Harry Weidner: 0:04

All right, welcome back to our tangled minds.

Jack Weidner: 0:08

Welcome to our tangled minds.

Harry Weidner: 0:10

I'm Harry Weidner.

Jack Weidner: 0:12

I'm Jack Bagnato. And

Harry Weidner: 0:13

welcome back. This is season two,

Jack Weidner: 0:17

I was gonna say we're not actually walking. Are we welcoming them back? Or Are we welcoming them to Season Two?

Harry Weidner: 0:22

Welcome to Season Two.

Jack Weidner: 0:24

Welcome to Season Two.

Harry Weidner: 0:25

This is the revitalization of the podcast as I texted Jack, I don't know what happened toward the end of last season, but I got tired. I was finishing your graduated. Yeah, I got tired. Joe,

Jack Weidner: 0:37

you ran a marathon.

Harry Weidner: 0:39

And who cares about that? Welcome to Season Two.

Jack Weidner: 0:42

We have you asked what happened? It doesn't matter.

Harry Weidner: 0:46

The only thing the only thing that matters now is going forward. Welcome to Season Two,

Jack Weidner: 0:53

the terrible mindset. Should we start again? No, I think this is fine. It's very nice. It's very vintage podcast. You know how I know this is back towards the beginning of the podcast, because I am nervous as hell to record this podcast. I am sweating. I'm in a white t shirt. And I'm sweating. Both because I want to deliver because I get this text from you saying that we need to revitalize the podcast. And I'm like, yes. So I want to deliver that. Also, our topic is stressful. And I thought all day about how to articulate it. I wrote nothing down, which is so stereotypical of me. I'm nervous. Well, I'm excited. I like I used to get this like, tense feeling in my chest before we would record like, I feel like look at myself in the mirror and be like Jack, you can do this. It's an hour with me and God the church.

Harry Weidner: 1:55

And so I just want to explain. I don't know, I felt like the past couple episodes haven't been our best. We did the Seinfeld. I agree. And then we actually recorded another episode at home with you, my mom. And I didn't put it out because I just didn't like it. Like we talked about summer as adults and what the fuck is that? So I

Jack Weidner: 2:14

think there's a lot there talking about summer as adults. I don't think we did it copes. Like I don't think we I don't know that we formed in a narrative. No, we had no I'm not saying that. There's the I don't think the topic was bad. I think it was the narrative structure.

Harry Weidner: 2:28

Yeah. We're back. This is a 2.0 are tangled mines. We have new podcast cover art. Hopefully you can see that. It's not done yet. But it will be done by the time this comes out.

Jack Weidner: 2:44

What if we do our tangled mind squared?

Harry Weidner: 2:48

No, because it because if we have another season, I'm not going to be rolling out our tenure of minds to the 72nd hour. Jesus

Jack Weidner: 2:56

Do you think we're gonna have settled? We're not stopping 72 seasons? Oh, my God, I'd

Harry Weidner: 3:01

started. We're gonna keep going until we die.

Jack Weidner: 3:04

Jesus Christ. Okay.

Harry Weidner: 3:06

What do you let's just do you just want to get into it.

Jack Weidner: 3:09

We usually we could do like a little bit of brief like, how have you been? i We actually haven't spoken very much about the podcast.

Harry Weidner: 3:18

All right. Well, tell me what's new.

Jack Weidner: 3:22

Oh, see, this is I shouldn't have said that. Because nothing's new with me. Nothing's

Harry Weidner: 3:25

new with me either. Okay, and that's us catching up.

Jack Weidner: 3:33

Is how it goes? Let's

Harry Weidner: 3:35

get into it. Jack. Okay, a couple of weeks ago, brought this up. And I'm not sure why I'd like to hear about why. But he essentially said we should do an episode on based on the book. But what if we're wrong by Chuck Klosterman? And we can all talk a little bit more about the book and its history. But I wanted to hear about your motivation for doing this episode.

Jack Weidner: 4:01

Well, you told me see now this is like where I got scared because I'm like, How much do I want to reveal? politics that are in my mind? I'm okay. You sent me You said you got to read this book. Because I arbitrarily question everything, I think to quote you or paraphrase you, that arbitrary question everything and you should read this book, Jack, and I finally got around to reading it. It totally, at once, like, reaffirmed my questioning of absolute truth, and terrified me into an existential crisis all in one reading, which I feel like it's really good at doing that. Like if you feel like you have some sort of stable footing, it kind of shakes you up, but then allows that to be very freeing, which is what I was looking for in a book, but it did scare me a little bit because I'm really good at giving myself existential crises. And I read it a Round the time of and see, this is what you might have to cut this, of all of this. The protests on college campuses, okay, which I think were complicated. And I was listening to a lot of podcasts, a lot of interviews, reading a lot of stuff on it. And there were a lot of thoughts on both sides. And I thought, wow, both of these are so the sides are so passionate about their issue. And I am weary of saying that one, like something is 100%. Correct. And I was thinking, what would I do if I were on campus right now? And what would I do? If I were presented with facts from the opposite side? That contradicted, fundamentally, my perceived truth? How would I handle that? How are we supposed to handle that? Are we supposed to grow into handling that? And then that kind of got me thinking one of my New Year's resolutions was to be wrong, and Warren assume that I'm wrong, less. So it was like, oh, like, what if I were to challenge one of my heart set beliefs? How would I change? How would that change me? And I kind of just wanted to talk with you about the idea of what it means to be wrong. And how do we accept that were wrong? You know, we have these hard principles. The Socratic method is to keep asking questions until you prove that we actually don't have that fundamental grasp on a topic that we think we that we do. And yeah, that's kind of.

Harry Weidner: 6:46

And I think it's interesting that you gravitated to this book will link this book. Again. Yeah. by Chuck Klosterman, the book was presented to me, junior senior year of college, from Professor Andrew bomonti. And Andrews, Eric simmering. And math professors. And they just, you know, they're they're not only math professors, they're very well read. And they were just talking about this book, opening their minds to other concepts. And it really sort of reflected their, their willingness to see the world from different perspectives. So that's when I got this book. And that's, I

Jack Weidner: 7:27

think, when I told you about it, you told me about it after you finished it. Okay. So 22 Yeah, yeah, it was it was that time, I'm just saying, like you, you weren't like, Oh, I just got this book, you got to read it. You were like, I just read this book, you have to read? Okay. Two different people. And

Harry Weidner: 7:44

the main premise of the book is essentially to challenge you to think about your current beliefs and assumptions. Almost as if future generations. Were seeing that, you know, how, how can we look back on our time right now, from 2000 years into the future. And it talks about literature and music and science and sports,

Jack Weidner: 8:09

and philosophy, gravity.

Harry Weidner: 8:11

And it was a lot of physics. You know, it opens up with gravity, which was a nice way to open it. And it sort of serves as a, I don't know, a critique of cultural certainty, which is, yeah, that's a good way. So I'd like that you found this book again, now, a couple years later, because I've had time to sort of marinate on Google how I feel about the book are fresh, you're fresh, and I didn't reread it. But I remember that I really loved the way that that it was written. But I'd like to start with your but what if we're wrong, Jack and I each picked up a topic for this. And I'm interested to hear Jack. And I'm going to before we even go into this, I am going to predict how it's going to go and something that's going to happen. So many times that you and I talk and get this crust. You love the uncertainty. Yeah, right. And I love the uncertainty less. So you will have picked a topic about which you are uncertain. And you are just driving farther into that uncertainty. Correct. And something something that I did, and that I think will happen here is I've picked something that I'm relatively certain about. I'm challenging it. And I'm trying to arrive at a clear answer at the far end of complexity. If that makes sense, you know, so you, you take complexity and you just make it bigger and And I tried to drum say, chaos chaos. And I drive through complexity, and try and make it a little more clear. And I really think that's what's gonna happen here again,

Jack Weidner: 10:11

but we'll see. Yeah, I kind of disagree.

Harry Weidner: 10:14

Okay, I'm excited.

Jack Weidner: 10:18

Okay. So essentially, I'm, you know, I'm gonna have to frame this into why I am thinking about this. Okay. As you said, I am not a big certainty guy. I often. I don't know, if I don't, I don't, it's not that I don't want certainty. It's that I am so cautious of assuming anything with certainty that I live in a very chaotic space, because I try to frequently challenge my thought process. So this idea of objective truth, really what I'm getting at is I'm questioning is, I don't believe that there is objective truth. And that's not a new theory for you. And that's not new. So I, because of what you just said, me going and being like, what if I'm wrong about objective truth was too big for me to talk about? Yes,

Harry Weidner: 11:22

thank you for not taking so I said, What

Jack Weidner: 11:26

on earth? What is something more tangible in my life? That, like, it would be a way for me to kind of approach this question in a more in a more, you know, focused way. And then I thought, who believes that they have objective truth, that they're made of objective truth, the Catholic Church. They Catholics wake up, if you ask them why they get out of bed in the morning, they are like authority, which is a joke, but it's true. The Catholic Church preaches authority, and they preach objective, they have objective truth. And that is what they base a lot of their claims on. I famously not believing in objective truth and very cautious of this, yet I find myself constantly surrounded by the mindset of the Catholic Church. There were a few ways that I could have taken this. Again, I thought one of them was easy. Okay. So I a few fundamental principles of Catholic church that I think that they are objectively wrong about our, let's say, their stance on same sex marriages, and LGBTQ people being fundamentally what did they say at all? It's like something at odds with nature or, you know, against the principles of God, whatever. So I could say, what if I'm fundamentally wrong about that? What if the Catholic Church has objective truth and they're correct about it? I think it's easy for me to be like, Okay, I'll burn in hell, because I don't agree with the Catholic Church's teaching I, if even if I learned that the Catholic Church was wrong, that goes so against my morals that I had been brought up with that. It's just I wouldn't change my life. And then I say, Okay, well, I'll just burn in hell. And one, I don't know if that's actually true, because I think faced with eternal damnation, I would love to be able to say, I will take that to stand up for what I believe is morally right in this life. And the other it's just so easy for me to say that because I'm not actually faced with that reality. And I could never, I won't say anything else. And I could never actually understand that reality. So I feel like those personal truths are very hard. Um, I hesitated picking something very specific. And I think I am going to talk about abortion. I was hesitant to talk about it, because of the current threat to women's reproductive, the current egregious threat in this country and worldwide but especially in this country, to women's reproductive rights and reproductive health. I picked it because I think a nuanced conversation is I want to have a nuanced conversation about it. And I am scared to have a nuanced conversation about it. Purely because it is so political. So I am going to start by so what if I am wrong? I am a pro choice, white man and for many reasons. I think some of that is because I I have been sure, growing up, our mother was very open about the importance of reproductive rights for women, our grandmother was as well. I think also, as I have gotten older, I realized that as a man with no health care, under no healthcare knowledge or not intimate healthcare knowledge that I don't belong in that room. So I picked a stance of I arrived at the stance of pro choice, for many reasons. And I firmly believe that that is the right place where I should sit, you know, supporting women's right to choose in many different situations what they do with it. So, I ask the Catholic Church has a different take on this than I do. Right. And they defend it with moral and they defend it with certainty. Last summer, I was reading an Atlantic article that essentially stated the paraphrase it, it said the argument against abortion is one of nuance, and like, definitive medical terminology, and a high level of empathy and compassion. The argument against abortion is a sonogram. And that stayed with me that this is potentially a complex issue. We live in the post roe world. And, yeah, so I would, I began exploring, when we talked about this, I kind of debated if I wanted to talk about it. But what if I am wrong? About the Catholic Church's stance on abortion? And what if a collection of cells a fetus or you know, what have you at different stages? Is a quote unquote, lie life with a soul? And is a full in? I'd see I even have problems articulating this argument because I, it's, it's really hard. It's like, what if that that collection of cells is a human being as an I just can't understand that and I'm wrong. I think that's something that I want to discuss. I don't know if I'm gonna regret this. No, I

Harry Weidner: 17:59

that's I think that's brave of you. I think that's brave. And I appreciate that you brought it up, I wasn't expecting you to.

Jack Weidner: 18:08

It's just so easy for me to talk about religion like, Oh, what if I'm wrong, I burden How do I treat anyone different? Absolutely not. And I just, I just kept arriving at that, like, what if I'm wrong about the Catholic Church? When I'm standing, looking at the gates of hell? Do I change the way I interact with people? And I like, according to like, knowing that like, knowing I'll be condemned, how do I change? And like I said, like, I don't believe that I can actually answer that, because that is not the reality for me. But I think from an ideological standpoint, it's very easy for me to say, No, I don't because I if the American Catholic Church is right, if these hard stances that they're taking, is correct. We, I must ask myself if that, even if that's correct. Meaning like, God, you know, this is what God created? Is that a god and a world in which I would like to serve? And I think the answer would be no. But this is the abortion arguments a little bit more complicated. It is because involving a lot of factors. Yeah,

Harry Weidner: 19:22

I mean, it's a much more ethical argument. And it's a much more ethical and science based argument, rather than, you know, pure theology. Right. So you've got you've talked about how sort of cultural background influences your individual and locationally Speaking collective views on abortion. Yeah. But how, and I don't know the answer to this, but how have it advancements in sort of medical technology and from this Atlantic article and terminology influenced the abortion debate.

Jack Weidner: 20:09

Ooh, that's a great question. Um, there are so many ways to discuss this, I don't even know if I'm qualified to be discussing. But I've definitely contended with the issue for a lot of reasons. When the when, essentially when the state's decided or when, when Roe was decided, and the following cases, they kind of the court added this kind of weird sliding scale, where as medical advancements increased, the viability stage got longer, so they kind of made it so when viability when fetal viability occurred, it was kind of legal to outlaw abortions, which is a very, like, almost a black and white way of looking at it. Looking at the issue, like where if the fetus is viable, outside of the womb, then the state has an interest in that baby in that fetuses life, right? Where that's not the argument that I think the Catholic Church makes, where you said, it's, it has to do with science. But the Catholic Church does not. The catheter surely does not engage in that kind of idea. They don't engage with science, they reject that science has a place in that argument. I don't know if you knew that I didn't

Harry Weidner: 21:47

I really have stayed out of the Catholic day if this, right,

Jack Weidner: 21:51

sure. No, of course, they reject that scientists can tell you when a human being as a human being, and not the idea, the presence of a soul, which I'm not here to say if that makes a human being or not. They say that that is purely a theological. And what's weird is they don't even say that it's a theological debate. They believe that they have authority, which goes back to this kind of idea that they can say things with certainty. And that because it's been taught that way, they pass that down, and that they've arrived at this right answer. And they say that, you know, the, that human life begins in the womb.

Harry Weidner: 22:33

And how do you feel about the Catholic Church stance on that?

Jack Weidner: 22:37

Obviously, I don't like it. Yeah. But I think that it is got my question.

Harry Weidner: 22:44

You are in the process of converting to Judaism, what you whether you're going through with that or not, I'm not sure. But what is their stance on it? What is Judaism have to say about abortion? They

Jack Weidner: 22:57

have a little bit, it depends, like, again, this complicated question. There's different types of Judaism. They all have different views on it. And it's a more personal thing. The thing about Judaism is it is less Lok, small locus of central objective truth that is then passed out and decreed for all of its people. That is not how it works. It is you have the 10 commandments, you have different interpretations of the many laws. But there is not a central governing body in Judaism. There's not a papel presents, to quote yesterday's Wordle that can decree something to be true. Okay. So it is I you know, it's kind of a case by case. You know, there are a lot of liberal Jews out there who are incredibly pro choice, right? Yeah, I'd say that's more of the familiar stance of at least American Jews should but the Catholic Church says things with authority and they say this with authority. And when I am presented with the question if my if you know, if I'm wrong about them being wrong, if they if the Catholic Church is right. To be pro choice is to deny life to a quote unquote, full like living human being and living thing that is against my morals. So you could say, Okay, well, if I am proven, you know, 100% would I change my beliefs? There is a second part of this, that it's like easy, you know, maybe I should say, Yes. I don't know, the part where I think it becomes very complicated. Is there is a another aspect of this? Where Yes, there is, I think, saying like that there is a limit like this is a living thing you're killing a thing really simplifies that issue, to where there are so many different factors, that also would go against what I currently believe to be true. That isn't really impacted by the Catholic argument. Basic is that abortion is healthcare, right? There are women who die because they cannot have that they do not have access to abortion, right, there are women who get very, very close to death, there are women that become very ill. And that is a requirement to their health care. They need to they need that as healthcare. denying that is also fundamentally against what I believe to be true that is outside of the Catholic Church's stance, and I think outside of the Catholic Church's stance on the well being of people. What you are then asking, is, which life do you value more? Which is such a hard question.

Harry Weidner: 26:45

It is a hard question. And it's it's something I should consider more, but it's something I tend not to consider.

Jack Weidner: 26:52

Do you have to consider that in public health?

Harry Weidner: 26:54

What the Catholicism argument?

Jack Weidner: 26:57

Yeah,

Harry Weidner: 26:57

sure. Life, do you value more? Yes, you do. But this isn't this isn't where this isn't my wheelhouse.

Jack Weidner: 27:06

There's a there's another aspect to this that I think is interesting here. Because I heard people put a judge talking. And he said that he was not in favor of any abortion restriction. And at first the crowd gasp, I think I might have been a little surprised because I'd never heard anyone articulate that argument. And he said, when a woman has carried a baby into the third trimester, by definition, that woman intends to carry that baby to turn those cases when abortion is brought up. That woman that is a very hard conversation that likely no one wants to be having, right? So this idea of like, so you talk about health care, right? I'm talking about like the six week pregnancy thing, or that even gets really complicated. But we're talking like, let's say 36 weeks, and you find out something is wrong with the baby that impacts both its health, and the mother's health. That is then a public health question.

Harry Weidner: 28:18

I think it's a public health question even before that. Okay, so it's a public hydrogen. I think it's a mental health question. Oh, my God. Yeah. as well. Of course. Yeah, of course, you know, and that needs to be considered. And I think

Jack Weidner: 28:33

where I get so caught up on this, and why I have such a problem with the Catholic Church saying things with this kind of authority. is people are always like, men don't have a place in this conversation. And God dammit, do I agree with you. God dammit. Do I not think you and I should even be fucking talking about this. Because we we don't have a goddamn right to be in the same building. When these Congress because we are. We can talk about these questions abstractly all the time. Yeah. Where I think you and I fall is a lot of these are talking about control. Where do we like we're talking about? Not like what the woman should have like that. Of course, the one should have a right to choose. But when these issues come up, of course, not everyone agrees with me. Some women don't agree with me. To me, that makes a logical sense. But I think what it comes down to, really is this idea of control. And when I vote, I am voting for that level of control depending on who I vote for. And I'm voting on can trolling other people? And I think that is what makes me so uncomfortable. Telling someone what else to do. Right. I think that is why I have a problem with many of the arguments that the Catholic Church puts out. And, and and anyone that speaks with a level of authority that seriously impacts other people. Yeah, I think that a nuanced conversation should be had. I think everything deserves a nuanced conversation. I do not think, at the end of the day, people should be making decisions that kind of control other people's well being both mental and physical, and control their actions. I have a lot of problems with that I at least have a problem being the one making that just Yeah. Well, and that's where I'm interested in you yet. Because public health policy is telling people what to do.

Harry Weidner: 31:15

i That's why I'm smiling. Because So wait, let

Jack Weidner: 31:18

me let me serve it up. Let me so I guess, if I'm wrong about the Catholic Church's stance on abortion in America, I just can't look at it as such a black and white, this is this life for versus this life? Because I think it's just too complex. And it comes down to making a decision that I don't have the right. So I don't think presented with that information. And I was wrong. Just on that aspect, that I would change my viewpoints or thoughts. Because it is so hard. It goes it just goes against still so many things that I just don't even think are actually at the core of that argument isn't so that's kind of where I've gone with it. And it was really hard for me to articulate that, because I think it's so hard.

Harry Weidner: 32:19

No, well done. Thanks. Sorry. Thank you.

Jack Weidner: 32:22

Please, please tell me about public health. Well,

Harry Weidner: 32:24

I was talking I in a in a similar way. But funny opposite. I chose vaccines for AI. But what if we're wrong. And vaccines are a hot topic these days. The control comes from a public health standpoint, and it does not come from a church entity. So we could talk about vaccine mandates. And that being

Jack Weidner: 32:52

control, right, of

Harry Weidner: 32:55

people's actions. But I really just generally wanted to talk about vaccines, and I am very pro vaccine. I love vaccines. I study vaccines, I care about vaccines, and I truly think vaccines are the if not the one of the most important public health inventions in ever. They have saved millions of lives over the course of their development. They have completely eradicated smallpox, which was a terribly feared disease. They have damn near eradicated polio. And they have saved again, millions of lives and waterfall of water for wrong about vaccines being healthy.

Jack Weidner: 33:45

Shit, you by the way, we have both accidentally touched upon some of the biggest HIPAA like some of the claims of hypocrisy in both parties. Yeah, it's hard. This is nuts. How did he do this?

Harry Weidner: 34:03

So coming from the side of science that relies on data. And mine's a little more clear cut, because there are numbers to back these. And but, yeah,

Jack Weidner: 34:20

go ahead. And then I have a clarifying question for you, actually. So go ahead, finish it. There

Harry Weidner: 34:23

are numbers to back vaccine efficacy data. And there, I mean, it's it kind of is black and white. Vaccines save lives. But what if the long term health so CWLA may be negative for a vaccine? Should we be mandating Vaccines for Children in schools? And the issue becomes more complicated, as well. Not right now. But lifespan increases and longevity increase increases. We we may not know the very long term effects of vaccination, because we haven't survived that far yet. It's it's terribly unlikely. But fosse just to play along with with this episode.

Jack Weidner: 35:27

So what you're saying is, there's

Harry Weidner: 35:29

a chance because there you are inducing an immunomodulatory compound into your body that may have systemic effects down the road, and that's a lot of the anti Vax movement, their their arguments, then that's their arguments now in the history of it goes back to Andrew Wakefield, where he published the paper, proposing a link between MMR vaccine and autism. And he fabricated the data. And it was retracted I think in 2010. I'm not quite sure. completely false data, wrong, incorrect. And then the anti Vax movement that sort of catalyzed the anti Vax movement, and then it moved to other things. And now the anti Vax movement is on this sort of wild goose chase between finding vaccines and something going wrong. They changed to some adjuvants in that were in vaccines, then they moved along to, oh, people are getting too many vaccines. And now they're on. Well, the COVID vaccine and the mRNA vaccine. They talk about the long term side effects of that, which

Jack Weidner: 36:54

not even long term, they're talking about immediate side effects of people's hearts.

Harry Weidner: 36:58

Yeah, so there is what is it myocarditis? Yeah, yeah. But you know, what else is a side effect of COVID myocarditis markers. So I don't know, that's a little bit. Their arguments are searching, but not finding anything. And

Jack Weidner: 37:22

that is a famous conspiracy. That is a trait of conspiracy theories. I forgot the technical term. But it's interesting

Harry Weidner: 37:30

because all of the papers and and subsequent studies that are done for the anti Vax movement by people who may potentially be anti Vax. They they're not interested in what actually causes autism. And they're not actually interested in what causes chronic illnesses. They're just interested in seeing that vaccines cause this, and that that's a generalization on the publications. But there's a lot of bad science out there. That's looking backwards. It's a retrospective type. Like, we know, we think this happens, let's find it. It's simply finding a needle in the haystack.

Jack Weidner: 38:18

That being said, Well, it's getting it's getting data, right, and then saying, I like knowing your conclusion and justifying it right based on what's already caught not like looking at it and arriving at a conclusion. You start with a conclusion, and then you work backwards backwards.

Harry Weidner: 38:33

So the anti Vax movement. There concerns are not completely unfounded. It's it's a matter of the parents desire to do what's best for their children, and people's desire to be as healthy as possible. It's important to sort of respectfully address those concerns rather than dismiss them. And so you can't be completely dismissive of people who are anti Vax, in public health, it's better to reach them and have those conversations. Now that being said, how would I mean I'm so pro vaccine and I understand the regulatory aspects of things that that go into producing a vaccine and it's so hard and there's post licensure surveillance that happens and and these things are constantly being monitored for effectiveness and safety. Vaccines are so well researched and understood before they're put into the public. That really, oh my god, so

Jack Weidner: 39:42

even. Okay, sorry. I said really? Like I didn't believe it. I'm just curious. COVID felt like it came out the COVID vaccine felt like it came out very fast. Yeah.

Harry Weidner: 39:52

Works. How do operation warp speed?

Jack Weidner: 39:55

How do you know what it was? 10 and I don't know. Okay. How do you contend with people? So we're used to like, vaccines a very long time. How do you contend with people? You just said that the process? It's a very strict process? If when they how do you contend with someone being like, well, how the COVID won't come out so fast.

Harry Weidner: 40:22

It was a lot of work by a lot of people at the FDA and the CDC. And it was hundreds of 1000s of smart people collaborating together, saying, How can we get this to work. And a lot of it came from the US government with a lot of money, right? They said, We're going to do the Phase One trials, and then we're going to ramp up production, whether or not those phase one trials were successful, so that they could immediately move from phase one, practically to phase three. It was a very expedited and direct laser focused effort for these COVID vaccines that were in development to go through the process as quickly as possible. And people at the FDA worked around the clock tirelessly. Many of them have now left, because they were exhausted. But they worked around the clock to make sure these vaccines were safe and effective before they could be put out there. And you know, government work, it usually doesn't move that fast, slow. And so

Jack Weidner: 41:26

unless there's money and important and and then it can move as fast as it needs to this

Harry Weidner: 41:31

was at Money in importance. That's that's kind of how we landed on the mRNA COVID vaccine as quickly as we did. And the technology was was a novel technology. It wasn't completely new. They knew how to do it. In theory, there had been no approved vaccines using mRNA. before. But what if we're wrong about all

Jack Weidner: 41:55

that virus? Just gonna I was just gonna ask what if we're wrong about 2000 years in the future? You for humanity has been forced to be vaccinated. And people are limited living to 120. Yeah. They are seeing horrible side effects at the age that 120 is the average. So So I guess I'm presenting is think of 120 is like, what's the average? Life like? 68? Now, I think 70 Something for 7077. Whatever. So think of 102 is like 727? Yeah. People are seeing terrible side effects from vaccines, let's say 100?

Harry Weidner: 42:44

Yeah, again, I want to put out that this is so unlikely that yeah, oh, it's almost laughable that we're considering it, but I'm playing along.

Jack Weidner: 42:55

Because I guess mine was mine was a little more complicated.

Harry Weidner: 42:58

Yeah, yours was way more complicated. But say we see should have picked it easier, say they have studies that you can make a very clear causal inference from vaccination at one year old, to when you're 120 years old, this vaccine on this day, caused this illness or is highly associated. I don't know how that study would be done, it would be horribly difficult. But say it happens, and there's good data to support it, then public health and health care in general takes a massive hit. It takes a massive public trust hit. And we're dealing with this now hard to imagine it being worse than it is now. We're dealing with this now. But then public health takes a massive hit. People don't trust the science that is coming out. And frankly, I think we see a decrease in healthspan and lifespan. I think we see many more people die as a result of the distrust in the very smart people that are putting out incredible medicine in public health campaigns.

Jack Weidner: 44:16

This is very interesting. You have taken something where you are pro locus of control and pro and authoritative presence and presented it and how important that can be for the betterment of society. And I think I who am a little bit more anti authority than you on the regular or at least anti institution and wary of that in a different sense. But with vaccines, I'm totally on board. Because and I don't know why this is and I think this hits on the what I had alluded to earlier, where if we introduce political parties to this A particular parties have different views on what you talked about, which is vaccines. And when I talked about which is abortion, right, often, they are contradictory positions. And so I'd say like, again, we're generalizing, but to speak about something, generally you you kind of your hands are tied, you must jump. So I'd say we find a large majority of people, if they are anti abortion, or pro life as it's been coined, they are often so pro life is often vaccine skeptical, right, let's say. And people who are very pro choice are often very much along the lines of vaccines. It's going on.

Harry Weidner: 45:57

Hello, man. This is so weird, right? So hypocritical. But

Jack Weidner: 46:03

I want to go back from that for a second. I want to not just write it off as hypocritical. I'm curious as to why you think that is? Because obviously, it's hypocritical if we look at it from a control standpoint, but it's not necessarily hypocritical if we look at it from a medical standpoint. No. Right. So yeah, like, right, it's hypocritical if we look at it from an authoritative control standpoint, of course, which is often an argument that people say, because we're talking about government, sorry, I'm getting not heated, but I'm just passionate. I'm curious. I'm passionate. So we're talking about this? And, yeah, it's not hypocritical from a medical standpoint. And so like, is it it's not, but it is kind of hypocritical. A little bit. Again, if you go through, like, what if I'm wrong? Like, it's, it's, I don't want to say this. It's kind of inconsistent a little bit with this idea that you are protecting human life. And if you do a gross over generalization of the pro choice movement. So I don't want to just say it's hypocritical, like, how do you look at it? You know, like, how do you look at from a pro from a public health standpoint? How do you look at these two issues?

Harry Weidner: 47:35

Public Health generally, is pro choice and pro vaccine.

Jack Weidner: 47:40

But like, what I'm asking you wire I know where they stand, but I

Harry Weidner: 47:44

just I just wanted to say that and I, I just, yeah, let me just let me add my disclaimer, right. Yeah. And I am in public health. So you can guess which side of the court but but why is that? And and I think it comes down to I've talked about it before, but allowing people to live the healthiest lives that they can.

Jack Weidner: 48:16

I, it's so interesting that you use the word allow, because you are in some ways, you are opening doors for them to open its

Harry Weidner: 48:30

languages. So it's your very tactful to use the word allow? Yep. Because

Jack Weidner: 48:34

just like the pro choice, you're like, Oh, I'm pro choice. I'm pro life, you know, like, those are both two positive sides of different coins. Yeah.

Harry Weidner: 48:44

It's, it's, it's our job to give people the resources to live the healthiest and happiest lives, that they can live. And that they want to live. So giving them the resources involves giving them the education and giving them access to the health care and access to the information that will let them make informed decisions about the life that they want to live.

Jack Weidner: 49:13

On know, we're going long, but I think we would be remiss if we did not conclude with it sounds like presented with information presented that we were brought you and I would not change our stances on our given topics for different complex reasons. No, I would not. I would not i I'm

Harry Weidner: 49:36

too much of a firm believer in the benefits outweigh I mean, okay, I'm gonna jump back to vaccines. There was a rotavirus vaccine that was taken back. And it was a vaccine that was introduced to the public. And there were some very small amount of cases of innocence option, which is essentially your small intestine, it's a small intestinal blockage. And in some children got enough deception from this rotavirus vaccine, and the CDC picked up on it almost immediately, there was a crazy amount of research. And I think they took it off the shelves within a couple of months. And so that that is the power of these surveillance systems at work, saying the authorities and the people in charge of these vaccines are monitoring them, and they're willing to take them back and make these hard decisions. Now, that being said, even though they took it back, they could have saved many, many, many lives from dehydration and diarrhea, had they kept that rotavirus vaccine on the market? And I think it was one and 10 to 30,000 vaccines resulted in a case of interception. But the CDC said no, that's too many.

Jack Weidner: 51:00

Which, which that's a really good point. And to put out there, I did not know that story. Yeah, they

Harry Weidner: 51:05

they have taken vaccines, the only one I know of is this rotavirus vaccine, but no, there are definitely more. They have taken vaccines off the market. And so given my current understanding of vaccines, how many lives they save, in this instant that we are issuing them 120 years down the road, if the evidence is different than we do with that, but the life saving power of vaccines. I believe in wholeheartedly right now.

Jack Weidner: 51:35

This is a now thing for you. Yeah, what about you? I mean, things that we didn't get into are, you know, tied to the abortion debate, you know, abortion conversation is, you know, care for mother's care, Mother mortality in this country, which is abysmal female mortality in a worldwide, which is, you know, like, there's a lot of detail bad or so, so terrible. So like, to force someone to give birth, you know, and also like, raising children in this country here. Not everyone is so fortunate. Not everyone is so fortunate to have the financial resources. It's a really, there are so many implicate other implications. And that's why I think like, when we asked this question, what if I'm wrong about the Catholic Church? Pop, maybe I think the Catholic Church is asking the wrong question. There's zero sum game doesn't allow for nuance. And maybe that's my problem. And that's where I want to end this, where I want to say, what? You and I didn't change our beliefs? No. But I think I at least really struggled with thinking about this. And I'm curious if you struggled, but I'm curious what you think. Did you think that this exercise was helpful? And what did you think a positive to come out of it was? What do you think? Even if you don't change your mind? What do you think considering that you're wrong? does?

Harry Weidner: 53:26

I think it does exactly what your New Year's resolution is, you come at things with less conviction. And it tries to help put you in the shoes of others who don't believe what you believe?

Jack Weidner: 53:41

Do you think that that helps. So you say like, you guys, have you you, as public health have arrived at how to talk with people

Harry Weidner: 53:48

who have well, not me, but who are lots of

Jack Weidner: 53:51

what I'm talking about you like you in the gang? Right? You Fauci your best friend's like, whatever. You guys have arrived at how you've done a lot of psychological research, how to talk to people who are anti Vax, and how to engage with them. Do you think doing something like this helps with that?

Harry Weidner: 54:09

Yeah, absolutely. I think that's the only way you can figure out how to communicate with those who might not believe you.

Jack Weidner: 54:18

Adding a little nuance to the conversation, adding a little nuance

Harry Weidner: 54:21

to the conversation because nuance opens doors.

Jack Weidner: 54:24

Nuance open. I love that quote. I swear I actually want that on a fucking t shirt. Well, you're welcome nuance open stores. I love that. Yeah,

Harry Weidner: 54:32

Nuance open stores to have the conversations that the productive conversations that need to be had

Jack Weidner: 54:41

and needed to be out in the first place. Yeah, I think we found ourselves. We don't when we talk about polarization. We've built a lot of walls and this is not this is nothing new. But to be closed off on both sides of the aisle, you know to be so I think to have so much conviction with where you are. Maybe that kind of adds blinders to what you're doing.

Harry Weidner: 55:13

Well, I'm glad that you brought up this book and I'm glad that you brought up this topic.

Jack Weidner: 55:19

And I hope it's a good episode.

Harry Weidner: 55:21

I had fun. I had fun,

Jack Weidner: 55:24

but I'm gonna get cancelled. by who? I don't know. The scam scared. These thoughts out there in the world.

Harry Weidner: 55:33

I think it'd be fine. Okay, but thank you. Thank you for tuning into Season Two of the season two, one. What if we're wrong? In Jack, you want to roll this out for the first time to season two.

Jack Weidner: 55:49

All right, thank you so much for joining us for this episode. Don't hate me. If you have any questions or thoughts, please email us at our tangled minds@gmail.com Let us know what you think of the new season. If you have any podcast ideas, topics you'd like to share guests you'd like to be on the pod including yourself. Be sure to email us let us know what you think of the new podcast art and we'll see you in two weeks to see how this mess unwrapped.