Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we discuss the ongoing measles outbreak and RFK Jr. S about face on his position on the measles vaccine.
And later on, we consider whether the rise in caffeine consumption, whether through energy drinks or coffee and tea products and the deaths that seem to be coming from that is something that society needs to take a closer look at.
Hello, welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys, and joining me today is a man who's okay, but his takes are sick. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. Ready to show them how you go crazy today?
[00:00:49] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm wondering if I was sick, but if my takes were okay, like, would that change my coolness in your eyes?
We don't have to go there.
[00:01:00] Speaker A: Well, we want to avoid that, man. We want to avoid that.
[00:01:03] Speaker B: I'll take just being cool and having sick takes just in case. So sorry, let's keep going.
[00:01:09] Speaker A: Yeah, but before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe and like the show on YouTube or your podcast platform, doing so really helps the show out.
We're recording on April 8, 2025, and Tonday, we're seeing a measles outbreak going on now in the southwest United States with the worst of it in Texas and government officials, you know, I've been on site working to get it under control. Now we don't see measles outbreaks that much anymore. Many claim that it was eliminated, you know, like the vaccine from, you know, decades ago and, you know, getting that widespread in. And measles just didn't circulate that much. Whereas it was something when we were younger, in the 80s that you heard about, you know, from time to time.
But this current case, you know, this current outbreak has hundreds of cases and we've seen fatalities and so forth. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Has been on site and recently came out with an endorsement of the measles vaccine, the MMR vaccine, as a way to fight the outbreak, which was in contrast to much of what he has said publicly over both the short term when he's talked about vitamin A and different things like that, in the long term where he's really positioned himself as an anti vaccine person. So, Tunde, what are your initial thoughts? Just to get us started on kind of the outbreak itself and what we're seeing now from a health perspective, but then also RFK junior's reaction to it.
[00:02:29] Speaker B: Yeah, it's. It's a good question, good topic, and good leading because there's a few different areas to go. So I would say my first reaction, I was, I was, I mean, I felt kind of pleasantly relieved to see an adult, you know, someone in their early 70s that could actually break from, I guess, the ideology of they have been espousing publicly based on their own experience and their own, you know, looking at facts and details. And so in that sense, I can say I was glad to see RFK make a factual statement that the MMR vaccine is the best way to prevent the spread of measles.
[00:03:11] Speaker A: You mean take, in fact take in new facts, adjust your kind of thoughts and your, your, your positions and then move forward from there.
[00:03:18] Speaker B: Yeah, and that's interesting.
[00:03:20] Speaker A: Quite a capability there.
[00:03:22] Speaker B: Correct? It's amazing.
[00:03:23] Speaker A: You know, I joke, but it's not, that's not, that's not something we can expect from people.
[00:03:27] Speaker B: Well, that's what I was going to say is, is, it's like, this is the word I'm looking for. Refreshing. Let's say that it's refreshing to see that in a leader today. I mean, that's why, I mean, I'm sad to say that I'm being refreshed by one guy doing it out of many people that are in leadership right now. But, you know, that's kind of was my overriding initial thought. Obviously we'll have a nice convers about a few other thoughts I had, but it was, it was just, just that, that I was kind of refreshed and you know, it's nice to see him be able to do an about face once faced with certain realities.
[00:04:02] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean it's interesting. Like we expect that with happen within an hour. Every, every Law and Order show has that where people start off thinking one thing and then more information comes out and they're like, oh, actually we think it's this. So I think, you know, from a, like we, we do seem to, we have an appreciation for that in some settings, but in other settings, we, you know, human beings tend to not want to go that direction.
I think that what it reminds me of actually is revolt of the public.
[00:04:28] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:04:29] Speaker A: Negation, meaning the idea of we're just against whatever is going on out there doesn't work that well when you're in a position of leadership. So when RFK Jr. Wasn't in a position of leadership, he had the convenience to say a bunch of things and take a bunch of positions. Because people's lives, generally speaking now people have, have claimed that things he said overseas and so forth have caused problems and death. But people's lives aren't necessarily at stake. So when you're in a position of leadership, there are people's lives at stake. And so for him to, to me, this suggests that he takes the position seriously. The idea that we have an outbreak now anyway, I'm not one of the people that thinks that this thing would have been or was gone forever anyway. So I'm not saying, oh, well, it was gone and now it's back because people didn't vaccinate. I'm a person who is a. I'm not anti vaccine, but I'm skeptical of the vaccine industry, primarily because I'm skeptical of big pharma in general. I don't know that their interests are always. And their incentives are always aligned with health outcomes for us. Like sometimes I think they have other incentives other than us being healthy. So the entire big pharma industry, like, I'm not specific to vaccines, but the entire industry, vaccines are a part of that. But I think that it's good that one. I think it's good that they're there and they're not just from some ivory tower somewhere making declarations of what things need to be. And this is what we know. We don't care whatever else is going on down there. Everybody just does what I say and then everything will work out. And then that he. The thing about the vaccine to me is again, because I'm not someone who's out here banging the table for vaccines, but they do seem to be the best option in situations like this. But not to say it's a great option or the, or the, you know, a perfect option. Definitely not a perfect option, but it does seem to be the best option for preventing severe illness and death for something like this. And so when something is the best option and you're in the public health space, not private health decisions, but public health space, sometimes you have to get behind something that is not perfect and that you can say, oh yeah, this has some things in your mind at least, like, oh yeah, I'm not crazy about certain parts of this, but it seems to be the best option we have from a public standpoint.
[00:06:36] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think the idea of skepticism and a healthy skepticism is important because there's a difference between. And I think this is what we've seen in this recent era. And I think there was a great reference to the book we just did a show on last week. No, no plug there for the audience, but revolt to the public. Because I thought of the similar things from the book. Obviously it's fresh in our head, but. But I think it was. It was a great read. And then seeing this and doing this discussion here, because the idea is crisis of authority. That's what I kept thinking of, is this is what it looks like. And the idea of, like, we talked about the borders and the centers, right? Like, RFK Jr. Was a border actor in our kind of culture and society up until now. And what that means, just really quick for the audience means, to James's point, kind of in your comments just now, is that RFK was in the outside of leadership. And so it's different when you're on the outside of leadership and you are criticizing whatever is going on kind of in the mainstream of what the culture of the leadership is promoting. Now he's in leadership. And I think it's interesting how people. I don't know this for a fact because I haven't talked to RFK Jr. Since he has visited with these two families. And just for the audience, I've never talked to RFK Jr. But from reading and preparing for today, he met with the two families whose children died of the measles recently in this outbreak. Part of me just seems to think that we're all human beings. And at the end of the day, maybe from being on the outside of leadership and power, not having the authority and the responsibility of being the director of a large agency like Health and Human Services in the United States, he felt one way. But when he actually met parents of children who died, and maybe they had a conversation, explained to him what happened, and maybe he, like we're talking about, maybe he listened to some other scientists and doctors, he changed his tune. And so I think, you know, that's nice to see.
And what I want to get into, James, about this skepticism is because it goes back to a lot of things we've seen in our culture and our society. I think people like you and I, as we've talked about in recent shows that are, you know, we like to read, we're curious people. We're not offended if our point of view or our thoughts are challenged. We're willing to take that kind of stuff and see if there's different facts than maybe we. We were armed with originally in a discussion. But there's a lot of people that aren't, and they're very skeptical. And so. And so I think that's the thing to me, that stands out here, is the idea of the crisis of authority. Sorry, the crisis of authority that leads people from a healthy skepticism to maybe.
[00:09:29] Speaker A: Paranoia, but they're not really skeptical. And that's really my issue when we get to this stuff. Because you're. They're skeptical only of one thing. They're only skeptical the official position. Because it amazes me always, like, I'm a skeptical person, right? Like, and I'm skeptical. When people were talking about COVID vaccine, I was skeptical like, oh, okay, let's see what's happening here. Let me let a couple million people get it first before me know stuff like that. But then I was also skeptical of Ivermectin. I didn't just say, oh, I'm skeptical of COVID vaccine. So, yeah, let's just do Ivermectin. Like, it's like, well, no, I'm skeptical of that too, you know, and then I'm looking at that closely. It's like, oh, well, that doesn't, that doesn't strike my fancy because my skepticism. And then I. So what it is really, though, is, is. Is kind of a negation of whatever the. And this is, you know, kind of going into that. It's a negate whatever the public authorities are saying. If, if the public authorities were saying ivermectin, these people would have been against that, you know, and so what it strikes me as, is not a ability, not a desire to look at things and weigh them and say, okay, is this something that is that I can get behind or is this something that I don't think it smells? Right. It is a. Almost a reflexive reaction against kind of these official positions and embrace an irrational embrace of things that aren't. And again, I'm saying that I look at vaccines as definitely not perfect things. I'm concerned about, again, particularly because of the incentive. We have a secret vaccine court that the federal government sets up. And I'm like, well, hey, hold on. What do you mean a secret court that if you get injured, you have to go here and you can't go to public court. That is an incentive that, to me, that creates an incentive for vaccine companies to try to keep things quiet. So I'm like, okay, that doesn't add up. Right? But then I look at the whole. Like that in itself isn't going to say, okay, well, I'm just completely out on vaccines altogether. I'm going to maintain my skepticism. I'm going to engage with them in my own, my own terms, you know. But again, I'm doing that as a personal level. When you're talking about public health, it's a different question, you know. And so I also think that when you look at the, the situation where RFK has to say okay, we're on the ground. We have this outbreak. The fact that he doesn't want this, this kind of thing to happen on his watch also will kind of like influence his decision making. And so again, to your point, initial point, the fact that he's, he's making the adjustment, apparent adjustment, because just what, a couple weeks ago he was out there saying, oh, it's vitamin A. And then that's another thing. It's like, well, where I point outside of the, the, the vitamin A is I take cod liver oil, you know, but it's something that you don't. You have to know if you're going to take vitamin A, you need to know the difference between synthetic vitamin A and natural vitamin A, because there's a huge difference. And one of them can be really bad for you. One of them can be really good for you. And so. And then also, you have to understand you can't take them in high doses because you have to build up your. That in your body or you, you have to, you know, there's more to it, basically.
[00:12:13] Speaker B: Let me jump on that one.
[00:12:14] Speaker A: He was out there throwing. Well, let me just say he was out there throwing that out without any of this other background information that I may know, because I'm interested in that independently. And I'm like, oh, that's kind of dangerous to just be telling people, hey, take a bunch of vitamin A. Because if they go to the store and get most of the stuff, you'll find is the artificial stuff and they start popping that, they could create other problems, you know, and so it's, it's very difficult. These are not, these are things that are difficult to navigate on a personal level. And then on a societal level, when you do have people that just want to jump behind something and not think about it, you have to be very careful as far as the messages you give. And that's why a lot of times you see this desire for uniformity and secrecy, which isn't great, but it doesn't always necessarily mean there's something sinister.
[00:12:56] Speaker B: Correct. And that's where the idea of a healthy skepticism, you can draw the line between that and just straight paranoia. Because I would say this, this topic is interesting for you. And I personally, you have a lot more of a healthy skepticism to the vaccine stuff than I do. Like, I'm one of those that's like.
[00:13:11] Speaker A: Remember, I'm skeptical of Big Pharma in general.
[00:13:14] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, but that's my point. I'm just, I'm just making a point that I'm the Type that the doctor says, go do it. I'm like, all right, whatever. You're the one that's like, nah, I'm skeptical of this and that. And so my point is, is that we can still be friends. Right? We don't have to have a fist fight about it. Right. And I can accept that your skepticism is healthy. Like, even though I'm not as skeptical as you are, I'm not. I don't knock you for the skepticism because you're not being a paranoid, delusional guy. You're not saying that everybody in big pharma has, you know, is going to put nanobots in this vaccine and put it in your arms, which, I mean. And so how could you be a.
[00:13:47] Speaker A: Skeptic and fall for that? Like, to me it's just like, yo, if you're a skeptic, that has to.
[00:13:52] Speaker B: Be like, well, here's the thing, James, because this is why I want to stay on the thing about vitamin A. It's, that's why that, that term from that book is so apropos with the way we are today as a culture, which is this crisis of authority.
[00:14:03] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:14:04] Speaker B: Because here's the thing, and I want to try and get through this real quick because I want to talk about the vitamin A. But as I'm thinking about like my own knowledge of science and medicine and all that, and I'm not a scientist, I'm not a doctor. I'm a guy who's a financial planner. So I'm kind of the average guy that's outside of the medical world looking in. I took some biology and anatomy classes in college. Great, that was 30 years ago almost. So. So I'm not sitting here with a bunch of serious knowledge in my head, more so than I think the average population public. But I do have the old authority trust in the idea of virology and science and facts based evidence. So I'm going to say this, James, going back to the. This is why to me, leadership is very important.
RFK in 2023. I'm just quoting from an article that we'll have in the show Notes. During an interview with popular podcaster Joe Rogan, Kennedy denied that the measles vaccine had led to a drop in deaths. He claimed that malnutrition was the root cause of deaths. And I'm just forwarding in the, in the article not to read the whole thing. Kennedy did not cite any evidence for that claim. So it goes back to what you're saying. He's refuting the authority, saying that the vaccine and this is the interesting thing, going back to vitamin D, the vaccine.
[00:15:22] Speaker A: Didn'T work to prevent death.
[00:15:23] Speaker B: Correct. But the word prevent is very important. And this is what I saw with COVID in this and the. And the gumming up of reality that affected the population.
The measles. Measles vaccine, from what I'm reading, has a 93% effective rate of transmission, or, sorry, preventing someone getting the disease on the first shot. And when you get the booster of the measles vaccine, it brings it up to 97%. That's measles. So 3% of people out of a thousand people, 970 on average, after the second shot, will not contract the virus. 3% will contract. And to your point, maybe one or two people out of that thousand will have a negative effect. And that's a shame. But, like, that's what you're saying for a mass population, we, you know, that's maybe the secret courts and all that. Maybe sometimes to have community herd immunity, you got to accept that there's 1% reality.
[00:16:19] Speaker A: And, but the thing is, is that when we look at that, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to get rid of the whole thing. From a public health standpoint, that's what I'm getting. Like, that's like, yeah, it's not perfect. There are issues, you know, now we should look at how those issues are addressed, maybe. See, now here's the. Where it's tough because it's like, so from a public health standpoint, is it better to keep that stuff secret or is it better to have it out there because of what you're saying with the crisis of authority, because some people take those instances and run with them, and then other people are like, oh, you make it worse by keeping a secret. I don't know if you are or not.
[00:16:52] Speaker B: I mean, well, let's not jump there yet because I know we'll go to things like that, like, should this be, you know, how should we treat this, you know, from the mass standpoint. But to stay on what you're saying, I think this is where you can break from a healthy skepticism to the paranoia and the really distrusting of the whole system. Because like we just said, like, accepting that if a thousand people get something, maybe one or two have a really negative reaction, that's terrible. And that's not something I'm trying to say should be swept under the rug. But what I'm saying is. Yes, then do I get a bit suspicious when I learn from a friend like you that there's a Secret court for big pharma and all that. Yeah, it makes me a little suspicious. Also, I don't like the idea of big Pharma getting away with more stuff, like, you know, not having to pay the lowest cost, you know, when selling drugs to the government, all that. So it gets me feeling like, dad, oh, they're getting away with stuff and all that. But that's a much different. Like, I've got still a firewall in my head that I'm not sure the.
[00:17:44] Speaker A: Inclination to want to paint with the broad brush at that point, because then. Well, just all of these. All this whole thing is. Is messed up. This whole thing is rigged, so to speak, as opposed to looking at those individual.
[00:17:57] Speaker B: Well, but. But that's what I'm saying. Just to go draw this arc here, what we're talking about. But when I hear someone like John. Sorry, not John Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Saying that measles vaccine doesn't lead to a drop in deaths, when we hear from the scientists, there's a 97% drop efficacy rate of not contracting the disease. And that when he says it's malnutrition and then he goes into the vitamin A, like you're saying, I start thinking like, I'm not like a genius or a big scientist guy, but I recognize a virus is a virus, and a vitamin does not cure a virus, number one. Number two is after doing literally 30 seconds of reading in one paragraph, I learned that the vitamin A can help when someone already has a severe illness of measles. So that also is not about preventing the contraction of the illness. And so that's what we're getting at, James, which is I'm reading about this and I'm reading Kennedy's quotes about all this stuff, and I'm thinking the same thing you're thinking. What is it with the mindset of someone who is skeptical of the authority, like the scientists and the people who've got PhDs and study this stuff for their careers, but a guy who was an environmental lawyer for his career who comes on a podcast and says, take.
[00:19:13] Speaker A: Vitamin A against hook, line and sinker.
[00:19:17] Speaker B: Exactly. They don't go back and say, okay, well, let me actually at least look into what he's saying. And kind of.
[00:19:22] Speaker A: But the reason is, is that ultimately there's so much information that people just decide who they want to side with. Because even with the malnutrition and the nutritious piece, I'll correct you a little bit. The issue with the vitamin A, the. The biggest thing is that, yes, a healthy person. If you are well nourished and have high levels of certain vitamins, vitamin D being one, vitamin A being another. If you have high levels of certain vitamins, then your own immune system works better. So you will. It's not the vitamin that kills the virus, it's your own immune system that's better equipped to handle it. But guess what? If you have all those high levels there, you're also better equipped to deal with the vaccine and to be able to make sure you avoid the net most negative consequences from the vaccine. So it's kind of like this, this old thing like, oh, well, if your body's in good shape, then you can deal with. Your body can deal with strains better than if your body's not in good shape. Think about if you have a lot of muscle and you fall down, you know, you're going to be, well, better protected than if you're all skin and bones, so to speak. And so, but you take all of this complexity and it's a lot, you know, you throw at people. And so people are vulnerable because of that complexity. And they'll just want to say, here, somebody else, just tell me, you know, and so some people will look at the authorities, so to speak, and say, okay, I'll listen to the authorities. Other people say, well, no, I don't trust the authorities because they're doing some things over there. They're doing some things over there. So I'll just trust this dude, you know what I'm saying? And it's like, to me, that's crazy, you know, but I can understand it because it's just like, well, you more so have decided you don't want to trust them. Then I'm just so in line with this other person and so I'm going to find somebody else that doesn't trust them and then go, go ahead with that. So all of that, bringing that back, I think it's good that if you're going to trust somebody, I'd rather you trust somebody that at the minimum can look at new information and then update his position. You know, where you really get into trouble is if you get, if you start following people that it doesn't matter what happens, they're still going to say the same thing no matter what, like nothing ever happened. So I would say I respect that Kennedy gets here, you know, by, from. From his position and from taking in additional information and. But I do want to keep us moving because I want to wrap this up. Do you think this will matter? You know, because he's gotten a Lot of blowback from his former allies, you know, the, the anti vaccine people from this. And then, you know, there are a lot of people that. Who kind of are locked in already to where they are. But do you think this will matter or do you think this is kind of, you know, look too little, too late, at least from Kenny.
[00:21:41] Speaker B: I hesitate to make predictions about what will influence the American culture through the media landscape over the next couple months. So let me, let me. Definitely not.
[00:21:49] Speaker A: So the answer then is it all depends on whether Musk and Zuckerberg decide what they show people in there on Facebook and X and so forth.
[00:21:58] Speaker B: I'm just saying I would be skeptical. I would rather predict the direction of the stock market over the next few months than what Americans will grab onto or not, honestly. And I'm not here to try and predict the stock market. That's my point. But that'll be maybe easier than predicting where these human brains all go. But no, on a serious note, man, so I wrote a note.
It depends on how the information will be delivered. So you're already going down the road. We were going.
[00:22:23] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:22:23] Speaker B: So because I put here algorithms and then I put. Will skeptics see it? Because people like me and you see it and it's like, all right, cool. He's. He's like you said, I don't have to agree with everything RFK ever said, but I respect that he's here now and I'm not here to, you know, we can have a whole conversation about, you know, do you beat him up about his past stuff and all that. I don't really care about that. Let's just move forward at this point. And the fact that he is talking sense and he says something that seems to be. This is where I get in the back just at leadership. He's a leader.
And what we've been affected by is leadership generally over the last decade or so. And what I'm saying is whether leadership's in or out of power, right? We've got influential people and even that. Like one of the two men you just named, right? People that have become cultural influences or influencers on our culture who are famous, whether they're political people or business people. And, and they have, let me put it this way, they have benefited from maintaining themselves in the spotlight by promoting some of this kind of messiness in our information landscape. That's probably the most eloquent way I can say it. And that's, to me, what stands about RFK is because children have died, and maybe that is the bridge he's not gonna, it's a bridge too far now. He's not going to continue once he's met with a family that has his kids that died. And it's in contrast, James, because I think this is what's happening, what we're seeing in this first couple of months of this administration, which is the ideologies of many crashing up against the rocks of reality of a system. And we could say RFK is crashing up against the reality of the ecosystem and health. Right. That viruses are going to go through. Things like vitamins and vaccines now are, seem to be the way to stop it. On another note, we have a president who's pushed tariffs and the stock market's crashing. So it's another example of an ideology crashing up against the rocks of reality. Maybe the stock market crashing isn't as effective as children dying at getting, you know, the leader to say, hey, maybe I was wrong. But it's, it's. I think we're going to see a lot more of this, James, through the next few months. That's what I would say is reality is going to crash up against the rocks of ideology. And I don't know how people are going to react because to your point, it's going to be about what they see and what they're.
[00:24:42] Speaker A: About what they see and then whether they're the kind of person that can, if the, the, the consequences of whatever they see is something that wasn't their desired consequence, whether they can adjust and take in new information. This isn't necessarily flip your position or anything like that. Just take in and adjust where you come down on something potentially. I think it's, I, I think it's helpful. I don't think it's too little too late for the purpose of like the people that are kind of locked in either way. And remember, the, the harder it takes for you to, to, to come to a position, the more kind of locked in you are into that position. But the easier you come to a position. The people that are kind of flaky anti vax because that's what their algorithm says. You know, those people maybe look be like, oh, okay, well this guy's looking at it anew and now is saying that so the people who haven't worked hard to come to a position but kind of had it fed to them are probably more persuadable, you know, with, with the, the, the wins and so to speak. And so, and that's just, you know, that's not a knock against them. That's just any, any Any situation where it takes time and effort to come across information and to form an opinion and a position, it's just those people, those positions are generally more resilient than the ones that are fed to you through an algorithm. So I think that it could be helpful. I mean, again, it's not going to switch anybody who's staunch in this camp or staunch in that camp. But if the goal here again, and the goal here is to try to lessen the spread of this and to have no more people die or less people die than otherwise would happen. And so I think that this will be effective for that. And so it's never like when you're in a position of authority, it's kind of like never too late to do the right thing. And I think he's doing the right thing here. Whether or not I thought he was doing the right thing, though, I would say that it's respectable to again, take in new information, reevaluate what you're thinking and why you're thinking it, and then come out with either a new position or come out and explain why that you don't have a new position or something like that. I'm happy that he's actively engaging in the process of his job because that's not a given. As you talk about, people don't seem to be doing that as much now. There's a lot of ivory tower governing and a lot of our stuff saying, hey, this is just what it's going to be and whatever happens, happens. I don't care because I'm my, my, my means are my ultimate goal. Not even the end, so to speak. And whatever ends are, we'll deal with it. So I think that it's helpful, you know, like to have somebody responsive in government, you know, because Lord knows we need it. We need more people that pay attention to the facts on the ground and, and can adjust. And ideally our ends are aligned. And here, you know, I think less death, less disease, everybody kind of has the same ends. And so it's kind of an easier place to get to if you're going to adjust in other settings, it may not be as easy. If you're talking about, hey, do you want broad based prosperity? Then some people might say no, we just want prosperity at the top. And no. So even if you have people that can adjust on the fly, they may not have the same ends as someone else, you know. And so, yeah, so we'll see, you know, here we're just trying to prevent death, I think. And so that that's let's keep the simple, simple. So you got any last before we wrap this up?
[00:27:47] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, just, just real quick. I find it interesting and I'm concerned that we're going to see more examples of this in coming months because as I'm preparing for today and reading stuff again, this ideology stuff, the ideology of cutting all the budgets and all that, I looked up Health and Human Services as a department. They recently cut $12 billion that was granted to states specifically for. And I'm gonna read the, from the article. Money funded. This money funded vaccine programs, emergency preparedness and infectious disease surveillance. To me, the last one was very important. The surveillance of these diseases. Right. We gotta know what's going on in the country. And that's just my concern. Like I really do. Like I agree 100% with what you said. I appreciate that RFK has come to this position, but he just came to it at a time where they cut $12 billion from states and fired 10,000 people this week. So it's just, it's kind of. That's what I mean by the ideology is going to crash up against the rocks of reality.
[00:28:46] Speaker A: Maybe, maybe not, man. I mean the rich people want the tax cut, man. So, you know, so do I. I'm not that rich.
[00:28:52] Speaker B: Apparently I'm not that rich. But I'm going to take it too, just so you know.
But that's what I'm saying was my. Well, let's put it this way. Let's do a show in the year and let's see if my tax cut was worth it to offset cuts in surveilling infectious diseases. Let's see.
[00:29:09] Speaker A: But no, I think we can wrap this topic from there. We appreciate everyone for joining us. Check out second topic as well and we'll talk soon.
All right, Tunde, we've seen some discussions and research reports and so forth in health magazines, Men's Health and so forth, Women's Health, talking about the increase in caffeine consumptions and specifically like energy drinks and pre workout powders which coincides with also the rise in the consumption and caffeine and coffee and tea and so forth and. But that there's been an observed increase amongst young people even with heart attacks and things, you know, that, that seem to be coming from or associated with this increase in caffeine use. So what do you make of this? Like is this something where is this just alarmists and you're trying to sell, you know, health. You know, health people always tell us that, you know, either we got one simple fix or hey Everything you're doing is wrong. Or is this something we should be looking at? If you got people in their 20s and 30s having heart attacks?
[00:30:08] Speaker B: Yeah, I think we should be looking at it just like you said, 28 year old dying of a fatal heart attack isn't normal. Now in defense of caffeine, you and I didn't do an autopsy on this young lady. So we don't. And the articles we read didn't talk about did she have any other health concerns or things that could have added to maybe her being susceptible more to a heart attack having.
[00:30:32] Speaker A: Well, but this is beyond that. There's an ongoing, ongoing, you know and you shared with me a couple things that there's talking about this ongoing look at there and we'll have these in the show notes where there's. He's referencing a particular 28 year old woman. But there's been lots of reports of, you know, the, the, of these type of outcomes that arise from. And really what you're looking at is a lot of times is the, the quantity of caffeine. Like when you push an energy drink you might have, you know, if the recommended daily limit is 400 milligrams of caffeine, you'll have energy drinks and stuff. I think what was a Panera had to stop selling something. It had like 300 and something milligrams of caffeine in it. Whoa. Like that's funny.
[00:31:10] Speaker B: I, we can put in the show notes. I don't know if you saw I sent you last night the, the. Because I just googled it out of curiosity. The average, like what's the average caffeine and energy drinks or did the caffeine milligrams in the average energy drink and it was a cool diagram that had all the top sellers like Monster and Red Bull and all that stuff. And yeah, I would say the lowest one I saw I think was 80 milligrams per serving and the highest was around 380.
[00:31:38] Speaker A: And, and cup coffee is like 90, you know, just for reference. So talking about four cups of coffee versus you could slam one of these drinks and you might be there. You know, it's like oh my gosh.
[00:31:47] Speaker B: Well, and, and that's the thing I think which is just interesting like, like, because it goes back to like we're talking about James. The combination of things in our, in our new era of this kind of modern stuff with this technology is their proliferation of information, whether it's good or bad information. And then again the kind of distrust in traditional authority, like traditional doctors and science and all that stuff. And then I think, you know, like we've talked about and things when it comes to the economy or even the first part of the show about vaccines. I mean the human body is complex. All this stuff is complex. So I think especially for younger people, because it's funny, James, I text my 26 year old son last night after I was reading this article because you know, it's funny how real life is. I'm driving this kid's car yesterday. It's funny I gotta ask my son to drive the car that I bought. So that's a whole nother discussion. But I'm driving a car and I just look in the middle thing, you know, the drink holder, and he's got this little organic energy drink and it's empty because the kid, you know, he works out and he does MMA and all that, he's in shape. So I text him, I'm like, I text him the article about the young lady who unfortunately died with a heart attack. And I was like, hey man, be careful with this stuff. And then he tells me I don't drink energy drinks. And I'm like, dude, I just saw it in your car. So, so it's even. I'm thinking because young people, I'm thinking like maybe my son doesn't even recognize the definition of an energy drink. Yeah. You know what I mean?
[00:33:14] Speaker A: Because a lot of times they're marketed and that we with someone in the show, notes, notes we'll have it talks about how they marketed as health drinks.
[00:33:20] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly.
[00:33:21] Speaker A: And got a bunch of B vitamins and all this other stuff. And it's actually the only thing you're really feeling is the caffeine.
[00:33:26] Speaker B: Now his, his thing was like it said, not him, but the bottle it said organic and ginger stuff and all that. And again, the definition of organic we know is loose and, and that's what I was thinking, James, is especially for young people. Because you're right, somebody his age, that works. I mean I see the kid drinks maybe two, three cups of coffee in the morning before going to work. And then you're right, if someone like him's drinking three or four of these a day, these energy drinks, next thing you know you got a thousand milligrams of caffeine. And if you're doing that for years, your blood pressure, other things are going to be affected. And I think there's so much stuff in our ecosystem now outside of our bodies that is just. We don't even know half the stuff that's going in Our body, it's, it's interesting.
[00:34:08] Speaker A: Well, we, I mean if you care to know, you can know, you know, to some degree. But I think that the thing that really hit me with this is just people love their drugs, you know, like people especially stimulants, you know, like the caffeine thing. Like we, we talked about this years ago, talking about how most of the world's population, because caffeine's half life is more than you know, it stays in your system more than a day. Like most of the world's population is, or adult population at least is like has caffeine in their system at all times, you know. And so it's just like what would the world look like if that wasn't the case? So and then you look at like nicotine stuff like that and just all the creative ways I used to people smoked but then that's, you know, society wide that was. You got people dying from secondhand smoking, all that. So now they got the patches and they got all this stuff that you know, people still figure out a way to get their nicotine. So it's just, and it's kind of, it's kind of like, you know, remember if you go back 100 some years when coca Cola was first created, it had cocaine in it, you know, and the first 20 years or so cocaine in there. And, and like, so it's just like we like that kind of stuff as people, you know. And even if you want to go to the more natural side, like in certain parts of the world they chew coca leaves, you know, which is not as refined and so forth, but it still gives you that, that little bit of a boost. And so I think that's just hardwired in us, you know, we like that, you know. And so the issue that you have to get to is I think you, you I look at at least differently the, the issue of caffeine with. When it's in like tea or coffee versus when you're talking about these energy drinks because like the energy drinks, it's, it, this is going to be, it's going to be an exaggeration for the point of, or for, for the purposes of making the point. But the energy drink is like you know, doing a bump of cocaine versus the coffee being like chewing a coca leaf. Like you're having the stimulant in a more purified and concentrated form. Because like I said, you have a cup of coffee, you know, it's going to, you know, 90 something grams or something like that you drink and it's warm so you drink it slower and so forth like that. Or even if it's iced coffee, the amount, the quantity versus one can of something or one, one, one serving of some energy drink might be twice or three times that. And so and with, with drinks you can, you can put them down really fast. And then also the other thing I'll mention here and because this looks like like you talked about how it's the combination of things. Well, what you said there reminded me when we were younger ephedra, you know and, and was. Was a thing for a few years, you know, for, for some time. And then it got outlawed and people were having adverse health outcomes with that heart related and stuff as well. And one of the big things there was that, and I remember this, there were supplements that had ephedra plus the caffeine. And so you'd be in there really like, you know, you'll be in the way in the gym like you know, really banging it out. And ephedra was effective. Like ephedra was, was good for fat loss and good for all these different things. But people were dying and so like that. I don't think they're going to outlaw caffeine. But it is just like it's one of those things that yes, the, the, the quantity and the concentration of it. And then like you mentioned, if it's being mixed in with anything else that may also, you know, stimulate it or create some other effect. It just. And then over time these things can just can wear your body down faster. Is kind of the, the thing that you look at with that.
[00:37:18] Speaker B: Yeah, it's interesting because as you're talking it makes me think about things like the downside of these things. Like yes, somebody taken one of these energy shots is an interesting example you gave between the natural form of something like a coca leaf versus the purified refined form of the powder of cocaine. And the difference like, you know, it's reminds me of like when we talked about you know the, the, the technology that allowed the refining and distilling of hard liquor in the 1800s.
[00:37:46] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:37:46] Speaker B: And it's just like the difference that that created and how people behave. I mean like you're saying then the.
[00:37:52] Speaker A: Hell we did the show on the prohibition.
[00:37:54] Speaker B: That's what I'm saying. Yeah, it was fascinating because think about.
[00:37:57] Speaker A: Drinking, you know like wine and beer. It was different than when they started drinking hard liquor.
[00:38:02] Speaker B: Drinking hard liquor. And then he's saying also the health effects, right. Cirrhosis of the liver, brain stuff going on that all is caused more by hard liquor than by even heart issues, than by wine and beer. And then what did that do? It's a great point you bring up because it helps me even further go through my thought here because what did we learn in the prohibition documentary? Again, another plug for people go back in our library and watch that show is, is that the women's suffrage movement, which culminated in the women constitutional right to vote in 1920, began in the mid-1800s because of the conditions of wives around the country dealing with men who now were slaves to the bottle, to the moonshine and to the liquor and all that. And it's amazing how that cascades, right? Because the women's suffrage movement, the need for that, didn't seem to be the same prior to the distilling of this technology of distilling liquor a certain way in the, in the early to mid-1800s. So it's. So I'm thinking about James. What it makes me think about is like the, the effects of caffeine. But then I'm, I wrote down other things. Adderall, Xanax. We're talking about people, especially young people, put all this stuff from their body a lot like you said, like ephedrine was because of the competitive nature of things like corporate America or school and to study because they work.
[00:39:23] Speaker A: You know, like that's the thing. Like it's not, it's not like some placebo. Like these things do, do what they are sold to do, but like saying.
[00:39:30] Speaker B: About they work, but then they have these side effects that over long term they damage the body. And I'm thinking about, like we were talking in, in the example of, of. Of the, of the liquor. Obviously there's changes behavior, changes body, everything. And that's obvious, right? Someone who's stone drunk stumbling around a living room, you can see it. But we go to the mall, we go shopping, whatever. We're around people that are constantly, that we don't know, but they're hyped up on this stuff, right? Like, and that's what I mean by younger people who, you know, may not, they may not, may not have the experience to, you know, source things and kind of question certain things if they.
[00:40:08] Speaker A: Feel the pressure, man, I'm sure that middle aged people are doing the same stuff.
[00:40:13] Speaker B: Well, I'm just saying if you're 19 and you're under stress because you're trying to pass, get straight A's in some class or, you know, you're 23 and you're trying to impress me and you're.
[00:40:22] Speaker A: Trying to get this Bonus for, for some kind of thing.
[00:40:25] Speaker B: But I'm saying when you're 50, you're already a little bit baked into your life. What I mean is the effect on people's relationships, interpersonal relationships, because they're hopped up on all this stuff, maybe on one part of the day, but on the other part of the day they're dealing with the downside effects emotionally. So now they're cranky, they're pissed off. And that's what I mean.
[00:40:43] Speaker A: Like these things can't hold down relationships anymore in your, in your position, your mind.
[00:40:48] Speaker B: Well, I'm gonna give another plug for a show we did. No, let me not. Sorry audience. I'm definitely not that kind of salesman.
But now, man, that's what I'm thinking, James, is that it goes back to the things like the microplastics and things. Those things are floating around and we have no idea that we're breathing these things in. And what I realize is by being overhopped on caffeine, by an over prescribed, over these different kind of drugs that are supposed to help us stay focused or I need to depressants. We're also walking around with all this chemicals in our brain.
Like a lot of people probably don't remember who they are or maybe not even know it. If they've been using these things since they were teenagers or early 20s and now they're our age, let's say they might not really know who or remember who that person was. Because their brain chemistry is different.
[00:41:35] Speaker A: Yeah, it just, it alters them. There's this altered state that they, they find. I mean, I think the, the efficacy piece is one of the more interesting things about caffeine also though, and I did want to touch on that because like I've. I've worked out, you know, for the past, I mean, 25 years, you know, I guess maybe even longer than that really starting in high school. And I can actually, what's been really eye opening for me is not just kind of the psychological piece, but since I started wearing a, you know, one of the smartwatches, being able to see like my workouts and then looking at what I did before the workout. And so like I can say like. And I always felt this, you know, like. But I don't do my workouts around caffeine. Like I won't make sure I have some, you know, like I used to, you know, my 30s or whatever, you know, like there are things guarana or something like that you have. But like if I have caffeine, if I Have a cup of coffee. Near when I decide to work out in the day, I can see the difference in terms of my heart rate and the calories burned and all that kind of stuff. So to me, that's why I'm like, I get it, you know, from the standpoint, like you talk about, oh, yeah, you drink and then you, you know, you, you feel that effect and then you kind of, if you want that again, you know where to go. I think the caffeine is the same kind of thing like you do the energy drink or drink a cup of coffee. And beyond the issue of withdrawal, which comes with any drug, you have the issue of that. The fact that you were, you know, kind of, you know, dragging a second ago and now you're, you're, you're popped up. And so you remember that. And so it's like, yeah, the efficacy of these things, it means that the draw is always going to be there, I think what we'll have to look at and what we have to make sure. And I want to ask you about this directly, but just to make the point, is that from a product standpoint, what's available, what people are allowed to sell, at least, you know, kind of in. Without the dire warning, you know, maybe you got to put one of those cigarette label warnings on certain energy drinks once they exceed a certain threshold of, of, of caffeine or something like that. It's just, it's the packaging of it because we're going beyond the way nature could package it reasonably. And you know, great, people want to do that, that's fine. But you probably should let people know at a certain point. And so do you look at this as a regulatory issue or do you think this is something that people really just got to sort out for themselves? You know, like taking what I just said as far as how kind of I kind of articulated the standard, you know, but just in general, like, this stuff isn't going anywhere because it works and you know, it. People, you harm yourself potentially over the long term. But we don't make decisions oftentimes over what will harm you in five years or 10 years or 30 years.
[00:44:12] Speaker B: That's a very good way you put it because honestly, the way you said that, it really accounts for the need for some sort of regulatory authority. And I hate to hear myself say that because it's not all about regulation. Regulation, but, but, but, but no, it's the idea, like you said, that because we're doing things to products that we purchase and ingest into our bodies, that, and when I say we're doing things. What I mean is industry is doing things to these products that make them much different than they would otherwise be in nature. And that's what I'm getting at. So the idea, think about like, tobacco. Tobacco is a plant that comes out of the ground just like marijuana.
And people have been smoking both of those for thousands of years.
[00:44:58] Speaker A: But even with cigarettes, you know, they'll add a bunch of additives.
[00:45:01] Speaker B: That's what I'm getting at.
[00:45:02] Speaker A: Nicotine hit harder.
[00:45:03] Speaker B: Yeah, that's, that's what I'm getting at. When industry got a hold of tobacco over the last hundred years, it. They put things that made more addictive, all that kind of stuff, right? Same is happening with marijuana. I'm reading articles that, you know to be careful about certain dispensaries because where they source the marijuana plant, they, they plant them on farms that have, you know, a lot of pesticides in them from a long time ago, farms that were shut down for, like, agriculture to give us food, you know, because they had DDT and stuff that's been banned in them. And now they're grown marijuana plants that I might be buying and smoking DDT now. Right?
[00:45:42] Speaker A: Oh, my God.
[00:45:42] Speaker B: So, so, and that's my point is saying, like, it's funny. One of my friends was over my house and he saw my watch band from my iWatch and he says to me, he goes, tuna, you sure you want to wear that band? I think it's got PFAS's in it. I looked at him and we're smoking a joint and I'm like, dude, you don't want to know about the article. I just read about where this marijuana might have been growing because I think we smoking a bunch of chemicals that's probably going to kill us way quicker than this watch band is going to kill me. So my point of him, Joe said, and I'm thinking I was wearing a nylon shirt and I was like, and look how many microplastics coming off. And let's not talk about when I brush my teeth and all the microplastics coming off the toothbrush. So it's, it's enough to drive you crazy if you really think about it. And to the point we make sometimes in these shows. Maybe we just throw our hands up and say, hey, someone fix this for me. I'm tired of this stuff, right? It's, it's too much coming at us. So I. It's funny, James. That's why the kind of capitalist dude in me feels like I don't want to hear myself saying, yeah, we should regulate this.
[00:46:38] Speaker A: But.
[00:46:38] Speaker B: There's a but as the way you set it up saying, yeah, well, if industry is changing the nature of something like caffeine, that naturally occurs in certain things, like a coffee bean. But they're shoving so much caffeine into something that it could cause, you know, young people to have heart attacks and fatally die.
[00:46:55] Speaker A: I don't know.
[00:46:55] Speaker B: Should they be regulated or not? I don't know. What's the role of a government? I guess those are the questions we're going to be asking ourselves over the coming months.
[00:47:03] Speaker A: You know, in some context, the government's job is to protect you from yourself. In other contexts, it's not, you know.
[00:47:08] Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I mean. Like, this is all new. Not new, but good questions we're gonna have to ask ourselves.
[00:47:14] Speaker A: I myself impartial to like, I now living through. I mean, part of this is the benefit of the age, but living through what happened with cigarettes and how they were everywhere and then they were very rare, like, was like, people smoke on airplanes, you know, like. And I wasn't alive then.
[00:47:32] Speaker B: But James, we're old enough to remember going to clubs, nightclubs, when we were college age, and you would come home.
[00:47:38] Speaker A: Your clothes would reek of, of course, like. And so living through that transition and. But that change happened without them making cigarettes illegal. And so to me, I have a lot of faith in the ability, if it's. If. If you have the right kind of person or the right kind of people in place that want to preserve liberty but want to help the public, which, you know, is not necessarily the combination that we. We've tried to get in leaders for whatever reason. But I think that it's very possible, you know, like, if you. Between marketing and labeling, which is what the two things that they made, they taxed the cigarette companies or, you know, they had to pay settlements and so forth, but also they put money taxes on them. They use that money to tell people about the risks and scare people, you know, honestly. And. And then also they had the labeling saying, yeah, this thing will kill you right here. And between those two, you know, like, you've seen a drop, a substantial drop. And then you see younger generations, they're like, that's not even their thing. It's just like, oh, no, that's. That's old people stuff, you know. And so I think that it's very possible that for a society without curbing liberty to be able to. And I mean, I wouldn't say this if I didn't see it with nicotine, but. Or, you know, and then obviously you will just have a bunch of caffeine patches at that point. But nonetheless, I think that it's very possible and that we should look at it and saying, hey, okay, let's take some of this money. You're gonna sell anything that has more than blank amount of caffeine in it, then going to pay an extra tax. We're going to take that tax and we're going to tell people, hey, be careful. You know, these things with, with X amount of caffeine. You already getting caffeine from this, you're already getting caffeine from that. You drink this, you know, you might have a heart attack, you know, and then also put it on the label, like, look, this, this has, you know, one. This exceeds the amount of caffeine, that of yada, yada, yada, Just do that and then people will still buy it. You know, like, that's the thing, that's the other thing we learned is that, you know, people want it. The one people that want it, want it, you know, and so I think.
[00:49:28] Speaker B: Still makes a lot of money, you're right.
[00:49:29] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
R.J. reynolds, Philip Morris, those dudes are still, you know, they still living hot, you know. So I think that it's possible. I think that it's something that society should look at. You know, I don't think there's a will for that right now, you know, and then we can't agree on anything as a society right now. But generally speaking, you know, we're probably just kind of in an ebb right now in terms of being able to accomplish things. I hope, you know, Revenge of the Public. Public suggested something different, but we'll see. I think it's possible. I think it's something that should be done, though, or should be looked at. But in a way, this is, this doesn't rise to the idea of you should be looking at curbing people's liberty, though. It should just be about, hey, just make sure everybody here, you guys, you make a lot of money on this. You make sure. We'll take the money you make to make sure that people know what this can do to them.
[00:50:14] Speaker B: Yeah, it's interesting, man, because as you're saying, I remember, man, we're old enough, like. And I'm just thinking like a young person today to walk in and see something like if someone 25 going into an office. I remember being a kid in the 80s, my mom used to work in downtown D.C. and you know, big office Buildings. And as an elementary school kid, going to see her after school or something. I mean, everybody, people were smoking cigarettes and cubicles. I remember being a kid in the 80s and they still had smoking sections on airplanes.
[00:50:42] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:50:42] Speaker B: And I remember it was at the back of the plane. So I'd be sitting like, not all.
[00:50:46] Speaker A: The way in front, but like connected.
[00:50:48] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. And I remember looking back and seeing all this smoke and thinking like, mom, I can smell it. And she's like, I thought we were in the no smoking section. And she's looking at me like, yeah.
[00:50:56] Speaker A: Like no smoking sections of restaurants.
[00:50:58] Speaker B: But it's like, it's like that's what smoke does.
[00:51:00] Speaker A: Yeah, it goes shocker.
[00:51:03] Speaker B: So, so it's just funny. But you're right, James. I mean that's, it's, it's a good reminder that in, in a relatively short period of time of, you know, 20, 30 years in a society, we've seen a lot of change on a topic that is a big issue. Right. Hundreds of millions of people smoke cigarettes. I mean, let's say tens of millions in America, but billions around the world. And a lot of, let's say at least first world countries have really tailored and changed how they deal with cigarettes. And so we can make big changes. But I think these kind of conversations always are good because it's. It, it. I feel like it allows the public to ask that open kind of rhetorical question, which is what is the role of our government? And you, like you're saying the statistics.
[00:51:41] Speaker A: Remember though, that our government can't accomplish stuff. You know, like we can, you know, like we gotta put our minds to it, so to speak, but we can accomplish stuff. It's not like we just.
[00:51:51] Speaker B: Do we trust ourselves more collectively as a people or do we want to give all that trust to one man or one entity, you know, that kind of thing. And that's the forever question.
[00:51:59] Speaker A: I don't think you want to ask that question right now, man.
I think people are putting a lot of faith in people's instincts these days.
[00:52:08] Speaker B: And we'll do this one as a follow up show.
[00:52:12] Speaker A: But no, I think we can wrap this from here. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Till next time. I'm James Keys.
[00:52:21] Speaker B: I'm Tunde.
[00:52:22] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk soon.
