Need you guys to follow The News Buffet right now. They’re new, but easily the most entertaining news site on X. If you don’t believe me go scroll their entire feed right now and decide for yourself @TheNewsBuffetX

Joe Rogan is stunned when Mariana van Zeller exposes that DEA whistleblowers claim that agents let 350,000 fentanyl pills into American streets so they could build bigger cases: VAN ZELLER: “I know you guys are trying to build bigger cases, but people are dying.” CONTEXT: The DEA didn't just warn Americans about fentanyl. It launched a nationwide public safety campaign called: “ONE PILL CAN KILL.” The agency warned that counterfeit prescription pills could contain a potentially lethal dose of fentanyl. But while that campaign was running, some DEA investigators in New Mexico were monitoring large fentanyl shipments without immediately seizing them. And this isn't based solely on anonymous allegations. In June 2026, The Associated Press published an investigation based on hundreds of government records and interviews with current and former DEA agents. Among the documents was a 66-PAGE DEA REPORT describing a June 2023 drug transaction in Albuquerque. Agents monitored traffickers delivering an estimated 74,000 fentanyl pills. Federal prosecutors later confirmed that number in a court filing. The shipment was NOT seized at the time. But here's the much bigger revelation. The Justice Department previously had special rules addressing precisely this danger. Its 2017 “Fentanyl Protocols” emphasized stopping fentanyl distribution as soon as practicable, putting public safety ahead of preserving an investigation. Then, in 2024, those rules were REWRITTEN. The revised policy explicitly allowed investigators greater discretion to balance the danger of permitting fentanyl trafficking against the potential benefit of continuing an investigation. Think about the distinction. The old approach emphasized preventing deadly drugs from reaching people. The revised approach allowed officials to weigh that risk against the possibility of building a larger case. And in August 2026, another DEA whistleblower alleged investigators learned about a shipment of approximately 350,000 FENTANYL PILLS during a wiretap but failed to intercept it. 350,000. While the agency was warning the country: “ONE PILL CAN KILL.” The DEA disputes the suggestion that its agents knowingly endangered communities. Federal prosecutors argued that monitoring trafficking networks could help identify higher-level criminals rather than merely arresting individual couriers. And there was a major result. A lengthy investigation ultimately culminated in a May 2025 operation that seized MORE THAN 3 MILLION fentanyl pills. That's the strongest argument for the strategy: Allow investigators to follow the network long enough to dismantle something much larger. But here's the question critics are asking: How many dangerous pills can an investigation justify leaving unseized BEFORE the eventual takedown? And how do investigators measure the human cost of pills they don't recover? That's not merely a hypothetical accountability concern anymore. IMPORTANT NOTES: New Mexico's attorney general opened an investigation into the DEA's conduct. In August 2026, the state SUED the Justice Department seeking investigative records. The Justice Department's inspector general also launched a broader review examining how federal investigators handle known or suspected fentanyl shipments. A previous Justice Department investigation had not substantiated the initial whistleblower allegations of misconduct, so wrongdoing has not been established. But the underlying dispute remains extraordinary. Law enforcement sometimes allows contraband to move under surveillance to identify higher-level criminals. The technique can work. It can also create enormous risks when the contraband is a drug capable of causing fatal overdoses. And fentanyl makes that calculation especially unforgiving. Because once an unseized shipment moves beyond investigators' control, there's no guarantee it will ever be recovered. The whistleblowers say that's exactly what they feared.

Joe Rogan is completely speechless when investigative journalist Mariana van Zeller reveals that META internally projected $16 BILLION in revenue from scams and banned ads so they charged suspected scammers more money to advertise instead of banning them: ROGAN: “This means they’re in on it then. They're making money.” CONTEXT: The numbers come from Meta's OWN internal documents obtained by Reuters, not simply accusations from an angry former employee. According to the November 2025 investigation, Meta internally estimated that approximately 10% of its total 2024 revenue which is roughly $16 BILLION, could come from advertisements promoting scams and prohibited goods. Another internal estimate suggested Facebook and Instagram users were being shown approximately 15 BILLION higher-risk scam advertisements EVERY DAY. Those were estimates based on Meta's classifications, not 15 billion independently verified scams. But the most disturbing revelation wasn't the amount of money. It was what Meta reportedly did when its own systems suspected an advertiser was fraudulent. According to Reuters, Meta's automated enforcement system generally required at least 95% confidence that an advertiser was committing fraud before banning the account. What happened when the system suspected fraud but didn't reach that threshold? In certain cases, Meta charged the advertiser MORE MONEY to compete for advertising space. The company called these higher costs “penalty bids.” Meta's explanation was that making advertising more expensive would discourage suspicious advertisers from purchasing ads. But think about the financial contradiction. If the suspected scammer gives up because advertising becomes too expensive, the system potentially prevents fraudulent ads. If the suspected scammer can still afford the increased price, Meta can continue earning revenue from that advertiser. And here's an even stranger possibility: Scammers running the most profitable operations may be the ones best positioned to absorb the higher advertising costs. That is an economic concern about the policy's incentives, not proof that Meta deliberately designed it to reward successful fraudsters. But the internal documents reportedly went further. Some large advertisers designated as “High Value Accounts” could accumulate MORE THAN 500 enforcement strikes without being shut down, according to Reuters. And employees were reportedly producing internal summaries identifying the week's “Scammiest Scammer.” Reuters checked five accounts highlighted in one such report. TWO were still active more than six months later. Then there's the part that makes the entire system particularly troubling for ordinary users. According to the documents, someone who CLICKED on a scam advertisement could become MORE likely to see additional scam advertisements. Why? Because Meta's recommendation systems attempt to identify what users are interested in and deliver more relevant advertising. So a vulnerable person engaging with a suspicious investment opportunity might inadvertently signal to the system that similar advertisements are worth showing them. That's not necessarily a conscious decision to target victims. It's a potential consequence of optimizing advertising around engagement without sufficiently eliminating fraudulent advertisers. And the real-world losses are enormous. IMPORTANT NOTES: The Federal Trade Commission reports that consumers lost approximately $2.1 BILLION in 2025 to scams that began on social media. Those losses cover social media broadly, not Meta alone. New development: On October 1, 2026, the FTC opened a rulemaking inquiry asking whether digital platforms should face greater legal responsibility for advertising systems that facilitate government and business impersonation scams. The agency explicitly raised the problem of platforms collecting advertising revenue while consumers bear the financial consequences of fraud.

🚨 NEW: Joe Rogan was in shock when historical storyteller Cody Tucker revealed that Mother Teresa was actually a horrible person who kept dying patients in horrible conditions while massive donations flowed to the Vatican: TUCKER: “She's a scumbag. Mother Teresa never did anything good.” CONTEXT: In 1994, a physician named Robin Fox visited Mother Teresa's Home for the Dying in Calcutta. Fox wasn't some anonymous critic. He was the editor of The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals. And what he described was deeply troubling. Medical care was inconsistent. Some decisions were made by nuns and volunteers without formal medical training. Basic diagnostic investigations were rarely available. And the facility did not have strong painkillers in its medication supply. Fox described a patient with a high fever who initially received paracetamol and an antibiotic before a visiting doctor suspected malaria and changed the treatment. His central objection was that patients who might have treatable conditions weren't being reliably distinguished from people who were actually dying. Think about that. Someone could arrive believing they were receiving medical care when they might have needed a proper diagnosis, referral or treatment. And this wasn't the only criticism. In 2013, three Canadian academics published a critical review of Mother Teresa's life and work in the journal Studies in Religion. They questioned her approach to caring for the sick, her political relationships and the management of the enormous donations her organization received. One of their central concerns was whether a religious belief in the spiritual value of suffering had been allowed to influence the standard of care provided to vulnerable patients. Mother Teresa believed suffering could have profound spiritual meaning. But there's a difference between helping someone find meaning in unavoidable suffering... AND FAILING TO RELIEVE SUFFERING THAT MEDICINE COULD PREVENT. There is also an important complication. During the 1990s, India had extraordinarily restrictive regulations governing access to morphine. Human Rights Watch later documented that India's medical morphine consumption collapsed by approximately 97% between 1985 and 1997. Even major hospitals struggled to obtain adequate pain medication. So the absence of strong painkillers at Mother Teresa's facilities does not, by itself, prove she deliberately withheld them because she wanted patients to suffer. And Fox acknowledged something critics often leave out: The home he visited provided cleanliness, wound care and genuine kindness to desperately poor people. The Missionaries of Charity also cared for people whom hospitals had turned away. Mother Teresa saw her mission primarily as offering dignity, love and spiritual comfort to the abandoned, rather than operating conventional hospitals. Critics have questioned the Missionaries of Charity's financial transparency for decades. But Tucker's more specific allegation that Mother Teresa funneled donated money to the Vatican rather than caring for patients has not been established by the evidence reviewed here. That distinction matters. IMPORTANT NOTES: Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. The Catholic Church canonized her as a saint in 2016. To millions of people, she remains one of the greatest symbols of compassion in modern history. But the historical record also contains serious criticisms that deserve examination rather than automatic dismissal. The most disturbing question isn't whether Mother Teresa personally believed suffering had spiritual value. It's whether that belief, combined with the way her facilities operated, ever resulted in people enduring pain or illness that could have been treated. Because there is a fundamental difference between helping someone die with dignity... And allowing someone to suffer when they might not have needed to.

Joe Rogan just went off on the “Trust the Science” crowd with Dan Richards who says the way the vaccine was created and pushed during the pandemic was not based on actual science: RICHARDS: “They weaponized scientific literacy when it came to the jab. The average time to review a vaccine is 10 years. If you’re cranking it out in a year and a half you haven’t done science.” ROGAN: “It’s not a coincidence that there was so much money involved.” CONTEXT: There’s an important correction immediately: Ten years is not some mandatory scientific waiting period before a vaccine can be considered legitimate. The FDA explicitly says there is “no predetermined timeline” for vaccine development. WHO says conventional vaccine development can take more than a decade, but much of that time normally comes from doing development, clinical trials, financing, manufacturing and regulatory work sequentially. During COVID, many of those processes were deliberately run in parallel. Operation Warp Speed described the strategy almost perfectly: Don’t eliminate the boxes. Check multiple boxes at the same time. Manufacturing, for example, began before anyone knew whether a vaccine would succeed, meaning governments and manufacturers accepted enormous financial risk to save calendar time. NIH officials explicitly argued that this accelerated the process without eliminating the usual safety and efficacy requirements. And the vaccine technology itself was not invented in 2020. Scientists had been working on mRNA for decades. Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman published a critical breakthrough involving modified mRNA in 2005, and pre-pandemic coronavirus research had already produced key knowledge about stabilizing spike proteins before SARS-CoV-2 ever appeared. NIH says those decades of prior work were what made the 2020 timeline possible. But here’s the part of Richards’ criticism that is genuinely hard to wave away: The calendar really was radically compressed. Pfizer’s large Phase 3 trial began in late July 2020. The FDA issued its emergency authorization December 11. At the time of authorization, the principal safety population had a median of roughly two months of follow-up after the vaccination series. That’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s right in the FDA review documents. So there is one thing nobody could possibly have possessed in December 2020: five-year safety data. Ten-year safety data. Or even one-year clinical follow-up. Time itself made that impossible. The emergency decision was instead made from the evidence available at that point. And that evidence was not trivial. Pfizer’s randomized placebo-controlled trial involved more than 43,000 participants. The initial analysis found 8 symptomatic COVID cases in the vaccine group versus 162 in the placebo group, producing the famous approximately 95% efficacy estimate against the trial’s primary COVID endpoint. So saying: “They didn’t do science” goes too far. They absolutely performed a large randomized clinical trial. The sharper criticism is: They performed science under emergency conditions with dramatically less elapsed follow-up time than would exist after a conventional decade-long development cycle. Those are two very different claims. And there’s another distinction that got lost in a lot of public discussion. That original 95% figure did not mean: “95% guarantee that you will never become infected or transmit the virus forever.” IMPORTANT NOTES: The Pfizer trial’s primary endpoint was protection against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID after vaccination. Long-term durability, changing variants, population-level transmission and rare side effects required additional data after rollout. That last part is exactly why post-market surveillance exists. One example: By April 2021, reports began showing a rare myocarditis signal after mRNA vaccination, particularly among adolescent and young adult males.

Joe Rogan and LL Cool J challenge limited mindset scientists who are obsessed with peer review and published studies who really need to be more original: LL Cool J: “Sometimes the scientists get caught up playing by the rules. They can become trapped in their peer review world. Original thought has no peer review.” ROGAN: “I think a lot of scientists are pulling their hair out right now listening to this.” CONTEXT: LL is exaggerating one important thing. A scientific idea can exist long before anyone reviews it. A hypothesis can be proposed. A preprint can be released publicly before formal peer review. An experiment can produce real data before a journal ever accepts the paper. Springer Nature itself defines a preprint as a scientific manuscript made public before formal journal peer review and explicitly allows researchers to circulate them while review is still happening. So what is peer review actually supposed to do? Not decide what reality is. It is supposed to make knowledgeable outsiders attack the work before the rest of the field relies on it: Are the methods sound? Does the evidence support the conclusion? Did the researchers overlook another explanation? Can somebody identify a fatal mistake? Even Nature says editors can receive conflicting reviewer opinions and do not simply count votes to determine whether a paper is true. And this is where LL’s criticism gets more interesting. Science itself has spent decades worrying that the machinery designed to filter bad ideas can sometimes also punish unusually original ones. A 2026 Nature Human Behaviour paper argued that modern academic incentives can push researchers toward safer, predictable work because short funding cycles, publication metrics, hierarchical pressures and risk-averse evaluation make “strategic conformity” rational particularly for younger scientists. Another Nature Human Behaviour study found something almost tailor-made for LL’s argument: the more novel an idea becomes, the more disagreement people have about its value. And when evaluators see that disagreement, they perceive the idea as riskier and become less willing to invest in it. Translation: The stranger the genuinely original idea is, the harder it can be for a committee to confidently say: “Yep. Fund that.” IMPORTANT NOTES: There are spectacular historical examples. Nature itself has admitted that research connected to multiple future Nobel Prizes was initially rejected by journals. Paul Lauterbur’s foundational work on MRI was rejected before an appeal got it published. Nature also points to initial rejections involving the Krebs cycle, Čerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson theory, photosynthesis research and even Stephen Hawking’s work on black-hole radiation. And then there’s Einstein. Nature notes that organized peer review was not even introduced at Nature until after 1966. Einstein’s revolutionary 1905 papers emerged in a publication culture very different from the modern referee system. Nature later described the editors of Annalen der Physik as allowing authors considerably more latitude than modern journals typically do and singled out Max Planck for recognizing the value of publishing extremely unconventional ideas.

Joe Rogan gets the education of a lifetime when Biblical scholar Dan McClellan explains that the Bible NEVER actually says that good people who aren’t Christian will burn in hell forever for rejecting Jesus: McCLELLAN: “That’s not something that’s ever stated anywhere in the Bible.” ROGAN: “Where does that come from?” CONTEXT: This gets surprisingly complicated once you actually look at the language of the Bible. Because the English word “hell” can make the text look far more uniform than it originally was. Older English Bibles used “hell” for several different Hebrew and Greek concepts: Sheol Hades Gehenna Tartarus Those are not simply four ancient words for exactly the same place. Sheol in much of the Hebrew Bible is basically the realm of the dead somewhere both righteous and wicked people can go. Hades often functions similarly in Greek. Gehenna comes from the Valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem and develops into an image associated with divine judgment. Tartarus appears only once in the New Testament, in connection with imprisoned rebellious angels. Even conservative biblical reference works acknowledge that English translations historically collapsed distinct terms under the single word “hell.” And the Hebrew Bible itself does not begin with the fully developed heaven-versus-eternal-hell system many modern Christians assume runs through the whole book. Yale biblical scholar Christine Hayes notes that resurrection and postmortem reward and punishment emerge relatively late in biblical literature, particularly in apocalyptic texts such as Daniel. Then the New Testament gives you several different images. One sounds like destruction. Jesus says in Matthew 10:28 that God can “destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” Another sounds much closer to eternal punishment. Matthew 25:46 contrasts “eternal punishment” with “eternal life.” Mark 9 describes Gehenna using “unquenchable fire” and language about the worm not dying. Revelation adds the lake of fire. So McClellan is not saying: “There is no punishment after death anywhere in the Bible.” That would be plainly false. His narrower argument is that Christians later took a collection of different judgment texts and harmonized them into one highly specific theological system: good Christian → heaven good non-Christian who rejects Jesus → conscious torture forever And that exact proposition is much harder to find stated in one biblical passage. In fact, one of the strangest counterexamples comes from Paul. Romans 2 says God “will repay everyone according to his works” and describes: “glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good” explicitly including Gentiles. Paul even says Gentiles who do not possess the Jewish law can show its requirements “written in their hearts,” with their conscience either accusing or defending them. That does NOT mean Paul believed Christianity was irrelevant. Elsewhere Paul makes Christ absolutely central to salvation. And other New Testament passages sound much more exclusivist. IMPORTANT NOTES: John 3:18 says the person who does not believe is “condemned already.” John’s Gospel also gives us: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” So anyone claiming: “The New Testament obviously teaches that belief doesn’t matter” would be flattening the evidence in the opposite direction. That’s really the interesting part. The Bible is not a systematic theology textbook written by one author at one moment. It is a library written across centuries by different authors addressing different communities.

Joe Rogan is deeply disturbed when David Grusch exposes that he uncovered government officers were using CHILD TRAFFICKING to generate secret revenue: ROGAN: “So the government was involved in child trafficking for money?” GRUSCH: “That’s true. Yeah. It’s f*cked up.” CONTEXT: This is one of the most serious allegations Grusch has made publicly. And there is an important distinction: Grusch is alleging misconduct by particular government officers. He is not presenting public evidence that “the U.S. government” institutionally operated a child-trafficking program. Then Grusch says he provided the details to members of Congress in a classified setting. This claim is significant because Grusch really did have the background and access necessary to brief Congress on classified matters. Before becoming publicly known as a UAP whistleblower, he spent 14 years as an intelligence officer, served in the Air Force, worked at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency at the GS-15 level, and represented the National Reconnaissance Office on the UAP Task Force. In his 2023 congressional testimony, he said he had used formal whistleblower channels to provide information to the Intelligence Community Inspector General. But there is a crucial limit: His 2023 public congressional testimony did not establish this child-trafficking allegation. And in the new Rogan interview, Grusch does not publicly identify the agency, officers, victims, financial records or criminal cases that would allow outsiders to independently verify what he is saying. So right now this remains an extraordinary allegation from Grusch, not an established finding. Still, the financial mechanism he is describing is not inherently nonsensical. Human exploitation generates staggering illegal profits. The International Labour Organization estimates forced labor in the private economy generates about $236 BILLION in illegal profits every year which is nearly $10,000 per victim annually on average. That figure covers forced labor broadly, not specifically child trafficking, and it does not validate Grusch’s story. But it explains why exploitation can function as a revenue-generating criminal enterprise rather than merely an isolated crime. And trafficking networks frequently need another ingredient: corruption. A major 2025 UN Office on Drugs and Crime study found documented cases in which public officials did far more than simply accept bribes. Officials have allegedly provided traffickers safe passage, warned them about investigations, obstructed prosecutions and in some documented cases around the world, participated directly in trafficking operations themselves. UNODC says corruption can facilitate trafficking at virtually every stage, from recruitment and transportation through exploitation and protection from law enforcement. Again, that does NOT corroborate Grusch’s allegation about U.S. officials. It establishes something narrower: “government officer involved in trafficking” is a phenomenon that has occurred in documented cases internationally. What remains completely unverified publicly is Grusch’s much bigger claim: that officers connected to a U.S. government agency were allegedly using trafficking and other crimes as an organized mechanism for producing money associated with secret activities. Grusch himself compares the alleged financial logic to Iran-Contra, the idea that covert objectives can create incentives to find money outside normal transparent appropriations channels. But that analogy should not be mistaken for evidence that his trafficking allegation happened. And there is another reason to demand documentation rather than simply trust credentials. IMPORTANT NOTE: AARO’s investigation of Grusch-adjacent UAP allegations says it found no empirical evidence supporting claims that the U.S. government or private companies had secretly been reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology.

Joe Rogan just asked former United States Air Force intelligence officer David Grusch the million dollar question about UFO crashes: ROGAN: “If these UFOs are so advanced then why do they keep crashing” GRUSCH: “They might be shooting each other down. We have records of these nonhuman beings fighting with each other.” CONTEXT: At first glance, the crash-retrieval story has an obvious problem. A civilization advanced enough to build craft that allegedly outperform our best aircraft should probably also be advanced enough to avoid repeatedly smashing them into Earth. Advanced technology does not automatically mean invulnerable technology. The most sophisticated military aircraft humans have ever built can still be destroyed by hostile action. There is a giant difference between something being logically possible and there being evidence that it happened. And this claim goes considerably further than what Grusch told Congress under oath in 2023. During that hearing, Grusch testified that “biologics” had allegedly accompanied some recovered craft and said they were assessed as “nonhuman” by people with direct knowledge whom he interviewed. But he did not publicly testify that competing nonhuman groups were fighting wars or shooting each other down. That makes the new “NHI versus NHI” story a significant escalation: not merely nonhuman craft, not merely alleged crash retrievals, but multiple nonhuman actors supposedly interacting violently with one another. And publicly available government evidence still does not establish any of that. AARO’s historical review says no U.S. investigation it examined had confirmed a UAP as off-world technology and that it found no empirical evidence supporting claims of secret extraterrestrial reverse-engineering programs. Even in 2026, the government is continuing to publish military UAP footage that remains unresolved. But AARO explicitly warns that “unresolved” simply means it cannot currently determine what the object was often because the available data are insufficient. IMPORTANT NOTES: AARO released footage in 2026 that it assessed was likely recorded during the 2023 Lake Huron incident, with the uploader-defined title describing an F-16 shooting down a UAP. In other words: an unidentified object can absolutely end up falling out of the sky because someone shot it. That particular incident is not evidence of aliens fighting aliens because it involved the U.S. military, but it demonstrates why “crashed” and “malfunctioned” are not automatically the same thing. And Grusch’s specific claim would theoretically leave a much richer evidence trail than an ordinary sighting. If one advanced craft actually destroyed another, investigators could potentially look for: unusual damage patterns, multiple debris fields, different materials or technologies at the same site, sensor tracks showing two objects interacting before one went down, or repeated incidents displaying the same behavior. None of that evidence has been publicly produced in a form that independently establishes NHI warfare. So the craziest part of Grusch’s explanation isn’t simply: “Aliens crash.” It’s that he is proposing an entirely different picture of the phenomenon. Not one mysterious civilization occasionally visiting Earth but potentially multiple nonhuman groups, with different interests, interacting with each other, and sometimes violently.