The Adam and Dr. Drew Show - #1725 Thus Sayeth the Lord

Episode Date: May 29, 2023

Drew explains Gell-Mann amnesia and Adam shares a theory of how people become defensive when they know they are lying. They get into democrats being forced into a weird position where they go against their own agenda and the odd meeting where 6 feet was chosen randomly to be the social distancing norm. Please Support Our Sponsors: Simplisafe.com/ADAM2

Recorded live at Corolla One Studios with Adam Corolla and board-certified physician and addiction medicine specialist, Dr. Drew Pinsky. You're listening to The Adam and Dr. Drew Show. Yeah, get it on, get it on, get it on, get it on, Dr. Drew's board... Fishnizzle. Fishnizzle. What's going on? I'm trying to decide where we should start today.

Let me – I'm going to save our latest obsession on language. And I want to talk about something else for a minute. I interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. yesterday, and it was a very interesting conversation. That dude is smart. And here's how we interestingly – what I sort of came away with was this notion that he has been – he alerted me, he educated me about the cozy relationship between the regulators like the Health and Human Services Department and the FDA and Big Pharma. like the Health and Human Services Department and the FDA and Big Pharma.

He also this time pointed out how much of the budgets of these journals that I read so diligently are paid for by pharmaceutical agents. So no surprise that they've been a little adulterated during COVID. Interesting. But that I told him, I go, you know, I wonder, for some reason, I brought up Gelman amnesia. You know what that is, right? I'll explain. Oh, we've talked about it. Yeah, we've talked about it many times. Essentially, Gelman was a famous physicist, and he'd read the paper every day. And when he'd read a story about physics, he'd go, Jesus,

they get this completely wrong. They don't know what they're talking about. But then he proceeded to read the rest of the paper and assumed that they got the complex international relations and economics completely correct. So he was amnestic to how bad journalists are at reflecting the reality of what they're trying to communicate, the truth of what they're trying to communicate. So I said, you know, it reminds me of Gelman Amnesia when I think – because after he alerted me to the journals, I thought, wow. I thought it was just the FDA and the HHS, but I guess it's many government agencies. And he just started laughing. He goes, it's everywhere.

He goes, that's Gelman amnesia. He never heard of Gelman amnesia, but he said, I understand completely what you're suggesting. He goes, that is that. He never heard of Gelman amnesia, but he said, I understand completely what you're suggesting. And yes, you have to understand that I've been hammering on this one area. But since my father was campaigning for President Robert Kennedy Sr., he was starting to point this stuff out. He was really concerned with the military and their relationship with all that. But he said, you can name the organization and there will be adulterations.

And then he went on to say – and this is what I liked. Now, you may think he's a little wacky and he obviously has conspiracy theories about his father and his uncle and whatever, JFK. But he said there needs to be a anti – shoot, what's the word I'm looking for when things get adulterated sort of god dang it I hate my brain sometimes anyway he needs somebody to get in there and sort this all out that that's what he would do as president he would just go at he would develop you know he would put people

in place to go look at these agencies and see where the the conflicts of interest lie and create policies that get in the way of all that. So we can start to unravel. I mean we've been complaining about the effect of money on the federal government for a long time and it seems like we seem – it seems to me we're unable to do anything about lobbyists

and shit like that. But maybe here's the zone that we can start to unravel some of the conflicts of interest. That's what I'm looking for when somebody pays somebody off. Just help me, guys. Well, there's bribery. There's payola. There's pay for play. And that's all under the general category of – oh, my God.

What's wrong? I'm just looking at it. Go ahead. Finish your thought. All right. What do wrong? I'm just looking at it. All right. Finish your thought. All right. What do you say to all that? Well, what I say is we've had a front row seat to it. With COVID.

Yes. With COVID. Yes. You know, COVID was a blessing in many ways because we got to see the CDC and the WHO and CNN, for that matter, and how they snap into action. And, you know, you can say, well, how do you know they snapped into action? Well, they're all on the same page for everything all the time. Yeah. And somewhere between COVID and Hunter Biden's laptop, I got to see what the CIA and the FBI and all these organizations do. And then I got to see what the politicians do.

And then I got to see what the regulatory bodies do. And they all do the same thing. And it's pretty apparent what they're doing. And the reason it's apparent is because they're always lockstep. You know, you could have brought up any – here's the sort of thought experiment. You know, you go, Hunter Biden's laptop, go. What's CNN think? A Russian collusion.

Okay, what's the FBI think? Russian collusion. What's the CIA think? Russian collusion. What's USA Today think? Russian collusion. What's Los Angeles Times? Russian collusion.

What's the New York Times think? Russian collusion. Okay, and the list goes on and on and on. What PolitiFact have to say? They fact checked it, said it was Russian collusion. You know what I mean? OK. I remember the opioid crisis, how that lined up. Right. What is what did all the people, leaders of the CIA and the FBI think? Russian collusion. OK. and collusion. Okay. How did they all arrive at the same place off of something that they didn't know about? Right. And nobody knew for sure what was what. Right. And they magically knew. They magically knew where the virus emanated from. Right. Without any information. So when people magically arrive at the same place without data, then that suggests some collusion. Yep.

And at least a narrative that they're following because none of those entities that we discussed said, I don't know, we got to look into this. A couple of the people who were asked to sign the document said that. Right. But the organizations did not. But here's what I'm saying. Yeah. And it's not really a left field sort of – What do you mean left field?

I just mean it's not an apples to oranges kind of thing. It is kind of apples to apples even though it doesn't seem that way, right? Yeah. though it doesn't seem that way, right? Yeah. When something comes along where there is no narrative and there is no money at stake for the outlets or the senators or the governing bodies or the CDC or the teachers unions or the Gavin Newsom or whatever, when something just comes along like, hey, the Philadelphia Eagles are going to play Kansas City in the Super Bowl. The Chiefs against the Eagles.

Okay. It's a, I don't know, it's probably a pick-em game. You know, maybe the Chiefs were favored by a point and a half or two points or something like that. But it's, you know. Maybe the Chiefs were favored by a point and a half or two points or something like that. But it's, you know. Okay, so what happens with the Los Angeles Times and what happens with the New York Times and what happens with USA Today and what happens with CNN and what happens with everyone? Well, they split.

Yeah. They go all over the place. Yeah. Half of the people, the guy writing sports at the LA Times thinks the Eagles are going to win. And the guy writing sports for the New York Times, he thinks Kansas City is going to win. And so you have this split. You know what's interesting? What if Trump had said, I'm for the Eagles?

Then we'd have a problem. Everybody would be for Kansas City. But you'd have a split. And you have a diversity of opinion. And then somebody brings up ivermectin and they all end up in the same place. Vehemently.

The word I was looking for was corruption. So the point is the Super Bowl is not ivermectin. But what it is It's what it is. Well, it's a thing that we don't know the outcome of. And that you root for, weirdly.

Why would you root for these things? Well, you don't know how the Super Bowl is going to turn out. Right. Nobody knows. And do they know that ivermectin works? Do they know that it's dangerous for people ever no they don't yeah so they don't so there would be a natural split or at least different opinions yes or at least different opinions would be entertained yes so what did did forget about ivermectin. Yeah. Super Bowl, Chiefs versus Eagles versus where did this virus come from?

Did it come from a lab or did it come from a wet market? We should be split now. But we're not split. We're left with some overwhelming evidence one way or the other. Yeah. Even then, there should be opinions. We don't know how it will turn out, so we're split. be opinions. We don't know how it'll turn out, so we're split.

And also, not only do they all know it came from a wet market, but they are attacking anyone who thinks it came from a lab. So now, it suggests something is up. Not an attack. You're racist,

which is interesting. Interesting strategy. 100% something is going on because you guys know something except for you don't know it right and so you could point to many different accounts of that over covid and then you go to hunter biden's laptop eagles chiefs i don't know right i haven't seen the game yet. Right. I can't tell you for certain who's going to win. It feels like the Chiefs may have an advantage with Mahomes as quarterback, but don't know.

Been wrong many times. Not, we definitely know what this is. Yeah, how could you? So, they've been corrupted. Yeah. Okay. Now, the bigger question is, why is that not known by people? And I think the bigger issue is people listen to these people as if they're not corrupted.

And they are corrupted. Well, that's the part I want to – That is the problem. So you basically – the oil industry hires one of their geological experts to explain the groundwater is not polluted. Yes. When it is polluted. Yes. And he comes out and he says there's no pollution in the groundwater and then these people go he's an expert but he's an expert for the oil company

well and this is what that's what they don't get this is what mr garagos has taught you thoroughly oh yeah you can get experts to say just about anything it can sound pretty good hire an expert that said i was seven foot tall and he'd sit there with a straight face like that's that's how it works so these are the times we're living in now the question is is how come people don't realize it then by the way when the evidence it comes in in dribs and drabs, but it comes in. Yeah. You know what I mean? Yeah.

It's sort of – I want to drill into this deep. We should look at hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The evidence for everything kind of trickles in. Yes. Little bites at a time. Stuff's still trickling. You know what I mean?

Oh, yeah. And people are still clinging to crazy ideas. Stuff trickles. with vehemence. Well, the CIA, the FBI, and Hunter Biden's laptop stuff has been a trickling, a steady, but a steady trickle, which has come in, right? Now,

New York Times and Adam Schiff and all the people that talked about Russian collusion for three years, now they shift into a different gear, which is, oh, this doesn't mean anything. There's nothing to see here. It doesn't prove anything. There's no connection to Joe Biden, you know, blah, blah, blah.

So what are they doing now? Well, what they're doing is they're now protecting themselves from lying. As I've said, when you lie and you know you're lying, you have to protect yourself. So here's what I'm saying. You become defensive. You become defensive because you know you're lying. So you have to come,

usually when people do that in interpersonal settings, they come up with more lies. They have to kind of pile, they have to double down, they have to keep going. So what, because if you really just think about it from a psychological standpoint,

you know, we'll get back to cheating on your wife. You know, if someone, you know, if you said, I got to pick so-and-so up from the airport, I'm not going to be around for a couple hours.

And it was just a mistake. The flight was delayed or you misinterpreted the time they were landing. They were coming the next day at noon or whatever it is. It's fine. And then you come back and you go, I was wrong. You know, she goes, where were you for half a day on Wednesday? And you go, oh, I was wrong. I had the flight screwed up, I was wrong. You know, she goes, where were you for half a day on Wednesday? And you go, oh, I was wrong. I had the flight screwed up and I was wrong.

But if you spent that time in a motel with your girlfriend, then you start talking about I got a flat tire on the way back. And, you know, it continues. So if the New York Times wasn't lying in the first place and Adam Schiff wasn't lying in the first place and all these characters weren't lying in the first place, then they would say, I got it wrong. Right. Although I would argue there's kind of a mix in there of people that are so fucking hubristic that they would never admit that. I get it. But if you were just.

I agree with your point. You're just a newspaper and you're following your leads. You're doing your due diligence and you're reporting the news and you're breaking news. Yeah. And you come out and talk about Russian collusion for three years and it turns out it never happened. Yeah. about Russian collusion for three years, and it turns out it never happened.

Then what you do as a paper that reports things is you then report that there's a mountain of evidence that's coming in, and it says there was no Russian collusion. You don't continue to cover. Instead, there's nothing here. Right. So they were lying. Now, the question is, is why don't people know they were lying? That's the bigger question. Right. So and also, how long how long can something be repeated and never happen? You know, I always use this as an example.

I always use this as an example, but when I was in high school, they were talking about killer bees coming over here from Mexico and coming through Texas and attacking farmers and stuff. And, you know, I thought about it for five minutes. Like, killer bees. That sounds bad. I don't think about it anymore because they never showed up. They would try to scare you every three years if some killer bees were blowing into town. SNL had a sketch called Killer Bees. Do you remember that? I know, but that's funny.

That's good. John Belushi was a killer bee. Oh, right. Don't you remember that? I do remember him in the bee outfit, yes. Yeah, but it never happened. What I'm saying is, faithful CNN watcher, how many times can you watch Adam Schiff come on to a CNN program and talk about something he knows something about?

Right. He you know, he's on the Intel committee. He has he's privy to information that shows that there's Russian collusion on the election of Donald Trump. OK, but how many times can you hear him say that? Over how many years? And then when nothing happens. And it turns out to be untrue.

How long can you go along with that? That's my... I don't get that part. That's my thing. And there's a big COVID version of that. Like how many times could CNN tell you it was going to be a super spreader event and nothing happens?

Right. And how long do you have to wear a talisman over your mouth that so clearly doesn't work? Well, it doesn't work. And what are you doing? I don't know. So I wanted to dissect the chemical ivermectin just a little bit. Just see if we can learn something by sort of breaking down what happened there. So here's a medication much like hydroxychloroquine

I've prescribed many times. Hydroxychloroquine I've prescribed for years and just never – it's in fact such a safe medicine. It's the only medicine I know of that – I think I mentioned this before. I did my internal medicine board reviews, and the rheumatology board made a point of saying, look, if you're a lupus patient, saranhydroxychloroquine, it is so safe. You can leave them on it during pregnancy. I've never, ever seen a medication that's just leave it on. Don't even think about it. Zero probability of risk.

So there's hydroxychloroquine. Ivermectin, similarly prescribed a million times. If you come to this country as a refugee, you are required by the CDC to go on a week of ivermectin. Everybody who comes into this country, it's on the CDC website. You take a week of ivermectin. The guy that invented it won the Nobel Prize because worms are a major issue in this country. They discovered it has some antiviral activity in the Petri dish.

So people started going, we got to do something for our patients. Maybe we can use this stuff. Let's try it. And some people advocated for it. And people reported varying degrees of success with it. There was a lot of anecdotal stuff. The systematic studies didn't really show very much utility, if at all, and certainly no adverse events from it. But based on the very initial studies, like one study, the government said, no, do not take this.

Now, the question is, first, why did the government have such a strong opinion about this medication? Why did the government have such a strong opinion about this medication? Was there something adulterating from the get-go the government's position on this medication? For me, who just looks at patterns and sort of landscapes from a distance, the fact that CNN was against any medication, they took a hard stance against any protocol of anything, zinc or ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. Just the fact that they would have a knee-jerk reaction to be against anything was super suspicious. So what would be in the government's interest to not let there be anything?

Well, at the beginning, it was just any it was just Trump derangement syndrome. And then at some point, I think that they wanted you to get vaccinated and not try anything else. Well, guess what? I don't know that this is true, but here's an interesting given how corrupt things to seem to be, I've come to understand. Here's an interesting observation. In order to get an EUA, an emergency use authorization, there has to be no other available treatments. Right. So if they had actually shown some utility on any of these treatments, they could not have gotten the EUA for the vaccines.

Yeah, this is where Robert Kennedy Jr. comes in. And look, everybody. Now, I don't know if that's a motivating factor or not, but given how messed up their relationships are, their motivational sources are, it makes me worried. I think everything is on the table at this particular point. Isn't that crazy? Did you ever imagine you'd be thinking that about your government? No. Once the CIA and the FBI is adulterated, and it is, and it was, I mean, there are texts going back and forth. We're not going to let Trump get elected.

I'll see to it. They're running cover for the Bidens. It is extraordinarily clear what they were doing at this point. Insurrection. Well, it was a lot duration, at least. Well, let's let's put it to you this way. Can I say this? What the CIA and the FBI and the Hillary Clinton campaign did had a much greater effect on the election than January 6th. Of course.

Much greater. January 6th was already over. Well, what I'm saying is the overthrow or the will of the people. No, no. It was a documented tampering with the election. Documented. So at least we know that. Now, nobody cares and nobody on the left reports it. Folks that never stopped talking about freedom and fair elections are not interested in this, but it had a huge effect on the outcome of the election.

And that's what I find. So this is the same thing as it's just the flip side of taking the don't use ivermectin and just running with it. Like this is thus saith the Lord. When did anything handed from the federal government become something you didn't at least question or think about or talk about? When did it become thus saith the Lord? Right? Well, that's comedy. It is comedy because the press and I always thought the liberals were about challenging that stuff.

Yeah. that stuff yeah the comedy is that the left is pro-cia pro-fbi pro-big government and anti whistleblower even though they made the whistleblower laws yes and and never stop talking about the integrity of the whistleblower and how they need to be protected. Yeah. So they have just flipped 100% on almost every subject. So, and so when I look at that. Which is comical. It's comical. Which is also kind of funny. It's a funny kind of experiment.

Like, it'd be like if you said to AOC, what do you like better, a nectarine or an apricot? And she went, oh, I love nectarines. I don't even like apricots. I hate apricots. I love nectarines. And then you go, oh, that's interesting because Trump loves nectarines, too. And you go, you know what? Give me that apricot.

Like you literally force them to just do the opposite of everything because of Trump or DeSantis or, you know, whatever. It's comical. You force them to get up there and be cheerleaders for the CIA and the FBI. Now, some of you people listening may not be old enough, but the CIA and the FBI, that was J. Edgar Hoover. And that was corruption. And that was lists with Martin Luther King's name on it and wiretappings.

And they were – my mom was as far against the – and they were running guns in Nicaragua and the Sandinistas and Cambodia. I mean, that was big time, covert ops. My mom did not trust the FBI or the CIA as far as she could throw them. And probably for good reason. Yeah. For the same reasons. But now every Democrat is forced to cheer them on. Yeah.

That's awesome. Yeah. It's funny. It's funny that they're forced into these weird pretzel positions. Well, and they don't question where the information comes from. But you've also forced them to talk about nothing but women's rights, and then when a dude suits up and beats them all in a running race, you then have to support the dude who beat all the women

who you do nothing but champion. You've been forced into a weird position. You know what's really interesting? I was talking about weird motivations. You know, it's really interesting. I was talking about weird motivations. I was talking to an attorney who's getting in deep in all these issues also. Much, much of the RFK does a little different focus.

But he was looking at the gain-of-function research and how it was funded and Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance, which is doing – which was sending essentially their work over to China to do gain of function. And I told him, I go, I go, look, I just look at, I try to understand what people are doing. I don't assume evil intent. I just want to understand what this is. And I said, the only thing I could make out of this, that the only reason they would do this and that Fauci would approve it, if he was forced, his hand was forced by the military for some sort of counter espionage. He looked at me and went, stay tuned. Oh, really? Yeah. And I said, uh-oh, here we go.

He was like, you're on track. I went, oh, shit. So it's hard to even tell where the adulterating forces are. Listen, it's easy. It's easy, though, in one sense that anybody who anyone who was attempted to be shouted down and or silenced or deplatformed, just assume they're right about it. Yes. At the beginning. That's what I've made. I've now done a whole streaming series.

Or anyone who gets called a racist. Just assume they're right. Doctor.tv you can go to and see all the people Adam is talking about. I've interviewed all of them. And some of them were a little sideways. But I learned something from every single one of them. Every one. I got a little piece of data that was truthful and interesting.

And you've not heard it. Right. My favorite, though, is the biggest example of how adulterated everything was, is the social distancing so-called. I do this thing with Kelly Victory, and she's an infectious disease person. It was a public health person. And she kept saying, you cannot find the word social distancing in my textbooks. It doesn't exist. Now, it came in a couple of papers during the pandemic preparedness, when the Pandemic Inc. developed, it came in a couple of papers during the pandemic preparedness, when the Pandemic Inc. developed, this

sort of giant international organizations whose people's career were about responding to pandemics. No wonder they kicked into gear. They've been waiting for it like a loaded gun. Any event, train of thought here. Social distancing. We spoke to a guy named Paul Alexander who was in all the conversations in the White House with the then head of the CDC about what they were going to do to try to mitigation, you know, sort of non-pharmacological mitigations.

And they were in a room and they're like, well, we got maybe social distancing. And they need to be really 60 feet if it's going to be an aerosolized virus. I mean, it's got to be at least 30 feet. But maybe should we do three feet? Oh, six feet. Yeah, we can get them to do six feet. Let's do six feet. Let's tell them that'll save lives.

Just six feet. That's it. Six feet saves lives. Zero evidence. Never has been evidence. Never was evidence. You know the example I'd always use with you, Drew? And this will help everyone who's attempting to think.

Yes. is used with you, Drew, and this will help everyone who's attempting to think. When stuff doesn't work or doesn't mean anything. I mean, look, it's exactly my Fauci, Jim Jordan, hey, what about Black Lives Matter marches? I don't have any thoughts. All right. Okay. We're done listening to him. All right.

I would tell you all the time and i would still tell this um it's so funny you find this in the medical profession a lot where they go like no solids or liquids after midnight oh right that was always a thing and they'd go why oh you have your dental surgery at 8 a.m. on Monday, so nothing after midnight. And then five years later, there'd be another thing scheduled for 3 in the afternoon. They go, no food, no solids, no liquid after midnight. Right. So the 6 a.m. procedure and the 3 p.m. procedure get the same instructions? Nothing after midnight.

Nothing after midnight. And I'd go, why not? They go, well, they don't want you in there with a full stomach or whatever. And I'd go, why not? They go, well, they don't want you in there with a full stomach or whatever. I go, listen, there's a big chasm between an 8 a.m. procedure and a 3 p.m. procedure. That's seven hours in there. So according to my calculations, if midnight is cut off for an 8 a.m. procedure, that gives you eight hours. Thus, I can eat or drink up until seven in the morning the following day.

By that math. And then everyone would just go, no, no, it's nothing after midnight. Yeah. And I'd go, yeah, but you're not doing the math? And the answer is, no, we're not. And the answer is, we don't want you eating anything. And we don't, by the way, we don't care if you're hungry in the morning. From what we would like you to do is this.

You know where that comes from? It comes from nursing. And nursing is a military system. Right. Just military. That's it. And people don't understand that the origins of nursing and nursing policies are military. But apply that to masking up in between bites, people.

Then the mask is rendered useless. It was useless when you were wearing it. It's now beyond useless. Yeah, beyond useless. All right. Solana Beach coming up. And that's going to be in San Diego June 4th. And you can check it out on pay-per-view.

That's a cheap ticket. Live one.com slash Corolla live. I'm going to be performing there with Brad Williams and, uh, it'll be fun. Uh, you can go to amcrow.com for all the live shows. What do you got,

Drew? As I said, Dr. Drew dot TV for the streaming shows. You can watch all those interesting conversations there and dr. Dot com for the pods. So until next time, I don't Crow for Dr. Say and Mahalo.