You watched us all go to sleep And then you woke, we're just counting cheap But the end is near
Good evening, good evening, good evening, everybody, and welcome to a nice Monday evening here in Breton.
Sun's out, we had a good day, and I'm very happy to be here on this particular episode.
I was excited that Kayla has agreed to come back.
We've been trying to get her on for
little while now, but because of her health ailments and scheduling and my scheduling recruits trial and all that kind of stuff, it's a little bit difficult to align our schedules, but we look like we're good to go.
She's going to be joining us in a little bit.
She did let us know that she's got to deal with a health issue with her nurse and God bless her for that, but she will be joining us.
And we do have a Dr. Jonathan J. Cooey with us today.
And he's a neurobiologist naturalist.
He's also a biology coach, and he's one heck of a person.
If you want to learn what's going on, he's good at describing it, explaining it and providing excellent information.
He's been on a show a few times.
So we had Kyra on.
Kyra, Kyra.
So sorry, I keep getting your name wrong.
And she's also vaccinated, but not necessarily from this stuff.
But she is vaccinated.
And Dr. Cooley or Jonathan was a great help to talk about her elements.
And we're now going to bring him back to talk to Kayla and see no diagnosis.
He's not, he's not her doctor.
He doesn't have her charts or her information, but he certainly has a lot of information about what has been going on.
What's wrong with this so-called Vax and some of the other issues around it.
He's been on a couple of times now sharing information with us.
So without further ado, let me go ahead and bring Jonathan on.
Good evening.
How are you?
Good evening.
I'm I'm all right.
Thank you very much for having me on again.
Good to see you, Jason.
No problem.
And, um, what's the time like for you where you're at?
It's 8 PM.
It's a school night.
So the kids are, are getting in bed.
It's not.
Well, thank you very much then for joining us on your evening.
So you're in the Eastern time zone and you don't know Kayla directly, personally, but you're going to meet her soon.
And you're a little bit familiar with her story, I guess, as we're getting ready for this episode.
I did.
When I saw her name, then of course, you know, I use the internet to find out what the internet would tell me.
And so I know that she's vaccine injured from 2022.
And I know that.
And at least at one point, they were describing it as quadriplegia, which is or near quadriplegia, which sounds awful.
And I guess more recently now, I'm told they're describing it as transverse myelitis, or at least that's what they're describing the cause of her near quadriplegic.
It's it sounds tragic.
Well, let's go ahead and play a video that she provided.
This just came out a couple of days ago, and this will give us all, the audience as well, a bit of a update on what she's been dealing with, including the struggles of obtaining healthcare here in Canada.
Before you scroll, stop and listen to this.
I was 35 years old when I became paralyzed by my Moderna shot.
This has been confirmed by doctors, both in writing in my documents from the hospital and in an audio recording with my neurologist.
I had the first lawsuit in North America for $45 million against Moderna.
Yet this is not being told.
The mainstream media cannot and will not ever tell you these things because they are paid by the drug manufacturers for their commercials telling you to go get vaccinated when this can happen to you.
I was healthy.
I was doing well.
I was doing things like a normal person.
I have a son who was seven at the time.
I worked at a school for York Region District School Board.
I now have no job.
I have no bowel function.
I have no bladder function.
I have no movement below the waist and I have limited arm function.
That means I'm stuck in a wheelchair.
I'm stuck in my bed, I feel lots of pain, and they offer me medical assistance in dying.
In other words, in Canada, they told me it's better to die because we don't have treatment.
I was offered this three times.
You don't mess with a mom whose son has been taken away.
No, CAS didn't come and take away my son.
He had to go live with his father because I had to move somewhere where my big clunky wheelchair that's like this and big and huge and has all these buttons on it and can't fit into my three-bedroom
their three-bathroom, three-story house, I had to move away from my little son.
So I don't get to see him.
Only three times in the summer for weeks.
And his dad and I get along great.
This is a big problem.
This could have been you.
Canada will do this to you.
If you keep getting your shots and you don't help people that have been vaccine-injured and the vaccine-injured don't step up and talk together, this will not get better.
It is a crisis.
It is a healthcare crisis.
There are people dying all around.
They want to send me to long-term care or tell me to kill myself with medical assistance and dying.
I don't want to die, but I also don't want to live like this.
If you can help, go to www.opkayla.ca and find all the information on my case and much more.
What a brave woman.
What a strong woman.
Well, here they go.
There's a quick little update.
Three times she was offered assistance.
and dying here in Canada, which is government funded suicide.
She had to let her son go live with the father for a bit because her accommodations do not accommodate her equipment that she needs.
So she needed to be too far away from her son where he was going to school.
She's obviously suffering.
She's in pain all the time.
She was just on Viva Frye today talking about this as well.
And, oh geez, Jonathan Lake, where do we start on this one?
we start with the transverse myelitisis?
How do you say that?
I mean, I think you start a little higher and just realize that as far as we understand the molecular mechanisms of these kinds of, this suite of diseases, which also I believe, as far as I bet, I'm not an MD, I'm a PhD, but I was a neurobiologist, so at least from the perspective of having read this literature before, I'm pretty sure that in the same
kind of general idea here is that the myelin is being damaged in the spinal cord.
And that's not necessarily the exact same thing that happens in MS, but it's not dissimilar.
Also a disease of the myelin damaging the insulating sheath of neurons in the brain or in the spinal cord or in the periphery.
And so anytime that you disrupt the speed of transmission or the reliability of transmission, then you interrupt motor control, you can interrupt breathing, you can interrupt digestion, you can interrupt control of the bowel.
I mean, the list is endless.
And I'm sure that the main thing to see here is that this is most likely due to an autoimmune reaction, because we already understand MS to be an
the body attacking its own myelin.
And we don't necessarily know how many different ways this kind of autoimmunity can be generated.
Some of it can be pretty well understood.
Others of it could be once in a blue moon, it happens in this way.
But with regard to the application of these recent transfections, every one of these shots that actively transfected her,
To kind of go back a little bit, I would just say that since the last time I was on your show, one of the things that has sort of bubbled to the top of my understanding list that no one else seems willing to factor in is that one of the best ways for them to have avoided
large-scale adverse effects to the vaccine would have been a serious number of these to have been placebo.
And there's a couple really huge benefits to that.
One is that they can meet almost any manufacturing target if they're allowed
to ship placebo.
And number two, if they keep track of it well, then they really only have to watch a very small number of lots or a very small number of sub lots, because they know those are the ones that are hot.
And it also makes it very much easier for them to segregate
different concentrations or different formulations from one another if they know that this hot lot is segregated in this community because it is completely surrounded by communities that are going to get placebo.
Now, I'm not saying I have any data on that or whatever, but I think it's much more likely that pharmaceutical companies and governments would have seen that as a foolproof plan
whereas these stories about various hot lots and more dangerous or less dangerous lots seems to me to be a sort of a way to
to cover up what should be very well-planned malfeasance with some kind of what appears to be just kind of ham-fisted distribution and lack of quality control or some other things that can kind of be blamed on incompetence and human error, rather than realizing that in light of the fact that they've never produced
a pharmaceutical product on this scale in this many places with this sort of distribution goal, it just seems like the lowest hanging fruit.
And then this would explain why Kayla would have been able to get to her third, I guess it was her third
it's the first booster you know before she had a really bad reaction because the first two kind of either maybe one was a placebo or um she just you know what for whatever reason got lucky and the first or second transfections were not um because it is possible that to inject a lipid nanoparticle and have
You know, the luck of the drawbree, the majority of it is excreted or removed by the liver before it ever does anything meaningful.
And the places where it does something meaningful, your body is able to ignore it.
It's possible that lots of people could get lucky.
It's possible that people with an extraordinary amount of extra fat could get luckier than people who have no fat.
At this stage, it's all up for grabs, because a lot of people haven't been thinking about it.
But this could be one of the easiest explanations for why pro athletes are having a higher proportion of bad reactions to the transfection, simply because it's more likely to hit tissue, which is vital, and more likely for them to sense it, as opposed to somebody who is maybe 40% body fat and morbidly obese in America.
So there's a, I think there are so many variables here which are, which have been played against us to cover up the fact that there should be probably are number one, as I've heard Kayla say in her video, there are a lot more people than the governments are acknowledging with these side effects.
But I would go even farther to say that there are lots of people with side effects that aren't as easy to describe
as transverse myelitis, that are probably also suffering from consequences of these transfections, and because they're more rare, or because they haven't been described, or because their doctors have never heard them described, their suite of symptoms is just being ignored.
And this is part of the, you know, probably years to come, we're still going to be
peeling back this onion and finding rotten pieces.
It's not good.
I mean, I don't have a very good outlook.
I think this is really, especially if,
There are people in all the countries in the West still taking these and they are still rolling out lots with intact lipid nanoparticles and very good RNA that I do think that these problems will continue to surface and exacerbate and also the diversity of reports is going to continue.
Remember, if we turn back time,
even two years ago, the vast majority of people were just talking about heart problems and maybe some clots.
And now we're talking about transverse myelitis.
And before you know it, that'll be accepted.
Yeah, lots of those people got that too.
And then there will be another one on top of that.
And that's probably how this is going to go for some time, unfortunately.
And they normalize it too.
So they will be trying to gaslight and convince us that, no, this has always been a thing all the time.
We've always had high school students dropping dead.
Yeah.
Right.
Cancer, cancer in your second year of college is normal now.
I mean, and that, that, that, that's where I do really think this is headed.
I don't think there's an infinite number of possibilities because eventually, you know, I mean, I don't think they're going to go through everybody.
Eventually they're going to go through everybody.
Yeah.
And, and I think also the idea that the contrast between the, I think it's already happening.
It's just that they still have such a stranglehold on our consciousness with this social media, that people aren't realizing that there is a stark contrast between the untransfected people and their general health and the people who have multiply taken a shot.
These people aren't healthy anymore.
They're complaining about whatever, and then they might not attribute it to the shot at all, which is really the most extraordinary part.
Oh, I've never been so tired.
Oh, I get sick all the time.
I've got allergies now.
The list is endless, and none of them are even remotely close to considering the possibility that what have I changed in my life besides these five shots?
And do you think these five shots are significant since three of them are for COVID, but two of them were for shingles and pneumonia?
And that's the frightening part.
I mean, I don't think my grandmother ever had a vaccine.
Well, they're programmed in such a way.
They're going, what could be wrong with me?
I've done everything I was told to.
So they don't see that as a negative because they did what they were told to.
So it's the power of social media.
It's the power of social media.
They've never been able to convince people so thoroughly as they have now.
I had a very strange sort of reason to go to the doctor.
I have this small,
persistent eczema on my leg and it got infected like cellulitis and that can be kind of scary.
But I don't have a doctor or insurance anymore since I was fired and that's a long story.
So I just had to go to one of these local clinics and get medication.
And it's extraordinary to me when you get there,
they have signs up on the wall and in the waiting room and also in the actual examination room on the mirror are really obvious stickers which are essentially discouraging you from asking for antibiotics because antibiotics don't work for viruses, because antibiotics can create superbacteria, because antibiotics can be overused and that's very dangerous so don't.
assume you're going to get antibiotics because you're sick and don't ask for them, because if you ask for them, you're less likely to get them, which I find a really weird thing to say on a thing in a medical situation.
I found it very strange.
And anyway, I got antibiotics and that's all fine, but I found it strange because I do really think the sort of
extent to which everyone, everyone has accepted the reality of where we are and what we're doing.
The doctor that examined me had a very hardcore mask on that had steel, you know, shaping things here.
It looks like he was working on asbestos.
And he was asking me, you know, I was trying to tell him this is only the second time I've been to the doctor in my whole adult life because it's the same stupid eczema and the same kind of
infection if I if I you know mess with it the wrong way and it's frustrating because you know other than that I'm totally healthy I don't have any cavities and he was just kind of confused he's like well then you don't want to come here it's like you shouldn't you don't want to come here I'm you need to get antibiotics and you don't want to come back here
And I couldn't really understand how he was, he was really serious though.
He was impressed that I was so healthy.
He was sure that I, you know, needed antibiotics.
But he was also like, yeah, you don't want to, you don't want to come here.
And it was, I really felt like he was scared, you know, like he had never seen, you know, I didn't ask him.
But my feeling was, is that he was really serious.
You know, I don't, I think I see a lot of sick people and I don't know why you would ever, you definitely don't want to hang around here.
And it really felt that way.
And I do really think that's what's going on because in the waiting room of that place, there are people wearing masks.
They feel terrible.
They're very sick.
They look terrible.
The person that's with them is like consoling them and they look terrible.
Um,
I don't know.
Did you have to wear a mask there?
No.
But I did get asked if I was up to date on my tetanus shot, if I'd had my flu shot, if I wanted my COVID shot.
Then when I went to go to the pharmacy up the street to get my antibiotics, then I was again offered a flu shot and a COVID shot.
And they even said that after your antibiotics done, you can come back here for your
flu and your COVID shot.
And I find that extraordinary really, because, you know, they say it with very much enthusiasm and very much like if you had to say, thank you for shopping at, you know,
Burger King, can I help you?
Like it was really a thing where they needed to say it.
They said it to every person while I was waiting in line for the prescription to be filled.
Like they were saying it to everyone.
And it was very extraordinary to me because it puts people into a very interesting pressure situation.
If there's people waiting in line and a couple other people sitting on a chair waiting, and then the lady says, you know, okay, what's your last name?
And then she said, so do you need a COVID or a flu shot?
And you're saying that, and I don't feel any pressure, but I think a lot of other people do.
I saw a lot of people that are...
You know, there's a lot of older people that are less comfortable in public and it puts a really weird situation.
And the lady behind the counter had this cloth mask on and she was coughing and you could feel all this stuff moving.
And the guy, one of the guys said, oh wow, it sounds like you're kind of sick.
And she said, oh no, it's just my mask and my cats.
She said, the real people who are sick are coming in here.
They should be in the drive-through.
So she was coughing, sounded awful.
but blamed it all on her mask and her cats.
But she simultaneously was able to say to this guy that what pissed her off is that people who were sick came into CVS without a mask on when they should use the drive-thru, because that's what it's for.
And it was like, wow.
I mean, it's so deep, like they are really so deep in it that, you know, it is four or five assumptions deep.
And that's what really frustrates me about how far we've come is that
You know, I don't know how to throw a lifeline to some of these people.
How do you lower a ladder that far and get people to start climbing?
That's the hard part because it's tough.
I mean, unless you've got a story like Kayla, that can help because, you know, then people are a little bit more disarmed because it's, you know,
For me, trying to teach them that the biology that's on TV is wrong, is a little more abstract and difficult.
And that's why I think people like her are very important and all of them are very important, potentially.
But it becomes this thing where... It's a fine line.
Every one of these people needs to be careful about how they are potentially exploited and very much...
I think to a certain extent, I know from four years of doing it, that it does put you and yourself in a different position than you would be if you just kept your mouth shut or if you tried to do it less publicly.
And also, I know that the way that social media works, you can get a lot of the downsides without a lot of the positive sides because of the way that it can be programmed against you.
It's tricky.
I guess she's been working at it for a while now, though.
If she's been in the newspapers since 2022, then she's already paid a price and then some, probably.
I don't know.
I mean, it can't be worse than what the transfection did to her.
No, she's been struggling quite a bit, getting the awareness out there, getting the support, having to raise funds on her own to get things like transportation addressed.
And now she's working on modifying her home in order to accommodate her son and her equipment.
She, she's been struggling quite a bit.
Um, before we, Oh, sorry.
I was going to ask you, is there anything in, in Canadian law that kind of, um,
puts a ceiling on a single person's value because I think there's a lot of, there's a, there's at least some legal precedents in America where there's a certain value and I don't remember what it is, but it ain't very high, um, where, you know, you kind of max out if a person is sort of unable to work anymore, then there's a certain value of a person and
I think they've worked that out in a couple different scenarios.
And so it's not, you know, 2 million, it might be $2 million or something like that, but it, I don't, I don't know that you can sue for infinite damages anymore in most contexts in America.
I don't know.
I I'm, I'm definitely not a lawyer, but is there anything like that in, in Canadian law?
I thought I just heard of $45 million.
That seems like a.
That's good.
Like go get it.
Um, I don't know of a limit like that and certainly something to look into, but in Canada we have maids, which is medical assistance in dying.
So they do offer that pretty quick.
And that could be similar to a response, uh, to what you're talking about.
Maybe they've gone, well, we've gone too far with this person.
Can't go much further.
There's nothing much to do other than offer them death.
I don't know if there's an actual number.
I'd have to look into that.
But I would be devastated to find out if there was.
But we, of course... How does that work?
Who's the doctor that decides whether to offer that to her?
Because to me, it seems as though, from the perspective of what I remember the Hippocratic Oath to be, that's not exactly encouraging a person to live.
You could even say that to a mentally vulnerable person, that could push them over the edge to dying.
Um, if you kind of give them no hope, um, sometimes people have report.
The only thing that kept them alive was hope.
Hope is placebo in some scenarios.
Like how is it any different than placebo?
Um, to me that that's.
I try to think about it from the perspective of a doctor coming in and say that you have three months to live and he's lying.
There's a certain set, there's a certain number of people who will have a physical effect from that.
And it will be, you know, if you tell them that they're going to get sick and it's going to be painful and they have three months to live and they believe their doctor that can actually, I don't know if they'll actually die in three months, but they can get very sick from that worry from that belief.
And so to me, offering someone maids is not that dissimilar to putting them in a possibility space that's not good for their brain.
It's not good for their healing.
It's not good for their chances.
I just find it really sinister.
And I don't know how else to say it.
I find it very sinister.
Well, when, when Kayla comes on, I'm sure she'll share this portion of her story with you, but early on, she was told it's just in your head.
There's no physical response.
You're you're quadriplegic because of a mental issue.
And she was very pleased to hear that because she thought we just need to work on the mental issue and then I could walk again.
So she, you know, went with the program and then we found, or she found out, and she'll share this as well, that there was a window of opportunity when it could have been addressed.
So she wasn't permanently paralyzed, but that window closed as she was dealing with this mental version of it.
Whether that was planned or not, she waited out this window and she'll get into these details where she could have had some sort of recovery, but now she's beyond that.
And of course the response to that was maids and two more times she was offered maids.
She keeps turning it down because she doesn't want to die as you heard in her video.
But yeah, this is where they've been pushing her the entire time.
Wow.
And it could be because she's very bad for the narrative, like for her living.
Just like we talked a little bit earlier, this is exactly what we need.
We need people like her coming out to tell the story, to wake other people up.
Cause she gladly took the first two backs shots.
She was doing her, her contribution and contributing the teacher.
Uh, she thought she was doing all the right things.
And then when the system got her, the third one, she had a response to it.
Now she's learning what the system is really about.
They didn't care about helping her.
They wanted to get rid of her voice.
So there's a lot of good people behind her fighting for her.
So Veterans for Freedom is an organization here in Canada that are doing exactly that because we don't have a lot of the support when it comes to legal like the Americans have.
There's no lawyer that's touching this.
It's so difficult to get a lawyer to touch this.
I believe she found one now for a lawsuit against Mondera, but I always say that wrong.
There we go.
Um, but it's very difficult, very difficult to get even legal assistance.
Uh, if your employer got you to get the bags, you got injured, you're getting no help here in Canada.
Wow.
I didn't know that.
Well, that sucks for you guys.
Holy cow.
Um, I did not know that.
Uh, oh yeah.
And that's what our last interview was like, as we're telling you the Canadian healthcare system and how it works.
It's like, wow, like you wouldn't tolerate that in the States.
You guys, you guys would have addressed that issue pretty quickly.
But when the NIH under Fauci writes a report or response to Canada's maids system and says that that's inhumane, you shouldn't be doing that.
Because we were also talking about bringing in mature minors, so a minor can make the decision for maids, and also to end the life of mentally ill people.
with the requirement that the health care provider or the person that's taking care of them makes a decision.
So dementia and other mental illnesses, which you could argue the patient is not in pain, the caregiver is the one in pain.
Now we're looking at adding that to the list of things that allow you to be qualified for maids.
So that means caregivers.
when they're decided it's over, that could be a way to end life here in Canada.
That particular portion hasn't passed yet.
There's been a lot of pushback from, from Canadians on that one.
Cause you're dealing with mentally ill people and minors, but it's been tabled and they're trying to get that one passed.
Yeah.
Wow.
I don't know.
I don't know what to say.
I know the Netherlands is pretty far down this road too.
Um, I just, I, I don't know.
I don't know what to say.
I'm yeah.
I'm definitely not for it.
I don't think it's something even Fauci's not for it.
Even Fauci's administration is not for it.
They said, Canada, don't do that.
You should be providing end of life care.
You should be providing care, not ending care and ending life.
So when Fauci's department says that's too evil, it's very evil at that point, that's for sure.
Placebos, you mentioned placebos.
There might've been a way to kind of experiment almost, it sounded like, to do this.
Have they ever done that before where they rolled out something and it was active and placebo and like, what are you referring to?
That's the gold standard, right?
Is that the randomized,
double blind control trial.
Double blind means that there's placebo and all the people that are working don't know whether they're hot or not.
So that's how you do it.
So in this scenario, that would be the way that everybody would also have, you know, plausible deniability.
I don't know what I was doing.
I don't know what I had.
I was just doing what I was told.
I put it, I followed the directions.
And if the vast majority, I mean, think about how
To me, that's the very first thing that struck me as incredibly odd, was that I just kind of assumed that if they really rolled it out, that we were going to see massive problems, and it wouldn't take more than a half a year before I wouldn't even need to say anything.
And yet it didn't happen.
people who told me they didn't feel a thing and then it dawned on me, oh my gosh, they're gonna lie to us.
I mean, how else are they gonna make a billion doses?
How else would they be so, I mean, they even released press statements and stuff.
Oh yeah, you know, the guy from Moderna even came back from a meeting and said, we're gonna make a billion doses.
Well, the only way that you would say that is not because you were confident in your manufacturing or your ability to scale up manufacturing of a novel,
you know, lipid nanoparticle preparation, but because you knew that you didn't really have to scale up your manufacturing to meet that.
You were going to get allowed to be a placebo.
And that really, I think that there's absolutely no question that that also then makes it very sensible why they would have had people wittingly or unwittingly come out and claim to have a signal about hot lots.
And it could even be possible that this hot lot signal is actually a signal of placebo, but I don't think that's what any of them are arguing.
And so for me, it's still exceedingly odd that I'm the only one who mentions it and I've been mentioning it for a couple of years now, but nobody wants to consider it.
And I think it's the easiest, most obvious way that you could do a very, very,
controlled and easy to keep track of evaluation of these products because you would use placebo to geographically isolate all of your tests without anybody know that they were participating and the vast majority of the people would get placebo and therefore at least in certain rounds there would be no way for anybody to take a adverse reaction seriously because it's so exceedingly rare that even Paul Offit sounds like he's very reasonable.
And indeed, when most doctors were to reveal what happened or look at what happened in their doctor's office, it'll seem like to them that that's what happened, because I think a vast majority of them, at least, I think a vast majority of them were placebo.
And many of them might have been various formulations and the ones that, you know, I don't know.
I just know that there's no other way to explain why we had, we have so few reactions in the first two shots.
and that the reaction started in the third and the fourth shots.
I think that that just explains it because otherwise it should have been in the second shot.
And the people that got it in the second shot are the ones that I'm sure got hot shot both times.
I apologize if it was you who mentioned this, but I do speak to so many doctors on this subject that I sometimes forget who.
But somebody mentioned that that was the fourth shot.
So at the fourth shot is when the body starts to produce spike protein and shedding spike protein.
And it seems to be where the body has had enough of these shots and it starts to produce this stuff.
Was that you or are you familiar with that?
I don't know.
I mean, if you if you think the cartoon is right,
and you think every shot is hot, then on the first shot, you should, in theory, if you've never been infected or whatever they say, and you have no antibodies, then you don't have antibodies for the first shot.
The second shot, when your body produces spike protein, in theory, what Paul Offit would say is that you wouldn't even be able to detect spike protein because your body would clean it up so fast because you already have antibodies to it.
But what that also means is that your body would react
immunogenically, meaning that you would have an antibody reaction.
If that means that you get transfected in your aorta,
and the aorta starts expressing spike protein, and then the antibodies deposit there, and then your immune system kills all the cells of your aorta, and you have a massive rupture of your aorta, then the second shot will kill you.
But the first shot couldn't have killed you because you didn't have any antibodies.
Even if it transfected your aorta, your aorta wouldn't get destroyed right away.
And that would be the argument.
It would get inflamed.
but it wouldn't be destroyed before the protein would cycle out or gone.
I mean, people have all their explanations, but Sukrit Bhakti is the one who came to this explanation, the clearest and the earliest, and it's right from the perspective of him getting it, because he's the guy who discovered the complement system.
And his main argument was, is that wherever this foreign protein is produced and displayed on the membrane, or displayed in HLA molecules,
you're going to have the possibility of the immune system finding it either through cytotoxic T cells or through antibodies that are specific for it or overlapping specificity with it.
And so if the spike protein, for example, has overlapping specificity with antibodies that are for other things in your blood, then from the first shot, you could, in theory, already have an immune reaction that could result in inflammation, fever,
and potentially bleeding or wherever you have this cytotoxic reaction to the production of the protein.
But again, it's tricky because there's also the possibility that you build tolerance to the spike protein.
And so that the first couple of times you produce the spike protein, your immune system is getting rid of it, cleaning it up.
And so
If you look for the spike protein, if you test for it in your blood, you're not going to really find it.
But then after your body may convert to, some people are saying it converts to IgG4 or something like IgG4, which is an antibody that doesn't really bind things very well.
It just does other stuff.
And so then essentially you build tolerance to it.
And so now you could have, as you said, spike protein floating around because instead of your body cleaning it up actively with spike protein antibodies or antibodies that are removing it or cells and macrophages that are removing it, they're starting to ignore it.
And if that's the case, then you might be right.
In the fourth transfection, you might start shedding spike protein because your body is tolerating the production of it.
And so
I think the most important thing about that possibility is to understand that as a complication on top of a complication, which from the very beginning of the pandemic was portrayed to us as being ridiculous.
they said that they're just going to be, you know, producing spike protein for a couple days, and it's only going to be in your muscle, and that's all that's going to happen, and your body will clean it up, and everything will be fine.
And instead, it turns out that there's all these different possibilities.
It could be that your body develops very hardcore, highly specific immunity that results in the second shot
having devastating effects on whatever organs are transfected.
It could be that you develop tolerance to it.
And then in the fourth shot, now you're shedding spike protein and you're potentially dangerous to other people.
All of these scenarios, as far as I'm concerned, are biologically plausible and definitely possible and could contribute to the total confusion
that is being taken advantage of here.
These people knew that the transfection wouldn't have one or two bad side effects.
And so they're taking advantage of that to try and confuse us.
And that's why they started in the very beginning with all this list of weird things that COVID did with heart attacks and all these weird symptoms.
And it's a very strange disease and it's all about the spike protein because they always planned
And I'm convinced of it.
They always plan to tell us this story that this toxic spike protein is responsible for all these things.
And they're probably going to say that the spike protein is responsible for her transverse myelitis, but it's not.
It could have been any protein, any foreign protein that they expressed in that way that many times in her body had the potential to generate the effects that it has because it's an autoimmune reaction against her own tissue.
And it's unfortunately, I think the tissue that was transfected that it reacted to.
And in this case,
hits the myelin in the spinal cord.
Okay, that's a lot right there and I get it.
And what I'm trying to understand now is if someone gets to the point of shedding spike, is it going to be the same type of spike as everybody?
Or can you also get another type of spike?
Let's say a couple is in bed, they're both fully vaxxed and they start to shed.
Are they going to be like infecting each other in some way?
I think the first place to start is that where we give
We give the national security state, and we give Moderna, and we give Pfizer the credit of producing a pure RNA if we start to speculate about what spike is going to be there.
Because they don't produce pure RNA, they produce a pretty heterogeneous product of RNA.
If they're lucky, I guess maybe 70% of it might be a pretty distinct sequence signal, and then the rest of it is variants and truncated versions of that signal.
So the protein complement that's gonna be produced if this transfection is indeed a successful product and produced and gets in people's arms and distributes in their body, is not just gonna be spike protein, but it's gonna be a lot of spike protein fragments.
And those spike protein fragments are also gonna be represented by fragmented RNA.
And that fragmented RNA, because we know that it does this, but we don't really understand the depth and breadth of it, small RNAs,
in all of our cells are one of the primary ways that RNA transcripts are regulated.
We're told in this very simple cartoon version of cellular machinery where DNA gets translated to RNA and then RNA gets translated to proteins via ribosomes and proteins fold into their shape and then they do their job.
That is true, but how that process is regulated and why it needs to be regulated and where it's regulated is very poorly understood.
But we do know that one of the ways it's regulated is by the abundance of RNA transcripts.
So if you need more protein, you translate a DNA to more RNA.
And the more RNA that's floating around, then the more protein will be made.
And so regulating the amount of protein that's available, especially a protein that gets broken down regularly like an ion channel or something that's a functional protein,
is regulated by the amount of RNA that's present in the cell, and you regulate that RNA by degrading it.
It gets degraded by random chance, as far as we understand, because there are enzymes that do it, but it also gets degraded if small segments of RNA can bind to single-stranded RNA and make it double-stranded, it's immediately kind of tagged for degradation.
So one of the hypothesized mechanisms for regulating DNA are that small complementary RNAs are made and the concentration of those small complementary RNAs actually interplays with the concentration of the coding sequence to regulate the presence of the coding sequence and the concentration that it's found in.
And so that's a pretty complicated mechanism.
Now imagine that the smaller the fragments of the spike protein RNA, the more likely they are to overlap with
endogenous sequences that we're not even aware of.
And so the idea that they're putting a pure RNA into us saves them from that possibility.
But the fact that they're producing very impure RNA actually
makes us very vulnerable to the possibility that small RNAs that are not going to make a functional protein, but could have overlap with our own endogenous sequences, maybe even with RNA sequences that are associated with mitochondria or DNA in the mitochondria.
And in that case, you could have mitochondrial damage, all because, again, we don't know what this noisy RNA will do inside of the cells when we transfect them.
We can assume what the pharmaceutical companies would like us to assume, which is that they put in pure RNA in there and that that pure RNA makes pure spike protein and that we could worry about the spike.
But I think that already gives Moderna and Pfizer two or three levels of assumption that we shouldn't give them.
And those levels of assumption absolve them from what I think are very significant shortcomings that they knew about from the very beginning.
And these little pieces of RNA are very dangerous from the
the perspective of unknown.
And then if we go to the point where, okay, now we're making big proteins, spike proteins, let's talk about the spike protein.
I think, again, you're just really dealing with if there are
If there are special parts of the spike protein, some people say that the furin cleavage site is important or that the HIV inserts of the original spike protein are important.
The original HIV inserts that were supposedly reported in 2020 in an Indian paper aren't taken out.
of the spike protein that is encoded by the Pfizer and the Moderna product.
And even in the Novavax, I mean, they don't care about them.
So in one sense, you have these people over here arguing that these inserts are evidence of gain of function, but then they don't seem to care that they're in that spike protein.
And if they do, I see that as a very harmonious way for the national security state that already knew that transfection wasn't gonna work, but they had to convince us that it did.
then they build that into the narrative that, you know what, the worst case scenario three years from now is that they're going to admit to Kayla, when they pay her out, whatever they pay her out, that maybe we chose the wrong protein.
Maybe we should have been more careful and edited the protein or scanned it, or maybe we should have scanned your genome first, and then we could have taken the spike protein and decided what parts of it wouldn't work with you.
Because that's personalized medicine.
And I think a lot of these people that are kind of actors for the national security state are really starting to hint at this, that the way this pivot is going to go is that the old vaccine schedule is going to be admitted to be kind of blunt.
and ham-fisted, and that the rush of transfection, which is really the future, the rush of it, and the poor choice of a spike protein that at the time, you know, we innocently chose it.
We didn't know that it was like a gain-of-function spike protein.
But now that we know that it was probably a laboratory-designed thing, we would have never chosen it.
And I think that in a year or two, they could definitely admit that.
And maybe America will take the fall.
Maybe even Tony Fauci will take the fall.
I have no idea.
But I know that that concept feels very built into me now, and this pivot that's coming.
will involve admitting that Kayla is hurt.
It's just that I think they will try very hard to take as many of these people as possible to get them to get on board with this idea that it's not transfection that did it.
But it's this spike protein that they chose, and they shouldn't have chosen that.
They should have chosen a different protein, or they should have been more careful.
I don't know what their explanation will be, but I do know that they're never going to admit that this methodology is responsible, even though that
My biological take on it is that it's the methodology.
It wouldn't matter what protein they used.
You could take a frog protein and you'd get transverse myelitis in a lot of people.
You'd get a lot of aortic ruptures.
You'd get a lot of these huge clotting events.
All these things are just normal from transfecting mammals.
That's what I think.
Okay, so now what we're getting into is some of the legal side of things.
So let me just read out what Kayla has done here.
February 22, 2024, she filed a lawsuit seeking $45 million in damages.
It was filed on behalf of Kayla against Monderna.
that claims seeks physical, emotional, and psychological damages, loss of past and present or future income, and future cost of care, pain, and suffering, as well as aggravated and punitive damages.
So here's what Kayla's doing to fight back.
I just noticed that there was another state that filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, so excuse me if I don't remember that state, and then Texas is also talking about doing this.
So is it downbreaking?
Is it going into the courts now?
Does it look like
the ride might be over and we might be getting some answers by taking us into a courtroom?
I have to look into it.
I didn't know.
I have been consulting for a case that looks like it's going to get, it might get tossed out.
We have to appeal.
It is a case that involves the weekly testing of municipal employees in California.
They were testing with PCR, of course,
But the interesting thing in this case that I find very stunning is that the no-bid contract for the testing of these police officers every week was granted to a man who appears to be a porn movie producer.
And he chose to use some very expensive machinery that would also be well suited for genome mapping.
And interestingly, he also sourced all of his PCR materials from BGI in China, which is a very big human genome collaborator with the largest sequencing company in China.
And so it's a very strange sort of thing that
a large city in California would contract a porn movie producer to use Chinese sourced PCR materials, including controls, which were a bacteriophage expressing the spike protein, which is pretty funny.
And so this lab in California had bacteriophage that was expressing the spike protein as their positive control.
And they were using a single amplicon
to test for PCR, you know, to test for the presence of COVID in these police officers and other municipal employees.
And the funny part is, is that that wasn't ever enough.
They were only testing for the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which is a very conserved region in most of these signals in nature.
And so it's not a very good differentiator.
Anyway, long story short, I think it's very possible that a lot of the sort of thing that actually happened during the course of the first two years of the pandemic was just a massive data sweep.
The idea of how many medical remnants can we generate and how many of those medical remnants are useful.
So they had saliva samples.
They had deep nasal swabs.
They had lateral flow tests.
They had blood samples.
They had sputum.
They had all these things.
And once they are into the medical system in America, they can be de-identified and become medical remnants.
And they become very valuable things.
And that happened
Throughout the pandemic, universities and hospitals in America took advantage of this, and those remnants were all sold.
And my guess is that a lot of those remnants were sold to see if reliable genetic data could be derived from them.
Because if they could, of course, one of the central missing pieces of the Human Genome Project was the data.
The Human Genome Project, essentially, when it was completed and announced on the cover of Nature as having been done,
The one thing that they had really done was figured out how big the problem was.
That was really it.
They hadn't really accomplished anything.
And in fact, although the ability to sequence, you know, short sequences of let's say 3,000 bases has greatly increased and the cheapness of manufacturing those lengths has been greatly decreased.
It doesn't really mean that now we can, you know, sequence a whole genome and compare it and then know what's there.
I mean,
Let's be really, really clear about it.
There's a lot of things that we understand, but we don't understand, for example,
Let me say, give you a few things.
We think of, for example, a mouse and a lion and a human have a brain and the brains all have a lot of the same components and they all have neurons and they all have interneurons and a lot of the parts and a lot of the cellular components are basically the same.
But when you get down to the molecular level, then you also find out that all their ion channels are different.
The compliment of ion channels are different.
And you start to realize that although the parts
are the same, the actual physical manifestation of them and how they work together and the little bits and pieces are all different.
And that sort of limitation of reductionist biology is where we are right now.
And at the heart of that lie,
is the idea that studying cells in animals, we learned a lot about our own cells.
Studying tissues and how cells combine to form tissues in other animals, we learned a lot about our own tissues.
But there's a big gap somewhere there in biology between how that parallel between other mammals, other vertebrates can be drawn at the genetic level.
Because the problem is that we can see, oh look, mice, they have potassium channels.
And when we look in their genome, we can find potassium channel genes.
And some of those potassium channel genes have their homologue in
in higher primates, and even some of them have homologs that correspond to our potassium channels.
The problem is, is that if you take all of those genetic parallels, all of those genetic parallels are enzymes and proteins, and if you take all of that out, you're still left with a majority of the genome.
that we don't know what it does, we don't know what it codes for.
And that same amount of genetic information is left over in that comparison animal, the rat or the mouse, that we don't understand how that data results in all of this, you know, very similar complement of proteins, very similar parts, you know, potassium channels, sodium channels, neurons, kidneys, you know, all this stuff.
Even though that's the case, the genetic signals
which allow a similar assembly of cells to form a human, that has all the intelligence and all the lifespan and all the physiology of a human, versus a rat, is completely unknown.
And even though we have, whether you like it or not, we have pretended that studying genes in those animals is telling us something about those genes in us, and that means that we understand
the genetic basis of a mouse and the genetic basis of people.
That's not what it means at all.
And that means that there's so much more to understand than we could ever possibly crack.
And that's where I think the transfection thing, the COVID thing, the RNA pandemic thing is such a vital
door that's open right now, window that's open that we can wake people up to this idea that lying and exaggerating has become the norm in science and especially in public health.
And if we can get to that stage to realize that it's not just profit, it's also power and control.
If an entire human population cannot effectively govern themselves because they don't understand how to pursue well-being effectively.
because they've been misled about nutrition and misled about health and misled about environmental toxins and misled about vaccines and misled about the potential of RNA to pandemic, then we really have a very short window here where the stories of people like Kayla combined with
you know, biological sort of truths that fit the best and most parsimoniously with what all of us have experienced could finally sort of tip the threshold over where people will be able to accept why it is that these people have been lying to us and why it's on both sides in a lot of countries.
It's extraordinary.
It's a very, very important time in human history right now.
I don't know why I'm talking here, but anyway.
No, I love it.
Do you know, do you, I guess nobody could really know why, but do you think this was an accident that they're responding to or completely on purpose?
Um, I have a loaded question and it's tough.
No, no, no, no.
I, I, I don't, I don't think that there's any doubt that it is on purpose.
Um, I would, I would say that, that one, one, you could go all the way back to a book like this, a man and his future.
This book was written in, uh, 19.
63 and at the the jacket the jacket text is This book should make people think biological research is in a ferment creating and promising methods of interference with natural Processes which could transform or destroy nearly every aspect of human life, which we value And no, that's not what I want like this
Oh, darn.
Like this.
Yes.
So here, sorry.
And intelligent individuals of every race, color, and creed must consider the present and imminent possibilities for mankind.
Man must be prepared to defend those principles which he believes to be good.
And more importantly, to use the present immense creative opportunities for a happier and healthier world.
This creative opportunities, what they're really talking about are genetic engineering.
And this is in a time when genetic engineering was still being imagined.
This would have been the time shortly after when Robert Malone would have been in his post-doc and thinking that in 10 years there would be a geneticist at every hospital.
that would be curing childhood diseases using retroviruses.
He said that in many interviews, that when he was a postdoc, that was his vision of the very near future and why he chose to go into retroviral vectors, into transfection and transformation,
was simply because he knew that this kind of technology was the cutting edge and what the future wanted.
And I think that books like this were already talking about how mankind had to get nation states out of the way because we needed a global consensus.
that smart men needed to take control of the evolution of mankind and no longer leave it to the randomness of mother nature.
That's what this book is about, about when are we going to put our big boy pants on and take control of our evolution.
And people like Joshua Lederberg and Hilary Kaprowski are people that were crafting this kind of ideology back before we knew
the limitations of that irreducible complexity and how long or how impossible the task would be.
These people in the 60s were still thinking that there might be ways that we could genetically hybrid closely related apes and humans in order to learn about the genome.
These people thought that that would be possible.
So now that we've realized the limitations of some of those genetic, you know, imagined possibilities, and we've also realized that the Human Genome Project wasn't going to be as simple as just kind of, you know, brute force throughput method, but we would actually need to sample almost all of the humans that are available if we were going to get any chance of
having some degree of understanding because the landmarks are so... Anyway, the point is that books like this, I think, and the people that are responsible for books like that have already admitted decades ago that the plan was a necessity, that we needed to turn the whole enterprise of mankind and society needed to be changed and focused so that we were all bent
on collectively elevating humanity.
So not thinking about ourselves, but thinking about future generations.
And that means that you could lie to people, that you could tell people one story in order to achieve a goal that was in the generation to come.
And these people were willing to do that with regard to experimentation.
and sort of learning the truths of human biology.
And they said it in those books.
And I don't think that there is any, I think that actually COVID could be the one of the culminating moments of this multi-decade plan where they knew they were going to eventually have to
goal with all the chips in the middle with regard to vaccination and make the majority of the populace accept it as an undeniable advance in technology similar to airplanes or the wheel.
And that's the gambit that we're witnessing right now.
That's what I really think.
Wow, Jonathan, Kate.
What happened to that author?
Is that author still around?
Is that group still around?
So there's a lot of authors.
Let me just read the list.
It's really great.
There's some really good ones.
That sounds like the predecessor to this book that eventually came out, right?
Yeah, yeah.
It could be.
They might just be all descendants of the same thing.
So Sir Julian Huxley is a very interesting one.
He writes the beginning, the first intro.
Another one that I really like a lot is Hilary Koprowski.
This is a really interesting chapter because it's called The Future of Infectious and Malignant Diseases.
And believe it or not, it talks about viruses that come out of bat caves to kill the world.
And I'm not kidding.
Yes, and Hilary Koprowski is actually one of the fathers of the vaccine program in North America.
And he has a very interesting story because he kind of came through the concentration camps of World War II, through Italy and the Vatican playing piano, and then eventually through Brazil, and then into the yellow fever and polio vaccine programs.
Herman Muller is another guy who I think a lot of people know as an old school geneticist here again.
Genetic progress by voluntarily conducted germinal choice.
I think you can kind of translate what that means.
Joshua Lederberg, of course, is a big, big deal.
He was a child prodigy of son of a rabbi in New York City, I believe.
biological future of man.
Joshua Lederberg is one of the, you know, grandfathers of genetic thinking in America, passed away, I think, in 2006.
And I don't know if there's any other ones there that I would mention off the top of my head, but they're all really, really interesting.
The future of the mind is a really good discussion there too.
It's just a wonderful book because you can see that these ideas are not ideas which have just recently served, you know, the ideas of Elon Musk or Peter Thiel.
These people are, there's a line of thinking and a line of mentors and they're following it very well.
And a lot of the intentions that are codified in these earlier books are being followed to the letter right now.
And maybe even described using very similar combinations of words.
It's really extraordinary.
A lot of the words that we actually use in the biological canon right now were actually coined by Joshua Lederberg.
Joshua Lederberg is the guy who is quoted at the beginning of Outbreak.
And I don't remember what the exact quote is, but it's something about pandemics.
And Joshua Lederberg is the guy who coined the phrase, the microbiome.
Joshua Lederberg is responsible for
Actually, this is crazy.
I forgot this is the biggest thing.
Mark would be really mad at me.
You should really interview Mark Kulak of Mark Housatonic Live.
He's really, really a great historian, archivist.
And he has made a very convincing argument that actually Joshua Lederberg is the guy who let
uh, Carrie Mullis kind of claim the credit for PCR.
And in fact, it is possible.
And it seems more and more likely the more that I've read that, that actually Carrie Mullis didn't understand the breadth and depth of the importance of what he had discovered until he told Joshua Lederberg at a poster presentation.
And then Joshua helped him to.
or made it significant, but then didn't take credit for it, but just let him take credit for it.
And then, of course, knowing all along, perhaps, that it could be used in these nefarious ways as a diagnostic or any other thing.
I don't know all of that stuff, but I do know that Joshua Lederberg, interestingly enough, is the guy who basically
co-discovered PCR.
I mean, of course, Kerry Mullis has given the credit for it, but it's possible, and I wouldn't be crazy to think that what was a simple idea in a simple context could have been seen by someone like Joshua Lederberg as a much, much bigger potential insight.
And
And I think a lot of that insight went immediately into other, I don't know what you would call it, but not regular academic science anymore.
I think that's really what's at the heart of all of this is that the Human Genome Project, the requirement or the need to make everyone a test animal also needed something to
something to to justify this and That's I think why if you go back to medical dictionaries from the early 1900s You're not going to hear a lot of talk about viruses.
You're not going to hear a lot of talk about viral stuff This is a more recent Manifestation of molecular biology because before I
Before molecular biology, like cheap sequencing and PCR reactions and this kind of thing, it was very, very difficult for good proof of most, if not all viruses.
You could prove that things were happening, you could prove that stuff was causing other stuff to happen, but showing that it was a virus and not just an RNA, or showing that it's a virus and not just something else, that was more tricky.
And since sequencing has become a cheap proxy for the presence of a virus, basically they can find viruses wherever they want to.
And so I think that at some point in time there were competing ideas for what
you know, for what and how this would be described, and they have to, you know, sort of take into account the discoveries that are happening, because not all biologists are bad guys, the vast majority of them are very good.
And so, the trick is to see that there aren't very many virologists in the world.
The trick is to see that most biologists don't want to be a virologist.
And virology, up until very, very recently, and I mean like very recently,
Virology was considered a joke in academic biology because that was always the study of something indirectly.
You can find hundreds and hundreds of plant biologists and plant virologists
No, I said it right the first time.
You can find plant biologists talking about plant virology as chasing ghosts.
You can find animal biologists talking about animal virology as chasing ghosts up until very, very...
recently like in the last decade and that's because molecular biology has become a proxy for for the presence of a virus and so never before has there been a way to show the presence of a virus so easy and most of the people that are working in virology are just are wholly unaware of the fact that their proxy for the presence of what they think they're studying is really only a
a molecular tool to measure for the possible presence of a small, short sequence.
It doesn't mean that just because you found a little rubber in your garage that there's a Mercedes-Benz there, or there was one.
And it's kind of at this stage with molecular biology
they are so inept at differentiating from a background and take the word for every commercial product that they used in order to do their experiments and also accept synthetic DNA as a rough proxy for the starting point, then we really have this place where a lot of biologists don't get it anymore.
They are not broadly enough trained to scrutinize their own methodologies.
And because they've just inherited these recipes from their mentors, and that's kind of the basis for their expertise, it becomes even harder for them to retrospectively look at what they're doing with an objective eye.
I think that's the main problem with virology.
And so we have a huge task, because I don't think all virology is nonsense.
I, for example, haven't been able to debunk the idea that there's a measles virus.
As far as I can tell, there's a measles virus.
I just know that a measles virus can't pandemic, and it never could.
Um, even in the best, most documented, um, scenarios, there's usually a vaccine involved in an outbreak.
Um, and so, uh, even in the past when people would have an outbreak, um, it was very rare that, that a family would have everybody get it.
A couple people might get it.
Um, but even all the people that weren't, um, previously infected didn't necessarily get it when some people got it.
And so, yeah.
For me right now, the trick is to understand that the national security state has a vested interest in us not understanding our role in this, our role in this as far as bad health and environmental health and nutrition and this kind of thing.
And they also don't want us to understand
the extent to which that they've lied about a lot of these things.
It's not just, you know, respiratory viruses and respiratory disease that they've lied about.
They've also lied very consistently about their ability to throw money in at cancer and eventually they're gonna get it.
Like that's an absolute lie.
And that's because most cancer is kind of unique.
Yeah, sure, you can look at people that have cancer in the same organ,
But that doesn't mean that the underlying molecular mechanism is gonna be the same.
Yes, there's gonna be able to subdivide them and, you know, classify them across thousands of people.
But that doesn't mean that they're all caused by the same thing.
And so again, we're allowing modern science to careen out of control because of the way that it's done.
The null hypothesis and the use of P-values to discover things has been used to create the illusion of progress in our understanding of cancer.
It has been create the illusion of effectiveness in our treatment of cancer.
It has been used to create the illusion of defeating disease with vaccines, and it's been used to create the illusion of a pandemic that we just experienced, instead of just a...
a terribly orchestrated and malevolently orchestrated spread of terrible ideas and bad protocols and lies, which led to fear, uncertainty and doubt and confusion to catastrophic levels.
I mean, this part of it is just horrible because if you realize that these people coordinated their lying and that this was a really well orchestrated global security event to fool a lot of people at once,
then none of us were going to get out of it.
I mean, you could know that it was a bad idea from the very beginning, but you still were not going to be able to see through the coordinated lying for a long time.
Nobody was going to be able to do that.
It was too good.
And so you can't blame Kayla for where she's being.
You can't blame her at all.
And you can't blame anybody who's there.
And that's the part about it that's horrible.
You know, there was a long time where they had us fighting and angry at each other and, uh, you know, them blaming us for the spread or whatever it is.
And that was also by design, you know, and, and so all of us are going to have to humble ourselves and remember that we, none of us knew we knew you could have a bad feeling and you knew it wasn't right.
And you knew you were going to ignore it, but you couldn't, you couldn't explain what was going on.
And all of us underestimated how many people were involved and how coordinated it was going to be.
I think, um,
I mean, it's so long ago that all those African presidents died.
It's so long ago that some of these things happened.
It feels like a decade already.
Now to remind everybody how possible this is, the Manhattan Project, very few people in that project actually knew what the end goal was.
Some of them, if they knew what the end goal was, wouldn't have been part of it.
Some of them would have leaked it out to the enemy.
Some of them might even leaked it out to the public.
So they stopped the whole project.
Like there was a coordinated effort with like a hundred thousand or more people where very few actually knew what the end result was going to be.
Some people were working on fin, some people were working on uranium, some people were working on theory.
I'm sure a lot of them would have said, no, I don't want to kill 100,000 people, but that's not what they were told.
They were told we're under threat.
We got to fight for our own freedom.
We got to make sure we win in this one.
Make sure the enemy doesn't.
Like the common goal and the idea that you'll do anything for the common goal is an example of the Manhattan Project.
Now, whether or not it's needed and it was supposed to happen, I'm not having that debate.
But what I'm talking about here is you can get a hundred thousand people, scientists, smart people, all these engineers coming together, and they really don't know what it is they're working on by design.
because if they knew, they might have shared it, met public, or just refused to do the work.
Some of them would happily do the work, but certainly not most people with morals would have been involved in that if they knew what the end goal was.
Is that kind of an example of what you talked about that may have been happening here?
You have biologists working on it?
Absolutely.
That's part of it.
But the other part of it is sort of a naive assumption.
I mean, if I think about the
the arguments that I had at the University of Pittsburgh with some of my colleagues at the time, the main assumption wasn't, sorry, the main mistake that they made wasn't that they disagreed with my description of it being a transfection.
When I said that
You know, we're not gonna transfect our grandmothers, are we?"
Their response was that, well, I mean, they're not rolling out what we would use in our mice.
Whatever they're gonna roll out will be something that's for humans.
It will be, you know, better, or pure, or tested, and therefore, you know, they wouldn't just... It's not just a transfection like what we use in our mice, it's gotta be...
a little better than that.
And to me, that already, it's kind of goes hand in hand with the PCR explanation that I give people a lot of times.
The academic biologist that has to use PCR to prove something in their lab has to do triplet controls, has to do triplet experimental group, has to have a couple of different primer sets, has to do a couple of predictive
background genes so that you can scale the thing.
In other words, if you want to know if somebody's into basketball by counting the number of basketballs you have, you don't necessarily learn anything if they have two basketballs, but you're not aware that they have 14 footballs.
And so you might say, oh, wow, they have two basketballs, so they must be really into basketball.
And so you have to have something as a measure of, you know, what to normalize against.
And so in an academic setting, if you wanted to use PCR to prove the
levels of something, prove the...
the prevalence of something, say that this protein is here, it's doing something, there would be a whole set of ways that you would try to control for false positives and error in that measurement.
And also the reviewers would require you to fine tune that, no matter what your experiment was, they would always come back with, well, maybe you can do a control where you look for this and see if those levels are the same, because we'd expect that if your prediction is true.
Academic biologists are used to using PCR in a very specific way, just like a carpenter is used to using these combinations of tools to achieve a very specific goal.
And so if you told a carpenter that somebody's going to build a table and they're going to use a saw and a hammer and some nails, then a carpenter would say, okay, I get what he's going to do.
But then if he walked into the room and he saw a table with only two legs, and the legs weren't long enough, and it looks like they used the saw to not complete the cut, then the carpenter would be like, yeah, but wait, what is this?
And so the assumption of academic biologists is that if these pharmaceutical companies are going to use PCR to test for a novel coronavirus, they're going to apply it with the exact same amount of rigor
and the exact same amount of specificity and use of the state-of-the-art methodological techniques that we would use in our lab.
And that never dawns on them that they might not even use nested primers.
They might not even use multiple amplicons.
They might not even use an amplicon that's specific for the target that they say it's for.
They might not even test this against a background of a patient sample.
They think that all of those things will be done with equal or greater rigor
than they would do on their own lab bench by themselves as just an academic.
And so they humble themselves to think that the NIH, obviously they would do it better.
I would love to work for the NIH if I could, but I mean, I would never aspire to be that smart.
And so all of these academics are trained
to think that everybody does it better than me.
I can barely keep up with these people.
So this assumption is completely undermined then when, sorry, reinforced then when somebody like you or me, for example, might come along and say, yeah, but they're overcycling.
And that's how they're getting all these false positives.
And then an academic biologist says to themselves, well, yeah, but false.
I mean, overcycling would only work if they didn't have multiple targets, or if they didn't use nested primers, or if they weren't really sure of their protocol, or if their primers weren't very specific.
And they would never do that in the context of a national security emergency.
And those are the kinds of assumptions that really are very easy to stick to if the people who are skeptical are queued up to say something that's very easy for these learned people to dismiss.
And so once you start to be able to explain to an academic that, you know what, they didn't use this PCR with any integrity at all.
In fact, it looks like they didn't even really try.
Then academics, when they say, but describe it to me, they're actually very impressed and shocked.
They didn't realize that there were 200 different tests in 2021.
They didn't realize that most all of those tests were aimed at very bad targets or aimed with very terrible primers.
And that it's just a, it is a scenario where
is a well-designed storm.
And this well-designed storm includes a deep mythology about how vaccines have been seminal to the decline and virtual elimination of disease, and that
beyond disease, we really don't have very many problems in our health.
It's really just disease and getting people to conform to the vaccine schedule and listen to the advice of health officials and most of our problems would go away.
I really think they got us very close to believing that for a while.
And because we didn't have, a lot of us did not have the
the wherewithal to hold our college kids back from college, I think they got their ideas very deep into their heads.
And those are the kids that in Pittsburgh, I still see wearing masks in their cars.
It's either very old people or it's college age kids.
And that bugs me a lot.
It's unfortunate because we have a very limited window to save them, I think.
I don't know why I'm out there now.
I keep wandering off the subject.
I apologize.
I was talking a bit about the Manhattan Project there and how people didn't know what they were really working on.
Oh yeah, that's what we're happening here.
So yeah, I would say one of the evidences of that is that a lot of our more, let's say, elevated social media dissidents have a single story that they've stuck to for the majority of the pandemic.
I think that in general, that's a very bad sign that somebody's not playing a straight game.
If, for example, you have been focused on ivermectin for four years and nothing else, I find that very suspect, especially if you've also sold a book.
I think if you've been focused exclusively on bears for four years straight, I think it might be a reason to be suspect.
Because at this stage, I think all of the people that have been, purport to have awoken as a result of the pandemic, they have to be, if they are honest, they have to be at the total
public health is a fraud kind of position.
You can't be at the stage where you still think that that some things were done correctly or if we would have made some mistakes wouldn't have been made or if you know maybe we missed out on the opportunity to get to zero COVID then none of these people are real.
They can't possibly be
actually waking up, because again, we're talking about the total context here.
You can't not be waking up if you don't understand how many people like Kayla there are, and how diverse those kinds of stories are, simultaneously aware of how many people are dead now, and that are not accounted for, and how many of these people are dying of not COVID.
These are all things that are happening that
that if you're aware, if you're at the point where the only thing that you do is you're a dissident, you have a substack, and you've been doing that because that's what you've dedicated since 2021, or if you're like me, you were doing it in 2020, then there's no possible way in 2024 that you can't be questioning everything, and if you're not,
If you still think that there was a novel virus that went around that they probably manufactured and it's still going now, I don't think you can really be taken seriously because it requires a certain level of
I mean, you've got to really be tuned in to social media still.
You've really got to be listening carefully and playing along to not have already seen the contradiction for what it is.
I mean, it's just impossible biologically to believe that a particular sequence of RNA, if endowed with a particular sequence, could
could continually circulate the globe until right now and be tracked through millions of infections by millions of sequences in a way that is simply unprecedented by orders of magnitude before 2020.
It's absurd right now.
It would have been fine if they would have stopped a few years ago and said,
you know, we don't know where it is anymore, we can't really track it, it's too diverse, or something like that.
But this is just, the only way to explain this is, either it is a manufactured lie of a signal, or, which is probably the most parsimonious signal, it's a signal that was always back there.
And they can misconstrue it as a specific variant, or a specific this, or a specific that.
But in reality, if you started saying that cars are spreading everywhere, and oh my gosh, we found a new kind, and you could convince everybody that there were no cars before yesterday, and now cars are spreading everywhere, and everywhere we look we find them.
You could take a background signal and pretend it's spread, and that might seem ridiculous with cars, but it's not ridiculous with a molecular signal, for which we were not looking before 2020 at all.
And then to say that all of these companies and all of these products are very high fidelity detectors for a signal that wasn't there in 2020 and give trillions of dollars from all these governments for these products.
And then just to assume that all of these products are indeed an indicator of a novel signal rather than a background that they're just selling us as novel while they kill us with bad protocols and bad ideas.
I don't know.
I think one is much easier than the other.
One only requires a bunch of people to agree to lie.
And if it's for comfort and fame and power and part of, you know, feeling like you're part of this national security governing elite, because you know the secret.
And the secret is that the national security state needs kids to grow up thinking there's pandemics.
Well, hey, it's fun times once you get read in.
It's fun times once you have the classified clearance or once you've signed the paper.
But I think you're a traitor if you've done it.
I think you're a traitor to our grandkids because this was never gonna work.
They knew it wasn't gonna work.
And that's where I was going with this biology in the beginning when I was talking about how in the old days, when you go back to old biology books and you see them drawing pictures of the inside of animals and stuff like that to try and learn about ourselves by looking at animals, that works to a long, long, long extent until you get to the molecular aspects of
of an animal until you get to their physiology, until you get to their molecular metabolism.
And then it becomes very specific.
And that's why sharks have different proteins in their blood that allow some fish to swim in cold water and not freeze.
And all these special adaptations that are special for the metabolism of all of these animals are also what put limitations on our ability to understand ourselves pharmacologically.
and to understand ourselves from a molecular biological perspective, such that the Human Genome Project and all those people in the 60s that were trying to get us to get motivated to probe ourselves genetically, thought that one of the ways that we would be able to do it would be to hybridize humans with animals and see how that led to clues about our shared physiology.
But then it turns out that's not possible, and that's not ethical, and that's not easy to do.
Because that's not how genes combine, and that's not how mating works.
And so decades later, we're left with this holy shit moment, because when the Human Genome Project finally figured out what the problem was, the main
revolution or sorry, revelation was that the only way that we were ever going to figure this out was to test on humans.
And we could work for several years, decade almost on a few genomes, three or four genomes that would be completed.
And we would realize that those landmarks were barely enough
pair one genome to another genome, never mind to try and isolate specific genes that were responsible for specific things, like Mendel thought he did all those many years ago.
So here we are, we identified the problem, which is that we're going to have to collect an absolute metric ton of genomes in order to have enough
And then this is where I think I've said this on your stream before, enough representations of the code so that we might have a chance of seeing any patterns that are present there.
And so that's the same thing.
that I was saying before with regard to Joshua Lederberg being one of these guys way back when who's forming these ideas.
He was also one of these pioneers who knew that genetics would be combined with computers in order to crack the code.
And again, what we're talking about here is the idea of having enough examples of what is assumed to be the same code so that we could start to see patterns in it.
And that's the extent to which
the success of the Human Genome Project, it's like saying that we have now a general map of all the national parks in America.
We know that national parks have a trailhead, and they have bathrooms, and they have a campground.
And now we're going to go around and we're going to try and understand all the national parks in America.
But with that general map, we actually don't know anything about Yosemite and we don't know anything about the Smoky Mountain National Forest because those maps are specific.
And so in order for us to start understanding all the national parks in America, I guess we're just going to have to have all the maps of all the national parks.
And that was
what the Human Genome Project discovered was that if we map a genome using restriction enzyme maps, we can come up with all these different landmarks.
But some of those landmarks will just be naturally different places in other people's genomes.
And it doesn't really give us a good clue about what's there.
And they're not necessarily tied to the same thing.
So the only way this pattern is going to usefully emerge is if we do this a few thousand or a million more times.
And so now suddenly we need everybody to be in
animal.
And that's really where we are.
They knew they couldn't test transfection on animals and get it to work safely.
The only way that they could do it is to test it in the animal that they need it to work in.
And so they had to roll transfection out before they had any clue how it could work, any clue how it's regulated, because they knew this was the way they were going to make further progress in understanding how they might
manipulate our genomes, you know, in the same way this book talks about, you know, us taking responsibility away from Mother Nature and putting it in our hands for our evolution in the future.
I love listening to you talk.
I almost don't want to interrupt at all.
And I'm glad you were able to continue doing that.
I just am, uh, I'm, I get, uh, you ask a nice question and then I get into a role and I guess it's a good evening.
I haven't been talking in a couple of days, so I had a lot in my head.
That's my job.
It's a spur on the conversation, but I think there's a Freudian slip there.
You kind of said revolution instead of revelation.
And, uh, maybe this revelation is going to lead into a revolution.
I'm not sure if that was a Freudian slip or not.
Um,
Okay.
So there's a couple of things I want to touch on there too.
And I want to kind of just go back a little bit to the Manhattan project and apologies for everybody who's waiting for Kayla.
She did let me know she's going through a procedure.
I shared it with you there.
Um, and as soon as she's done, she'll join us.
So we'll hold out on that one.
But the Manhattan project, I guarantee you, uh, during the early forties, the spike in bad drivers who were also scientists went up because anybody who came out and said anything kind of disappeared.
Anybody who figured it out, like, hey, I'm part of this community, but I'm not part of this project, but a lot of my colleagues are gone and they're in this particular region and particular science, and I can kind of extrapolate what's going on here.
They spoke up, they were considered crazy, and certainly anybody who was for it, or at least thought they were for it, was for the common good.
So they would have silenced anybody else in the street, whether they were colleagues or not.
So I can see how even under the
the requirement of national security protection because we're in the middle of a war, let's keep it hush-hush, that would have silenced a bunch of people.
And even the media, I'm sure they were touched and said, hey, look, if anything comes along out of a project, you check it with us or else.
I'm sure there's a lot of suppression of information back in the early 40s before this all came out later.
So I would not be surprised to see the industry really crack down like that.
The defense industry, I think you referred to it as,
Because it would have been the same group of people, maybe a generation of them, but the same type of industry that would have been fighting for that, to keep that secret too.
And I'm sure there's a thousand projects we have no idea about, but the suppression there is important.
That's one of the mythologies that are motivating the people behind the scenes, I think, are some of the more fascinating things that
I've run across and my imagination runs me across.
My favorite one is the idea that with regard to the Human Genome Project in America, we potentially have a library that will never exist again.
If they get their way, will there be a population of 10 billion people in the world ever again?
I guess not.
And that means that this amount of
for solving the game Go or solving the game chess, it was just a matter of having enough games.
And if you think of the human genome, your genome and my genome as two examples of two chess games, and the population of the Earth being about eight and a half billion chess games of the human genome, then you can see the data that they need.
More importantly, you can see why they need not necessarily ours, but our kids or our kids' kids, because
two generations from now it's still going to be around 10 billion people, maybe 11 even, if they get a little unlucky and their peak's a little higher, before it finally drops because of the inverted pyramid of population and age.
But nevertheless, I really think it's important right now to see two narratives in the background.
The first one being that there are a few relatively pure populations in the world that
from the perspective of laboratory animals, represent a more genetically homogenous population, more akin to an inbred mouse line than the American population.
My genetics and the genetics of my kids are pretty darn unique, like kind of a mutt.
in the dog world.
And so thinking about that versus a purebred, like a golden retriever, and I don't mean to belittle ethnicities or belittle races, but if you talk very strictly biologically speaking, I don't think I'm being racist in saying that from a genetic perspective,
general population of China, especially if you're ethnically selective, is a large population, relatively homogenous.
in comparison to the population of America where we had all of this intermingling of bloods and races and backgrounds, such that you have somebody like me who's kind of a Norwegian, French, Filipino, Indian kind of person.
So you have this genome that again is going to be pretty hard to map and it's going to be pretty hard to use as a general example.
It's kind of like a chess game played by two bad players, right?
So then are you really going to learn anything about the secrets of chess?
Well, it's still a chess game.
So the trick here again is that our data set
could be misconstrued or properly represented as more difficult than the data set presented to the task in India or the task in the Philippines or the task in China.
And China is especially good example because the sheer number of people there.
But the point is that if you combine that with a culture that could be portrayed in a room full of national security officials as having the ethical standards of a totalitarian government where they can do all the sampling that they want to, you can imagine a scenario where the national security people in America and the West were scared into believing that if they don't take action now,
and start getting ahead of this in their own countries.
that these other countries will get so far ahead of us with this technology that we'll never be able to catch up to them.
And as far as we know, they could be buying our medical remnants right now because we're not really regulating those things anyway.
And so what if the worst case scenario, China has already been collecting our stuff for a while now, we could be really in big trouble.
And so we might need to tell our populations that there was a pandemic in order to create
amount of medical remnants that we're going to need in order to catch up with those people.
And that is not even that deep of a conspiracy, but it goes all the way red thread with a book like this, where these people have been planning it.
They realized it.
And one of the things that this book said was that nation states would stand in the way of this.
And that seems to dovetail very nicely with the idea that pandemics require the who and the UN and that nations are getting annoying.
I mean, it's impressive to me.
The longer that I've been in it, the longer I've been thinking about it, the more it is the history of the ideas.
that really matters because those are the things that seem to be sustained across decades and the things that people are clinging to and defending.
So it's exciting because I do think there is a tipping point here.
And if we can get enough young people to absorb some of this history in the right way,
I don't know, you know, I think that they, in order to achieve their goal, they have to walk this fine line where, you know, anything can happen and potentially they could lose control of the ship.
And I'm optimistic.
I'm very hopeful.
Well, me too.
And I'm going to stay optimistic because I think people are waking up and there's a lot of smart people out there.
One comment I mentioned online on Tolongo was
No one said evil is stupid.
Evil is evil.
You gotta remember that.
They can be quite smart.
Are you familiar with Dennis Rancourt, Denise Rancourt's work?
Oh yeah, definitely.
What are your thoughts around that?
I've been promoting his work pretty much nonstop for about three and a half years, ever since I heard of him.
I am a little frustrated sometimes because I feel as though
There's been a couple times where people have heard his presentations at meetings and then taken selective talking points from his presentations and promoted them.
And I can be very specific about it.
I think the worst example of this was when he presented in Romania at the International COVID Summit in Budapest in
November of 2023, and then a few people came home from that, including Robert Malone, and wrote an extensive substack about how Denny Rancourt had given this great presentation and shown this really breathtaking data where 17 million people had been injured by the shot, by his estimation, around the world, but made no mention of the fact that he found no evidence of a spreading risk-additive pathogen.
And so
Instead of saying that Denny Rancourt's data has about spread in the United States has been around since May of 2020.
And he has been developing this idea since then.
And the latest data shows that he can see a signal that's associated with the rollout of the transfection.
Robert Malone just focused on that and then didn't say anything really specific.
And there were a few other people that did that very consistently after that.
And that's what I find most disappointing is that I think his data has been out there for a long time.
And he's been on many podcasts where a lot of people have heard him say it, but then somehow or another, that fundamental lack of evidence, you know, where it doesn't ever cross borders.
It doesn't even cross borders of counties in America sometimes that
I don't know why that's not the main message, but I guess it's not my data.
I'm not doing that publishing and I'm not doing the interviews and that kind of thing, but that frustrates me a lot.
I think if I was doing that data and I was Dennis,
I would be very mad at these people, because I think that's a very important message, that if there's no evidence of a spreading crisis, then there was absolutely no justification to lying to people about transfection, to misinform people or not inform them at all.
of this untested and highly criminal sort of rollout.
I mean, it's just the whole premise is based on that.
And so since he knows that that's not based in fact, I think he should be madder about that.
But I know that he has a strategy in his head and I know that he's trying very hard to make sure that he doesn't burn any bridges.
And so
You know, I guess I just hope that eventually he'll get frustrated enough so that he screams it from the rooftops like I've been screaming.
I'm going to defend him a tiny, tiny bit because I think his issue is he's too busy.
Um, how other people repackage his work, put it out there.
He's been on the show before he's going to be coming on again.
Cause he just did that rumor recent report.
But my challenge with him is he's really, really busy and he's already onto the next one.
So he may just be two heads down to really understand or care or do anything about it.
Uh, so that's something I'll bring up with him and maybe if his schedule allows, I can bring you with him.
because I think you can help get those questions to him and help him at least understand what's going on.
Because it could just be he doesn't know, he's too busy and other people are repackaging his work.
That could be.
But for him not to be aware of Malone, that's quite the stretch.
Yeah, I know Malone isn't especially, for me anyway, he's an especially dubious character in this narrative right now.
And I'm very skeptical of his potential association with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
And now it seems like there's a possibility that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
could get some kind of position in the Trump administration.
And if that were to result in any kind of position for Robert Malone, that would just be a catastrophe.
Because I don't think that that guy is a patriot in the way that
I just, I'm very skeptical of that guy and a few others, and I'm afraid that a lot of those others are now very much associated with Bobby and his associates.
You know, Pierre Cory's another guy that unfortunately, because of his role in New York City and his role in the pulse ox nonsense and the high flow supplementary oxygen nonsense, and also his role in the George Floyd trial, I just don't trust Pierre Cory.
And so it frustrates me a lot that he's all over the world testifying in Australia and in the UK about how bad it was in America, when really if we didn't have P.R.
Corey telling everybody how bad it was in America, we would have people like Robert Malone or Jessica Hockett telling us how there's nothing happened in New York City.
or that those numbers don't make any sense.
But instead, we are listening to Pierre Kory, and now Pierre Kory is, I think, gonna testify again at the NCI.
And so it's just, I don't know, I'm having trouble.
I'm having trouble because I'm not convinced of the people that are on the white horses right now.
And so that puts me in a weird situation.
That's why I'm, as of tomorrow, I'm pivoting exclusively to teaching biology and,
Not going to worry about the people too much anymore, at least not as my main focus.
It's been a long time, but I got to let them go.
Is that breaking news you just put on the Levine show right there that you're going to?
I kind of did.
Yeah, I mean, everybody that's been following me knows that I'm starting my classes tomorrow, but it's for the most part.
Yeah, it's kind of breaking news, I guess.
We'll make sure we get a link to it so that we can go ahead and put that in the description as well.
And that's certainly part of the trouble here.
Everybody on the same side, are there sides?
How many sides are there?
One person, especially when it comes to experts and medical, there's always going to be people who agree and disagree.
Einstein had to deal with that, right?
And there was a hundred scientists that wrote a book to try and discredit him.
And then I think his comment, or at least the comment attributed to him, is it would only take one person to prove me wrong.
It doesn't take a hundred of you to write a book.
But in either case, this is always going to be the case.
Who do we trust?
The mainstream narrative.
Do we trust a counter-scientist?
Do we trust a counter-counter-scientist?
This is a tough one for laymen like us to try and deal with.
So I'm glad people like you exist, Jonathan.
It helps a lot.
And I think the answer to it is listen to a whole bunch of sources and try and understand it.
Don't just listen to it, but try and understand it.
And then you can apply your own reasoning to it as well.
Yeah, that's why I've pivoted to this thing that you said in the beginning, the biology coach, because I don't want to be a teacher.
What I want to do is treat
You know, I can't do the reading for you, and the reading must be done.
And just like a physical fitness trainer cannot do the exercises for you, they can only encourage you, they can always give you alternative exercises that can build you up to the exercises you want to do.
And so for me, I'm trying to reorient the way that I think about my biology class, and what I'm going to do.
I don't like the word teacher.
I don't want to be a teacher.
I want to be a coach.
I want to teach you a way of, or share with you a way of approaching biology, and a way of digesting it, and a way of thinking about it, and of processing it, so that you don't process it the way
that the national security state would like you to process it, the way that Joshua Lederberg and all these guys would like you to process it.
And I think if I succeed, it will be a pretty cool thing because I do think that, and not to toot my own horn, but it's more to tell everybody why it's taken me so damn long, is because I think I'm going to try to teach a biology class that hasn't been taught before.
And that's a little weird.
You know, to teach biology in a little bit different way is a pretty big claim, but I don't know what else I would be doing if I'm going to do it.
I'm not going to do a normal biology class.
And so it's taken me an awful long time to get to the point where I think I have something.
And so I'm excited about tomorrow.
It's going to be a big day.
Can you give us a little taste of the first one's free?
What is it?
Yeah.
I mean, it's a, it's a reorientation.
I did it on somebody else's stream a little bit, but, um,
If I just mime it out, this is like a regular biology book, freshman level in college biology book.
And I think the way that I was taught to read a biology book and the way that academic biology at the PhD level teaches you to read papers is the same way.
You read that every paper you read or in this book, every chapter that you read, you should read it as, oh, they understand this.
Oh, and they understand that.
Wow.
Oh, and they understand this.
Oh, and they understand that too.
Oh, wow.
They understand so much.
I mean, this book is huge and these pictures are great.
They understand that too.
Oh my gosh.
I can't believe how much they understand.
And that's how doctors read the primary literature.
That's how PhD biologists read the primary literature.
Oh, wow.
Look what they figured out.
Oh, there's another paper, look what that paper proved.
Oh my gosh, that paper shows that T cells do this.
Oh, that paper shows that macrophages did this.
And so each one of these chapters, each one of these papers becomes something else that they know.
And what that creates is a false sense of fidelity and a false sense of certainty and a false sense of what's left in terms of the unknown.
And it's a...
very much more logical and very much more reverent to the sacred biology that is us, the irreducible complexity that makes our kids beautiful, to read it like, oh wow, it's pretty complicated.
Oh, wait, it's even more complicated.
Oh my gosh, it's so complicated.
Oh, man, no way.
It's even more complicated.
No.
Oh, they don't have a chance of figuring it out if it's even this complicated.
Oh, and as you read more papers, it should become even more complicated because the watch has yet another set of gears that you didn't know was there.
And the watch has another face that you didn't know was there.
And it's got another hidden function.
that you didn't know was there.
Every one of these details is not a higher fidelity of understanding.
It's another part that we didn't know was there that we now have to account for in our model that didn't have it before and now has to have it.
And the crazy part is that all of these questions are asked
in the context of reductionism.
They only want you to pay attention to a couple of these gears at a time.
And as long as you pay attention to a couple of these gears every time, then their explanation for why this one turns once and this one turns three times is perfectly logical.
But once they admit that, well, in between these two gears is actually these 47 other ones,
then you realize that their understanding of those two gears is actually not very good at all.
And the point of biology should be to impress on students and doctors that what this book represents is the humility you should have and the reverence you have for the system you're trying to understand.
It should not represent the totality of understanding or the near mastery of it.
And that's, I think,
I think people like Buckminster Fuller were very, very good at respecting biology and chemistry in this way, that the emergent properties of biology and chemistry that we call life are not ever going to be understood in the way that we understand a watch or an automobile or a computer.
And so all of these...
All of these mythologies in public health, for example, they at best become a computer, they at best become some kind of machine.
And this is always going to fall woefully short of even scratching the surface of what we are and what our children are as they move through time and develop into adults.
And the idea that you can just inject a few things intramuscularly
to adjust the trajectory of that four-dimensional thing moving through space and time is just absurd.
I mean, it's really absurd.
Once you really grasp it, I really feel like no matter which way you came from this, you should be at this point basically doubting most doctors, most
traditional ideas in allopathic medicine are just basically based on a huge number of assumptions that have never been verified and to the detriment of all of us.
I mean, you're generally speaking, not gonna make very many errors by having that assumption.
And therefore, to get all the way back to that point I was trying to make earlier, it becomes very dubious to me, anybody who's satisfied with most of it, but really upset with the fact that people don't take ivermectin.
That doesn't make sense to me anymore.
You should be in a panic mode at this stage because you realize how much
Mythology is at risk of being passed on to the next generation right now.
How much confusion is about to pass on?
It's not as simple as, you know, if we would have done ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, all of this would have been avoided.
It's not as simple as the lockdown should have been focused or shouldn't have been at all.
And it's not as simple as the PCR was overcycled.
I mean, we are talking about a very malevolent concert of lies and deception and pre-planned narratives that included having somebody like Peter Daszak on 60 Minutes 10 years ago to talk to us about bat cave viruses, to make sure that when that same person was put on the news seven years later, again on 60 Minutes, it all was
and go, wow, that's crazy.
That's a lot like what I saw in 2002.
It reminds me of the outbreak movie.
And did you ever see the beginning of the new planet of the apes?
That's also a virus.
That's crazy.
That was like on the X-Files.
And then suddenly it seems very plausible and not only very plausible, but it seems natural because we've been talking about it our whole lives.
And it's all part of this same show.
And that's really what's terrifying.
It is really part of the same show.
And they did it with AIDS.
That's the reason why Tony Fauci's there for the whole show as well.
This has all been part of the same thing.
It's extraordinary.
When you were describing biology, you gave me the shivers because the legal system is very similar to that.
You have case law, then you have appeals, and then you have one referencing another one, and then it's a big mess.
And then in the end, the Superior Court or Supreme Court overrules it, and each case is different, and you got to kind of address it.
And you think the law is the law, but no, the law is very malleable.
It is applied in different ways.
It depends on who's the judge.
It depends on the day of the week sometimes.
It depends on who believes in judicial notice and who actually is a good litigator.
Like, there's so many variables that there's no such thing as the law is the law, and it's equally applied.
So when you were talking about that, I'm like, oh, it's just like the legal system.
From one province to another, it's different.
One state to another, one country to another.
We're all very different when it comes to that.
Similar?
It's fractally more complex in life.
That's all.
I mean, the legal system has a certain number of gears and a certain number of layers that involves the courts and the people and whatever.
But I think the main thing to grasp as a biology coach, my message would be to never think that we have even approached identifying most of the gears.
You know, I mean, most of the gears are yet to be discovered.
And I think one of the gears that we've been lied to about the most consistently is this gear of RNA and this idea that we have DNA gets translated into RNA and the RNA gets made into protein and everything else is other stuff.
And I think there are enough examples in general biology now where cells in our body
package RNA and send it to other cells in the body for us to assume that that is a very natural and ongoing process that happens in almost all cell types for a wide variety of reasons, including communicating about current metabolism with other tissues.
It could be communicating current metabolic state with the brain.
It can be communicating the current metabolic state with the immune system.
And it could also communicate a pathological state to the immune system.
And all of these communication pathways are real and exist in us, in health and in disease.
What that means is this signal that they have misconstrued as retroviruses like AIDS or coronaviruses like coronavirus or signals that are coming from cancer are also considered exosomes.
These are all part of the same cellular machinery.
And virology has told us that this machinery is not ours, that it belongs to viruses.
And the main reason why they have to tell us that is so that they can study it, so that they can manipulate it, so that they can investigate it without us ever realizing that it's part of our own biology.
If they told us that they were experimenting with
injections from animals, and that those animals' immune systems had retroviruses in those injections, and those retroviruses caused a maladaptive disease state in the people that we injected those in.
And by accident, we discovered that our immune system uses retroviruses, and in fact, so do related monkeys, and that can be very bad when it comes to mixing blood and tissue of related animals.
And we just discovered it by accident.
That would have been a disaster, but instead what did they do?
They told you that it was AIDS and that there was this new disease spreading, but it wasn't a new disease.
I'm sure of it.
It was a mistake or not an accident, but just kind of what happened when they injected
very related animal materials into these people to see what happened, to call it a hepatitis vaccine.
I don't care what you, how you explain it.
What happened was that exosomes from a related species caused a very maladaptive reaction in the immune system of the humans that
received the injection.
And by that, we discovered that our bodies use viruses to regulate the immune system.
It's probably very likely that the immune system uses retroviruses all the time and that that's an actual national security secret.
It sounds crazy.
But right now, they tell us that the immune system only uses chemokines and cytokines to communicate between these millions of autonomous cells that somehow are able to simultaneously change their genetic signals at will.
And this actually could easily be coordinated by distributed signaling, a packet-like genetic material, i.e.
exosomes.
Now, why is this important?
It's important because what this means is that virology is not fake.
but it has been misconstrued as exclusively foreign, when in fact it's very likely that over half of the RNA signals that are circulating in our body and circulating on and through our body are actually signals that are being shared by the bacteria on our skin and on our mucous membranes and our epithelium.
And so those signals are also completely ignored by the public health sector, even though there's no doubt that if you took a bacteriophage that was coding for a small toxic protein, and then you took that bacteriophage and used traditional pharmaceutical manufacturing processes to make a lot of that bacteriophage, and the reason why I use that example, of course, circles back all the way to the case I told you about an hour ago in California,
where the California municipality was using a PCR test provided by China that used a bacteriophage encoding the spike protein as the control.
And so they can make, using commercial methods, large quantities of bacteriophage that encode the spike protein.
If the spike protein was mildly toxic and could cause an immunogenic reaction, then that same bacteriophage sprayed into the air and inhaled
would probably infect the bacteria in your lungs or infect the bacteria in your gut.
And that's actually called transduction.
They would trans, is it transduction?
Yeah, transduction.
They would transduce those bacteria to express the spike protein.
And then you would have an immune reaction to the spike protein.
And quite frankly, I don't think it would be molecularly differentiatable by PCR from the presence of the coronavirus if you only looked for the spike protein, because you'd find it.
Not only that, but if you used a bacteriophage to distribute the RNA or the DNA, then your PCR signal would be much hotter than anything that would be expected from what was a traditional coronavirus signal before the 2020s.
So essentially what I'm saying is that there are very well-known molecular biological mechanisms by which, and methods by which, a signal of high fidelity could be seeded anywhere they wanted it to be seeded, and could be produced in any place they wanted it to be produced, without ever using a virus that
could be misconstrued as denied, you know, like a coronavirus, you can argue has never been isolated, or they don't sequence it or whatever, because it's true.
It's usually just a genetic proxy signal.
But bacteriophages, no one, no one argues
that bacteriophages are fake.
Not one, no virus person will say that there are no bacteriophages.
They all agree that there's plenty of proof for bacteriophages.
That means that there's a giant background signal of RNA and DNA, mostly DNA, that is being circulated around the world between all of the bacteria that are in the soil, in the air, in the water, in our gut, on our skin.
And those signals are not nothing.
If they rolled out a PCR signal that could be positive on that background and misconstrued it as spread, it is the exact same thing as the car analogy I gave you before.
So there is a...
whole host of real biological phenomenon, real biological signals in the context of bacteria and bacteriophages that could be misconstrued either as a gain-of-function signal, as a natural signal, could be misconstrued as a spreading signal that's really a background signal.
And none of this would contradict the idea that these no-virus people that are putting forward that there was no coronavirus, that the coronavirus was made up, that the sequence was planted or
that they lie about metagenomics.
All of those things can still be true and there could still be a bacteriophage that was manufactured, that was planted, that was seeded, that gave the perfect signal, that made people sick, that was associated with the spike protein, that allowed them to say that the spike protein was also going to be in our shots because that's what we found.
and that could have even been sequenced and misconstrued as the presence of a coronavirus.
Why?
Because before the pandemic, the presence of a novel spike protein was enough for one of these people to declare it.
So if you made what the Chinese company made and shared with that California municipality, which was just a bacteriophage that encoded the spike protein, and you took that bacteriophage and put it in somebody's water, I don't see why it wouldn't start expressing the spike protein in their gut.
and that that spike protein might make you sick.
It would show up PCR positive.
It might show up in your sputum.
It might be in your lungs if you inhaled it.
These are all very well-known ways to get these signals where they would be and to get them to propagate, maybe even to get them to be coughed out.
And those bacteriophages would be live when they went into someone else's lungs or in someone else's guts.
And so these things are just completely, completely off the discussion table.
And you know what's really weird?
You know who discovered them?
Joshua Lederberg.
That guy that I told you invented the name microbiome, the guy that helped get Kerry Mullis the credit for the PCR, that guy's the guy who discovered all that stuff and described it first and led to a lot of our understanding of it.
And so that guy's also the guy who hypothesized most likely that there would be a very similar mechanism by which packages of genetic material would be exchanged between healthy cells in our own bodies.
And so it's so easy for me to imagine how a guy like Joshua Lederberg, with the plan of getting us to accept willingly our own testing and our own monitoring, would have a very clever way of taking most of the biology that they wanted to study and pretending like it wasn't a part of us.
Yeah, I really think the way that this biology can be taught so that people look at the totality in a different way so that they can see why the oversimplification upon which all of public health assumptions are based is just a malevolent set of assumptions, I think we can save a lot of people in the coming years.
It's really exciting.
And it's really, it's really simple too, because again, it's, it's just presenting general biology in a different way.
So I don't, I don't think I have to reinvent every wheel, but I just have to spin it in a slightly different way.
Thanks for providing that.
You're going to be a great biology coach.
I can hear you guiding a whole bunch of people.
So hopefully that's very successful.
Um, in the future, we'll bring it back, maybe talk about how that course is going so that we can share some more of that information.
Uh, apologies that Kayla didn't make it.
Uh, she did let me know her nurse was going to be there and when she can, she'll join, but unfortunately it appears that she couldn't join.
So we'll make that connection behind the scenes.
Cause she was really excited to meet you.
And maybe in the future we can bring her back and have you back as well.
But I don't want to delay her, like she wants to speak to you.
So I'm sure she'll watch this episode, have a bunch of questions and we'll connect the two of you if you don't mind.
Cool.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yep.
No, thank you.
So hang on for just a second or two.
I'm going to jump over to our members area.
There's a few questions for you.
Way beyond my understanding.
So, so I want to address them with you, but just hang on for a second, Jonathan, and we're going to say goodbye to the public.
Sure.
All right, public.
Well, there you go.
So we'll roll with the punches here.
We had quite the crash course, just a taste of the, uh, biology that, uh, Jonathan can teach, not teach, coach you on.
So you do go check out that course and see what it's all about.
And I, I learned a lot and it's still a lot that I don't understand.
So I'm going to rewatch this episode as well.
And I may throw you a few questions via email, if you don't mind.
Public, have yourself a great day.
You take care of each other.
And we're going to move over to the members-only area.
Remember, you can go to thelevineshow.com, get yourself started.
We're not hiding information there, but we're just going to answer some questions.
So if you want to do that, you can do that.
Members at thelevineshow.com to get yourself going as well.
Paul will send you a PDF.
and you can get yourself started.
And when you're ready, you can also call 587-673-9955.
If you have any questions, comments, outbursts, suggestions, objections, she'd be more than happy to address them for you.
So thank you very much, public.
Make sure you take care of yourself and your family and you shake the hand of a stranger or neighbor.
And why do I remind you about this is because I love you all very much and God bless.
Warning.
Member videos may contain confidential information about ongoing legal proceedings.
Unauthorized publication, distribution, or broadcasting of the contents of these videos outside of the member's area is strictly prohibited.
Violations could result in charges under the Criminal Code of Canada, including but not limited to sections related to publication bans.
This content is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.
To become a member, visit the