The PayPal Presidency Pt. I: Biotech and Biosurveillance with Max Jones

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
WW (00:19):
Hey. And welcome to Unlimited Hangout. I'm your
host. Whitney Webb, Donald Trumphas returned to the White House,
and since then, drastic changeshave manifested as a very clear
effort to reorder the USgovernment take shape. Many
Trump supporters are related,arguing that true changes come,
that corruption and fraud arebeing rooted out, and that the
quote, unquote Deep State isbeing dismantled before our
eyes, while a dismantling ofgovernment infrastructure, some

(00:42):
more controversial than others,is certainly happening, few of
the cheerleaders are taking thetime to consider what may be
erected in its place, and if itwill really manifest in
something better than theprevious system. Part of the
reason for this disinterest,perhaps lies in the celebrity
status of many in the big techclique that is shaping this
demolition of old structures andthe erecting of new ones that

(01:04):
click, often referred to as thePayPal Mafia, have carefully
crafted a public image oflibertarianism with a few
exceptions, and through theirsignificant patronage of so
called independent media, havesuccessfully manufactured trust
among many long time and alsoRecent Trump voters, with some
calling these former PayPalemployees, quote, unquote, our
elites behind this carefullycrafted image lies something

(01:28):
different, however, from CIAlinked companies like Palantir
expanding their role at the coreof the mass surveillance state
to the PayPal mafia's longstanding ambition to create a
quote, unquote, new worldcurrency, many of the same
policies that once recentlyincensed the right are cited to
now be implemented by thisfaction of big tech who have
cloaked themselves in freemarket in America. First

(01:50):
rhetoric to explore thisreality, the Unlimited Hangout
podcast is beginning its firstever series entitled the PayPal
presidency to explore the way inwhich the PayPal Mafia is
molding government policy, aswell as some of the often
overlooked ambitions of itsmembers. In this first
installment, we will look atthis group's ambitions for
healthcare and biotechnology.Many Trump voters this cycle

(02:12):
embraced the quote, unquote,make America healthy again, or
MAHA movement, which initiallysupported a rejection of the
experimental biotech productsrolled out during the COVID era,
as well as a desire to extricategovernment health care
regulation from thepharmaceutical industry. While
it appears that MAHA de factochampion, Robert F Kennedy is
slated to become of HHS, theDepartment of Health and Human

(02:34):
Services, the Department ispoised to approve a slate of
experimental products viaderegulation, to introduce bio
surveillance regimes that wouldresult in mass bio data mining
and to expand Palantir's Alreadymassive and invasive contracts
with HHS joining me to discussthis and more is Max Jones, who
was written and co-writtenseveral recent Unlimited Hangout

(02:56):
investigations covering thesevery topics. In addition to
contributing to UnlimitedHangout. Max is the producer for
Chris Hedges, the Chris Hedgesreport and the staff writer and
Video Producer for sheer Post,thanks for joining me today,
Max, and welcome to UnlimitedHangout. Thanks for having me.
Whitney, well, it is mypleasure, and I guess we could
start up this discussion talkingabout the MAHA movement itself,

(03:20):
how it was an important part ofgetting Trump elected, at least,
you know, that's the perceptionanyway, and how a lot of the
initially stated goals thatinjected a lot of energy into
that movement have graduallybeen moved largely since the
Kennedy endorsement of Trumpseveral months ago. So as I
noted earlier, a lot of theinitial focus of MAHA was around

(03:44):
taking big pharma, thepharmaceutical industry, out of
government, healthcareregulation, ending the so called
revolving door, which was a bigfocus of Robert F Kennedy's
campaign, and some of his workprior and definitely something
he voiced extensively on hispodcast, and also a rejection of
COVID era policies thatincluding the military, military

(04:06):
run operation warp speedinitially launched during the
first Trump administration. Andalso the experimental biotech
products, the namely the mRNAvaccines, that were produced
downstream of Operation warpspeed and became, you know,
obviously a source of greatcontroversy for a lot of people
in this particular movement. Butit seems like a lot of the MAHA

(04:30):
ambitions, at least if you'refollowing what the influencers
in this movement are saying,seems to have changed. Have you
noticed that as well? Yeah,

MJ (04:39):
definitely. Because it's actually interesting, because I
think that there's been thischaracterization of RFK Jr, on
the liberal side of the spectrumas being like this insane right
wing nut job, even though he's aright wing Democrat. And then
there's this, I mean, I guess alot of a lot of people on the
right, or conservatives thatwere skeptical of COVID era
policy really were drawn to him.Of because of his critiques that

(05:01):
I think he made in the book thathe wrote, which were all very a
lot of it, which was very valid.And when you look at our case,
actual initial agenda that wasthen associated with Make
America healthy again, it wasbuilt on this kind of like
liberal promise to useregulatory power to curb the
influence of big pharma and bigfood and, you know, some of the

(05:24):
things that and in a prettymoderate way, I think that, like
in previous election cycles, ifit was coming from a more
traditional like DemocraticParty figure that wasn't
associated with conservativesvia COVID. I'm guessing most
liberals would probably supportlike one of the things that he

(05:45):
wanted to do, aside from theincreasing regulations and
making the clinical trials forvaccines more rigorous, were
things like stopping advertisingon TV from big pharma, which is
something that's like prettywidely accepted among the
Democratic Party constituency, Ibelieve. But, you know, partisan
politics kind of brain rotseverything. So there's this

(06:07):
weird distortion with RFK. Andso while RFK is an initial
agenda was built on this kind ofpromise to use regulatory power
to curb the influence of theseindustries, there's been this
shift, and that kind of grew outof, as we note in the article,
out of the shuttering of hiscampaign and his association
with Trump and RFK. Endorsementof Trump, in my opinion, was

(06:29):
pretty important, because theTrump campaign, I think,
realized this time around thatthe populist element of Trump
was what was going to give themthe victory against the
Democrats, which were very muchassociated with the
establishment, and RFK kind ofgranted them this tinge of
populism through his associationwith Trump. And now we see, I

(06:52):
mean, just like recently withthese hearings, RFK is starting
to really back away from theseinitial promises to use
regulatory power to do thingslike increase the rigorousness
of clinical trials on vaccinesand re examining the childhood
vaccine mandates. And like justone tidbit that I saw on the New

(07:12):
York Times the other day thatlike shows this. So in order to
move forward in his confirmationto lead HHS, RFK, secured the
endorsement of Senator BillCassidy. And Cassidy has obvious
ties to Big Pharma and vaccinedevelopment like so. And by the
way, the way that he securedthis endorsement, according to
the Times, was by extracting aseries of commitments from

(07:34):
Kennedy. Cassidy did. AndCassidy's largest donors are
from pharma and healthcarecompanies, like his second
largest contributor was,contributor was actually from
Ochsner health system. If Idon't know if that's how you
pronounce it, but it's spelledout, O, C, H, s, N, E, R, and
they actually, during thepandemic, increased insurance
costs for their employees withunvaccinated spouses during the

(07:56):
pandemic. And r k allegedlypromised this guy, Cassidy, that
he was going to give Congressadvance notice of any changes he
might make in vaccine policy, sothat, among other comments that
RFK made, which you can whichyou can describe for the
audience, really show RFKshifting away from this initial
agenda that I think reallyhelped Trump cultivate a lot of

(08:18):
those COVID era dissidents,despite being The government
that actually initiated a lot ofthis policy, like Operation warp

WW (08:23):
speed, yeah. So I think, you know, obviously there are the
devil's advocates out there thatsay, Well, of course, RFK had to
say these things in front of theSenate, otherwise he can't be
confirmed. But sort of thatwishy washiness as a means of
obtaining political power, itopens up enough doubt that you
can't really know if that's trueor not. And if he's expressing,

(08:46):
you know, the viewpoints heexpressed there to the Senate,
it's certainly possible that heplans to implement those
policies stated there. Obviouslyhe'd experienced a lot more
resistance if he were to pursuestuff he said, you know, back
when he was on the campaigntrail, for example. But again,
it remains to be seen, I think,to an extent, with RFK as HHS

(09:06):
Secretary. But I think therehave been some revealing
statements even before andreports even before his
confirmation hearing. So one ofthese was a Wall Street Journal
article that's from January 14,so a little almost a month ago,
and it's entitled Trump teamsidelines, RFK juniors, anti
vaccine aides. And essentiallythat article, citing people

(09:30):
close to both Trump and Kennedy,says that Kennedy was sort of
dumping a lot of his peopleclose to him that were expected
to serve as AIDS if he wereappointed to HHS that he had
affiliations with, fromchildren's health, defense, from
example, in favor of, well, itseems like he didn't really pick

(09:51):
his staff, actually. So one ofthese would be that his chief of
staff is Heather flick, who waspicked by Trump, who was per.
Previously involved with AlexAzar's HHS, which was Trump,
Trump's first term. And youknow, was the HHS that have
first declared COVID a healthemergency, and oversaw a lot of
the creation and implementationof Operation warp speed before

(10:15):
Biden came into office. And sothere is a section in this
article that basically, and I'mparaphrasing here, but
essentially said something tothe effect that he was going to
not pursue changes to vaccinepolicy because it instead was
going to focus on wins and foodand exercise. And it's

(10:39):
interesting that that reportcame out when it did, because in
the months prior to that, sortof these several influential
figures. Now, influentialfigures sort of seem to come out
of nowhere after the Kennedyendorsement of Trump, namely the
mean siblings Callie and Caseymeans and started promoting a
lot of this, the stuff aboutsort of blaming chronic the

(11:03):
chronic disease epidemic, asit's been referred to, in which
I agree with the nomenclaturethere as being, you know, pretty
much entirely due to big foodand but only specific aspects of
things in big food. I don'tthink biotech, you know, GMOs
and the food supply werenecessarily, have been really

(11:23):
addressed meaningfully by themean siblings, but have sort of
focused on the unhealthystandard American diet, and sort
of this promotion of things likebeef tallow, among other things,
which you know is, is fineeither I'm not, certainly not
criticizing, you know, thoseclaims, but I think it's sort of

(11:44):
an effort to engineer a moremyopic stance for MAHA so that
it's easier to secure thosequote, unquote wins for the
movement, and sort of act likecampaign promises so that
coalition were fulfilled, whileavoiding the ones that involve
removing industry influence fromHHS and the FDA, for example,

(12:05):
and anything that would have todo with sort of taking mRNA
products off the market ormaking it more difficult to get
on the market, right?

MJ (12:13):
And another thing that I found interesting in that
article was that they describedflick according to a former FDA
officials. So I don't knowexactly how accurate this claim
is, but I wouldn't be surprisedif it's true, and it seems to
fit based on the money andinterest in the that are
associated with the Trumpadministration, that flick is
acting as the sort of, this iswhat they say, sort of Trump

(12:35):
guys, eyes and ears within thedepartment too. She's a very
important liaison andinformation source, source, the
chief of staff, they kind of laydown the law. So like that
implies that there is thiseffort from within the Trump
camp to basically subvertKennedy's more radical agenda, I
guess you could say, and itsounds like a babysitter, yeah,
exactly. And that makes you knowthat might be surprising to a

(12:59):
lot of people that are, youknow, follow these like Matt hat
or MAGA influencers that kind ofjust don't really cover this
stuff. But when you look at thepeople that are actually very
heavily affiliated with Trump,it's not that surprising. Like,
for example, example, the mostobvious one is probably like
Peter Thiel, who, you know was,is pretty much entirely
responsible for the rise of JDVance's entire political career,

(13:22):
and also started his privatesector career in venture
capital. And I mean, Peter Thielis the founder and the largest
currently the largestshareholder of Palantir. And
Palantir right now has acontract with the CD has
multiple contracts with HHS andthe CDC, which is a sub agency

(13:43):
of this HHS, to basically buildup this entire bio surveillance
infrastructure across across thecountry, to basically feed data
from the local level to thefederal level, a steady stream
of bio data to constantlydevelop pandemic and disease
outbreak Forecast, to then allowthe CDC to correspondingly
provide curated policy forcommunities based on their

(14:06):
outbreak potential or outbreakstatus or whatever. And so
obviously, like something likethat, is very heavily associated
with these mRNA, the procurementof mRNA and biotechnology
products, as we saw during COVID19, like you reported, I think,
initially in the last Americanvagabond, about how Google and

(14:26):
Oracle were according to, Ithink, one of the operation warp
speed heads. I don't know ifthis was actually like, if the
contracts were ever

WW (14:32):
officially, Slaouil, who was the head of Operation warp
speed, said it, yeah, thatGoogle and Oracle had received
contracts to follow recipientsof the COVID 19 mRNA vaccines
for up to two years, right?

MJ (14:45):
Yeah. So, so um, biosurveillance is part and
parcel to uh, Emergency,emergency, um, procurement,
development and distribution ofbiotechnology products. So,
like, right there? You have aclear example of how one of the
key guys associated with Trumphas made huge investments in

(15:06):
this industry existing in thefirst place. So when you take
note of that, it actually makesthis whole effort to subvert
Kennedy. And this, thisincentive from Kennedy so in
order to secure the position to,like, basically distance himself
from his initial policy agenda.It actually makes a lot of

(15:26):
sense.

WW (15:27):
Yeah, well, I think there's the potential also to do some
sort of dynamic, some good cop,bad cop dynamic, at least in
terms of public perception withHHS policy going forward,
considering, as we coveredrecently, you know the
appointment to be the deputy toRFK, Deputy HHS Secretary being

(15:48):
Jim O'Neill, who was a long timePeter Thiel associate, co
founder. Used to run the ThielFoundation. Co founded the Thiel
fellowship with Peter Thielworked at Mithril Capital and
also Clarium capital, which isnow Thiel Capital. And obviously
at Mithril, he was JD Vance'sboss, I guess, where, you know,

(16:09):
significant investments inbiotech and also in Palantir
were made so Jim O'Neill. And asyou can read our article on
this, for all the nitty grittydetails. He essentially has been
arguing for quite some time forthe end, ending of efficacy
testing of products at, I guessthe FDA specifically. He was

(16:31):
actually floated to be FDA headunder the first Trump
administration, and wasconsidered too controversial for
that role. I can't remember ifBalaji Srinivasan, who's the
Andreessen Horowitz partner thatcreated the network state idea.
He was also pitched to be headof FDA, but was also deemed too
controversial, and then theysettled, I guess, on Scott

(16:53):
Gottlieb, who became kind ofinfamous during the COVID era
for his revolving doorrelationship with Pfizer and
also the CIA linked companythat's now doing all the bio
manufacturing for this, a lot ofthe mRNA vaccines. It's called
resilience, I think previouslywas called National resilience,
that I reported on some fewyears ago. But essentially, Jim

(17:16):
O'Neill, by eliminating efficacytests, would facilitate a lot of
these products getting on themarket, because, as a lot of my
past reporting and reporting ofothers has noted about these
mRNA products, and what was evenknown about them before the
COVID 19 event. Basically, youcan either make them safe but

(17:37):
not effective, or toxic andeffective. It's kind of like the
slider where you either get oneor the other, and that makes it,
of course, very difficult forthem to get through the existing
regulatory paradigm at the FDA.And as we noted just a minute
ago, a lot of what was theinitial ambition, at least
publicly expressed, of the ofthis MAHA movement was about

(18:00):
more stringent clinical testingfor these types of experimental
products. Because, of course, alot of the controversy around
what happened during COVID 19 isthat, you know, the emergency
deregulatory paradigm was usedto force this experimental
biotech onto the market and ontothe public. And basically the

(18:21):
people that took it becameguinea pigs. And this is when
you can, when you consider that,for 10 years, Moderna, and you
know, Pfizer's bio in tech, butyou know, they couldn't get
anything on the market, becausethey couldn't even get through
animal trials, you know, all ofa sudden they can get on the
market and they're,

MJ (18:40):
well, yeah, like, like moderna, as you reported in your
moderna in need of a Hail Maryseries, it actually suffered
from a lot of the same problemsthat we note in our article,
that the companies that O'Neillinvest in via Mithril, and also,
I think, I think Personally aswell, suffers from, which is,

(19:02):
like, they can't even getthrough or even get to clinical
trials sometimes because ofthese problems, right? And like,
like, some of these companiesthat he's worked for have
existed for like, over a decade,and they have no products
brought to market, just likemoderna before the COVID 19
pandemic, and they were, yeah,

WW (19:20):
and so some of these companies have been around for,
like, 15 years or a lot longer,in some cases, and haven't been
able to get anything on themarket. So obviously, the only
way to get it on the market thusfar has been to, you know, use
COVID 19 vaccines because of,you know, the emergency use
authorization. I wouldtechnically call it a loophole

(19:40):
in this case, but it's reallythe only way that it's been able
to go on the market. Obviously,it seems like the testing for
livestock. You know, there'sbeen a lot of talk about mRNA
products already being with thelivestock. I guess there are
cases where it does get throughanimal trials for animal
vaccines, but I have a feelingthat animal vaccine tests.
Testing is a lot less stringentthan it is for humans. And I

(20:05):
don't know Well, I'm kind of Ithink it's interesting this
whole ending efficacy testingparadigm, because, of course,
it's being framed as a way toremove needless regulation and
bureaucratic red tape and tomake way for free market
innovation. And these are, youknow, kind of the standard
Republican talking points here.But obviously what happened

(20:31):
during COVID 19 was a removal,technically right, of that
bureaucratic red tape, and itsort of unleashed a very corrupt
pharmaceutical industry, or wingof it, rather, in biotech, to
have no liability for theseexperimental products and have
them used massively and to reapmassive profits from them. And

(20:54):
of course, now that's beenpitched as the US government
would share in those profits.Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
in the press conferenceannouncing the creation of a new
US sovereign wealth fund,commented how the US would begin
buying equity and and thesetypes of vaccine companies. So
that when you know COVID 19vaccines, for example, are sold

(21:15):
abroad, the US government, youknow, has a direct financial
incentive, which is prettytelling, I think, of where this
administration plans to go withmRNA, and I think also the some
of the controversial statementsmade by Oracle's Larry Ellison
at the Stargate press pressconference on Trump's first day

(21:37):
in the White House about thisnew era of AI powered
personalized mRNA vaccines forcancer. You know, a lot of these
mRNA companies that got, youknow, sort of looked at by
independent media during COVID,a lot of them have been focusing
on cancer specifically for along time, because you can
basically charge more becauseyou're making a personalized

(22:00):
vaccine for each person. There'sbeen a push for this. It was
arguably one of the reasons thatBiden created the ARPA-H the
health DARPA agency, which heframed as a cancer moonshot. A
lot of it was framed around thisvery same idea that is being
promoted on day one of the TrumpWhite House, which is quite

(22:21):
telling, and importantly, ARPA-H

MJ (22:23):
was, as you noted in your investigation, was initially
approached to the Trumpadministration as a pre crime
tool, and a lot of I don't thinkthat there was any when they
transitioned to a predictivehealth program, it wasn't like
they changed the data sourcesthat they would be tapping under
this program for pre healthpurposes, versus

WW (22:46):
the architect, I mean, one of the So, the main guy behind
it is this guy named Bob Wright,who was the top executive at NBC
Universal, and he's a goodfriend of Trump, because that is
the, you know, the the networkthat brought you the the
apprentice, but it was the mainarchitect that was hired by
Wright to design the program asan ex DARPA guy named Jeffrey

(23:06):
Ling, who was basically runninga lot of the experimental
biotech stuff at DARPA. Becauseinitially, a lot of this mRNA
technology came out of DARPAfunding. A lot of it happening
under the Obama administrationthere DARPA. And since then, you
know, the head of the directorof DARPA, when those initial
investments in mRNA were made,was, is Regina Dugan, and she

(23:29):
has since become head of theWelcome Trust, own DARPA
equivalent, called Welcome leap,that I reported on a few years
ago. So, you know, it's, it'snotable, I think that this is
set to expand in the US underthe current administration,
because a lot of the sameentities that were vilified

(23:53):
during COVID, and I think wererightly vilified personally,
whether that's the WellcomeTrust or Bill Gates and the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation areall in on biotech and really see
it as necessary to expand, youknow, their ambitions for global
health, and you know, the healthrelated Sustainable Development
Goals, which I've argued, youknow, in my work on the SDGs, is

(24:14):
really about creating newmarkets, and using public
policy to impose those marketson people, because there's no
actual demand for the productsof these markets that they're
making, and that kind of, youknow, I think maybe kind of
similar to what ends uphappening here, you know, it's
ultimately, you know, maybe thesales pitches are different, or

(24:35):
the way it's being marketed isgoing to be different, you know,
under Trump. But ultimately,having this, the having this
type of experimentalbiotechnology be all over the
market, and it's used to benormalized, I think, is
definitely something that we canexpect over the next four years,
unfortunately. And I thinkanother indicator of this, in
addition to sort of these quote,unquote babysitters that are

(24:57):
actually going to be running theshow for our. RFK, you know,
he's nominally the head, butHeather flick, as Chief of
Staff, decides who gets accessto him, what his schedule is,
what he does as HHS Secretary,basically. And then Jim O'Neill
being basically the person whomanages day to day operations
and oversees the FDA and allthese sub agencies on Kennedy's

(25:17):
behalf, there is a lot of roomto go against Kennedy, even if
Kennedy was intent onchallenging biotech as head of
HHS. And as you noted earlier,it's not necessarily clear that
is the case, but I don't want tocome out and say it's not a
possibility. But you know, I'mnot very enthusiastic about the

(25:38):
prospects at the moment, but Idon't want to necessarily say I
know for a fact what his plansare. But another figure that
sort of points to this, inaddition to the people at HHS,
the Larry Ellison statements,the Lutnick statements, is the
guy who's slated to be head ofthe FDA himself. So that's Marty
Makary, or Martin Makary, who'sa top guy at Johns Hopkins, I

(26:00):
believe, and he became a prettypopular recently. He was, like,
on promoted a lot to Trump'sbase, I think before he was
announced to be FDA head, goingon, like the Megyn Kelly show. I
think he even has his ownpodcast. But he definitely was a
frequent guest on a lot ofpodcast circuits, and, you know,
sort of talking about, using alot of the MAHA buzz words

(26:22):
about, you know, chronic healthepidemic and all of that, but
it's his tech, his stance onbiotech, I think, has sort of
been overlooked by a lot ofthese influencers in the Make
America healthy again movement.And I think that was pretty
clearly portrayed, not just bythe the reporting on industry

(26:43):
reactions to his appointment ascharge of the FDA, but also the
boost in stocks for biotech thatMakary announcement elicited.
So of course, you know, therehave been reports saying every
time like a you know, Kennedy'sis advancing toward getting
confirmed, there's a dip invaccine stocks, but the opposite

(27:04):
seems to be true for MartyMakary, who has been was
considered, is considered veryfriendly to the biotech industry
by the people that run thatindustry to the so much to the
point that some have said theydodged a bullet with his
appointment, which I think isnotable, and as we noted in our

(27:24):
article, his statements duringCOVID 19, he was very unhappy
with it taking multiple weeksfor the COVID 19 vaccines to be
approved under the emergency useparadigm at the FDA. He argued
it should have happened in lessthan 24 hours. So that's sort
of, you know, combined with howbiotech feels about him, and

(27:45):
that that COVID stance underthat particular deregulatory
paradigm, it seems like he'd bepretty supportive of the vision
that people like Jim O'Neillhold. And I don't think I made
it explicit earlier, and Iprobably should have, but Jim
O'Neill's interest ineliminating efficacy tests isn't
necessarily to eliminate allefficacy data collection. He

(28:08):
thinks that data collectionshould take place after people
take the drug, and she should beconducted via bio surveillance.
And as we note in the article,there are a lot of people that
he cites as sort of his, I guessmentors, in a sense, in
developing this view, who arguethat that should happen through
a variety of means and have avariety of outcomes. I don't

(28:31):
know if you'd be interested inspeaking to that Max, yeah,

MJ (28:34):
for sure. And just one other thing that I think will lead
into this stuff about RichardBarker, who, I think you're
talking about, one of the peoplethat he mentions as being like,
I mean, not, he doesn't saynecessarily that's like an
inspiration, but he talks abouthow he really appreciates his
work, and thinks they're doinggreat stuff on this end of
basically deregulation and butO'Neill's interest, as he notes

(29:01):
himself in that talk that wherehe says that notorious line,
well, it was notorious. Seemslike no one cares anymore, at
least in the mainstream media,about eliminating efficacy
tests. He's actually beeninterested in this deregulatory
paradigm since his time at HHS,I think, with Tommy Thompson and

(29:21):
Mike Leavitt, where he wasnotably very close in proximity
to the centers of power thatdeveloped this initially made a
huge step, a significant steptowards this deregulatory
paradigm. And you talked aboutcreating artificial like,
basically manufacturingartificial demand for these
markets that no one reallywants. O'Neill was arguably,

(29:44):
well, I don't, I don't want tocomment on how crucial of a role
he played, but he was certainlyvery close in proximity to the
centers of power, the at the HHSthat were crucial in getting the
BARDA pass, the projectbioshield act of 2004 which.
Implemented, or created theBARDA agency, and that then led

(30:06):
to them purchasing all of theseTamiflu stockpiles, as you noted
in the article, which kind ofcaused Gilead stock prices to, I
think, as you noted, quadrupleright when it when it had dipped
before.

WW (30:19):
Well, so BARDA basically functions as like a an ATM for
Big Pharma, any sort of youknow, threats, no matter how
manufactured the threat is. Andin the case of bird flu, it was
mostly manufactured by peoplewho are now very discredited
post COVID 19, like NeilFerguson of the Imperial College
of London, a lot of his modelingwas used to create these

(30:42):
doomsday statistics about what apotential bird flu pandemic
would be like, you know, between2004 and 2006 right? And you
know, he was fresh off thecontroversy in Britain, where he
helped use similar doomsdaystatistic modeling of dubious
credibility as a part of thegovernment response to a mad cow

(31:03):
disease outbreak, which led tothe unnecessary culling of an
insane amount of livestock inBritain and very negatively
impacted their farming industry.Um, but basically, you know, as
we learned during COVID 19, it'svery possible to manufacture uh,
fear, using statistics and usingquote, unquote experts in the
events of real in the absence ofreal clinical data showing the

(31:26):
same. And by doing so, you know,you create this threat, and
Congress can express outrage,or, you know, the media drums up
concern, Congress responds, andBARDA ends up buying a bunch of
stockpiles of medication, oftenbillions of dollars worth from
pharmaceutical companies, ofthings that will be used to

(31:48):
respond to this doomsday eventthat doesn't exist yet. And that
stockpile, you know, wasjustified initially by the 2001
anthrax attacks we need it waspushed for back as a policy
response to that before projectbioshield was even introduced in
Congress, this idea that there'sgoing to be bio terror events. I

(32:11):
mean, that was back, you know,this is back in the War on
Terror era. So that's initiallyhow they sold it. But
eventually, you know, moved theidea of sort of a zoonotic
pandemic, and needing to sort ofstockpile. And so the stockpile
since then has sort of been toto address both of those
threats, and has often beenused, you know, by companies of

(32:33):
to basically boost companies of,you know, dubious credibility,
like emergent bio solutions, whocreated the anthrax vaccine that
was never properly tested anddoes not work and has been
linked to Gulf War Syndrome,among other things, and was
actually being given to militarypersonnel and used in an off

(32:53):
label way to the point wherethey lost in court and had to
stop giving it to people until,you know, people like Jerome
Hauer came in and saved the day.We can talk about Jerome Hauer
another time, but if you'reinterested in learning more
about him and weird things abouthim at 911 you can read my few
years old series calledengineering contagion, about

(33:14):
those attacks and how a lot ofthis came to be. But basically,
the people that created thatinfrastructure were also the
people that led early COVIDresponse, like Robert Catholic,
for example, who was AssistantSecretary for Preparedness and
Response under the first Trumpadministration. He helped author
project bioshield, develop theidea for BARDA. I was very close

(33:36):
to the click that I argue in myseries actually committed the
2001 anthrax attacks. There's noway it was actually Bruce Ivans.
Anyway, getting a little offtopic, but basically, you know,
it was basically a way to createwelfare for Big Pharma and to
manufacture fear for the purposeof basically creating markets

(34:03):
for products people don't needor want, and using fear to do
so. And also, at the same time,it's, you know, a dual use, in a
way, because fear is alsoroutinely used to take away
people's civil liberties. Soit's a way to get people to
surrender bodily autonomy in oneway, and also a way to get civil
liberties, as many of them actsas possible for the benefit of

(34:24):
the national security state. AndI think, you know, COVID, 19
years after, you know, bioshieldwas passed, was definitely quite
revealing and how, that's howthese things tend to work. So,
you know, Jim O'Neill'sproximity to that, I think, is
worth pointing out. And as wenote in the article, he was the
main speech writer for TommyThompson. And leave it when a

(34:47):
lot of this fear mongering aboutbird flu was going on and when
project bio shield was beingpeddled to Congress. And he, you
know, notes in his own CV thathe was very involved with Pan.
Academic response and writingspeeches on pandemic influenza,
which in this case refers to thebird flu speeches, and then

(35:08):
subsequently went on to lead,you know, various, not the same
type of role he'll be having nowas number two, but definitely a
top tier HHS executive levelposition later on. So he
definitely had a lot of cloutwithin the the Bush
administration's HHS, and itseems like a lot of that

(35:29):
deregulatory vision that was,you know, characteristic of the
Bush era is likely to make acomeback, even with someone like
RFK as the public face of theagency, yeah,

MJ (35:40):
notably by his own, you know, admission like he was
interested in this deregulationfrom the beginning, or from his
entire, from the beginning ofhis public sector career, at
least. And he was there helpingthis legislation, presumably
helping this legislation getpassed on the speechwriting
teams of Tommy Thompson and MikeLee, a bit. And he actually even

(36:01):
brags about, in that same talk,where he says that we need to
eliminate efficacy tests, how heactually blocked the FDA from
starting to regulate this onebiotechnology anyway, is Yeah,
and, and one thing that themainstream media reports that
talked about that a couple yearsago, that speech that he gave
where he advocated eliminatingeliminating efficacy tests, they

(36:25):
didn't mention was that he thengoes on to praise the work of
this guy named Richard Barker,who's the founding director of
CASMI, and his model of adaptivelicensing. And I think that
Barker's model is worth notingbecause I think it clues us into
what O'Neill wants to do, andalso this kind of biotech,
deregulatory slash surveillanceparadigm in general. Really

WW (36:47):
quick. I just want to note for the audience that CASMI is
housed at Oxford. I believeBarker is British, and the
CASMI, I believe, is the Centerfor Accelerating sustainable
medical innovation, if I'm notmistaken, which the name should
tell you a lot, if you'refamiliar with a PR speak, right,

MJ (37:06):
like something that Barker says, is that there's this huge
problem, I guess, in drugdevelopment, where basically,
and he says it's so severe thatit actually is currently, the
current way we do drugdevelopment is not sustainable.
And this issue is that thosehandling clinical development,
so, you know, in my opinion, atleast in the way that I think

(37:27):
drug development should work,the people that are, you know,
in theory, in the best form ofcapitalism or whatever, should
not be concerned with thecommercial interests of the drug
they're creating, and insteadshould be concerned with, you
know, things like, is it does itwork? Is it going to help save
lives or treat people'ssicknesses or whatever? He says
that they actually need to, thatthey're too separated from the

(37:49):
commercial side, and that theyactually need to be that big
pharma and the people that aremore concerned with the profits
of those drugs need to beinfused into the drug
development process further, andhe says that that should be done
via the collection of valuedata. He basically thinks that

(38:10):
this should happen via theutilization and collection of a
massive amount of real worlddata, and that's data
accumulated outside of clinicaltrial settings, like, you know,
through electronic healthrecords, maybe your apple,
watch, your phone, wearables,yeah, and then, you know, and

(38:33):
again, like, this is importantto know, because regarding the
MAHA movement, because RMK Jr'sagenda is like The exact, I
mean, at least the agenda thathe was, you know, touting on the
campaign trail is like the exactopposite of what this guy,
Barker, says. And, you know, so,like, here's a quote that from
from Barker himself. He saysthat they need to integrate

(38:56):
value in the design of climateclinical development with an
early crafting phase involvingthe input of regulators, payers
and patient associations, so asto ensure the collection of both
clinical and value data and andhe literally advocates This is
being a way to solve the problemof drug makers having to set the

(39:19):
initial market value of theirdrug as being very high, and
instead allow companies tobasically, like, test the value
of their drug by through thesereal world data sources, and
then use that data to basicallyaccrue or increase the value of
the drug over time. AKA,basically just like, Jack up

(39:40):
prices of drugs as they exist asthey continue to exist on the
market longer by using this,what he calls value data, which
you know, for anyone listening,would be accumulated from your
devices and your labor, whateveryou know. Your existence,

(40:00):
basically, so like you know,Barker's literally advocating
for Big Pharma to directlyexploit data mined segments of
people to cultivate capital andvalue for drug products with
them getting nothing in return.And and then, you know, he goes

(40:24):
even further, where he believesthat, where he believes that
patient populations should besegmented and surveilled to
basically allow pharma todevelop this outcome focused way
of creating drugs.

WW (40:40):
Do you think that could be used potentially to for Big
Pharma to, like, chargedifferent prices for the same
drug on different populations?So, like, if it seemed to be
more effective in one ethnicgroup than the other, they could
charge that ethnic group morethan they would charge another
ethnic group. Like, is that apotential consequence of this

(41:01):
segmented population idea? Yeah,

MJ (41:04):
I mean, I would think so because I talked to Nolan
Higdon, this scholar from, Ican't remember what university,
but he wrote this book aboutcalled surveillance education,
where he basically studied thisdata industry, this cloud
capital industry, whatever youwant to call it. And he
basically said that every timethat that in his studies, that
he came across these promises,these altruistic promises,

(41:27):
where, you know, becauseBarker's probably thinking that
people are going to hear thisas, oh, well, that's great. They
get to, you know, use my data,and then I get a better drug,
because it's developed for me orsomething, or my population,
people like me. But, I mean, hesaid that in pretty much every

(41:49):
case that it's used to exploitthe consumer and the worker and
jack up prices and cut costs,and so yeah, I wouldn't be
surprised if that's apossibility, or if that happens.
I mean, one thing that he saidwas that it's very it's very
likely that these, this realworld data, will also be used by

(42:10):
insurance companies, forexample, to charge higher
premiums based on certainlifestyle habits that these that
your wearables or your otherdevices might pick up on you. So
he said, for example, like, oh,you know, you're only sleeping
five hours a night, and thatmakes you X amount more likely
to get this disease or thiscondition. Therefore you're not

(42:33):
taking care of yourself. So wecan't really cover you, because
look at the subjective data thatwe have that shows that you're
not taking care of yourself. Whywould we cover you? So yeah, I
definitely think that'spossible.

WW (42:44):
Well, that's gonna be fun for the private insurance
companies. They're really gonnawatch that. Yeah, they'll be
spawning like an army of LuigiMangiones, I guess.

MJ (42:56):
Yeah. And if O'Neill, you know, seeks to implement
Barker's model, they'll even bemore involved in the development
process, right? And I'm surethey're probably concerns that
they may already be too involvedin that to begin with, and maybe
now they'll just be even moreinvolved, which will be great
for them. And you know, inaddition, Barker believes that

(43:21):
we can have this outcome focusedform of healthcare, like we just
mentioned. And basically he saysthat we develop in volume
currently. So, you know, we gotto develop a bunch of this drug
and then, kind of like, hopethat people need it to take it.
I think an example of that mightbe the Tamiflu stuff, right?

(43:42):
They had this drug and it seemedlike there, maybe there wasn't
so much demand for it, and thenthey needed to manufacture this
artificial demand by instillingfear in the population and
selling this pitch about birdflu, et cetera. Yeah. So
basically, this predictiveoutcome focused use of data
would allow quote products to beprescribed and used by the right

(44:06):
patient segments. And then hegoes further, and he says that
we can also use this data thatwhere we segment patients to
focus on behavioral factors, sothey're also now they don't just
want to cultivate this data forhealth purposes or for drug
development purposes, they alsowant to produce means of
behavioral modification, becausehe says that the industry needs

(44:29):
to focus on the behavioralfactors which drive adherence,
either as accelerators ordecelerators. So

WW (44:35):
that sounds so much like the COVID era. Yeah? Behavioral
modification and nudging and allof that, right? Stop vaccine
hesitancy, but I guess now it'llbe to stop bio surveillance
hesitancy.

MJ (44:49):
Yeah, yeah. And the thing that I think that Matt hat
voters are, I mean, everyone,but especially these people that
may be optimistic about havingRFK, JR And um. Um, you know,
some rhetoric about this stuffin the Trump administration,
they should be very wary ofcomments like this, because
they're actively studying waysto incentivize to make you

(45:14):
accept these products. And youknow, so he says the goal should
be to collect evidence as to howto boost adherence. And the
exercise is complex. It's thereare many types of patients with
different behavioral contextsand psychological barriers,
which, which highlights thebreadth of data that they're
planning to collect on, on, onthis specifically, this issue

(45:35):
specifically. And, you know, Inoted in the article that this
concept of utilizing the data,these mass data sets, to
basically manipulate humanbehavior and direct outcomes of
populations is like straight outof the military playbook. I
mean, yeah, Phil beansurveillance Valley is basically

(45:58):
about how the entire DARPA techmilitary apparatus was a
counterinsurgency program fromthe very beginning, and you see
that just being repurposed fordifferent means, and, and, and,
and the fact that a lot of thisdata that they want to collect
has dual use purposes. So like,for example, the same data that
they're collecting on you viayour Apple Watch about your
health could also presumably beused to predict if you're going

(46:21):
to shoot up a school orwhatever,

WW (46:23):
yeah, because they'll just say it's mental health. Yeah,
exactly.

MJ (46:26):
Because, I mean, I mean, that's the thing. Every time
someone does something likethat,

WW (46:29):
just wait till the Neuralink mandates to make sure everyone
is not secretly thinking aboutcommitting crimes before they
happen. I say that with a joke,but Larry

MJ (46:39):
Alyssa has literally said that when we have this like
these AI nodes all across thecountry, of the of that are
constantly analyzing and gettingfed this data that, you know, is
collected via all these devices,that, Oh, we're going to be a
lot safer, because no one'sgoing to misbehave anymore. And
right? So, I mean, it's not thatfar fetched to think something

(47:00):
like that could happen or bepursued or in some capacity.
And, yeah, so, I mean, I thinkthat that's the gist on Richard
Barker, and I think it reallyclues you into O'Neill's mindset
on these things. And also, like,I just wanted to note too,
because, I mean, it appears thatthey've really banked on
exploiting RFK Jr, kind of likeanti establishment Bona feeds to

(47:22):
sell this stuff like so, forexample, here's a tweet from Jim
O'Neill where he's advocatingthis outcome focused version of
drug development. He says, ManyAmericans think we have free
markets in health care. We don'thundreds of bureaucratic rules,
perverse incentives and opaquepricing make health care more
expensive and less efficientthan it should be. Providers of
care are usually paid by volume,not outcomes. So he's advocating

(47:45):
for outcomes. And then he saysthis, And to me, this is the CO
opting of the RFK make Americahealthy again, language, he
says, and government makeschronic disease worse by
subsidizing unhealthy food andoffering poor nutritional advice
to families who are trying theirbest to stay healthy. So right
there you have this deregulatoryparadigm that conflicts directly

(48:06):
with the most, I would say, themost important parts of RFK Jr's
initial agenda that wasassociated with the Trump
campaign on the campaign trail,that you have this language that
exploits that radical agenda andassociates it with this
deregulatory paradigm, which islike, super manipulative to
people that maybe don't stay upto date on all of this stuff
that much and don't have all thetime to decipher all these

(48:27):
things, or

WW (48:28):
don't follow what people link to. Peter Thiel, do say,
you know, yeah, interesting,where they talk about both sides
of their mouth. Yeah, that'sinteresting. So I also think
it's worth pointing out too,that before we kind of wrap up
the discussion on O'Neill here,you know, a lot of his

(48:48):
affiliation with Thiel, it'svery extensive we noted in the
piece. But also, you know, for alot of his O'Neill's, you know,
after he was out of governmentand also no longer working for a
Thiel affiliated BC. He wasworking for the sense Research
Foundation, which is devoted to,like treating longevity related

(49:09):
or like age related diseases.It's basically, I would argue,
one of those sort of SiliconValley Health, quote, unquote
foundations that aims to offerlife extension technologies.
And, you know, a lot of big techbros are kind of obsessed with
this idea of immortality.Probably the most infamous of
those is Brian Johnson, and he,along with Peter Thiel, having a

(49:33):
significant interest ininjecting young people's blood
into themselves to stay young,for example. That's true. And
the sins Research Foundation isis focused on, you know, using
biotech, including mRNA, DNA,DNA, vaccines and, you know,
technology like that, in orderto allegedly extend people's

(49:56):
lifespans, which is the sinsResearch Fund. Is also, you
know, really exists thanks tothe financing of Thiel as well.
So it's no surprise that youhave a lot of people affiliated
with Thiel present there, likeO'Neill, also Blake masters,
who's sort of like a JD Vancetype of Thiel creation, whose
failed political career was alsobankrolled by Thiel, and he was

(50:20):
on the Sims Research Foundationwith with O'Neill for some time.
And they're focused on a lot ofthat type of, that kind of angle
of biotech as well. And I thinkit's fair to sort of look, I
mean, people need to payattention to a lot of the
Silicon Valley big tech and BigPharma overlap. You know, I've

(50:41):
been covering it a lot since theCOVID era, but basically there's
been this effort, and youcovered it in your piece about
the who and permanent pandemicmarkets. This idea of
traditional the traditionalincome model for Big Pharma, has
basically run out of steam. It'sbeen telegraphed openly by big

(51:02):
pharma itself. They refer to itas the patent Cliff issue, and
so the way they want to getaround patent cliffs, which is
basically related to howproducts go generic, and they
don't make as much money whenthey're not exclusive products
of that farm, thatpharmaceutical company, anymore,
they've been going into biotech,and a lot of that is through
joint ventures with big techcompanies like Google, for

(51:24):
example. And you know, a lot ofthose companies also now double
as major in essential parts ofthe national security state and
national security statecontractors and integral parts
of the national security, youknow, mass surveillance
apparatus. And so the idea ofhaving a lot of this in this

(51:46):
idea of selling bio surveillanceand all of this as a way to
improve, you know, marketresponse to health care products
and all of this stuff, I wouldargue, was really kind of a sly
way to manufacture what I thinkis pretty openly acknowledged as
the final frontier of masssurveillance, which is
surveilling people's bodiesthrough wearables and eventually

(52:07):
through things inside the body,nano medicines. And of course, I
would put brain machine, braincomputer interfaces, BCIs like
Neuralink, in that category. AndI think it's important to
remember, too, with brainmachine interfaces or BCIs, that
it ultimately comes to the FDAto approve them. FDA tends to

(52:30):
grant them breakthrough devicestatus, which sort of waves some
of the quote, unquote,regulatory red tape for these
things. But we have, you know,Elon Musk having a very
prominent role in the governmentright now, he doesn't have to
divest from any of his companiesat all in that role, and neither
does another PayPal Mafia figurewho's now also now a special

(52:52):
government employee, David Sacksthe crypto AI czar. And as
crypto AI czar, it's verypossible he could partner with
someone like O'Neill, who isalso a very big advocate for AI
and healthcare, and see some ofthe stuff expanded as well. And
I would definitely encouragepeople to pay attention to how

(53:12):
this could potentially advance,because it has very Orwellian
possibilities if they arecollecting not just state our
data from our externalactivities and our external
environment. There's this reallycrazy push to surveil everything
and sort of mine all the datapossible. You have companies
tied to the currentadministration, for example,

(53:33):
creating the internet offorests, trying to hook up every
tree in the Amazon rainforest tomine biodata out of rain forest
trees. It's, it sounds bonkers,but there you know that there's
ambitions to do that to peopleas well, and create the so
called Internet of bodies, whichmilitary contractors and think
tanks like the RAND Corporationhave been writing about for
years. And it's really not, Imean, I think up Purdue, or some

(53:57):
other university like that,recently created a whole center
dedicated to accelerating thedevelopment of the Internet of
bodies. Silicon Valley has beenpushing the wearable agenda for
some time, and I think we couldpotentially see the push for
that come through under theguise of health. Initially it
was like, Look how cool googleglasses are, and look at my VR

(54:20):
Apple helmet. And now I guessFacebook has made these like Ray
Ban looking ones that they thinkwill not look as insane on
people.

MJ (54:28):
My friend has a parent, they look completely stupid. Yeah,

WW (54:32):
you should break them for him. Be like, Hey, did you know
Facebook started as a DARPAproject? Can I borrow those for
a second and take them to thegarage? I'm sorry, getting a
little too opinionated there.But anyway, this really is an

(54:52):
ambition of that. And I thinkyou know, when you have someone
like Larry Ellison of Oracle,who was previously contracted to
buy biosurveil COVID 19. Vaccinerecipients coming out and
saying, we're going to have allthese AI Personalized Cancer
vaccines. They're going to bepersonalized. They're going to
have to do gather the testingdata on you after you receive

(55:13):
them. And they may not do thesame method they did with COVID
19 with like blanket mandates,but it's very possible there
will be some, some other type ofcoercive measure to try and get
people to adopt this. Because abig theme, whether it's
healthcare or really anythingelse, like I mentioned earlier,
in reference to the SDGs, isabout creating new markets that

(55:35):
will make, you know, thisoligarch class very wealthy, and
entrench their power and sort oflead to this Neo, futile, Neo
feudalism in society. And Ithink this is one of those, you
know, ways they could do that,because the only way they can
get people to want theseproducts is to create, you know,
use public policy as theenabling environment for these

(55:59):
markets, essentially. So it'skind of crazy, honestly, to see
a lot of the mental gymnasticsthat have been used to sort of
explain away the Stargateannouncement or, let Nick's
comment about buying the USgovernment now, buying equity in
COVID 19, mRNA vaccinecompanies, or any of the other

(56:19):
things we've discussed today,even when our article came out
on Jim O'Neill and his potentialto undermine, you know, a lot of
these early MAHA ambitions, youknow, pretty much crickets from
a lot of the big influencers inthat in that movement, which
honestly, you know, is kind oftelling in Its in itself as

(56:40):
well, but also just allow a verylittle interest in addressing
Palantir, really at all. AndPalantir, of course, is a
company that has expanded underevery administration. It's a
bipartisan, you know, it's theengine on which the quote,
unquote, Deep State runs. Butyet, no one in this
administration, or, you know,it's, it's supporters. Really

(57:02):
wants to talk about Palantir,really, very much at all. And
how many investors in Palantir,O'Neill included. But also, you
know, people like Joe Lonsdalewas a major donor to Trump.
David Sacks is also an investorin Palantir. He's the crypto AI
czar. And, of course, PeterThiel co founded Palantir, and

(57:23):
Palantir has played an out. Hasnumerous contracts with the US
military and other you know, allof every 18 intelligence all 18
of the US intelligence agenciesalso very involved in Ukraine,
which Kennedy was a big criticsof, as well as the genocide in
Gaza, which RFK, of course, isnot a critic of. But

(57:44):
nevertheless, Palantir hasbecome kind of ubiquitous today.
They also run a lot of the datafor the British NHS National
Health Service, and they alsorun it for HHS, which I know you
covered recently on your pieceabout the Palantir run center
for forecasting and outbreakanalysis at the CDC, and I think
that's worth covering a littlebit here too, as we as we try

(58:07):
and wrap up here to talk aboutsort of how, you know, a new
paradigm, if there's a newquote, unquote public health
emergency, how lockdowns or anyof these other measures that
became infamous during COVIDmight be implemented, quote,
unquote, more gently, as a wayto make people think that, you
know, there's been animprovement over past, you know,

(58:28):
after post COVID, when, inreality, a lot of these same
tactics that are sort of veryprobable in a Future pandemic
scenario were really tested outduring COVID to a significant
extent. Yeah. And

MJ (58:45):
just like, I'll get into the bigger picture. CFA center for
forecasting and outbreakanalytics, the Palantir runs CDC
program you just mentioned,mentioned in a second the bigger
picture stuff. But just like,regarding that comment you made
about nano chips, I think, andmust near link a lot of times,
when I bring that up to people,I think they kind of roll their
eyes and like, it soundsridiculous. Like, this is sci fi

(59:07):
at this point, but like, so justfor example, this center for
forecasting and outlay, outbreakanalytics, the Innovate they
have this thing called theInnovate branch, and that's
responsible for collaboratingwith, quote, academic, private
sector and inter agency partnersas part of its goal to create
products, tools and enterpriseenhancements in order to make
pandemic data analysis flexible,fast and scalable for CFA

(59:31):
customers, including state,tribal, local authorities and
right now, you know, take noteof that line where it says that
they're working with interagencypartners to create products and
tools and enterpriseenhancements to make this data
sharing more vast and flexible.We noted in our article on Jim

(59:54):
O'Neill that that ARPA-H, thatprogram that we mentioned
earlier, that was initially apre crime program, is actually.
Creating a device, or, I mean,so they commissioned four
different teams to develop bioelectronic devices to be
implanted in patients throughminor outpatient surgery. So
that's literally from the ARPA-Hwebsite. That's not me talking.

(01:00:16):
That's them, yeah, and one so,like one team is aiming to
create a living Sentinel, iswhat they call it, to measure
key biomarkers in the body andmonitor their bodily conditions
in real time. And then all ofthe teams are aiming to develop
an implantable, living pharmacyprogram to deliver therapeutic
molecules to the patient ondemand for an extended period.

(01:00:37):
So okay, great, yeah, rightthere. So right there. So right
there. You have this thingthat's going to, I guess,
automatically feed you thesetherapeutic, you know, maybe,
maybe even

WW (01:00:48):
don't ask what the molecules are. It's like going to the spa,

MJ (01:00:54):
yeah, exactly, right. And it's made just for you, right?
Because now they have this thingto constantly collect data from
they got

WW (01:01:02):
everyone, a lot of people's DNA, through COVID vaccine
testing, and Palantir took allof that data

MJ (01:01:07):
right, and now they want to get more of it, I guess, because
they want to create a limitedSNL to constantly analyze your
genealogy or mine.

WW (01:01:16):
People constantly for bio data, and have the AI constantly
awash in data that our bodiesgenerate, because data is the
new oil. So you have to tapevery possible source you can
for data. And the best way togenerate data is to continually
extract it from something that'salive. So that's why, I think,
you know, we're having a lot ofthis push into Internet of

(01:01:37):
bodies, the Internet of forestsand all of these things, because
the parameters of a living thingare constantly in flux, right?
Because it's alive, it's notinert, and so you can generate a
lot of data and have, I mean,the more, the more successful
your AI will become, isdetermined by how much data it's
feeding on, and also the qualityof that data, right? So I think

(01:02:01):
that's one of the incentiveshere. And again, I think people
might sort of be ignoring brainmachine interfaces at their own
risk, because there are aconsiderable amount of ties to
that industry from thisadministration. So again, I
mean, obviously Elon Musk isprobably the most obvious

(01:02:21):
because of Neuralink, which hashad a lot of controversies over
the amount of animals that diedduring their animal trials, for
example. And if the FDA underTrump is very amenable to BCIs,
we could see them potentiallycommercial, commercialized over
the next four years. Because,again, that's something. Those

(01:02:42):
are devices that have to undergoFDA approval to in order to go
on the market. But there'sseveral companies that are
farther along than Neuralinkare. One of those is Blackrock
Neurotech, which recentlyreceived a very significant
investment from the stablecoinissuer tether, which has a lot
of ties to Howard Lutnick, theSecretary of Commerce. And

(01:03:03):
tether, of course, is also verymuch connected to rumble,
rumble. Of course, also tied toHoward Lutnick, also tied to JD
Vance, the Vice President andPeter Thiel and their general
counsel just became the numbertwo guy at the CIA Michael
Ellis. And then they're alsoconnected to tether. Also
invested really heavily in thisfirm called Satellogic, which

(01:03:25):
is a satellite surveillancecompany that's involved in
they're building the internet offorests, for example, for the
purpose of turning each hectareof the Amazon into basically
like a token that you can buy.It sounds totally insane, but
it's

MJ (01:03:42):
true. And Satellogic is also kind of connected, oh, I mean,
it's directly connected toPalantir, because they have a
five year partnership, right?

WW (01:03:48):
Yes, yes, they're contracting with Palantir right
now. And Lutnick is on the boardof that one, and Steve Mnuchin,
who was Treasury Secretary onduring Trump's first term as the
chairman of the board. So it'sinteresting that you have people
like musk doing sort of thesatellite Digital finance and

(01:04:09):
brain chip play, and you havetether basically replicating
that play, and they both havesignificant ties to the
government, and they would, youknow, a lot of the companies in
that web need governmentapproval in order to get their
products on the market. I don'tknow that seems like a
disturbing setup for Internet ofbodies stuff going forward. And

(01:04:31):
I think there's going to be alot of different ways this stuff
is sold to a reluctant audience,which would be Trump's base, I
think, but probably notexclusively Trump space. I think
there's plenty of people on theon the left that are not really
interested in this, in thisstuff, either. But I've already
sort of seen people sort of inthe the Trump supporting sphere

(01:04:53):
say things like, mRNA is fine aslong as there's no mandates and
sort of, kind of changing thethe realm of the. Discussion a
little bit already, or we can'thinder innovation. And a lot of
the, of course, the Libertyworship of people like Elon, I
think you know, you've had,there's people like Tim pool
that have tweeted verysupportively of Neuralink. Press

(01:05:14):
releases being like, Neuralink,let's go. So I mean, I mean,
that's very possible we couldsee more of that, and then, I
don't know, I don't know exactlyhow they're going to get people
to use that stuff, but I thinkthey won't have any problem
getting it through FDA approvalunder this administration. Yeah.

MJ (01:05:35):
I mean, like, it seems like the go to strategy for, you
know, big capital or bigbusinesses, basically, I mean,
it's the national securitystrategy. It's the creating
these phantom enemies. I'mreading this book right now
called drug cartels do not existby as well. I don't remember the
author's name, actually, but,um, he talked, he talks about

(01:05:55):
the the creation of a phantomenemy or something, basically
this ever changing thing. And, Imean, and principal enemies,
yeah, and basically the thatseems to be the strategy for
kind of everything that theywant to do that is that that
would normally be met withskepticism by the public. And it

(01:06:16):
kind of tends to work. I mean,like, you know, when the
internet was first coming out,it was recognized as a tool of
surveillance by the militaryindustrial complex. And there
was actually a lot of resistancethat the military met when they
were trying to utilizeuniversities like MIT and other

(01:06:38):
places to develop this stuff bythe student body that was, you
know, radical and anti war atthe time, and now it's, you
know, no one really cares. I wastelling my friends about this
center for forecasting andoutbreak analytics piece that I
wrote for your website forUnlimited Hangout. And, you
know, I told them, oh, well,it's this thing where the

(01:07:02):
there's this apparatus betweenbig healthcare and Silicon
Valley, and they're trying topredict disease outbreaks before
they occur, so that they candevelop procured policy that's
specified at certain communitiesto lock them down or and then my
friend said, Isn't that a goodthing? They'll

WW (01:07:18):
sell it as a good thing. They'll be like, well, here we
go. We don't have to lock downthe whole country. We only have
to lock down the areas that needto be locked down right exactly

MJ (01:07:28):
and that. And then that's the pitch, I guess, for kind of
everyone. But specifically atthose like people that were
skeptical of the more universalstyle non pharmaceutical
intervention policies duringCOVID 19? Well, oh, now it's
more objective, and it's justthe people that need to get shut
down, right? But, but the thingthat we did, I think, is really
important, worth notingregarding the Center for

(01:07:50):
forecasting and outbreakanalytics and Palantir's role in
it. Basically, the Center forforecasting and outbreak
analytics seems to be the officethat is dedicated to carrying
out what the CDC calls itscommon operating picture, where
they want to create thisconsortium of academic, private
sector and interagency partners,dedicated to constantly
analyzing and collecting biodata to predict pandemic

(01:08:15):
outbreaks and correspondinglyprepare and respond for them
when they happen or may happen,and the Center for forecasting
and out and and that strategy ofdoing that actually comes out
from the total InformationAwareness Program, which you've
covered extensively you canprobably get into, probably too

Unknown (01:08:35):
much, yes, Yeah,

MJ (01:08:37):
and that's important, because the total information
awareness for awareness programat its core was a pre crime
program, and it sought to use,it's to tap things like
financial records. And I mean atthe time, everything, yeah,
everything about you,everything, everything was
available at

WW (01:08:55):
the total they really meant it,

MJ (01:08:57):
yeah, at the time, I don't think that we they really had
Apple watches and Fitbits and

WW (01:09:02):
iPhones. Wanted them, and they got them now, yeah,

MJ (01:09:06):
and to stop terrorism before it happened. And, I mean, you
could see, like, if you go back,I can't think of but these

WW (01:09:16):
ideas are not old. When Trump was in office, the last
time he called on Silicon Valleyto develop software to detect
mass shooters before theystrike, and then you had the
Harpa program that hisadministration was considering,
basically offering to do that byrunning, you know, social media
posts through AI to determinewhich Americans show early

(01:09:37):
warning signs ofneuropsychiatric violence, which
probably would be literallyeveryone on Twitter, but, you
know,

MJ (01:09:45):
yeah, and then, and then Peter Thiel with that company. I
can't remember his exactinvolvement. I think he's an
investor in it, or it was a seedfund, or something ClearView, AI
actually scanned main investor,right? Main investor actually.
Did that exact strategy, youknow, scouring social media, I
think, via AI, yes, track downpeople that were at the January

(01:10:08):
6 protest and arrest them. And alot of those people were, you
know, like, I mean, there'sstill a lot that are awaiting
trial. I think, Well, I thinkTrump just pardoned them,
actually. But up until recently,at least, they

WW (01:10:22):
bragged about using facial recognition to have those people
arrested by law enforcement.Yeah, right. And people don't
realize is that this is reallyan outgrowth of the war on
domestic terror. There wereexplicit efforts said by Bill
Gates, but also maybe techbillionaires You don't hate
about combining nationalsecurity with health security.
And that is why Palantir isrunning it for the national

(01:10:45):
security state, and they're alsorunning it for HHS. The goal is
to fuse those two things intoone thing. And the way they'll
probably do it, or the easiestway for them to manufacture
consent for that, is what theytried to do with the 2001
anthrax attacks and and talkabout bio terror. And, you know,
there was a, there was sort ofefforts to see these kind of

(01:11:05):
narratives in early COVID. 19Neo Nazis are licking doorknobs
and giving people COVID That wasliterally like stories that were
that happened. Those were realstories used to sort of fear
monger this type of stuff. And Ithink, you know, they may try,
and you know, they're not acreative bunch. They like to
recycle a lot of theirnarratives and their old
playbooks. Look no further thanthe Sean Ryan show that and but

(01:11:31):
I think people should be verycognizant of this stuff, because
it's going to be framed as awin. They will say, Oh, we only
have to lock down this communityin that community, and not the
whole country, and people thatcriticize the COVID response,
I'm sure many of them willapplaud it. But the problem is,
this was actually tested outduring COVID 19 itself,

(01:11:53):
basically the Israeli equivalentof Palantir, as it relates to
COVID 19 response, and I saythat in the context of Palantir
contracting contract withOperation warp speed. But the
Israeli equivalent of that inthe COVID 19 era was this firm
called diagnostic robotics, andthey were given a contract to
basically predict COVIDoutbreaks in Rhode Island before

(01:12:16):
they happen by then Governor ofRhode Island, Gina Raimondo, who
later became Biden's CommerceSecretary, and this firm, if you
believe their own numbers, theyput out in like, their PR
leaflets and stuff, say thattheir algorithm is 70 75%
accurate, and that's notaudited, so we could assume that
it's probably lower than whatthey publicly profess in their

(01:12:38):
sales pitch. So maybe it's 60%maybe it's 50% but that's
getting dangerously closer. Inthe case of 50% literally is the
same as a coin toss. You'redeciding to either shut down
entire local economies based onalgorithm that is not 100%
accurate. So I would argue thatisn't better. You're still

(01:13:00):
taking away, um, people's civilliberties based on faulty data.
And if it's about, you know,using AI algorithms that aren't
accurate either, and not totallyracially biased. To be like this
ethnic minority needs the shot,and this one doesn't, which is
exactly what Palantir did underOperation warp speed. That's
what their Tiberius program,literally was about, you know,

(01:13:24):
the it definitely becomes veryOrwellian, and so maybe it's not
collective punishment, maybe inthe same way as during the COVID
19 era. But this is ultimatelythis idea of sort of
personalizing things, whetherit's personalized COVID vaccines
or personalized, localizedpandemic response. This was the

(01:13:44):
goal. And a lot of this stuff,as I noted, during the COVID
era, you know, the antecedentsof it were all sort of dreamt up
and and first attempted, youknow, in the immediate post 911
era. I don't know, it seems likea lot of those programs have not
gone away. And actually, youknow, a lot of the total
information awareness programs,they were specifically called

(01:14:05):
Bio surveillance, and some ofthem included, you know,
surveilling wastewater toprevent disease before it
happens. And that was literallya program that was launched
during COVID in that Palantirruns. And I've argued in my work
that Palantir is just theprivatized version of total
information awareness, becausePeter Thiel and Alex carp went
to the guy running totalinformation awareness, and we're

(01:14:26):
basically like, tell us what todo, because we want to make this
a private company now thatyou're being defunded by
Congress, and then get all thismoney from the CIA. And the top
people at the CIA that we'reworking on total information
awareness with the DARPA peopleand John Poindexter become the
main funders of Palantir withPeter Thiel. I mean, I don't

(01:14:47):
know, but I should say, in thecontext of the PayPal presidency
theme, that Palantir itselfstarted off as the anti fraud
algorithm at PayPal, and PayPalitself, as a company, started as
a concept. Sequence of itsfounders having extensive
conversations with every threeletter agency that would talk to
them. That's according to PayPalco founder Max Levchin, so who

(01:15:12):
gave a spirited defense of NSAwarrantless spying in the
Snowden era. So so much for thatwhole libertarian veneer of the
PayPal crowd, but that's fine,and

MJ (01:15:28):
you know, like you're talking about these models that
are going to be dictatingcurated policy for at least
communities, maybe individuals.One of the things that the
Center for forecasting andoutbreak analytics plans to do
with this bio data is use it todictate the community migration
rights of communities. Sobasically, like, where you can
go and enter it. I'm presumingthey don't specify exactly,

(01:15:51):
yeah,

WW (01:15:52):
the whole Oh no, that sounds a lot like what Trump supporters
were calling 15 minute citiesnot that long ago, right? Yeah,
hey, but it's our elites thatare running it. Max,

MJ (01:16:05):
yeah, Barry Weiss did an episode with Peter Thiel, and I
forgot exactly what counterelites.

WW (01:16:15):
Yes, they're so different,

MJ (01:16:17):
yeah, evidenced by Elon Musk taking over, I can't remember
the name of the governmentdepartment, and then actually
talking with Google, DeepMind AIto basically take over, to start
helping dictate whichdepartments to cut, and
everything. So they're totallydifferent all these people. And

(01:16:40):
you know, like, regarding, like,this inaccuracy that these
hallucinations, I guess, thatyou could call the AI
experiences, where they aren'tcorrect a lot of the time. I
mean, just for example, how,like, even these chat bot ones
are pretty inaccurate, areactually super inaccurate every
time I've used them. You know, Iso if, even if, the chat bots

(01:17:00):
are inaccurate, I can't imaginehow the disease forecasting ones
are, but, but they

WW (01:17:05):
don't need to be accurate. I mean, it's an industry with a
lot of over hype issues, and alot of these companies that are
the biggest AI companies,especially when it's like legacy
big tech companies making themlike Google or Oracle or
whatever. A lot of them havevery deep national security
connections from their originson, and are arguably fronts for

(01:17:26):
those agencies, at which pointyou have to, you know, they only
really need the perception thatthe algorithm is accurate
anyway. And I don't think youknow a lot of what you brought
up earlier about like Ellisonsaying, AI surveillance systems
will have people be on theirbest behavior. The whole idea of
the Panopticon and all of thatis the idea that you know you're

(01:17:47):
being watched constantly, butyou don't know if you're being
watched, so that inducesobedience and, quote, unquote,
correct behavior. And so youknow they could, you know, the
idea that the algorithm ismonitoring these things, even if
it's not accurate, it can still,you know, have a lot of the same

(01:18:07):
the same consequences, as longas people think it's accurate.
And I think there's a lot ofperception manipulation. I think
that's pretty clear for thepublic, and a lot of it is
trying to manage how the publicfeels about it. And having these
sort of AI surveillance systemsis meant to sort of have that
kind of panopticon effect,effect, I think, I don't think
they're really in theseapplications really meant to

(01:18:29):
work very much, you know, as anexample, you know, like law
enforcement use of AI inBritain, the Met Police had a
contract with, I forget whatcompany, but it was found to be
notoriously inaccurate. Theywere losing it for live facial
recognitions of all sorts ofpublic events in the UK, and it
came out that it was likedismally, its accuracy was just

(01:18:51):
dismal, and they made no effortto correct or change vendors.
Why would that be? Because theydon't care, right? I mean,
because if they did care, theywould obviously change vendors.
There's no shortage of peopleselling that particular product.
But the idea is that there's,you know, they're being watched.
But it's important to point outtoo that they're also very
racially biased, which, youknow, has, you know, I argued in

(01:19:14):
my work in the COVID era, therewas a lot of eugenics era people
that have rebranded Bill Gatesbecome kind of infamous as a
figure pushing policiesanalogous to that. And, you
know, I think people should bepretty wary of that, especially
when Palantir has evolvedbecause of its history of racial
bias and things like pre crime,which they call predictive

(01:19:36):
policing, and also in warpspeed, and also people like
Peter Thiel and Alex carp likecomplete obsession with race
stuff. Like Alex carp is, like,convinced that, like, white
Americans are going to push himout of a high rise building
because he's half black and halfJewish. And he's like, I'm
amazed I haven't been murderedby a different race yet. I don't

(01:19:57):
think that sounds like a saneperson that I want. Having this
much power over our surveillancestate and healthcare data, and
that's going to have the powerto segment populations and
decide what, quote, unquote,medical interventions they're
prescribed by the state in somesort of national level health
event or whatever that's I mean,it's just, it's bonkers, man. I

(01:20:22):
feel like I'm ranting herethough. I mean, there's so much
we could cover, and I thinkwe're getting close to the time
we usually wrap this podcast up.But is there anything else you'd
like to note on any of thesefronts or any any any points or
further reading you might wantto recommend to viewers?

MJ (01:20:40):
Yeah. I mean, I would say that people should, I don't know
if they can. I where they couldget it, because I'm an Unlimited
Hangout premium member, so I gotit, but the Solari report, AI
Revolution, Final Coup D'etat byyou, I think that that is really
interesting regarding this stuffthat we're talking about, the

(01:21:00):
bigger picture elements and theway that it's going to be sold
to us versus the way that itactually works. Because,
because, I mean, you talk abouthow AI, I mean we, you just give
perfect example of how AI doesit has these hallucinations,
these things, these, you know,insane inaccuracies in my own
experience I have in my limitedexperience using these things. I

(01:21:21):
remember I remember I talked tosome friends. They were saying,
Oh, my God, ChatGPT is amazing.You can ask it anything, and it
gets it right every time. And Isaid, Are you Are you serious?
Every time I've asked itsomething, and I've fact checked
that it gets it wrong almostevery single time. Like, for
example, the other day, I sawthat Trump's new press secretary
is named Karoline Leavitt. I waslike, Huh? I wonder if she's
related to Mike Leavitt. So Iasked ChatGPT just to see what

(01:21:42):
it would say. And I was like,yes, Mike Leavitt, Karoline
Karoline Leavitt's Father, I looked it up.No, that's not true. I said,
That's not true. Oh, sorry, it'sactually his niece. That's not
true either. Oh, they'reactually cousins, not true. So
it kind of went wrong like fivetimes in a row on this basic
question, yeah.

WW (01:21:59):
Well, I think there are things that AI can probably do
effectively. I've heard frompeople that it's quite good at
coding, for example, and someother things, but obviously the
code that it makes has to goback and be checked and audited,
like by a human and stuff. Idon't know. I personally, well,
I'm not, I'm not a big AIevangelist. Quite the opposite,
as people who follow my workclosely would would know. But I

(01:22:21):
think the point here, whetheryou're an advocate or sort of a
skeptic, is that a lot of theapplications it's being pitched
for at the law enforcement,national security level, and
also in healthcare, the accuracymatters a lot there, especially
because there's, you know, ifthey don't really necessarily
give it human oversight, whichin a lot of these cases, it's,

(01:22:44):
it's pretty minimal, I think.And as we're moving into the
world of autonomous warfare andautonomous everything will
probably become, you know, lesshuman oversight as time goes on.
I think people should be, youknow, very wary of that, and
know that that accuracy matters.And one thing I do want to add
before we wrap up here, as itrelates to mRNA, stuff likely

(01:23:06):
coming on the market insignificant numbers over the
next four years. If people wantto push for something at the
policy level that may actuallyend up happening, have products
with mRNA in it be labeled,whether that's, you know, meat
that has that was injected, theanimal was injected with mRNA,
why it was alive, like in thefood supply or in the

(01:23:27):
pharmaceutical system, I thinkpeople have a right to know, and
so, you know, if we can'tnecessarily, you know, trust
that it'll be kept the market,even with RFK in charge of HHS
or something like that, I thinkthere should Be a I think it
would be kind of practical topush to have informed consent,
at the very least, about whatproducts have mRNA or genetic

(01:23:49):
material and which ones do not.

MJ (01:23:51):
Yeah, and RFK is actually one of his things that he's been
pushing, I think more lately hasbeen this right to know thing.
So if the Trump campaign really,or the Trump administration
really does support RFK, thenthat shouldn't be a problem. But
I kind of doubt it. Well, see,yeah, I kind of doubt it, but,
and yeah, I mean, I don't havemuch else to say. All I'll say

(01:24:13):
is, because I don't think we gotthe comments super in depth on
the center for forecasting andoutbreak analytics. But, you
know, I would say the bigpicture read of that is that
it's the resurrection of the biosurveillance elements of total
information awareness, and theentrenchment of it into a full

(01:24:33):
center dedicated to carrying outthis kind of bio surveillance to
predict pandemics constantly theentrenchment of that into our
current public health agency andprivate academic apparatus. It's
really resurrecting that andimplementing it. And I think
we'll see a concrete wayeventually, and and, and it's

(01:24:58):
going to. Yeah, and the reasonthat that's important it's
pairing with total informationawareness is because the data
that it taps has a it's dualuse, like so much of this stuff,
like, like you just mentionedhow AI might be useful for some
things. That might be true, butyou have to look at the interest
of the people that areimplementing it and what they

(01:25:19):
actually want to do, and whattheir incentives are and
ideologies are. And it just sohappens that this bio
surveillance data is just asuseful for pre crime purposes,
which Thiel, which, as youmentioned, Palantir and Alex
carp and Peter Thiel justprivatized as soon as Congress

(01:25:40):
killed it, and so that'ssomething to be wary of for
anyone that might see thispredictive health stuff as
beneficial, because I understandwhy it's enticing. Like I know
someone that has an Apple watch,and their heart slowed down and
it automatically called anambulance for them, and they
said that their Apple Watchsaved their life, right? I see

(01:26:02):
why it's enticing, but thosedual use elements that are very
apparent, if you look at theorigins and the people involved,
have to be considered. So that'sall I'd say, great.

WW (01:26:11):
Well, I think those are great points to add. And I would
also add too, that, you know,total information awareness
needs to be seen for what it is.It is a neocon program that has
been rebranded. This is like aneoconservative agenda that
really goes back to the Reaganera in terms of the idea of
using, you know, this type ofsurveillance, and a lot of it,

(01:26:32):
including the person that, youknow, ran a total information
awareness and is considered thegodfather of modern
surveillance, John Poindexter,he was one of the, actually the
highest ranking member of theReagan administration to be
indicted as part of Iran Contra.And Iran Contra was trying to
develop a similar surveillanceprogram for the for the purpose

(01:26:52):
of clamping down on domesticdissent in the event of a
vaguely defined nationalemergency and in the power of
the state. This is not good. Thegovernment has been has misused
this kind of power and this kindof data many times. To quote a
former NSA and CIA director,Michael Hayden, we kill people

(01:27:13):
with metadata. People need to bevery careful about what kind of
data you're willingly going tosurrender over to the
government, and when you'reallowing them, you know insight
into what your internal body isdoing. And also, in the case of
your you know of the brain chip,what you're what you're
thinking. And it doesn't evenhave to go as far as a brain

(01:27:34):
chip anymore, if you believe anyof the you know some of the
sales pitches of technologycurrently being touted, but I
think we need to be really awareand cognizant. And, you know,
it's someone for people thatwant to know the risks of this.
Actually, a big tech, belovedfuturist you all know, a Harari,
made it quite clear how thiscould easily lead to the end,

(01:27:57):
what he calls the end of freewill and authoritarianism that's
just completely unprecedented,where the state can know, even
if you're externally expressingone reaction to a policy or a
politician, if you're internallyshowing a, you know, a negative
response, they can, as he says,send you to the Gulag the next

(01:28:18):
Morning. That doesn't reallysound very appealing to me, and
not that it would happenovernight, but if we continue to
be sort of coaxed into this,this complacency that all these
big tech bros with ties to thenational security state have our
best interests at heart whenthey're actually, you know, sort
of implementing these, you know,this kind of overtly

(01:28:42):
neoconservative agenda, youknow, I think there are definite
dangers that come with that. SoMax, where can people follow
your work?

MJ (01:28:50):
Yeah, so I have Twitter, which I sometimes tweet from.
It's at Maxie Jones, so that'sspelled max M, a, x, y, y,
Jones, J, O, N, E, S, and I alsohave a sub stack that I've that
I don't really use that much,but I plan to use it more,
called anti Jones, dot substack.com, I think, hopefully,

(01:29:15):
yeah, okay, that's what it'scalled. So I'm going to start
writing on that more soon. Andthen, of course, you can check
out my articles at UnlimitedHangout. Thanks

WW (01:29:23):
very much for your insights and reporting max. And really
enjoyed having you on thepodcast. Love to have you back
on again sometime, and thanks toeveryone for listening,
especially those who supportthis podcast, and we'll catch
you all in the next episode.Thanks very much.

MJ (01:29:35):
Thanks, Whitney.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

24/7 News: The Latest

Crime Junkie

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The PayPal Presidency Pt. I: Biotech and Biosurveillance with Max Jones

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

24/7 News: The Latest

Crime Junkie

All Episodes

The PayPal Presidency Pt. I: Biotech and Biosurveillance with Max Jones

On Purpose with Jay Shetty