So,
so,
so, so,
so,
Thank you very much.
This is going to be a pretty relaxed stream.
I'm not going to do a big intro, not a lot of music.
I just need to keep going online.
I'm doing a lot of work during the day now.
And I'm trying very hard to get done with something that my friend, Denny, suggested
that I do, which is write some stuff up.
And so I am working on that, and I don't want to say much more because there's going to be
plenty of people who are already starting to call me some kind of gatekeeper or whatever.
And so we're not going to worry about these people.
We're going to keep our flashlights facing forward.
We're going to keep our arms straight.
And we're going to keep looking for the exit of this cave.
And we're not going to get into any of the arguments or discussions that are extemporaneous
to that.
But there are a lot of discussions that are going on with things like this.
And so I wanted to bring a couple of those things to your attention today.
Because I want you to have, I want you to be in touch with what's going on.
The other day, I discussed with you a video with a good friend of mine in my imagination.
A guy by the name of Fortnine or 4949 on YouTube who does a lot of motorcycle videos.
I don't, I never, I don't, I haven't really thought about all the things I'm going to
say.
I've got four videos that I want to look at and four videos that I think kind of make
the same point in different ways.
What we talked about with Fortnine was to try and connect the idea that AI is being exaggerated
as a power, AI is being exaggerated as a force in our world, not to say that it can't
be used, not to say that it isn't being used.
But there are certain intractable problems that even though AI is cool and machine learning
is cool, we are being sold, sorry about that, I forgot that was still there.
We are being sold a, the idea that there is a sort of infinite potential for AI to not
only match us but to exceed us in the future.
And this concept I think is, is very similar in a lot of ways in my imagination.
And so I'm, as a teacher, I'm trying to impart this idea onto you.
You can evaluate whether or not this metaphor or this parallel is accurate or not.
But I feel very much as though the illusion of AI and it's, it's almost limitless potential.
It's very similar to the illusion that was created in the 80s and 90s about the idea
that if we could just sequence the human genome, we would be entering a new era of understanding
that's simply the limitless possibilities that exist once we get to that stage.
And that story was told for a long time.
And I think one of my favorite anecdotes that I've heard during the pandemic was Robert
Malone telling a story about how when he was a grad student, he naively thought that
in 10 or 15 years that there would be a geneticist at every hospital curing childhood diseases
with retroviruses.
And so I think this is very similar to the idea that, okay, look, we show him that, that
using CT scans, AI is better at diagnosing a particular thing than humans are, or they
can see it earlier.
But yeah, that's not quite the same thing.
It's not even close to the same thing as, as what they're considering general intelligence
to include creativity and problem identification, never, never mind problem solving.
And this sort of iterative learning that will spin out of control and then suddenly we are
enslaved by our eye watch because the, you know, something happened.
And so there are people who believe this and I think one of the most spectacular examples
of it is, is Sam Harris and Sam Harris is interesting because he's one of the original
intellectual dark web members when it was a name that was christened at a table over
dinner.
And so I'm very curious as to what this guy who gave his first TED talk long ago about
AI, what he really thinks about it.
And, and I just happened to stumble on this David Pakman show and David Pakman is one
of these guys who's one layer below in this, in this bros with shows pyramid where the
guys at the top or the mid level, you know, the real old school intellectual dark web,
they circulate down below to this level and legitimize certain members of this bros with
shows level.
And then this bros with shows level has people that argue with each other about the people
up this up here at this level.
And they show different loyalties to different people, Pakman David Pakman will defend Sam
Harris and ridicule Brett Weinstein.
And then somebody else over here will protect Brett Weinstein and ridicule Sam Harris.
And it's this thing where it's not necessarily, you know, you don't draw lines or connect
them with, with thread on a, on a bulletin board, but the behavior is, and the network
is very consistent there, their sponsorships are very consistent in the way they circulate
amongst each other is very consistent.
And you can, you can be let into that discussion privately, you can be even teased with being
led into that discussion publicly, but it, it is a gate.
They are gatekeepers to their little network of people now that's not necessarily wrong.
I mean, you know, Rogan having certain people that he decides to have on regularly as a
way to try to give them a platform and get their own podcast going in principle.
That's fine.
But if the pyramid is being set up by weaponized piles of money, and we're being led to believe
that this is just some grassroots cool dudes network, then it's very different.
If we're being led to believe that all these guys are just, you know, getting mushrooms
on the street, and they're getting all these drugs, but it's, it's not being supplied
by anybody that we should care about.
They're just as criminal as we are when we get our drugs, you know, drill Rogan talks
about having all these different psychedelics all the time and all these different experiences
with all these different people on his show.
And we're supposed to kind of believe that that's the same thing as going to a goose
concert and getting a bag of mushrooms and going home and doing it.
And what they're doing is the same thing, but it's not because they get away with it.
If you get caught, you'll be a schedule one substance.
You'll do 10 years.
And yet they're allowed to talk freely on their podcast about these kinds of things as if
it's just okay for the cool kids to use testosterone late in life or or any number of supplements
or go on a steak only diet and all these other things that again, in principle, I'm not arguing
about the biological benefits of any of these particular things.
I'm just suggesting that as many, many other people before me have suggested that this
is not some spontaneous network of cool guys.
This is a carefully crafted network of influencers that's been put there because of their appeal,
because of their skill and their, and their orative ability, but also because they're
part of this team through family connections and other reasons.
And those connections are starting to become obvious to, you know, if you do enough reading
and you do enough paying attention and you listen to them, them, them talk themselves
talk and pay attention to what they say, they've actually admitted it throughout the pandemic
and before that this was kind of an orchestrated effort to set up this alternative limited
spectrum of debate.
Now, whether or not these guys are bad guys is a completely, they could be the good guys,
they could be the cavalry riding and I don't think Sam Harris is, but maybe Brett Weinstein's
a great guy.
Maybe he's going to be end up to be the greatest patriot in American history.
I guess it's possible, but I think because of who his father is, because of who his brother
is, because who his brother works for, because of his weird circumstances of leaving a university
with a $500,000 settlement, I mean, these are, these are things that bring into question
for me exactly how much he suffered and exactly how much he suffers on a daily basis relative
to somebody like me or Mark Coolack or, or even somebody like Charles Rixi who was working
at a shoe store at the beginning of the pandemic, not, not running a successful podcast on its
eighth episode with Sam Harris, bringing up the or, or navigating for him behind him telling
him about how in the next deadly pandemic when 70% of the people are dying, we're not
going to have any time to tolerate anti-vaxxers.
So again, there are people that need special attention, not because of just because that
they got things wrong, not just because they advocated for masks and lockdowns for way
longer than any sane person should have advocated for them, especially any person who now claims
to understand that they are indeed some kind of a problem.
I actually expect Brett Weinstein to say something to the effect of masks were not significantly
beneficial.
I actually expect Brett Weinstein to say something like, they did stop spread, but just not enough
for them to mean to justify having worn one, certainly not enough to justify the mandates.
It's something like that.
It's not going to be, I was wrong and putting a mask on people to stop a virus of this size
should have never been a debatable thing.
I should have never debated the idea of fomites or aerosols, the idea that anything to do
with goggles would have been a good idea.
I was just being silly and even more, I should admit, Brett should admit that that was of
course crazy to tell adults to do that to their kids and then us to impart this idea
to children that when we go out in public, we've got to protect ourselves from the outside
world.
This was a very, very, very, very dangerous psychological attack on our children that
we, for the most part, went along with because we had to, because we were made to, but mostly
but for a lot of people, because we saw people on television, we heard authority figures telling
us that it would make a difference.
And so I could tell my brother all I wanted to, that it was pointless.
I could tell my brother all I wanted to about the people who work on controlling biohazards
in a laboratory, know what masks work and what masks don't, you don't wear a surgical
mask to protect yourself from getting things in.
You're wearing a surgical mask so that you don't spray sputum on the thing that you're
working on.
That's it.
It's nothing else.
That's why when people come into a surgery to observe, they don't have to wear a a a covering.
They do a lot of times, but if you bring someone in and they're standing far enough back, most
of those students and stuff don't wear a face mask because they're, they're not going
to be allowed to talk anyway.
And so again, we're going getting a little off task here, but what I wanted to to emphasize
is that Sam Harris is a guy who at the very beginning of the pandemic was already in this
alternative position of being an influencer in the intellectual dark web, a real, you
know, in some people's mind, a very exalted intellectual.
I'm not really sure if his pedigree and, and his, his, his career, you know, it doesn't
really, it's not really supported by what he's actually accomplished in his career, either
as an academy magician or as, I guess maybe he's an author that a lot of people have liked
his books.
But if you look backwards at what he's done over his career, it really feels like a bunch
of forced topics.
This last latest foray into whether or not we have free will is just right.
It's a, it's a dead on strike.
If you think baseball, it's a dead on strike right in the middle, right down the pipe for,
for all of these people that are trying to organize our thoughts and, and organize our
kids thoughts to surrender to this, this overwhelming, you know, global force, this global, this
globalizing force, this thing that, you know, nationalism and, and national borders and
national governments, it's all just a antiquated idea, a multi polar world is coming into existence
very soon.
This, this is where we are.
And so these people need to maintain the worst case scenario and Sam Harris maintains the
worst case scenario with number one, he's denying all the time that this has anything
to do with the laboratory.
And so we're never going to get him to understand that clones are important and clones are important
in the laboratory story.
And so he's just going to deny the laboratory story because again, this fuels the Scooby-Doo,
but also he's very big on AI and the potential dangers of it.
Let's listen.
It's about it really haven't changed.
I think we're, we've seen progress in it that has surprised more or less everyone.
So I, I, we're, we're here sooner than, than I was expecting, frankly, I don't know
what I was expecting.
I mean, my, my argument for, uh, are being concerned about AI really wasn't anchored
to any kind of timeline.
I, I think I gave my, I gave my TED talk on this topic in 2016 and I think it was about
2014 or 15 where I first became a cognizant of the issue and, and worried about it.
I mean, I, I, I, more or less everyone had thought we hadn't made much progress than
all of a sudden progress.
The rumors of progress were, um, uh, you know, unenorable with, with the breakthroughs
that deep mind made, uh, with chess and go and, um, alpha fold and so there's, there's
the first, um, there's the first chicanery, right?
So chess and go chess number one has turned out to be a very conquerable level of possibilities
and a possibility space that's quite conquerable because the possibility space, useful versus
useless possibility space is pretty easy to delineate.
Go on the other hand is a much bigger possibility space with much less clear borders around
what is useful and what isn't as far as the configuration of play.
So that's also something that you can't underestimate.
Chess is very constrained from the perspective of the pieces, how they move and the space
and all that other stuff.
I mean, it's still a wonderful game.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm not, I'm not some kind of chess master.
I don't, I'm not insulting the game.
I think most people that know the games and their, their total possibility spaces will
all agree that go is a more, um, it's a harder game to get your head around.
It's a harder game to understand.
It's a harder game to explain.
It's a harder game to finish.
It's an extraordinary game.
And so it was a more significant accomplishment from an AI perspective to win against Go.
It's turned out that it's not really foolproof anymore and that humans with enough random
play can basically throw the computer off quite a bit.
And the algorithm that works against the best of the best is vulnerable to, to noise basically.
Now I'm not saying that, that, that it didn't work.
It still does work.
But now the last thing that he brings up here is alpha fold and alpha fold is Google's,
um, we're almost there exclamation about the idea that we have a computer program that
you can put in your amino acid, uh, sequence and we can show you how that, that protein
is going to fold.
There's a number of different reasons why this, this claim is absurd, um, and the claim
probably works to a certain extent on certain things with certain, uh, amino acid combinations
that are, let's say, could be hierarchically, hierarchically ranked so that, um, you know,
basic patterns like, uh, alpha helices or, or beta pleated sheets that, that form and
are agreed upon as general tertiary structures that proteins fold, uh, or proteins make.
These kinds of things can generally speaking be analyzed and identified very similarly,
um, you're going to have, and you've seen this throughout the pandemic, people using
algorithms to identify potential amyloidogenic protein sequences and potential pre-energetic
sequences and how long they are depends on what protein, uh, program that they use, what sequence
program that they use, what algorithm that they use. And a lot of these things haven't been shown
in vivo. They've been shown in vitro in cell culture or something like that. It's not to dismiss
the phenomenon. It's not to dismiss the observations. It's to say that you have to take all of these
things with a grain of salt. And so alpha fold is another one of these things where if that thing
was as useful as you thought it was, then there would be lots of tractable, tractable problems
that are currently on the desk that could be solved by alpha fold and it hasn't done any of them.
Basically, there's a number of chest problems or a number of go problems in proteins that has
yet to be solved that haven't been solved. And those are all kinds of proteins that have never
been able to be crystallized. And so I would love to be corrected or I'd love to be updated
that alpha fold is just going down a list of things that haven't been crystallized and haven't been
visualized and just knocking them down and being like, wow, here's this one. Here's this one. Here's
this one. And answering questions about function and structure that they haven't known because
they haven't had the structure of the ion channel or they haven't had the structure of the
the G protein coupled receptor that they're talking about. And now that they have the structure,
they can connect the structure to function. I would love to see that these questions are being
answered. And I think by listing them here, it's almost as if he assumes that they are or soon
will be because otherwise alpha fold wouldn't exist. But the bottom line is is that alpha fold
was announced. They said that we know how proteins fold. And then no major breakthroughs have been
made since. The nuclear pore was shown to be opening and closing. And that was really cool.
That's all well and good. But does that really mean that when we put in a sequence like a viral
sequence that we can understand how that protein folds in different ribosome complements? Can we
understand how the ribosomes of different tissues work relative to that same RNA sequence? Or are
we really talking about proteins and how they fold? And then the variability that's created by
the ribosome that's created by the the differential ribosome complement that's in every cell at every
tissue and every, every different kind specific on earth, then are we really looking at it? Or are we
are we just kind of doing what I would call some kind of computer chicanery? You know, if we get
pretty close, they'll never know the difference. And it with biology, I'm afraid that there's
going to be a lot of times when they're going to say, well, if we get pretty close, they're never
going to know the difference. If we can get it right with, you know, diabetes and heart disease and,
you know, a couple, let's say five really bright signals, then we can pretend that the blood tests
were using tests for 100 signals, as long as we get those five right, then we can probably pretend
on the rest of them. And then we'll catch up later. We'll fix all those other problems later.
That's where alpha fold is. We've tested it on a few things that we know it works on. It works
really well. We put it on a few other things that work pretty well. So pretty much we've got protein
solved. Ta-da, cut the ribbon, pop the champagne. Here it is. And now this tool is still not really
useful because it doesn't translate into any real world advantage. And then,
and then, yeah, I mean, this has been quite thrilling on one level. If you're at all
hopeful that we can build this technology in a way that is safe, well, then it really does seem like
we're on the cusp of solving lots of problems for which more intelligence is the solution.
So it could be the most useful labor-saving device ever invented. And then we just have to
get our minds around what we do politically and economically around that and the displacement of
human labor that would be quickly following that. But I do worry, and I think many people much
closer to this work are similarly worried, that we're in a situation where the incentives are
aligned so as to produce a catastrophic outcome if we make sufficiently quick progress. I mean,
we're in an arms race condition. And an arms race is not the condition you want to be into it,
to incentivize the cautious ethical deployment of a technology, which it seems you sort of have
to get right on the first try, right? I mean, we can't birth a digital God that is more intelligent
and more competent than we are digital God that is more intelligent and more competent than we are
a digital God that is more intelligent and more competent than we are that is unaligned with our
interests. And then we have to find ourselves in the position of negotiating with that thing.
To become more aligned with our interests. I just don't understand how this digital God
gains this all powerful status. How does it start jumping into end loaders and changing traffic
patterns? How does it? You know, I get the idea. I've seen the Hollywood movies of the internet
virus or Ultron going into the computer and being everywhere and taking over stuff. But
that's very different than what we're able to accomplish with chess and with Go and any of
these language models are also just an elaborate illusion. The point of it being that our own
understanding of language and its power over us is very limited and it's limited on purpose
because people have been using language against us in a weaponized way for decades, if not centuries.
And these tricks are not new. Having a computer have the machine learning capability to
use language effectively against us is not very surprising. But that is a
sort of asymptope of functionality that is very different than the asymptope that he's talking
about, which is general intelligence, where it's just going to get if it wants to and gets
pissed off. It's just going to build stuff and get rid of us. And we won't be able to unplug it
or you know, it won't need batteries anymore or a magnet won't you know, I don't know, but it seems
very, there's a long ways between the Hollywood worst case scenario of AI and where we are now
with chess go and alpha fold. And I find it absolutely preposterous that this guy whose whole career
is just based on talking smack and I guess being able to write it down on paper with some degree
of clarity is able to be an authority on this stuff. I'm pretty sure that he's not sophisticated,
I may could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's not sophisticated enough to even build a basic
machine learning algorithm. Like, you know, I don't know, like a visual network that would process
images or something like that, he might be able to describe it, I would hope that he would. But
I wonder if he could describe it off of the cover, we'd have to go back and read it first to describe
a multi layered neuronal network and how it would work to process images.
Because that's not even close to the kind of network that is necessary for chess or for go.
And that's not even close to a network that's necessary to even penetrate one
of the complex patterned integrities that is us in concert.
And so again, this idea of AI becoming all powerful or generally intelligence, a digital god,
right, like Ultron, who's talking smack in our own language to us about how pathetic we are,
that AI is a Hollywood illusion. And he apparently believes we're right around the corner,
we need to be really careful because we can only get it right once if Ultron comes out angry,
we're done. That's pretty impressive. I mean, the people who doubt that there's any real danger
here, in my view, are people who are who are not taking the time to imagine what it will be like
to have a system that really is general in its intelligence and superhuman in its intelligence.
It will be superhuman by definition, because all of our narrow intelligences are already superhuman.
I mean, the calculator in your phone is better than you are at arithmetic. It's the facial
recognition and speech recognition and emotion recognition and all these piecemeal capacities
we're building. I mean, if we want to make this stupid argument, isn't a hammer superhuman because
a hammer can pound in a nail much better than a human can, isn't a bicycle superhuman because
a human on a bicycle, isn't that an augmented human because it's a human on a bike, and going
faster than a human could ever go. I mean, he's talking about apples and oranges and saying it,
so I mean, I don't really know what the analogy is, but he's not making a real coherent connection
between what he's claiming and what he's thinking and what he wants to happen, what he thinks can
happen. This is just a general worst case scenario is, and remember, and this is the point I'm sorry,
I'm drinking, I'm going to try not to try not to have a little burp there. This is the same power
that Klaus Schwab and all the transhumanist futurists like Jamie Metzel. This is the power that they
think that if they just turn it on the human genome, if they just turn it on the epic database,
if they just turn it on the DMED database of all the biomedical data of all the people in the
Midwest or all the people in the military, that AI will be able to take that information and
turn it into useful understanding about who we are, about how our genome works, about how our
proteome fluctuates over the course of our lifetime to orchestrate who we are as people
spiritually, mentally, and in our well be. That's what they believe because again, you know, I mean,
chess and go and an alpha fold. That's the argument that this pseudo intellectual is making right
now. And it's it's absolutely terrifying because of again, he is being amplified over and over again.
This is all around. And half of the people really think that this is have intellectual powerhouse.
I mean, he's got the horsepower of a of a pocket watch that only runs in two orientations. I mean,
give me a break. Building into to AI at this point, once it once they become and both of them have
become, you know, better than we are at those at those tasks, but anything that we actually deploy
is going to be is going to be very quickly be at at human level for about five minutes. And then
it'll be superhuman. And it'll never be subhuman again, right? It's just like chess, you know,
chess was not as good as you and me at one point. I don't know when that was maybe in the in the
sixties. And then it got better than the average person, but still not nearly as good as a as a
grandmaster. But this had a lot more to do with the algorithms. And it had a lot more to do with
computing power. And once they could throw computing power at it, and it started to multiply the
number of calculations and the number of games that could be played in a given time. That was
always what the problem was when I was in high school, and then definitely when I was in college,
all you had to do is set it to grandmaster level and give it infinite time. It come up with the
right move and in two hours or three hours. And that was just the limitation of the computing,
the cranking it through. Now we can use those same algorithms and crank it through and in a
thousand or even a 10,000th of that time, especially if you can take a graphics type chip, you know,
with a kudos with kuda cores or whatever the hell they are, and use those for calculations.
So it's kind of disingenuous that he's portraying the progress of AI being any more than frame rate.
Because in so many aspects, the advance of computers and AI is frame rate its calculations per second,
and then brute force application of that onto a problem. And so I still don't think that he
understands how this in no way, shape or form penetrates or would be useful in penetrating
the irreducible complexity of biology, wherever that irreducible complexity
complexity irreducible complexity, wherever that boundary lies, you can't get past that
by recalculating over and over and making many, many, many, many, many, many measurements of it
until you finally have enough measurements so that you understand that complexity. That's not how
that works. You can't measure the temperature in a moving river enough times to understand how the
temperature is fluctuating in that river. You just can't. And you're not going to be able to
usefully measure the biology of a human relative to their genetics, even if you can monitor all the
epigenetics in all of the cell types in the body at the same time, which you can't. But I guess the
the Chan Zuckerberg initiative is going to make little cells that can do all that reporting and
they're going to they they purport to be able to. They're going to send little sensors around
the body. They're going to make measurements and they're going to do informatics and all this stuff
has all been said to be eventually doctors in hospitals using retroviruses to cure childhood
diseases. It's the same quackery because you're talking about crossing a line. You're talking about
crossing a line with this technology that just simply can't be crossed because this technology
isn't capable of pushing across it. It is useful for a lot of things. And I'm going to give you an
example of what it might be useful for. It might be useful, for example, to oh wait I didn't have
that up here. Where's that? Wait, okay, I got one more. I got to do one more. Sorry.
This was the whole reason why I was going to do this today. I saw this this episode of 60
minutes the other day, which really got me thinking about a number of things. And so I wanted to watch
it with you. This is really tonight's main episode. That's why I have the the ticking in the background.
Next Sunday on CBS, the Super Bowl will, for the first time, be held in Las Vegas,
a fitting venue given the prominent role gambling plays in sports today. America's recently brought
its age-old love of sports betting out of the shadows and onto our phones. And this has created
an all-time mismatch, pitting man against machine. Gamblers, overwhelmingly young men,
versus gambling companies armed with sophisticated AI data and engineering enticing fans to make
snap bets not just on games but on every play within games. The early results billions for
gambling companies, leagues, and state governments and a growing population of sports betters
struggling to defend against the rush. The story will continue in a moment.
Boston is nothing if not a sports town. And when there's a game, odds are good. There are guys like
Billy, Andrew, and John at the local bar. They grew up playing hockey together. Now in their
mid-20s, they bond over beer, wings, trash talk, and lately a new fixture of the fan experience.
Now what I find interesting, oh, I'm going to play that.
I'm going to catch that right in lately. A new fixture of the now what's interesting about
this is is that AI is not solving a super problem here. AI is not solving a super problem here.
What AI is doing is a lot like what Hugh Sotonic live Mark Coolack has suggested for a very long
time. AI did with the domain program. The AI spit out an answer so that you can just say,
well, the AI told me. And in this case, the AI is producing instant odds all the time so that
the bookie doesn't need to be present. And the bookie is optimizing his thing based on your
engagement with the app. You're betting on every play, every series in football, every quarter
in basketball, every set in tennis, even on matches that you don't care about.
And the idea, again, is to use AI to entice people, use AI to learn how to make you engage
with this thing is a very, very simple game relative to chess or go.
It is not some kind of wow, this thing is just figuring stuff out wizard, like, no, no, no, no,
no. And it's horrible because the AI also then is completely sort of absolving the people who
run the site from any malicious activity because the AI is doing it. They don't have to feel bad
about taking all of these people's money all the time, just because they want to bet on a
Patriots game. I mean, sorry, man, we all got to make a living, right?
Gambling used to be something that most people would have been ashamed to admit that they do.
When I was a kid, adults would have been ashamed to admit that they had a bookie and that they
bet on games. Now it's being portrayed as basically okay. I mean, it's fun and harmless.
Spectacular. Spectacular where we are. Fan experience. What do you guys been on?
Football hockey. You have a team? Berlin's Patriots. You want to lose money, you don't
lose the Patriots. Meaning and losing money for millions of fans like these guys. It's one more
reason to watch and enjoy sports. Big news. During games, promotions for sports books like
Fan, Dual and Draft Kings are everywhere. A 2018 Supreme Court decision opened the door for states
to legalize sports betting. Cantalized by new revenue, 38 states and counting have done just that.
And Americans have spent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars sports betting.
That's the GDP of Greece. Yigs have cashed in. Network's too.
Man, I got to teach you how to get with it. For decades, odds and points spreads were
forbidden topics too. That's pretty funny. And I got to teach you how to get with it.
Decades, odds and points spreads were forbidden topics. Now do you see that? That's that's them.
Social distancing on the TNT tip-off auto trader presented by tip-off social distance.
For decades, odds and points spreads were forbidden topics. Now ESPN has its own sports book.
Call it, baby. Full disclosure, when I work at the tennis channel, I sit here. The Draft Kings
fund download the app. So right now, I'm just looking at the box. Back at the bar, casual social
betters like Billy, Andrew, and John revel in their wins. What'd you throw down? Eight dollars.
Now what I'm going to ask you to listen to for a little while longer because the language starts
to become the enchantment. And I need you to hear it. I need to see it because they've been
doing it for a while. But now it's starting to become frighteningly obvious. But survey after survey
confirms that of the 50 million or so sports betters in the U.S., men under the age of 35
are far and away the biggest demographic. For decades, league-speared gambling would
corrupt competition. So far, that crisis hasn't happened. But the last five years have given rise
to a surge in young gambling addicts. Joe Rassillo, now 26, says his problem started in high school.
Then in 2022, sports betting apps came to his home state of New York.
What impact did that have? It had a big impact. I've worked my whole life. So, you know, I got
to check every week, but it would deposit right into whatever app I was using. Were you interested
in the game itself? I am a sports fan. But as the years grew on, you become less interested in
the game itself and more interested in the result. And who needs a bookie when a fresh
bet is just a swipe away? You know, you can wake up in the middle of the night, take your phone out,
set an alarm for a match, maybe overseas or something like that. I would place a bet on anything,
anywhere, at any time. He'd sneak in bets at family functions. He'd delete the apps one day,
reinstall them the next. To help get clean, a tech downgrade. This is the phone I use on a daily
basis. You can't gamble on this phone. Not too many apps on that phone, huh? No. I think people
who aren't familiar might think of the typical gambling addict as, you know, the middle-aged guy
and a windbreaker who's betting his retirement savings. It's more prominent in the younger
generation, I think, than ever. Are they going to have to protect us from this? Are they going to
have to protect us by putting a digital ID on the internet so that I don't know where this is going,
but waiting till you hear the language change here. Remember, this is a very recent 60 minutes.
It's like from a day a week ago or so. Sportsbooks and the commercials and the leagues themselves
are making it look so cool to gamble and risk your money. There are distinct signs of trouble.
According to a Sienna College poll, which we can report for the first time now,
of the young men wagering online nearly half feel they're betting more than they should.
In the five years since New Jersey legalized online sports gambling, calls to the state's
problem gambling helpline nearly tripled. The largest color demographic, 25 to 34.
This is a public health emergency happened. Sorry, what? What did he say it was?
25 to 34. This is a public health emergency happening and we're not talking about it yet.
Harry Levant is a game health emergency graphic. 25 to 34. This is a public health
emergency happening and we're not talking about it yet. A public health emergency.
A public health emergency. Imagine if the CDC gets involved in this gambling epidemic. Harry
Levant is a gambling addiction therapist and leading voice on the public health impacts of
online sports betting. A decade ago, Levant was a trial lawyer whose gambling addiction
was so fierce he used client money to fuel his habit leading to his disbarment. In his current
career, he's noticed today's desperate gambler looks and acts a lot different. I have patients
who gamble in the shower. I have patients who gamble before they gather the bed in the morning.
I have patients who gamble while they are driving. There are no guardrails. We scientifically know
the human brain the risk reward system for a young man isn't fully formulated. That's
your 25. Where are the young men getting the money to gamble like this? I have patients,
some of whom are college students who have gambled federal student loan money. I have
young patients who have gambled away inheritances. Levant showed us what gambling today entails.
It was an NFL Sunday, though on draft Kings, the betting options extended far beyond football.
Soccer, basketball, hockey, motorsports, rugby, volleyball, and there was tennis. Pedro Redenas
playing Alfredo Perez in a challenger qualifying match in Charlottesville. Those are two names I've
never heard before. Who is betting on this match? Two guys who are nowhere near the top 100.
Because John, this is not about tennis. They're not designing them for the fans of qualifier
tennis in Charlottesville. They're designed for people who want more action.
The opportunities for action are literally limitless. Live in-game micro betting allows
users to win. Is this any different than what they did with the opioid epidemic in America? Like
just giving them away like candy prescriptions, like candy profits, like candy? They knew it was
bad. They've known for decades that opioids have to be used with the strictest rules and
attention. And yet somehow or another, people can have opioids in their cabinets that aren't
even labeled. Now, I understand that gambling is a little bit different, but we understand how
damaging it can be. When I grew up as a kid, gambling was... I mean, it's just extraordinary
to me now how we talk about these things as problems, as if we're surprised. It's a public
health crisis because you put gambling on people's phones. Well, no kidding. Really? I'm so surprised
if you put cigarette machines that dispensed free cigarettes in high school. Do you think that
might be a problem? Maybe. I don't know. If you put soda pop and candy at the food and the cafeterias
of schools, do you think those kids get fatter? I don't know. Maybe. I wouldn't be
surprised if they did. Would you be surprised if people ruined their lives if you made gambling
something that was so easy you could do it with a swipe? Are we regulating this? Are they making
us beg for regulation? Is that what they're doing here? Do they want us to feel as though our kids
are under assault and that we need the big bad government to come or the big good government to
come and save us from these predatory people on our phones? Give us digital IDs so that we can
turn it off. I don't know what the plan is, but it's really sad how much of a big deal they're
making this major on every pitch serve and snap. If you come down here, you can bet on the current
drive of the Green Bay Packers. Will it be a punt, a touchdown, a turnover, or a field goal? Using
algorithms powered by AI, draft Kings refreshes the odds constantly. The common fan can't possibly
calculate whether it's a good bet or a bad bet, much less in real time. And so if the domain
server couldn't have possibly done what it could have done to go through and take the
computer generated x-ray crystallography model of the three CL protease and interface that model
with all the known drugs and pharmaceuticals on the FDA catalog in less than three weeks with a
volunteer team. And in reality, they knew that in the end, they were just going to say that the
the AI spit out these drugs because these were the drugs they wanted it to spit out. How would
it be any different? How would this AI be any different than giving you odds and knowing what
you will bet, giving you odds to entice you to bet? What teams do you bet for? What teams do you
bet against? Who are you watching? What are you looking for? Blah, blah, blah. Your patterns
figure out what your patterns are and then give you those kinds of bets.
And how vigilant would you have to be, right? How vigilant would you have to be if you check
those sports scores and the app could even be lying to those people for all we know. And the AI
would be very good at doing things like that with the proper programming. That's not solving
goal. It's not even alpha fold level processing. And we are supposed to believe that the inevitable
consequence of this is that the AI is going to become superhuman intelligence in general.
And be able to move and create freely. And we're going to be screwed if we don't do it right. I
mean, think about how absurd it is that that Sam Harris isn't first just advocating for AI not
to be used as a weapon to deceive people out of their money. That AI stopped being used as a weapon
to to control the opinions and habits of the masses like it is right now. Instead, he's warning
us about an AI in the future that's going to, you know, it's really going to be smart.
And so for me, that's what this distraction is all about. That's what gets revealed right here
is that AI is plenty dangerous. Machine learning is plenty dangerous. When it's applied to us,
it can extract our money and prey on our addictions. And in the case of social media algorithms,
that's what they're doing to control our opinions and to control what we think about and control
how we argue about it. And the effectiveness of these algorithms can be seen in that they can
convince people to bet on play by play in football. Play by play in tennis, Senate by set in tennis.
So yes, these algorithms are powerful, but it's only because humans are weak.
And the actual intractable problems of the, you know, irreducible complexity and biology are not
going to be tackled by this, by these, these parlor tricks of computational power. That's all
they are parlor tricks of computational power. They are not actually understanding. They're not
actually insight. And no more than the algorithms that are, that are harvesting the money from
these people who are betting are algorithms that understand human behavior. They don't.
And you're none of the people that own those algorithms are gaining any understanding of
human behavior. The algorithms have optimized the extraction of money from the people who interact
with the app. That's it. And it's not a very hard problem. It's not any more difficult than chess
or go. And it's actually less easy to evaluate how successful they are, other than to say that
they're making a lot of money. But gambling's easy. So then really is the AI that big a deal?
Is the AI really that big of a deal? Does it really matter if in the end gambling is addictive?
Ooh, the AI is deciding exactly how much cocaine and when to give it. And because the AI
optimizes when the person gets cocaine, holy cow, do they become addicted to cocaine?
It's like, well, I don't know, man. If you've got a person who wants to use cocaine and you give
it to him pretty much, they're going to get addicted. It doesn't matter what. Oh, no,
our AI gives it to him at exactly the right time and exactly the right doses and exactly the right
optimal amount of times per day. And that's why it works much better than just regular cocaine.
That would be the argument that you would make about AI. It's it makes gambling even more
addictive. It makes gambling even more shitty. That's the art. That's the only argument you can make
here. And I'm afraid that in a lot of these cases, that's the power of AI. You can make
something a lot crappier than it was by itself. A lot more dangerous. A lot more effective at
whatever it does. But that's the exact different direction than trying to understand a complexity.
Understand an irreducible complexity with that strategy. It's like, no, again, I do think it's
kind of close one, but not right would be to say that you can't measure the temperature in a river
enough times to understand the temperature of the river. You just can't. You can measure it in a
million places a million times a day. And still, you're not really going to understand it.
Because there's the sun, there's the rain, there's the seasons blah, blah, blah.
And they think that they can, with the help of AI,
measure the temperature of our body or some aspect of our body a lot of times in a lot of places.
And that'll be enough data to finally understand how this patterned integrity sings.
I'm telling you, they can optimize the way people lose their money on a gambling app for sure.
They can optimize the way your kids interact with an app and their friends. Absolutely. They can
optimize the way or optimize the amount of depression that someone gets from TikTok as they scroll.
Absolutely. But that is not even as difficult as the accomplishment of AI and Go.
And it's not even close to as complicated as as what alpha fold should be if it actually could
do all the things that they purported to do and all the problems that it should be able to solve.
I'm not sure if I wanted to watch that anymore. Just let me let it go for a second.
These numbers coming from. How do they know what the odds of Green Bay losing a fumble are?
We don't know that they have access to all of the stats combined with artificial intelligence.
And see artificial intelligence here just gets to do everything else. It's like this black box,
very similar to how it's used with the domain server. We have this black box and we put stuff
in and out comes the answers. And the answers are just, you know, what they are. So if the answers
give us millions and millions of dollars, then I guess the answers must be right. It can't just
be that we're selling lots of instances of gambling and gambling is a really bad idea.
You understand that, right? It just has to organize the it just has to organize it in such a way so
that it gets it right. And the house just has to organize those odds so that no matter how you
bet you lose. And so in football, if the algorithm is just picking, it's not
see that's the other thing here that I think is is being misled here is misleading here. What
you're thinking of is a bookie. A bookie is a guy or a gal who has a bunch of clients and the more
clients that bet on the on the Packers, then the odds go up because I can't back all those bets
unless the bets that are coming in have to pay more to get less wins than the people that first
started when I had the odds a little wrong or I didn't know that everybody was going to bet on
the Packers. But an algorithm and an AI algorithm in a phone app doesn't have to do that. A phone
app is not going to be saying, well, everybody's betting on the Packers today. So I'm just going
to change that. It's going to say that already based on it's going to do it based on a whole
other thing. It could even be giving different odds to different people knowing that the odds are
part of the way that you decide whether to bet. And so this proprietary crap where all we can't
tell you how this works, it's pretty complicated. We have all the stats and then we give it to the
AI and the AI does the AI is optimizing the idea that you will bet something.
And and optimizing how often you will lose. It's not optimizing how much it is we don't even know,
but the point would be again that these are not intractable problems. They are not magic. It's a
parlor trick with it's a parlor trick based on computational power. The ability to predict
what will draw the action in. Matt's Arb Cousin is a leading gambling reformer in the UK. He is
also a recovering gambling addict. I would say understand what the nature of these companies
really is. They are big data companies that are extractive.
Zarb Cousin successfully lobbied for stricter gambling regulations in Britain,
limiting how betting companies advertise and how much gamblers can wager. He says the UK,
where gambling has been legal for decades, offers a sobering glimpse into what he believes is a
crisis headed straight toward the US. There's lots of opportunities to gamble in Britain,
you assume it's safe, you don't realize how easy it is to get addicted to that stuff.
Addiction is intensified, he says, by how much the gambling companies know about each user.
Recently, Zarb Cousin was able to use Britain's public information laws to access data the
betting company Flutter, owner of Fandall, had on the UK customer. That data was used to tailor
offers and push notifications to keep the guy in action. What did you learn?
So about 93 different data points they had on this individual were when they bet what
offers worked, what inducements worked. On this particular one, he plays...
So it has nothing to do with the odds of the game. It has nothing to do with booking skills,
like setting the odds. We are talking about marketing here. AI marketing to get this guy to
click and click again and click again. We'll give you a free bet with this much odds.
It's not gambling, don't you see? This is an AI being unleashed on people. Yes, that's true,
but it's not a magic. Oh my gosh, it's about to become conscious and take over the world.
And that's the idea. They want you to believe that this is evidence for where things are going
to go. No, this is where things are and where they will remain because this is the prison
that they want our kids to grow up in. Where they can control their image of the world,
their perception of the world based on an AI algorithm giving them what they need to see.
And an AI algorithm understanding what they've already seen so what they know what they need to see.
And that is not a very complicated propaganda algorithm if there is the idea of controlling
the masses and their opinions in order to make us angry or upset, confused, frustrated, or doubtful.
And so the magic and scariness is not Ultron.
The scariness is people like Sam Harris and Peter Teal and Elon Musk already applying these
algorithms to create dismay and despair and dissidents and doubt and division in our societies
and confusion about what's important and what questions are important to ask using algorithms
that's addict us to these apps, that addict us that are addicting to our attention
and that are confusing to our minds. That's already happening. And what Sam Harris wants you to
worry about is Ultron. And when Ultron finally gets here, now we're really going to be screwed.
No, we're screwed right now because weaponized piles of money are using algorithms to confuse
us to frustrate us and to create doubt and division because they want to control, demolish all of
our Western republics, our republic and Western democracies, whatever you want to call them.
That's what's happening here. And you can't miss it if you see how ridiculous things are. What is,
what is Brett Weinstein's role in this Brett Weinstein's role is kind of like a clown
in some respects for some people and some parts of this of this pyramid are meant to make fun of
Brett meant to make fun of the people that go somewhere with that was set up to ostensibly go
to Texas and go to the park there. I can't remember the name of the park. Shelby Park.
To the park their horns or something to I guess, you know, bolster Governor Abbott's
basically they're playing dress up. Yeah. And we've reported that it was basically God, apparently,
who suggested that they go. Yeah, listen to him. And it's the, we should say the convoy seems to
be falling apart a little bit because of a dueling sort of charges of pedophilia. But this,
this woman here is one of the most frightening examples of
someone who is very, very, very convinced, certain in fact, that they have a better grip on reality
than almost anyone they know. And that the realities of progressivism and left versus right
is also something that she believes she understands so thoroughly that she deserves to have millions
of people listening to her opinions, often condescending about how people don't understand the world
as well as she does. And it is extraordinary the level of arrogance and conceit that's on this
show from both of them. But this is a person who just by her age and life experience alone can't
possibly know enough to be as confident as she is in what she knows. And so it really frightens me
because I do think it's kind of an attribute of a lot of people her age that they have been led to
believe that the adult world isn't that complicated that the truth is pretty simple. And now I want
what's mine and that the old people have kind of ruined the world and that they've been bad people
and we need to fix this because I'm not a bad person. It's something like that. America's bad
has always been bad. And Republicans and Democrats alike were used to be bad. But now the only people
you can possibly I don't know. Anyway, watch carefully as they ridicule Jan.
This guy who was over in in in the Netherlands, the the bald dude, the the the guy that took them
to Panama. He's a former Navy SEAL. He's an interesting character, him and Brett and and Chris Martinston
went to the Panama Canal to look at some of these camps and whether or not we're being invaded.
And they came back with a little report. And these guys are making fun of that report.
And I'm sure you remember it before we get to that. Here is a clip of one of the speakers. He's a
former green beret named Michael yawn. He is at Springs dripping Springs, Texas. So they've gotten
close. They're close, which by the way is outside of Austin. It's not even that close to the
border yet. But it's in Texas. Yeah, they're in Texas though. They are in Texas. And they're migrating
that here is he is. Well, you can see that the border and like these to all these issues. Let me
put this way. The symbolism is these guys are one level below Brett Weinstein. So Joe Rogan and
then Brett Weinstein and all those people are on this level. And then down here is another level
of people. And these guys might be one level below that. They want to be up here maybe on this
level where Tim Poole is, but they're not quite on Tim Poole's level, but almost. And they argue
with Tim Poole a lot. She's been on Tim Poole's program once Sam won't go on it. I don't know.
But Sam has been doing this for longer than her. She's a kind of a recent addition to this. But
Tim Poole generally supports Brett Weinstein and thinks Sam's an idiot and Sam Harris is an idiot.
And then and these guys are generally the opposite. These two like Sam Harris and like the mainstream
idea and think vaccines are great and people that don't like vaccines are idiots and don't even
need to be talked to just like Sam Harris would think. And Tim Poole is of course on that other
side. And then they have their own little gurus up here. And then those gurus have their gurus
up here and somewhere up there in the middle there, Joe Rogan talks to all the gurus.
On the right, the issues are connected. Here you go.
Okay. We're seeing asking some across. Also, check our back home.
And they're coming across that border every day. Right.
Are you listening to me?
Positive for one second. Now he's also mad that people aren't listening to him. Those people are
the talking. But I just wanted to make it clear that down at the Darien's Gap,
they and I don't know who would say, do you say Chuck Colson?
Chris Martinson.
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if he had seen it, but he said that in Darien Gap,
which is like down near Panama, or I think it's part of Panama actually,
there are Afghans coming. Now it's quite possible. Like I said,
anything happening in Afghanistan, the last like, I don't know, a couple of decades,
I would there. There might be a reason why there's a certain cohort of Afghanis.
See, so they they automatically then go to the well, but whose fault is it that there are
Afghanis coming in through South America? Whose fault is that? That's our fault because
we wrecked Afghanistan. If there are Syrians, well, why wouldn't there be? We did that.
And so this is a very typical take that they have. This is the bait that's on the social media
right now. This is the bait that's on TV. These are the kinds of people that pass for, you know,
dipping into the intellectual space of real politics. This is the joke that is misleading
our children on the internet. This is the reason why we need to get back in touch with our college
kids and get them to start listening to things that are a bit more on point.
Because if they're not listening to things that are on point, they're listening to things that are
just absolutely gosh awful. Now, it's awful also because of course,
this Michael Jan guy is a sort of kind of set up for this. I feel like it's kind of set up for
this and it's very frustrating. And we're also talking about it here with Michael Malice. Michael
Malice is another bro with a show. These two guys are bros with shows. And so he's visiting
their bros with shows and they're having a discussion about about the world and about not
being cynical and about how taking a cynical point of view is kind of easy. Actually, I think
another one of those things that you're going to hear from Brett Weinstein eventually is going
to be very similar to what. What is that clown's name? That bald guy on Twitter that was
he's got isn't the guy runs does Dilbert. Isn't that who it is? Adams is that his name?
What's his name? Can you tell me it's Adams, right? It's
it's but he was this guy Scott Adams. Yes. Oh my gosh. What a dense individual he is.
He's probably going to put up Brett is probably going to put up an argument very similar to Sam
Adams and say Scott Adams and say that if you got COVID right from the beginning because you were
very cynical and you just didn't believe anything then it's not really an intellectual position to
take and that's basically what I think a lot of times this guy says and I like this guy a lot
more than I like Brett Weinstein. I'll be very honest with you. This guy has never rubbed me
really the wrong way. But with Brett, I really feel like number one, he's not going to admit
that masks don't work. He's not going to admit that masks damage children. He's not going to admit
that that that getting adults around the United States and around the world to submit to masking
was an entirely an entirely damaging psychological operation that has made it easier the next time
that we are required to submit because that people didn't stand up and should have stood
up and more people should have stood up more people that should have known better should have stood
up. And he's one of those people that claiming all the expertise he does and all the advantages
of being coming from the evolutionary perspective, he didn't know Jack squat about principles.
And he's still making the argument up until very recently that effective lockdowns are useful,
that effective lockdowns would have done something for something that amounts to
Iatrogenic murder, if anything. I mean, so we are far from this is far from over.
We're one nail away from America being destroyed. What does that even mean destroyed, right? And
it's just and if you your perspective is that the Biden administration in two years and 51
Democratic senators can destroy America, well, it's a wrap and get out of this country because
you hate America because to me, it's just absurd that, you know, a country as prosperous as we are,
which certainly has problems. Let's let me not but speak about the rug, but to say that we're
two years away from our destruction to me is absolutely crazy to the point of being dishonest.
And it's also these narratives are highly addicted. We all know and we're not going to mention
names, certain channels that feed and fuel a doomsday narrative, they get millions of views
and a lot of the time. Yeah, I know. Everything's shit.
I should change the book title. Look how shit things can get and it's coming to America
right now. Yeah, exactly. Get your copy. But they put out the same narrative again and again.
That doesn't seem to be very little variety in the output. You look at it and even a cursory
glance will make it or once you analyse it, you realise that a lot of these arguments don't
have a lot of merit yet people tune in. They love it, don't they? Oh, and then you could have
and the thing is then they can say that they're being rational because they could open up any
newspaper and find bad news and be like, look, look, I'm not being irrational. The newspaper
validates my perspective. So it does become a self-fulfilling cycle. I think COVID certainly
allowed people who are, you know, neurotic or anxious or depressed now to externalise their
neurosis because now it's not calling from inside the house. It's the whole country or the whole
world that's experiencing this and how can you expect me to have any hope or vision of happiness.
So I think it's a very useful technique if you want to conquer a people or a people's to convince
them that their victory over you is impossible and then you don't have to fight because they could
just go home, shrug their shoulders and be like, all right, you know, I can't win. I have no hope.
The people I'm against are too powerful or been around. And that I think is a beautiful point.
That's what they want us to feel. That's what they wanted us to feel with worst case scenario.
You better lock down the crazy people on the internet. The really, you know, people that
think it's worst case scenario are saying 60 days. So you better not complain about 15.
We can see from Deborah Birx's own book that they knew that they had to convince Trump to accept
15 days and they knew that if they've got him to accept 15 days in a way we're never going to
reopen in 15 days, they knew that Deborah Birx said that in her book. So the concept here
that we need to understand is that that we have been played that people who think that we have
been played have been played. And so Brett Weinstein may have been played. Maybe he doesn't know how
badly he's been played. Maybe he needs to really really reflect on who was telling him what to say
when. Was he really independently wearing a mask and bandanas and goggles rather? Was he really
independently advocating for harder lockdowns? Was he really advocating for Ivermectin? Was he
really advocating for these things or was he encouraged to? And who encouraged him? And if he
thinks very carefully about who encouraged him, could he think of alternative reasons why they
were encouraging him? And has he ever considered, have any of these people ever considered the
possibility that the worst case scenario of a biological leak of an RNA that was capable of
high fidelity circulation of the globe for five years was an illusion, a mythology used against
us? Have they ever considered this a possibility? Brett Weinstein and his infinite wisdom as an
evolutionary biologist he ever considered the just the mathematical aspects of an RNA that is capable
of doing what they claim it has done? Starting from a puddle in Wuhan? The consideration that
I've been trying to get him to make in his head for like three years? No, of course they won't
because they're protecting this narrative. They're making sure that you ask the wrong questions
over and over again. Is Malice doing that? I'm not really sure. I don't really think it matters
because he's not really dangerous. He's not really tapping into anything that no one else
taps into. He's certainly not breaking any firm illusions like we're trying to do about
about mythologies that upon this is all based. Maybe he's going against fractional reserve banking
or something like that. But I don't think it's that really that big of a deal. So the last thing I'd
like to cover tonight before I go to bed is an audio leak from at the end of 2020 that hadn't
been published anywhere and was published today by Sasha La Topova on her sub stack.
It's just a six minute recording from a AstraZeneca employee apparently. And she also coupled it with
a Catherine Watts thing reclassifying by our weapons as identical legally. Legally identical to pandemics.
So we're still trying to figure out exactly the role of different governmental organizations
executive branch organizations and also Department of Defense organizations in this whole exercise
of the pandemic. And Sasha La Topova has picked up on a lot of the things that we're doing and a
lot of the themes that we're pushing forward. And so I'm very happy about that. And so here's Sasha
providing a little bit of insight into what happened at AstraZeneca and the fact that they
were looking for an antibody which is very interesting. And I just want to listen to this
audio with you and see if you catch any of the things that I catch. And that I'm probably going
to go to sleep.
Yes, sir. Has been the architect of the long acting antibody against COVID-19. Mark,
back to you. Excellent. So thank you for the introduction Mark. And it's really a pleasure
to share with all of you a little bit of the journey that the long acting antibody team has
taken in 2020. But actually our story begins back in 2017 in the basement of a quality in
and Tyson's corner Virginia at a Defense Department industry day. There I met Colonel Matt Hepburn
who was actually the architect of the pandemic prevention program or P3. And the goal of P3
was to go from discovering a novel virus to producing a drug in less than 60 days. Something
that would normally take six years at best. To me this sounded a little bit more like science
fiction than science. But we signed up in a small and committed and talented team of
virologists molecular biologists as engineers started working in 2018 on new technologies to
discover and manufacture antibodies against viruses. The team had actually been pretty successful on
the early discovery engine piece and had won a biopharma R&D award about this time last year.
So in January we were all anxiously following emerging news coming out of China of a new disease.
And it wasn't a surprise to me that when I got a call on February 4th from the Defense Department
here in the US saying that the newly discovered SARS-2 virus posed a national security threat.
We needed to stop everything that we were doing on our model system influenza
and put everything on to SARS-2. Fortunately our top two virologists Patrick and Ming were already
a step ahead having cloned and expressed the virus protein soon after the virus sequence was
published on January 21st. Okay. Holy shit balls. What did he just say? Let's look at the transcript.
Thank goodness Sasha provides a transcript here. Fortunately we needed to stop everything.
And we were doing on our model system and we put everything else into SARS-2. Fortunately our top
two virologists were already a step ahead having cloned and expressed the virus protein
as soon as the virus sequence was published on January 21st. Now that's some very interesting
language the virus protein. I think there are about 31 give or take a few depending on how you
divide them up. I'm sure there are more than 20. So what we're talking about here just to make
sure everybody's on the same page. What we're talking about here is the long acting antibody team.
And he mentions the pandemic the PP3 or PPP3 program where we were supposed to do something in 60
days a countermeasure. Right. So that that program was what I showed over here with this other
sub stack which I also think is worth following. Democracy manifest sub stack is a pretty decent one
written by some Australians I believe and I've liked a lot of what they've written so far and they
actually maybe serendipitously were on this on January 5th already with pandemic
protection platform that's what it was.
Prevention or protection prevention.
And so I believe what he is suggesting is that AstraZeneca was already involved in the R&D
in 2017 because they were already involved in the pandemic prevention program. So that's
interesting. And then yeah so then what I was getting at was is that these top two virologists
this is just so curious to me.
What did what did they?
What did they do? What did they what did they what did they clone?
So what what are they?
Fortunately our top two virologists Patrick were already ahead having cloned and expressed
the virus protein soon after the virus. So what are they talking about the spike?
What what virus protein did they clone? Like it's so bizarre.
Of course Robert Malone didn't clone the spike protein. Robert Malone thought it would be
important to make a computer generated model of the S X ray crystallography of of the three
cl protease which is what he told a couple different people but for sure I have
a couple recordings of him saying that I think one time to Steven Hadfield.
So I find it quite perplexing what what protein what viral protein should be referred to as we
cloned the viral protein is it all the proteins or is that like a quantity you know I'm confused
by that let's let it go. Of course the task was formidable we first had to learn everything
we could about a new virus the immune response to the virus and a new disease called COVID-19.
What we and others quickly learned was that the critical protein on the virus is called the spike
protein and this is the protein on the virus that allows the virus to infect cells by binding to
the ACE2 receptor and what we also learned was that it could exist in an active and inactive form
in the active form it expressed a special domain called the receptor binding domain or the RBD
and what we quickly figured out was the RBD was going to be the Achilles heel of the virus.
So we decided our best strategy was to come up with two antibodies against this receptor binding
domain and we set out with a three-pronged approach to discover those antibodies.
First we tried to isolate these B cells from the blood taken from COVID-19 patients.
Second we immunized humanized mice with different constructs of the spike protein to elicit those
magical B cells and then third we ran a huge screen using our traditional Cambridge antibody
technology phage display library. All in all we screened tens of thousands of antibodies
and then discovered about 1,500 that bound the spike protein and whittled it down to our top
100 by the end of March. The teamwork laid into the night weekends their commitment was inspiring
and they surprised me with their top 12 neutralizing antibodies on my birthday April 10th.
The next challenge was to down select from those 12 neutralizing antibodies to our top two.
The best way I can describe this is like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle by blindfolded
but in the end the team selected two very distinct two very potent antibodies
that showed synergistic activity and when I say synergistic activity was 1% plus 1%
actually equal 93% neutralization. At the same time our protein engineers who in my mind are
some of the best in the world made key enhancements to the antibodies to extend their half life so
that a single dose could afford up to six to 12 months of protection ensure high yield production.
Some key enhancements
to increase production
and increase lifespan.
So that is some interesting stuff so let's just I just want to break it quick break down
that quick
whoops that was not what I wanted and remember where we are I guess you can't see that there
I'll get rid of that. So top two virologists they did the viral protein we don't know what
protein they did and then he states that the the faith very clearly he says you know it was a
very formidable task because we had to get to know a new virus we had to get to know a new immune
response to the virus and we had to get familiar with a new disease called COVID now this was
one of the more spectacular things I thought that he said because this is really
scripted this is really some scripted BS right here this is making sure that he hits all the
check marks that he's supposed to hit this is a really in my mind this is a really big admission
here anybody that would to go off the book and say something like this so the active form of
the spike protein
the active form of the spike protein this this one
this one gets a little testy here I don't know why but I like this ink the active form expresses
the receptor binding domain so this active form seemed would seem to be the fear and cleavage
but we don't know for sure and he doesn't mention it which is also an interesting thing
because the fear and cleavage was known to a lot of people very very early on
just random people on the internet including people like uh like James Lyons Weiler and Yuri
Dagen and others that that knew already that this fear and cleavage site for some reason or another
was a very big deal like it was something that they they saw as evidence of a laboratory so
it's interesting that this guy who works for AstraZeneca with his two top virologists
they just made the viral protein whatever the viral protein is right that's here
they just made the viral protein but they didn't tell us what it was and then only later
did they all learn according to the narrative
that it was the spike protein that they needed to make and that the spike protein had an active
and an inactive form and that the active form had a receptor binding domain and so they wanted to
make an empty body cocktail was aimed at the receptor binding domain and antibody cocktail
is already a very interesting thing because if you are working on an antibody cocktail in 2017
then there was still would have been very good reason to believe that all the intellectual
property associated with the monoclonal antibodies that would be in that cocktail
that that intellectual property would be patentable and transitioning into the pandemic era
there was a number of changes that occurred to that intellectual property space as highlighted
by Mark Gulak's work on the antibody patent paradox and so now a a polyclonal collection
of monoclonal antibodies designed to synergistically neutralize a wide variety of viruses i.e.
a universal countermeasure for an RNA virus type is almost it is almost a a non-existent idea
anymore and Barrick thought it was cool the Z map product in in Canada got like awards in a
time magazine cover and and it was the main competitor to remdesivir Z map was the the most
effective countermeasure for Ebola i think or something like that mark could tell you but the
point is is that collections of monoclonal antibodies that synergistically worked together
was kind of the gold standard for what the pandemic prevention platform was looking for
and more importantly identifying those antibodies in a timely manner so that they could then put into
uh oh you're going to hear it a bioreactor and be made in less than a hundred days here we go
15,000 liter bioreactors and be stable for up to one year in a refrigerator so all in all this was
done in just 99 days one day had a schedule so our last hurdle to overcome was activity and when I
say synergistic activity it was 1% plus 1% actually equal 93% neutralization at the same time our
protein engineers who in my mind are some of the best in the world made key enhancements to the
antibodies to extend their half life so that a single dose could afford up to six to 12 months of
protection ensure high yield production in 15,000 liter bioreactors and be stable for up to one
year in a refrigerator so all in all this was done in just 99 days one day had a schedule so our last
hurdle to overcome was to accelerate that normal kind of two to three year early development timeline
into two months and we basically did that by running everything in parallel
and making significant investments at risk two notable examples were manufacturing off
the chose cell pools and starting our tech transfers to our manufacturing partners before we had even
selected our top clones our clinical and regulatory teams worked around the clock and we dozed our
first patient on August 21st and I'm happy to report that we started our two phase three studies
prevent last week and yesterday we did our first patient in my favorite study storm chaser
yesterday it's really been astonishing to see how everyone in the company is pulled together
and risen to the challenge and I've had the good fortune of working with everyone in biopharma
R&D precision medicine legal business development procurement project management ops IT commercial
and the all important government affairs and I'd like to just take this moment to thank everyone
so clearly fighting a virus like SARS 2 in a worldwide pandemic is not for the faint of heart
but clearly we're in this fight to the finish I'm also very grateful to Pascal many in the set for
their leadership and I'm very proud to be part of a company that not only follows the science but
is putting patients first and doing the right thing for the whole world just like the antibody
we're better together and I look forward to being with many of you in a healthier and happier 2021
so thank you and over to you Pascal so that's um you know you can see more about this
you can listen to your for sure for yourself on sash a lot to pull with substack
I am it's a little bit of a broken up stream tonight didn't have a much of a prepared
talk I just really wanted to kind of hit a couple things one of them being this over-exaggeration
of the power of AI and how it's already being used against us in plenty of nefarious ways
and that those uses are the things that everybody should be already up in arms about especially
with regard to our young people and our children and we're just not we're talking and everybody's
got us focused on Ultron and when Ultron finally gets here while we're going to have some problems
Helon Musk is telling that story Sam Harris is telling that story Brett Weinstein is telling
that story and it's not very much different than the worst case scenario story that they were
telling us about pandemic viruses before the pandemic occurred and so if some of these people were
taken already by this narrative then it's not necessarily their fault that they they got taken
by the extremely powerful psychological operation that was worst case scenario at the beginning of
the pandemic I apologize for being late and for not being on and for also not having a
sub-stack up I'm just working as hard as I can to make sure that my family gets on solid ground
as we move forward and now we are really we really got kicked out of a moving truck in
January with lots of balls in the air and not a lot of those balls can be afforded to be dropped
and so I will eventually be daily I promise you on that I don't know if it's going to be
in the coming couple weeks or if it's going to be a little while longer but I hope I hope I hope
there is a possibility that that we're getting very close to being able to do it daily and during
the day I dig a home I think AstraZeneca manufactured the antibody found by Absolera was
that mentioned they may have chose to clone the Sohomish County man that's possible I'm not sure
I have to look it is possible that they had their own cocktail but again I just I just put this
video up because I wanted to give a little shout out to Sasha who's been kind of coming
around on some of the ideas and and and coming into parallel and again I've made this statement
many times and I'm going to keep making this statement because I do think it's true we don't
need to necessarily have teams we don't need to be you know wearing the same t-shirt or everybody
doesn't have to think that giga ohms great if we're all fighting for the same thing and we're all
trying to get to the same place then necessarily our our work is going to be synergistic so I'm
going to take less time during the week to say pin people down on the board on what they've done
or what they haven't done with the exception of the people that I've already pinned to the board
because I do think those people belong there but the rest of the time I think the most important
thing in the next few weeks is going to be for us to revisit the immunology and for us to revisit
that history of 2019 20 and 21 and then actually revisit this biology which
I think will help us understand the scam of the PCR the potential scam of the sequences
and the potential scam of the iatrodenic deaths which were used to create the mass
casualty events which have been misconstrued as spread and so I am really excited because I
do think that we have a lot of people paying attention and a lot of people listening and so
all we have to do is just keep our arms straight and keep our flashlights forward and keep working
and I think over the next couple weeks I'm still preparing right in the background I can't
I can't just you know give you a lecture on where I'm at right now with some of these concepts
because I really am trying to get to the point where I understand them well enough so that I
can teach them once I get to the point where I understand them well enough so that I can teach
them then we can maybe make a bridge between myself and Kevin McCurnan maybe we can make a
bridge between myself and the no-virus people maybe we can even make a bridge between Kevin
McCurnan and the no-virus people once we all can collectively talk in the same terms and discuss
things in the same way it may be possible that everybody will agree that wow it had to be clones
and and it's all lies I don't think that's gonna happen but I do think that that's that's kind of
where the the ultra optimist would be because I do in my gut and in my heart I do think that we
are so close to over the target right now that's so close and that's the reason why everybody is
so up in arms about it on all sides because we are about to break the illusion of virology
with the help of people like Sam and Mark Bailey and Tom Cowan and and and Andrew Kauffman and
all the stuff that they've done over the last three years is not going to go to waste of course
it's it's perfectly awesome work especially with regard to COVID and if we use that in concert with
the stuff that we have sort of hit upon with regard to whether or not the swarm is there and
whether or not that's relevant for clones and how clones could be used to create the illusion of
a pandemic that would fit and check a lot of the boxes that include the idea that has Denny Rancor
so recently said so eloquently that you may be able to make a very cohesive argument about how
viruses haven't been isolated and about how viruses haven't been purified but it's more difficult
to make a a cohesive and and definitive argument about how these sequences are right or wrong and
how these sequences exist or don't exist and that's the the place where the cognitive space where
virology hides right now and so I think if we can penetrate that hiding place by adequately and
sufficiently describing the significance of the methodology of cloning and how much it has
enabled us to essentially create a field of RNA virology that otherwise would not exist simply
because the availability of infectious material would be so low that the field itself couldn't be
sustained that's the reality that we need to explain as being irrelevant in relevance to whether
or not the genetic swarm is as diverse as as as crazy diverse or as relatively pure
implying some level of fidelity and and and either way it still doesn't change the fundamental
biology of RNA versus DNA and doesn't change the fundamental biology of how a lip lipoprotein
genetic signal is not a pattern integrity it's just not and so once we get there
I really think that there's going to be a lot less arguing a lot less complaining a lot less
vitriol because there's going to be two things either we start working toward a common understanding
or people will just ignore us because there won't be a discussion anymore there won't be any discussion
to have they'll just ignore us and so we're getting very close to that already happening and
we're getting there because so many people have risen to the occasion and I don't have them all
on this list right now because like I said I'm trying to get everything all my ducks in a row
when I have an opportunity to consult I'm consulting right now and that means that I have had a few
hours of work to do during the day and that has precluded a little bit of like things like
updating this list and has precluded beginning a new sub stack up there will be a new sub stack
up tomorrow and I put another video up with with the transcript in with the with the subtitles
and again all this work is possible because of these people taking the risk to support my work
and my family with a subscription all of these people have been given a free paid subscription
you know whatever lifetime paid subscription to sub stack so you can support me on sub stack I'm
not discouraging anyone from doing that but if you subscribe through giggleomebiological.com
then I'll my wife and I will push that through to sub stack so that you get that too sub stack
is not wasn't really meant to be a way for people that were already supporting me to support
me more it was more of a way of people that weren't supporting me to more easily step over into the
on onto the team and so we're trying to get around a thousand subscribers one way or another because
I think between yeah well that I don't know if you know how a business works like a LLC
but you got to pay a lot of taxes and so there there's a certain amount of subscribers that
we're going to need in order to keep this going and I think a thousand is a little bit more than
we would need but a thousand would be a pretty solid hovering state where I think I could sustain
this almost indefinitely we might be able to make a high school curriculum and we can definitely
teach biology regularly once we get our feet underneath us so thank you very much for subscribing
it's GigaOMbiological.com it's also GigaOMbiological on Twitch it's also GigaOMbiological on sub stack
and it's also GigaOM.bio on the internet for that soapbox thing thank you very much for joining me
and I will see you again tomorrow this has been the intellectual independent bright web and Mark
is still revamping his studio but I suspect that he's going to be back shortly and that's going to
be also very exciting so thanks thanks very much sorry it was so broken up but yeah you know
that's how it goes a little impromptu study halls we're going to do more of those until we get the
lectures going again and the PDFs coming again thank you very much and I'll see you tomorrow
I guess I could play the out though I could play the music out. I could play the music out
you can definitely do that
see you tomorrow
so
I'm not going to leave you hanging on this.
We are going to tell this story.
We are going to make it into a written form that you can share with your family and friends.
Just like we did with the review, we are going to dispel this faith in a written form.
Thank you very much for the encouragement, Jenny Rancor.
I think we are less than a week out and then stuff is going to happen.
I'm going to put my slides up on substac too but they don't move on substac so it's a
little annoying because not all of my substac or not all of my slides really translate to
that but I will try sooth spider.
I haven't not thought about that.
I used to put my slides up all the time but now that they are so layered it's a little
trickier anyway I'll see you tomorrow.