My Interview With Russell Brand On Deceptive Government-Funded Psychedelic Studies - The Danger Of Scientific Ideology Trumping The Facts
Thanks to Russell for having me on. Over 220,000 views on Rumble!
Hi everyone,
I’m finally catching up to posting my major interviews over the past couple of months. This interview with Russell Brand was my favourite. Russell’s personal and spiritual evolution — yes, escaping the drugs, glamour, and hedonism of Hollywood and building a new life requires such a transformation — has served as great inspiration to me in the past, especially during times of hardship over the past few years.
Talking to him was an honour.
We discussed my investigation into misleading government-funded studies on psychedelics. The tide has now shifted — where psychedelic therapies are increasingly popular and proven to be truly safe and efficacious for treating intractable depression, PTSD, alcohol addiction, and other conditions — but only a couple of decades ago, research in this area was viewed as dangerous and taboo.
The government-fuelled narrative handicapped honest, truth-seeking research in this therapeutic domain and my interview with Dr. Joseph Fraiman (author of the study showing a 1 in 800 rate of adverse events associated with the mRNA vaccines) — who was the focus of the piece — illustrated just one example of the decay in science more broadly where political agendas supersede discovery of the truth. You can read the piece here if you haven’t yet:
Whistleblower: How The Government Funded Misleading Scientific Studies To Demonize MDMA
The Illusion of Consensus is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Paid members receive access to exclusive Q+As with Dr. Bhattacharya and Rav Arora: The public perception of psychedelic drugs has rapidly shifted over the past two decades. A wave of resurgent research beginning in t…
I spoke with Russell for half-an-hour about this story and related subjects.
This quote of mine from the interview summarizes the conversation well:
For those of us that are more politically conscious and tuning into this great awakening in ‘podcastistan,’ we’re seeing the days of SSRIs, ADHD meds, and trusting ppl in white lab coats being gone — and the age of morning sunlight, sauna, cold plunge, ashwagandha, taking supplementation, psilocybin, MDMA therapy, and working through your traumas as now being in vogue increasingly so.
So we’re moving away from centralized authority and mainstream medical propaganda to individuals taking their health in their own hands and exploring their own traumas and issues, without just medicating themselves with a pill or trusting advice that’s proving to be more and more dangerous and misinformed.
Hope you enjoy the interview:
— Rav
If you wish to help us fund our podcast expansion and hire a producer and editor (so we can focus solely on the content!), you may do so here:
https://donorbox.org/help-fund-independent-journalism-2
So you push the whole "anti-vaxer" as a slander against potential allies while you bemoan being shut down from sharing information you've learned about the covid vaccine having dangerous, deadly adverse effect?
You still don't get it. You imagine yourself a victim of unfair censorship for expressing an unpopular position that you, a more considered, intellectual, erudite serious credible professional than those irresponsible small-brained neanderthal conspiracy types who don't belong in your self-imagined higher circle of smart folk. Declaring yourself not one of "those" people to the left or right of you, whichever you calculate is the more extreme side.
You're still stuck in a prisoner's paradigm. You don't get it. I remember being in political and community circles as Republican in a very Democrat city. I remember the impulse to want to separate myself from "those" extreme right R's when I'd serve on boards, interact with the media, be a part of the policy debates. I get it. The need to be accepted by a community with different beliefs and values, be taken seriously by them so they would hear my concerns and not be dismissed by association with the "crazies."
Meanwhile the concerns I had would be heard, were placated, and those decisions I was trying to influence eventually went the direct I opposed, though my input may have slowed it down a bit, made the policy in question a little less bad. It took me awhile. But I finally understood the ultimate futility of that course. It's self-defeating.
That's what you get by being a polite, docile little lapdog to those who can't/won't hear the concerns of someone they've been programmed to think is an extremist. Maybe you get a little table scrap from your owners, or a piece falls from the table. When truth is if they heard more of those "extremist" ideas shared by more "respectable" people they know in their community they'd learn those ideas are more common, not so extreme.
When you give up the illusion that a consensus of those who oppose you, your values, your beliefs will be moved by you throwing idea allies to the curb, slandering them in an attempt to preserve your credibility in a hostile crowd then you begin to do the real work of fixing the problem when they're wrong. And at least you preserve the concept of debate, free exchange of ideas that have a slow, erosive effect on consensus dogmas.
I honestly don't have a problem with the term "anti-vaxxer" as an accurate description of a strongly held understanding of what vaccines really are. Vaccines are dangerous. And even the highly respected Dr. Peter McCullough has publicly stated he wouldn't trust ANY vaccine today. What's more "anti-vax" than that? The term should be embraced as much as "deplorable" or "bitter-clinger." Heck, even being called a "racist," "misogynist," "homo/transphobe," "climate-denier" or any of the attempts to slander others doesn't hold the cache it once used to. They're empty, overused attempts to slander now, devoid of true meaning. If everyone is [insert slander] no one is [insert slander]. Fast on their way to becoming a badge of honor.
I just take issue with those who claim to be victims of being "othered," marginalized, cast out from polite society's serious conversations throwing around terms that disparage another set of other's they actually have more in common with than those they seek the approval of. Hoping to be brought in as a house slave from the field slavehouse. Still a slave, but imagining yourself better than the other slaves.
Be better. Learn from the wisdom of someone who's been where you are in other similar battles. You weaken yourself, your position, when you concede slanders, terms used to shut down debate to your opponents and take them up yourself. From an experienced Fox to a kit.