Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: You know, it. It upset me a little bit. And then the more I thought about it, I'm like, oh, wait, we were trolled.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: And I went. I was like, what? For real?
[00:00:11] Speaker A: Oh, yeah, that was a troll. So trolls are people that they. They post inflammatory statements, they are condescending, they're irreverent, they're offensive, and they use those tactics. The idea is shut down the conversation.
[00:00:28] Speaker B: So it's not someone out there having a thought to an important conversation? No, no. It's just shut down the conversation.
Let's read the comment.
[00:00:41] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:00:41] Speaker B: Let's share with the audience the comment.
[00:00:44] Speaker A: You know you're over the target when you start taking flak.
[00:00:47] Speaker B: Welcome to the Dust or Mud podcast. I'm Shelley and I'm rich. After 25 years of rich being in the Air Force and having lots of targets, flying fighters, taking a little flack.
[00:00:59] Speaker A: Maybe I have taken flack.
[00:01:02] Speaker B: After all of those years of doing that, we retired to the Ozarks of Missouri and started a regenerative farm. And on this farm, we choose not to use any chemicals.
[00:01:12] Speaker A: We do.
[00:01:14] Speaker B: Well, that's not the case in most farming.
[00:01:17] Speaker A: That is true.
[00:01:18] Speaker B: Most farming uses lots of chemicals, Right?
[00:01:21] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:01:21] Speaker B: A primary chemical that is often used is glyphosate.
Well, we did a podcast just a few weeks ago, and we really discussed the glyphosate problem.
[00:01:36] Speaker A: Yeah, we were discussing the Maha report and the feedback that it was receiving, and we went through it and we talked about some of the things in the report from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And his crew.
And one of those was glyphosate. And we talked, I don't know, not a whole lot. I don't think it was our worst attack on glyphosate.
[00:02:00] Speaker B: No, probably not. But it was definitely involved in that particular discussion.
We got some comments, some amazing comments from our viewers. We typically get comments that are well thought out. We don't always agree, but we have.
It gives us things to think about it human to human things to think about, because there are multiple ways to grow food, and we. We like to hear about them and discuss them in a rational manner. Right, but all comments aren't like that.
No, at all.
[00:02:38] Speaker A: And you guys know we're fairly new to this social media thing. We spent the majority of our adult lives defending the nation in the Air Force. So we.
We got a comment, and at first it sort of like, you know, it. It upset me a little bit. And then the more I thought about it, I'm like, oh, wait, we were trolled.
[00:03:04] Speaker B: And I went I was like, what? For real?
[00:03:06] Speaker A: Oh, yeah, that was a troll.
[00:03:09] Speaker B: Yeah.
So. Well, I was like, trolling. You know, we're fairly nice people, so it's not really a realm that we operate in. I'm like, what, really? What is trolling anyways?
You know, what. What. What's the point of trolling the Internet for trolls?
[00:03:34] Speaker A: So trolls are people that they. They post inflammatory statements, they are condescending, they're irreverent, they're offensive, and they. They use those tactics. The idea is shut down the conversation.
[00:03:49] Speaker B: Oh.
[00:03:49] Speaker A: And oddly enough, that is the last comment on that particular podcast.
[00:03:56] Speaker B: Ooh.
And we did leave it up there. I mean, it's still there.
[00:03:59] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:04:00] Speaker B: We could remove it, but we've chosen not to to this point. It is the last comment.
[00:04:04] Speaker A: So the. The whole idea is that. That they will. They will be hateful and rude enough, maybe even make the viewer, or even if they could, the person, the content creator question themselves.
Oh, I must. I must think wrong. I must not be right.
[00:04:23] Speaker B: I didn't present that information correctly, or I just.
[00:04:26] Speaker A: Or I'm actually wrong. Like, if they could get you to believe that you're actually wrong, then they've. Then they've really done their job.
[00:04:34] Speaker B: Wow. And what does make you cock your head?
[00:04:37] Speaker A: Yeah. Oh, man.
[00:04:39] Speaker B: They use all kind. This dude's using all kinds of sciency.
[00:04:42] Speaker A: Words, you know, all kinds of jargon. Jargon, lingo. Yeah. It's another telltale sign, is very, very Lingoese. And if. If they can.
If they can get you to quit talking about it, that's really the goal here. And companies like Bayer, they will. They will have keyword searches going all the time.
So with a keyword search going, all.
All they have to do is. From our YouTube video descriptions, we oftentimes say things like glyphosate or whatever, because that's what we're talking about. And then that word will pop, as in their keyword search, and then they can then look at the content that was created and decide whether or not they need to do anything about it.
And companies. I'm not saying this one does, but companies often employ trolls to then go and discredit. And the trolls even could be the ones that have the keyword searches going, and they then try to shut down the conversation, discredit the person that was talking about it, make it go away.
[00:05:55] Speaker B: Well, the other thing that it reeked of to us was that it was probably high likelihood of AI generation, at least prompted and created by, you know, ChatGPT.
[00:06:09] Speaker A: So what I did was I took the entire comment, I dropped it into ChatGPT and I asked it to analyze this and give me a readout. You know what, what percentage chance was this comment generated by AI? And after analyzing it, ChatGPT said that there was an 85% likelihood that the comment was either wholly created by AI. Like a bot running.
[00:06:37] Speaker B: Right.
[00:06:38] Speaker A: So these keyword searches can have a bot just respond.
Or it could have been a. An actual human. But a prompt led to that comment and it even gave me an example of what the prompt could be like. You could prompt it by saying, write a critical rebuttal to RFK Jr's stance on glyphosate using science and a condescending tone.
[00:07:04] Speaker B: Yeah, too easy.
Too easy too. And then copy paste.
[00:07:09] Speaker A: Yep.
[00:07:10] Speaker B: Right. So it's not someone out there having a thoughtful comment to a. An important conversation. No, no. It's just shut down the conversation.
Let's read the comment.
[00:07:24] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:07:25] Speaker B: Let's share with the audience the comment.
It is still up there, but let's discuss it.
I will say before I do this, if the person that made this comment is a real person, please raise your hand. That would be cool.
[00:07:39] Speaker A: You know, and let's have the conversation.
[00:07:40] Speaker B: Let's have the conversation.
[00:07:41] Speaker A: That'd be fun.
[00:07:42] Speaker B: Yes, we're always open for that.
Okay, here is the comment. RFK Jr has a long history of misleading the gullible and ignorant.
There is a reason why most who fall for charlatans like Kennedy have little education in the sciences without going on about what many respected and well educated scientists, doctors, etc. Have addressed on many occasions throughout the years. Maybe I can guide some of his admirers to do as RFK suggests, their own research.
Understand, quote, the dose makes the poison and LD50.
Look at formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. Look at its LD50.
Do the same for glyphosate.
Find any studies on how much glyphosate is allowed in foods like wheat and how much is a lot usually found in the foods we eat.
Try to calculate how much food would need to be consumed to get anywhere near the LD50.
Now look up foods for formaldehyde, pears, etc. Have naturally occurring formaldehyde. Compare how much food needs to be consumed to reach the LD50 for formaldehyde. While you're at it, find out what other naturally occurring carcinogens we consume.
How does a glass of wine and a ham sandwich every few weeks and a daily serving of formaldehyde laced organic fruit and vegetables compare with the amount of Glyphosate many of us ingest.
Answer these questions for yourself. Understand the dose makes the poison, and you have made one small step toward understanding RFK. Like the majority of our leading scientists, doctors, dietitians, etc.
[00:09:38] Speaker A: Do.
[00:09:38] Speaker B: As Stephen Nolla said a few days ago, he's a dangerous crank. Speaking of RFK Jr.
[00:09:46] Speaker A: So there's the comment. Okay.
[00:09:48] Speaker B: Ah, yeah, we warranted some serious, serious jargon.
[00:09:56] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.
[00:09:57] Speaker B: Okay, so let's throw that apart. Like, why is it. Why is. Why do we believe that that is a troll comment?
[00:10:04] Speaker A: Well.
[00:10:05] Speaker B: And why is it. There are a lot of things to talk about today.
[00:10:08] Speaker A: There are a lot of things. Even if it was a real human and they were wanting to engage in a real conversation and have a well thought out, educated debate, the way that the points are presented are not the way that you would present in a debate.
So this had ad hominem attacks, which means you're attacking the person and not the data or the information.
You know, misleading the gullible and the ignorant.
Like, so you start attacking.
[00:10:46] Speaker B: Attacking the audience or you're attacking the person. The. The.
The podcasters. Right, the person.
[00:10:54] Speaker A: Yeah, right. It appeals to a higher authority. Right. Like our leading scientists and dietitians. Right.
It.
A huge overuse of scientific jargon. Right. If you can take it to a level that most people wouldn't understand by using words that people don't USE or acronyms.
LD50. You need to look up LD50.
If you can do that, then again, you're shutting down the debate because. Because, ooh, I don't know what LD50 is, and I don't want to say that I don't know what LD50 is, so we'll just stop talking about it. And being very dismissive also is another way of shutting down that conversation. Not encouraging a debate, but shutting it down. Like, how could you be so stupid as to think, like, just being very, very dismissive. So the entire tone of the comment is designed to not encourage debate, but to shut down debate.
[00:11:56] Speaker B: Debate. And it did. Yeah, I mean, it was. There was no room in that comment even for us to respond. No, like, there was. There was not a.
There. There left no back. And there was nothing to say. Like, oh, no.
[00:12:12] Speaker A: I mean, what do you say? Thanks.
[00:12:14] Speaker B: I kind of wanted to.
Okay, thanks.
[00:12:17] Speaker A: I honestly, what I wanted to say, which I didn't, and I may. I may still go do it, was. I am. I am flattered.
[00:12:24] Speaker B: Right.
[00:12:25] Speaker A: I am flattered that our podcast warranted a troll.
[00:12:29] Speaker B: Yeah, it's crazy.
[00:12:31] Speaker A: Like, all right.
[00:12:33] Speaker B: Must be doing something right.
[00:12:36] Speaker A: You know, you're over the target when you start taking flak.
[00:12:38] Speaker B: Right.
Okay.
[00:12:41] Speaker A: Yeah. So let's dig into a little bit of specifics. So you. The attack on RFK Jr. Personal attack. There's a reason that most fall for charlatans like Kennedy. Right.
[00:12:56] Speaker B: They have a little education in the scientists.
[00:12:59] Speaker A: Yeah.
So if, if you can discredit Kennedy from the get go, then you don't have to address the message at all. Because if he's the messenger, if this is his report, if this is his whatever, then if you discredit him. And how did he discredit him? By calling him a name.
Yeah, right. Like he didn't, he didn't present any factual data. Like he, he failed his test or I mean, you know, like.
[00:13:26] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:13:26] Speaker A: How do you, how do you discredit a person?
[00:13:28] Speaker B: Right.
[00:13:31] Speaker A: Calling them a name, I guess would be an easy way to do so is charlatan.
[00:13:38] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:13:40] Speaker A: And then, and then with the, the person then discredited, all of the argument that follows is discredited. And you don't even have to address it.
[00:13:51] Speaker B: Right.
[00:13:51] Speaker A: So the reality, which all of you know is RFK Jr. Has a long history of public service.
[00:13:59] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:13:59] Speaker A: He is an environmental lawyer. He's been doing these kinds of things for years. For years. He's well versed in the science.
[00:14:09] Speaker B: Now, some of it's controversial because mainstream science does not, does not want to, to go there.
[00:14:18] Speaker A: And I don't agree with everything that.
[00:14:20] Speaker B: Our talks in no way and in no way have to. No.
[00:14:25] Speaker A: Right. But I can look at the things that are presented and then make decisions based on the information that I gather for myself.
[00:14:32] Speaker B: Right.
[00:14:33] Speaker A: I don't just say he's a charlatan and dismiss the entirety of everything.
[00:14:37] Speaker B: Right. But yeah, that, even if, even if he's wrong, you know, does that make glyphosate safe?
Right, right, right. Like we're talking about a chemical substance here, not a person's character.
[00:14:53] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly.
Okay, so the next thing is the dose makes the poison.
[00:14:58] Speaker B: And now speaking of chemical substance.
[00:15:00] Speaker A: Right, exactly.
[00:15:01] Speaker B: So dose makes the poison. Okay.
[00:15:04] Speaker A: And LD50. So LD50, you can die of water.
Yeah, you can, the dose makes the poison. You drink too much, you can die.
[00:15:11] Speaker B: Sure.
[00:15:11] Speaker A: Right. Okay, so LD50 is, it is an acute lethal dose for 50% of test animals. So given this dose, this single lethal dose, 50% of the animals will die.
LD50. Lethal dose 50. Okay, so that's what it means. It is a, you know, if, if you turned up the bottle of glyphosate how much of it would you have to drink before it. It causes the test animal to die.
[00:15:44] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:15:45] Speaker A: LD50, lethal dose. And the dose makes the poison, meaning that if the exposure is less than that 50% of lethal dose, then it's not that bad.
[00:16:00] Speaker B: Okay, but that, we're talking about single high lethal dosage. But in the story of glyphosate, right now we aren't talking about people taking a can of coke and just down in some glyphosate. We're talking about spraying it over food at quote, the safe levels. But we're talking about a lot of it.
Little by little, chronic exposure to this chemical and it building up in our system. Nobody said that you were going to die from the piece of bread with it in it.
[00:16:34] Speaker A: Right.
[00:16:35] Speaker B: Because it was sprayed however far back on the food. It, it's. It's over and over and over repeated. You know, if I took a pin and I just started poking you with it, you know, and I just poked.
[00:16:49] Speaker A: You with it, eventually I'd ask you to quit.
[00:16:51] Speaker B: You. You would ask me to quit? Probably the first time. But it's just a little pin. Right. But it' doing damage, you know, little by little. Just needling, literally needling. And that's what the glyphosate is potentially doing to us in our bodies over long term exposure.
[00:17:09] Speaker A: And there are studies that show that. And there are studies that show that it's safe. Right, right. And we've talked about that several times.
[00:17:16] Speaker B: You can make a study say anything.
[00:17:17] Speaker A: On the podcast is, you know, how many studies there are. And typically you can tell what the study is going to conclude based on who paid for the study.
And so, I mean, I get it. But there are studies that show that low doses, chronic low doses of glyphosate alter liver and kidney functions in rats.
And a lot of people then will dismiss the studies because it was in lab animals and not in humans. But you can't do this to humans. Right. Like, studies aren't allowed to do that. You can't dose humans with the toxin to see what the, what the result is. That's why they use lab animals.
So you have to at some point accept the studies with animals.
[00:18:03] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:18:03] Speaker A: Because you can. You just can't do it. Yeah.
[00:18:06] Speaker B: You're not supposed to. Or is there a big experiment going on? I don't know.
Okay, so the comment.
Pears. Pears have naturally occurring formaldehyde. Okay. So we are eating. If you eat a pear, you are eating a small amount of naturally occurring formaldehyde of which our bodies can metabolize quite easily.
And I don't eat pears at the same rate that I might be consuming food that would potentially contain. I wouldn't know because there's not a warning label on food, but it could potentially contain glyphosate. I don't eat that many pears.
[00:18:56] Speaker A: First of all, I think we've come to the point now where if it has a product in it that can be genetically modified, like corn, soy, like those types of products that can be genetically modified in. If it doesn't have glyphosate, if it wasn't sprayed by glyphosate, it will say GMO free.
[00:19:20] Speaker B: Yeah, right. Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, you would.
[00:19:24] Speaker A: Because the people that aren't using glyphosate are going to claim it because it's oftentimes more expensive, more difficult, whatever. So if you're not using it, you're going to claim it.
[00:19:34] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:19:35] Speaker A: And if you are using it, you're not required to put anything on it. So you don't.
[00:19:38] Speaker B: Right.
[00:19:39] Speaker A: So, you know, by not labeling it, I think you can pretty much assume.
[00:19:44] Speaker B: Right. But if the, if the, the formaldehyde in the pear is. Can be metabolized by our bodies in a way that it actually takes care of it, the difference is that's naturally occurring and glyphosate is a. It's not because it's synthetic.
[00:20:04] Speaker A: Right.
[00:20:04] Speaker B: It's chemically made.
It's a molecule that our bodies were never designed to process. And another thing is they're. They're finding it's a huge, potentially a huge endocrine disruptor.
[00:20:21] Speaker A: Well, our.
[00:20:24] Speaker B: Screwing up our hormones, man.
[00:20:26] Speaker A: Right.
[00:20:26] Speaker B: You know.
[00:20:27] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:20:27] Speaker B: Like. And it really. It really might be.
[00:20:31] Speaker A: Well, there's so many things that are going on right now with the population with chronic disease and illnesses and lack of fertility and like, there's so much stuff and we've talked about a lot of it and they can't put the finger on.
Here's the reason.
And that's another thing that I've.
Anytime we get these negative type of comments on the podcast where we talk about chronic disease, the thing that is very interesting to me is I always am looking forward to the bottom line of the comment where they say the commenter, negative commenter says, and here's the actual reason why.
[00:21:11] Speaker B: Yep.
[00:21:12] Speaker A: And I never get that.
[00:21:13] Speaker B: Never. We never get it.
[00:21:15] Speaker A: Never get the.
[00:21:16] Speaker B: Haven't seen it anywhere. Haven't seen it on any social media.
[00:21:18] Speaker A: Glyphosate is safe. Glyphosate is safe. And here's the, here's the thing that's actually making everyone sick. Nope, that doesn't exist.
[00:21:26] Speaker B: There's no, there's not an answer out there.
[00:21:29] Speaker A: But that's what the Maha Commission report was trying to come up with is here are a lot of different things that could actually be the reason why there is an epidemic of chronic illness in the United States of America.
[00:21:49] Speaker B: So. Yeah. And bottom line is the pair with the formaldehyde and the, the glyphosate, those are not. That's a, that's a false equivalence. Like that is not. That is not apples to apples.
[00:22:03] Speaker A: No, it's pairs to glyphosate.
[00:22:05] Speaker B: Pairs to glyphosate. It doesn't match up at all. So there's no real comparison there.
[00:22:09] Speaker A: To me, another, another great way to end a debate is to make it so extreme by comparing two things that don't actually compare.
And you can see I prove my point.
Well, no.
[00:22:23] Speaker B: Right.
[00:22:24] Speaker A: No, actually.
[00:22:24] Speaker B: No, you did.
[00:22:25] Speaker A: Those things aren't comparable.
[00:22:27] Speaker B: Right, Right.
[00:22:32] Speaker A: Ham sandwich and wine are worse, are they?
[00:22:36] Speaker B: I don't know.
So what they're saying is the, the ham has nitrates in it, most likely, and the wine has alcohol in it.
Well, here's the thing about nitrates and alcohol.
Both of those substances come with a warning on them.
[00:23:01] Speaker A: Well, the ham at least tells you.
[00:23:03] Speaker B: That it's nitrates are there. And the alcohol says this may cause cancer. There's a black surgeon general warning the surgeon. There's a surgeon general warning on the packaging.
[00:23:15] Speaker A: Right.
[00:23:15] Speaker B: We don't get that when it comes to glyphosate. We don't get that at all. And the formaldehyde laced organic fruit, that is dumb.
It's not laced, by the way.
[00:23:31] Speaker A: Right.
[00:23:31] Speaker B: Laced would be that it was plate. It would indicate that it was placed there by someone with mal intent. For sure.
[00:23:42] Speaker A: Yeah. No, no. And so again, we're, we're, we're misdirecting the conversation away from, right away from the potential harms of a substance like.
[00:23:56] Speaker B: Glyphosate, which is hidden.
[00:23:58] Speaker A: Right.
[00:23:59] Speaker B: It's.
There's, there's no label and it's becoming more and more ubiquitous or pervasive within our, our food industry. It's in everything.
[00:24:09] Speaker A: Right.
[00:24:10] Speaker B: Well, not everything, because the meat at Air to Ground farms ought not have any glyphosate in it.
[00:24:17] Speaker A: Well, we don't spray it on our pastures. And they are fed a GMO free food, which is about, about the best we can.
[00:24:24] Speaker B: The best we can do.
[00:24:25] Speaker A: Yeah.
So Another, another part of this argument is the. Well, all scientists agree. Our leading scientists, doctors, dietitians, they all agree on basically how stupid RFK Jr is.
[00:24:39] Speaker B: All scientists agree.
[00:24:41] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:24:42] Speaker B: Oh, all doctors agree.
[00:24:45] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:24:46] Speaker B: Another. Another. Tell that that this person either doesn't know what they're talking about also, or that again, we're trolling or even, even.
[00:24:57] Speaker A: I think it sounds like a teenager is. The majority of, of our leading scientists, doctors, dietitians, agree, and I.
[00:25:05] Speaker B: The majority of scientists agreeing as an oxymoron.
[00:25:07] Speaker A: Yeah.
Because I don't think.
[00:25:09] Speaker B: They don't. That's the, that's the thing about science.
[00:25:12] Speaker A: Right.
[00:25:13] Speaker B: Right. Science isn't a cathedral.
Right. Science is a, it's a push and a pull and test it. You test and you retest and you, it's, it's figuring it out.
[00:25:29] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:25:29] Speaker B: Right.
[00:25:30] Speaker A: You have a hypothesis. Right.
[00:25:31] Speaker B: Right.
[00:25:32] Speaker A: And then you go, you go prove or disprove the hypothesis and then you end up with science facts and then you challenge those facts over over and.
[00:25:41] Speaker B: Over again and, and over time. Oftentimes science from 50 or 100 years ago, IT, it changes.
[00:25:50] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:25:51] Speaker B: Evolves because there is new evidence, there are new things that are discovered. When you get down to when 100 years ago, they weren't at the subcellular level. They didn't know the things that we know now. They, they thought and they, they did the science that they had the tools for then and now we have, we have better tools and the science is different.
[00:26:14] Speaker A: Yeah. Now we're starting to understand the quantum side of things, you know.
[00:26:18] Speaker B: Yeah. Which is totally a completely different, like realm, I guess.
[00:26:23] Speaker A: Yeah.
What next?
[00:26:29] Speaker B: Well, we don't want our audience to feel like they can't make a comment that is, that disagrees with us or that is questions the system or questions anything. You know, we want people to feel free to say, hey, you know what about that.
[00:26:52] Speaker A: Yeah. I, I actually prefer to have a conversation because. And I, I said this as a, as a leader of many different military organizations and the, the folks that worked for me. I know what I think.
I don't need you to repeat back to me what I think.
[00:27:10] Speaker B: Right.
[00:27:10] Speaker A: That does me no good. I need you to talk to me about the things that I'm not thinking about.
So like it. It to me, it is imperative to have conversations that include things that are a differing opinion that are, you know, have you thought about what about this? You know, there's other research that shows that. And like add to the discussion. Add to the conversation and you know, you can get into the just this. Yes. Echo chamber. And, you know, you start building yourself up into this.
Well, well, we're right. Because every one of us is saying that we're right.
[00:27:49] Speaker B: And to me, well, you wouldn't want someone who is under your leadership to feel like they can't question the mainstream thought within the organization.
[00:28:01] Speaker A: Right.
[00:28:01] Speaker B: The, hey, what have you thought about the fact that, you know, this might be storing up in our systems over time?
[00:28:09] Speaker A: Right.
[00:28:10] Speaker B: You know? Well, no, we hadn't, because the science isn't safe. You know, and another thing is if, if you're concerned about what's on your food and what they're spraying. Okay. We were driving home from a trip the other week and we saw a crop duster, you know, and he took off and off he went. And of course, we like airplanes. And there he goes, flying low. That looks fun.
[00:28:37] Speaker A: It's cool.
[00:28:38] Speaker B: For sure.
But then there he went, just.
And spraying just all over these fields. And I've gotten to the point where I'm just like, I feel so bad for the people living underneath of that and near that, or maybe there's a regenerative farm next to that and the overspray is now leaching over onto their, their property. And I just felt like, oh my gosh, please stop spraying that into the air.
And if you're concerned about what is going on to your food, you're not crazy, you know.
[00:29:15] Speaker A: No, question it.
[00:29:16] Speaker B: Question it.
[00:29:16] Speaker A: Actually question it.
[00:29:17] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:29:18] Speaker A: Demand answers even.
[00:29:20] Speaker B: Yeah. You know, do you live under people who are spraying? Like, do you live in a, in a community in a rural agricultural area where you see that often? And what is the health like of people in that area? Are you guys seeing increased illnesses, chronic, maybe even cancers, you know, the, the most awful things that can happen? What is going on in your community as far as the, the agricultural situation there with the chemicals and, you know, let us know what's going on there. Yeah, yeah.
And we, we just, we absolutely love our audience.
We do, we do. And the, the thoughts, though, in the comments that we get back, we don't always have a chance to engage with thoughtful, you know, well thought out responses and get into a big conversation simply because. Yeah, we do try, but oftentimes we get a little bogged down on the farm and busy, but we read them, all of them, and we think about them. And a lot of times your comments and your thoughts about what we have said in a podcast often lead to the next podcast. And it really gives us something to think about, research.
[00:30:43] Speaker A: It helps us think again because you're Presenting things that maybe we haven't thought about. And then it's like, oh, man. Yeah, we need to look at. Look at that or look into that.
[00:30:53] Speaker B: Yeah. Are my chickens eating my eggs? I mean, we get comments that lead us to really tear apart our thoughts about the farm and about what we're doing specifically. And we. We do value all of them.
[00:31:11] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. This isn't. This isn't an attack on you. It's a. It's us coming to you saying, man, we got trolled.
[00:31:20] Speaker B: We got trolled, y' all.
[00:31:23] Speaker A: Ain't that cool.
[00:31:24] Speaker B: At least. At least we believe that to be true.
[00:31:26] Speaker A: Ain't that cool?
[00:31:27] Speaker B: Again, if you're the person that wrote this comment, we welcome your response. For sure.
[00:31:33] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:31:35] Speaker B: Wow. This was fun.
[00:31:36] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:31:36] Speaker B: Yeah, it was.
Next up, I think our next podcast is Rebecca Tkel and we are going to host her. Rebecca was a co producer for the movie Kiss the Ground and Common Ground. We are looking very much forward to that conversation with her. And that podcast will be coming out in the next couple of weeks.
[00:32:04] Speaker A: Yeah. We also have one coming up with the founder of Mightylicious, which is a gluten free line of products, and her name is Carolyn. And we're looking forward to having a great chat with her as she's trying her best to bring good, clean food onto the market.
[00:32:23] Speaker B: Yeah. And we love it whenever we can sit down and have a conversation with people who want to make better food and put better food into the food industry.
Thank you guys for hanging out with us again today and until next time, Bye, y' all.
[00:32:39] Speaker A: Bye.
