And thistreaty I know that from what I've been
able to see. I don't thinkthat the President has signed on to it.
But I am interesting if this isgoing to be I'm interested to see
if this is going to be treatedlike as an actual treaty and go through
the process as is required in theSenate. I just saw a letter from
I think forty nine different centators,led by Ron Johnson, all Republican,
(24:26):
demanding that if it is if theUnited States does want to consider this,
that it be treated as a treaty, that it actually be get subject to
a two thirds vote in the Senate. I mean, I think that American
people deserve at least that if weare going to sign away our sovereignty in
this way, at least two thirdsof the Senate should agree on it,
and we should have a massive publicdebate. It should become a central issue
(24:48):
of the presidential election. Right ifwe are deciding, I mean, we
saw what happened the last four years. Every single American's welfare is at stake
in these decisions. It's not atheoretical thing. It will happen again.
And if we give the kinds ofpowers the who wants, it's going to
impact the life of every single American. And I think you're wrong with this
(25:10):
because you've noted doctor that we havenot repudiated the failed policies that I mean
had such a disastrous effect not juston our population in our country but elsewhere.
So why would we even entertain thisidea because that's what it is.
I mean, all of this isgoing to happen again because we did not
thoroughly repudiate it the first time.I entirely agree with that, Dana,
and the I mean, I readyou know that on the naive I was
(25:32):
data. In twenty twenty two,I wrote a piece actually twenty twenty when
I wrote a piece of the WallStreet shirt and calling for an honest COVID
commission, kind of like if youhave a plane crash, you see what
happened, and you make some reforms. In twenty twenty two, I put
out a blueprint for a for whathonest COVID commission would ask. If there's
something called the Norfolk Group documents stillonline, you can go check me and
(25:53):
my friends. We wrote this thing, just questions that you should ask in
honestcow. None of those questions havebeen answered by an official body. Not
one of them has been answered byan official body. And at this point
it's quite frustrating. I mean Ithought, I honestly thought, because of
the catastrophic mistakes we made during thepandemic, that scientific bodies would come together
and say, well, for thegood of the people's let's do an a
(26:14):
step, not to a portion blame, but just to say here's what we're
wrong, here are the reforms weneed, let's take them, undertake them.
I have not seen that happen inthe Uniteds. I mean, we
do have the Republican Congress looking overlookingwith this COVID Commission, starting to make
some progress, but it needs tobe a bypartisan a thing. Public health
is not politics. You don't winwith fifty plus one. In public health,
(26:37):
you need basically universal support, andyou gain that by being honest about
ideas, about evidence. We havenot had that today. We haven't had
it, and I worry that wewon't. I love what you had said
previously. We're talking with doctor j. Batataria, where you had said that
going back and enlightenment in the Gutenbergpress and the democratization of ideals, and
(26:57):
that we are at this, youknow, sort of second maybe second Enlightenment,
and we have a choice, youknow, are we Are we going
to go towards being able to actuallyaccess and share information? Are we going
to go towards tyranny? And Idon't honestly think we've made that decision as
a society yet, do you?We have not. I would have thought
it would have been the easiest decisionto make in the history of mankind.
(27:18):
But we like what's happened. It'sinteresting because when the Internet sort of exploded,
people thought this is an engine forunleashing the creativity of the world.
Communicating with people from way far outsideof our normal realm and there's the interchange
of ideas would just lead to humanflourishing. But it turns out that the
same technologies can be used for control, for suppression, or authority, the
(27:45):
creation and maintenance of authoritarian power.And so we do we face that,
we face a decision. Are wegoing to use these uh, these technologies
that allow us to talk with eachother very freely, outside of the control
of any and looking over our shoulder, and then use that the same way
the gut and repress allowed people toprint books and communicate with each other,
(28:07):
which led to the scientific revolutions thatwe've enjoyed. Or are we going to
allow authoritarying powers to use that sametechnologies to contain us, to to suppress
us, to censor us, toallow us to put us in a corner
where we just have to valve tothe powers on high say that they are
the science itself. Yeah, that'sa great point, doctor Jay aboutitaria.
(28:30):
We so appreciate your your speech andthis and your fighting this, and of
course you know we're watching the Scotuscase as well. We're talking to the
ag Andrew Bailey coming up next hour, so it should be a good conversation
too, And I definitely am goingto mention this, but it's so good
to have you on. Would loveto have you back. But thank you.
Thank you for your transparency and yourhonesty and your true criticism. It's
we need more of it. Weappreciate you. Thank you, Daniel,
(28:51):
thanks for having me on. Ofcourse, thank you. Thanks for tuning
in to today's edition of Dana Lash'sAbsurd Trooth podcast. If you haven't already,
made sure to hit that subscribe onApple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Dana Lashes of surd Truth podcast sponsoredby Keltech. It's his laugh mission to
make bad decisions. It's time forFlorida Man. So I'm trying to get
my head around this headline. FloridaMan is accused of stealing thirty thousand dollars
in Pokemon cards and is foiled bya topless MMA coach. There's a lot
(00:24):
of stuff happening here. First off, I'm I know a little bit about
Pokemon because when my kids were likesuper little, they were into Pokemon and
they had the cars and all that. So I know that some of them
are very valuable. But thirty thousanddollars in Pokemon cards? Like do what
cars were you going for? Youknow what I mean? Like what he?
So this was earlier, actually tento two weeks ago. The guy
(00:47):
entered pro Play Games in Miami.He wanted to see a binder full of
Pokemon cards. He snatched them,attempted to flee. The store's general manager
said that they felt so helpless.It was like watching thirty to forty thousand
dollars with their hard work just walkoff. And then by standards confronted them.
And then so they say topless,they make it sound like it's a
woman. It was a shirtless MMA. You do, it's newsweek? What's
(01:11):
the matter with you? A shirtlessMMA guy? He the shop owner,
I guess, was yelling outside becauseit was kind of a strip mall thing,
and two March Martial Arts coaches wentout to help and they caught him
and they whipped it on camera.It was pretty entertaining video. But h
yeah, that's how. Yeah,they they can be like super super like.
(01:33):
For instance, there there's like,what is it a PSA Grade ten
illustrator card that that one dude who'son YouTube got for like five point two
the most expensive card ever. That'swild. Like you thought beanie babies were
bad? I never remember those.That was a big deal in the nineties,
wasn't. I just remember as akid, and it wasn't kids who
had beanie babies. It was likeadults who had them. It was weird.
(01:53):
It was like those little porcelain thingsthat people would collect. What were
the name of those? They werelike little dolls or something precious moments.
I don't know, do they havethe big eyes? A Florida man busted
for battery This is gross. No, No, this guy used his soiled
(02:15):
diaper as a weapon. According tothe Smoking Gun, UH, this happened
UH with an eighteen year old DamienCaston who's arguing with his brother and cast
In, cops reported is paralyzed butambulatory by using his upper body and reading
the charging docks. Cast In damagedwalls. He apparently I took his diaper
(02:43):
off and threw it to his brotherand struck his brother in the chest and
then that so now he's charged withdomestic battery. I am fascinated by this.
The guy, the guy with thewheel chees he because he took his
diaper, threw his diaper and becamea weapon. And that's like a sault.
The hell's going on? It's comeon. It's our friends over at
Keltech the Sub two K and thisis the third generation, now the Gen
(03:05):
three. It's been shipping now.It's a nine milimeter carbine and it's easy
to store, easy to deploy,super accurate, and it's fun on the
range. It's like I said,nine milimeter carbine. Previously, with the
other iterations you had to take youroptics off, but you do not with
the Gen three version. No moreattaching and reattaching your favorite optics because with
a simple twist and fold motion ofthat patent pending rotating fore end, the
(03:25):
whole thing folds and half optics andall it accepts glockmags, glock nineteens,
fit flush glock seventeen and stick magswith the mag going past the grip.
All fits and redesigned trigger mechanics,lightened five pound pool. The action has
been updated easier to rack. Also, the internal buffer means softer recoils.
This is just a great carbine forthe whole family, and it's made right
(03:46):
in America, family owned, Floridabased values at their best. To learn
more about Keltech's sub two K Genthree, visit Caltech Weapons dot com that's
k E l t Ec Weapons dotcom and tell them Dana send you.
You just voted voted order to getclear case. Look at calm down,
(04:11):
calm now, no, no,no, because this is what I don't
do this procket. You're not recognized. Your yelling, don't want mom down,
Please call down me to calm down. How's y'all top conto and then
you're out of control? Chair kayorder chair now recognizes miss Green for for
(04:34):
four minutes and twenty one seconds.Four minutes. Let miss Green talk and
then you all can I'll recognize.I moved to strike her words for a
second time based on her second setof personal remarks attacking another member. Chairman
call, because you all cannot seeto the committee. We have to do
(04:55):
this every time I'm recognized. I'mrecognized, I'm gonna go ahead. Look,
I know, I know. Look, I don't know if you've noticed
this two here today. I'm verydaff I'm not understanding everybody's yelling. I'm
doing the best I can. Canwe not recognize miss Greendon letters not because
of the rules of the committee,mister chair that is that is what I'm
(05:16):
trying to communicate. In the presentmoment, we have a mo okay,
which as opposed to any other moment. Hell so so it this is the
thing that is most entertaining to metoday because this is the snapshot of politics.
All hell broke loose in the House. And I like the joke that
Babylon B said, we just needto have like its own girl Congress.
(05:39):
Just have girl Congress and then theregular Congress, and then the girl Congress
can fight about stuff, because that'show it started. Welcome back to the
show Dana Lash with you top ofthe second hour. Can we this is
I will say, this is howit started. Can we play? Just
play? Because this is this ishow all of this started. It had
to do with eyelashes. Listen,do you know if any of the Democrats
(06:04):
on this committee are employing Judge Mershawn'sdaughter. Please send me what it has
to do with Mary Garland? Isshe a point star? Oh Goldman,
that's right, he's advising. Okay'sadvising. Do you do you know what
(06:28):
we're here for? You know we'rehere, Chris, what you're here for?
Well you want talking about I thinkyour fake eyelashes are messing up nothing.
Order, mister chairman. Order.I do have a point of order,
and I would like to move totake down Miss Green's words. Gets
(06:48):
crazier. Now, that is absolutelyunacceptable. How dare you? I mean,
are your feelings her words down?Oh girl, baby girl? Really
don't even play, baby girl.We are gonna move and we're gonna take
your words down. My second motionso so sick? What is that that
(07:11):
Miss Green agrees to strocker words?I believe? Hold on then after mister
Perry's You'll be recognized. I'm notapologized. I am not. I mean,
Comer is just like the hell,I just want to get done with
this, and then he comes He'slike, I'm deaf. I just want
to get done. Oh my gosh, it's Congress. Everybody, Your tax
(07:36):
dollars pay for this. Welcome backDana lash again, Oh man of Congress.
Yeah, the greasy skids of Congress. Greasy for who knows why.
But I again, I do agree. I think we need a separate girl
Congress. Just take y'all's drama overthere. I don't even know. This
had to do with the uh whatwas it? The ongo? Like could
(08:01):
Green had asked, she was lookingto see if anybody there in sitting in
the committee had actually been working withJudge Rashaan. That's Jennifer van Lahar's independent
reporting that was stolen by some plasticcenegrifters, and you know, try to
they try to pass it off astheir own original reporting. But she's the
one who broke all that stuff overat Red State, and she was asking
(08:28):
as to whether or not any ofthe Democrats on the committee had benefited from
that lady's fundraising. You know,Steve's right, I mean, I was
waiting for somebody to go Jerry,Jerry, je just waiting for it,
waiting for a chair to get thrown. There was always a chair to get
thrown. I wonder how many chairsthey went through. It's always a chair
to get thrown. But did theyget it back on track after that?
(08:50):
I don't know. I just wantedto, you know, I don't know
did they get it back on track? I mean, I am just mesmerized.
And I said earlier, I don'tknow how I feel about stuff like
this because as someone, I mean, I told you yesterday, I cut
(09:11):
my teeth inactivism in the streets inSaint Louis, like literally running around raising
money and raising hell. And I, you know, I kind of always
felt that the stuff in Congress,there's a lot of very improper things that
happen and are done and carried outover the American people, and they're given
(09:31):
this veneer of propriety from the processesthrough which it happens. Now they sit
there and their businesswear at their littleoak desks, and they sit in this
committee room, and they gavel inand they gavel out, and they go
through all these processes and it looksvery official and very orderly. But the
stuff that's being done is neither orderlynor official, nor is it nor is
(09:54):
it moral, nor is it halfof the constitutional And they go through this
whole, this whole Rube Goldberg ofthe appearance of propriety, and yet what's
being done to you isn't proper atall, what's being done to taxpayers isn't
proper at all. And so it'slike they think that somehow though keeping it
there ensconced in the well carpeted committeerooms, that that makes it somehow more.
(10:20):
It makes it right, it makesit proper, it makes it moral,
makes it good right, And Ijust don't know. I just so
part of me is like I understandthat civility is really the last line of
defense against a completely just broken downsociety. But at the same time,
there are a lot of people whodon't deserve civility, and I'm not in
a position to indulge people with thewelfare of giving it when I don't feel
(10:41):
it, So you know what Imean, Like, I don't know,
right, right, am I beingwrong on this? Or should we be?
Like? No, this is youknow, they can't act like this,
everybody be Adults should always strive totreat people fairly, Dana. I
think people should be treated as theydeserve. That's me. Yeah, there's
actually an argument where my very diogenisticcynicism comes in, but most of mine.
(11:05):
The reason I go that route isbecause you know, it's like anger
is like drinking poison, expecting yourenemy to die. It's not going to
happen. Gotta you gotta gotta finda center, gotta finds. They just
get dramatic over everyone. That's whatI mean. That's this is the lesson
for them, is what I'm saying. I do think that the eyelash thing
that was like kind of wisome weaksauce. I mean, you didn't have
(11:28):
to strike those words, but stillto strike those words, It's like,
I don't know if was that disparaging. She's like, she just said,
maybe you're were a large eyelash.Yeah, she's like, maybe your eyelashes
are doing this. I mean they'relike stage size. You know. I
don't know, to each to theirown, but you know, I'm just
saying, you know, the timeis now to revolutionize how you approach health
(11:48):
and wellness. So I want tointroduce you to Luhman. It's a groundbreaking
handheld metabolic coach, and with Lumenyou can track your metabolism through your breath
and get real time insights on whetheryou're burning fat or carbs. And the
best part is that the Lumin appprovides tailored guidance to enhance your nutrition,
your workouts, your sleep cycles,even stress management. So it works pretty
(12:11):
easy. You just breathe into yourLumen device first thing in the morning and
you get the snapshot of your metabolismfor the day along with a personalized nutrition
plan. And plus you can useit before and after workouts and meals,
ensuring that you're always in tune withwhat's happening in your body. It helps
to helps your body, helps youread your body's signals, and it gives
you an accurate metabolic reading whereas usuallywould have to go to a lab for
(12:35):
that. Your metabolism is your body'sengine and it powers everything that you do,
so optimizing it with Lumen means easierweight management, improved energy levels,
better fitness results, better sleep.So if you're ready to take the next
step in your health journey, headover to lumen dot me and use code
Dana Show for one hundred dollars offyour lumen device. Remember that's Lume in
(12:58):
dot me lumen dot emmy, anddon't forget to use code Dana Show for
one hundred dollars off. Thanks toLuman for sponsoring this episode and helping everybody
achieve their health goals. And nowall of the news you would probably miss,
it's time for Dana's Quick five.I don't like robots that do human
stuff. It's like weird and thinkfor themselves. And so in this freak
(13:22):
robot that apparently was made in Chinacan learn I don't know, really was
it or is this China being likeno, no, no, we don't
have like crappy tech at all.I don't believe when I read stuff like
this. But they said, apparentlythey're trying to expand this humanoid robot offerings
that they have, and they havethis S one and apparently it can actually
(13:45):
handle hold twenty two pounds per arm. It can go at a pace of
thirty two point eight feet per second, and it's so it's only wires and
metals right now, but they andthey said apparently even can do calligraphy and
open and poor wine, flip asand which in a frying pan. And
it also folds an iron's laundry.That's I don't want it to do all
(14:05):
that stuff. Just don't. Idon't need all that Humans. You got
to be careful here. You're gonnaoutsource everything you do in life to robots
camp I cannot wait for the SouthPark is gonna tackle because of Cartman,
the Ozimbic craze in an End ofObesity special the Seventh Paramount plus South Park's
storyline and data has been announced andthey're calling it the End of Obesity.
(14:26):
And so Cartman has denied access tolife changing medication and the kids jump into
action. And so he's being toldthat he's his weight is out of control.
He needs to get on smeg litude, smug gluten, whatever that is.
He needs to get what is thatlike a derivative of it. He
needs to get on that. That'swhat he's got to get on. So
this is going to be so I'mso watching this. Also, inflation is
(14:50):
a problem, but I don't knowwhat's going on in Amazon. Amazon workers
say they're struggling to afford food andbreadth. They're also struggling to not run
their trucks headfirst into people that Iknow. I'm just saying, but they
said that they're having their their warehouseworkers are struggling. I don't know.
I always like wonder when I youknow, when you kind of do wonder
this stuff, like how it's morethan Amazon? Yeah? Like what?
(15:13):
Yeah? Like how's it going therein the Amazon warehouses? Frozen human brain?
T is you brought back to lifein a major breakthrough? I feel
like we shouldn't be doing this.They said that they may be able.
Scientists may someday be able to freezebrains bring them back to life following a
major breakthrough in cryogenics. This wouldexplain some of the stuff I've been seen
on Twitter lately in terms of behavior. Again, though, this is one
of the things where they say,well it's researchers. Some of the researchers
(15:35):
are from China, which makes mequestion the viability of any of it.
We have a lot more on theway, including the latest we got culture
and a Saint Louis police officer underfire because he lit a cigar while arresting
a suspect. Welcome back to theprogram, Dana lash with you at the
bottom of this second hour, andI've been very eager to talk to our
next guest, because when we wentinto it, when pandemic and lockdown and
(15:58):
everything else happened, we live inan era where we have more access to
information than we ever have before,and you would consider this such a great
period of enlightenment, a great periodof being able to ask questions and get
answers and have honest discussions and nottry to relegate people who are simply asking
questions and wanting transparency, relegating themto the trash heap of censorship. And
(16:18):
in fact, what we got wasthe exact opposite, which then made people
distrust everything that they were hearing evenmore, and as it turns out,
for good reason. Joining me rightnow, you're very familiar with doctor j.
Badataria, professor at Stanford School ofMedicine, and he's been very outspoken
with all of this, particularly toowith the censorship. Obviously we've talked about
(16:41):
Biden v. Missouri or Murphy v. Missouri at this point, and also
his new piece that he has overat Real Clear Policy talking about the World
Health Organization now urging not just US, the United States, but over one
hundred and ninety other governments to agreeto this global treaty to pre event and
manage future pandemics. And I gotto say, doctor Bodataria, I'm a
(17:06):
little surprised by this because aren't westill conducting our own inquiry into this.
How can we even come to aposition of entering into a treaty with them
when we're still doing looking at everythingthat we did wrong. I mean,
Dan, I think you hit itright on the head. The problem is
that the WHO failed during this pandemic. They absolutely failed. They failed,
(17:26):
they and they've elevated the people whopotentially may have been contributed to causing the
pandemic. The chief scientific advisor ofthe WHO is a man named Jeremy Farrar,
who was a was the head ofWelcome Trust, which supported the Wuhan
Lab and the Ego Health Alliance.The WHO mismanaged the pandemic, recommending lockdowns
(17:48):
at scale, essentially copying the Chineseapproach. We should not be trusting them
with more power, and that isexactly what this WHO treaty is asking for,
that we should give them more powerover our health decisions, over our
management of future pandemics. It's notwrong to have international collaboration on pandemics.
I mean, I want to makesure people understand, that's clear, But
(18:08):
the problem is that these people donot deserve our trust, and to come
now around and say we should keepthe same people in charge as if they
did nothing wrong before we've done anhonest investigation of all of the problems that
they caused. I think that's justa tremendous mistake. And it's interesting too
where you mentioned some of the misleadinginformation the government gave, particularly with gain
(18:30):
of Function, because even though we'veknown it the whole time, now the
stories are coming out, Oh it'sofficial National Institutes of Health. They came
out and said, yes, youknow, we did fund gain of function
research even though we were denying it. It makes it difficult to believe them.
And to your point too, withthe WHO. Correct me if I'm
wrong on this, but I rememberdistinctly when China was talking to the WHO
(18:51):
about entering into kind of group projectslike this with other nations, Taiwan was
excluded, even though they had beenleading in terms of contamination and prevention and
reducing numbers of infections, but nobodywanted to talk to them about what they
were doing because of the animosity withChina and Taiwan. Oh No, that
definitely happened, and the WHO Taiwanis persona nograda or guess country non grada
(19:15):
in WHO because because of the Chineseinfluence there. In fact, there was
a very awkward moment of one ofthe lead sort of the lead officials of
the WHO, this name man namedbris Bruce Allward, was in being interviewed
by this journalist and she asked himabout Taiwan. This is like early twenty
twenty, and he pretended to nothear her and then like logged off the
(19:36):
zoom call because he couldn't talk aboutChina about Taiwan. I think a world
organization devoted to health is a goodidea. We need honest, transparent leadership,
We need open communication. We shouldnot be having the kind of sort
of anti science decisions not being checkedby by by you know, other scientists
(19:59):
and certain we should not be havingthis leadership that led us through it very
poorly. This pandemic. Just getmore power. I mean, the premise
seems to be of this WHO treatyis that the only problem was they didn't
have enough power, that they didn'ttake over the decision making of countries enough.
And I have no idea why anyonein the United States thinks it's in
(20:21):
an American interestitut effectually for all onehundred and ninety countries. Anyone that's listening,
I'd recommend don't sign on. Askmore questions, demand more answers before
you say yes, please take mysovereignty. Yeah, especially when, as
you've noted as well, there's alot of questions as to what actually this
entails, because you said that whenyou read the current draft of this whole
treaty itself, it doesn't talk aboutharm prevention. It talks about things like
(20:45):
fighting misinformation, which you have someexperience, right. I mean their problem
they think that the problem was thatthere were outside critics of their anti science
policies. They changed the definition ofthe vaccine during the vaccine is during the
during the pandemic. They changed thedefinition of her immunity. Uh. They
embraced social distancing with no science,admittedly absolutely no science behind it. They
(21:08):
recommended lockdowns to the poorest countries wheremillions of people starved as a consequence of
it. So they you know theproblem, and you know it's fine.
I guess that in science you canbe wrong. The issue is like science
corrects itself by allowing people to criticizeeach other, to talk to each other.
What the Double wants to do isessentially silence criticism. That's what when
(21:30):
they write we want to suppress misinformation, what they mean is they want people
to stop criticizing them effectively. Uh. And that's and they essentially are leaning
into this movement, unfortunately worldwide movementto censor people who disagree with government policy
and to use their control over socialmedia to do that. Yeah, and
(21:52):
which which you've been censored. You'vebeen targeted just because you've been asking questions
and sharing transparently information, which ifthat's the goal. I love that you
said, you know, science correctsitself, which it does. I mean,
if this is purely academic and it'spurely you know, to to find
answers and to remedy these issues,well then there's no then you want to
take all good ideas and you wantto have those answers. But that's not
(22:12):
what was wanted. No. Andin fact, that as you mentioned with
Missouri the Biden or Mithew Murphy viewMissouri at the beginning of the of your
of your segment, that that essentiallyjust so listeners understand, I'm sure your
listeners understand data, but like weactually have. Andrew Bailey is going to
be on later later the social area. It's amazing. He's he's one of
(22:32):
my heroes. I love I lovethe I love what he's done. And
so what what what? What?What that case found was that the US
government, the Biden administration, essentiallywas going to social media companies and telling
them you censor these people and theseideas, or else we're going to go
after you. We'll use our regulatorypart to destroy you. This is the
threats to social media companies, andof course they complied. I was put
(22:55):
on a Twitter blacklist the day Ijoined Twitter for the crime of sharing the
idea that lockdowns were a bad idea. I think. I think that the
COVID era has revealed powers that ourgovernment shouldn't have, and it is in
common on ourselves to to hold thegovernment to account and to put in place
(23:18):
traditional American notions of checks and balances. I mean, the First Amendment is
a great idea. The problem iswe didn't have one during during the COVID
era, and I think that that'spart of the reason why the United States
fared so poorly, the world faredso poorly and the who. What it
wants is a power graph that wantsto suppress speech. It wants to censor
people so that people won't criticize them. I mean, it's not that all
(23:41):
the criticisms are there or good orwrite. I mean, but that's just
the way that the marketplace of ideasworks. The good ideas rise to the
top because they're true, the badideas don't. You can't ex ante say,
oh, I know exactly what whatwhat good ideas and bad ideas are.
I'm the government, Therefore you shouldn'tcriticize me. That is a recipe
(24:03):
for catastrophically bad decisions. And thistreaty I know that from what I've been
able to see. I don't thinkthat the President has signed on to it.
But I am interesting if this isgoing to be I'm interested to see
if this is going to be treatedlike as an actual treaty and go through
the process as is required in theSenate. I just saw a letter from
I think forty nine different centators,led by Ron Johnson, all Republican,
(24:26):
demanding that if it is if theUnited States does want to consider this,
that it be treated as a treaty, that it actually be get subject to
a two thirds vote in the Senate. I mean, I think that American
people deserve at least that if weare going to sign away our sovereignty in
this way, at least two thirdsof the Senate should agree on it,
and we should have a massive publicdebate. It should become a central issue
(24:48):
of the presidential election. Right ifwe are deciding, I mean, we
saw what happened the last four years. Every single American's welfare is at stake
in these decisions. It's not atheoretical thing. It will happen again.
And if we give the kinds ofpowers the who wants, it's going to
impact the life of every single American. And I think you're wrong with this
(25:10):
because you've noted doctor that we havenot repudiated the failed policies that I mean
had such a disastrous effect not juston our population in our country but elsewhere.
So why would we even entertain thisidea because that's what it is.
I mean, all of this isgoing to happen again because we did not
thoroughly repudiate it the first time.I entirely agree with that, Dana,
and the I mean, I readyou know that on the naive I was
(25:32):
data. In twenty twenty two,I wrote a piece actually twenty twenty when
I wrote a piece of the WallStreet shirt and calling for an honest COVID
commission, kind of like if youhave a plane crash, you see what
happened, and you make some reforms. In twenty twenty two, I put
out a blueprint for a for whathonest COVID commission would ask. If there's
something called the Norfolk Group documents stillonline, you can go check me and
(25:53):
my friends. We wrote this thing, just questions that you should ask in
honestcow. None of those questions havebeen answered by an official body. Not
one of them has been answered byan official body. And at this point
it's quite frustrating. I mean Ithought, I honestly thought, because of
the catastrophic mistakes we made during thepandemic, that scientific bodies would come together
and say, well, for thegood of the people's let's do an a
(26:14):
step, not to a portion blame, but just to say here's what we're
wrong, here are the reforms weneed, let's take them, undertake them.
I have not seen that happen inthe Uniteds. I mean, we
do have the Republican Congress looking overlookingwith this COVID Commission, starting to make
some progress, but it needs tobe a bypartisan a thing. Public health
is not politics. You don't winwith fifty plus one. In public health,
(26:37):
you need basically universal support, andyou gain that by being honest about
ideas, about evidence. We havenot had that today. We haven't had
it, and I worry that wewon't. I love what you had said
previously. We're talking with doctor j. Batataria, where you had said that
going back and enlightenment in the Gutenbergpress and the democratization of ideals, and
(26:57):
that we are at this, youknow, sort of second maybe second Enlightenment,
and we have a choice, youknow, are we Are we going
to go towards being able to actuallyaccess and share information? Are we going
to go towards tyranny? And Idon't honestly think we've made that decision as
a society yet, do you?We have not. I would have thought
it would have been the easiest decisionto make in the history of mankind.
(27:18):
But we like what's happened. It'sinteresting because when the Internet sort of exploded,
people thought this is an engine forunleashing the creativity of the world.
Communicating with people from way far outsideof our normal realm and there's the interchange
of ideas would just lead to humanflourishing. But it turns out that the
same technologies can be used for control, for suppression, or authority, the
(27:45):
creation and maintenance of authoritarian power.And so we do we face that,
we face a decision. Are wegoing to use these uh, these technologies
that allow us to talk with eachother very freely, outside of the control
of any and looking over our shoulder, and then use that the same way
the gut and repress allowed people toprint books and communicate with each other,
(28:07):
which led to the scientific revolutions thatwe've enjoyed. Or are we going to
allow authoritarying powers to use that sametechnologies to contain us, to to suppress
us, to censor us, toallow us to put us in a corner
where we just have to valve tothe powers on high say that they are
the science itself. Yeah, that'sa great point, doctor Jay aboutitaria.
(28:30):
We so appreciate your your speech andthis and your fighting this, and of
course you know we're watching the Scotuscase as well. We're talking to the
ag Andrew Bailey coming up next hour, so it should be a good conversation
too, And I definitely am goingto mention this, but it's so good
to have you on. Would loveto have you back. But thank you.
Thank you for your transparency and yourhonesty and your true criticism. It's
we need more of it. Weappreciate you. Thank you, Daniel,
(28:51):
thanks for having me on. Ofcourse, thank you. Thanks for tuning
in to today's edition of Dana Lash'sAbsurd Trooth podcast. If you haven't already,
made sure to hit that subscribe onApple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.