Tucker Carlson PodLand SuperNova Highlights

Tucker chats with Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a billionaire surgeon and cancer drug innovator. They discuss alarming trends in rising cancer rates, particularly among young people. He connects these trends to COVID-19 and vaccine effects, suggesting they may contribute to a surge in aggressive cancers. Soon-Shiong critiques Big Pharma's role in the healthcare system and emphasizes the need for new, innovative treatments that harness the immune system. He also shares his unique insights on biomedical advancements, proposing a holistic approach to cancer care.

The Alarming Rise in Cancer Rates Among Younger Populations:

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a seasoned cancer researcher and surgeon is keenly aware of the significant increase in aggressive cancers such as pancreatic, ovarian, and colon cancer among younger individuals. He tells a story about case of a 13-year-old with metastatic pancreatic cancer—a rarity in his 50-year career—and notes similar observations from colleagues, like an 8-year-old with colon cancer. This shocking shift of cancer to younger patients is something he terms a "non-infectious pandemic," is not limited to the U.S. but is particularly pronounced here. He contrasts this with historical expectations that cancer rates would decline with reduced smoking, underscoring the mystery and urgency of this phenomenon. This rise in early-onset, aggressive cancers signals a pressing public health challenge that demands investigation. It frames the rest of the discussion.

The Immune System as the Cornerstone of Cancer Prevention:

Another theme is the immune system’s critical role in cancer development. Dr. Soon-Shiong explains that cancer emerges when the immune system—specifically natural killer (NK) cells and T cells—fails to eliminate defective cells. These cells act as the body’s "first responders," maintaining a delicate balance that prevents cancer growth. When this balance is disrupted—either by the tumor hiding from immune detection or by external factors suppressing these killer cells—cancer can proliferate unchecked. He critiques the traditional oncology focus on tumor growth rates, arguing that the real issue is the immune system’s inability to kill cancer cells, a perspective that reframes cancer as an immunological failure rather than just a cellular anomaly.

The Potential Connection Between COVID-19, mRNA Vaccines, and Cancer:

Dr. Soon-Shiong posits a provocative link between COVID-19, its mRNA vaccines, and the observed cancer surge. He suggests that the spike protein—present in both the virus and the vaccines—persists in the body, causing chronic inflammation and immune suppression. This mirrors the behavior of known oncogenic viruses like HPV and hepatitis, which promote cancer through persistent inflammation and immune disruption. He criticizes mRNA vaccines for failing to clear the virus, potentially exacerbating long-term health risks, including cancer. In contrast, he advocates for his "BioShield" approach, which stimulates T cells and NK (killer) cells to eliminate the virus and bolster immunity. Of equal, or greater interest, he talks about the impact of BioShield on cancer as both prophylactic as well as a treatment. A drug from the platform, ANKTIVA, an immunotherapy treatment for BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with carcinoma in situ (CIS), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on April 22, 2024. He believes the platform applies to ALL or most types of cancer.

Critique of Medical Dogma and Institutional Resistance:

The conversation reveals Dr. Soon-Shiong’s frustration with the medical establishment’s adherence to outdated dogma and resistance to innovation. He argues that the focus on antibody-based vaccines—like the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—ignores the superior protective role of T cells and NK cells. His efforts to develop a T cell-based "BioShield"for COVID faced significant pushback from institutions like the FDA and NIH, which he attributes to entrenched interests and a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration among virologists, immunologists, and oncologists. He also accuses pharmaceutical giants of prioritizing profit over patient outcomes, citing their influence over regulatory bodies and the suppression of novel therapies, a dynamic he believes stifles progress and harms public health.

A Holistic Approach to Health and Immune Function:

Dr. Soon-Shiong emphasizes a holistic view of health, centering the immune system as the key to preventing disease. He identifies lifestyle factors—adequate sleep, sunlight exposure, and a diet free of processed foods and toxins—as essential for maintaining immune balance. Chronic inflammation, driven by environmental toxins or viral persistence, flips immune cells from protective to suppressive states, increasing disease risk. His "BioShield" therapy aims to enhance this natural defense system (immunotherapy), contrasting with conventional treatments like chemotherapy and radiation, which he argues often weaken immunity and exacerbate cancer progression.

Societal Implications of Power in Medicine and Media:

Finally, the discussion explores the broader societal consequences of concentrated power in medicine and media. Dr. Soon-Shiong criticizes a "deep state" within medical institutions, exemplified by folks like Francis Collins (former NIH Head), whom he accuses of blocking innovative therapies for personal or political gain. This gatekeeping, he argues, has contributed to a health crisis of unprecedented scale. Soon-Schiong is hopeful, very hopeful, that RFK Jr. represents a significant change in the federal health institutions going forward and a change that is not so married to Dogma, which he rails against again, and again.

Conclusion:

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong provides a clear, hopeful and seemingly valid perspective on the potential of immunotherapy as both a “vaccine” and a treatment for viruses and cancers. We aren’t going to pretend to know the details of this medicine, but we’ve been hearing about immunotherapy for years and Soon-Shiong (with an FDA approved product) has a platform that may enable real results at scale. Absolutely worth a listen.

THE PODSCORE: 4.5 (out 5) MICS

Tucker chats with Robert Lighthizer, former U.S. Trade Representative known for his trade expertise. The episode delves into the importance of tariffs in revitalizing the American manufacturing sector. Lighthizer highlights the slow decline of the working class linked to trade deficits and globalization, arguing that the middle class's struggles stem from flawed economic trade policies. Lighthizer also critiques how foreign ownership impacts America's economic stability, advocating for rebalanced trade practices to restore equity and support regional communities. This is a critical listen at a time when it appears that the Trump administration is really serious about rebalancing “fair trade” and abolishing the notion that current trade is actually “free”.

Failure of the Current Trade System:

Lighthizer asserts that the existing U.S. trade system, built on principles of free trade and globalization, has fundamentally failed. This failure is evidenced by persistent trade deficits, estimated at $800 billion to over $1 trillion annually, which represent a massive transfer of wealth from the U.S. to foreign nations. The net international investment position—a measure of U.S.-owned assets abroad versus foreign-owned assets in the U.S.—has deteriorated to a staggering -$23.5 trillion, up from -$3 trillion two decades ago.

This imbalance contradicts the theoretical promise of trade, where nations specialize in what they do best, mutually benefiting from exports and imports. Instead, the system has evolved into one where the U.S. maintains an open market while other countries, notably those with industrial policies like China, exploit this openness to amass wealth and assets, often at the expense of American interests. Lighthizer blames the “triad of stupid” (NAFTA, WTO entry, and China’s most-favored-nation status) for dramatically accelerating the decline of the US middle class since the 1990s. This theme sets the stage for the argument that systemic change, rather than minor tweaks, is necessary to reverse the damage.

“It’s the Trifecta of Stupid…we do NAFTA. We do the WTO…And then dumbest of them all, we give most favored nation status to China.”

Economic and Technological Decline:

A second major theme is the erosion of U.S. economic vitality and technological leadership, linked directly to the loss of manufacturing due to unchecked globalization. Lighthizer highlights a stark decline in GDP growth: from 1960 to 1980 and 1980 to 2000. The U.S. saw 14 years each of 3%+ growth, but since 2000, only three such years have occurred, with the last significant instance 18-19 years ago. This slowdown coincides with the rise of “hyper-globalization” in the 1990s, suggesting that free trade policies have stifled rather than spurred economic progress.

Technologically, the U.S. has lost dominance in fields it once pioneered—personal computers, semiconductors (now only 8% of global production), rare earth elements, solar panels, and nuclear energy. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s finding that the U.S. trails China in 57 of 64 critical technologies (up from three 15 years ago) underscores this regression. Lighthizer emphatically argues that innovation is tied to manufacturing, arguing against the notion that the U.S. can innovate while outsourcing production. The manufacturing decline is framed as a national security risk and an economic liability, necessitating a return to domestic industrial capacity to reclaim both growth and technological edge.

Plight of the Working Class:

Already hit upon but highlighting on its own is Lighthizer’s main cocern is the devastating impact of the trade system on America’s working class, particularly the two-thirds of workers with only a high school education. He notes that this group has faced stagnant wages for 25 years, shrinking job opportunities, and a life expectancy drop of eight years due to “deaths of despair” (alcohol, drugs, suicide)—a shift from a one-year gap in earlier decades. Communities once sustained by manufacturing have been hollowed out, with poverty rates soaring to 35-40% and college graduation rates plummeting. The wealth distribution has skewed dramatically, with the top 1% now holding more wealth than the middle 60%, a historic first that signals the end of the egalitarian middle-class ethos that defined America. Tucker and Lighthizer agree that this kind of disparity can destroy a nation.

Tariffs as a Solution:

Lighthizer’s (and Trumps) proposed remedy to these issues is the reinstitution of tariffs, framed as a tool to achieve balanced trade and offset foreign industrial policies beyond mere tariffs—like subsidies, currency manipulation, and labor suppression. He outlines three methods to balance trade: Warren Buffett’s export-import certificates, a capital access fee on returning foreign investments, and tariffs, with the latter favored for its simplicity, flexibility, and existing global infrastructure. Tariffs are not just about matching foreign rates (e.g., Europe’s 10% auto tariffs vs. the U.S.’s 2.5%) but countering broader unfair practices to prevent chronic trade surpluses in countries like China and deficits in the U.S. The speaker anticipates short-term disruptions—supply chain adjustments and potential price hikes—but dismisses systemic inflation fears, citing Trump’s first-term tariffs (which yielded only 1.3% inflation) and China’s deflation despite high barriers. The goal (as Lighthizer presents it) is a manufacturing renaissance, higher wages, and a wealth shift from elites to workers. He briefly goes on to discuss that tariffs that coincide with tax cuts, spending cuts, regulation cuts and increased energy output combine to forge an entirely new (or old) economic model for the US.

Geopolitical Challenge of China:

Near the end the duo spent a fair amount of time on existential threat posed by China, intertwining economic policy with national security. China is depicted as an adversary leveraging trade deficits—hundreds of billions annually—to fund military expansion (the world’s largest army and navy), territorial aggression (South China Sea militarization), espionage (thousands of FBI cases), and technological theft. Lighthizer, to his own admission, does not believe that China is a benign actor and we didn’t get the sense that he does not trust them. They aim for a totalitarianism, communism and China homogeny. The US should defend against this at all cost.

Conclusion:

Lighthizer’s trade concepts and a bold call to action to reinvigorate the US middle class is clear and appreciated. He blends economic analysis with a populist defense of the working class and a strategic warning about China. He paints a picture of a nation betrayed by decades of free trade dogma, resulting in wealth outflows, economic stagnation, technological lag, and a hollowed-out middle class—trends exacerbated by policies from the 1990s onward. Tucker, even to his own admission at the end of the podcast, is a cheerleader of Lighthizers, so you aren’t getting any hard-hitting questions here. However, what you do get is a cogent, logical, detailed explanation of what Trump wants to do with Tariffs and the bigger economic vision. If only the administration could get a little bit clearer in getting the message out. This is a must-listen for those who actually want to hear a sober POV on how the administration views Tariffs and associated social and economic issues.

THE PODCSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker faces off with Chris Cuomo, who is, as you know, a former CNN anchor and current News Nation host. Cuomo shares his views on what it means to be an American amidst political divides. The duo debates the media's evolution and the influence of figures like Joe Rogan. Topics like the Epstein files and governmental transparency ignite some good, but “mostly” rationale debate. They also touch on the complexities of New York City’s challenges, questioning safety for LGBTQ+ students, and explore the moral implications of transhumanism and AI. Free speech and Ukraine also get a fair bit of air time. It’s worth a listen and so nice to hear these former shock news anchors sit and have a deliberate, non-corporate-influenced nearly three hour discussion that is more than soundbites and shilling.

Personal Redemption and Resilience:

Carlson and Cuomo frame their exits from corporate media as redemptive arcs, and we think that they are. Cuomo has been actually tolerable since he left CNN. In fact, in many instances in this discussion, he seemed like the more grounded one. Cuomo reflects on his CNN firing, where loyalty to his brother Andrew cost him his job (he claims that he will not cover his brother’s run for Mayor of New York City, btw). Carlson, as he often does, positions himself as a post-corporate “free man” who is able to tell the truth…while we think that is true, Carlson has certainly made his own truth at times. Regardless, both highlight how shedding institutional shackles fosters authenticity. There is no doubt about that and there is little question to this reviewer this conversation showcased that authenticity frequently throughout the episode.

Critique of Corporate Media and Rise of Independent Platforms:

The duo spend time (really throughout the episode) in different places attacking corporate media, with Cuomo decrying its culture where “it’s okay... to destroy you by a standard I would never want imposed on me”, and Carlson calling it “disgusting” where “everyone lies all the time”. They applaud independent media’s ascent, epitomized by Joe Rogan, who Carlson says operates “completely outside the conventional structure”, and Cuomo sees as part of a power shift “back to people” . While they agreed on this general premise, Carlson celebrates unchecked freedom, while Cuomo warns of conglomerates scooping up independents, potentially rebuilding the same type of narrative pressures they believe an independent press should run away from.

“It’s OK in the media for me to destroy you by a standard that I would never want imposed on me.” - Chris Cuomo

Transparency and Hidden Power Structures:

The ongoing delay in release in the JFK and Epstein files (among others) ignite a debate on transparency, with Carlson alleging a “very serious force” blocking release, citing Senate interventions and figures like Mike Pompeo, suggesting a conspiracy beyond mere bureaucracy. Also, Tucker, specifically calls out Senator Tom Cotton as someone who has an interest in blocking the release. Tucker claims to have first-hand knowledge of this. Cuomo presses him to call out Cotton publicly. It seems like Tucker did …during the episode. Anyway, Cuomo adds that there is institutional self-preservation—“there is clearly information... that are going to make the CIA look bad”. He was less confident that there was any type of “grand plot”. As this discussion went on it was apparent that both agree transparency builds trust, and we don’t have that. Still there were differences…Carlson’s insistence on a shadowy elite contrasts with Cuomo’s call for evidence over speculation.

Cultural Identity and Division:

Defining American identity splits them sharply and was one of the more interesting parts of the conversation. Carlson demands a unifying American principle, arguing immigration and DEI destroy meritocracy and without much else to unite Americans, he sees that as an existential threat. He sees chaos from unchecked borders and race-based policies. There was a pretty uncomfortable part of the conversation where Tucker called for temporarily halting ALL immigration, not just illegal immigration. This is the type of stuff that people rightfully use to assert that he has some overly nationalist tendencies. He deftly claims is not about race but about saving the union and he claims his love for immigrants like his “best friend”, but while he might even have cogent points, its an absurd and not helpful proposition. Cuomo pushed back on this but didn’t really nail him to the wall with it like he could have. Anyway, this immigration discussion turned into a DEI and merit discussion where there were predictable lines drawn. Both supposedly believe in merit but Cuomo calls out the corrective nature of DEI. Carlson wins this part of the discussion hands - down. Pure merit is the only way we can instill ethic and preserve the integrity of a state not unified by much else. Their debate mirrors broader cultural fault lines, with Carlson fearing disunity and Cuomo trusting adaptation within the current structure.

Moral and Foreign Policy Disagreements:

Moral divides surface on transgenderism, abortion, and Ukraine. Carlson calls aggressive transgender policies a “spiritual attack”and abortion “the most obviously evil thing”, rooted in natural law, while Cuomo defends acceptance and reproductive rights as personal freedoms. Tucker always approaches abortion as a Christian issue, you can decide what that means to you in the context of its relevance to the debate. On Ukraine, Carlson says clearly that NATO’s three year effort in Ukraine to date is a failure. “We couldn’t beat Russia” is something he says over and over again. This clashes with Cuomo’s moral support for sovereignty against Putin. Carlson has claimed for a long time that the US has no business spending that type of money in Ukraine to encourage the slaughter of millions only satisfy a story that Russia is evil and NATO needed to expand to its front yard. He also bemoans the warmongers in Washington and the military industrial complex. None of this is new to regular listeners. Cuomo didn’t add much new to the conversation either, but none-the-less both positioned their sides well.

Conversation as a Unifying Force:

Despite clashes, they end the conversation by stating that they value dialogue—“Conversation is the cure”—as a counter to division. Of course, we are hearing that from two of the guys that have helped sew more division in the past decade than many others. None-the-less, in a media landscape of silos, it was good to see these media vets get together and DISCUSS what they truly believe the score is. Cuomo was more balanced in the dialog but Tucker always gets around to his point (after some meandering). So, we feel it was fairly balanced.

Conclusion:

Different styles, different viewpoints, different constituencies but one one fact - its good that they have these discussions. Cuomo was flat out wrong about some things (genetic differences) and Tucker was way over the line on some things (LEGAL immigration) but they talked and they talked a LONG time. We need more of that. Listen.

THE PODSCORE: 5 (OF 5) MICS

Tucker chats with Chris Josephs, creator of the Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker, sheds light on the shocking world of political stock trading. He reveals how Nancy Pelosi's trading strategies consistently outperform professional investors, raising concerns about insider knowledge and trading. Josephs discusses various financial scandals that expose the corruption within Congress and delves into the financial impacts of political decisions on the market. The conversation highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability among politicians when it comes to their investments.

Who is Christopher Josephs and What Is the Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker?

Josephs opens the podcast by explaining that the The Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker is a real tool he created after catching wind of the obscene returns that she and others in congress were getting in the stock market. It monitors the stock trades of Nancy Pelosi (and other politicians), pulling data from mandatory financial disclosures required by the STOCK Act of 2012. The tracker’s slogan, "invest like a politician," is both a catchy hook and a biting critique, highlighting how politicians’ trades often outperform the market—Pelosi, for instance, was up 54% in 2024, beating the S&P 500 by over 25%. Josephs started this project after quitting a finance job in New York, moving to Bali, and later teaming up with co-founders in LA during the pandemic to build an app that originally let users follow friends’ stock portfolios. The Pelosi Tracker emerged as a side project during the GameStop craze, when social media buzz about politicians’ suspiciously timed trades—like Pelosi’s—caught his attention.

How Did It Start?

The idea took root around 2020, sparked by earlier efforts from an X account called Unusual Whales, which began calling out politicians’ trades. Josephs started investigating these trade further and developed the Pelosi Tracker in 2022 after noticing patterns like Pelosi’s massive Tesla call options purchase (up to $5 million) right after Biden’s 2020 election, just before the Build Back Better infrastructure bill boosted electric vehicle stocks. He saw an opportunity to use technology and social media to expose this, turning it into a full-fledged app. It’s not just a gimmick—over $300 million is now invested alongside Pelosi’s trades, with users profiting $30 million since 2021.

Why Does It Matter?

The tracker shines a light on political insider trading. Look at the details of Pelosi’s trades: she bought Tesla leaps (high-risk, high-reward options) in late 2020, netting 40-50% gains as EV-friendly policies rolled out, and later scored a 140% return on Nvidia leaps in 2023 after buying $5 million worth—moves that seem too well-timed to be luck. The podcast cites Richard Burr’s pandemic - era scandal as well… as Senate Intelligence Committee chair, he sold $1.65 million from his retirement account in February 2020 after private briefings, right before the market crashed, saving himself millions. These examples fuel the perception that politicians use privileged info for personal gain, which obviously erodes public trust in institutions. We have felt this viscerally—how can leaders be so corrupt?—and the tracker quantifies it: Pelosi outperformed 95% of hedge fund managers in 2024, per Bloomberg.

What’s Being Done About It?

The podcast explores solutions and reforms, echoing your disbelief that this is allowed. Proposals include banning politicians from trading stocks (AOC’s recent Restore Faith in Government Act), requiring blind trusts, or at least barring trades in industries they oversee—like Markwayne Mullin owning Raytheon while on the Armed Services Committee. The STOCK Act already mandates disclosure within 45 days, but Josephs advocates for same-day reporting for transparency. However, efforts like a 2024 Senate bill (from Josh Hawley and Jon Ossoff) stalled over concerns about forcing politicians to sell private businesses, a step too far for some. Despite the tracker’s success—$500 million invested across all politician portfolios—it hasn’t prompted Pelosi’s office to respond, though she’s defended it as “free market” participation in press conferences.

“In 2024, for example, she was up 54%. The was up like 26%”

This is a fun podcast to listen to and yet, a sad one. We all intuitively knew this was happening, at least Josephs build a tool for the rest of us to profit from it. Hopefully no one profits in the future.

THE PODSCORE: 3.5 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker sits down with Luke Gromen, a finance and macroeconomics expert known for his insights on gold, uncovers the massive shift of gold between nations as a precursor to a new global financial system. He dives into the secrecy surrounding gold ownership, questioning why Fort Knox can’t be audited. Gromen also challenges the narratives pushed by the intel community against gold owners and raises eyebrows about Warren Buffett’s role in the banking industry. This timely analysis reveals gold’s critical status amid the evolving economic landscape.

The podcast begins with a provocative statement from Gromen when says, “since 2014 national central banks have grown their gold “piggy banks” by about $600 billion dollars”. On the other hand, they have NOT added their net treasury reserve. In fact, those have declined by about $300 billion. This is a significant shift from the past 50 years or so, so what is going on?

Thanks for reading PodLand’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Tucker and Gromen give us a somewhat interesting history of gold before getting back to the key question…what is going on with central banks and gold and more recently why have we seen so much gold trading around the globe? As of this writing gold sits near an all-time high as it closes in on $3,000 dollars per ounce. Gromen explains that when countries physically move “monetary” gold, a lot of it can be done in secret. In an interesting exchange, Tucker and Gromen “Google” gold storage by country, they both agree that the list is absurdly incorrect. For example, France is listed as having more physical gold than China…which they agree is patently untrue.

This got them to the topic of Fort Knox and the ensuing audit. How much gold does the US really have? Gromen makes the point that he believes that the US has avoided auditing Ft. Knox in part because its focuses attention on gold. The US dollar was removed from the gold standard in 1971, and this action was effectively a default on certain loans backed by gold. So, “talking about gold” was something that an entire generation of US leaders wanted to avoid. With all of the flows and price action related to gold recently…gold is undoubtedly…back in the news.

More to the point, there has been significant gold inflow to the United States, particularly from the UK. The belief in the market is that incoming tariffs from the Trump administration will impact the price of the gold in the short term as traders position their gold holdings accordingly. However, that is only a short - term issue. However, both Gromen and Tucker believe there is a separate tactical and strategic reason why this might be happening. Gromen believes that the US may revalue its gold which is currently on the books at 42 dollars to the current amount (around $2900). This would be done in large part to payback debt WITH GOLD and the put the US in better position to rebuild its industrial base. And in turn, this industrial base would be in better position to support US defense which is more and more dependent upon China for production, as we have learned, from the Ukraine War.

“The Flows of Gold Into the US are Likely Front Running the Price of Gold”

Generally, Gromen observes that with the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and with national debt so high, the US has seen industries hallowed out, except for those close to “money”. He cites a fascinating discussion that JD Vance had with Jerome Powell in this topic in 2023. Gromen goes on to state that the US is now vulnerable because it can’t fund a war with an enemy who is our industrial supplier. So, Gromen believes that the US will put on Tariffs, lower taxes, reinvest in factories (not just financial assets) and encourage foreign nations to invest into US stored gold…this would be effectively another way to pay down debt with gold.

The last thirty minutes of this podcast went from interesting to mind blowing. Gromen was succinct and specific as explained how the macro-economic changes in the US will change how we work, live, prosper and interact on the international stage. In short, he sees the US moving from a (primarily) financial-based into economy a better diversified economy (that can at least produce its own artillery shells). This rebalance of the US economy, he believes will once again prosper the middle class and create new incentive structures that broaden opportunity beyond finance, government and technology.

At the close they discuss what a “retail” investor might do with this information. Well, Gromen recommends holding 5-10% of net worth in gold bullion as a safeguard against inflation, particularly as Treasury bonds lose purchasing power—a pressing concern for boomers reliant on entitlements. Looking ahead, gold could climb 2-4 times its current value, potentially reaching $6,000 to $12,000 per ounce, to realign with historical norms where the US covered 40% of foreign-held U.S. debt (now just 9%). Don’t take this as financial advice, by the way.

So, we landed on a positive podscore for this podcast, but you’ve got to make it through the first 30 minutes or so, which is rather slow as they focused on the history of gold and so forth. Stick with it.

THE PODSCORE 3.5 (of 5) MICS.