[Charles Kovess]: We're having an urgent announcement for five minutes to start before I introduce Jay Couey, wonderful presenter, wonderful thinker, who's joining us today.
[Craig]: People have noticed that there appears to be a scratch on the logo, which was a bit odd, but no one actually zoomed in and actually saw what was embedded in the message.
[Craig]: When I deciphered it, it consisted of two parts, it consisted of a sequence that repeated three times, consisting of three letters each time, and it reads,
[Craig]: This is, it's a person, their head is at an angle of 20 degrees to their right, they're holding a sword of some kind in their right hand, and on their left shoulder they have chevrons, which is a military insignia, so this is a commander of some kind.
[Craig]: The X has always been a symbol for Christ, and when you have a vertical line through the X, that's the Iota Chi, which is the symbol for Jesus Christ.
[Craig]: pointing to what looks like a kind of a devil at the top, to me it looks like the symbol for the Antichrist, because we have, instead of Jesus, it's relevant to what's going to be happening in America over the next few months, which is that they're having an election.
[J Jay Couey]: many places where you can find the PDF of it some of the PDFs have this cover some of the PDFs have a little chicken on the front There's a Cambridge version.
[J Jay Couey]: It has become clear to me in trying to formulate a new Biology 101 for freshman students in college that something is really wrong with Campbell, the book that everybody uses at universities in America, and with the help of my friend Mark Kulacz and other people like Peter Hotez and others,
[J Jay Couey]: It has become very clear to me that there is a long mentor chain of thoughtfulness with regard to answering some very crucial questions about what we can and can't understand about ourselves.
[J Jay Couey]: It was COVID, but COVID has kind of passed for me because I understand it in a larger context now, and how, more importantly, after repeating over and over again for you and for many other people,
[J Jay Couey]: And the consequences of that idea, of course, are having to go back to those times and those books and actually read them to see how it is that we got to the point where we are, where people are very
[J Jay Couey]: And at the start of the pandemic, he was very, very involved in this debate about whether it was a lab leak or whether a lab leak was ridiculous.
[J Jay Couey]: Or or a bridge too far because there was enough nastiness and mother nature to explain everything so the reason why I think that video is important is because in the first 30 minutes of that video you basically have a person teaching the central dogma of biology and teaching all of the
[J Jay Couey]: teaching through all of the major, let's say, greatest hits, little milestones in ideology, the bricks of the ideology, that once you accept those, then you can go on into the university system, or on to PubMed, or on to any of these primary literature sources, and have the right
[J Jay Couey]: foundation of ideas in order to understand what all these people are talking about, and also to understand the context in which all of their terminology and all of their concepts fit.
[J Jay Couey]: At some point, I think if I would have been in a bar or in a situation where somebody challenged me on the primacy of the idea of evolution and the primacy of the idea that the brain evolved from
[J Jay Couey]: you know, previous forms or whatever, and to defend that idea, I would have been there all night, and I would have never fallen asleep, and I would have had all kinds of answers for everything, all the time, ultra confident that a few basic principles
[J Jay Couey]: were sufficient for me to model in my mind how it is that a lightning bolt could hit a mud puddle and just the right combination could happen, and then now you have this spontaneous process that billions of years later results in me going to the prom and crying afterward.
[J Jay Couey]: For me, as a child and as a biologist, when I was a kid, there was no question in my mind that what I was looking at and appreciating was beyond a simple explanation.
[J Jay Couey]: That kid was constantly being told to shut up when it came to formulating my grant questions or teaching people what it was that I was trying to address as a concept with my experiments, because reductionist biology necessarily requires you to only pick a few knobs and then
[J Jay Couey]: pretend that okay if I leave these two knobs alone and turn knob number one then I get one result and if I turn knob number one with knob number two I get another result and then that's supposed to be understanding the system because you're ignoring all the other knobs that you know exist and the ones that you haven't even found yet and the art of being a tenured professor is being able to
[J Jay Couey]: at the same time as you justify how important the knobs are that you're turning, also very humbly admit that you don't know what any of the other knobs do and you're sure that they do things important too.
[J Jay Couey]: And so as long as you play that game, you can become an academic biologist without ever questioning the main bricks on which all of this investigation lies and on which all the premise on which your expertise is based.
[J Jay Couey]: Over these last five years, for me personally, the most humbling thing about it has been to realize how awfully wrong I was about so many things that I thought I understood, and also what's been very
[J Jay Couey]: humbling to me is how easily that can be rearranged once you realize what bricks are there and who put them there and how they got there.
[J Jay Couey]: of what I guess I would call implied knowledge or assumed knowledge, which all traces itself back to this wonderful time when we were into, um, nuclear bombs and radiation and at the cusp of thinking that we were about to make major breakthroughs in our understanding of biology.
[J Jay Couey]: And so if we go to the first chapter, I just got a few things I want to highlight here because I just want to make some big points, okay?
[J Jay Couey]: And before I get started with highlighting a couple of things in the first 20 pages of this book, let me just help you to do a thought exercise to try and put you in the right space of exploration in terms of what might be going on with you and what I think happened to me.
[J Jay Couey]: I want you to imagine a scenario where you grow up and all the teachers and all of the adults that are around you believe that they need to feed the right birds and attract the right birds to the backyard in order for all of the best outcomes to happen at work and for all of the best things to happen in their lives and for people not to get sick.
[J Jay Couey]: And there are people who are experts on birds and can tell you what things you have to put in your backyard to attract which birds and which birds you want to attract when you have a certain sickness, and which birds will come and announce that the sicknesses are coming and all this stuff.
[J Jay Couey]: And you can imagine very easily this elaborate mythology that would be created with weather and with what birds eat and all this other knowledge that could be misconstrued
[J Jay Couey]: And with a crafty set of liars, you could get that to work, you could get that to go, even if at the beginning everything was really well-meant and it seemed to really work, that if you attract cardinals, then generally speaking, families are healthier than people that have crows in their backyard, whatever the anecdotal observations that get misconstrued as understanding are.
[J Jay Couey]: So he makes the argument that chemists and physicists are always studying periodic crystals, and what occurs in biology is an aperiodic crystal, because it changes over time, and it's a very consistent one-way pattern of change.
[J Jay Couey]: You can expound on that all you want to, but the idea of an aperiodic crystal influenced lots of people afterward, lots of people grabbed onto that, and that's actually maybe where this term gene originates, or thinking about genes originates.
[J Jay Couey]: So if I scroll down a little bit through this thing, one of the first things that comes up here, I'm going to make myself smaller, is that the reason that this book needs to be written, and he's of course a mathematician,
[J Jay Couey]: The question that they want to answer is, how can the events in space-time, which take place within the spatial boundaries of a living organism, be accounted for by physics and chemistry alone?
[J Jay Couey]: And this is something that needs to be very clear in everybody's head as a starting biologist, or a restarting biologist, or a recovering biologist.
[J Jay Couey]: You have to see that an organism is something that moves through space, it's a pattern integrity that remains integrated to and through time.
[J Jay Couey]: irreversible, and it is in these people's minds, in these chemists' and physicists' minds that are starting to, let's say, cross over into a biology and apply their understanding of the world to biology
[J Jay Couey]: And so this is where most of the thinking about genes and the primacy of DNA comes from, because these chemists and physicists were looking for a chemical and physical explanation for the pattern of life.
[J Jay Couey]: "The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences."
[J Jay Couey]: So just because we don't have the microscopes, just because we don't have the fine instruments, doesn't mean that when we do, we won't be able to just account for everything by physics and chemistry.
[J Jay Couey]: that premise is central to Biology 101 at every university in the Western world, and it is absolutely central to the idea that the Human Genome Project accomplished anything at all.
[J Jay Couey]: This is written at a time when they're getting excited about the possibility of identifying this chemistry, and the identification of this chemistry was immediately taken as proof that this was true.
[J Jay Couey]: And so we still can't look inside of a cell and see the actual status of the DNA molecule, which parts of it are exposed, which parts are wrapped up, which ones are being translated or not.
[J Jay Couey]: The beginning of this book explains the rationale upon which this bridge can be made, where you just say, well, if you put the right chemicals,
[J Jay Couey]: And so the finding of DNA, and since they found it, it has been physicists and chemists that have been used, or abused, or willingly taken biology into this direction where all of the irreducible complexity, all of what was sacred, all of what was assumed to be creation, can now be assumed to be the consequence of physical and chemical laws that we are just not yet able to quantify or measure.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's an extraordinary place to be, of course, because what's really interesting, and I'm just taking you, this is completely improv.
[J Jay Couey]: Also on that list of Gigaohm Biological slash stuff is this book, which is, I guess you can't see that, maybe I can do this, is The Phenomenon of Man by Teilhard de Chardin.
[J Jay Couey]: But it was in the 30s that he wrote a lot of these books, including this one, which didn't get published until later with an introduction by Julian Huxley.
[J Jay Couey]: took the Pithdown Man and ran with it, and said that that meant Darwin was right, and that meant that we were descended from animals, and the church didn't like that.
[J Jay Couey]: solving the problem of how did God make us by saying that God did evolution is actually something really interesting, because this same guy who did that for the Catholic Church and is cited by no less than Peter Hotez in an article in The Lancet in 2024 as being a seminal thinker in this public health space, this guy right here
[J Jay Couey]: went for evolution fully, and also in this thing said that the shape of the planet being round meant that at some point the phenomenon of man, the species of man, would become one
[J Jay Couey]: I may have said this before, and if I have I apologize, but Julian Huxley characterized this idea as the equivalent of fish swimming in groups in the water, and men
[J Jay Couey]: And so the idea was that because the population would eventually come in contact with each other, he couldn't have seen the internet, or maybe he could have, I don't know, but that we would all become sort of one conscious sphere that would be governable and then steerable, and it was in our
[J Jay Couey]: And that's very similar to what a lot of eugenicists think, a lot of these biologists think, that we have to take charge of our evolution as a species.
[J Jay Couey]: then our free will and our decisions and what individuals do is really not as important as what we do as a species and where we go into the future.
[J Jay Couey]: So this is the paper that we're all talking about, the initial sequencing and analysis of the genome by the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium.
[J Jay Couey]: which is actually around the same few years that we were talking about with regard to the Pithdown Man, and with regard to when this guy was starting to get in trouble with the Church because he was saying evolution.
[J Jay Couey]: And if you looked at the family tree, that video that I gave you, that family tree is in there, and you can see that there's, like, aunts that are also grandmoms, and then there's also great-grandfathers that are also grandfathers, and it's super bizarre, because there's lots of people that are marrying within the family for a long time, and so that is genetically very bad, but it's interesting in that video, he jokes, because it's really good for geneticists.
[J Jay Couey]: And actually, it's important to understand that this rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity, it's something that when it was taught to me when I was in high school, when it was retaught to me when I was in college, and when I taught students this as a college lab instructor or lab assistant, I taught the same illusion.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not that he just started with pea plants with wrinkles and pea plants without wrinkles and then did these studies and voila, wrote the book.
[J Jay Couey]: But understanding what those genes do in development that led to that, understanding the likelihood of that being a developmental process or a genetically predetermined process was still only correlation even in the greatest and most pure signals of Mendel or the most pure signals in our own genetic, let's say, catalog.
[J Jay Couey]: That's what I can speak to personally as a neurobiologist because when I got into neuroscience, everybody, everybody was hoping that they would get a chance to work on a knockout mouse that was interesting.
[J Jay Couey]: A knockout mouse is a mouse that supposedly has a protein, a gene, at that time a protein was really the gene that you would knock out, or a gene.
[J Jay Couey]: and could function, then chances are pretty good that you could go in and look for the physiological defect or the thing that was wrong, and then maybe it would give you some idea of what that protein did in the mice that have it.
[J Jay Couey]: And that illusion is sustained across laboratories in America and in Europe where they use inbred mouse lines that by definition are very much like the peas of Mendel.
[J Jay Couey]: But it is very clear from the Habsburgs family tree that if we tried to make an inbred strain of human, if we got anywhere near the homogeneity of mice, there would be no living humans anymore.
[J Jay Couey]: Which I find a really weird statement for him to make, because in this same video, this guy, this former scientist and now science communicator who was sure that it was a natural leak, that guy will tell you that the central dogma that DNA to RNA to protein is essentially how life works, and everything that's alive does that.
[J Jay Couey]: And so really, it is no different than the idea that I've said multiple times to you about, in a much shorter timescale, the idea that... Let's see, is that one that one?
[J Jay Couey]: And so what we have from an evolutionary perspective, from a genetic perspective, a snapshot of all the people on Earth, we don't actually have any data.
[J Jay Couey]: We don't have any data from that except for the current hundred years of life that we've been able to catalog both molecularly and macroscopically, you know, whatever, what they look like and whatnot.
[J Jay Couey]: You just have to accept it, because they found DNA, and since DNA is the chemical and physical explanation for how life works, the code, then evolution is also real.
[J Jay Couey]: So that video that I put in as homework is really important to listen to, because what that guy does in the first 25 minutes is give you a lecture about the basics
[J Jay Couey]: of the central dogma and how all academic biologists and all thinking academic medical professionals think about the basis of all life on earth, what we share in common.
[J Jay Couey]: And they also believe, for example, in this thing, and I know this is out of date now, but in 2003, there was a paper by the last name of Hillis, and they put together this plot where they put like 2,000 plus species on it, and they tried to make this tree where it starts with the most basic kinds of protists and then splits, and now you get all the rest of life, and here's where the bacteria are over here,
[J Jay Couey]: here are the animals and we're over on this part if you can see my my arrow here and so this is like a PDF you can zoom in and see all the animals that they did and yet all we have is a snapshot.
[J Jay Couey]: Just like with this coronavirus or with this latest, there was a latest Neuroscience paper, not Neuroscience, Nature paper that came out that showed that they went for some used AI to find all the RNA viruses in some sample and they found all kinds of new viruses or potential new viruses using metagenomic sequences.
[J Jay Couey]: If you just take a huge sample of all the animals on earth and you claim that they have to be arranged in some kind of descending order of complexity or where they came from, then you can make this tree and claim all you want.
[J Jay Couey]: And I even based my understanding of the brain and my organization of my thoughts on how to pursue a further understanding of the brain based on this idea that I had to think of neurons as expressing
[J Jay Couey]: genes and genes coming on and off and how even though we can't monitor that we assume it's happening and all of this gets fueled by these.
[J Jay Couey]: he will show you a video that somebody made, a computer animation of DNA being copied and proofread, and in that entire model there's no water molecules, there's no other proteins and chaperones around, there's no bases anywhere, it's just, you know, making a nice little thing, but that model doesn't even
[J Jay Couey]: understand or doesn't even attempt to show you what's really happening there, because of course it's happening in an aqueous solution, of course there are other proteins around, so why are we just looking at the DNA molecule coming apart like this and one little ball coming over to it and then it gets wrapped up and it becomes double-stranded again, it's all very beautiful and whatever, but we don't have cameras that can see that.
[J Jay Couey]: And elaborate cartoons, no different than the cartoons of COVID, no different than even the image of COVID that they use from the very beginning with the red spikes and gray body.
[J Jay Couey]: So the physical laws rest on atomic statistics and are therefore only approximate is one of the first things you really need to understand.
[J Jay Couey]: And he gives you a couple really good examples of it, where essentially what he's saying is that everything that physicists and chemists think that they understand about molecules,
[J Jay Couey]: Maybe one good one to use would be this one here, where he's talking about how a tube full of oxygen can be, a voltage can be applied, and the way that that reacts to the voltage is different than what you might think, unless you're thinking of it as an average effect.
[J Jay Couey]: But I just want to get past all this stuff, just to make sure that you understand that this whole book is really important to read, because it is a guy who sees the problem.
[J Jay Couey]: So the hereditary code script, chromosomes, let me use the word pattern of an organism in the sense in which the biologist calls it the four-dimensional pattern, meaning not only the structure and functioning of that organism in the adult or in any particular stage,
[J Jay Couey]: but the whole of its ontogenetic development from the fertilized egg cell to the stage of maturity when the organism begins to reproduce itself.
[J Jay Couey]: And then we go down here and he says, you know, that it can be a black cock or a speckled hen or a fly or a maize plant, a rhododendron, a beetle, a mouse, or a woman, to which we may add that the appearances of the egg cells are often remarkably similar.
[J Jay Couey]: And so even when they are not, as in the case of the comparatively gigantic eggs of birds and reptiles, the difference is not so much in the relevant structures as in the nutritive material, which in these cases is added for obvious reasons.
[J Jay Couey]: And so my argument will be that up until now, and including the present day, biologists are only able to scratch the surface of the part that encodes proteins.
[J Jay Couey]: All the other stuff is just written away as repeats, or as useless code, or code that isn't needed, or code that isn't read, even though we know from this own physicist's opinion and from lots of other scholars to follow,
[J Jay Couey]: that the main question of how does this all orchestrate together, you don't just make proteins and then because of the nature of their chemistry and physics, they just assemble into the things that they do and go where they're supposed to go and do what they're supposed to do and get replaced when needed.
[J Jay Couey]: I've just never did realize that people were already codifying it so eloquently already back when this guy's book was written, because this is not part of Biology 101.
[J Jay Couey]: The determinist aspect of our biology means that as a species we need to put our big boy pants on and start taking control of our evolution, because we are a phenomenon, we aren't individuals.
[J Jay Couey]: That's what all these people want us to believe, and that's why I think it's really important to have a good sense of how to move forward.
[J Jay Couey]: They have told us, for example, that there are diseases that are genetic, and they get them confused with infectious diseases because, again, they are taking and
[J Jay Couey]: And that's really important to see, that just like the pea plants with wrinkled or smooth seeds, you can find rare examples or exceptions to the rule where a single gene and its missing or its mutation can result in a phenotypic change that's sufficiently detectable so that you can point to it.
[J Jay Couey]: But the flip side of this is oftentimes in neuroscience, you'll see this happen where a neuropsychiatric condition, actually, when you start to look at what they now call genome-wide association studies, where they take a bunch of people and classify them as all having the same set of symptoms, and then they look across their genomes for signals that they share, it's often a complete disaster and they find nothing.
[J Jay Couey]: And it is extraordinary because, again, in that we're going all the way back to 2001 and a Nature paper, and we are now supposed to believe
[J Jay Couey]: that someone from the Whitehead Institute who worked for Eric Lander named Kevin McKernan is one of the guys who's put his life and career on the line to come and save us from the laboratory leak and from the DNA contamination in the transfection.
[J Jay Couey]: methodologies that are responsible for all the biologics in the world, all the sequencing technologies, all of this stuff, he was involved in it.
[J Jay Couey]: that it descends from the same funding and the same secrecy that DITRA comes from, that the State Department uses, and that all of the Manhattan Project used.
[J Jay Couey]: And so in order to maintain that secrecy, in order to maintain that funding stream, a lot of those physicists that were involved in the Manhattan Project actually went into the precursor projects of the Human Genome Project.
[J Jay Couey]: If I humbly submit that I think we have a lot of work to do to try and extricate our kids from this, we cannot have our kids growing up thinking that most of their biology is determined by genes, and most of the genes have already been identified, and it's just a matter of time and doing the work before all of these problems can be solved by altering those genes, because that is not the truth.
[J Jay Couey]: I have an article from the same, I guess it's a year later, where they're talking about how every biology, it's an opinion piece in Nature, I apologize for not having it up, where
[J Jay Couey]: they argue that every young person needs to be taught the primacy of genes so that they understand how important it is going forward, and that they go into biology as scientists with the right outlook so that we can make the fastest progress toward the mastery of this.
[J Jay Couey]: In the sense of a lot of what I thought I knew was already well understood to a level of high fidelity was actually a lot of bravado and promises that date back to a time when we didn't have all the molecular
[J Jay Couey]: And we are still working firmly within those ideas, which are rooted in physics thinking, and probability thinking, and big numbers thinking.
[J Jay Couey]: because that's the same place where viruses are outside of us, those enzymes are outside of us, and that RNA in viral form can be as dangerous as a new mosquito or an invasive rodent or worse, worse than a nuclear bomb.
[J Jay Couey]: So I know you might be disappointed, but honestly, I feel as though the most important thing for me to say right here is that you guys have given me too much time.
[J Jay Couey]: Understand that also there was a lot of biology around bacteriophages and a lot of principles of bacteriophages that have remained, assumed that a
[J Jay Couey]: So, instead of speaking for an hour, I already probably spoke too long, I want to be able to answer as many questions as anybody wants to throw at me, even from previous talks.
[J Jay Couey]: They think that if they have more data and they feed it into more computers that eventually they'll make the progress they thought they were going to make 20 years ago back when these guys were talking about it.
[J Jay Couey]: I very apologize for if it wasn't as organized as you thought it would be, but asking me to explain the Human Genome Project in an hour is pretty tough.
[J Jay Couey]: And the state of the art right now is extraordinary, but it's also still just chemistry, and it hasn't scratched the surface of how we as a pattern integrity are generated, maintained.
[Charles Kovess]: The people that I've been around for a long time have said similar things, including Ian Brighthope has told this group about the depth of understanding of the functioning of the human cell is minuscule.
[J Jay Couey]: Evolution in the X-Men sort of way, where there's random mutations, and then everybody just reproduces, and the ones that reproduce are passing their genes along, is not sufficient to explain.
[J Jay Couey]: I probably did before the pandemic, but I just have come to understand that we only have data from today and any data that we have from yesterday is still not deep enough in time for any justification to think that there has been a dynamic change from mud puddle to monkey to man.
[Stephen Frost]: They were talking about gain-of-function research and how dangerous, you know, putting the idea in people's heads, ordinary people's heads, that, ooh, a lab leak, ooh, and they've got a lab near me too.
[Stephen Frost]: So is this human hubris and just kind of gone unchecked, you know, because it's a cult and everybody wants to join the cult so that they're not threatened and don't have to take responsibility?
[J Jay Couey]: And the reason why I kind of pulled the chute and didn't try to do a really one hour discussion about molecular biology, some kind of crash course or something,
[J Jay Couey]: And then I suddenly realized that you could think in the very short time scale and think, oh yeah, those are different species of spider.
[J Jay Couey]: And so, if you look at a long enough timescale in your imagination, spiders don't ever have to have come from anything, but they can still be a constantly changing vibration, and we can be constantly changing vibrations without having to have come from more primitive ones.
[J Jay Couey]: And also the idea, for example, that everybody that collects dinosaur bones doesn't work for a university, but as a private company, and they only sell models.
[J Jay Couey]: So much like if you if anyone is familiar with this, I just had as Ray Kurzweiler is a guy who for many years has been talking about the exponential growth of technology and some kind of point of, you know, you know, where technology and biology is going to come together.
[J Jay Couey]: This is the same promise that these people are making in these books that I'm holding up here when they didn't know as much as we know now.
[J Jay Couey]: thing that Elon Musk is saying that in 10 years, we're going to be able to implant something in your brain that will interact with all parts of you.
[J Jay Couey]: The idea that, at best, these people understood that if they were going to extract any meaningful data from us, they were going to need us to think of ourselves in this way.
[Stephen Frost]: We're human beings too, so we're going to be somewhat limited, but apparently we're told that there are hundreds of billions of stars, suns, in our galaxy, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe.
[Stephen Frost]: And that's the nearest solar system, the nearest star, and there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way, and there are hundreds of billions of Milky Ways.
[Stephen Frost]: interplanetary travel, inter-solar system travel as I understand it, and people, as you know, aren't properly educated so they've got no idea of what the numbers mean.
[J Jay Couey]: than what was present in the initial sample and assuming that the signal that you are able to measure when you make enough of it is equivalent to what you would have measured if you only had one in one cell.
[J Jay Couey]: And there's such a giant number of assumptions there that any number of ways that producing the large quantity and then measuring it could have no bearing on what the original small quantity was.
[J Jay Couey]: And we, of course, are taking all of this for granted as being done with high fidelity, perfect objectivity, and high accuracy since the 70s, which I think at this point in time has almost enslaved us.
[Stephen Frost]: So, JJ, you know about the science, or sorry, science, not the science, and you've got a very good handle on biology, and it would be really helpful if you wrote a book in the future, maybe not now, because you're still in a confused state, as far as I can see.
[Stephen Frost]: But if there are that many, hundreds of billions times hundreds of billions, then that means there are a lot of suns in the universe, aren't there?
[J Jay Couey]: I guess the flip side of this would be that you could study a long time the diversity of the grains of sand on the beaches of Italy and probably find a lot of interesting patterns and possibilities there.
[J Jay Couey]: But if in the end all of those measurements and calculations have no bearing on Jay in Pittsburgh, then I guess I probably want to teach my kids about other things.
[J Jay Couey]: The worst part of astrophysics is it's fine to look at the stars and it's fine to do that stuff, but how much money have we spent on it and should we?
[Stephen Frost]: Well, it seems to me, J.J., they've divided us, and the modus operandi seems to be dividing as much as possible, creating as much confusion as possible, and that depends on people being very sure of their position.
[Stephen Frost]: So that means that we have a limited understanding of the world in which we live, in the universe in which we live, just like the cat, just like the dog.
[J Jay Couey]: One of the guys that they gave the Nobel Prize to this year for actually the folding program, but his whole work was based on small RNAs, micro RNAs or something like that, small regulatory RNAs in C. elegans, the worm that has a known number of cells.
[J Jay Couey]: certain higher properties of life have emerged and oftentimes all of our interesting stories like you know there's a whole book on prions behind me and most of that book is done in yeast and so the idea that people eat brains on some island and they get these these misfolded proteins has been
[J Jay Couey]: And those assumptions are taken advantage of all the time too, where principles that were proven in bacteriophages are just assumed to work for these other RNA signals that these people report to study.
[J Jay Couey]: The one that they're talking about now is the singularity between technology and biology, but I think you're just talking about like a black hole center or something.
[Stephen Frost]: I'm talking about the singularity which was the start of everything, and then you've got the Big Bang, and then everything was expanding, and it's still expanding apparently.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah and somewhere in there a lightning bolt hit a mud puddle on a rock that was really the right space away from the star to have liquid water and then it's been there for about a billion years and that's why.
[David Rasnick]: And just a couple of interesting things I want to share with everybody once I realize the unimportance of individual genes and the DNA and all that, much less important in the realm that people think it is.
[David Rasnick]: And it turns out that humans and mice, and not only humans and mice, but humans and other species too, have virtually identically the same number of genes, something just below 20,000 or so, and not the higher organisms anyway.
[David Rasnick]: So anyway, I just wanted to share those analogies with people, and I would love to talk with you, Jay, privately about this, because I thought you were going to get really, really technical and talk about the Genome Project.
[John Lukach]: The other thing might be just an opinion on Mendel, because the reading that I've done on Mendel is that he was pretty much an unreliable monk that did a whole bunch of experiments on pea plants, as we know, and he gave us things like genes for traits and laws of inheritance and Punnett squares, all of which
[John Lukach]: And, you know, it's just this continuum where, you know, what we're calling genetics now was, you know, previously rebranded from eugenics.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, I think we just think very much similarly, and I think the added danger is the perceived role that these have for people that aren't thinking on a very sophisticated biological... I mean, you know, it's hard for me... Let me maybe say it this way.
[J Jay Couey]: It's very easy for me to see how the transgender issue and the arguing about whether sex is determined by chromosomes is a trap, because of course sex is determined by chromosomes, just like when you have an extra one, you get Down syndrome.
[J Jay Couey]: It's like an anecdotal story about like if you take the light bulbs out of one side of your car, then only one side will be without light.
[J Jay Couey]: Because this is what actually cued me into thinking that it was a trap, because there's even a thing on X now where they're selling hats that say XX and XY, and it's a real big campaign to get real women in sports and keep the weird men out, but it's also a very seductive
[J Jay Couey]: Everything is just genes and we understand everything and what we don't understand, we just need more data and then we will understand it.
[John Lukach]: You know, I get asked a lot of questions by a lot of people who are caught up in this whole nanotech fear porn thing, and I've never heard you give an opinion on it.
[John Lukach]: So nothing they, you know, put in you is gonna really affect your, they're gonna turn anybody into a remote control toy or anything like that.
[Marv Sarnes]: yeah yep all right uh johnny john uh john you know thank you for that comment john yeah good good thinking good thoughts marv hey uh i just read this last week uh in uh gabor mate's uh the realm of hungry ghosts uh he he
[Marv Sarnes]: The reason that we have fewer genes is the humans or the mammal species has developed this adaptability, and we discard genes and add genes to adapt to the new environment or the new conditions.
[Marv Sarnes]: We have a museum here in Salem, Oregon, where we can visit and look at the artifacts of people who came here in the 1830s, the missionaries.
[J Jay Couey]: We get into a scenario very quick, and I'm saying this in the most humble, I'm not at all trying to disrespect, so don't hear it that way, even if it might sound like that at first pass.
[J Jay Couey]: When we argue about viruses and virology and clones and what they call a quasi-species and all of this other stuff, a lot of these arguments, because they are
[J Jay Couey]: The other day on my stream I used this analogy that the limited spectrum of debate that we're trapped in is actually a very big steel ball, and inside of it these people that are keeping us there are riding around these motorcycles that make a lot of noise, and the thing goes around like this, and it seems like it's really exciting, and there's a real debate going on, but actually we're not getting anywhere.
[J Jay Couey]: And when we start talking about whether there are 100,000 genes or 30,000 genes, we're actually already inside of that ball riding a motorcycle thinking that we're going to go somewhere when we're just going to go around in circles and the audience is going to see us do it.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean I don't know at this stage how much I was exposed to growth hormone or something like that and all the milk I drank when I was in Wisconsin.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean I don't know if drinking milk is something that made me six foot five and if I wasn't drinking milk my whole life I would have only been
[J Jay Couey]: All I know for sure is that these people who work at the NIH, who descend from these geneticists, physicists, chemists that didn't know enough but knew what they wanted,
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, I think it's very possible that if you could go back and grab a bunch of babies from that time and bring them to now, you would find them expressing phenotypes that were closer to the people around them.
[J Jay Couey]: I think it's much more likely that what is, is that there is a, as Dave said, there is a library, the vast majority of which might never be used depending on the environmental and developmental conditions that the animal is exposed to.
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: I asked you this one question a long time ago on this Zoom and you didn't laugh me out of the room, but I said, you know, if there's like good cholesterol and bad cholesterol, is there such thing as a good virus and a bad virus?
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, it was open, then it was a great big Catholic Bible back there, and then otherwise I have a domestic medical practice book that's almost as big as that.
[J Jay Couey]: And then this one, Viruses Essential Agents of Life, is a huge compilation of studies and essays where people are talking about how viruses may even influence the epigenetic expression of genes and regulation of genes, especially in
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, the easiest examples are in the phytoplankton in the ocean, but there are some examples from fungi and examples from... This is a book I have not barely penetrated.
[J Jay Couey]: It is a book that I just bought on a whim because I thought I had to have it and I haven't penetrated it at all, so don't let me represent that as having done the reading.
[J Jay Couey]: a blue laser going in via optic fiber into the head of a mouse, and then they're suggesting that they are putting this in your brain and they're going to control our mind with optogenetics.
[J Jay Couey]: So optogenetics, as they exist in neuroscience right now, in any form as far as I know, there might be something in DARPA that somebody will tell you is good, but I don't believe that.
[J Jay Couey]: Neurons are known to spike, they send signals based on this very quick snap of ion channels of sodium in and potassium out, or maybe it's the other way, I think it's that way.
[J Jay Couey]: But sodium comes in, then potassium goes out, and so you see this wave, and it was originally described in the large axon of a squid, but all the neurons in our brain are sending binary signals where they snap,
[J Jay Couey]: And if that neuron gets enough neurotransmitter, then it will be depolarized and snap and send a signal down its axons to the next neurons.
[J Jay Couey]: Transformation—keep in mind I've been trying to teach that for the last five times I've been here—an adenovirus with a DNA in it encoding that algal protein, that sodium channel that opens when you shine blue light on it.
[J Jay Couey]: And then they take that adenovirus and they sell it to me and I squirt it into the brain of my mouse and all the neurons that are exposed to that and that get that DNA in them will start to express this protein.
[J Jay Couey]: But you'll have whole people do podcasts about how optogenetics were in the shot, and we're all but dead, and we're almost remote control.
[J Jay Couey]: if you were growing tomato plants and keeping the seeds, and you didn't keep the seeds rather, but you just grew tomatoes, and then you tried to key hats, and that's not a good analogy.
[J Jay Couey]: The point is, is that when you grow cells in a laboratory, I guess you probably understand this from the ridiculous theater of the pandemic.
[J Jay Couey]: They disconnect them from the agar in a fluid, and then they dilute them into two dishes or four dishes, and then they let them grow until they cover those dishes, and then they split them again, and then they use these immortal cells to study stuff.
[J Jay Couey]: But inevitably, those cell lines start to grow shitty, or they don't really grow anymore, or they start to die, and then you gotta go back to the freezer.
[J Jay Couey]: And I don't think there are any examples in real laboratories where it's just the stuff from yesterday being recycled and split and recycled and split and recycled and split, and they never go back to a commercial source, or they never go back to a renewed source, or they never go back to a previous passage.
[J Jay Couey]: The other anecdotal story that you should know and you might not know, depending on how ubiquitous it is in Europe, because I don't know how ubiquitous it is in America,
[J Jay Couey]: But I can only tell you the anecdotal story that I told in the beginning of my Ron Johnson repeat that I did for my own platform, where I did basically the same talk that I gave to Sukrit last week, but I did it slower with a little more detail and specifically aimed at Ron Johnson.
[J Jay Couey]: And fibroblasts are generated exclusively from the never-ending supply of foreskin that comes from American hospitals, has remnant material.
[J Jay Couey]: Because all through the 70s in America, in order to supply this material, parents were told in different parts of the United States that it was a hygiene thing.
[J Jay Couey]: And so being a kid growing up in Wisconsin and showering with everybody in elementary school, for whatever reason, I don't know why, that's the way it was at my school.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm trying to describe to you how the flip side of this is, is that I had a guy who I went to, did my graduate study with in the Netherlands, who married a Turkish woman, and in so doing, he actually got himself circumcised by an imam and kind of, you know,
[J Jay Couey]: And then you decide that you're going to take a really big amount of sugar and you're going to put it into little teaspoon-sized samples so that you can conveniently get a teaspoon whenever you want to.
[J Jay Couey]: And so aliquoting is something that they say they do when they have this dish full of a virus and then they make it into a lot of small samples and send it all around the world.
[David Rasnick]: The euploid cells can only grow a limited amount of time in the cell culture, where aneuploid cells, you can grow them forever, basically.
[David Rasnick]: 99%, at least 99% of the published data using cell lines, they're aneuploid cell lines, and they have really basically nothing to do with reality.
[Stephen Frost]: So in the public's mind, I'm just trying to get them to think about it, you know, so all the scientific work on cells is done with these aberrant cells, for lack of a better word, and so maybe all the conclusions that they get from these experiments, which are funded by NIH, I suppose, and they're all invalid and of no interest to humans.
[Lars Johansson]: Are you familiar with Professor Freeman Dyson's criticism of the theory of evolution, where he refers to a Japanese evolutionary biologist called Muto Kimura, who talks about not natural selection, but random genetic drift.
[J Jay Couey]: Well, let me flip it around for you and make sure that the link that I put in the chat with the YouTube video, when you're bored, watch that YouTube video.
[J Jay Couey]: When you get to the point where he's explaining what DNA is, he's going to show you a cartoon of DNA replication and he's going to state very clearly that once they discovered the chemical composition and structure of DNA and have now demonstrated how it is copied, it is this incredibly high-fidelity process with a predictable level of error
[J Jay Couey]: And that, his reliant on the double-stranded structure and the consequences of the double-stranded existence of it, meaning it can be proofread, and single-stranded RNA by definition lacks that entirely.
[J Jay Couey]: But if you look at the consequences of DNA and how much effort has been put into making sure people understand how wonderful this double-stranded nature is, and all the wonderful consequences of it, including that you have no free will,
[Lars Johansson]: If I call the leading professor at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm in microbiology and suggest what you just said to us, will he agree?
[J Jay Couey]: There's a lot of biologists out there that would come to our rescue immediately and say more or less that I didn't say it as clever as that, but that's definitely what I think.
[Jenna]: So one comment goes back to the theory of evolution, and I just wanted to mention that there's a UK doctor, I think he's a GP, called James Le Fanu.
[J Jay Couey]: It's very funny, because yes, there's another guy who made that argument, and actually when I was a freshman in college, on the very first lecture at DePaul University, I can still remember, his name is Beck.
[J Jay Couey]: and he was telling us about evolution, and I said, I just want, I'm not asking this, I even framed it perfectly, I said, I'm not asking this as a gotcha moment, I'm asking you to help me have a good answer for this.
[J Jay Couey]: Like, I really thought it was I was being the right kind of smart kid, you know, like, hey, I get this question a lot from people and I really want to be able to answer it.
[Jenna]: If there aren't enough genes to explain the entire construction of the human body, in other words, how the proteins are actually put together, what is junk DNA?
[J Jay Couey]: Um, you know, not that dissimilar to how people say that, you know, if you read a book and you only circle the certain number of letters, then you can see another message.
[J Jay Couey]: What I am suggesting is that that is wholly insufficient for us to jump from that, those limited observations, and those limited chemical preparations, and those limited
[J Jay Couey]: you know, hyper-pure genetic signals, or whatever system that we're looking in, to use that to generalize that, well, it's just a matter of figuring out where all the other moving parts are, and then basically free will will be eliminated, and there's no need to talk about God or spirituality, because we're just a bunch of spinning wheels and bubbling chemicals.
[J Jay Couey]: None of my biology teachers were aware of these shortcomings, but instead were given just enough understanding so that their imagination would happily fill in all the blanks.
[J Jay Couey]: If you had a Chinese book and you only knew five characters and you said that all the other characters were junk characters, that wouldn't be a very adequate way to describe it, right?
[J Jay Couey]: Just because it's repeated, and so repeats to us seem to mean nothing or something like that, doesn't mean that when it's folded on itself and read in a different way, that it wouldn't reveal a third dimensional structure of code
[Jenna]: And just the third thing I wanted to mention, I was pleased that you mentioned the issue of circumcision because I was involved in researching to this quite a few years ago.
[Jenna]: And these people who have been circumcised, which is basically the equivalent of a sexual assault in a very undefended human being, can lead to severe psychological damage.
[Jenna]: people within this anti-circumcision movement who are actually suggesting that the psychological damage which is done to babies actually prepares males in America to serve in the military because they are sufficiently disengaged from their
[J Jay Couey]: I would love to talk to you more about it because it is one of those things that I think, especially as you said in America, there are lots of men
[J Jay Couey]: And that's why I brought up that context of my friend in the Netherlands, because the ceremonial removal of some foreskin is very different to what they do to those babies where they remove it all.
[J Jay Couey]: Well, again, like I said, this is just something that in terms of especially America, I think there's a huge awakening that could take place because there's nothing other than malevolence that can be attributed to that, especially when you realize that there was a whole industry of medical remnants that has not gone away.
[Tom]: Part of this, I think your teaching is so valuable, and so I'm not directly addressing the, it seems almost philosophical or metaphysical issue of free will and the watch, that we're just some sort of wind-up watch.
[Tom]: So, uh, and maybe if you want, if you'd allow me to do a few things, maybe if you want to interrupt and just answer, uh, endocytosis that was introduced recently to me in a meeting, it just seemed like a good term.
[Tom]: about the formation of the casts in the you know the long stringy material they pull out of carotid arteries and so forth and he was simply speculating that it's a process of the that's triggered by the irritation of the endothelial
[Tom]: and she she agreed that that might be the case that and and this was in the context of discussing um i don't know if i mentioned the name but anna um mahalsia who believes that there's um blinky lights and nanobots and emf and
[Tom]: intra-body communication between the nanopods and oh wow yeah okay that's a good one um yeah well wait let me just oh yeah go ahead look back and say that professor uh anna all right said no no this is just uh this is just crystallization and it's well documented and then after this everyone yeah why don't you comment i have maybe two more and that's it
[J Jay Couey]: Endocytosis is a pretty general word for when two membranes merge and so it oftentimes refers to when a smaller vesicle is taken up by a cell.
[J Jay Couey]: Also, I think you could describe the uptake of a adenovirus particle as endocytosis, although maybe there are people who would argue with that.
[J Jay Couey]: Now, that's an interesting claim and it's an interesting differentiation between the two mechanisms because remember, the reason why we had to make it M1 pseudouridine was to prevent the immune system from reacting to it and the immune system ignores it.
[J Jay Couey]: and it's self-replicating, then by definition it's going to self-replicate itself not in the presence of the chemical reaction that would alter it into the M1 pseudouridine RNA, which would mean that then
[J Jay Couey]: And see, here's the problem that I just see when I think about it, that if they tell you that the first one worked for X, Y, and Z, then this one won't work for that reason, because it can't be chemically altered, because it will be made in your body using your own
[J Jay Couey]: your own nucleotides, which are not going to be chemically altered, whereas the one that they put in the original shot or whatever, supposedly all of the uracils were chemically altered.
[J Jay Couey]: So the self-replicating mRNA presents a whole other set of problems that actually were in the original version of this that Robert Malone said all those years ago didn't really work out for him because the immune response was too strong.
[J Jay Couey]: So the self-replicating RNA thing is quite frustrating to me, because again, people got on the internet saying that, oh, they're releasing this, and now there's going to be a new RNA spreading around, and so you better stay away from those people.
[J Jay Couey]: best-case scenario of joining an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase to another transcript and then thinking that that was going to somehow work out.
[J Jay Couey]: They have known that there are self-replicating RNA signals that have a limited spectrum of coverage in our families or in our conspecific groups or in our classrooms that occasionally manifest in respiratory disease and other, you know, maybe what appear to be contagions, but the fidelity and endurance and ability for these things and signals to sustain themselves over thousands or millions or billions of people is ridiculous.
[J Jay Couey]: And they've told us stories like coronavirus, the pandemic, all to disguise this almost endless field of packet genetic communication that they know has to do with
[J Jay Couey]: And so the more they get people riled up about a self-replicating RNA that's going to spread from Japan if we let airplanes fly, the more that people buy into this idea that these molecular tools work in this high-fidelity way.
[J Jay Couey]: You know, the details of it and the discussion of it is not really framed in what I feel like is any different than gain-of-function viruses.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't think there's anything wrong with that, again, because we don't know really what these lipid nanoparticles are really going to do, especially after their pH changes and they become much more toxic.
[J Jay Couey]: speculate too much about it simply because what they've told us that it's COVID or that it's the spike protein or whatever, it can't be the case relative to just, you know, a general effect of transfecting the endothelium.
[J Jay Couey]: And transfecting the endothelium will have all kinds of terrible consequences and maybe one of them is a activation of the clotting mechanism.
[J Jay Couey]: So the first thing they said was, hey, these are liver targeting lipid nanoparticles, even though it had nothing to do with targeting the liver, it's just where they mostly went.
[J Jay Couey]: lipid nanoparticles go to platelets for some reason and many of them do and so that could also be a cell type that's irritated here and of course platelets being irritated would very quickly get you to the clotting mechanism.
[J Jay Couey]: drove me bananas in the same way that a guy by the name of Kevin McCairn, who also put a bunch of stuff under a light microscope and then said he found or didn't find things.
[J Jay Couey]: The first and foremost thing to remember about light microscopy is that if you don't know how they did it, the chances of them seeing something that is significant versus something that's random, it's almost always going to be something random.
[J Jay Couey]: and it can make dirt look sparkly, especially if the field of view is adjusted in such a way that things are coming in and out of the field of view, and the light source is angled in such a way that things can move in and out of the light source, you can have things look like they're sparkling.
[Tom]: So in the meeting, Ernst, who's a German scientist, he had done, I think, Raman mass spectroscopy on vials, on the JAB vials, a couple of years ago.
[Tom]: And he chimed in and he suggested that some of the discovery of graphene may be an artifact, that they actually created the graphene in the process of looking at the vials by mistake.
[Tom]: And then just test me on this my understanding of the nanolipid particles is that each molecule in the Each molecule is on the order of 2,000 atomic weight, you know, like on the periodic table atomic weight and that these molecules Have dipoles and they get vibrated and then they self assemble into the larger
[J Jay Couey]: But yeah, that's, that would be my premise that, that the, that the PCR test wasn't, and it could have been, again, I really think that you can't underestimate the malevolence here.
[J Jay Couey]: So there could have been a couple of tests that were fairly accurate for some known background signal and then a bunch of tests that were absolutely nonsense.
[J Jay Couey]: in Australia and he just moved house and in moving house he found a whole box full of these lateral flow tests that were being given out by the case to every family in Australia so that students could test for before school.
[J Jay Couey]: There were like six different ones, and they came from two different places in China, and the Australian government was buying hundreds of millions of these tests that were being produced in China.
[J Jay Couey]: And so for me, it becomes almost too easy for this to have been gamed in such a way on a known background, so that any cursory investigation into the molecular fidelity would not reveal anything untoward.
[J Jay Couey]: And now they can easily be having an Abbott test with 17 targets that, again, are part of a background that may or may not be there and definitely doesn't need to correlate with symptomology for it to be something that all hospitals will buy and use as standard.
[Stephen Frost]: Yeah, so one of the things that was really impressed on us as children at school, JJ, was the discovery by Watson and Crick of the double helix and the structure of DNA
[J Jay Couey]: And now, in the context of what's happened in the last five years, I'm thinking, hmm, I wonder why that assumes such incredible... You should really look, if you chase down anything, what you ought to do is chase down the writings of Watson in his later life, because he almost feels like he's trying to admit it.
[J Jay Couey]: And so at the time, given the state of mind that they were in, it was very enticing for that to be the ultimate answer and then to go with it.
[J Jay Couey]: And that I think is what he may have regretted most because if that indeed, that foundation isn't so simple, then that argument doesn't hold water, right?
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, maybe there is a combination of genes that we haven't reached yet and we'll never reach if we don't continue on the path we're on, but instead try to breed the best human that we can come up with.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't think anybody could stop it at that point because it had so much pent-up momentum from the assumption that they would find that piece.
[J Jay Couey]: I am saying that and I'm saying that there were people in the Catholic Church who were waiting to say it, that wanted to say it, that essentially we had not reached the final divine form of humankind and that this was the revelation we needed.
[J Jay Couey]: So I guess if you want to go down that path, that's really one of the things to realize, is that all the Catholics that think this are Jesuits, for better or for worse, that's it.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's why, because we share a lot of the proteins, then a lot of the signals that we can detect there, if we amplify it high enough, are shared.
[J Jay Couey]: That's not crazy to me, but it still is only a snapshot of now, and we have no snapshots that would allow us to justify the thinking that we came from a mud puddle.
[J Jay Couey]: I think that for sure something happened over the course of the Enlightenment and whatever, where people turned inward and outward in exactly the right way so that
[J Jay Couey]: And that progress has been, I think, significantly hampered and stalled and maybe even misdirected by the trends in biology in the last couple generations.
[Stephen Frost]: So the reason they were emphasizing the importance of the work of Watson and Crick in the United Kingdom when I was a child, that was all about taking people away from
[J Jay Couey]: Then Julian Huxley published and then Julian Huxley went on to write this man and his future book like 10 years later with people like Hilary Koprowski and Herman Muller and all the same ideas are in there.
[J Jay Couey]: It's all the same concept of determinist biology that goes right down to the individual molecules and so we just, you know, people are not people.
[Dave Collum]: And so this idea that, you know, that the idea that that something is just dead wrong is not quite right in many instances where what it is is it's just too simple.
[Dave Collum]: I think a person JJ might want to talk to is is oddly enough, Brett Weinstein, because he's made some utterances about his view of evolution, how they've changed.
[Dave Collum]: The junk DNA model makes total sense to me, because I think when you need to, if you think about how evolution works, what you can't do is mutate an essential protein very easily and not have it be fatal.
[Dave Collum]: But one of the things you can do is replicate a big chunk of DNA just randomly, and all of a sudden that gives you blank canvas to work on.
[Dave Collum]: So evolutionarily, if you can improve upon a protein by using, uh, by mutating a duplicate, that's been created as what you might call junk DNA.
[Dave Collum]: It's actually, in my mind, kind of simple in that all you need is a molecule in the cell, in the unicellular organism even, that responds to light.
[J Jay Couey]: And the reason why I would argue it's missing one incredibly important variable, and that is that if that model of evolution is true, then that should have happened thousands of times before one got through to the next generation, because it didn't get stepped on, or rained out, or dried out, or eaten.
[J Jay Couey]: And I think that that whole argument is just not equivalent to what we're talking about, which is trying to explain all of the circuitry and all of the fine tuning and all of the developmental process that goes into defining binocular vision.
[Dave Collum]: No, I heard I heard no, I heard I heard basically a response when I was I was a genetics major, which is now a 45 year old antiquated degree.
[Dave Collum]: He said, you think of the, I'll say gazillions, because I don't even begin to put an order of magnitude on it, but unbelievable numbers of generations.
[Dave Collum]: And so I figured that amongst the gazillions of generations, you just needed one that couldn't readily replicate before the other one grabbed the biological niche.
[J Jay Couey]: I think what you're illustrating is that if you start your interpretation of all the sacred biology outside of your window and in the forest around you on this rational,
[J Jay Couey]: And I think that's very important why I say that this no virus notion is really annoying, because that would mean that there's no genetic packet communication, no knowledge at this level.
[Dave Collum]: And so I happen to work in a field of chemistry that turned out almost every paper we ever published, I showed someone was wrong, but they were trying to get it right.
[Dave Collum]: What I also know, though, is that if you're getting in a discussion with someone who's not up to speed, if you lead off with that kind of a punch, it's over.
[Dave Collum]: So you kind of have to wade them into the shallow end of the pool and then say, OK, follow me with a little bit of let's just think about this a little bit.
[Dave Collum]: The idea that you use foreskins to advantage doesn't negate the fact that it might actually be biologically, health-wise, an improvement than not have a foreskin.
[Stephen Frost]: Did you know that Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the new Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I'm not quite sure whether it's Yvette Cooper or Angela Rayner, but anyway, the other one is the Home Secretary.
[Stephen Frost]: They've been aware for quite some time that all three of those people in prominent positions in the UK, I think it's a conflict of interest when you consider that children are being taught what they are being taught, apparently, in British schools.
[Stephen Frost]: I don't know exactly how long, but I know that it's true because someone very senior at the Daily Mail told me they haven't told the British public this, so the British public are totally unaware.
[Dave Collum]: And so, yeah, so in any event, so that's a fascinating again, and science, those who are not in science, don't understand the groupthink that kicks in even amongst people who are trying to get it right.
[Dave Collum]: And guys who've gone down to the southern border, friends of mine who've gone down there said what's clear is everybody's making money down there.
[Mark and Hermian Dyer]: Okay, which my mother bought her a magazine which had a nude Reynolds in it and she was disappointed because he'd had his leg up so she couldn't see anything and it was in the center fold and she was saying you've got playboy and look at this, this is rubbish.
