E93: Twitter whistleblower, cloud security vulnerabilities, student debt forgiveness & more
01:23:54 Share

I want to play the theme music for this episode.

OK. Hello, the second here go.

If you let the indian government .

plans spice in your office, give a little whistle. If you have too many, but you can come up with geometric, mda, use, F, D, A, use. When you want to incentives staff to not look at the box given bonuses best on based on towns. Always let your bone is be your guide. When you're on the board and you see metrics that you don't like, turn a blind day china black 一下。

一下 just got .

to .

insure everybody .

is getting sainted。

I can. This is jay. Ala is best.

我知道。 Rainman give.

We sort to the fans and .

they got lazy.

This is gonna be the story of twenty twenty two for sure, right before I guess the big case between elon and twitter is about to happen. I guess in october, some point a twitter whistle blower has come forward and dropped a nuke into the middle of what .

was basically the story of the .

year in business. I think the former head of security hired by jack himself and incredibly well respected Peter mudge that co uh he's refer to as mudge one of the most respective people in uh, the security industry again recruit by jack and twenty twenty after a team of hackers, you may remember, took over all these verified accounts, obama bed and and any an account as well.

And he was head of security until january this year, eight months ago, and he claims through explosive document so a huge document dump that twitter exact ignored, these twitter executives ignored multiple security vulnerability. Is now, why is this important? Well, obviously, if obama bite in and other heads of state have their twitter handles, they could say something that could causing international incident.

And that's actually happened with hacks before. He also says they were not following even the most basic security protocols like zipcar ring staff access to core software. Of course, all this comes after there were a sauty infiltrated spice, essentially inside of twitter.

I mean, the list of things here that he is alleging is truly colossal. He dubbed these documents to the department of justice, the esc congress and um the washington post. He alleges that the vulnerability make twitter extremely vulnerable to foreign spies, hacking and disinformation campaigns and perhaps most importantly to the acquisition. The plane also adds that twitter's policy to our fake accounts incentives quote deliberate ignorance by undercounting spam accounts and giving bonuses to exec for increasing users but not finding bots. Sex your thoughts I mean, on this, we talked about your sapa whenever that was i'm position .

so you're having a deposition .

yeah they .

they to develop me too, which is kind of amazing. But let's just save that because I think this is more, more news worthy. So you're call on a previous show, we talked about this idea that if twitter sues elon, 这个 我 after the kill fear to go after damages， the question will very rapidly become about whether twitter is a about problem and we'll discover reveal documents that show that twitter executives new or should have known there was a problem.

And so I said, you know, the question was very rapidly become, what did twitter executions know and when did they know IT? Now I couldn't have predicted that this whistle blow will come forward. But what he's basically saying is not only is there a big problem, there is a cover up of the boat problem.

He's accusing the company of positively nick oni tactics here. So just to build on what you said, jl, he said that twitter executive don't have the resources to fill to see the true number of box on the platform and their executes are distinctly tivy to count them properly because doing so would negatively affect their bonuses. So I didn't know that their bonuses were in any way tied to to this pot issue.

So he's basically making the options in clear argument that is hard to get a man to understand a problem when his salary depends on not understanding IT. So that's part of what he saying. He's also saying that he he's accusing twitter CEO prog a algol directly less to say these are allegations, right? These not proven yet.

But here's what he's saying. Basically he's saying that parag in his little tennis repeatedly discouraged from providing a full accounting of twitter security plumps to the company's ported directors, they basically prevented him from producing a written report. He also says that the company's execute ordered him to knowingly present Cherry pick to misrepresented data to create the false perception of progress on urgent order security issues. He also alleges that they went behind his back to have a third party consulting firm, uh, their report scrubs to hide the tooks said in the company's problems and as a result of this, he's basically saying that twitter executives committed security law violations by making material representations of emissions c filings and this is what got elon to to sort of commemorate echos revelations with one with trademark means, which was the mean of the many cricket singing, give a little whistle from the film pennock o.

which I think becomes a called up here.

which just became our cold open. So yeah, look, these are very serious allegations. They're not proven yet. He's working with the same group who worked with Francis hogan, and I certainly question some of the things he was saying.

So i'm not going to automatically accept on faith everything he's saying, but I think by the same token, because he is working with groups that back Francis hogan, who was very much not on the free speech side of this debate, i'd also think you can't just accuse this guy being an elon study. This guy is a respected cyber security authority. He's one of these like White hat hackers.

He's somebody was an early, literally, if you to ask before all of this, before he worked at twitter, like, who would you want to achieve? Security officer, you know, give me a short list. Head beyond IT for any company.

One of the most respective people who points out RNA, ables and china or burger have a question about corporate governance and what seems to be a dis functional relationship. Here you have jack, hire somebody to solve the security problems. Then when presenting to the board, he's not allowed to tell the truth and make the board has given incentives to the management team.

He's a top five, top seven member of the management team. So what's going on here with this? This function where he's hired to tell the truth to fix the problems, the board is turning a blind die to IT. And maybe the management team is not giving the board the data they need to make Better decisions. Who what had a game theory this .

i'm not sure that it's you can come to all those conclusions.

you not coming to the inclusion. And just my mind is wondering of how this I read this function comes up.

I read parts of of this whistle blower. I can't claim to have read at all. IT actually isn't super supportive of violence cases.

The most problematic thing that he points out is the following. And this is a quote from his complaint. He said, twitter, quote, already doing a decent job excluding span bots, another worthless accounts from its calculation of m down.

At best, he is alleging that witter omitted details, not that had lied directly. So if you kind of take that, I think what he's really pointing his sights on are, as you said, disclosure that have nothing to do with the spam issue but have a lot to do with security. And that is something that typically in a in a public company board filters up through the audit committee.

Typically that gets a read out right once a quarter from the from the right people who talk about here's a cyber security vulnerabilities. And then there's a result from that committee chair to the board. And then those are noted um in your. In in your quality reports that the secretary right now.

So I think part of why this guy may not have had the audience is IT was also written that he was a pretty terrible manager and there were hundreds of people in his organization who are just kind of running here and there and so you know you guys have all been in the situation where we hire somebody who is an exceptional performer and then we miscast that person by putting them in a point of leadership and and being a team manager versus um you know uh a single kind of like a product or engineering expert and IT seems that there is a part of that a place as well. Which decade the ability for management to actually have enough faith and trust in the sky to put him in front of the board. So and that's all that's just come up the last few days.

So I don't know my my reading of the whistle or claim is really that this is the kind of thing that companies like facebook and google and others have had issues with the ftc in the past. They typically settled those claims. They pay a fine snap, but those things take three to five years to play out.

So I suspect that this body of content more leads to that outcome. Then is a smoking gun that really helps you on. In fact, this the the fact that he's actually affirmatively stating that their calculation of edw is actually pretty decent, actually hurts the claim that he an is making.

I I don't know, I agree with that actually.

Okay, thanks.

So I I agree with with tomato that the claims he's making a far broader than the body issue and for broader then the issues that ella's ray. So I agree you about that trouth. However, I don't agree that what he's saying isn't specifically helpful to elon's case.

So what he said is, so this is from a CNN article. He said zo's disclosure argues that by reporting bots only as a percentage of M, W, rather as a percentage of total member accounts on the platform, twitter obscure the true scale of fake and spain accounts on the service, a move echo alleges is deliberately misleading. And then I see.

same here, sex. Just to do the math, the denominator matters here. If the denominator was all accounts, the percentage of boats would be much higher. If the denominator is monthly, m dws, wherever they created IT, would be a much lower denominator. And the percent you change.

I think, just reporting, reporting in terms of that is alleging that something on the table seen and broke the story, along with one other news swing post. Basically, what happened to this guy got fired in january, started working with these whistle blower or lawyers that puts together a bigger report. And then that report got the washing post and CNN as well as people on capital hill.

So that's kind of what happened here. So CNN goes on to say, zo says he began asking about the prevalence of boat accounts on twitter in early twenty twenty one. I was told by twitters had a cite integrity that the company didn't know how many total boats on its platform.

He alleges that he came away from conversations with the integrity team, with the understanding that the company he had, quote, no uptight to properly measure the prevalence of box. And quote, in part because if the true number became public, IT could harm the company's value and image. So this is again the a secure problem that there.

I mean, mini m. David, you have agree, this guy is basically speaking on both sides of his mouth. I mean, these are build direct quotes from his complaint. So his complaint i'd best is very confusing and a little schizophrenic.

Well, it's also just coming out. So there will be more data than that comes .

from yeah but I not saying that I believe him, disbelieve in, but i'm saying you if you look at the quotes, quotes the smoking gun, one would want if one was trying to look. I think we have to remember the the lawsuit has really nothing to do with this problem that put the lawsuit really boils down to one very specific clause, which is the pinnacle question at hand, which is there is a specific performance clause that elon signed up to right, which you know his lawyers could have struck out and either chose not to or you couldn't get the deal done without. And that specific performance clause says that twitter can force him to close at fifty four twenty a share.

And I think the the issue at hand at the deliver business court is going to be that because witters going to point to all of these, you know gotcha and disclaimers that they have around this body issue as their cover story. And I think that really, you know, this kind of again builds more and more momentum in my mind that the most likely outcome here is a settlement where you have to pay the economic difference between where the stock is now and fifty four twenty, which is more than a billion dollars, or you close at some number below fifty four dollars and twenty cents a share. And I think that, that is like, you know, if you had to be a betting person, that's probably and if you look at them the way the stock is traded and if you also look at the way the options market trade, that's what people are assuming that there's a seven to ten billion dollars swing. And if you compute that into the stock Price, you kind of get into the fifty one dollars to share kind of an acquired Price. Again, not saying that, that is right or should be right, that just sort of what the market .

says freeburg what you are take on this, you find this person credible, highly credible. And how damaging do you think this is to twitter, independent of the, uh, deal to sell the company?

I think there's two tests. One is the materiality of what we've reported. So and really that comes down to just the um they end out reported number number.

So if there really is some statement knowing the statement based on body saying that's in a few other one is the the duty of care responsibility of the board, meaning um did the information that he's providing actually find its way to the board if IT was blocked by management, you know it's it's a judgment call on you know whether or not management was trying to deceive or whether they were try to investigate, identify more. If the information was brought to the board and the board did not act, then there's an issue with the boards meeting their duty of care responsibility. As for the sharing of the company and that's really .

worth he did pitch the board at some point or explain more.

but not in right. If what he's claiming did not make its weight the board, then it's hard to say that the board was in of their duty of care if the C E O and if if the C E O blocked IT, then there's a question on what then the C E O can be fired right then. Then there's a good case when the CEO to be fired.

I see. So I see, you know, probably one of three scenario here. One is, you know, nothing happens. Who is that? The board is actually violating that, which I doubt knowing this board, I mean, knowing he's on this board, it's probably more likely that the CEO or some executives that block this information from getting to the board, the board then has to act now that they have the information and they say, hey, you block this information from getting to us, we need to act and maybe they removed the the leadership that was responsible for that sex.

In terms of both government, how much has to do with the fact that nobody own on the board any significant equity in?

When is that true?

Yeah I mean, I think, I mean on the board was the highest right he on two a three person match.

it's silly on jack on silver like he guns on the board I mean, are on on the .

board .

right? Board low.

To be clear, zo doesn't seem to be pointing his finger at the board. In fact, quite the contrary, he says he wasn't allowed to present to the board in the amount of detail that he wanted in written form like he wanted. So in a way, he seems bees honoring the board.

He is pointing the finger at twitter executives. And the timing here is instructive. Basically, what happened is he was hired by jack dorsey backin.

Jack was CEO. This is an, I think, november of twenty, twenty. And at that time, jack had zao report directly to him.

He actually took responsibility away from these issues, away from prague, who was running engineering, gave IT his zo. Sako reported directly to him. Now, fast forward, about a year later, and jack steps down, frogs become CEO. And then two months later, prog fires zaccone.

And is in that time period that couple of months were eeco alleges that he's prevented from providing a written report to the ford that twitter executives instruct him to Cherry pick, that they basically um try to amend the third party consulting from report in order to make the situation look Better in order to hide hide the extent of the company's problems. So I think I think the allegations as far as they go, are mainly upon for twitter executive and luck. I don't know the truth.

These things are just allegations. I think this guy is a respected a White hat hacker in the cyber community at the same time. I don't know maybe is about manager or maybe are the reasons be .

moving him be yeah and you can ignore the fact .

that under whistle blow a laws, if twitter gets fined as a result of these allegations, he could get thirty percent. So listen, we don't know the truth of that. However, I do think that this whole thing is a windfall for elon's case because IT does seem to provide substantiation for elan's assertion that there's a boat problem.

Twitter now cover up.

cover up about exactly what up that would basically potentially invalidate the company's S, C. C. Disclosures on the subject. Yeah, now there's A S A tion of law and a tion of with regard to ella's case.

So in other words, at the end of the day, what they are going be litigating in delaware is a contract dispute. Is elon contractually required to close? And elan's assertion is i'm not because this bd issue. So there's a question of law where if everything elon says about the boss is true, is he required to close? And I don't know what the legal ratifications that are, but I think with respect to the question of fact, which is, is elon right about the board issue, there's no question that this is a bomb shell that can only help this case.

By the way, to your point, the the the the stock was kind of pricing in a seventy percent likelihood of this thing closing. If you looked at just how all this stuff was trading and I went down to sixty percent once that was blower report came out and and people had a chance to digest IT. so. To your point, to definitely move the goal post a little bit towards toward in islands favor.

There is, you know, an important thing to point out here. What is sex touched on? There is a whistle blow program that was created in twenty twelve and by the c as part of dot Frank, I believe, or in part of the evolution of dot Frank.

And you've given out now over one billion dollars in whistle blower or awards. These awards come out of the S. C. fine. You're often wonder ahit get the you fine who got IT? Well, turns out whistleblower's now are massively incentive because if you're a whistle blower, it's a career .

ending partisan. You're not seeing the other part, which is when you go to these organizations to now help develop a whistleblower lawsuit, what is actually happened is you're not whistle blowing moral ethical breaches. You're whistle blowing things that can come back to an issue that the S, C, C and the F T C can make an issue up because that's where the financial finds come and that's where the remnant and motivation. So for example, like you could have a company that's illegally, I don't know, killing dogs to horrible, but you know the whistleblower claim will be about, you know, they are disclosures in a .

ten cay are how many dogs they killed a to the S, C, C, right? In this case, how many? What did they tell the ah that's why he gave this to the S C C D O J.

The other interesting wrinkle here and by the way, there's been to the whistle blower program, did a unch of reading on at this week. They also don't disclose who the whistle blowers are. So this is in a case where you have to come out like for insisted or or mudded you.

A lot of these awards are being given quietly. So and there's been two rewards over a hundred million dollars. And they don't say what the award was based on, you know who did, who, who the whistle blairites or who the company is.

They've been doing this in a very healthy way. And IT seems to be highly a effective. The big drivers, they with Frances compared to this one, is Francis just a pm, you know, who was not a top five, ten employee, not even close to that.

This is a top five, top seven employee who had access to the board and was giving reports to the board at least or early. The final point on this, I would like to get everybody's commentary on if IT is true that they essentially were forced twitter was forced by the indian government to put a government agent on the payroll. I think agent mean spy. How explosive is that?

And then how many other country? That, to me, is the most important thing that is not getting nearly enough cover. It's like you had a government come to a company that's based in amErica and it's not it's not the united states government. They did IT and basically said we need you to place in agent of our intelligence services inside of your company. And IT seems like they were like, okay, where do you want them .

to sit now? Sacks, if that's true, would I wonder if they would be required to tell the C I A. And our government, their arms being twisted like this seems .

unprecedented to me.

And if they didn't, I have you again.

This is what I think the big ger you should next one, which is, if they did at the twitter, which is kinds small, what about the big honeypot of using google, apple, google, facebook, tiktok, snap? And what about countries outside of just india? What about the united states? No, I mean, what about the ted states?

Well, yeah, we have access to the stuff through the courts.

The process is you go to court and you get to warn. Not that is a high bar. A prosecutor has to go show proper calls and get a search, warn, presented to the company, and then they turned over the data. This you you're right. It's explosive in the sense that what you're saying is that these government agents, this is what zao s as a corners time magazine, the purported agents had direct, unsupervised access to internal information.

which I think means dms, when the accounts created, who owned which account, the I P addresses, that's what i'm guessing they had access to, which is you do not want to trust.

guessing, guessing in d guessing. What IT doesn't mean is the twitter menu in the cafeteria.

Yeah, no, no, not that. I mean, not that anybody is spent to that cafeteria and three years anyway. I mean, there's literally forty seven dollars all they .

had direct unsupervised access to the salad bar.

I think I think you can basically, I think you you have to make an assumption that if if what should governments are doing this to one company? They're doing this to all companies. Yeah, but you would think people would put up a fight .

or apple would put up a fight.

but think they want to china .

the opposite. Do you think they do the opposite? Well.

actually what they did, what there's actually even sneaker a way to do IT. What apple did when they went there is they said we are not providing cloud services in china, uh, but all the cloud sources are provided by this third party company.

So then they could have plausible. And now this is about keeping example of how this thing do you think back? Uh, foreign governments have put pressure on the largest american tech companies to place agents. And do you think they exist there?

They've defined put to the first part. We've defined put pressure. We see that obviously. Then the question is would would the would apple or google do this and not inform the government or not put up a fight? I don't know.

I think it's fair to say that the the senate intelligence committee is going to hold a twitter and have like a close door meeting. And then the question is, will they hall everybody else? And is is I think is what is an important question is, is this a dairy girl kind of business tactic at the highest levels of every company? And we just don't know IT and are typically not read into IT, and we would never know in the absence .

of the best thing. And my question is, do does our government know that our companies are acquisition to these governments?

Well, that's been a problem for a long time, actually. So there was an upbeat by a microsoft of exactly talking about this a number of months back where the argument was, well, the government has to go get a search, warn to get your data from these companies. But these companies don't put up a fight like they don't. They don't chAllenge the warn at all.

why? Because they don't have an interest. They have an interest in being CoOperative, right?

The article is basically saying that if your the subject of a search warned, meaning they're going to google to get information about Jason, the government have a duty to inform Jason so that your lawyers can go chAllenge IT. And that was the legal change that needs to be made. We had this conversation, I think, last year.

That is a change that should be made because in the old days when the government would present you with a search ward, they have to go to you because all of your documents, where in your possession they will be at your office to be at your house, so they would come knocking in your door, give you the search, warn you could give IT to your lawyer, they could chAllenge IT. That doesn't happen anymore. Now the government is goes that as a search of one to a big tech company because your data in the cloud. But their argument is, you don't know that day, the big tech company does. The big tech company has no incentive to fight the government this access solve your data and you even know investigates .

not an argument you agree to that when you sign their terms of service.

The current situation is bad enough that essentially you have very little protection and rights over your data. But what's happening here, the the allegation is even worse, which is that government Operators are working worth the company in a way that provides some access without .

them even getting a search words on their x girlfriend, brother in law, whoever they can just spy on a celebrity, do whatever they want.

I always assumed that this was happening covertly, meaning, like, look, if you'll attack company in, you have a very bright, I don't know, P H D. On a VISA, and you hire that person to work in computer vision, i'm just making this up. How do you really know that that person is not an agent uh, of another foreign and obviously overwhelming majority are not. But once you have hundreds or thousands of people you know that that you brought into your company, all IT takes is one person.

You know, for example, we just saw, I think in apple there were two people that were just recently arrested for stealing all of apple's autonomous um otto data and documents and design and schematics and all of that stuff and one of the guys was um arrested right before he was trying to fly back to china and so somehow they figured that out they were able to get him. He was not A U. S.

citizen. But then another guy that did IT was a us. Citizen, but both were of chinese origin IT just goes to show you that the covert nature of industrial espionage is probably at an all time high, right? And I think that's that's a risk that every company has to manage and do the best that they can.

But this is different. This is an overripe is and saying, open the door, give a badge. We're coming in. And this is why I think you have to deal with this case very delicately in in a different way.

Yeah um and for people don't know, google does what's called the transparency report. Twitter also has one. So they they do try to put out bike category search war in sopp as eta, exactly how many warrants they're getting.

And the the tech companies are at least trying to be transparent about IT to the extent they can. But this is going to lead to a lot of people moving off of the cloud I predict we're seeing. In fact, apple is now storing your data and a lot of your privacy information locally on your phone.

And if it's scripted, they can't handed over. As we saw with the um the terror shooting was a ton berna dino uh where they couldn't unlock the phone and they went to the israeli spy company to do IT. So you know I think the company here, at least in the next states, wanted defend their users. But this is could be make people rethink the cloud. And i've seen a couple of pitches from start.

I think you're confusing issues. Of course they're onna try to defend their in the united states, but what if you have if you let somebody in to a different country? And that is not as if not as if vers are not accessible. Yeah.

i'm not confusing this. I abstracted by the united states here for a minute. I do they go to see people buy many servers to put or rent their own cloud services that are encysted and impossible to unlock. And so look for that trend to come or more companies to encrypted and say we don't have the keys to m up.

So is IT a crazy that like, you know, we spent the last twenty years pushing the cloud. And the thing that may actually unwind the cloud is just the other lack of privacy that we all have. Now i've just like we've just created these massive ve honeypot where you know, any state or non state actor can essentially just have an incredibly detailed understanding of who you are now and why, because we weren't willing to pay five box amount for storage, everything needed to be free.

Isn't part isn't this part of the a philosophy behind decentralized services that you know this trip yeah I mean, I I know like using the term, but just the central line services where the data doesn't sit on some centralized enterprise controlled servers but the data is distributed either on a chain or in your phone in some way. Um you know your identity, your information, your content uh isn't uh isn't centrally controlled.

And that that fundamental principle may actually come to kind of bear over the next couple of years and decades that that model is that, that models more appropriate for us, for me and therefore, the services that are built that way are going to in the market. The chAllenge is ultimately, how do you finance those? Because those services, right? I mean.

they don't have as much of an account of the center. You have to pay for them ten dollars a month for your privacy.

Summer are doing, if I use the brave brothers in VPN. And these are becoming a major category you hear on podcast advertising all the time. Duck, duck.

go bray. V P S, R P S. Are aren't st for hackers anymore? There like real getting up.

something that I think that's really important, which is that you know in over the last twenty years, for all of us, we've been building these products on the internet. We've actually done a little bit of a disservice because we've basically created these expectations of consumer surplus, and we've never given people true sets of traders.

We ve always said, oh, you'll get more and it's essentially free because we're back into an advertising model that, that supports us being able to give you more and more for free. But IT turns out that IT has some real consequences. And I do think that not enough of us actually understand why privacy is important.

But when you start to hear these examples and they'll be important to see what what the true details of the twitter situation are, I think that the penguin starts to swing in the other direction where we say, okay, you know what? I'll eat out at tripoli one night a week glass. And instead i'm going to locate that money to making sure that I have, you know, some amount of privacy.

You can do IT for twenty five weeks a month, two or three hundred boxy year, which is a big number for you know maybe the average joe, but it's being packaged and bungled right now. So you're seeing the VP s the anonymous search engines in the browsers all starting to bundle. They're bungling a set, a sweet of services.

And so I think this is upon us now and consumers get IT and they want to protect their privacy. So an apple has said this is gone to be our reason for you to choose our cloud is that we're going to put the local settings. We're going to put your data on your phone and cypher IT.

We don't have access to IT use use apple for this reason. Of course, there are also building a multibillion dollar ad business at the same time in apple news and their ap sore. So there's that.

I guess we should move on here. We'll see what happens with this other big news story that people are talking about this week. And we talked about, I guess, last year was student loan debt relief.

Interestingly, about eighty five dehaze before the mid terms, joe biden has decided to unattended, give ten to twenty k of dead relief to people who have student loans you have to have under one hundred twenty five k in usually income as an individual to fifty as a household. And the student loan pause program, which happened to encode IT, has been extended to the end this year. I'm natural. why? What about they?

They explained why apparently IT takes four months for them to turn on their written software that runs these loan s service. So kes more it's going to take four months to restart the software that, that calculates your loan baLance and is able to print tibi.

We're in OK anyway. You have to apply for this. And as we know, student loan, a student one that is one point seven five billion ah this is going across this, another three hundred billion. Can't imagine what's going to happen with this. Ten twenty five people buying N, F, T and stocks housing and uga hit the uh.

I guess we're both bluem work that said that look, we we we passed the inflation reduction act we talked about last week. But one of the key pillars of that is that there is a three hundred billion of expected revenues coming in and we essentially turned around and just gave that back um to a very, very small segment of the american population.

Um bloome bergs analysis was that it's gonna create summer between point one and point three percent extra inflation on top of all of that. Um and so you know you really have to ask yourself, like what what was the White house trying to accomplish? I think, number one, they made a campaign promise.

And so you know, I think biden needed to make sure that he fulfill that. But nobody was really happy, right? The progresses wanted something extreme. Everybody else said, you know, this is not really the right thing to do because IT doesn't really solve the same the the the group cause of what we're dealing with.

You know, if you would have been much Better if you had said he listen um you know we're going to make this stuff expression on bankrupcy that would have been really useful um what happens if you actually try to I don't know you were from the inner city and you work to ask of you became a doctor, you have three hundred thousand and debt, but now you're you know a resident then you make a hundred and twenty six thousand well, now you you know you're kind of S O L here. So there's a lot of folks that they probably wanted wanted to help, that they didn't help. Then there's all the blue color folks are like why why this gave away only to these folks.

Then there are the people that paid off their loans thinking, why did I pay my loans off? Then there is the incentives that he creates for colleges, which is, well, i'm just gonna ep jacking up tuition because if they did that once, they may do IT again. So all of these things, I think are sort of a little bit of you know um is a little bit of a heads catcher.

And then the last thing which we can talk about at the end is I don't think this is what gets people out to vote, and I don't think it's what people care about ultimately at the polls, which if there is a political calculation to make that important. And specifically, when you look at what happened last night in a bunch of these districts, every progressive candidate got absolutely select they lost across the board. And so the progressive talking points around the stuff, fundamentally, when push comes to shove, doesn't work for democratic voters.

And then second is there was a really hotly contested seat, which was a democratic sus A A republican. Uh, I think it's pat ryan versus this guy, mark molan arrow, the republican. He was leading the entire way in this guy, one fifty, one forty nine. And this is a very center down the middle. And so all the signs are like, this may not have been the smartest thing, but I don't think job and had a choice, because he made the promise and he had .

to live up to IT freeburg. Is this a fair thing to do, a sare thing to do, a cynical thing to do to buy votes where where do you fall .

down on the session is absolutely moronic. I think that the fact that eight million households are eligible for this relief and ten to twenty thousand dollars is relief, uh, is provided to A A minority of americans, is, uh, exactly what tomato said, which is kind of distorted politics at its worst there. Uh, this is a three hundred billion dollar bill to the U. S. taxpayer.

And the ultimate beneficiary of that bill, while we all might want to say to the people that are getting debt relief that taken out these student loans, that money was transferred to somewhere and you know where I was transferred to university and governance and the profit, uh, and the and the pockets of for profit, uh, educational institutions, if there were a free market for education in the united states and the government was not involved in the process of funding and supporting the educational infrastructure in this country, individual citizens would have the right and the obligation to make decisions about whether or not the money that they're spending on tuition actually has a positive oral way for them. By spending ten thousand or a hundred thousand dollars, am I going to make more than that much money back when I graduate? And unfortunately, we've load our citizens y we've load our country into complacency where that decision and that calculus is no longer required because uncle sam is there to give you all the money you want to go to college.

And the hungry, money hungry institutions that are there to educate you are taking that money, putting their own demands in the pockets of their shareholders. And at the end of the day, IT turns out the that decision may not have been the best decision, and we're no longer holding ourselves individually to take responsibility for the decisions that we've made. And we're creating this incentives because of the government programs that have been created by telling people you need to get a higher education, the government is going to a pay ford for you.

And IT doesn't matter if a doesn't doesn't work because at the end of the day, that doesn't work. We're just going to pay you back for you. And and there's a middle class in the united states of amErica that is going to end up paying the tax bill primarily because that's where most tax dollar has come from.

T for the minority of people that made a bad decision, and it's not necessarily their fault. They made bad decision because the infrastructure in the system was set up to tell, go to college, get a good degree, having a good life, you'll make more money. And the, and the reality is that they aren't and that they don't.

They are. Life for many of these degrees has been negative. You make less money than you would have if you are actually in the workforce earning and on the ground experience and progressive your career. You do not need a degree in philosophy or history or german studies to be able to go to be effective in the technology workforce or in the services workforce. And I think that we're seeing that played.

The biggest chAllenge now is if we're going to provide this loan relief and not reform the educational infrastructure and the and the requirements for whether or not an educational system is eligible for support from the federal loan program, we are not actually solving the problem. We are keeping this gravy train running, and we're not actually getting to the root cause of where the money is flowing. And this is exactly what happens.

I will rehash my point that i've made one hundred times at the end of empires. Everyone sees that the money train is leaving the station and everyone jumps and grabs what they can. And that's exactly what's going on.

We think that were origin nation, but we're becoming complacent and this is unfortunate and it's a really sad sign. I think we need to fix this educational infrastructure. We need to make eligibility requirements for whether or not loans or actually going to have a positive our life for students. And an individuals ultimately need to be educated on that and made held accountable to whether or not they're making the right .

decision for himself. Sx, should each american pay a thousand dollars to let these eight million people off the huck? Because that's what this is going to cost?

No, of course not. I think we people said.

I like you. I just gave you the softball.

All soft is good. No, I mean, look, I think this is an issue where all of us are on the same page. I grew with everything that, mom, what freeburg said, I mean, this bill is unfair.

IT rewards relatively well off college grads, over working class people. It's gonna add three hundred billion to the deficit. I mean, jae mentioned should feel like a socket right now because they just spent the three billion of supposed savings that he just agreed to.

I just add its its on constitutional. I mean that the constitution expressly says no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. So I don't understand how biden can even do this by an executive order or I expect to be chAllenged and take into the supreme court and I think is a very good chance that i'll end up like binds.

Other executive voters are ruled on constitutional member. There was the vaccine Mandate he tried to do and there was the eviction mrta um that he tried to do and they're both rolled on constitutional. I think this is a good chance that this will also be ruled on constitutional.

But like like you guys mention, its inflationary. I mean, these are basically steamy checks, which we don't need right now, and it's going to make tuition go up because the more government subsidizes something, the more those providers have an instance to raise the cost. So this is just a jump the shark moment, I think for policy making.

The question is, why are they doing IT? And I think IT really speaks to the nature of the democratic party today, which is the democratic party has shifted from being a blue color, sort of more economically popular party or economically left party, to being a professional class that is college educated, culturally left, more work party. And this is the ultimate ample of that, where the democratic party is basically passing this pay off and give away to their sort of war college graduates at the expense of their blue color.

The blue color are part of their coalition. And, you know, a democratic liberal scientists that I like to read right to share. Just today, he had a blank post called the democrats shifting coalition, where he pointed out that if you look at polling, if you look at the a generics ballot among White college graduates, they favor democrats by twelve points.

Whether the White working class, which is, say, non college voters, they favor republicans by twenty five points. So one of the biggest gaps in the electorate is college versus non college. That is, the fundamental gap is bigger than even you, than any other gap, than racial gaps or anything like that.

This is really the key gap in the electorate. And this is a payoff s to the, basically to the the new foot soldiers of the democratic. Ty, if you think about at the old stereotype of a foot soldier, the democratic party would be a union representative.

They were the ones getting out the vote. That person's been replaced with some of a wall college graduate who joins the democratic social america. And they go out and there are the ones pounding the pavement doing the ballot harvesting. So there's been a real change in what this party is about. I think that's the explanation for why .

they're passing this. Really.

the M A face from zero loans college have taken over .

the democratic part. Well, let me ask you again. Let me ask you guys the question. Yeah when you guys graduated, everyone went to underground. What you want to underground in canada, right?

I have no grade degree .

right now um but when you guys graduated college, what do you think the ratio eighty, twenty and ninety, ten, fifty, fifty hundred, one hundred was the first two years of experience you guys had in the workforce versus um the education acknowledge you got in college how .

pointing force ninety percent .

first I went with just .

school at night, so I was working .

on us at school. I one hundred and zero I I went to school, university waterloo that has a program called cop where you have to alternate school and work IT takes an extra year to graduate, but you end up getting twenty four months of a full time .

work experience.

So and you graduate with a lot last that I graduated with half the dead I would have otherwise.

I mean, you feel the same. I mean, you wanna got a lot degree. That's different.

I mean, luck. I think that I used to be the case that people would go get these degrees and they will take out these loans because there was a perceived R A Y of getting this education. And I think one of the deeper issues we have today is is very unclear what the R Y is.

I mean, what is the return on getting a degree in you know social studies or art history or Frankly, some woke studies at one of these prestigious universities? Their graduate go out. They're not especially qualify for a higher paying job.

And actually, I think one of the really revealing parts of of this executive order is not just a little forgiveness part we haven't really touched on. There's another provision that caps repayment levels. So basically, IT says that the monthly payments on undergraduate loans be limited to five percent of monthly income.

Now who is that? The payoffs? That is the payoff s to the art history major from armors, who ends up being a breasts that starbucks know, or the democratic political Operative who works for the .

dsa gathering votes.

I mean, that is, who is the can I want to hear your responsibility? The airlines got bailed out for trillion dollars, you know cumuli um two thousand and eight financial crisis, seven hundred billion or something to that number. There is a caveat to that, which is we actually made money on that.

Bill read, okay, great. And then number three, hold on. And number three, ah me too. Airlines, banks and then the trump tax break, one point five billion.

So why can't a bunch of students get but three hundred billion is the counter argument. everybody. We don't complain when you know the rich people get baLance outs and the rich corporations and airlines. But now we're certainly complaining about this little pitch here. What's your best response to that freedom in my position?

Summer, former a treasury secretary, the united states had a tweet storm about this and he said, know the student loan issue arises, arouse as passion um here are some observations on some responses. There is no analogy with bank bailout, student loans or grants that cost the government money. The bank bailouts were loans at premium interest in which the government actually turned a profit.

And it's important to think about all government services being infrastructure funding, where you are funding some underlying tubing or mechanism that allows society, the economy to progress versus making up for the dollar mistakes or decisions that were made in the past. I also have issues, not just with this, but with the issues of people buying homes in coastal cities that they get bailed out at the Price of that home, at the fair market Price when a hurricane is because they paid a premium, taking on the risk of a hurricane reflection evenhanded their home. Why should the U.

S. Government, the U. S. Taxpayer, come in and say, you know what, i'm going to reivers you for the full value of your home, which Frankly should have been fifty percent of what you paid for IT because it's sitting on a coast line. And that's a big problem that we generally have is we try and use the government as a system for providing bailouts to make up for past investment mistakes made by individuals and businesses. And I think that there's a very clear distinction that you can make when you decide whether or not a and we use the term bail out anytime we're spending money.

But the reality is, if you're making an investment that has some pay off for economic growth and for people and for this country to progress in some measurable way, that is a good way to assess whether or not that is a reasonable investment versus saying, you know what, uncovering someone else's liability. And when you do that, we're actually burning money and we're putting ourselves deeper in a hole as a nation and making IT harder to do the former to make the infrastructure investments and make the investment that allow us to move forward. And I think that, that's a really good way to clarify these things.

And Frankly, the list of things that people say this is fair, this is not fair yet eta go down that listen, ask yourself that question. Is that a positive or way to progress our country forward? Or is that a bail up for people that had some liability they took on that they can cover? And I think for all those things are unfair.

A really important point. We cannot get caught up in the endless cycle of making up for other people's unfair A M benefits that they got from from this government. Because at the end of the day, that's a road to nowhere.

We will burn through everything we have and everyone will scramble for money. And that the state that we're in right now, where everyone is raising their hand and they're seeing eight hundred billion dollar but bills, six hundred billion dollar bills cover relief, pandemic relief, ppp, one relief. And everyone says, what about me? And at the end of the day, everyone's what about me is going to drive us into an infinite black hole that we will never get out of. And we have to change our mindset and take individual responsibility and recognize the dollars that we're spending have to have an art life for of us as a whole. And this is a really .

dangerous place that were right now. I O i'm .

two model loggy today.

I feel like a very passion. No, no, you doing great. I mean, the fact that you have passion on about something that deo game because of the maybe four cashes going for.

I really bug guide, this stuff really bugs me. I'll be just take on the days. Yeah, I like, do like this stuff just made me feel like.

what do we do IT did you put S, S in your, said je barriers? This is a super food.

right? If you have access in the morning, this is a huge B, M. That's you're just waiting for the wave.

Yeah, yeah.

Let me for sure have two comments. Comment number one is, I think the thing that shows that this could have been Better is that there was completely silent on the ability to expunge your student loans in bankrupcy. The ability to discharge that is the single biggest change you could make to the system to be fair to everybody and introduce a Better .

R Y risk scoring calculation change.

You not explain IT, okay, in all dead markets, right? Whatever you lend money, there is an assumption of risk that you're taking. And that fits on a curve of highly likely to default, zero likelihood of default, and that manifests in a risk scoring.

So psychosis, but in the debt markets, right? And there's these companies that provide that moods and S, M, P, they say you're an investment great dead, you know you're a triple a plus, you're a junk debt s so you you know your triple b minus or whatever. And depending on where you are, you pay different rates.

This is the same in car insurance. It's the same in home insurance. It's the same in health insurance.

But in all of those cases, if you go upside down, you can declare bankrupcy and you can discharge those dots here. We don't have that idea. So if you go bankrupt, whatever reason, this dead will stay with you forever, which is deeply unfair.

Second is, if you actually foot IT and you could allow IT to be discharged, then the companies that provided these loans would be forced to risk score you. And the reason why that would be so powerful is that that would then create the forcing function for universities to actually deliver what they promise. And so who do you think is really against the ability to discharge in bankrupcy? It's the university and the university and dams.

So, you know, if I were progressives, the thing that I would have pushed more than a hand out to a few people, which, by the way, didn't even, you know, really scratch the surface of the debt that they had anyways. And IT also served a piece off everybody else. I would have focused on this bankrupt issue because that is a meaningful, lasting change.

And the second is, why don't you go and actually get a large portion of this money from all these university and dominance? Because the longer that these folks run what is effectively a multitrillion dollar asset management business, they're always going to treat education and the R A while that comes from IT as a second class citizen. okay.

And that is what I think is wrong. And if you were to just fix this one thing and then even the threat of actually confiscating some of the fifty billion dollars that harvard has are the forty nine billion dollars that you timko has, you would start the U. T.

System, as you would start to see the seeds of change where administrators would think to themselves, I have to deliver something of value because these kids are getting loans, they're going to be risk scored. And I don't want to be the person that's like a low end borrowers. R right? I'm not serving junk paper to the market. I want to serve people that are gona go and really drive a huge away.

So then sax, you'd have an limit between the people giving the loan and perhaps the value of the degree. And so you could say, hey, we'll give loans to stem degrees at a different rate uh or a different number of them or a different amount of cash or a different interest rate than we would for I don't know and you're getting a degree in philosophy or like I did psychology, right? Just give a different one based on the outcome and that makes .

total sense to you. yes. Yeah, i've seat for a long time that we should be allowing student dead to be discharged in banker cy, just like any other type of debt, just like credit card debt, just like other types debt to month, right? That would create some risk to the underwriter so that they would have to actually assess whether this person getting that degree would be able to repay the debt.

But you have to asked the question, is that a bugger a feature that they're trying to remove market forces? And I would argue that this is deliberate, that progressives in the democratic ty don't want there to be accountability for what you learn in college. why? Because, as I mentioned, as these colleges are putting out the foot soldiers of the Darcy party, I mean, listen, there is a thirty seven point gap in party preference just based on one variable, which is whether you are professional class or working class, meaning college degree or no college degree, and that spends across different racial groups and other party lines.

So the fact the matter is that if you go to college and get a degree, you are much, much more likely to become progressive. Not why is that? I think it's because a lot of these colleges are basic, become reeducation camps. I mean, these are the worker.

Roses wow.

a woke just kind of like harvard has like who .

rote that one for you? I see that infer .

came out with that line. Yeah, that look, these places are work with dresses. And what do they do?

They graduate these people.

They graduate the new clicks .

of our .

work theocracy.

These .

people go on come forcing societies, and we don't realize how like them we are. I mean, look, these kids who graduate from these workers drops. They go off to become the speech police. I mean, they go in force, community moderation and social.

Networks.

they become foot soldiers.

OK.

you're the democracy party. Listen, if you're the democracy party, which is run by work, progressive local Operators, why would you want to defend the factories that our brain washing more Young students to basically join your ranks?

OK, I want to say two things I want to say two things. One is um I think that the university and the college degree has been used as um a heroic uh for progression out of a blue color to White color. IT says if you get a house and J I know you can speak to this because you come from a family that that works blue collar and you know you got a college degree but I think there is this um uh you know kind of assertion in the united states and has now become one could argue a mean that if you get a college degree you're no longer blue color or now White color and the reality is that the quality of that degree vary greatly based on where you go, the major and the experience you get to accompany that degree.

And as a result, you may not necessarily transfer from blue color to White color, but you have the degree you say you're now so you're working a blue color job with one hundred and twenty thousand dollars a dead um and so that everything isn't true. And what we need to examine is why that hurts. Tic is no longer true and what we can do about IT yeah secondly, second dly, second ly, I do want to make a defense for college. I think there there is a incredible benefit to broadening individuals exposure to topics, research um and areas that they may not have naturally been interested in or that they will not necessarily get trained. And there is an important role that that educational infrastructure has in allowing us to be a more enlighten populous, meaning we can understand history, we can understand philosophy, we can understand the things that shape our, our world and our livelihoods and what makes us who we are today, and we can understand the sciences and the maps that affect us, so we can Better understand the world and the people around us. So there is a role, but the real question is, how do you integrate that educational role into a technical training program or into a real world, develop gram skills that that that basically make an educational system more than just a checkbox that doesn't actually do anything for you but gives you that exposure accompany by? And maybe that's the requirement with federal loans is that there should be some scale or some I A minute, I don't want to lose the important breath of exposure that college .

is meant to bring to people that value go had and rap up.

Now I wish just going to say I I really think people do not understand how how meaning full of a change IT would be if you were able to discharge your student dead. And bankrupcy IT is the most powerful market function we could create to make these universities more accountable. And I think if you guys look at my annual letter, I put a chart in there.

But you know, part of the problem that we have in these universities, these leading universities, is that these have become graveyards. okay? There is a gerontocracy that runs these things with an iron fist.

And as these folks have stayed in these jobs for enormous amounts of time now, forty, fifty plus years, the average person is in their midst late seventies. Now, who are who the administrators of our leading institutions, they are focused on running up and diamonds. They are focused on the power and the influence that comes with their position.

So I I implore anybody who has any ability to to actually achieve this change. There should not be a single logical person that should not support the ability to discharge student that in bankrupt. And you will identify the insider establishment by those that try .

to stop you. You will expose them one hundred percent. And I just want to put a closing thing here for the people listening.

We have Young people making these decisions. When we all went to college as jane s. College was nine, ten, eleven thousand dollars a year in tuition.

And if he came out with ten or twenty k and you had an average job, or a salary of double or triple that when you graduated, IT seemed like a good deal. The R. O, I broke.

Now market forces are at work. here. You want to point out two of them. Number one, there is a website I grow with google.

You just look up right now, they're allowing people to get professional certificates and this is free. And if you could pull up h grow with google. We've identify five different pets to jobs.

Uh one of them is digital marketing. Any commerce one's I T support data analytic project management in U X design. They have essentially looked at what's needed in the world and aligned a three to six months online course for fucking free.

That'll get you a job and you if you have executive function, the ability to sit down, shut up and learn can do this first before you make the decision to go one hundred thousand dollars in debt and then get a fifty thousand dollar your job. Here are these jobs average, you know, sixty, seventy, eighty five year, and you can do IT for free. The next piece that the private market is doing, you and I looked into this tramp actually together.

Isa income sharing agreements. Um we were Lucy enough to invest in a competition marios. They are providing I S S for a college, colorado mountain college, for nursing. What this means is they will give you your tuition for free. It's educate now, pay later.

You if you go to one of these colleges for nursing, you get educated and then you pay a back and your captain paying back like two times whatever alone is one and a hf, whatever the college decides. But they take the risk, as opposed to harvard, with forty billion, that takes no fucking risk. And so the free market, I think, can also solve this. But you have to sit down with your kids and say, let's have an R O Y calculation at twenty came dead, you know. Okay, fine, you're got philosophy .

degree by the thanks final question for you. Uh, I posted this thing in the group chat, but what do you guys think about this, you know, uh, republic and title wave becoming a republican? Rio, that's what yeah that's that's IT was IT was an odd set of .

outcomes, don't you think? For question I.

an look has had a good run over the last few weeks.

I again, the latest report says that the red wave looks more like a red ripple.

No, I think, well, look, I think a couple of things. And so first, biden has got some winds legislatively. I don't think it's good policy.

I don't think this executive of water is good policy. I don't think this somewhere. And fifty billion of climate that pretends to be an inflation reduction act.

I don't think the scope icy, but nonetheless, he has delivered some goodies for his his base, for his donors. And that has basically emilian the story in the press. That democrat are not just erased.

You're not hearing that. In addition, I think bans got two things going for him, dos and jobs. I mean jobs. There's no question jobs has helped the democrats quite a bit, certainly motivated their base. And then the jobs report has been strong.

I look I think overall, the economic data mix, real wages are not keeping up with inflation, but jobs has so far been strong. So yeah, there's no question that democrat aren't a materially Better position. They were in june when I look like a sunni.

That being said, the election still ten weeks away, and I think we have to see what happens. And I think the economy is still in a pretty fragile state. So ten weeks is so long time.

But yes, you're my that the four things are looking right now. Things are a lot Better for biden. And by the way, I do think the republicans have some issues with candidate quality. And so there's a couple of races that should have been more slam dunk, son, that or not. But first .

there he said dos and jobs .

was the first the dog .

got to got got okay.

okay. I just didn't hear IT perfectly. Weren't a lot of these winds for bed and bipartisan?

Well, now the inflation reduction act was passed on the strait party lines. This this college loan forgiveness is something they can even even get through the senate being done as as executive water, the things that were byproducts, tisa, the things that were a byproduct. Tian, there were a chips act where they got some votes and and then there was the guns bill.

So yet, look, he did get some bypassing. When is just a question about IT? I think the republicans, I think the republicans got hold, winked. Basically, the republicans foolishly went along with infrastructure and with the chips act. They should have force bite in to use up reconciliation on one of those bills and then they won't be able to get through the seven hundred fifty billion if h reduction act. So republicans as much as a um sort of master tragic as marco is reputed to be, they really got snowed on this one.

If it's possible for somebody to master bates themselves from the inside out. Jason's do here, right?

No, no, no. There's a reason why we do this from the chest up. okay. I think what's likely to happen .

in november is still that the republicans win one of the chAmbers ably, the house, I think the center, so up for grabs. I don't think it's over. I think that will be important because biden won't be able to pass some of this legislation that I think destructive from my dept standpoint, from economic standpoint, and we've talked about on this post.

I don't think you guys are too excited about most of the legislation he's passing. So quite Frankly, i'm just hoping for gridlock. I'd like to get back to the situation of great law.

Less spending would be certainly great at this point. I mean, trying to find inflation here while we keep spending money over here, it's chAllenging him.

If you want to get back to, uh, fiscal responsibility, you got to vote for gridlock .

or hopefully moderates come. Uh, all right, well, i'll let sex go anyway. We're going to go to science anyway and sex checks email by the way.

there's there's an article now you know, when we talked about quiet quitting is now become this huge thing that everybody y's talking about yes. And and what's so funny about quite quitting is just yet another example of you, again, coping, something we've already done when we used to do IT was called coasting. You just feel coasting but but now is called quite quit.

Ah they are all up in their feelings.

Do we want to talk about? I want here, there is a paper published .

in the journal cell. The paper was done by a research team out of her zilia. So i'll i'll take a step back. The human body is made up of roughly ten trillion and cells.

Um and there are also somewhere between ten and forty trillion bacterial cells that live in your body, primarily in your small and testing and and what people call the gut bion. And so this is a population of microbes, bacteria that are basically chemical factories. They eat stuff up and they spit out chemicals, and those chemicals end up in our body.

And IT turns out that the gut bion, the bacteria in our gut, can actually regulate our health in a very significant way. This was the basis of our company unique. You guys complete that out if you want, which is now called super god.

And jack, how I know you ve tried the product, which is awesome. Thank said me. I bought unique that helped with my weight loss.

And then I just got a god principle of that is that there is a known product, uh, a molecule eeo s that you can feed the gut biome. IT doesn't get absorbed by the human body. IT sits in the gut bio and the bacteria in your gut.

Certain types of bacteria will eat IT their population will grow and other population of bad bacteria will shrink, and the good bacteria release chemicals called short chain fatty assets that go into your blood and reduce your blood sugar and have a profound effect on a on your metabolism. And there are also known gut bacteria that can regulate your sleep, your mood, your anxiety, your energy levels and, uh, your gyi mic control, the control of blood shatter. So it's it's an increase.

You telling me, are you telling me that c Alice is a natural compound, is a bacteria?

So you saying we have to cancel our C L. prescriptions? Oh no ah so guys there there's .

a no um there's a known principle that's really deeply studied now in neurology um in neuroscience um uh call the gott brain access that you can actually profoundly affect um disease and the condition of the brain um and and neural conditions by changing the gut bion. And so this is this is something that just being studied. The reason is it's all coming to light in the last few years is because of the cost of D N.

A sequencing. We are used to be very, very expensive to sequence the DNA from your gut bio, which you do by looking at your pop and then, you know, looking at all the D N. A is in the pop.

And that tells you what you're bacteria on your good that used to cost a thousand box, now cost five box. And so in the last couple of years, there is this absolute explosion in research into the gut microbial, and more importantly, how the good micro bio affect human health. So this particular paper looked at the effect that eating an artificial sweet ener had on the gut bio and on human health.

And so what these researchers did is they um they took one hundred and twenty people, they gave them nothing or gave them sugar or gave them sacer on or cirro ws or aspartame or stevia, the popular artificial sweaters. And then they looked at how they're got beyond changed. And importantly, they looked at how they are glycemic control, or ability to control blood.

Looks of change. Black, blue coast, as you guys may recall, you know, you always have blue cose in your blood. The more if you have over, you know, a level of one hundred, you know you and I persist, you can actually have really bad health effects. And IT causes us high a one c over time, which is diabetes um and so high stores more fat .

when you're spiking.

And so you when you have high blood lue cos it's actually damaging to organs, it's damaging to cells. And over time we can cause very significant literary effects to the human body. That's what the the disease of diabetes is.

And that is that a about hide high blood sugar black gus, so what these guys did is they gave people, uh sacer rent ciro aspera mate T V and then measured their blood glucose and their ability to convert um uh sugar in the blood and absorbed and use IT and that's called gyi mic control. The way you guys you guys probably done this in a doctor, you take IT to quite my control test. You drink a bunch of sugar water, and they measure your blood sugar every couple minutes, and then they show the curve on how effectively your body can metabolite that glucose.

And if IT cannot metabolite that, lucas, well, you have bad glasseous c control, and ultimately that as diabetes. And what they found was that if you eat sa karin and circulars, which we always assumed were Better than sugar, they actually adversely affect your ability to control a black locos sacre and circulated s in particular, drive up your blood glue cos and makes IT harder for your body to metabolite glue cos out of your blood asper tame. And stevia were relatively.

oh, really, because that's what in coke zero.

that's what I drink. good. And so that was kind of the realization. And then they went deep, and they actually analyzed the microbiome and they shows that they were profound differences in how these um compounds affected microbial IT.

Turns out that the circle allows, for example, is more likely being absorbed by your interest. And so sitting in the in testing and walls and the bad bacteria are eating IT and the good bacteria that are supposed to be making short chain fatty acids and all these chemicals that regulate blood sugar. Um I have a lower population and we actually see A A profoundness negative effect for meeting .

certain compounds. Have you shift your poop to .

test these like when we just did a clinical trial at super cut, by the way, we found we publish IT so it's public.

But what IT doesn't even know, this stuff exists and likelihood you basically take a pop and you put IT in a vile and you send IT and they analyze your poop. I don't need to be .

graphic c, but have you done this? Yeah and and and I think it's look, here's here's the issue, Jason, think and I want to I want to say two things that I think you're really important to say.

Number one is um we know very little about what bacteria do, what in your gut, how which were starting to understand which one's are beneficial, which one's make good chemicals that your body use and regulate yourselves and regulate your health and and remember we have a syb odic relationship with the bacteria or cut. They're making chemicals and their eating chemicals. The chemicals they make affect ourselves. The chemicals they eat affect our body. So the way that we um evolve our health is actually profoundly affected by our gut bio so we don't know enough yet to say definitively this bacteria is good, this bacteria that we're starting to have a good sense of that.

by the way. You know just to double down on this, like there is a form of therapy is experimental, but it's called final uh transplant ano F M T. But you know we are finding now that you can take fec is from healthy individuals that have good, good by and good bacteria accounts.

And if you put IT, you know, inject IT into people that are suffering from, uh, a bunch of different diseases, IT actually is looking like its curative. So parkinson's, M S, ibs collides. So I just goes .

to show you that this that somebody actually.

and to go to the bump, no, no.

no, no, you can do there, or you can take a pill. So and it's final stuff and you swallow IT and see somebody else pop.

you get, I said, I said IT in a way so that we could see his reaction to in the bomb. And Jason was like this.

So how does this impact your raines? That's what going to to know, free berg.

how is your your rain is impacted. The other part I wanted to make, which ties to which I said, this is really important. So the gut biome is an ecosystem like a rain forest.

There are trees that grow. Monkeys clip the trees, they pop. There's jawge a eat the monkey is the trees grow because of the monkey poop.

This is a whole ecosystem. All these organisms, all these roves, regulate one another and feed one another. And this is why pro biotics do not work. Pro biodyl, our single microbe, single bacterial stains or fungal strains that we put into a pill, and we swallow IT.

And just because that mico happens to have some beneficial effect now on its own in in petrifies, IT does not survive in got bion because it's like putting a house cat in a rainforest. The jackpot will eat the house cat. The house cat has nothing to eat, IT said.

IT doesn't inoculate. Inoculate means that IT survives, thrives in the population growth. So when we take pro bio dict, it's just passing right through our gut. IT doesn't stay there and doesn't.

And IT turns out that the reason fecal microbial um uh uh fecal transplants work is because you're taking the whole microbial from someone else has got and you're putting IT in your gut. The rain forest, the whole rain forest. And so all the organisms are needed.

That self that regulate one another, all of the small molecules that that regulate across, regulate each other, they all go on your gut, and then they actually change your entire gut. And your gut becomes the rain forest of someone else is gut. And so if someone else has a healthy gut, meaning my.

my anus can be your. So we .

put our anis together, and then monkey goes between them, then the rainforests. Well, let me ask you questions. Fda has not approved any of this shet. When will the fda .

be approving these treatments at a of inc. Trials going on for transmit? Has a huge clinical trial for ms, right, where they are actually doing fecal transplants ts on patients without ms into people with M S.

And significant you know the early data of these sorts of treatment as indicated that there can be a very profound effect on the frequency of legions appearing on the brain, uh which is one of the primary symptoms of of M. S. And so these organisms, we don't yet know why, but some of when will we not understand? This is in a five years, ten years, there is lions dollars in a game place.

It's already coming out. It's a discovering new things. There's a, there's a set companies that are discovering what are called small molecules.

So they're finding what are the little chemical that those good bacteria are making in your gut and what? And can we turn those chemicals into drugs? And so there to turn into drugs, other companies are saying, know what, this is a set of good bacteria.

Let's just put them in your body and figure out a way to get them to note late and stay. Companies are saying, let's do equal transplants. And other companies are basically just saying, let's change.

Doesn't what we do is your gut. Let's just change the feed stock for your gut biome and you can actually evolve the rainforest into a different state by changing what you're feeding. Bacteria in your gut and there certain molecules you can feed the gut bacteria and then the populations will .

change into a more beneficial state. Why are people saying like drinking combat a and fermented um vegetables, pickles, whatever apples are like great at fixing your bio and then taking sugar out is good for your biome. This is another thing I keep hearing.

People are are are making single point claims like that because they have invested in a live sale and they want to defend their choices. It's not it's not to say that those things are bad, those are all good. But I think what we know and the fecal transplant center is the most simple way of of pointing this out, is that it's a broad scale, holistic approach that gets the best results.

So as you know, like if you if you have if you've had a kid, that's a for example, right you know sometimes what will do now is instead of giving the kid some sort of direct ics a present, what you actually give them is um probiotic, right? And what you're trying to do is to reintroduce healthy bacteria into that child stomach in a way that allows them to self manage and self heal while the bad, you know uh, the rea causing stuff kind of gets washed away as an example. So will one thing be a cure all for you? No, I think that you should be very skeptical of those claims.

That's why everybody says a healthy well baLances diet is really important because we do not know conclusively this is why you know if I tend to believe that the broad holistic diet works the best in moderation yeah because you just don't know what you're not getting. We don't know that. We don't know you can say inclusively that there isn't a form of bacteria that is created specifically when you consume animal protein that is extremely helpful to you. We don't know that not true now. We don't know that, that is true either.

right? And there's a ton of research going on to try to .

figure out out right now. Have we figured out any of IT out like yeah yeah, the two twelve episodes on this.

There is so much amazing discovery happening. This is a good paper to highlight that which is like a maybe avoid products um that have sacred .

cows in them but my big thing is there is no diet, whether it's kito, whether it's the south beach diet, whether it's specific vegetarianism, whether it's veganism, nothing is a cure all for what else you there is nothing.

And by the way, one important point in this paper, one of the points of these guys highlighted, which we see all the time microban on research, is that there are water called responders and non responders that within a population is not like everyone, that each circulation has the same negative effect. Some people have a really negative effect and some people have a mild to moderate to neutral effect. And so there's a range of your particular physiology, your particular got by on, that will respond differently to different inputs into your body.

And that's the most important thing to figure out, because people need to spend time eating and sampling to understand what makes you feel Better or worse. This is why I, I, I have an issue with, you know, the broad base claims of this path will solve all your problems. It's just not true.

You have to solve IT for yourself. And it's it's through iteration. And then the the the IT just seem .

like non processed oos whole foods, things that existing nature, that seems to me directionally correct as the way to go. And the fake stuff and the process stuff maybe less good for you.

Agree with that. This is why I think, like there there is a little bit of a scan being run on people who want be healthy. Like, for example, have you guys looked at the ingredient list on olly? You know everybody loves open k, but have you looked at the ingredient list? Are you really telling me conclusively that that is healthier than milk? Sine, I mean.

I could, I could argue both ways.

but I can look at the chemicals, look at the chemicals in a box of old.

I am guys.

I can also tell you the chemical name for every chemical that in milk is chemical, like all everything around us.

chemicals I stand. I understand natural chemicals, but you understand synthetically made, man made chemicals that are expressed, that have to be put on an ingredients list because of its danger in high quantities, should be treated at slightly differently.

In my opening, I mean, all just gave us three openings, were all fuck being deposed by everybody will see you next time on the all in.

Your winter.

man.

And we open sources to the fans and they .

just got crazy with.

We should all just get a room just one big, huge or because.

A.

tension.