lping them set up clever schemes with their money, it could be that the sexual stuff was just it made sense in some cases, didn't make sense to bring somebody into that world in other cases, and he just discriminated. And Maxwell said there was no blackmail and no intelligence ties, as I said.

And Epstein managed the money of Elizabeth Johnson, a Johnson and Johnson heir in the 90s. And he had a business relationship with the ex-CEO of Barclays. I don't know why that's important. And he helped Linda Rothschild financially but Rothschild will deny it. I don't know why this stuff is important. And he hung out with the president of Colombia and met with Castro in Cuba. Larry Summers was a personal friend of Epstein. Larry Summers. So he's a very prominent Hillary Clinton friend and prominent Democrat. Maxwell says she thinks she met Alex Soros, the son of George Soros, at an event but doesn't remember the exact context. She said that Sergey Brin held a birthday party possibly with Epstein and that Elon Musk was present. All right that doesn't mean anything. Bobby Kennedy knew Epstein. That doesn't mean anything. Trump seemed friendly with Epstein but explicitly says she never saw anything improper. And that Epstein liked to invite famous scientists like Steven Jay Gould for dinner. He liked talking science.

All right. Well so in summary we can't believe a single thing that Maxwell said but here's the genius of it from Trump's perspective. I saw a lot of accounts on social media say and there it is. Maxwell says that Trump never did anything. Case closed. Is it? I mean that's as far as you can get from being a credible report. So I don't think the case is closed. I don't think that Trump did anything inappropriate. But to imagine that Maxwell could be the one to confirm it. However because people are not up to date on all the details of a story like this, the fact that Maxwell did very clearly deny that Trump did anything inappropriate, Trump and all of his supporters will forever be able to say that. And the person who might know the difference is saying no, that came from Maxwell. You can't trust that. But it won't matter because the mere existence of the fact that Maxwell said as clearly as possible that he was not involved in anything is really going to carry a lot of persuasion weight. It should not but it will because it's associated with a person and there's an actual quote and it'll be repeated and repeated and repeated and most people will only hear it as a headline. Maxwell says Trump didn't do anything wrong. They will forget that maybe she had something to gain and she was playing the system. They will not see the context where everything else she said looks pretty unbelievable, pretty sketchy. Maybe half of it looks just obviously sketchy. So it's going to lose over time. It's going to lose all the nuance that would help you not find it credible. And by repetition and the fact that people just hear the highlight it will become very persuasive in Trump's favor. And it already is.

All right. And Trump said the Democrats don't know what to do so they keep bringing this stuff up. Meaning the Epstein and stuff. He said it's a hoax to diminish the significance of what we've done over the past seven months. Well I don't know if you know that's completely true but they certainly would like the public to think about it more than his accomplishments.

Tulsi Gabbard shut down something called the foreign malign influence center. Now if you heard it was the foreign malign influence center you would assume that their job was to keep foreign entities from influencing the US in a negative way. But allegedly it was used to suppress free speech in the United States. So it was a clever workaround to actually control the United States. So she shut that down. It makes you wonder how many entities are there that are funded by taxpayers but if you knew what they did you'd say wait a minute I don't want that. Stop doing that right away.

According to *Nature* publication peer reviewers are more likely to approve an article for peer review that cite their own work. Now I didn't know that was true but if you had asked me I probably would have guessed it was true. So since scientists get benefits for how many times they're cited so it makes their own work look more important. So if you want to get a peer reviewer to say good things about your study you just cite the person who's the peer reviewer as one of your sources. And then the odds of them saying oh yeah this is a good paper because it increases their own citations goes way up. Surprise. Nobody's surprised by that. I think the science is at least 50% fake. Meaning at least and it might be I think it's a lot more actually. It's probably closer to 75 but most of what you hear about science is fake.

I've been fascinated by the Eric Weinstein take on science that progress in physics stopped. I forget what year he says but there's an actual year or decade I guess in which progress in physics just sort of stopped. And the idea was that the only thing that's worth looking at is string theory. But that never quite completely paid off and that science has just stalled. And it's not because we're not able but rather there's some force that maybe we don't completely understand that is stalling science intentionally. Why? I don't know. I don't know. But it does seem that physics hit a wall. So that part I've also observed long ago and I also have been criticizing string theory for years saying it does seem like they're not really making any progress on this thing. Is any of this real?

Well Shawn Ryan on his podcast has a guest, the host of something called *The Why Files* that many of you have seen on YouTube. And AJ Gentile I think is the name of the host. And that show does lots of conspiracy theory kind of stuff but he's not a true believer. Often he'll say after he tells you the conspiracy he'll say but probably not true and here's the reason why. So he's not like a crazy conspiracy guy. He's just somebody who talks about crazy conspiracies. And he doesn't automatically just throw them away but he's not somebody who just believes every conspiracy theory, right? So he's fairly credible I find.

And what he said was I mixed up my notes here but he said that the pyramids must have been used to generate electricity. And he had a theory that there's some chemical that they found there that shouldn't be there unless they were doing that. And somehow it might be built to shoot the electricity up into the atmosphere so that in a Nikola Tesla kind of way somebody else could suck it out of the atmosphere and use the power. Yeah Gary's still here. Good boy. He just loves going to sleep to my voice. So do you.

But anyway my take on that besides the fact it's interesting is if you look at the stories that we just talked about today and ho