00:00:00
sexy blue how much heat and momentum has
00:00:02
Nikki Haley gotten this week oh my God
00:00:04
stop trying to make Nikki Haley happen
00:00:06
fetch is not happening stop trying to
00:00:08
make fetch happen stop trying to make
00:00:09
Snapchat it's happening
00:00:13
this is like my long Google short
00:00:16
Facebook spread trade of last year
00:00:18
it's happening that's just that's
00:00:20
happening okay stop
00:00:23
[Music]
00:00:26
stop Rain Man David
00:00:29
attack
00:00:35
[Music]
00:00:38
just as a um programming note
00:00:42
we did a Twitter survey and you selected
00:00:45
sax as the person you wanted to moderate
00:00:47
the Pod most next so welcome to
00:00:50
Fox News Sunday and here's your post
00:00:53
David sucks you're really chafed about
00:00:55
this aren't you Jacob no I'm excited for
00:00:58
it I'm so excited just to save a
00:01:00
keyboard Warrior the time
00:01:02
I will never ever ever moderate this
00:01:05
thing
00:01:07
so I'm here to talk all right three two
00:01:10
welcome to the all in pod I am your host
00:01:13
the Rain Man David sacks the famous
00:01:15
Doomsday Clock that Atomic scientists
00:01:17
use to measure the threat of nuclear
00:01:19
Annihilation has never been closer to
00:01:21
midnight not even during the Cold War
00:01:22
but since the best you think it's more
00:01:24
important to discuss their stock
00:01:25
portfolios we're going to save Ukraine
00:01:27
for later in the show priorities right
00:01:29
gentlemen and why not who says you can't
00:01:32
take it with you the dictator is
00:01:35
planning to be entombed with his money
00:01:36
like an Egyptian pharaoh and with his
00:01:39
sweaters too even though it certainly
00:01:40
won't be cold where he's going
00:01:43
and of course he'll throw in the world's
00:01:45
greatest moderator Jason calcamus and
00:01:47
the tune to be his servant in the
00:01:48
afterlife it's a little Jake house been
00:01:50
preparing for all his life by sucking up
00:01:52
to every Tech founder of BC you can get
00:01:54
in a room with
00:01:55
I give better odds to the Sultan of
00:01:57
science David freberg he's just paranoid
00:01:59
enough to survive with me in the bunker
00:02:01
even though he still won't be
00:02:03
questioning the Davos Elites that got us
00:02:05
here
00:02:06
how much did that intro cost
00:02:09
does he come with the money back refund
00:02:14
you guys are laughing I'm laughing I
00:02:17
don't know I'm laughing I thought with
00:02:18
you or at you
00:02:20
that's good the funniest part was when
00:02:22
you almost read aloud like it's like you
00:02:24
were like and then David Friedberg
00:02:27
insert pause here
00:02:30
it's an intro it's an intro I'm so glad
00:02:33
we do an unscripted show okay go ahead
00:02:35
Freebird I remember when you did the
00:02:37
intro come on did I read actually didn't
00:02:40
we cut it yeah you read and then you cut
00:02:42
it you hated it and then we made you put
00:02:43
it back in or something like that all I
00:02:45
have to say Tremont is job security is
00:02:47
here all right well done okay issue one
00:02:50
issue one Google breakup the justice
00:02:53
department and eight states are now
00:02:55
seeking to break up Google's business
00:02:57
brokering digital advertising across the
00:02:59
internet this is one of the most
00:03:01
important legal challenges the company's
00:03:02
ever faced filed a lawsuit on Tuesday
00:03:05
the justice department did alleging that
00:03:07
Google abuses its role as one of the
00:03:10
largest broker suppliers in online
00:03:11
auctioneers of ads placed on websites
00:03:13
and mobile applications the filing
00:03:15
promises a protracted Court battle with
00:03:18
huge implications for the digital
00:03:19
advertising industry of course Google
00:03:22
responded to the lawsuit in a blog post
00:03:24
saying that
00:03:26
the doj's request for it to unwind to
00:03:28
previous Acquisitions from a decade ago
00:03:30
is an attempt to rewrite history they
00:03:32
said the doj mischaracterizes how its
00:03:34
advertising products work they say that
00:03:36
people choose to use Google because
00:03:38
they're effective and the company
00:03:41
highlights other
00:03:43
companies Making Moves In the
00:03:44
advertising industry as well such as
00:03:45
Microsoft Amazon apple and Tick Tock so
00:03:48
I guess I'll kick it to you chamoth do
00:03:50
you think the doj has a case here do you
00:03:53
believe that Google has a monopoly in
00:03:55
online advertising
00:03:57
and is unfairly using it to gain market
00:03:59
share and is this the right remedy
00:04:01
breaking up the company
00:04:02
yeah I think that this is a totally
00:04:04
ill-founded lawsuit and I think it just
00:04:07
shows more
00:04:10
of the personal enmity and anger that
00:04:13
some people in the U.S government has
00:04:15
towards entrepreneurs and
00:04:16
Entrepreneurship than anything else now
00:04:18
why is that
00:04:21
let's just think about what a monopoly
00:04:23
is I mean a monopoly or a monopolist
00:04:25
effectively creates a completely
00:04:27
stagnant non-vibrant
00:04:29
Market in which they have pricing power
00:04:31
and complete control
00:04:34
now the argument that I think that
00:04:36
refutes that just on its face is if you
00:04:39
actually look number one at their share
00:04:41
and number two how the rest of the share
00:04:44
has changed over time so Nick can you
00:04:45
just please throw that up from Bloomberg
00:04:47
this is just in a Bloomberg article that
00:04:48
I just shared with you guys but Google
00:04:50
controls 26.5 percent of a market
00:04:54
43.4 percent of that market is with a
00:04:57
diverse group of others
00:04:59
meta has 18.4 percent and Amazon has
00:05:02
11.7
00:05:04
this is not the type of pie chart you
00:05:07
would see if you had a monopolist so for
00:05:10
example if you went back to the big big
00:05:12
big monopolist case in the 1980s which
00:05:14
is when we broke up Ma Belle well what
00:05:17
that Circle would have shown is that
00:05:19
they basically had effectively a hundred
00:05:21
percent share
00:05:22
and what this shows is that there's a
00:05:24
huge diversity of people in this market
00:05:26
the second thing is that if you had done
00:05:28
this chart many years ago Amazon would
00:05:31
not have really even been there and over
00:05:34
the last five years they represent
00:05:35
almost 12 percent of the entire market
00:05:37
and it means that if you forecast It
00:05:40
Forward they could be at 15 to 20
00:05:42
percent in a few years as well so while
00:05:45
the pie is growing and definitely Google
00:05:47
takes a lot of the profit dollars the
00:05:50
distribution is so much more than what
00:05:52
anything looks like in a monopoly and so
00:05:54
I just think it means that the doj is
00:05:56
more focused on trying to punish these
00:05:59
Great American companies than it is in
00:06:00
trying to be logical and reasoned and so
00:06:03
I don't think this is going to work the
00:06:05
last thing I'll say about this is that
00:06:08
if you think about what you should have
00:06:10
done if I were the US government
00:06:12
I would have actually focused on search
00:06:15
because search is a monopoly for Google
00:06:18
and while Google would try to argue that
00:06:22
there are other ways of acquiring
00:06:23
information that is really not true
00:06:26
and if you could prove that that
00:06:28
Monopoly then led to pricing power in
00:06:31
ads I think that's a much more nuanced
00:06:33
but logical argument that could work but
00:06:36
by focusing on this I think it's going
00:06:37
to get deconstructed it's going to fail
00:06:39
the Texas version of this exact lawsuit
00:06:41
already was thrown out of federal court
00:06:43
so I think that
00:06:46
judges and the legal system don't have a
00:06:48
lot of patience for this thing it just
00:06:50
meant more to kind of scare American
00:06:52
companies and try to play Boogeyman and
00:06:54
decision maker and I don't think it's
00:06:56
going to work freeway let me go to you I
00:06:58
think you know tremath raises a really
00:07:00
great point that if you define the
00:07:01
market as digital advertising that you
00:07:04
know Google's market share is only about
00:07:05
a quarter that doesn't seem like a
00:07:06
monopoly however what the government
00:07:08
says is that you shouldn't look at
00:07:10
digital advertising as a whole but
00:07:12
rather this sort of brokered advertising
00:07:15
that you know Google does for
00:07:17
third-party websites and applications
00:07:20
let me show a chart from their lawsuit
00:07:23
you can see here that the way they
00:07:25
Define it again they see it as this
00:07:28
brokering of sell side inventory which
00:07:30
our website Publishers and then buy side
00:07:32
demand which are advertisers
00:07:34
defines this way it looks like Google
00:07:37
has 90 or more market share on the sell
00:07:41
side because the doubleclick acquisition
00:07:43
they've got somewhere between 40 and 80
00:07:46
market share on the demand side with
00:07:48
advertisers and then in the middle they
00:07:50
have over 50 market share of the ad
00:07:52
exchange is this the right way to look
00:07:55
at Google's business or should we be
00:07:58
just thinking about in terms of the
00:08:00
overall
00:08:01
digital advertising Market I've been
00:08:03
involved in
00:08:05
ad networks since about 2002 so it's
00:08:08
been obviously I'm not directly involved
00:08:10
in the business anymore but I was pretty
00:08:13
close to this and I was pretty close to
00:08:15
double click in the acquisition I was a
00:08:17
business product manager for a period of
00:08:18
time on AdWords
00:08:20
so the way that that chart kind of
00:08:24
shows the connection between advertisers
00:08:26
and Publishers is correct that an ad
00:08:29
network uh generally speaking brings
00:08:32
buyers of AD inventory to the sellers of
00:08:35
AD inventory and the sellers of AD
00:08:37
inventory have the option to sell their
00:08:39
inventory on an ad Network and if the
00:08:42
money that they're making on those ad
00:08:44
slots that they have whether it's a slot
00:08:46
on the side of a page at the top of a
00:08:48
page or an interstitial video ad
00:08:49
whatever it is
00:08:50
they're going to keep selling their
00:08:53
inventory through that network if
00:08:54
they're getting paid the most and the
00:08:56
real reason Google has won is two-part
00:08:58
one is because they ran their ad Network
00:09:00
as an auction
00:09:02
meaning advertisers were competing with
00:09:04
each other to pay the most for an ad
00:09:06
spot that was the highest quality
00:09:08
there's also an ad Quality Index uh
00:09:10
calculation a click-through index a
00:09:12
bounce back index so there's all this
00:09:14
data that feeds into Google's ad Network
00:09:17
auction so that the ad that's shown on
00:09:19
the publisher site is not just the best
00:09:21
ad for the publisher but the best ad for
00:09:23
the consumer and then when the consumer
00:09:25
clicks on the ad the publisher gets paid
00:09:27
and the second thing that Google did and
00:09:29
so the auction Dynamic is a really
00:09:31
powerful Dynamic it creates the best
00:09:33
price for the publisher and it creates
00:09:36
the highest quality ad for the user
00:09:39
which translates typically into higher
00:09:41
click-throughs and and better Revenue
00:09:43
what they also did that was really
00:09:45
powerful is they did the highest revenue
00:09:47
share in the market
00:09:49
so historically ad networks had like a I
00:09:51
think initially like a 60 40 red share
00:09:53
where they only paid Publishers 40 of
00:09:55
the revenue The Advertiser paid then the
00:09:57
network started to move to a 55-45 model
00:09:59
then a 50 50 model then a 45-55 model I
00:10:03
believe on average Google currently is
00:10:04
paying somewhere between
00:10:07
70 and 80 percent to their publishers
00:10:09
I gotta check my math on that or
00:10:11
whatever the latest yeah yeah so but
00:10:14
call it 70.
00:10:16
and so it is a very competitive share
00:10:18
now the the point being because it's an
00:10:21
auction system and because it's opt-in
00:10:22
by the publisher if they're not paying
00:10:24
the highest price the publisher can go
00:10:26
and get ads from somewhere else and
00:10:28
historically Publishers built their own
00:10:29
sales force to sell ads and to Source
00:10:32
advertisers and to make money off of
00:10:34
their ad inventory and it turns out it
00:10:36
was a lot more effective to use an ad
00:10:37
Network to do that the other AD Network
00:10:40
simply haven't been as good at building
00:10:42
an auction model and building
00:10:43
competitiveness but I will tell you that
00:10:45
when you get to a certain volume and
00:10:47
it's not a big volume you don't need a
00:10:49
million advertisers bidding against each
00:10:50
other you only need a few dozen
00:10:52
advertisers and once you have a few
00:10:54
dozen advertisers bidding against each
00:10:55
other you start to get very competitive
00:10:57
in inventory so Google's real lock-in
00:10:59
with Publishers and the real reason they
00:11:01
win in this Marketplace is because
00:11:03
they've their pay the Publishers the
00:11:05
most and if you try and break this up
00:11:07
and if you actually do try and you know
00:11:09
get into the the weeds of this whole
00:11:11
system and change it the Publishers
00:11:13
ultimately will make less money and this
00:11:15
will be
00:11:16
a real problem on the publisher side
00:11:19
that they're making the most money
00:11:20
they're getting the highest share of
00:11:21
advertisers spend and consumers are
00:11:23
getting the best quality experience
00:11:24
that's what makes Google's model so hard
00:11:27
to tackle from an Anti-Trust perspective
00:11:29
because it's giving so basically is what
00:11:31
you're saying that because fundamentally
00:11:34
this is an auction model it prevents
00:11:36
Google from extracting Monopoly rents
00:11:39
correct and and already paid the highest
00:11:42
share on their ad Network back to the
00:11:44
Publishers and so you could go in and
00:11:46
say hey high 60s or 70 they should be
00:11:47
paying 90 what's the real right number
00:11:49
if they're already paying more than
00:11:51
anyone else to the Publishers they're
00:11:53
already making a lower margin than
00:11:54
anyone and I'll say let me just let me
00:11:56
just add two more things sorry which I
00:11:57
think are just well can I go to jaycal
00:11:59
first I just want to get Jake Owen here
00:12:00
even though he wouldn't do the same for
00:12:02
me yeah Jake how do you agree with
00:12:04
Freeburg that uh that the reason for
00:12:06
Google success is that they're hyper
00:12:08
efficient and this auction mechanism
00:12:10
prevents Monopoly Behavior no I there is
00:12:14
Monopoly Behavior going on at Google
00:12:15
obviously with search and putting their
00:12:18
own content and services up top and to
00:12:20
shimon's point like that's probably the
00:12:21
easier Target
00:12:23
here this just feels like they are
00:12:26
maybe 10 years behind they should have
00:12:28
just blocked the double click you know
00:12:30
acquisition in 2008 and this
00:12:31
consolidation of power the the
00:12:34
what Publishers would say to friedberg's
00:12:36
point is
00:12:38
when you're selling your own advertising
00:12:39
you get a much higher CPM when you go
00:12:41
direct to Samsung or IBM or Disney and
00:12:45
so you want to create those direct
00:12:46
relationships how much do those direct
00:12:47
relationships cost it's probably 20 or
00:12:50
30 percent which is exactly to the
00:12:52
percentage that uh Google is taking off
00:12:54
the top so Google's pretty aware of that
00:12:58
but it's just paradoxical that they're
00:13:00
doing this at this time David because
00:13:02
Amazon has developed a huge ad business
00:13:04
Netflix and Disney have now have ad
00:13:06
tiers for their services to go up
00:13:08
against YouTube so and then for the
00:13:10
first time we're even talking about
00:13:11
Google search Supremacy being challenged
00:13:14
by chat GPT
00:13:15
so right with Microsoft you know they're
00:13:18
they're just late 10 years too late
00:13:20
maybe right right so to use one of your
00:13:23
favorite words is the doj acting as a
00:13:25
rug puller here for Google in the sense
00:13:28
that they're trying to unwind 10 year
00:13:29
old Acquisitions is that does that make
00:13:31
sense yeah it doesn't make much sense
00:13:34
should the government be able to unwind
00:13:35
Acquisitions that happened a decade ago
00:13:36
does that make any sense no of course no
00:13:39
that they should they should learn from
00:13:41
it and not do it again yeah sex what do
00:13:44
you think
00:13:45
I think it's a pretty bad way to
00:13:47
approach things because it creates so
00:13:49
much uncertainty in the marketplace and
00:13:50
has a chilling effect on future
00:13:51
Acquisitions yeah like when you get
00:13:53
approval from the government you want to
00:13:55
know you're good yeah and we have an
00:13:57
approval process so it seems to me I
00:13:59
agree with Jayco like if the government
00:14:00
is going to have a problem with an
00:14:02
acquisition state it up front but then
00:14:05
once they approve it you're approved
00:14:06
you're done otherwise you know companies
00:14:09
will be much less likely to engage in
00:14:10
Acquisitions and that's kind of a
00:14:12
chilling effect on m a behavior in the
00:14:15
ecosystem which is bad for the ecosystem
00:14:17
as a whole well it really does it puts
00:14:21
us competitiveness against every other
00:14:23
country and any other regulatory regime
00:14:25
that'll be more permissive to this stuff
00:14:27
that doesn't make any sense and I think
00:14:30
this is what's lost on this I just feel
00:14:32
these lawsuits right now are bordering
00:14:34
on the mean-spirited because these
00:14:36
things have been tried they've generally
00:14:38
failed and so the real solution it
00:14:41
always goes back to this and it's
00:14:44
ugly and messy is you need to rewrite
00:14:46
the actual laws to reflect how business
00:14:49
conditions exist today and so it's not
00:14:52
the responsibility of the doj to try to
00:14:54
fit a round peg into a square hole it
00:14:56
doesn't work like that and that's what
00:14:59
they're trying to do they're trying to
00:15:00
manipulate and
00:15:01
contort the law
00:15:04
to try to go after somebody that
00:15:05
shouldn't frankly be gone after because
00:15:07
these deals to your point were done a
00:15:09
decade ago and they were done legally
00:15:11
and they were done rightly so if you
00:15:13
have an issue with how the market has
00:15:14
evolved change the law right I'll also
00:15:17
add I totally agree with chamoth I think
00:15:20
that this action
00:15:23
you know as one of our friends put it on
00:15:25
our on our text stream it's like killing
00:15:27
the Golden Goose I mean this is one of
00:15:28
the the big job creators innovators and
00:15:31
taxpayers and employers and drivers of
00:15:33
economic growth and why would we allow
00:15:35
that to go and kind of burgeon offshore
00:15:38
as a as a government this is absolutely
00:15:42
um going to become uh kind of an opening
00:15:45
for some you know International
00:15:46
competitor to come in and try and
00:15:48
provide alternative services with
00:15:50
similar economics I'll also say I just
00:15:52
sent you guys a link I'll send you one
00:15:54
more the market itself is becoming so
00:15:57
much more challenging to operate in as
00:15:59
an ad Network
00:16:00
you know e-commerce so Amazon's ad
00:16:03
business is booming right as Jamal
00:16:05
pointed out earlier
00:16:06
but so much more of consumer behavior is
00:16:08
Shifting where people are going direct
00:16:10
to e-commerce sites and then the ads
00:16:12
that are
00:16:13
getting the highest click-through and
00:16:15
where advertisers are spending more and
00:16:16
more money uh is on e-commerce sites I
00:16:18
know this from experience on a couple
00:16:20
boards I'm at where companies stop
00:16:22
spending on Facebook and Google and just
00:16:23
started spending exclusively on Amazon
00:16:25
and that's where you get consumers that
00:16:27
are much more likely to purchase the
00:16:29
purchasing proclivities higher the
00:16:30
click-through rate is higher so the
00:16:31
return on ad spend is much higher and
00:16:34
then I think that there's a big shift
00:16:35
happening right now as you guys know
00:16:37
with third-party cookies Google has
00:16:39
declared that they're removing
00:16:39
third-party cookies in 2024. this means
00:16:42
that in 2024 it is going to be very hard
00:16:45
to track a user from one website to the
00:16:48
next if you go to a website and look at
00:16:49
furniture and then you go to another
00:16:50
website third party cookies allow an
00:16:53
Advertiser to find you on that other
00:16:55
website knowing that you were just
00:16:56
looking at furniture and send you a
00:16:58
Furniture ad and say hey come on over
00:16:59
and you're more likely to click on that
00:17:01
ad it's been very effective for
00:17:02
advertising and particularly in the
00:17:04
segment of advertising called
00:17:06
retargeting but it is becoming much
00:17:08
harder to do this with third-party
00:17:09
cookies and with the Apple identifier
00:17:11
being Inked and Google just made an
00:17:12
attempt to try and get this change with
00:17:14
the w3c
00:17:16
that was rejected and that change is now
00:17:18
going to make this hit very very hard
00:17:20
beginning in 2024. so the ad networks
00:17:22
themselves are already being massively
00:17:24
hurt by apples
00:17:25
ID changes the third party cookies being
00:17:28
removed it's becoming harder to Target
00:17:30
consumers harder to make money as a um
00:17:32
for Publishers so meanwhile the Market's
00:17:34
being challenged Amazon's coming in the
00:17:37
inverse definition of a monopoly when
00:17:39
you have a market where there is
00:17:40
dynamism where companies are changing
00:17:42
the rules and that is reallocating share
00:17:47
gains to different players that's the
00:17:49
definition of a dynamic Market that's
00:17:50
self-regulating totally five years ago
00:17:53
this would have made more sense yeah
00:17:54
much more sense so I think just this
00:17:56
goes back down to one basic thing which
00:17:58
is do our elected and appointed
00:18:01
officials really understand what's going
00:18:04
on in the economy and I think this is an
00:18:07
example that highlights not as much as
00:18:09
they should and before a lawsuit like
00:18:12
this gets filed
00:18:14
they should call us up
00:18:16
if they called 30 of us into a room one
00:18:19
by one and said can you please explain
00:18:21
how this works
00:18:23
you would have come to a different
00:18:24
conclusion because we could have
00:18:26
articulated these things and it would
00:18:27
have been clearer and so why do they not
00:18:30
do that or if they do do it who's
00:18:32
actually in there either way whatever's
00:18:35
getting to the conclusion of let's go
00:18:36
file this lawsuit in 2023 is late at a
00:18:41
minimum and misguided at best you know
00:18:43
you have to ask the question like how is
00:18:46
this different than Xi Jinping saying
00:18:48
you know what Jack ma is too powerful
00:18:49
therefore he's going to learn Japan I
00:18:52
think this is like
00:18:54
Google it is totally different totally
00:18:56
different other than that
00:18:58
of course I think that this lawsuit
00:19:01
makes no sense you always better bring
00:19:03
it back to China does everything in your
00:19:04
brain have to Virtue signal like it's
00:19:06
like
00:19:08
intellectually interesting conversation
00:19:10
Jason
00:19:12
intellectually honest position exactly
00:19:16
let me finish
00:19:17
before you jump the fence very simply
00:19:21
you asked like why are they filing
00:19:23
something that makes no sense my
00:19:25
position I think they want to have an
00:19:27
outcome and their outcome is they want
00:19:29
to stick it to Big Tech because it's too
00:19:30
powerful and then you just said yourself
00:19:32
square peg round hole they're trying to
00:19:34
find something to get Google on this is
00:19:37
not it how does it because it relate to
00:19:38
China
00:19:40
agree with Jay Cal here actually I'll
00:19:42
defend it for a second world second
00:19:44
greatest moderator yeah third greatest
00:19:46
take China out of it for a second
00:19:48
because that could mean that could mean
00:19:49
a lot of different things and so I don't
00:19:52
want to get hung up on that but it does
00:19:54
feel to me like the government is
00:19:55
lashing out against companies like
00:19:58
Google because they're perceived as
00:19:59
being too powerful that's what's going
00:20:01
on and in fact I mean that's Lena Khan's
00:20:04
theory is that we have to stop big tech
00:20:06
companies from getting bigger because
00:20:08
power but in this case it doesn't make
00:20:11
any sense because the auction market for
00:20:13
advertising is very competitive and the
00:20:16
remedy of unwinding 10 year old deals
00:20:18
doesn't make any sense so yeah they're
00:20:19
they're just kind of barking up the
00:20:21
wrong tree
00:20:22
there's two other things that they
00:20:25
really should be looking at as these ad
00:20:26
Networks
00:20:27
are losing their market share in the
00:20:29
overall digital ad spend there are two
00:20:31
other players
00:20:32
Disney uh you know and uh Netflix doing
00:20:35
these
00:20:36
digital ads on their platforms and
00:20:38
having ad tiers and then you may have
00:20:40
noticed Uber's doing an ad business now
00:20:42
they did 350 million dollars in the
00:20:44
first year of that business a million a
00:20:46
day and they're projected to do a
00:20:47
billion next year and those have
00:20:49
location information in it because you
00:20:51
have your destination yeah and so those
00:20:53
networks and opportunities are emerging
00:20:56
it's a dynamic space I just want to say
00:20:58
like you guys are making like I think a
00:21:01
really important macro point which is
00:21:02
like in a Marketplace it's always easy
00:21:06
to hate the winners and claim that their
00:21:09
success is unfair if you're not part of
00:21:12
it and I I think that just because
00:21:14
something's successful in a Marketplace
00:21:15
doesn't mean it's a monopoly
00:21:17
you know this whole thing of envy you
00:21:20
know we've
00:21:21
we've heard from like the Berkshire
00:21:23
shareholders meeting I think there was a
00:21:25
good conversation around this but Envy
00:21:27
really is ultimately the Doom of
00:21:29
innovation and democracy it's like you
00:21:31
see the success you want to take down
00:21:33
the successful nothing can be too
00:21:35
successful or else it has to be
00:21:36
destroyed and then you know as we talked
00:21:39
about it's going to go somewhere else
00:21:40
well I mean just play Devil's Advocate
00:21:42
with it on that free bird it sounds like
00:21:43
we all agree that the government has
00:21:45
kind of the wrong Theory and is barking
00:21:46
up the wrong tree here however isn't it
00:21:48
the case that Apple and Google are too
00:21:52
powerful maybe not in this auction
00:21:54
advertising auction Marketplace but when
00:21:57
it comes to the App Store I mean they
00:21:59
have an operating system in opoly with
00:22:01
IOS and Android or duopoly but I think
00:22:03
you're you're bringing up the key point
00:22:05
which is these nuances are the ones that
00:22:07
matter there is a body of law today
00:22:09
David that you can apply pretty
00:22:11
intelligently and thoughtfully to that
00:22:13
exact problem and also to Google search
00:22:16
and so it's a bit of a head scratcher
00:22:19
why the doj hasn't spent the time to
00:22:21
figure out to even understand that
00:22:23
that's actually where they should be
00:22:24
focused because that is where there is
00:22:26
truly
00:22:27
in the afternoon
00:22:29
it's a duopoly so it's very clear the
00:22:32
share shift has already been set there
00:22:34
is no share shift happening to a third
00:22:36
player there is no side loading that's
00:22:38
really happening and so domestically in
00:22:40
the United States and Western Europe
00:22:42
there's a de facto duopoly complete
00:22:44
control completely
00:22:46
inflexible inelastic pricing that is a
00:22:49
monopoly and then separately for surge
00:22:52
in the United States it is also an
00:22:54
effective Monopoly and those are the
00:22:56
things where if you really wanted to go
00:22:58
after them because you think there's
00:22:59
some damage being done to people
00:23:01
I would have focused there but the ad
00:23:03
business has nothing to do with any of
00:23:05
this and just means that right they
00:23:07
don't understand how the market works
00:23:08
right okay so shifting gears Microsoft
00:23:11
has just been sued on Anti-Trust
00:23:13
accounts or rather there's a pro by the
00:23:15
EU
00:23:16
and this was based on a complaint
00:23:18
actually from slack slack filed a
00:23:21
complaint back in 2020 that Microsoft
00:23:25
was basically engaging in in bundling or
00:23:28
tying of products the allegation is that
00:23:30
Microsoft fairly ties Microsoft teams
00:23:33
and other software to its widely used
00:23:35
office suite do you guys think that's a
00:23:38
better claim okay so I mean I'll just
00:23:40
say like you know there was an episode
00:23:42
that we did I think back in September
00:23:44
where I basically railed against
00:23:46
Microsoft for exactly this kind of
00:23:48
bundling it seems like the EU has picked
00:23:50
up that theory
00:23:51
and wants to go after bundling we did
00:23:55
slack series a I was on the board
00:23:57
took it public blah blah blah I'll tell
00:23:59
you the thing that we talked about a lot
00:24:01
that was the thing that I was always
00:24:04
like the most afraid of which is
00:24:07
how can we compete with a better product
00:24:10
in the face of Superior Distribution
00:24:12
I think what Microsoft did
00:24:15
was anti-competitive
00:24:17
but I don't think it was monopolistic
00:24:19
and I think that the EU in that time
00:24:23
has a much better framework of laws that
00:24:26
they had demonstrated up until now they
00:24:28
were willing to enforce around
00:24:30
anti-competitive pricing
00:24:32
and so part of what slack was trying to
00:24:34
do was create some airspace
00:24:37
for that to get into The Ether to the
00:24:40
discussion that it's like we could build
00:24:42
the best product in the world but if
00:24:44
Microsoft gives it away with this other
00:24:46
product that is quasi-essential they'll
00:24:49
always beat us and there's nothing we
00:24:51
can do about it what do you think and I
00:24:53
think that was basically the question
00:24:54
that was posed to the European
00:24:56
authorities because we thought that they
00:24:57
would pay attention to it what's
00:24:58
interesting about it is that then you
00:25:00
know when the acquisition happened
00:25:02
to Salesforce it sort of waters down
00:25:05
that claim because now Salesforce also
00:25:07
has a set of really essential products
00:25:09
that are useful and needed in the market
00:25:11
that slack can go and attach themselves
00:25:14
to and in many ways David
00:25:16
it forced the hand of slack to be
00:25:19
acquired by Salesforce and if not
00:25:21
Salesforce it would have to have been
00:25:22
somebody else
00:25:23
but could it have been an independent
00:25:25
company had we not had to compete
00:25:28
against teams in that way meaning if we
00:25:30
had to compete against another
00:25:31
well-funded startup would it still be
00:25:33
public I suspect so I don't think we
00:25:35
would have sold to Salesforce
00:25:37
well that's exactly was my point when we
00:25:40
talked about this last time is that if
00:25:43
Microsoft can basically clone the sort
00:25:46
of the the Breakthrough Innovative
00:25:48
product you know just to say they do one
00:25:50
every year and then they put a crappy
00:25:53
version of that in their bundle yeah 10
00:25:55
20 or 50 worse but they give it away
00:25:58
effectively for free as part of the
00:25:59
bundle and then they basically pull the
00:26:02
legs out from under that other company
00:26:03
so it can't be a vibrant competitor and
00:26:05
then the next year they'll just raise
00:26:07
the price of the bundle right and
00:26:08
they've done that with slack they've
00:26:10
done that with OCTA they've done that
00:26:12
with zoom you know Jake how can we have
00:26:15
a vibrant Tech ecosystem at least in B2B
00:26:18
software if Microsoft can just keep
00:26:20
doing that indefinitely
00:26:22
yeah it's it's a difficult question I
00:26:24
don't know though if what the consumer
00:26:27
harm is here if you keep adding great
00:26:29
features to a bundle so to take the
00:26:30
other side of the argument you know Zoom
00:26:32
has now added channels like slack slack
00:26:35
has added huddles which are essentially
00:26:37
Zoom calls and now they're both going to
00:26:40
try to add the coda and notion
00:26:43
wiki wiki style you know documents to
00:26:46
both zoom and slack so everybody's
00:26:48
copying everybody's features everybody's
00:26:49
incorporating everybody's features it
00:26:51
takes a little bit of time
00:26:53
this is actually a lot better behavior
00:26:56
for Microsoft than the old days when
00:26:58
they would do something called vaporware
00:26:59
they used to announce products to chill
00:27:01
people from buying them so they would
00:27:03
announce a slack two years before slack
00:27:05
came out just to get people to not
00:27:06
install slack they did that with Lotus
00:27:08
Notes they said they had a Lotus Notes
00:27:09
competitor coming for two years and it
00:27:11
never materialized so
00:27:13
I think the marketplace will compete and
00:27:16
if you look at
00:27:17
slack itself it's still growing the same
00:27:20
percentage growth it did
00:27:22
inside of Salesforce that it did as an
00:27:24
independent company so it's growing at a
00:27:26
similar point about that great Nick can
00:27:27
you pull up this chart yeah it was like
00:27:29
High Teens or something was there was
00:27:31
there I mean it looks like from this
00:27:33
chart that slack is kind of leveled no
00:27:35
no that's the number of users I was
00:27:36
talking about Revenue okay if you look
00:27:37
at slacks Revenue quarter over quarter
00:27:39
it's basically it wasn't there a report
00:27:41
that it's been a little bit of a
00:27:43
disappointment to Salesforce or no well
00:27:45
I mean you know this number here that
00:27:48
we're looking at where it says 75
00:27:49
million Microsoft teams members 12
00:27:50
million stock members
00:27:52
by the way if you wanted to if you
00:27:55
wanted to play conspiracy theorists
00:27:56
maybe that's why there's a falling out
00:27:58
between benioff and Brett I mean Brett
00:28:01
was the champion of this deal you know
00:28:03
28 billion dollar acquisition and 28
00:28:06
billion dollars is threading a needle
00:28:08
the the only one of that scale that's
00:28:09
really worked out definitively has been
00:28:11
LinkedIn so if slack hiccuped in a
00:28:14
moment when we also had a regime change
00:28:16
in rates and valuations
00:28:18
now look at benioff as looking down the
00:28:20
barrel of a activist investor program
00:28:23
from Elliott man I mean yeah maybe it's
00:28:27
not doing as well as they needed it to I
00:28:28
got the sense that benioff was genuinely
00:28:31
sorry that Brett decided to leave and
00:28:33
that it was voluntary voluntary on
00:28:34
Brett's part and regretted basically as
00:28:37
opposed to you know a non-regretted
00:28:39
termination
00:28:40
I have no idea like I said I was I was
00:28:43
pre-qualifying with saying let's play
00:28:44
conspiracies fair enough okay
00:28:47
you have a suggestion here's a
00:28:50
suggestion for The Regulators that are
00:28:52
listening or watching our podcast
00:28:55
a really valuable thing for the industry
00:28:57
that you could do would be to introduce
00:28:59
transparency on elas what are those
00:29:02
Enterprise licensing agreements these
00:29:05
are these things that these big
00:29:06
companies use to throw everything in the
00:29:09
kitchen sink into a deal when they sell
00:29:10
to a company
00:29:11
but if there was transparency
00:29:14
and there was a sense of how those
00:29:16
things were priced so think of it like
00:29:17
the FDA saying here's you have to
00:29:19
publish your ingredients right and what
00:29:21
percentage of it is this and that it
00:29:23
would be really beneficial because it
00:29:25
would slow down the tendency of these
00:29:28
big companies to try to kill the small
00:29:30
companies with these poorer products and
00:29:33
something around elas and more
00:29:34
transparency around pricing to the
00:29:36
market could be a good Governor without
00:29:38
having to go down the path of all this
00:29:39
antitrust legislation after the fact I
00:29:41
think there is some good advice for
00:29:42
Regulators there I think they should
00:29:44
focus on anti-competitive tactics and
00:29:46
like clarifying what those are as
00:29:49
opposed to some of these crazy lawsuits
00:29:52
to break up companies that don't seem to
00:29:54
have well-grounded theories it'd be I
00:29:56
think better to focus on the specific
00:29:58
tactics that create the harm and
00:30:00
identifying what those are Jake out of
00:30:02
your point about how what Microsoft is
00:30:04
doing doesn't seem to be harming anybody
00:30:06
it seems to be benefiting consumers I
00:30:08
think that's a valid point but I would
00:30:11
bring up a different example which is if
00:30:13
you look at the
00:30:15
anti-competitive behavior of dumping
00:30:17
where a company will basically dump its
00:30:20
product on the market for free destroy
00:30:22
all the other competitors and once
00:30:23
they're out they can raise prices
00:30:25
because the barriers to entry are high
00:30:27
there's a huge cost of like basically
00:30:29
entering the industry I think that this
00:30:31
bundling behavior is a form of dumping
00:30:34
where in the short run it looks like
00:30:36
consumers are benefiting because they're
00:30:37
getting Zoom a zoom clone for free or
00:30:40
you know a slack clone for free but then
00:30:43
what happens is once they've you know
00:30:44
hobbled those companies they raise the
00:30:46
price of the bundle so I think if we
00:30:48
want to have a healthy long-term
00:30:49
ecosystem I think this type of like
00:30:51
bundling behavior is bad I think it's
00:30:54
anti-competitive it's a great point but
00:30:56
I think there's a very specific solution
00:30:57
for it you don't need to break up
00:30:58
Microsoft what you need to do is require
00:31:01
that when they create a bundle every
00:31:03
product in that bundle needs to
00:31:05
basically have an individual price
00:31:06
exactly and the price of every product
00:31:08
in that bundle should add up to the cost
00:31:10
of the bundle so they can't do like you
00:31:12
said charmath these like transfer
00:31:14
payments or subsidies to basically you
00:31:17
know take over systematically take over
00:31:19
every SAS vertical I think that would be
00:31:21
amazing by the way there are many other
00:31:22
markets David where that exactly exists
00:31:24
where if you have the ability to
00:31:28
preferentially put your product into
00:31:30
your distribution Channel
00:31:32
you have to transfer price it
00:31:33
transparently at the market
00:31:37
and it's what everybody else would be
00:31:39
able to get it at and that then allows
00:31:42
the best product to win in the market
00:31:44
and it gives the government the ability
00:31:47
to say I understand that these rails are
00:31:49
roughly monopolistic but I'm going to
00:31:51
leave them alone as long as you treat
00:31:53
everything that sits on top of those
00:31:54
rails equally and that Nuance is missing
00:31:57
in software so I think the combination
00:31:59
of transparency in these Enterprise
00:32:01
licensing agreements and more
00:32:03
transparency and accounting treatment
00:32:05
for what you just said
00:32:06
would solve a lot of this problem and
00:32:09
you would have a more vibrant ecosystem
00:32:10
where the big guys can't just snuff out
00:32:13
the small guys whenever they want yeah I
00:32:15
disagree with you guys oh let me just
00:32:16
let me just play let me just play my
00:32:18
devil's advocate which is kind of how I
00:32:20
feel uh as well
00:32:22
I think these concepts of um
00:32:25
monopolistic bundling made a lot of
00:32:28
sense I make a lot of sense in the sense
00:32:29
in if if what you're bundling in the
00:32:32
service or the product or whatever is a
00:32:33
commodity product and these statements
00:32:36
that you're making assume that one
00:32:38
messaging service is the same as a
00:32:40
another messaging service that one video
00:32:42
app is the same as another video app
00:32:44
and that by giving a discount they're
00:32:47
going to win the market the real that
00:32:49
may have made sense back in the day when
00:32:51
there were things like trains and trains
00:32:52
had a monopoly on where things could go
00:32:54
or electricity or oil production and all
00:32:57
of the kind of origins of kind of
00:32:59
monopolistic antitrust
00:33:02
laws and actions started to kind of
00:33:04
emerge here in our free market in the
00:33:06
U.S but when it comes to software if
00:33:09
your product is the same as the other
00:33:10
guy's product maybe they deserve to win
00:33:13
by bundling and maybe it's okay for them
00:33:15
to offer a discount and beat you on
00:33:17
pricing because if your product is
00:33:19
actually better and it provides better
00:33:21
Roi for the customer it has a better
00:33:23
feature set it's faster it has a bunch
00:33:25
of stuff that the other product doesn't
00:33:26
have the market will pick it it's not
00:33:29
that the Market's going to say hey we're
00:33:30
just a bunch of idiots these products
00:33:32
are so differentiated but because these
00:33:34
guys are giving me a discount I'm going
00:33:35
to go over to the discount that's not
00:33:36
how it works and you guys know this I'm
00:33:38
not saying that Microsoft can't copy
00:33:40
slack and then under charge a different
00:33:42
price and charge a different price and a
00:33:44
lower price and discount it what I'm
00:33:46
saying is they can't cross subsidize
00:33:48
they're a slack competitor it's the fact
00:33:50
that they can copy slack that makes
00:33:53
Slack that means that slack should lose
00:33:55
the fact that that slack actually
00:33:58
creates almost look software new
00:34:01
software is really hard to create but
00:34:03
really easy to copy
00:34:04
I mean the first version of a new
00:34:06
product is hard to create but you can
00:34:09
reverse engineer almost any software
00:34:11
product show me where someone's made a
00:34:13
better competitor to Google search show
00:34:15
me where like consumers don't choose to
00:34:16
go to another search engine because
00:34:17
Google's built a better search engine no
00:34:19
it's because there's a Data Network
00:34:20
effect there that the more searches they
00:34:22
provide the more data they get it's the
00:34:24
reinforcement learning I'll say I'll say
00:34:25
it differently it's easier to copy
00:34:27
there's an asymptote to that quality
00:34:29
point though I don't think that that's
00:34:30
necessarily no I think there's a Nuance
00:34:32
here that and by the way all the social
00:34:33
networks that people thought were had
00:34:35
massive lock-in effect turns out they
00:34:36
don't right David no dude that's not
00:34:37
true look there's more lock-in deeper in
00:34:40
the stack that you exist there's very
00:34:42
little lock-in at the application layer
00:34:44
so workflow apps which effectively is
00:34:47
what most of these Enterprise software
00:34:49
things are are very copyable because
00:34:52
there's nothing that really locks it in
00:34:54
but if you're a social network or if
00:34:57
you're some deep machine learned thing
00:34:58
that basically generates great search
00:35:00
results that's much harder to copy
00:35:02
because more and more of the product
00:35:03
precise generates the product quality is
00:35:06
underneath the water line but I think in
00:35:08
Enterprise software it's all thin UI
00:35:11
layers on top of very simple then don't
00:35:14
compete because the bigger guy that
00:35:15
offers a discount is always going to be
00:35:17
you what he's saying which I agree with
00:35:18
is you just if you could add
00:35:20
transparency so that you understand what
00:35:23
is happening I don't think anybody's
00:35:24
against transparency nobody should be
00:35:26
against against it and if if Microsoft
00:35:28
wants to charge a penny a seat for teams
00:35:32
then they should be allowed to do that I
00:35:34
don't think we're saying that they
00:35:35
shouldn't a lot of startups have used
00:35:36
the opposite tactic where they've
00:35:37
entered with free offerings or free
00:35:39
services and then they try and upsell
00:35:41
later and we don't complain about that
00:35:42
there's a lot of ways to compete in the
00:35:44
marketplace
00:35:47
but that's my point there's a lot of
00:35:48
ways to compete in the marketplace If
00:35:50
the product you're offering is of
00:35:51
parents no the problem is a commodity
00:35:54
build something that's different enough
00:35:56
that people are willing to pay for it
00:35:57
well then you know that they're willing
00:35:59
to pay more than they'll pay the big guy
00:36:01
that's giving them a bundling discount
00:36:02
just build a better product then the
00:36:04
whole B2B SAS space should basically
00:36:06
pack up shop and go home we should just
00:36:08
stop funding VCS just to stop funding
00:36:10
new SAS companies because and all those
00:36:12
productivity games will just go up the
00:36:14
window yeah why would you fund any you
00:36:16
know it's a definition of
00:36:17
anti-competitive then yeah how's that
00:36:19
bad for the customer they're paying less
00:36:21
and they're getting a better price
00:36:22
there'll be fewer new products created
00:36:23
yeah freebrook at the limit what you're
00:36:25
basically saying is because Comcast is a
00:36:27
monopolistic provider of my internet
00:36:29
connection I should have to take their
00:36:31
video offering and will never or use
00:36:32
Netflix
00:36:33
no it's a they have they offer a
00:36:35
commodity that's my point if you're
00:36:37
offering a commodity these things should
00:36:39
apply it makes a ton of sense
00:36:41
effectively and what you just said is
00:36:43
that B2B software is effectively
00:36:45
commodity and you want to copy it anyone
00:36:47
can reply to you I'm turning this off
00:36:49
you only have one choice and it's mine
00:36:51
because these is my rails and I built it
00:36:54
you would turn to the government to help
00:36:56
you because you would say but Netflix is
00:36:58
a better product
00:36:59
and what David is saying is the exact
00:37:01
same argument
00:37:02
so my point is unless you also believe
00:37:04
logically that you're allowed to turn
00:37:06
off Netflix if you're Comcast and take
00:37:08
their crappy VOD service then you're
00:37:11
you're at least intellectually
00:37:12
consistent
00:37:14
commodity too steel is a commodity too
00:37:16
and you can't engage in dumping
00:37:18
I mean this is the argument is that for
00:37:21
example you know with respect to China
00:37:23
the argument was that they were dumping
00:37:24
cheap Steel in the U.S market to drive
00:37:27
all the US producers out of business and
00:37:29
then once they were out of business
00:37:30
they'd raise the price the point is
00:37:31
there's all these examples where we have
00:37:33
had the intelligence and the ability to
00:37:35
be nuanced about this to see that these
00:37:37
things are possible and they shouldn't
00:37:38
exist we don't let Comcast turn off
00:37:40
Netflix okay we have a law around that I
00:37:44
understand so my so I think what we're
00:37:46
saying is Embrace and extend this law
00:37:48
for these new markets that didn't exist
00:37:51
50 and 100 years ago when these laws
00:37:52
were written so that the same benefits
00:37:55
that we have in the steel market and in
00:37:57
the cable Market we have in the software
00:37:59
Market it'll just create a healthier
00:38:01
ecosystem Jacob you want to get in on
00:38:03
this yeah
00:38:04
I wonder when you install teams does it
00:38:07
automatically when you install the
00:38:09
Microsoft Office Suite does it
00:38:10
automatically install teams because it
00:38:13
does seem to default there matters do
00:38:14
people have to actively turn it on or is
00:38:16
it actively built in and so the bundling
00:38:18
of it I think matters and that
00:38:20
interoperability matters so there are
00:38:22
other vectors here
00:38:24
to force them interoperability so if you
00:38:26
open your Windows machine do you have a
00:38:29
choice of it depends which browser let's
00:38:31
just let's just say that you use
00:38:34
exchange for certain things but in other
00:38:37
things for example to manage your name
00:38:39
space you may use OCTA but then they say
00:38:41
actually no we need you to use our
00:38:44
version of OCTA it all becomes
00:38:46
complicated I think it's too complicated
00:38:48
for a government to understand so I
00:38:49
think the general thing is can we extend
00:38:53
the definition of these basic rules that
00:38:55
we've agreed to in other markets to
00:38:57
include technology and would we be
00:38:59
better served and I think for the most
00:39:02
part I do think it would be it would
00:39:04
better serve startups it would better
00:39:06
serve the folks that want to build how
00:39:08
would that work in practicality though
00:39:09
you would you would I think that David
00:39:11
says
00:39:12
turned it on for a dollar a person or
00:39:15
something here's introductory price I
00:39:16
think the combination of what David said
00:39:18
and I said would do the trick which is
00:39:20
if you force these highly complicated
00:39:22
licensing agreements to be transparent
00:39:25
it would not allow them to dump and then
00:39:28
the second thing is that all of that
00:39:30
transfer pricing that goes into that
00:39:32
license cost needs to sum up to the cost
00:39:34
itself now why is that important you can
00:39:37
learn about how they prevent this in
00:39:39
healthcare so let's take Pfizer good
00:39:42
example here's a company with 30 billion
00:39:44
dollars on the balance sheet right and
00:39:46
Pfizer has a need still
00:39:50
to subsidize all of the r d of their
00:39:52
drugs and you would say well yeah they
00:39:53
have 30 billion dollars so they should
00:39:54
just take the money off the balance
00:39:56
sheet and do it why don't they do it
00:39:57
it's because the accounting laws and all
00:39:59
the complicated anti-competitive laws
00:40:01
say well if you want to take this cash
00:40:02
pile and use it over here
00:40:04
it goes from an asset liability item 30
00:40:08
billion of cash and all of a sudden I'm
00:40:10
going to net it against your EPS all
00:40:12
right
00:40:14
there's an actual cost for these
00:40:17
companies to do this stuff to bundle to
00:40:19
cross to all of this stuff and so what
00:40:20
do they do they go into the market they
00:40:23
ask startups to build stuff and then
00:40:24
they buy it that's the kind of Market I
00:40:26
think is better for us yeah let's have
00:40:27
that be the last word on this topic
00:40:29
because we've been going for a while but
00:40:30
I'm glad you brought up Pfizer because
00:40:31
this brings us to issue two oh boy which
00:40:35
is and I think we can show this red meat
00:40:38
for David yeah so Albert berla who's the
00:40:40
CEO of Pfizer went to Davos last week
00:40:42
and he probably expect to Davos you know
00:40:45
the the conference of the Surplus Elites
00:40:48
and he expected probably nothing but
00:40:51
softballs and fawning treatment from The
00:40:52
Establishment media and instead he
00:40:55
probably had the most uncomfortable walk
00:40:56
of his life when two reporters from
00:40:57
Rebel news approached him outside the
00:41:00
Ruiner and I started asking him some
00:41:03
tough questions let's roll tape what's
00:41:04
Rebel news
00:41:06
borla can I ask you when did you know
00:41:09
that the vaccines didn't stop
00:41:10
transmission how long did you know that
00:41:13
without saying it publicly thank you
00:41:15
very much I'm sorry that question
00:41:17
I mean we now know that the vaccines
00:41:20
didn't stop transmission but why did you
00:41:22
keep it secret
00:41:24
good question you said it was 100
00:41:26
effective then 90 then 80 then 70
00:41:30
percent but we now know that the
00:41:32
vaccines do not trans stop transmission
00:41:33
why did you keep that secret have a nice
00:41:36
day I won't have a nice day until I know
00:41:39
the answer why did you keep it a secret
00:41:41
that your vaccine
00:41:43
did not stop transmission we should cut
00:41:47
this okay we can stop from there but
00:41:48
that wow welcome to Infowars
00:41:52
first of all you know what real
00:41:54
journalism looks like
00:41:55
not a bunch of New York Times the
00:41:57
reporters covering for powerful people
00:41:58
but asking them tough questions
00:42:04
what do you think of the question is it
00:42:05
legit or not you got you guys are about
00:42:07
to get us down ranked on YouTube and
00:42:09
Spotify we're about to get warning
00:42:11
labels for this sort of thing yeah look
00:42:15
by the way you're right that YouTube
00:42:17
banned that video we had to watch it on
00:42:20
Twitter because Elon Musk Twitter is
00:42:22
still free okay listen she's actually
00:42:24
protecting why hold on why is YouTube
00:42:26
abridging freedom of the press in order
00:42:29
to protect the powerful CEO of Pfizer
00:42:32
foreign
00:42:39
did they cover up the fact that the
00:42:43
vaccines didn't transmit I think it's
00:42:44
like a legitimate question that I would
00:42:46
actually want to know the answer to I
00:42:47
don't know why you didn't just answer
00:42:48
that no we didn't cover it up
00:42:52
Freeburg what are you you're asking me
00:42:54
if I know what whether Pfizer did a
00:42:56
cover-up is that what you're asking the
00:42:59
legitimate question is what I'm getting
00:43:00
at why are you unwilling to question the
00:43:02
Pfizer CEO oh no I'm not I'm not
00:43:04
unwilling to question at all but I'm not
00:43:06
I don't think that this is a fight look
00:43:08
first of all Pfizer is
00:43:10
uh commercial Enterprise so they have
00:43:13
the incentive to make money 100 right so
00:43:15
their objective is to sell a vaccine I
00:43:17
think they're making 10 to 15 billion
00:43:19
dollars on this vaccine this year
00:43:21
you're absolutely right that the
00:43:23
economic incentive is there for Pfizer
00:43:26
to continue to push and rationalize the
00:43:28
sales of this vaccine
00:43:30
the efficacy of the vaccine weighing
00:43:32
very quickly as this virus evolved and
00:43:35
mutated it became pretty evident pretty
00:43:37
fast that
00:43:38
the uh the rate of
00:43:41
Transmission in vaccinated people
00:43:44
continue to go up
00:43:46
and you know this may be a function of
00:43:48
the quality of the vaccine or the
00:43:49
efficacy of the vaccine more likely a
00:43:51
function of the fact that the virus as
00:43:54
predicted evolved and therefore the
00:43:56
antibodies that that are produced and
00:43:58
the T Cell response that that's induced
00:44:00
by the original vaccine becomes less
00:44:03
efficacious over time so the real
00:44:05
question is a policy question a
00:44:07
behavioral question but look Pfizer
00:44:08
didn't have another product to sell so
00:44:10
it certainly makes sense for them to
00:44:11
continue to sell their product and there
00:44:13
is still good data that represents that
00:44:15
there is some immune response and some
00:44:18
benefit in certain populations to
00:44:20
continuing to get a booster and all the
00:44:22
stuff with the original yeah let me ask
00:44:24
you about the data the fact that that
00:44:25
Pfizer only has this product to sell is
00:44:27
not exactly a ringing endorsement of
00:44:29
their behavior but but let's stay on the
00:44:30
data for a second there was a study in
00:44:33
nature which is you know one of the most
00:44:34
preeminent scientific journals about the
00:44:37
risks of myocarditis and pericarditis
00:44:40
which is basically inflammation of the
00:44:42
heart tissue which can basically lead to
00:44:44
heart attacks saying that the risk among
00:44:47
young people especially young men in 18
00:44:50
to 24 years was elevated if they got
00:44:53
thought the vaccine this was a study out
00:44:56
of France
00:44:57
so it's pretty clear that the there are
00:45:01
yes efficacious as we thought but is it
00:45:04
less safe than we thought as well I I
00:45:06
generally I don't know the answer to
00:45:07
this I would like to know it's an
00:45:09
important question and there's a lot of
00:45:11
work being done to uncover it and here's
00:45:13
a link to a paper that was published
00:45:15
in the Journal circulation
00:45:18
is the name of the journal not too long
00:45:21
ago by a team led by a researcher at
00:45:24
math General and
00:45:26
um what this and so just to address the
00:45:28
myocarditis question
00:45:31
and and just so everyone that's
00:45:33
listening knows I take a very objective
00:45:34
view on all this stuff I don't have a
00:45:36
strong bias one way or the other
00:45:38
so the Mass General team identified 16
00:45:40
people that had myocarditis that were
00:45:42
vaccinated and 45 people that didn't
00:45:44
were part of their control group and
00:45:46
they tried to understand what the
00:45:48
difference was between these two groups
00:45:49
there have historically been three kind
00:45:52
of theories about why there is incidence
00:45:54
of myocarditis in certain populations
00:45:56
that get the uh the covid vaccine and by
00:45:59
the way the incidence rate is still
00:46:00
typically less than a two out of every
00:46:03
hundred thousand people that get the
00:46:04
vaccine but as you saw in the paper you
00:46:06
just shared and others have validated it
00:46:08
it can be as high as 30 times more
00:46:10
likely to happen in young people that
00:46:12
take the the moderna vaccine which is
00:46:14
still a low incidence but but 30 times
00:46:16
higher is is significant worth
00:46:18
understanding so the three kind of
00:46:20
reasons or the three ideas 30 times
00:46:22
higher that sounds like a lot yeah so
00:46:24
the reason and off a small base but yes
00:46:26
and so the three ideas or the three
00:46:29
theories around why this is happening
00:46:31
number one is what's called protein
00:46:32
mimicry where certain people the protein
00:46:35
on their their heart tissue for example
00:46:37
or certain proteins found in the cells
00:46:39
in their heart tissue maybe look like
00:46:41
the um some element of the spike Protein
00:46:44
that's created by the vaccine therefore
00:46:46
when you make antibodies to bind to and
00:46:49
clear your body of Spike protein it's
00:46:50
also binding to your own cells and
00:46:53
causing an autoimmune response and those
00:46:55
are called
00:46:56
kind of Auto antibodies the second is
00:46:58
just general immune system activation
00:47:00
that maybe genetically some people are
00:47:01
predisposed to having a very active
00:47:03
immune system in response to the vaccine
00:47:04
and therefore with a very active immune
00:47:06
system they get inflammation and damage
00:47:07
and then the third is this idea that
00:47:09
there's just massive proliferation of
00:47:11
your B cells some of which have Auto
00:47:13
antibodies and some of which therefore
00:47:15
destroy your heart tissue and cause this
00:47:16
inflammation so what this team did is
00:47:18
they looked at the blood difference
00:47:19
between people that had myocarditis and
00:47:22
people that didn't they found no Auto
00:47:24
antibodies they found no big changes in
00:47:26
the T or B cell populations meaning that
00:47:28
there isn't a big immune system
00:47:29
activation difference the big difference
00:47:31
that they found was that the people that
00:47:33
had
00:47:35
myocarditis actually had a lot of the
00:47:38
spike protein floating around in their
00:47:40
blood whereas the people that didn't did
00:47:42
not have the spike protein floating
00:47:43
around in their blood so this answers
00:47:45
one question but but opens up many more
00:47:47
doors which is what's really going on so
00:47:49
if you have Spike protein in your blood
00:47:51
and your body is not clearing it right
00:47:53
well how how long after getting
00:47:55
vaccinated where the spike protein still
00:47:57
floating around because I remember when
00:47:58
the MRNA vaccine first came out they
00:48:00
said the spike proteins would go away
00:48:02
after a couple of days three weeks
00:48:05
have they done a study like you know six
00:48:08
months after or year after not yet but
00:48:10
that's that's being done right now so
00:48:12
what they're identifying is what's going
00:48:13
on with the immune system of these this
00:48:15
population where their body's not able
00:48:17
to clear the spike protein and when
00:48:19
their body doesn't clear the spike
00:48:21
protein a bunch of cytokines and other
00:48:22
inflammatory things start to get
00:48:24
released and it causes inflammation on
00:48:26
the heart tissue because you know
00:48:28
there's a particular reasons let me ask
00:48:31
you I remember I remember when you know
00:48:34
the vaccine first came out
00:48:35
I remember Rogan
00:48:37
almost got canceled for saying that if
00:48:40
he was a young person a young man he's
00:48:42
like 50 so he got vaccinated but he said
00:48:44
that if I was a young person in my 20s I
00:48:47
would not get vaccinated because I don't
00:48:50
think the risk return makes sense and he
00:48:52
almost got canceled for that was right
00:48:54
about that
00:48:55
so you know
00:48:58
I have been thinking a lot about
00:49:01
this decision to get vaccinated or not
00:49:03
and how we came to that decision and
00:49:05
then I think what Friedberg said earlier
00:49:07
is super interesting
00:49:10
be because the virus mutated the
00:49:13
efficacy of these vaccines obviously uh
00:49:16
changed and wasn't necessary and so
00:49:19
I think it was a moving Target to
00:49:21
understand if you should take it or not
00:49:23
it was a very personal decision clearly
00:49:24
for people who were over 65 years old
00:49:27
the chances of dying were pretty
00:49:29
significant uh for people under that a
00:49:31
certain age it was lower so everybody
00:49:33
had to make a very personal decision
00:49:35
here
00:49:37
was it a personal decision when you had
00:49:40
vaccine mandates
00:49:42
and then on top of that on top of that
00:49:44
you had the media were dunking on
00:49:48
anti-vaxxers throughout 2021 remember
00:49:50
that I mean they were saying about
00:49:52
anti-vaxxers that that if you didn't get
00:49:54
the vaccine you got sick there wouldn't
00:49:55
be a hospital bed for you there was you
00:49:58
know a lot of like dancing on the graves
00:49:59
of these people
00:50:00
yeah where you know there were like all
00:50:02
these articles that you know there'd be
00:50:03
like some preacher who you know said
00:50:06
don't get vaccinated and then they would
00:50:07
die of covet and there's a lot of like
00:50:09
morbid sort of ghoulish like articles
00:50:11
dancing on their graves I mean it was
00:50:13
not this objective personal decision
00:50:15
there was tremendous social and legal
00:50:17
pressure to get vaccinated you're right
00:50:19
you're right there was and I think
00:50:23
part of the reason I myself got
00:50:25
vaccinated is because I wanted to be
00:50:26
able to travel again I wanted to be able
00:50:27
to go to Madison Square Garden and watch
00:50:28
the Knicks and I also thought well I
00:50:31
don't want to be if I'm overweight like
00:50:33
one of the people who dies from this so
00:50:35
you know we all sat here we all got
00:50:37
vaccinated do we regret our decision to
00:50:39
get vaccinated now that we see this you
00:50:41
know studies like maybe it wasn't
00:50:43
necessary
00:50:44
it also it was apparently oversold so
00:50:46
when the Pfizer CEO would say when they
00:50:49
knew it wasn't going to stop
00:50:50
transmission I think it's a valid
00:50:52
question to investigate what Pfizer knew
00:50:54
and when uh and just keep everybody
00:50:56
accountable for this uh for future
00:50:58
things that happen because right now
00:51:00
we're in a position where if Pfizer is
00:51:03
not being honest with us if the origin
00:51:05
story of covet isn't being honest with
00:51:07
us these conspiracy theories are now
00:51:09
starting to start to look like reality
00:51:11
let me go to YouTube moth I mean so we
00:51:13
were all felt this tremendous pressure
00:51:16
in 2021 to get the vaccine right we all
00:51:20
care about our health you care a lot
00:51:22
about your health we all thought we
00:51:25
could trust the experts that the vaccine
00:51:27
was both efficacious and safe we know it
00:51:30
was not efficacious in the sense that
00:51:32
they're telling us that we have to get
00:51:34
revaccinated every two months for it to
00:51:36
work on safety I don't want to get over
00:51:38
my skis because we only have some data
00:51:41
but clearly like this myocarditis data
00:51:43
is not good
00:51:45
so were we basically stampeded into
00:51:48
making a decision right that was not
00:51:50
actually good for us and would you make
00:51:52
that same decision today
00:51:55
let's just lay the foundation for
00:51:57
understanding how we got here so
00:52:00
there are these Pathways inside the FDA
00:52:03
to get drugs approved
00:52:05
and if you take a normal pathway for a
00:52:07
normal drug you're going to spend nine
00:52:09
or ten years
00:52:10
maybe more 12 13 in some cases and more
00:52:14
than a billion dollars to get a drug
00:52:15
approved and the way that it works is in
00:52:18
Phase One you do a study on toxicology
00:52:21
effectively like is this safe or not
00:52:23
safe
00:52:24
and you have to have enough people take
00:52:25
it and you need to observe them for
00:52:27
enough time where that phase one outcome
00:52:30
essentially says this won't hurt people
00:52:32
it's benign we don't know the mechanism
00:52:35
of action we don't know whether it's
00:52:37
going to solve the problem but we know
00:52:39
that it's safe
00:52:40
and then in phase two
00:52:42
you then try to really understand the
00:52:45
mechanism of action and if that works
00:52:47
you go into phase three where you
00:52:49
actually scale it out you create a
00:52:52
double arm study you may do a control
00:52:54
group you may do an open label companion
00:52:55
you may overpower it with thousands of
00:52:58
people
00:52:58
and the FDA is incredibly rigorous okay
00:53:01
even down to like it's incredible by the
00:53:04
way like how you're allowed to open the
00:53:06
results and they have all of these
00:53:07
services that make sure that you can't
00:53:09
influence the results or
00:53:11
manipulate them it's incredible the FDA
00:53:13
has an incredible process
00:53:15
the thing is that they also have a way
00:53:17
to jump around that fence
00:53:19
and that is what we use for the covid-19
00:53:22
vaccines so in a molecule
00:53:25
13 years if it's for a really important
00:53:28
drug you can shorten it to six or seven
00:53:31
with this thing called breakthrough
00:53:32
designation
00:53:34
for a biologic
00:53:36
12 or 13 years but if you get this thing
00:53:39
called rmat six or seven years so you're
00:53:43
still talking years and thousands of
00:53:44
people David but then there's this one
00:53:47
special asterisk that exists inside the
00:53:49
FDA called emergency use authorization
00:53:52
and in moments of deemed emergency
00:53:55
you can shorten even six years down to
00:53:58
in some cases six seven nine months a
00:54:00
year two years right are you you're
00:54:02
describing operation warp speed
00:54:05
so that emergency use authorization
00:54:08
fast tracked these vaccines to market
00:54:10
now the thing to keep in mind is there
00:54:12
are still two classes of vaccines
00:54:15
they are the messenger RNA vaccines
00:54:16
that's the Bion Tech and Pfizer ones and
00:54:18
then there are the more regular ones
00:54:20
that in many cases the West was dumping
00:54:22
on AstraZeneca and Johnson Johnson
00:54:24
we used to ship those to developing
00:54:27
countries and say we'll just keep the
00:54:28
MRNA wants you guys think Dave Chappelle
00:54:31
had this funny joke he's like I took the
00:54:32
J J vaccine right
00:54:35
but it turns out that now when we're
00:54:37
looking back
00:54:39
the long tail of issues may actually
00:54:41
apply to these things that were fast
00:54:42
tracked these mRNA vaccines that were
00:54:45
fast-tracked under emergency use why
00:54:46
because of what Friedberg said this
00:54:48
protein mimicry thing is something we
00:54:50
don't understand now why don't we
00:54:51
understand it
00:54:52
it's because our tools are not precise
00:54:55
enough to exactly know when we engineer
00:54:59
these solutions that it only binds to
00:55:04
this specific protein
00:55:06
and what we're learning is that there
00:55:08
these proteins are some they're so
00:55:10
similar
00:55:12
that there can be a little collateral
00:55:13
damage that this other thing that looks
00:55:16
99 will also all of a sudden attract
00:55:19
this
00:55:21
this antigen so this is a very
00:55:23
complicated body of problem
00:55:26
and because we didn't give it enough
00:55:28
time to bake in the wild
00:55:30
we're learning about this thing in real
00:55:32
time if you if we had gone to what you
00:55:34
had suggested which is a massive masking
00:55:37
mandate while this stuff played out
00:55:40
could the outcome be different well we
00:55:42
don't know because we didn't make those
00:55:43
decisions but I think that's what people
00:55:45
will be debating the last thing I'll say
00:55:47
on this is specifically to myocarditis
00:55:50
I have an Interventional cardiologist in
00:55:52
La I've seen him every three years ever
00:55:54
since Goldie passed away
00:55:57
out of respect for Goldie and Cheryl who
00:55:59
initially asked me to go but it's been a
00:56:01
great thing that I've done I've learned
00:56:03
a lot from him he introduced me to pcsk9
00:56:06
Inhibitors and a bunch of things he
00:56:08
called me two years ago and such mouth I
00:56:10
want to do a study that were a year ago
00:56:11
I want to do a study that looks at
00:56:14
actually myocarditis and the the effects
00:56:17
of this vaccine and Nick I don't know if
00:56:19
you can just throw it up but we publish
00:56:20
something and basically you know what we
00:56:22
see David is that for folks with
00:56:24
myocarditis
00:56:26
you're releasing troponin and this is a
00:56:29
Sim this is a A protein that you would
00:56:31
otherwise use to figure out whether
00:56:32
you're having a heart attack or severe
00:56:34
you know some sort of heart abnormality
00:56:38
and so it just goes to show you that
00:56:40
there is some collateral damage in some
00:56:42
cases in this example this is one case
00:56:44
that we published which is a 63 year old
00:56:46
white woman I'm saying that implicitly
00:56:49
so that people understand that these
00:56:50
things really matter on age gender and
00:56:52
race
00:56:54
all of the data that comes out of France
00:56:56
really was focused on I think it was 18
00:56:58
to 34 year old males of all racial
00:57:02
Persuasions and we've thought that it
00:57:04
this issue is prevalent only in males
00:57:06
but
00:57:07
we've had a few cases that we've talked
00:57:09
about now that that touch women as well
00:57:11
so it's a complicated set of things
00:57:14
because our tools are not fine-grained
00:57:17
enough
00:57:18
to engineer the drug for incredible
00:57:22
specificity and I think that's the thing
00:57:24
that we're dealing with now and by the
00:57:26
way last thing
00:57:29
because of all this it probably is
00:57:31
reasonable to take a step back and have
00:57:33
a commission that just uncovers all of
00:57:35
this stuff look we've had commissions
00:57:38
usage in baseball like if we need an
00:57:41
investigation
00:57:43
this goes back this goes back to Rebel
00:57:45
news asking berla a very simple question
00:57:48
which is what did you know and what did
00:57:50
you know with respect to the efficacy
00:57:51
and safety of these vaccines if they did
00:57:53
not tell the public that these vaccines
00:57:55
did not work the way they were supposed
00:57:57
to because they want to keep minting
00:57:58
money that is a legitimate Scandal we
00:58:00
have a right to know but Freeburg let me
00:58:02
ask you a question here I think you know
00:58:04
Chamas talked about this
00:58:06
sort of sped up process to cut through
00:58:09
red tape and get a vaccine to Market
00:58:11
more quickly I personally actually think
00:58:13
that that kind of process is fine for
00:58:16
patients who want to assume the risk you
00:58:18
know as as sort of a Libertarian I
00:58:20
support that but I go back to the fact
00:58:22
that people in many places were not
00:58:25
given a choice they had to get
00:58:27
vaccinated
00:58:28
or they could lose their job or their
00:58:31
freedom participate in society
00:58:34
and now we're finding out that they may
00:58:36
have been forced to do something that in
00:58:38
their particular case may not really
00:58:40
have been a great cost benefit decision
00:58:43
for them what do you think that the sort
00:58:46
of impact is going to be
00:58:48
of this just like socially I mean you've
00:58:51
talked about I think that there's a
00:58:53
decline in Trust
00:58:56
of institutional Authority in the U.S
00:58:58
and that's a huge problem I mean isn't
00:59:00
this going to contribute to that yeah
00:59:02
look I mean I think that there's been
00:59:04
institutional Authority overreach
00:59:07
that's been building for quite some time
00:59:10
and you know look I mean you guys can go
00:59:11
back to our first episode
00:59:13
in our earliest episodes and I wasn't
00:59:15
and haven't been and I I think the first
00:59:17
time I tweeted
00:59:19
I tweeted about the adverse impact that
00:59:21
lockdowns could have and we should be
00:59:23
weighing the cost of the lockdowns
00:59:25
against the benefit and ultimately the
00:59:27
benefit was Zero because we ended up
00:59:29
accumulating call it 10 trillion dollars
00:59:32
of of you know four trillion dollars of
00:59:34
net costs that we have to pay off at
00:59:36
some point and not to mention the
00:59:37
economic uh consequences of the
00:59:40
lockdowns
00:59:42
and uh you know the benefit was
00:59:44
negligible because the the virus
00:59:46
continued to spread and evolve and there
00:59:48
was no way to really stop the virus in
00:59:50
its tracks
00:59:51
hindsight is 2020
00:59:53
fog of War lawmakers made decisions was
00:59:57
it the right decision would you have
00:59:58
made the same decision it's really hard
00:59:59
to say you feel like you're saving the
01:00:00
world when the world is ending uh it's
01:00:03
easy to kind of act with some degree of
01:00:05
what is now viewed as overreach I do
01:00:07
think that the mass vaccination
01:00:09
requirement may have also been deemed
01:00:11
overreach given the limited data that
01:00:13
was available and the rapid Evolution
01:00:15
that was pretty apparent in the virus at
01:00:17
the time as well
01:00:18
but vaccines are required for a number
01:00:21
of other
01:00:22
illnesses in a number of school systems
01:00:25
around the country
01:00:27
you know you start to question I I think
01:00:29
we will start to see people question
01:00:31
whether those are appropriate but again
01:00:33
those are longer studied better
01:00:34
understood
01:00:36
the the cost benefit analysis is is much
01:00:39
there yeah actually I think I think
01:00:40
you're right that one of the costs of
01:00:42
this policy is going to be that people
01:00:44
will stop trusting vaccination in
01:00:47
general even though I think that these
01:00:50
coveted vaccines I'm not even sure you
01:00:52
can really call them vaccines I mean
01:00:54
every other vaccine that I've ever heard
01:00:56
of completely prevents that disease the
01:00:59
polio vaccine ended polio the MMR
01:01:03
vaccine ended measle mumps rubella the
01:01:05
covid vaccine just didn't work I don't
01:01:07
think it was a vaccine but I think now
01:01:09
what's going to happen is people are
01:01:10
going to have a lot more distrust
01:01:12
is it tremendous there's a there's a
01:01:14
tremendous amount of post-activity
01:01:17
rationalization going on where once you
01:01:20
kind of made a statement that the
01:01:21
vaccine will stop transmission of the
01:01:23
virus or stop hospitalizations and
01:01:26
suddenly it doesn't and you've made that
01:01:27
statement with such Surety and brevity
01:01:30
and funded it with so much money and
01:01:33
caused such cost in doing so at that
01:01:36
point you're too far removed to go back
01:01:38
and say you know what it doesn't and as
01:01:40
we're seeing now the consequences of not
01:01:42
being willing to say that you were wrong
01:01:43
may be far greater
01:01:45
then the consequences of kind of
01:01:48
continuing or kind of you know making
01:01:51
this change so it's uh actually that's a
01:01:53
good point all right final question to
01:01:54
Jay Calvin on that point yeah so I mean
01:01:57
Jake out look you were dunking or at
01:01:59
least concerned trolling on anti-vaxxers
01:02:01
during this time period do you
01:02:04
reconsider that at all I mean in other
01:02:05
words everybody was saying that the
01:02:07
anti-vaxxers were these stupid
01:02:08
unsophisticated people wow yeah I I
01:02:13
think but maybe but maybe it was the
01:02:15
elites who were the ones suffering from
01:02:16
group think I mean look and I put myself
01:02:18
in this bucket we were all herded into
01:02:21
this idea yeah we all took that being an
01:02:23
early adopter of a product and now we're
01:02:26
finding out
01:02:27
yeah we In fairness we said we knew this
01:02:30
was experimental we knew this was the
01:02:32
first time mRNA but we also knew like a
01:02:35
billion people had gotten them or we
01:02:36
when we got ours we knew hundreds of
01:02:38
millions
01:02:39
hold on let me just you have some
01:02:41
questions so let me finish
01:02:42
and so I think people made a risk
01:02:45
assessment knowing this was an
01:02:47
experimental vaccine knowing that the
01:02:50
covid was mutating at the time
01:02:52
and yeah it could have been oversold of
01:02:55
course that that seems to be the case
01:02:57
all right Nick pull up this tweet but
01:02:59
you know we need to I I think we have to
01:03:03
look at because we had this conversation
01:03:04
you and I of you were very
01:03:08
much in favor of everybody getting the
01:03:11
Mandate and everybody being forced to
01:03:13
get the the no no I never supported the
01:03:15
Mandate you did we had a conversation
01:03:17
about that like if should people be able
01:03:18
to work should people do it on trains
01:03:20
and your position was
01:03:23
no I I did not support a mandate I
01:03:25
thought it should always see people's
01:03:26
choice I did but yeah hold on I made the
01:03:29
mistake I made the mistake of believing
01:03:32
the experts in the mainstream media I
01:03:35
think if the last couple years have
01:03:36
taught us anything it's that they can't
01:03:37
be trusted the level of distrust we
01:03:39
should have is even greater than we
01:03:40
thought I never supported a mandate so I
01:03:43
thought it should be People's Choice
01:03:44
yeah um and I certainly wasn't I don't
01:03:47
think I was dunking on the anti-vaxxers
01:03:49
let's pull up this tweet Nick
01:03:51
yeah
01:03:53
my Lord Trump history Fox News are
01:03:55
killing their own constituents with this
01:03:57
anti-vaxx nonsense yeah uh do you
01:04:01
retract that
01:04:04
do I retract it
01:04:06
um I'm trying to look at the date by the
01:04:08
way this is this is a tweet that um
01:04:09
Jason put out what was the date
01:04:11
Danforth
01:04:14
2022 that sax pulled up just so yeah
01:04:16
yeah that was only a year ago yeah I
01:04:18
know at this point people were saying
01:04:20
that uh no I get it I get it this is not
01:04:25
so rare this is not a rare sentiment but
01:04:27
I'm sorry hold on hold just to give this
01:04:28
just stand by this well hold on a second
01:04:30
I'm just reading it
01:04:31
this was showing the deaths of uh from
01:04:35
covid were happening at a magnitude more
01:04:38
by people who didn't take the vaccine
01:04:40
and we know the vaccine was
01:04:43
had reduced deaths so we still know that
01:04:45
correct freeberg the the vaccine reduced
01:04:48
reduces the cases of deaths correct
01:04:50
yeah the the this new bivalent booster
01:04:53
um Eric Topol put out a tweet I gave you
01:04:55
guys the link here where he covered a
01:04:57
paper
01:04:58
that was done recently and the paper
01:05:00
shows a reduction in hospitalization
01:05:03
rate and death rate for folks that are
01:05:05
getting this new bivalent booster so but
01:05:07
again that is a benefit
01:05:09
that is the benefit yeah in one's own
01:05:11
kind of personal safety and there's a
01:05:13
risk profile associated with that as
01:05:14
taxes pointing out but this notion that
01:05:17
the vaccines stop the virus and are a
01:05:19
true vaccine in the sense of how we talk
01:05:21
about polio and chickenpox or uh
01:05:23
smallpox and this other stuff
01:05:25
not equivalent
01:05:27
very good for free Burger wait that data
01:05:29
how long after vaccination was that data
01:05:31
because I thought that with respect to
01:05:32
the vaccine one of the big problems is
01:05:34
that the the benefits only last for two
01:05:37
months unless you're willing to get
01:05:38
re-vaccinated every two months no that's
01:05:40
yeah look it's not really realistic
01:05:43
generally speaking this is not like a
01:05:45
vaccine in the sense of a uh
01:05:49
smallpox or all right it's just a shot
01:05:52
it's a treat it's a it's a it's a modest
01:05:55
muting of the effects and it's one that
01:05:57
people need to take kind of a risk-based
01:05:59
decision on for one's personal thing but
01:06:01
having mandates on whether or not you
01:06:03
can go to school and whether or not you
01:06:04
can you know be in places and whether or
01:06:07
not it's appropriate for for workplace
01:06:09
setting there's still high degrees of
01:06:11
infectiousness with this ever-evolving
01:06:13
virus the virus that we have today is
01:06:14
not the virus that we had in February of
01:06:17
2020. it's a very different virus and
01:06:21
it has evolved to such an extent now and
01:06:23
it's continuing to evolve that it's very
01:06:25
difficult to say there's a vaccine for
01:06:27
this virus it's uh it's uh why won't you
01:06:30
just say this the that this the
01:06:32
so-called vaccine has been a failure we
01:06:34
don't know hold on I'm gonna it's a
01:06:36
failure we don't we don't know the full
01:06:39
safety implications like I said I don't
01:06:41
want to get too far out of my skis on
01:06:42
that however yeah we know the
01:06:44
efficaciousness of it has been a failure
01:06:48
unless you're willing to get reducing
01:06:50
unless you're willing to get jabbed six
01:06:52
times a year which I don't think anybody
01:06:54
here would do that and something that's
01:06:56
not necessary because it's we hold on
01:06:58
there was a time period where it was
01:07:01
effective correct Friedberg and it did
01:07:04
reduce deaths massively so I think
01:07:06
that's the the issue that we're talking
01:07:07
about here is that now the kovich
01:07:09
strains are so weak that maybe it's not
01:07:11
as necessary but there was a time period
01:07:13
where people were not taking the vaccine
01:07:15
and Republicans specifically weren't
01:07:17
taking the vaccine and they were dying
01:07:19
at a much higher percentage so it didn't
01:07:21
if you're defining the vaccine as not
01:07:23
getting not transferring the disease
01:07:25
sure it was a failure it didn't block
01:07:27
like we thought it would in terms of
01:07:29
reducing debt but reducing death it did
01:07:32
work for a period of time if it only
01:07:34
lasted for two months and covet is still
01:07:36
around and it's basically endemic it's
01:07:38
everywhere how did the vaccine make any
01:07:40
difference whatsoever I think now it's
01:07:42
too much but back then it wasn't but you
01:07:44
know free burglary Freeburg is that true
01:07:46
what's the question I'm I'm losing track
01:07:49
at this point how long does the the
01:07:52
lowering the percentage of deaths the
01:07:54
benefits of it yes of reducing what
01:07:57
you've learned is they only last two
01:07:58
months is that true yeah it depends on
01:08:01
the population and yes there is a
01:08:03
decline in the benefit over time as well
01:08:06
as the fact that the virus is evolving
01:08:07
those are both two yeah kind of
01:08:09
independent things and as a result over
01:08:11
time you know like yeah we got to keep
01:08:13
getting boosted or shots and Pfizer's
01:08:15
making a great business out of it you're
01:08:16
right there's a massive economic
01:08:18
incentive here for them and moderna to
01:08:20
keep this great gravy train rolling and
01:08:22
there's a massive incentive for
01:08:24
government officials politicians to
01:08:26
continue to stand by what they said
01:08:28
before because otherwise they're going
01:08:29
to be called wrong and they're going to
01:08:30
get beat up honestly I feel like I feel
01:08:33
like you're making an effort you're
01:08:34
making an effort to stand by what you
01:08:36
previously said
01:08:37
yeah I think we should just come out and
01:08:39
say that look regardless of where the
01:08:41
safety data ultimately comes out just
01:08:43
based on efficaciousness we can say that
01:08:45
this thing didn't work and therefore
01:08:47
mandating it was an even worse thing
01:08:50
because hold on we put every we put the
01:08:52
drug through this rapid process and we
01:08:54
didn't let people make an individual
01:08:56
cost benefit decision we basically
01:08:58
herded them into this and at best it
01:09:01
didn't do very much I don't think that
01:09:03
that decision if you come if you make
01:09:05
that conclusion I'm not sure that it
01:09:07
gives us a toolkit
01:09:09
to do better the next time and I think
01:09:11
we've all said this and Friedberg was
01:09:13
the one that first really taught us
01:09:14
about this there will be a next time
01:09:16
unfortunately
01:09:17
so I think that we have to focus our
01:09:20
energy here in acknowledging that
01:09:23
the tools that we have
01:09:26
to create these messenger RNA vaccines
01:09:28
and other types of solutions we are
01:09:31
pushing the boundaries of Science and
01:09:33
the body is still very poorly understood
01:09:35
and so the sensitivity and specificity
01:09:37
of these drugs may not be what we think
01:09:40
up front
01:09:41
and as a result of that
01:09:43
maybe we need to find a different way of
01:09:46
using emergency use authorization in the
01:09:49
future
01:09:50
and I don't know David to your point I'm
01:09:52
beyond my ski tips on scientific
01:09:56
knowledge to know how right
01:09:59
I would say as a minimum that if we're
01:10:01
going to do emergency use it shouldn't
01:10:03
be mandated let patients
01:10:05
okay let's move on so we have a moment
01:10:08
of agreement one question for free birds
01:10:09
yeah would you
01:10:10
advise or in your life would you can
01:10:13
would you continue to get a booster or
01:10:15
are you going to consider getting a
01:10:17
booster every year no if they keep about
01:10:19
them and now would you advise parents or
01:10:22
you know adults over 65 or 70 to get one
01:10:25
because those seem to be the high risk
01:10:26
group right so if your parents said
01:10:28
should I get it or not I would advise
01:10:30
advise them to talk to their doctor and
01:10:32
their doctor would advise them to to do
01:10:33
it what do you think most doctors would
01:10:35
tell somebody above 65 or 70 at this
01:10:38
point it depends what state they're in
01:10:39
at this point but
01:10:41
basically would be split on political
01:10:43
ones unless this virus turns into Ebola
01:10:46
I'm never getting boosted again I'll
01:10:48
tell you that right now
01:10:50
what about you guys I'm not getting
01:10:52
boosted again
01:10:53
I think that speaks volumes right there
01:10:57
that's it like we could have discovered
01:11:00
here for 10 seconds guys we are
01:11:02
literally not this sure
01:11:04
let's move on hold on Freeburg but the
01:11:07
fact that all of us can arrive at that
01:11:10
and then we're worried about getting
01:11:11
banned to tell you how screwed up you're
01:11:14
right you're right he is like you're
01:11:16
right what we can't like have an honest
01:11:18
conversation about this by the way the
01:11:19
other thing this is going to do it's
01:11:20
going to inflame a large number of
01:11:22
people just hearing us say this and
01:11:23
because people have these deep what's
01:11:25
happened is this has now become a sense
01:11:27
of identity a sense of tribalism and a
01:11:29
sense of it's a belief system it's no
01:11:31
longer about an objective decision well
01:11:33
we saw this with the mass the mass
01:11:34
became the blue became the blue woman of
01:11:37
the redness so the vaccine is basically
01:11:39
uh you know it's become tribal but but
01:11:43
people need to move beyond that because
01:11:45
this is a scientific question of of
01:11:47
constant benefits related to this
01:11:49
medical treatment okay let's just move
01:11:51
on there's too much other stuff doctors
01:11:53
not for Venture capitalists about your
01:11:56
vaccine
01:11:58
yeah please don't listen to us all right
01:12:04
by the way by the way speak to your
01:12:06
doctor and just remember uh vaccine
01:12:08
manufacturers have a business to run and
01:12:10
politicians have to get reelected all
01:12:12
right let's move on because we've gotten
01:12:13
stuck on this okay look there's been
01:12:15
some important developments in Ukraine I
01:12:17
think we should just cover quickly this
01:12:18
week there are a bunch of things the by
01:12:19
Administration said they're going to
01:12:21
send Abrams Tanks as well as Bradley's
01:12:24
and leopard twos
01:12:26
the Abrams tank in particular is our
01:12:29
best most expensive tank at the
01:12:31
beginning of the war they said they
01:12:32
would not send them so they reversed
01:12:34
their decision on that now the
01:12:35
ukrainians are saying they want Jets as
01:12:37
well that's sort of the next issue
01:12:39
that's going to come up the by
01:12:40
Administration also in a New York Times
01:12:42
article that came out earlier this week
01:12:44
said that they were warming to the idea
01:12:47
of of supporting an invasion of Crimea
01:12:51
some Europeans like Peter Hitchens are
01:12:53
getting very nervous about this level of
01:12:54
escalation he had a pretty amazing piece
01:12:57
talking about the risk of this creating
01:12:58
nuclear war and even if the ukrainians
01:13:02
Prevail in this war there was a really
01:13:04
interesting statement by Larry Fink at
01:13:07
Davos last week saying that he estimated
01:13:09
the cost of reconstruction at 750
01:13:12
billion dollars and Fitch ratings agency
01:13:15
says that Ukraine is headed towards
01:13:16
default so major major developments I
01:13:20
think in the war this week I want to get
01:13:22
your guys opinion on this
01:13:24
we know from history that Wars tend to
01:13:27
escalate and to be far more costly than
01:13:30
the participants ever thought is that
01:13:32
the track we're on now
01:13:34
and in hindsight knowing what we know
01:13:35
now should we regret that we didn't use
01:13:37
every diplomatic tool we had to prevent
01:13:39
the war most notably taking NATO
01:13:41
expansion off the table Friedberg I'll
01:13:43
go to you
01:13:45
it's such a tough
01:13:48
situation is the situation escalating
01:13:52
to a point where we should be concerned
01:13:54
you know there's a lot of information we
01:13:56
don't have and there's a lot of
01:13:58
intelligence gathering
01:14:00
and conversations and chatter that we're
01:14:03
not privy to
01:14:05
so to sit here and kind of be an armed
01:14:08
chairman
01:14:09
I I don't know what diplomatic
01:14:12
conversations have gone on or are going
01:14:14
on uh all I know is what we're reading
01:14:16
on the internet right so I I I'm not I
01:14:19
don't know
01:14:20
this this war is extremely well covered
01:14:23
and there are no diplomatic
01:14:24
conversations going on yeah so we're
01:14:28
escalating the War I mean here do you
01:14:32
guys have any concerns about the
01:14:33
direction this is headed at all yes I'm
01:14:36
concerned I also agree with Freeburg
01:14:38
that I don't think we have all the
01:14:40
information
01:14:41
but I'm not exactly sure what we can do
01:14:44
right now it's it seems like they have
01:14:47
decided
01:14:49
that there is a play to exert a lot of
01:14:52
pressure come the spring and that's
01:14:54
something that you've mentioned as a
01:14:56
very likely thing and so I guess the
01:14:59
calculus on the ground is that there's a
01:15:00
way to really push Russia into a corner
01:15:03
and the only way to do that is with more
01:15:08
military support and then on the heels
01:15:10
of that David the link that you sent is
01:15:13
then it's not just the war machine that
01:15:15
is now spinning up but it's the
01:15:16
aftermarket
01:15:18
Financial Services infrastructure that's
01:15:20
also spinning up or Larry Larry Fink you
01:15:22
mean the grift aspect of this war well
01:15:24
yeah where Larry Fink was like hey
01:15:25
they're gonna need three quarters of a
01:15:28
trillion dollars of reconstruction
01:15:29
support
01:15:31
we saw that play out in Iraq as well
01:15:33
where at first it was the War Machine
01:15:35
and then it was the Reconstruction
01:15:36
machine and together it was trillions
01:15:38
and trillions by the way you know what
01:15:39
that's called
01:15:40
they're called infrastructure funds and
01:15:43
those infrastructure funds raise
01:15:44
hundreds of billions of dollars to make
01:15:47
investments to build new infrastructure
01:15:49
in markets that need it that are willing
01:15:50
to pay for it and it will likely end up
01:15:52
being kind of long-term debt assumed by
01:15:54
that region to pay to do this work and
01:15:57
the beneficiaries will be the investors
01:15:59
and owners of those infrastructure funds
01:16:01
I think there's two sides to the sacks
01:16:03
that are worth kind of noting one is the
01:16:04
telegraphing of this decision because
01:16:06
it's not being done secretly it's being
01:16:08
done out in the open
01:16:10
there's certainly a calculus to that why
01:16:12
are they telegraphing this and what do
01:16:14
they intend to do with that messaging
01:16:17
being put out there like this and it may
01:16:19
be that it's uh to assert or assume a
01:16:22
stronger negotiating position certainly
01:16:23
to go into some sort of you know mild
01:16:26
modest exit or settlement coming out of
01:16:28
this thing but you're right the flip
01:16:30
side is and the cost here is one of
01:16:32
extreme outcome which is there may be a
01:16:34
France Ferdinand moment here where one
01:16:37
thing goes too far and triggers a
01:16:40
cataclysmic outcome and in this case the
01:16:42
cataclysmic outcome is tactical nuclear
01:16:46
weapons and tactical nuclear weapons as
01:16:48
we've talked about
01:16:50
and I think I've I I had some
01:16:52
conversations and some dinners I shared
01:16:53
with you guys with some folks in the
01:16:55
intelligence community and this has been
01:16:57
talked about by uh ex-intelligence
01:16:58
Community folks publicly are a key part
01:17:01
of the Russian war Playbook that this is
01:17:04
um there is a tactical nuclear weapon
01:17:07
response system that is in place
01:17:09
and you know these are
01:17:12
very possible paths that we could find
01:17:14
ourselves kind of walking down obviously
01:17:16
were that to happen it would be a
01:17:18
massive escalation and you're right
01:17:20
there could be a France Ferdinand kind
01:17:22
of moment that emerges by shaking the
01:17:24
cage and and lighting a fire and there
01:17:27
may be a stronger negotiating position
01:17:29
to get to a settlement Faster by doing
01:17:31
this I I don't have a strong point of
01:17:34
view on the probability of either of
01:17:35
those and and why but I think you know
01:17:37
maybe both are certainly in play here
01:17:40
yeah it was interesting to me that the
01:17:41
Wall Street Journal on the heels of all
01:17:43
of this stuff also published an article
01:17:46
about Roman abramsic and the interesting
01:17:48
thing about it was a quote in the
01:17:50
article that effectively said something
01:17:51
tantamount to well now that he's
01:17:54
proven not as useful
01:17:56
we need to Target him
01:17:58
with sanctions
01:18:01
so I just think that what all of this is
01:18:04
is now sort of they're entering the end
01:18:06
game David to use a chess analogy and
01:18:09
it looks like they're setting
01:18:12
the wheels in motion to kind of put all
01:18:15
the pieces together for a negotiated
01:18:18
settlement
01:18:19
do we know that I mean what but is that
01:18:22
yeah or is it continual escalation I
01:18:24
mean Jacob I actually at the beginning
01:18:25
of the war we didn't want to give the
01:18:27
ukrainians Abrams Tanks because they
01:18:29
were that was considered too provocative
01:18:30
now we're giving them to them
01:18:33
I think what's going on here is and I I
01:18:36
suspected this you know from the
01:18:37
beginning is that we are trying to
01:18:40
engage them in a war of attrition and
01:18:42
it's working and so I think the West
01:18:45
collectively is trying to further that
01:18:47
goal of just making Russia economically
01:18:50
politically militarily culturally
01:18:53
irrelevant or angled in some way and if
01:18:56
you think about what's now happening
01:18:58
with uh energy you know his primary
01:19:01
export he is going to lose those
01:19:03
customers and his customers will be you
01:19:05
know bottom feeding India China low-cost
01:19:08
you know oil and he is going to be a
01:19:11
pariah so what I'm looking at is if
01:19:12
there's going to be a negotiated
01:19:13
settlement this year what is the next
01:19:15
five or ten years going to look like for
01:19:16
Russia what is their place in the world
01:19:18
going to be the West is never going to
01:19:20
trust them again the Germans are never
01:19:21
going to buy their oil again everybody
01:19:23
is going to be looking for ways to
01:19:25
distance themselves from them so how
01:19:27
does he have an exit ramp and we talked
01:19:28
about this from the the get-go here on
01:19:30
this podcast is what's the golden bridge
01:19:32
for him to retreat across
01:19:34
and and we really need to find that
01:19:36
golden bridge quickly because I do think
01:19:38
this is starting to look desperate for
01:19:40
him the West keeps giving better and
01:19:42
better Munitions he keeps losing
01:19:44
economically he's going to keep losing
01:19:46
and and politically who would ever want
01:19:49
to engage Putin in anything with you
01:19:51
know any kind of cultural or
01:19:53
International Trade it's going to be
01:19:57
a disaster for him so this war of
01:19:59
attrition
01:20:00
has to resolve itself with a some sort
01:20:03
of settlement but we kids can't go on
01:20:05
for two or three years can it I mean it
01:20:07
has to settle at some point
01:20:09
I think that it certainly can go on and
01:20:12
I think that history proves that Wars
01:20:14
tend to escalate and the costs incurred
01:20:16
are much greater in many cases than
01:20:19
participants ever dreamed of and that
01:20:21
they had to go and do it all over again
01:20:23
they wouldn't have gone into it in the
01:20:24
first place
01:20:25
so
01:20:27
yeah I think this is concerning I think
01:20:29
you know the the crazy thing is the war
01:20:31
of attrition strategy I think I think it
01:20:34
has developed into a war of attrition
01:20:35
and I think you're right that
01:20:39
I think there's two possibilities Jay
01:20:41
Cal I think that the maybe the more
01:20:44
cynical or realistic members of the
01:20:46
administration think there's benefit in
01:20:48
wearing Russia down and grinding them
01:20:50
down however I also think there's kind
01:20:52
of a True Believer camp that sees
01:20:55
pushing Russia out of Ukraine nothing
01:20:57
less than that will do and we have to
01:20:59
punish their aggression maybe they want
01:21:01
regime change I think there's dueling
01:21:02
factions in the administration remember
01:21:04
General milley several months ago said
01:21:06
that everything that the ukrainians
01:21:08
could achieve militarily just about had
01:21:10
been done and they should negotiate and
01:21:12
even Jake Sullivan had said that they
01:21:14
should take Crimea off the table that
01:21:16
was just the leaks a few months ago now
01:21:19
the administration is leaking that
01:21:20
they're going to support a Korean
01:21:22
Invasion so I think there's these both
01:21:24
schools within the administration the
01:21:27
True Believers the more cynical
01:21:29
folks and it feels to me like the True
01:21:31
Believers are on top right now because
01:21:33
we just keep escalating this war more
01:21:36
and more and I think that's dangerous
01:21:38
that polarizes the outcomes right
01:21:40
so I think jaycal if you had your way it
01:21:43
sounds like you had grind the Russians
01:21:44
down but at a certain point you would
01:21:46
say enough is enough and like a poker
01:21:49
player like you do it at the poker table
01:21:51
you'd say have on my I won my Prius for
01:21:54
the night I don't need to risk that to
01:21:56
win a Tesla so I'm going to cash in my
01:21:58
chips and get away and Walk Up Walk Away
01:22:00
right
01:22:01
yeah I wish I could do that I wish I
01:22:04
could do that consistently yeah exactly
01:22:06
getting up from the table is a rare
01:22:08
skill that's right but I'm not sure the
01:22:10
administration is getting up from the
01:22:12
table I mean I think we've achieved the
01:22:14
American position on this I think has
01:22:17
largely been achieved we've prevented
01:22:19
Russia from taking over Ukraine we've
01:22:22
prevented we've basically shifted Europe
01:22:24
onto American Natural Gas we've
01:22:27
destroyed Nordstrom I think we're close
01:22:29
to achieving our major objectives
01:22:32
but I'm not sure we're going to stop
01:22:34
there
01:22:35
yeah all right anyway all right let's
01:22:37
move on Friedberg you have a science
01:22:38
corner I was going to share the
01:22:42
this was last week I think we talked
01:22:43
about uh talking about it this week so
01:22:46
um there was a paper that is a pretty um
01:22:48
compelling paper published by a team uh
01:22:51
LED out of Harvard
01:22:53
on identifying what may be the the core
01:22:57
driver of Aging and demonstration on an
01:23:01
ability to kind of reverse aging so I'll
01:23:04
just start really quickly that you know
01:23:06
in the human body we have many different
01:23:08
types of cells right we have 200 roughly
01:23:11
different kinds of cells and I sell a
01:23:12
skin cell a brain cell a heart cell
01:23:15
they all have the same DNA the same
01:23:17
genetic code the same genome at the
01:23:19
nucleus of that cell what makes those
01:23:21
cells different and the reason they act
01:23:23
and behave differently is they have
01:23:25
different gene expression meaning
01:23:27
different genes in that cell are turned
01:23:29
on and off and when a gene is turned on
01:23:31
the protein that that Gene codes for is
01:23:35
expressed and made in the cell and the
01:23:37
genes that are off those proteins are
01:23:38
not made and remember proteins are the
01:23:40
biochemical machines in biology so when
01:23:43
certain proteins are produced they do
01:23:45
stuff and other proteins don't do stuff
01:23:46
and the cell acts and behaves very
01:23:48
differently so some cells when you turn
01:23:50
genes on and off you get a neuron some
01:23:52
cells you turn them on and off you get a
01:23:53
muscle cell in your bicep some of them
01:23:55
you get a heart cell
01:23:56
and so all of these cells are
01:23:58
differentiated by
01:24:00
the genes that are expressed the general
01:24:03
term for the expression of genes is the
01:24:05
epigenome and an epigenome basically
01:24:08
refers to
01:24:09
these these systems whereby the certain
01:24:12
parts of the DNA certain segments of
01:24:15
genes are uncoiled a little bit so if
01:24:19
you zoom in on DNA you know there's 23
01:24:21
chromosomes they're tightly wrapped in
01:24:23
these coils and when you go even closer
01:24:26
you see that there's these segments
01:24:27
called nucleosomes and a nucleosome
01:24:29
means it's like a bead and a bunch of
01:24:31
DNA is wrapped around the bead and how
01:24:33
closely those beads are together how
01:24:35
much of the DNA is wrapped allows a
01:24:37
segment of the DNA to be opened up and
01:24:40
then expressed meaning copies of the DNA
01:24:42
are turned into RNA which floats into
01:24:45
this thing called the ribosome and the
01:24:46
ribosome is the protein printer so the
01:24:48
more these little segments of genome are
01:24:50
exposed the more they're expressed and
01:24:52
there are certain chemicals these
01:24:54
methyls and acetyls that kind of attach
01:24:55
to the genome and certain elements that
01:24:58
allow parts of the the chromosome to
01:25:01
wrap up and get really tightly bound or
01:25:03
to unwrap and to express the gene so the
01:25:06
epigenome is almost you can think about
01:25:08
it like the software and and the genome
01:25:10
or the DNA is the hardware
01:25:12
and so the hardware basically defines
01:25:14
what you can make the epigenome defines
01:25:16
what is being made what stuff is turned
01:25:18
on and what stuff is turned off so this
01:25:20
paper and this work that was done
01:25:22
historically we've always thought that
01:25:24
aging meant that over time the DNA in
01:25:26
our cells was mutating and errors were
01:25:28
accumulating in the DNA and as a result
01:25:30
of those errors the cells start to
01:25:32
dysfunction and what these guys really
01:25:35
did a good job of proving with this
01:25:37
paper is that it may not be mutations in
01:25:39
the DNA that's causing aging but
01:25:41
actually changes in the epigenome and
01:25:43
that the DNA remains pretty stable and
01:25:45
pretty consistent over time and the way
01:25:48
they did this is they broke the DNA and
01:25:50
just so you guys know every second of
01:25:52
your life about a million breaks in DNA
01:25:55
in cells throughout your body are
01:25:56
happening your DNA is being broken up
01:25:58
and then there's all this Machinery in
01:25:59
your cell that fixes the DNA when it
01:26:02
breaks now what happens when it fixes
01:26:04
that it turns out it's actually really
01:26:06
good at fixing it and the DNA doesn't
01:26:07
change and we historically thought that
01:26:09
the DNA changed a lot and mutations
01:26:11
accumulate over time but in reality what
01:26:13
may be happening is as your DNA gets
01:26:16
fixed the epigenome the acetyl and
01:26:19
methyl groups on the Gene uh on on the
01:26:21
um the chromosome
01:26:23
don't get put in the right place and
01:26:25
over time what happens is the epigenome
01:26:28
degrades and this is considered and a
01:26:30
lot of people refer to this now as the
01:26:32
information Theory of Aging you can kind
01:26:34
of think about making a lot of copies of
01:26:36
software a lot of copies of a photo and
01:26:37
a photo printer over time and every time
01:26:40
you make a copy there's a little error a
01:26:41
little error and those errors accumulate
01:26:43
and the errors that accumulate cause the
01:26:45
epigenome to change and as a result
01:26:47
certain genes are turned on that are
01:26:49
supposed to be off and certain genes are
01:26:51
turned off that are supposed to be
01:26:52
turned on and then those cells start to
01:26:55
get dysfunctional because the wrong
01:26:57
proteins are being made and the cell can
01:26:58
no longer do what it's supposed to do so
01:27:00
what these guys should be the could it
01:27:02
be the ribosome as well that gets
01:27:04
screwed up over time the printer the
01:27:06
ribosome is um a pretty
01:27:08
you know uh static protein it just does
01:27:11
its thing and there's hundreds of
01:27:12
ribosomes in a Cell so you know if one
01:27:14
of them's dysfunctional it just doesn't
01:27:16
do anything and then the other ones kind
01:27:17
of step in and do it so the ribosomes
01:27:19
are constantly running
01:27:20
what these guys did is they basically
01:27:22
took two mice two populations of mice
01:27:24
and they gave the one population of Maui
01:27:26
a certain thing that caused its DNA to
01:27:29
break at three times the rate of the
01:27:31
other population and then as the DNA
01:27:33
broke they could they could see that
01:27:36
this mouse population got older and
01:27:38
older faster and by a bunch of measures
01:27:40
on how do you measure age but what they
01:27:43
did is they then measured they then
01:27:45
sequenced the DNA of the two populations
01:27:46
of mice and what they showed is that the
01:27:49
older mice the ones that had their DNA
01:27:52
changing a lot by the way these were
01:27:53
genetically identical mice
01:27:55
um the ones that had their DNA broken a
01:27:57
lot more they had the correct genome
01:27:59
their genome was the exact same as the
01:28:01
other mice that that stayed Young
01:28:03
and so what that tells us is that it's
01:28:05
the epigenome and not the the DNA itself
01:28:07
that's changing so then here's what they
01:28:10
did remember last year we talked about
01:28:12
yamanaka factors which are these four
01:28:14
proteins these four molecules that can
01:28:15
be applied to to DNA to a cell and they
01:28:19
cause all of the gene expression to
01:28:21
reset back to looking like a stem cell
01:28:23
remember all of those differentiated
01:28:25
cells come from a stem cell and when
01:28:27
they did that the older population of
01:28:30
mice suddenly started to act younger and
01:28:32
all of the measures of age reversed and
01:28:35
they did this across different tissue
01:28:36
types they measured this in a lot of
01:28:38
different ways cognitive function uh
01:28:40
Health cellular Health Etc
01:28:42
and so it is not just a fantastic new
01:28:45
proof point of how yamanaka factors can
01:28:48
actually reverse age but it demonstrates
01:28:50
that the epigenome itself is what is the
01:28:53
core driver of aging and you guys
01:28:56
remember Altos Labs raised three billion
01:28:58
dollars in a sea ground last year and
01:28:59
remember at the end of 21 I said like
01:29:01
yamanaka Factor as an aging research is
01:29:03
going to be kind of the next thought
01:29:04
thing I think this paper is going to be
01:29:06
one of the seminal papers that really
01:29:07
kind of illustrates and proves the point
01:29:10
that this epigenome is the driver of
01:29:12
aging and as we now are investing a lot
01:29:15
of money in figuring out how yamanaka
01:29:17
factors and other transcription factors
01:29:19
like the yamanaka factors can be applied
01:29:21
in specific ways to actually reverse
01:29:23
aging and cause the cells to start
01:29:25
functioning correctly again and then
01:29:27
people will start to act and resolve in
01:29:29
a healthy way once again there's a lot
01:29:32
of work to go between here and there but
01:29:34
now we have a much more kind of
01:29:35
definitive proof point that this
01:29:36
information Theory of Aging may be real
01:29:38
that it's tied to the epigenome and that
01:29:40
there are solutions that can work and we
01:29:42
we have to figure out how to put them
01:29:43
together and how to engineer a fantastic
01:29:45
outcomes so really great paper
01:29:48
by a team led out of Harvard I think
01:29:50
really validates a lot of the work and
01:29:52
the money that's going into the space
01:29:53
both in the public and the private
01:29:55
sector
01:29:56
and obviously a lot of new startups kind
01:29:58
of chasing this opportunity to figure
01:30:00
out how we can use these transcription
01:30:01
factors to reverse aging and that this
01:30:03
may end up leading us to uh you know a
01:30:06
much kind of healthier life and by the
01:30:08
way when they applied those yamanaka
01:30:09
factors to the mice the mice lived 107
01:30:12
percent longer
01:30:13
than they were supposed to but more
01:30:15
importantly the health span as it's
01:30:17
defined improved so the mice not only
01:30:19
lived longer but they actually lived
01:30:21
healthier they're all the measures of
01:30:23
healthiness in the body improved so it's
01:30:25
a really kind of is this going to help
01:30:27
us in the next 10 years
01:30:28
it may yeah it very well made there are
01:30:30
now
01:30:31
some therapists
01:30:35
in this corner I feel like science
01:30:37
corners should only discuss things that
01:30:39
can happen in the next few years let's
01:30:42
put it that way to look at it I'll tell
01:30:44
you I'll tell you one way one thing for
01:30:45
sure you can make you can make money as
01:30:47
an investor over the next 10 years in
01:30:49
finding the right teams that are going
01:30:50
to have the highest likelihood of
01:30:51
progressing clinical trials in this
01:30:52
space I will say that there may be
01:30:54
clinical trials that can come to Market
01:30:55
really fast particularly with kind of
01:30:58
these ex-vivo Therapeutics where you
01:30:59
take cells out of your body apply the
01:31:01
yamanaka factors and then put them back
01:31:03
in your body for certain tissue types
01:31:04
like eye cells for example or T cells in
01:31:07
your blood there's a lot of ways that
01:31:08
this may come to Market faster and it's
01:31:10
not just about reversing your age
01:31:11
overall but reversing the age of certain
01:31:14
cell types in your body that can then
01:31:15
have profound Health impacts in the near
01:31:17
term so that's the kind of stuff that's
01:31:19
going to start to come through clinical
01:31:20
stage sooner than later and then maybe
01:31:22
you know some number of years down the
01:31:24
road we figure out a way to reverse the
01:31:25
age and all the cells in our body and
01:31:27
the whole body becomes more youthful but
01:31:29
for now it's going to be targeted cells
01:31:30
in a very specific way to reverse aging
01:31:32
and improve health
01:31:34
very powerful very interesting lots of
01:31:37
investment opportunity and
01:31:39
you know certainly some some very smart
01:31:41
folks yeah the realistic time frame is
01:31:44
for like you know reversing aging
01:31:47
because I mean we need that 30 years
01:31:51
yeah but I think I think it'll be
01:31:53
80.
01:32:01
does that mean we're gonna be able to
01:32:03
like live to 100 because we'll be able
01:32:05
to like reverse age
01:32:07
is can you live well to a hundred I
01:32:10
think that's the question we don't know
01:32:12
but if you could reverse aging yeah but
01:32:15
we don't know what that means because
01:32:16
there's all kinds of things that you
01:32:18
inherit over time that this may not for
01:32:20
example like if you have long-term heart
01:32:22
disease
01:32:23
I could see how the cells could get
01:32:25
healthier but it can't eliminate the
01:32:27
plaque in your arteries
01:32:29
right you know that's totally different
01:32:31
calcium that shit's there so right you
01:32:35
you have to leave the same with
01:32:36
Alzheimer's like Alzheimer's has pla
01:32:38
there's a plaque element but the the the
01:32:40
cause of that and the cellular
01:32:42
dysfunction may be reversible it could
01:32:44
definitely be that like injury rates of
01:32:46
older people hips knees shoulders arms
01:32:50
all the sort of like soft
01:32:51
musculoskeletal stuff you can you can
01:32:54
really do a good job of because at the
01:32:56
same time as you get older like
01:32:58
people to intake less protein they
01:33:00
process it less well you lose a lot of
01:33:02
muscle mass as you get older those are
01:33:03
things that I think are like short-term
01:33:05
Solutions but no to be honest with you
01:33:07
socks the stuff that really can screw
01:33:09
you which is heart disease and brain
01:33:12
function this probably won't do much for
01:33:14
a long time
01:33:16
so check it out screwed yeah yeah I'm in
01:33:18
the best shape I've been in 20 years I
01:33:20
feel great I'm getting irreverse
01:33:22
whatever is wrong with Jayco or is that
01:33:23
in the plot category can I do a quality
01:33:25
of life shout out can I do a quality
01:33:28
I got an email we all got it from a guy
01:33:31
who I won't say just about not to
01:33:33
violate his
01:33:34
privacy privacy
01:33:36
but he's in Saskatchewan he listens to
01:33:39
the Pod where his father is and made him
01:33:42
get a pre-nuval scan oh flew the father
01:33:45
to Vancouver they found a five
01:33:46
centimeter cancerous tumor on his kidney
01:33:48
and uh three days ago had it removed and
01:33:52
looks like guys totally healthy and well
01:33:55
eliminated he was saying so another live
01:33:57
saved
01:33:59
but I but I wanted to show you guys a
01:34:01
picture so yesterday I went to Los
01:34:03
Angeles to see my Interventional
01:34:05
cardiologist
01:34:07
and what they do is they do What's
01:34:08
called the contrast CT scan so they put
01:34:11
you into an IV and they put this
01:34:13
contrast inside of your neck you want to
01:34:15
put throw the picture up please
01:34:17
and then they use all the software to
01:34:19
actually create an extremely accurate 3D
01:34:21
model of your heart and what they can do
01:34:24
is go inside of your arteries and
01:34:26
actually measure the calcium buildup
01:34:28
I've mentioned this before this this is
01:34:29
a service called heart flow
01:34:32
h-e-a-r-t-f-l-o-w
01:34:34
[Music]
01:34:36
in any event my calcium score is still
01:34:39
zero thank God touch wood keep grinding
01:34:42
but I just wanted to put this out there
01:34:45
for anybody who has a history of heart
01:34:48
disease in their family for them or for
01:34:50
their parents or what have you
01:34:52
if you go and ask your doctor this is a
01:34:54
third party service that they can do it
01:34:56
you go get a contrast CT
01:34:58
and you can get a very accurate sense of
01:35:01
your heart health this is amazing they
01:35:03
they found it's incredible they found
01:35:06
that you have a heart
01:35:07
they did find that I have a heart this
01:35:09
is this is a practical technology
01:35:11
because all of us we would try to find
01:35:13
if you had a heart for all this 112
01:35:16
episodes Dr Carlsberg was shot they
01:35:19
found a heart it looked huge it looked
01:35:22
like secretariately yeah
01:35:25
I do have a big heart boys as you guys
01:35:28
know no I mean this is shocking for the
01:35:30
audience it's a natural size that can't
01:35:32
be actual size it's bigger than its
01:35:34
brain it's got a big part well glad
01:35:37
you're healthy bestie that's fantastic
01:35:39
so go get go get a hard flow if anybody
01:35:41
has heart disease go talk to your doctor
01:35:42
all right well for David sacks
01:35:45
was was the moderation okay uh yeah I
01:35:48
mean listen it was interesting funny as
01:35:50
if you were doing a j Calvin all right
01:35:52
fairness I'll come back to moderate next
01:35:54
week I'll moderate this I'll be honest
01:35:55
with you I would give both The Davids a
01:35:59
robotic b-minus C plus
01:36:02
I think they're better off opining than
01:36:04
moderating okay and I think that Jason
01:36:07
really doesn't have anything interesting
01:36:09
to say so he's better off moderating
01:36:12
audience liked my comments last week and
01:36:14
then we can minimize the number of times
01:36:17
he finds any random way to take it back
01:36:19
to Virtue signaling and genuflecting
01:36:21
about China I was gonna ask Jason what
01:36:24
he thought about the Cowboys 49ers game
01:36:27
where Kittle was an ineligible downfield
01:36:30
receiver and they didn't call a penalty
01:36:32
very important catch for that game that
01:36:34
again the Cowboys now losing every
01:36:36
single time they get to the playoffs but
01:36:38
I didn't want to ask you because I was I
01:36:40
thought that you'd Veer it towards Xi
01:36:42
Jinping in some China comments no why
01:36:45
no
01:36:47
any genuflecting would you like to do
01:36:49
before you go back to your I will admit
01:36:50
that the moderation thing is harder than
01:36:52
it looks
01:36:54
well it's harder than it looks to be
01:36:56
entertaining I think that's that's
01:36:58
that's the thing
01:37:02
entertaining thank you plus a plus
01:37:04
moderator get back to your job Jacob
01:37:06
yeah I will I will come back next week
01:37:08
and moderate I I have been under the
01:37:10
weather if passed the ball and let and
01:37:13
let us put the ball in the basket I will
01:37:15
put the ball exactly where you each like
01:37:17
it perfectly look for some great assist
01:37:19
coming next week when Jake I was back at
01:37:21
100 strength thanks uh to The Davids for
01:37:24
filling information the last two weeks
01:37:25
and we'll see you all next time on the
01:37:27
island boys
01:37:30
we'll let your winners ride
01:37:33
Rain Man
01:37:34
[Music]
01:37:38
we open source it to the fans and
01:37:40
they've just gone crazy
01:37:42
[Music]
01:37:49
besties
01:37:52
[Music]
01:38:14
where did you get Mercies
01:38:19
[Music]
