And if I could just get it right every once in a while, right, it would just be a little
better.
Man.
Oh man.
Thanks, Greg.
Greg is there like a rock.
Thanks, Rodney.
And thank you to all my subscribers, those in the past and the present, thank you very
much.
I think we're just going to do the first few slides of this start and give our guest
a chance to catch up some communication problems, but I do think it's going to work out.
And Paul Elias Alexander might join us this morning for a chat.
Let's hope that this works out.
We're going to try and get a really succinct discussion together today about the first
aspect of the mythology of the pandemic, and that is the infectious clone.
And whether or not this is a significant idea or just some, you know, who cares infectious
clones are just the way they do it.
I have a feeling that after this morning, a lot of people are going to finally, even
if you've been following me for a while, are going to have a new level of insight into
the power of this idea.
And I hope we can convert Mr. Alexander to our view as well.
So come on now, don't mess with me.
I forgot I had it set up like that.
I wasn't even going to play any music today, which is also very good, but let me cut over
here quick.
I'm not really sure.
Good morning.
This is Guillaume Biological.
It's a very odd start this morning, some music and then not, and whatever.
Usually, I give everybody a little bit more time to join us on these open study sessions.
But this morning, I have a clubhouse discussion that I'm going to stream this afternoon at
four.
And then I'm presenting an eight to another group of doctors.
And I was hoping to have a chat with one Paul Elias Alexander, PhD, a former Trump
administration consultant or advisor or official, as well as how do I get to talk to is this
the mean that he's here?
I only see one person in the meeting.
Hold on.
Just let me straighten this out.
I still only see one person in the meeting.
I guess he doesn't understand that I'm going to zoom and he's going to zoom with me and
I'm going to stream separately.
I think he thought that we would tell a bunch of people about the zoom.
I'm not sure if that's it.
Let me see if we get here.
Now he's calling me.
Hold on.
Yes, sir.
Yes, I'm looking at you on your streaming, but I'm looking at you and everything, but what
do I have to do?
Oh, you have to join the zoom meeting that I sent you.
I don't think you sent me that.
Okay, well, I just sent another email with it.
You can check it again when you asked me to.
Yeah?
He should be here in a second.
I'm really excited because we have been talking about this for a while.
We've been trying to get something on film about the way that this all goes.
So I'm just going to put this music on and we'll wait for him to join us.
The idea is to try and convince people that the natural biology of coronaviruses and
indeed the natural biology of RNA viruses in general is quite prohibitive to what these
people have termed a pandemic where millions of lives are at stake and billions of dollars
are at stake and perhaps the livelihood of all of the seven or eight or nine billion
people on the planet are at stake because of this never ending and, in fact, increasing
danger because of climate change.
That's what we're here to dispel the mythology of.
They have used fine computer models, beautiful computer animation to convince you of these
biological concepts which are inherently and internally contradictory.
There he is.
I see him.
I'm going to put him on the screen in a second.
It is really exciting to have him here because it is only very recently that we became aware
of one another and that we were thinking in such parallel ways.
I took the risk of sending him an email and the next thing you know, we've had a few
phone conversations and we've hashed out some of these broad biological ideas.
I'm going to pause this wasn't my idea there.
And so let me escape out of here and see if I can bring you over to the screen, sir.
This should work.
There he is.
Look at that.
So now you should be able to see everyone.
I'm not sure how far behind the zoom will be.
So you might want to, around the stream will be behind the zoom so you'll probably want
to turn up the zoom and then monitor the stream or something like that.
You should be able to see me on zoom too, right?
I am.
Okay, good.
Would you like to give a very brief introduction as to how you got all messed up in this and
where you are now, what you're doing, plug your sub stack, et cetera, so that people
know who you are.
They all know who I am because there's only a few people here for me right now.
So give them a few minutes.
They'll all start tweeting.
We'll have a few hundred people in the audience in about 15 minutes.
Okay, well, I can speak now.
Yes, please go ahead, sir.
Sorry.
Thank you.
First of all, Jay, thank you very much for allowing me to introduce this session and
your group.
And you're right.
We've had some actually very engaging discussions recently.
And I think I find your depth and breadth fascinating in terms of your understanding
of a lot of the issues around the pandemic and total, but the gene injection itself and
what we are dealing with.
My belief, day one, has always been that this was not a bona fide pandemic.
So I want to put that on the table.
My background training is in epidemiology from the University of Toronto in Canada
Graduate School.
I did a short program, so I'll be brief at Johns Hopkins in a little certificate program
in bioterrorism, biowaphere.
I actually had the pleasure of being taught and met Dr. Donald Henderson, D.A. Henderson
who is credited with eradicating smallpox and he wrote that seminal paper in 2006, basically
saying that lockdowns, school closures, quarantines at the border, all of those things
were devastating and will always fail.
But you incur as least societal disruption as possible in an emergency like a pandemic.
And you basically allow society to live normal with least disruption and basic issues like
hand hygiene and that you only isolate.
You only isolate voluntarily sick and well people with a strong clinical suspicion of
illness.
No one else.
You only must test sick and well people with a strong clinical suspicion.
You only detain people at a border who are sick and unwell.
No one else.
The vast majority of society must live normal and I'm on record three years ago, even
in as part of the Trump administration seeing clearly the all we needed to do with Dr. Scott
Atlas was isolate the ill strongly protective vulnerable always, but you let the vast majority
of society live free unfettered lives.
I went on to an Oxford, I did a graduate program in clinical epidemiology and then I was going
to read for a doctorate of Johns Hopkins in bioterrorism under Henderson, Donald Henderson,
but I couldn't get a proper funding because I was not a US resident at that point.
I am a US resident today.
So I did my doctorate at McMaster in evidence based medicine, Dr. Gordon guy at who founded
the degrees of evidence based medicine supervise me, they might post off with him.
Okay.
So I went into this discussion quickly is I worked at it will have the organization
2008, 2009 as a regional epidemiologist for Europe.
I worked in 2019 back again with the whole Washington in COVID as a pandemic consultant
advisor in April, May of 2020.
I got word from the Trump administration people to come to Washington to join the Trump administration
and I worked as a senior pandemic advisor.
So from a technical point of view, I'm one of those people like Dr. Mike, et cetera,
heavily worked in the area of COVID from day one.
I don't pretend to be a bigger expert than new people in this meeting nor J.
We all have done a lot of work and a lot of us understand things.
I think the lay public has surprised me in the sense that, well, I'm not really surprised
but I'm happy that they are actually more technically sound and engage in more critical
thinking than traditional doctors and academic scientists who this has though their brains
fell out of their buttocks, fell out of the behind because we are in a disaster situation.
We've lost a lot and society and I think basically the pandemic was a fraud and a hoax period.
Just everything that was done about it and while I work in the administration, you know,
I've been part of the group with early treatment, et cetera, and I'm out there fighting and
speaking every day to different crowds as to I'm against, fully against these gene injections
mRNA or DNA platform.
So Jay provides a fascinating place for me because I shared with him some of my thoughts
and we realized that we have a lot of things in common.
The question is, how do we forward, how do we craft a language, you know, we used a correct
term. How do we get people to look below the rock or to peer behind the curtain?
So how do we ask the right question? Because what was done here was wrong, nothing worked.
We have zero, zero evidence, zero none across three years that any lockdown, any school closure,
any mass mandate, any business closure, anything worked, everything failed, nothing worked, zero.
We have this gene injection that we're still pushing on people and coming up with new ways to
push it on people on new gene injection. So the question is, why, if this is not working,
how do we stop it and how do we get the right people now to think like Jay and to at least
consider what he's saying, because remember, we are scientists and as scientists, we don't
run around suing each other if we disagree, we listen, engage, we even evolve our thinking,
my thinking is evolving, good to see of people like Jay, and I imagine you guys here because you
are and Jay are collaborators in some ways. So I appreciate Jay and I'll turn it back over to you,
thank you. Wow, that's crazy. So what do you think and your mind would be sort of the best
overarching start? Do you think we really should start with the gain of function versus infectious
clones and explain to people why the pandemic doesn't have a good foundation in biology,
at least as they've shown it on television? Or do you think that we should start more from the
the numbers and the basic biology that they've simplified to the point of lying to us?
Which do you think is the better one to start with today? Because I'm ready to do either one.
And yeah, I know that we do both. Yeah, we sure sure we can do both. Yes. Okay, good. So I'm just
going to start quick then with sharing my screen and then I'm going to put myself small. What that
might mean is that I have to fool around with how to get you to be large on the screen. So let me
just see what happens when I do this. And then I do this. I do this. I do this. And now I want
you on the screen. How do I do that? I need to get writing here. And then this will get me there,
right? So I want that one to be a different one. Sorry, it's going to take me one second because
I knew this was going to be a problem, but I needed to fix this now and not later.
I might just have to switch back and forth between you and it. I just don't like not having you on
screen. Give me two more seconds because I think we can edit this better if I fix this. I'm going to
add one. So that's what I'll do. I'll escape here. Sorry about that. And I'm going to change this to
this one. Right now I'm logged on the screen. Yeah, I know that's perfect. Now I'm going to
try and change this to something else. I'm going to make this the primary. Right? No, this one.
No, the primary. Yes, that one. Yeah, there we go. Okay. And we're going to close this. No, save it.
And I turn this one on. Yeah, there we go. So we can flip this around like that.
And then I can start this as a slideshow. And now I'm going to switch every once in a while
between these two things. But I think if I have hell screen here and I copy this,
I should have put you up there. Anyway, I'm going to do this like this for now and I'll switch it
back to the thing here. So this should work. Oh, no, it's the wrong one again. Dang it.
Dang it. Sorry, I'm such a clown here. Primary monitor. Let's see if that works. Current slide.
Yes. Okay. So this is a small picture, but the people that are watching have seen it before,
this is the all cause mortality in the United States. In this picture, it is from 2014 all the
way to 2022. And so if I cut, oh yeah, but then I can't cut over here to the big screen shoot.
I don't really like this. Darn it.
Okay. But Jake wants you something. Yes, go ahead. Are you trying to get that
the information screens as big screens? Right now it's large. You are large, right? Or not?
Yeah, behind it, which is fine. I don't know if people need to see me as such as here,
if I ask a question, because I would like to ask questions, but can you just open that
screen or the mode you were enlarging it? Yeah, I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna get out of here
and switch between them. Sorry, I think that's the better way to do it. So we go like this,
we go current slide. And I'm you can, they can hear you in the background and this is fine.
Yeah, excellent. Okay, so this is the all cause mortality in America. It is between 50,000 and
70,000 a week, more or less, maybe 68,000 a week over the course of, oh, sorry, Mayor's my mouse.
Over the course of 2014, all the way to the beginning of 2022. And down here in the brighter
blue, what you see are people who've died of pneumonia. And the thing that we've been told is
that somewhere here at the beginning of 2020, a brand new cause of death appeared. And that
we're calling COVID. But what you see in these numbers is actually a very large increase in the
number of people that have died of pneumonia. And it correlates very well with this increase in
COVID, which is in the red there. What you'll also notice is the year on year, I'll move my head
from 2014 all the way to 2020. The number of people that dies of pneumonia is very consistent.
It's somewhere between 5000 and 4000 every year. And a subset of that is depicted in yellow
as the identified or calculated influenza cases every year. That's usually just hand waving done
by the CDC with some testing and a lot of modeling. But then over here, that all changes. There's
a new cause of death now. And that new cause of death is causing an increase in pneumonia deaths
like a doubling or even a tripling in the second wave. And this, these numbers were the numbers
that they showed on PBS NewsHour. They didn't show this number. And had they shown this in the
context of all course mortality, it would have been very hard, hard, much harder for them to sell it
as the disaster it was. What I'd like you to think about is the possibility that there's a better
explanation for why so many people died of pneumonia after two or three decades of there being a very
constant number of people dying of it. Why all of these numbers don't have to be a new cause of
death. And that is because we've seen this all before the who has done this before. The who has
declared a pandemic in 2009 of a dangerous avian flu virus. And in 2020, they declared a pandemic
of a dangerous novel coronavirus. This novel coronaviruses was detectable by what we now know
as a very nonspecific PCR test for this RNA virus. And it was applied, as you said, to very low
prevalence populations, not just people who were sick with symptoms, but everybody that would
drive up through and drive through. And in addition, anybody that tested positive with this nonspecific
diagnostic was in us and was in the system was in a system that had financial incentives for them
to be mistreated for pneumonia, mistreated for respiratory disease, and mistreated for a novel
respiratory disease based on this nonspecific test alone. The financial incentive enabled a
larger portion of all cause mortality than the normal pneumonia and influenza to be prioritized
as a new national security threat that could be addressed with a vaccine. This story was then
perpetuated for three years. I suggest that if the molecular biology of this story is real,
that there was likely something involved in the beginning, a release of something that
allowed the molecular biology to be true, because a natural coronavirus cannot produce the molecular
fidelity that was present from the beginning of the pandemic. In other words, if a virus is spreading
around the world, there should be some sequential change that can be measured. And there's virtually
no difference between Wuhan, Washington, New York, Italy, Spain, Iran. These are all the same virus
for a very long time. And that's statistically and biologically impossible if you believe
the cartoon that they've told you on TV. So the real goal was to make you surrender your
individual sovereignty and to change human rights to basic granted permissions. And the way that
they did this was that they confused you. They specifically confused you over the last 20 years
about the dangers of natural viruses by publishing paper after paper about the pandemic potential
of coronaviruses, paper after paper, where viruses are purported to be enriched. This is a cartoon
that says you take a virus that's green and you pass it through several featuring dishes. And at
the end of these several passages, the virus has become more dangerous. They've also told us they
can do the same thing with animals in gold and hamsters or in ferrets. They can make a relatively
benign flu virus into a very dangerous pathogenic potential virus. And more recently,
they've even led Congress and the rest of us to believe that you can take pieces of different
viruses, assemble them in a laboratory, and then that new virus has the potential to go around the
world like the fuse of a firecracker. And I would suggest that there's really no biological evidence
that any of these are actually possible. It's not likely that there are viruses in mother nature
that can do what they've told us has happened. It's not likely that there are viruses in a
laboratory that can do it. And there are not likely combinations of genes yet to be found
that could do it. And we have to come to this understanding on the basis of basic biological
principles, not cartoons like this, because this is the idea they they want us to be a have a
super national group of organizations and rules that governs us in the event of a pandemic. And so
essentially, they are setting up a mythology upon which a super national organization can
govern us into eternity. And we don't want to let that happen. The way that they've done this
is that they've changed our mind about basically four things over the last three years. They've
changed our mind about the basic coronavirus swarm. They've changed our mind about all cause
mortality by basically not letting us think about it. They've changed our mind about how our immune
system responds to a respiratory virus. And they've changed the literal meaning and the expectations
that we have around vaccination. So let's take a little quick look at this in a little more
detail. A lot of my viewers have seen some version of this before. So I'll go quite quickly,
because I want to get to the clone that kind of ties this all together. They first of all,
they've changed the way that you think about the coronavirus swarm before this. There used to be
about 200 different ways to get a respiratory disease that could lead to a secondary pneumonia.
And these were all just balled up into one thing, P and I. But in 2020, we reformulated all these
different and disparate causes of respiratory disease. And basically, with a very high
financial incentive, convince people to call something and anything that they could find
this new thing, even if it wasn't, because it was a national security thing. It's okay to do it,
because better to take too many than not enough, better to over count than to undercount. And these
strategies have allowed them to scare us into believing that something more significant than
has happened has occurred. The test in the purported sequences are actually the only real evidence
that we have that there is a new cause of death. And since none of these tests and none of this
sequencing was done before 2020, there's no data to provide a baseline. We have absolutely no idea
what would happen if we took the 250 emergency used authorized PCR tests back in time and tested
people in 2019. Would we find similar results? We have no idea, because there was no effort
to categorize the background coronaviruses up until 2020. Shockingly, we spent billions of
dollars trying to characterize those same background viruses and animals and spent virtually none
trying to find them in our background. Ajay? Yes, sir. You could.
Is it possible I can answer a question here? Yes, you bet.
So, in other words, if I understand so far what you're saying is that you are not just
just arguing that the fact that something was released, we're not even discussing intentional
or accidental. That's not this discussion. Something came. The question is,
was it as lethal as they said? In other words, was this a non consequential coronavirus
that was circulating? And then I think you are because you've touched on PCR the way I understand
it is. Technically, we detected something in February or March of 2020, so I'm letting your
group understand how I think, how I argue about this. We detected something in February, March 2020,
that was always there. You're asking me that question? It was always circulating.
Yes, that's what I believe. I believe there's a good possibility that we have been told that
the fidelity of this PCR test is such that it's detecting something new rather than something new
and something old. And that's how the molecular biology can be correct. Because remember,
I'm trying to work under the assumption that these molecular biologists that did sequencing
in Italy and did sequencing in Spain and did sequencing in Wuhan and did sequencing in Iran
were not all working together to come up with the same sequence and then wink at the camera and
say, yeah, it's all here. But more importantly, it had to be. It had to be a very distinct,
uniform molecular signal that would fool multiple governments, multiple health organizations,
multiple groups of very smart molecular biologists. That means the signals can't be fake. They can't
be false positives. They're real. And the only way to get such a uniform, reproducible signal
around the world of the same almost identical genetic sequence of an RNA virus would be
to release it. You had to release a perfect copy in multiple places. Otherwise, it's impossible.
So Jay, again, and I know we're going to do multiple shows to get the public to understand
what your argument, which again, I am on site. So in other words, what we're seeing already
at the beginning here, if I understand you correctly, which is what I'm thinking also is
that something was released. It was actually circulating globally. So that actually opens the
point that our immune systems had seen this in some capacity before. So we had some level of immunity,
some level. But key is this that the PCR test and when we say that it was flawed and fraud and
garbage, it's not that it was really flawed and fraud. It was that it was detecting
real coronavirus, but old recovered coronavirus. Absolutely. Absolutely. And it can be the
best part about this is is that it can be both. It can be that in certain places in the United
States, like New York City and Washington State, there were pockets of extremely uniform symptomology
and high levels of molecular positivity. And so these doctors didn't see ghosts. They saw what
they saw, but there's not seeing it throughout 2020, throughout through 2021, throughout through
to 2023, like they expected they would when we were back in March and April of 2020.
Every one of those people expected that the hospital would eventually be full of the six or eight
people that they had. Everybody in Wuhan expected the same thing. We have 22 people with a weird
pneumonia. They thought it was going to come 2,200, but it never did. And that's the extraordinary
part of the story. The positivity remained. The the detection of the virus was everywhere,
but the standard symptomology of this, you know, altitude sickness with like ground glass capacities
and yada, yada, yada. This was a very small number of cases in 2020 and virtually none now.
And that if we took a very good accounting of it would be suggestive of not a a multiplicative
point release spreading around the world, but an exponentially decaying multiple point release.
And this is this is much safer. This is much more grounded in biology. And it explains why they took
so much time to to lie to us about these basic principles of of of what was causing respiratory
disease before the pandemic and how you treated it. Because again, you you're well aware of this.
The the pivot of how to treat this was 180 degrees, whereas if if you had an unknown respiratory
disease that led to pneumonia, antibiotics and and steroids would probably be somewhere on that
chart and they took both of those away because this novel virus didn't need those and it needed
remdesivir and it needed early ventilation and whatever other cockamamie things that they recommended.
And because of the financial incentive and the top down control on doctors,
this protocol was was instituted nations wide. And so you got a triple tripling in the number of
people dying from what normally was just secondary pneumonia. We're really in trouble.
So really, really what we're saying then is that that spike that we saw in 2020 of the pneumonia
in that that pneumonia curve that is embedded nicely into the what the government releases a
COVID curve is really based on the denial of antibiotics that that that persons deliver that
inference are like illness or respiratory illness across time prior, especially elderly vulnerable
people would have access to. But for the first time, governments, colleges, state boards, doctors,
denied access. In other words, it is it is a fact like they do not resuscitate orders on the
sedation. There was a move to the nine doctors treating patients with antibiotics that you could
not treat and which is what you are saying is this is what people actually needed. Yet they
will deny what they were needed and given the cockamamie, cockamamie, maybe devastating alternative
treatment. That's what you see. Yes, I am saying that and especially early on when I know at least
in the United States, there were many hospitals that were giving the advice that ventilating
people could possibly prevent spread. So they were putting people on ventilators that could talk,
which is crazy. So if we just keep if we just keep up with this here, so first we they change the
way that we think about the the coronavirus swarm so that instead of thinking about us
us having a long history of combating an unknown respiratory disease that leads to secondary
conditions that we knew how to treat for a long time, they convinced us that there was a whole new
paradigm required because this was a novel form of death. And the way they convinced us was really
is primarily with the with the shot. I mean, sorry, not with the shot with the test. So what
what I have here depicted is before the pandemic, you might have had these numbers looking like
this where the different colors represent different causes of death, but then post the start of the
pandemic. Anybody that tested positive for the test was listed as a COVID mortality. And so it
it could have easily, and in fact, I argue that it did, take this same diagram, same number of
people that would have died, and change it into this, which is still the same number of people dying.
But now we're saying that they're dying of different things. So that's a new cause of death.
There's no proof of it in the numbers. The problem is there's no proof of it in the numbers. And in
fact, the PCR tests are the only evidence for this that these numbers were shifted into a different
column. And if they really wanted to show you, they would have been showing you all cause mortality
from previous years to show you the exact magnitude of this new cause of death, and to really teach
you and your kids why this was a national security priority that required everything to be shut down.
The other thing that they did is they've had three years to teach us about our immune system,
and we still haven't gotten past antibodies and neutralizing a virus. And that already
should have told anybody with a basic bachelor's degree in biology that this was nonsense.
They've misled us about seroprevalence, which is antibodies because of national security priority.
And I need my viewers kind of understand it because I stress it all the time, but I like to repeat it.
If you have a secret meeting that tells people that you need to stay on message because our
country is in danger, then people will usually stay on message. And I will argue that because of
the nature of the countermeasures and because of the nature of the prep act and the emergency that
they're working under, that they would have had many secret meetings or at least closed meetings
where they would have told people to accentuate seroprevalence and to emphasize the presence of
antibodies and neutralizing the virus, because this is what our countermeasure does. And we need
as many people to take the countermeasure as possible. This is a national security priority
very different than having the well-being of all of your citizens in mind. This was accomplished
over the course of many years, because again, remember, all of the vaccine technology in America
is based on this idea that a correlate of immunity is antibodies in your blood.
And so most of the vaccines that have been quote unquote tested that are on the American schedule
only meet this bar, which is that you inject a child with the product and the product produces
a predictable antibody in the serum. There's no other real evidence of their efficacy,
and I think we're starting to peel back this narrative in the United States, and we're starting
to see that a lot of us have been taken advantage of by oversimplifying our immune response to the
point of making it really not an explanation anymore. They have taken away your understanding
of the immune system so that you can't exercise informed consent on any of these products.
Just to give you an example, they make a beautiful video of the coronavirus with its big spike
proteins, and then it animatedly goes into the cell. They make a beautiful video about antibodies
lock into place and block the cell from entering. They even make beautiful videos about the the
vaccine that's the same way. And these beautiful videos while very convincing are not necessarily
based in any biology at all. They're a sales pitch. They're a product video. It's a brochure
in 3D. And that's the unfortunate truth of what has happened here. The countermeasures
are exactly that. They are countermeasures which are representative of a shift.
The United States government has a priority of having a warm base of manufacturing that could
respond to a hypothetical biological threat in the form of the flu vaccine, and all of the machinery
and all of the the manufacturing capability that was devoted to the flu vaccine was there,
not because it was doing any real good for the flu, but because this is a national security priority,
we have to have this stuff ready to go in case we really do need to make a vaccine against something
that was coming in the future. They have now shifted. And in fact, this was a plan for about
10 years that they would shift from this egg based recombinant protein vaccine based stuff
to an RNA based platform. This has been coming for a while. They just don't want you to realize
that. And again, it's coming. And it's part of this bamboozlement of your immune system. If they
simplify your immune system to the point where you don't understand it, they can sell you these
products as effective. So the current focus is to say that this transmission saved millions of people
and that lots more people would have died from this virus. And this is effective. It shows the
effectiveness of this original rollout. Sure, it needs, it needs, it needs improvement. We can
make it cleaner. We can get the DNA out of it, but it already worked very well. That's the whole
concept they're trying to sell you. Here's the example from the same video. The lipid nanoparticles
are released. The lipid nanoparticles have mRNA in them. The mRNA gets into a dendritic cell.
I don't know how they're able to target it to the dendritic cell. They don't show it going
anywhere else. It just goes to the dendritic cell. And then here's the terrible part. It goes into
the dendritic cell. The DNA, the RNA is released. The RNA gets transcribed, I guess, into the
protein. The spike pro there goes through the ribosome. There's the spike protein. It gets
folded, I guess. And it goes onto the surface of the dendritic cell. I don't see MHC 2 there.
I don't see a major histocatibility complex presenting it. Maybe that's shown there. I don't know.
But the whole point is, is that they can hand wave all they want. It's a it's in a hand waving
thing where they say the virus replicates like this. The virus makes you sick because of this.
These sequences are evidence of live virus. This PCR test is evidence of spread. And we need to
lock down. These are all hand waving. These are all Jedi mind tricks because none of this is based
in real what I would call biological observations taking the product will protect your grandmother.
We have a duty to society to mask and socially distance. All of these things were brought out as
coercion. They are coercive words and coercive ideas which take away your understanding of the
fact that ventilating people to stop spread killed many. It stops you from thinking about the
application from very early on of remdesivir has killed many more people than it's saved.
The untreated of secondary bacterial pneumonia with antibiotics as we usually would have done
has killed a lot of people shutting down schools has hurt children and led to more suicides.
Masking kids has set kids back years in development and social distancing has fractured families
ruined businesses and and crushed communities. And all of this stuff is completely ignored
under the pretense that there is a cave a bad cave virus or again a function virus that's still
circling the globe and we should keep our head down. And this is very much not true. They have
led us to believe with stories of Fauci's emails and the denial of gain of function research.
You saw Rand Paul he was yelling at Fauci and Fauci was crumbling under the pressure so he was
definitely covering it up. And this is why I put Scooby-Doo on the screen because they have fooled
the left and fooled the right into believing that for three years they've been covering up the real
origin of this virus and that it's definitely a lab leak and the evidence for it is their cover-up.
This leads you to be trapped just like I was a few months ago before I figured out what
infectious clones were. So that's what I was going to do next. Do you want to
you have any questions or anything like that before I break? I could touch base quickly. Sure.
Okay so first of all to one of your previous slides where you were listening out what killed
you know if you would consider I mean it's your project and your but we know for a fact that
the sedatives like my dazzle arm and oh yes killed many of our people in the nursing homes
and any hospital settings because their breathing was already depressed
and that that is in their death. Another thing to Jay is that we have strong evidence that
many of our elderly and vulnerable persons who they put in hospitals in the COVID protocol
they became very malnourishment dehydrated and dehydration and malnourishment killed
many of our elderly along with isolation but what people didn't understand is these elderly
were not fed they were not getting no liquids nothing especially when they put them in the
interbethrin ventilation it's a very critical issue also it's a it's like a complete package
that put our elderly and vulnerable they were already vulnerable because a lot of these who
oveied by had some medical conditions already heart heart illness diabetic problems renal
failure or sorts of issues and then you are putting them in this COVID protocol I want to
remind your viewers something because it's very interesting to you. You touch base on it with the
PCR test you know just so that and I know Jay you are an expert I'm not seeing anything you don't
but I just want to make sure that we set the table properly because you are throwing a lot of
very very heavy bombs here and we need people to understand it when we looked at the data
I did an analysis myself with with Dr. Atlas from it when he was at the Eisenhower building and
we we summarize all of the evidence that any PCR test over 24 cycles
one
Now that you're not detecting prior recovered coronavirus that's not what we argue but anything
over 24 cycles was non infectious non pathological coronavirus and that's the argument so once we
cycle that 40 and 45 which is what CDC said when you come to an above that was not coronavirus
there was Lisa not Lisa anything over 24 was uh was non infectious non-culturable non-leitha
and I want to also because it's very important because we were cycling at 45
so everything in other words when they made the argument that 95 percent of these
positive cases were false positive there's a lot of legitimacy to that we we closed society
down took children out of school closed businesses with largely false positive people
and that's what history I believe will show and I will end this interruption by by telling
people this my office said okay so when I went to Washington my office was in health and human
services health and human services is the umbrella agency that CDC NIH FDA etc reporter
so health and human services is situated right opposite the capital building and for a reason
because many of the people in health and human services spend a lot of time in the capital building
in hearings on a meeting and so they wanted close proximity so like the FDA CDC NIH etc had
sub offices so I worked with all a lot of these people like like uh han redfield
juror all of them fauci etc what I'm trying to tell you is operation warp speed
for the drug and vaccine member operation was it was not just for vaccines it was for all of the
therapeutic and the government needed decision to take the seventh floor of health and human
services and make it the headquarters for operation warp speed operation warp speed was run
out of the seventh floor of health and human services building 200 independence avenue
opposite the capital my office was on the sixth floor I worked directly below operation warp speed
and what I'm telling you that is because you use some terms early and I want the public to
set the table properly when I went on to the seventh floor for various reasons example in
meeting I can tell you that the entire seventh floor of health and human services building
was comprised mainly of united states army personnel and united states navy personnel
operation warp speed was principally a military operation and I am not somebody from any outside
on television or behind a computer writing emails in different email groups speculating
what do these rules was I'm speaking from the inside remember I didn't see anything negative
here I am not railing against the department defense in my statement here I'm just first
speaking of back operation warp speed was a pure military operation HHS CDC FDA NIH had a
seat at the table when they were invited to speak the military ran the pandemic response the
military ran the vaccine development and response the people I spoke to was in heavy military
uniform these were scientists etc from the United States military army navy many of them are
tremendous people I met and worked with I'm trying to make you understand what you said is a fact
people could speculate what you said when you put that to them on your slide DOD yes that's not
guessing that is a fact I was there that's what I wanted to see so with regard to the PCR just
to circle back with that I just wanted to be clear that that so the the issue is for the people at
home that to detect the whole genome of the virus you can't do that with PCR PCR has limits in terms
of the size of fragment that can be amplified so if you were going to try to detect a book
you might only be able to amplify three pages of the book and so you would want to choose
pages from that book that were unique to that book if you chose pages that were very similar
to other books your test wouldn't be very very specific and unfortunately the nature of pandemic
sorry of coronavirus biology is that the the RNA dependent RNA polymerase and the end protein
are two proteins especially the RNA dependent RNA polymerase that are highly conserved across
coronaviruses across different species even and so the fact that they two of the markers of the three
in any PCR test from 2020 or 2021 we're targeting proteins that have their own homologous version
in every other coronavirus is something that set the groundwork for an incredible number of false
positives beyond that of just amplifying beyond 30 cycles we're talking about a background where
the that where a amplicon could start amplifying and it won't be false because a lot of these
PCR tests are nested primers so when they amplify something it's real it's a real signal but the
question is have they chosen a signal that's specific for this virus or generalizes across
all coronaviruses and in reality the spike protein is the only protein that is unique to this virus
so the rest of the PCR test is not specific and at some point after the discovery of
amachron we stopped looking for the spike and indeed we were told that amachron is a
PCR test where the spike doesn't amplify and so it is an extraordinary jump to go from PCR
positive to say somebody has SARS-CoV-2 it's impossible actually but it was done en masse
for 2002 and most of 2021
just to get you to perfect so but when what are your thoughts then on the fact that when we
look at the science what was published out there in the literature from other countries who were
using the PCR and they put out data they were saying they were showing that when they correlated it
this deep the amplification the cycles with with infectiousness or for pathological nature
they found the 24 to 25 cycles and above could not predict pathological virus what are your
thoughts oh I have I have I have no problem with that I mean there is okay I'm just trying to make
sure that you understand that within the the range where molecular biologists would agree that
it's a good signal there are also false positives because of this background so it is even worse
than what we we thought in the sense of yeah there are false positives because they overcycled
the test but there are also false positives embedded in what people are calling true positives
because there are coronaviruses in the background that they won't acknowledge
this test is not specific for do you see caught it and so that just makes it worse it's not I don't
know how to quantify that but I think the infectious clone part will really clear it up because it'll
get people thinking also about the infectious cycle and why that matters and so if I start there then
the infectious clone is a really important thing to understand because it's basically how all
of virology is done I want to start everybody on the same cartoon Paul has seen this cartoon before
and so have some of my viewers but anybody that's joining me for the first time this one will be
a good one what they have told you is that the yellow virus this will be SARS-CoV-2 for this
illustration gets into your lungs and when it does so it makes copies of itself
and as it makes more and more copies of itself you start coughing some of those out
and people around you can get sick with the virus that will also replicate in their lungs
make copies of itself and spread spread spread alongside of this story is a little caveat
and that is that in history like historically it is very difficult to take from a patient
enough virus to get it to grow in a cell culture the stories that we have been told are that we
don't have cell cultures that are specific for these viruses it's hard to make a cell culture
and a virus grow together we don't have the right medium we haven't found the right cell type
but in reality it has more to do with the content of this swarm in biology we talk about populations
in terms of with using different terms and when we talk about the population
the genetics of a population we often talk about a swarm because although all of the the people
that have lived in Pittsburgh their whole life are are relatively related to one another as humans
you know that there's all this this genetic variant in between with viruses it's even more so because
of the simplicity of their genome their RNA and every time they make copies of themselves they make
a mistake and so when a virus infects your lungs and makes lots of copies of itself it's not this
picture it's not many many copies of a book or many many copies of a baseball cap it is in fact
many imperfect copies a lot of which depicted here as empty don't even get the requisite number
of genes to be able to replicate themselves they're erroneous they're broken they're missing
something and this is because the nature of viral replication is far from perfect and they've known
this for a long time in fact as long as they've been studying viruses they've seen this signal
and tried to explain it away as part of the infectious cycle and when I say infectious
cycle I mean you have a virus it goes into your lungs it makes copies of itself and then those
copies leave your lungs and go into someone else the details of that story are important
because they underlie the idea of asymptomatic infection they underlie the idea of super contagious
versus not contagious and they also underlie the idea of the fidelity of the genome the idea that
the virus that was in Italy and Spain and New York and Washington and Wuhan and Iran all
had the same sequence at the start and maintained it for quite some time as they spread from all
these places and then at some point it was all delta and then at some point it became all omicron
and that belies a certain level of not belies a certain level of but it implies a certain
uniformity in the biology a certain uniformity in the genetic in the genetic pattern that we see
here stop so that's the issue that we're trying to confront because what they tell us is a virus
from the wild that's really hard to culture is an actuality in their own description of it
a difficult swarm to culture because if you are sampling from a sample that very few of the viruses
are actually fully capable of causing a new infection then that would explain very easily why
they have such a difficulty culturing it one example from the Wuhan lab is they took over 7,000 samples
from wild bats they were able to find six partial sequences using PCR nothing grew so that's the
kind of biology that we've been doing we've been looking for things in the wild that are very
difficult to study because of the nature of the way that they replicate and how imperfect it is
the way that we've discovered that allows us to address this issue is to take a sequence of
an RNA virus that we find in nature using our very complicated molecular biological techniques
and to make a DNA copy of it because unlike RNA DNA can be copied over and over again
and it has built-in proofreading because it's double-stranded the best part is is that you can make
many many copies of DNA and it lasts forever in a dish if you combine and in the right circular
DNA called circular called like a bacterial chromosome or just a circular plasmid of cDNA
like I have depicted here you can let bacteria make lots and lots of copies of it now you'll have
lots and lots of copies of the DNA version of this imperfect RNA swarm when you add RNA polymerase
you make thousands trillions of copies of the RNA all of which are identical that's impossible
for the wild virus to do because RNA can't copy itself perfectly but if you start with DNA
and lots of copies of it that are perfect and make your RNA from that now when you
transfect yourselves you're going to get lots and lots of copies the swarm will be very different
than this it will be a pure swarm that pure swarm will allow you to infect animals it will allow
you to freeze stocks and send it to other people and it will allow you to repeatedly create experiments
write grants etc you don't ever have to go out in the wild again you don't have to sample from
another patient again you can just use the cDNA clone that you created in the year 2002 after
the original SARS pandemic to make as much infectious RNA as you want and this has been told to you
as being standard procedure when it's the only pure form of a synthetic virus or any virus that
exists anywhere there is no pure form in nature because RNA can't copy itself that way there is no
pure form in nature because the assembly process is super unreliable so if you go back into the
history of this stuff and just look for infectious clones or infectious clone and on virus you can
find on PubMed for example of this year this is 2010 you can find like eight papers infectious
clone of old blue dwarf virus of a of a flu virus of avian hepatitis virus of a herpes virus
a feline virus this everything they're all made from DNA copies of infectious clone
the reason why this is important is because the wild virus is a bit like a mixed tape
if you've ever made a mixed tape for your girlfriend back in the 80s what you did was you took different
songs from different albums and you put it on that tape and then you gave it to her like a
Valentine's Day gift and the trick was is that you started out with a with a album that you bought
in the store that when you made a copy the song would still sound pretty good you could play it in
the car or play it on your walk minute would sound great but your girlfriend couldn't make a copy of
it because then by then the songs would have too much noise in them you wouldn't want to listen to
it in your earphones that's the nature of imperfect copies you can think of RNA like this
and you can also think of making a cDNA version of of of a virus as being a CD version of a
mixed tape such that you can make as many mixed tapes as mixed CDs as you want and you can copy
that mixed CD into more mixed CDs and you won't lose the fidelity like you do when you're copying
cassette tapes this is the best analogy i can come up with for why understanding
the natural virus remember the natural virus is the cassette tape that's over here in the corner
and we want to understand it by making a cDNA CD cDNA version of it we want to understand it
by putting it into a bacteria and let the bacteria make lots of copies of the cDNA version of
the cassette tape we want to understand it by making lots of copies of the same RNA
perfectly copied from these DNA so that we can understand what the RNA cassette tape does
the way we do it in every paper is that we use electricity to force that RNA into a cell culture
cell culture makes copies of the RNA and we can infect animals we can make cultures of it we can
do plaque assays and this is cassette tapes but back here where the DNA was that's where the
danger is that's the one that tests PCR positive because PCR is not RNA it's DNA and so this is
where it gets tricky this is where it's really important that everybody follows and i don't think
i've shown this to Paul yet so if you want to pause here for a second we can pause here
and then and then we'll go on to this next part so basically g what you're saying is
in the wild natural natural virus then in the wild when you are infected and you get virus into
the into the nostrils nasal pharyngeal passage down inside the lung deep into the
then you get you infected so you're making multiple copies many many many million billion
that's what they say that's what they say yes yes let's say thousand what we are seeing then
is because of the very unstable error prone genetic copying mechanism in in in the virus
in this case single stranded RNA single stranded RNA the resulting copies of the virus
are not all the same in other words because they are you you're also what you're saying is
many of them would be broken to be suboptimal in their ability to infect absolutely they are
and i have video of many different virologists explaining this for many different viruses
it's just a known fact they're called non-infectious interfering particles they're called
they have a couple different names for them and they've tried to characterize the relative
proportion of infectious particles and non-infectious particles for various viruses
but it's only become possible very recently and that's what i wanted to kind of explain now because
before this they don't they just do plaque assays and they tell you that this gives us some idea of
the concentration of the virus in the culture but none of these are direct measurements of
the number of particles none of them are direct measurements of the contents of the particles
and none of them are are measurements of the ability to really replicate high fidelity because
a plaque assay is just cells cells making a re having a reaction to what you put on them
if something is growing in a plaque assay to call that definitively replication of virus
up until now maybe was a bit of hand waving that they got away with but recently we have these
techniques called nanopores this technique called direct nanopore sequencing that gives us the
opportunity to look at what's really happening in that in that preparation so that's what i want
to do here next so the question is um in the natural infectious cycle what's the ratio
between good particles up here in the colored and bad particles the ones that don't have any
color and depending on this ratio of course we would understand the infectiousness and we would
understand the infectious cycle very differently and so i want to remind everybody of a positive
that i've been making for some time which is whatever viruses are they can't make cells do
something that they don't already do and i'm going to argue that cells are making and using
vesicles to communicate with one another all the time and that a coronavirus is likely just
an obligate pathogen that briefly hijacks that same machinery to make a few imperfect copies of
itself it's a bit more like a noise or dirt on a record than it is a pathogen per se and i think
the best way to see it is to see it through nanopore sequencing why is nanopore sequencing so
exciting well at the start of the pandemic even we were told and explained that sanger sequencing
is the gold standard for sequencing any biological entity and certainly for sequencing this coronavirus
sanger sequencing is not something where you can take a long strand of DNA let's say 30,000
base pairs like a coronavirus is purported to be made up and sequence it from beginning to end
like a lot of these other diagnostics they are limited by the need to to amplify the molecules
and make many copies of them before you're able to sequence them and in sanger sequencing you're
limited to the length of the PCR amplicon that you can raise up and i'm going to just throw
something out there i don't know if this is the correct answer i think the longest amplicons are
somewhere between 300 and 500 bases it could be a thousand the point is is that the PCR reactions
that are required to do a whole sequencing of the coronavirus is in between 99 and 106 depending
on which product you use 99 amplicons are looked for and amplified and then a computer lines up
all those amplicons and comes up with a consensus sequence that it spits out and says this is the
variant that was inside you and if a certain number of those amplicons don't amplify
then the sequencing reaction will be said to fail direct nanopore sequencing is a new technique
where they use a modified ion channel protein which is a protein that can sit in a lipid bilayer
and allow salts to move through like sodium or potassium if it's open and if it's closed nothing
can move through and what they've done is taken a couple of different ion channels and modified
them so that when DNA or RNA passes through the channel and there's a voltage on either side of
the membrane the voltage will change in predictable ways as the the the bases pass through the channel
and if they do this enough times they get many reads and there's no limit to the size of the
molecule which is capable of going through the nanopore up to two million bases can be read
continuously in these preparations so this is an exciting new addition to the toolbox of
virology because for the first time now instead of using a gel to look at the total contents of a
infectious an infection in a cell culture we can look at the particles and count them and see what
we see when we look for the RNAs that are produced during infection so the idea is of course depicted
in this cartoon here that the RNA which is this little pearls here are wrapped around the end
protein and then those get all organized into a nice neat genome ball that is invaginated into
an endosome the endosome already has the spike protein expressed on the inside so that when
the the genome is assembled it's perfect and ready to go so the question is how often does this happen
and what evidence do we have that it happens all the time in this paper that I showed you earlier
that I brought up direct RNA nanopore sequencing of full-length coronavirus genomes they take
and they use let's see if I can see it recombinant viruses and total RNA isolation were performed
as previously briefly full-length cDNA copies of the genomes of human coronavirus 229e and a
couple other ones were engineered into recombinant vaccinia viruses using previously described methods
in those methods they make many copies of the RNA using a virus and a that that infects a certain
cell type it's a little bit more complicated than how it's done now but it works to make many many
perfect copies of the RNA of the HCO that's human coronavirus 229e one of the four that's
known to be endemic so what they're going to do is they're going to put it into a cell culture
you don't need to see this this is just showing you how they they create the recombinant coronavirus
and lots of it you can check that out later and what they're going to do is put it into the
cell culture and then they're going to look in the cell culture to see what RNA they can find
because a full genome RNA would be a a virus subgenomic RNA will be RNA that's being used by
the cell to make spike protein and protein and protein and all the other proteins that are necessary
for the assembly and copy of the virus and a lot of the infectious cycle is hand waving for these
virologists because they don't want you to quantify well really how many viral particles are
there how much of this RNA is actually packaged where does it all go they don't want to answer
those questions but they do have some answers this paper by the way is from 2019 so what they
find when they look are different RNAs and they have them listed here the longest one is RNA one
that's the entire genome that's what you would expect it to be the predominant form in the dish
if all that's happening is it's making lots of copies of the virus then most of the RNA we
should find in there should be full-length genomes packaged in balls ready to infect the next cell
underneath here we have other RNAs of different lengths including the S protein and protein etc
so let's look at what they find in the sample they find the longest leads are 26,000 base pairs
that's pretty good that's almost the full genome that's a pretty good coverage you can never get
that with Sanger sequencing but they find lots of other small ones and there's lots of errors
because this isn't perfect but whatever we've got long pieces so that's great let's see how
they come out quantity-wise so if you see the coverage here this is the the number of of amplicons
that they find a number of RNA species that they find so this is 10 to the fourth that's that's
isn't that 10,000 so if you go here they're finding more closer to 60 or 80 or 90
thousand is that what it is of the N protein RNA and I don't know what is that 40,000 of the M
20,000 of the E around a few hundred of the S and actually if we go to the circle diagram
to show the coverage they only found two RNAs that seem to cover most of the genome
two so hundreds of thousands of N protein RNAs are present which would do fine on a PCR test
hundreds of spike protein RNAs are presents which would do fine on a PCR test but full-length
genomes they only found two using this state-of-the-art sequencing technology
that doesn't need amplification is it biased by PCR just throw it all through it can read the RNA
and the DNA and they only found two full-length genomes in a cell culture that was transfected
with a clone that was supposed to have millions of particles of full genomes had two and hundreds
of thousands of the N protein RNA alone what this means is their cartoon of how this looks
has been defined already a long time ago let's look at this old paper when we look at this old
paper and we look at the gel which separates the sub genomic RNAs from the full genomes
and they're looking for all of this to try and quantify the difference they find N protein huge
band S protein huge band E protein huge band M protein huge band full-length genome is a shadow
very much almost undetectable so they've known this for 20 years the viruses don't replicate
like the cartoons that they show in their talks the viruses don't replicate like the cartoons that
they show in their grants that that viruses don't replicate like the cartoons that they show that
underlie pandemic potential of them and so what if we have been misled about the infectious cycle
we clearly we have been PBS NewsHour still talks like it's just a virus with variants and the
variants are consistent across your household and that you can see them and that they're there
they've never explained to you what the swarm is they've never explained to you the contents of
the swarm they've never told you that the vast majority of particles in a in an infection are
not infectious and the reason why they haven't told you that is because then the whole story of
zero prevalence being paramount will unravel then the whole story of while we got to block all
these particles will unravel the the story of super spreading events will unravel because you
can see if these non-infectious particles can still cause irritation in the people in your house
a sore throat a cough for a couple days you might imagine that that's infectiousness
when it's actually just shedding of non-infectious particles by somebody infected with the coronavirus
and I think that a lot of older doctors have had this feeling in their gut for many many years
that the way that that infectious disease spreads is not as cartoon simple as they've been told
since they started their thing so why are we isolating it the way we are why can't we culture
it this is all explained by under a better understanding of the infectious cycle I think
that's where we are the tv has told us that these are the dangers and in reality the only
dangerous purity if they make enough of one of these and they put it in enough places they can
tell us the story of spread that isn't backed up by any of the biology that they've done previously
but will have all the molecular signatures and the brief the brief fidelity and sort of
obviousness to the doctors that while there was clearly an illness of course there was an illness
but it was likely an illness caused by a release of a clone so that they could claim a uniform
molecular signal around the world claim that there was a pandemic for which these non-specific
tests were specific for and then as it went on the explanation would shift from there is a virus
to its different variants to whatever and that all allows them to absorb what's in the background
so if you want to pause here then i've got those those those best cartoons of the total
explanation i think everybody old up so i could ask a question yeah you bet you
so what we really begin to say because remember i said from my own and from my own
point of view that this was a hoax and a fraud from day one in terms of what we were dealing with
that this was never really a pandemic that this was never really a lethal
pathogen as was presented to us and we shut the world down before and many of us were damaged
because of what we were seeing and it didn't come forward with a narrative but what you are
you are given a very cogent high-level presentation here basically is saying that
we are potentially looking at a release multiple places across the world
how am i going so far jig it's perfect i mean this is the only way and i think this is the
cartoon that i'm about to present really explains why it has to be that way and why
the best part about it i think in and we talked about this that's what got you excited i think is that
it means that very few people are totally wrong it means very few people just totally got it wrong
tony fauci definitely got it all wrong i mean these people for sure but people like you and me
and people that are fighting on one side or the other they have not seen ghosts they are seeing
real things they are seeing real contradictions there are real incongruencies here and i think
the story or that's let's say this the hypothesis that lines the most of these incongruencies up for
the most people that think that they're arguing against one another is the idea that this virus
was in the background previously or related viruses are in the background from previous and that makes
the test a specific and it's really that simple and once you once you grasp how much that could
explain in combination obviously with the dumb protocols that were instituted on the back of the
test it there's there's almost no need for a virus anymore and the only reason why you need
the virus is to see the molecular pattern to make sure that the molecular biologists in Italy were
like whoa it matches and the people in Iran were like wow it matches and the people in
Washington were like holy man it matches because then they're all fooled they're done
the biology is there and they're not going to question it because this idea was never offered
to them on tv ever once it was forced on them as a novel thing and the biology that they saw in the
very beginning matched up even the doctors that's the trick so let's see this one is this one here
so if we first of all i'm gonna the graphics are going to get just a little bit mixed up but
you won't you won't be confused by the first scenario that Tony Fauci presented us to us in
the very beginning and pretended like that this was the only possibility is the natural bat
cave virus i have the planet earth in green because the protocols the lockdown they didn't hurt anybody
the vaccines have saved lives in this story there is a natural bat cave virus that escapes
in china it travels around the world and as it travels around the world it's changing
those changes are pretty uniform at some point there was a new variant in africa depicted in blue
that blue omicron variant went around the earth and now that we're here in 2023 a shoot i forgot
to put the years on here these are every these are meant to be different years so here's the
start of the pandemic then 2020 2021 2022 and 2023 and so this is the tv story right we couldn't
have done anything about it we were trying but we couldn't did jump it's going to jump again
for sure it's because of climate change and there's too many people in yada yada yada
in this scenario novel coronaviruses can jump from other species and they can do pandemics
the pcr false positives were rare asymptomatic spread was real and there was only some over
counting actually most of the time we are under counting the variants are evidence of both spread
and the continuing evolution of a single novel virus and we spend money studying viruses on
gain of function research these are all what people on that watch like cnn believe so then maybe
there's some people on fox now or republicans that have been convinced that it's a laboratory
bat cave virus so in this case it was in a lab it doesn't even have to be fixed or changed or
altered it just has to be a virus that was brought from the wild into a laboratory and then escaping
through a lab worker leaking out of a out of the wastewater and again we have the same pattern
but in this scenario let's just throw in the fact that the lockdowns were damaging let's throw in
the fact that the protocols that we rolled out didn't help everybody we can even speculate that
maybe omicron was a second release which is a lot of people's speculation that
omicron is so different than the previous virus that it has to be a second release
so in this story there are multiple bat cave viruses there is possibilities of multiple
releases but it's a virus itself that can go around the world like a firecracker and so again
and novel viruses can jump from species they can also leak from labs pcr positives are rare
asymptomatic spread is real and there's some over counting variants or evidence of spread
and continuing evolution of the virus and some fringe people even say that omicron was one of
those two but the vast majority of them just say that a lab leak virus could do this for four years
because we spend money on getting a function research so this is where
we can pause this is basically the trap that most people in america and around the world are in
and this is what i mean by the scooby-doo for the people who aren't living in america scooby-doo is
a show about teenagers that follow a list and series of clues to figure out a mystery and my
suggestion is is that they laid clues for the left and for the right clues in the form of drama
in front of congress clues in the form of foyer requests clues in the form of partially redacted
emails so their irrespective of whether you were on the red or the blue team you were eventually
going to be led down a mystery path where you pulled the mask off the bad guy and it's a lab leak
and it could happen again and as long as you come to those two conclusions that it was a
virus and it's a scary one and that it could happen again your children and your grandchildren will
be trapped forever in a biology that is not supported in the literature at all and doesn't
really acknowledge almost half of the things that we know when we look back in in retrospect from
three years and that's what's most important here i'm just going to very quickly
add a few things it doesn't matter if you fight and say that the vaccine is bad
if you accept gain-of-function viruses it doesn't matter if you say that the lockdown hurt people
and you accept gain-of-function virus you're still stuck and so are your grandchildren
the only way out is to not accept the premise that a virus can be released from a point
and circle the globe for multiple years infecting millions killing millions it's just not possible
and so the scenario three that has emerged that emerged actually very early in 2020 already in the
background was this idea that there are no viruses at all and so this third scenario has
been trapping more and more people that i know based on what i've been saying because people have
started to say that looks like dr cooey doesn't believe in viruses anymore but that's so disingenuous
and so far from the truth it's frustrating but there are lots of people from the very beginning
that have been promoting a narrative of no virus at all and this is also a trap
so the fourth and final scenario is that it's previously in the endemic background so i hope
this comes out right in animation wise so that i can explain it as correct as possible
in the background at the start of the pandemic there were a number of known human coronaviruses
in addition there were a number of unknown human coronaviruses all of which were in circulation
all of which had a geographic organization to one another there might be different ones in
asia than there are in africa and there might be different variants in north america and south
america but there are human coronaviruses in circulation and many of them are related to sars
and the reason why is because the original sars pandemic in 2002 it didn't disappear
the lab releases that occurred in 2003 four six and nine didn't just disappear
because we locked down or we controlled them and the countless number of lab leaks that have
occurred that have never made the newspapers have also not disappeared but rather have contributed
to the background coronavirus that causes unknown respiratory disease every year for millennia
on this background if you were to release a a infectious clone that was molecularly identical
in several places in the world and simultaneously told people how to test for it
you could claim that there was a pandemic occurring that release would create a very
brief period of time where the pink virus would be available and would produce positives on three
amplicons the end protein the RNA dependent polymerase and the spike but you would get many
false positives that would get you the end protein and the RNA dependent polymerase on
the bcr without triggering the spike because those were the background viruses that didn't
have this spike on it as a result false positives occurred depending on which test you used because
not all tests in 2020 required the spike many required two of three amplicons
so if you got the spike in the end you were positive if you got the spike and the
RNA dependent RNA polymerase you were positive and if you got the RNA dependent polymerase and the
end you were positive it depended on what product and it depended on what lab was running it
the point is that at a certain moment in the pandemic it turned out that the pink virus was
gone but it doesn't matter you know why because they called omicron s protein drop out
so tests that no longer showed the spike protein but still tested positive for the
end and the RNA dependent polymerase were called covid-19 but they were actually
infections of the background coronaviruses that have those same homologous genes but not
the Wuhan spike and they very craftily knew that they could do this they very craftily knew
that this would work because they probably already knew the contents of this background
better than they let us on it's that simple because that's what leads us here to where there are
variants there's an infant story to tell and they can even say that the the countermeasure that
they rolled out forced these variants into existence it's a magic thing where what they did had
had consequences that could be viewed and measured around the world that's how spectacular their
transfection is but what's unique about this hypothesis is that in this scenario PCR false
positives are not all false but a lot of the positives are just bringing up one of these other
viruses sequences reported that variants are real but not real variants of the Wuhan sequence
this is a very carefully controlled and tie rate titrated narrative about a very a virus that is
changing when we don't know we have no reason to doubt that they already knew this whole catalog
at the start that they already knew what would be in the background and what they what sequences
they could bring out they could have already arranged them in the correct order so that as
the variants came out that the computers would all necessarily put them in the right file of
genetic order this would be trivial to orchestrate if this background existed and we know it does
we absolutely positively know it does because before this that's what coronavirus people studied
now this signature was likely created by the deployment of an aerosolized RNA or DNA that
would cause consistent respiratory disease locally and then had a detectable molecular
signature that could be identified as a coronavirus more importantly to understand if you are infected
with a clone you will have a different viral load than if you are infected with a natural virus if
I can just draw a cartoon on a piece of paper quick because I don't have a slide for this
um can you whoops that's not what I wanted can you see this Paul here yeah okay so
the thing that I want to explain is the idea of of what happens with a clone versus when you get
infected with a natural virus so the the point is is that in both of these infections we're
going to get infected by 10 virins okay 10 virions that means 10 viral particles are going to infect
this guy and 10 viral particles are going to infect this guy the star guy is going to be infected
with a natural virus 10 virins and this one's going to be infected with a clone so a natural
virus in this stupid scenario is a one to ten replication competent that means it's going to
make one two three four five six seven eight nine and one replication competent virion for every
ten that it makes and then a clone of course is going to be pure so one two three four five six
seven eight nine ten and they're all going to be replication competent but the point is is that
once the clone starts replicating in the infection or the natural virus starts replicating in the
infection then what we get afterward depends on the starting state if you start with a clone
and it replicates exactly the same as the natural virus once you release it then these 10 particles
10 will each make 10 copies of themselves but only one of those copies will be infectious
because they're replicating RNA so at the end of one round of replication in a clone infection
you will have I think this works out 90 non-infectious particles and you will have 10 plus 10
so you'll have 20 infectious particles because these 10 are here and you'll make 10 more
does that make sense if you start with a natural virus you're going to start with one two three
four five six seven eight nine plus one replicating virus and that replicating virus is going to make
one two three four five six seven eight nine ten nine imperfect copies of itself and one
perfect copy of itself so can you see why this infection isn't going to be very infectious why
this infection isn't very dangerous why this infection would be really hard to culture from
but this infection would be a joke this infection would be easy to culture from and this infection
would be a very severe viral load upon the start it's totally different if you were exposed to
a bat cave you would be exposed to this ratio of particles if you were exposed to a clone
you're exposed to a hundred percent infectious particles and that difference extends into the
replication cycles and even in this simple experiment or example where I say that the replication
competence is one to ten the reality is according to the paper we looked at that the replication
competence could be one in four hundred thousand and that difference means is that the vast majority
of the particles when you're sick that you cough out are immunogenic to the people in your family
it will teach their immune system about the end protein and about the S protein and about the M
protein but it won't be replication competent so they'll get symptoms for a little while but
they won't get sick it's the reason why lots of people who had people in their house with the
original infection are also serum positive and this is the beauty of this is that you get to the
stage where you can see that this is mostly almost exclusively lying there's no there's no magic
virus there's no scary laboratories there's no bioterrorism there's no uncontrollable entity
there's no variables it's just very consistent lying and very consistent lying will create a
permanent bioterror bioweapon natural virus risk of a pandemic or that a super national organizations
or set of organizations could govern the world on into infinity if we accept their cartoon biology
of how this works i think that's about the best summary i can do well another words j what you're
doing is um in your look we spoke before and i told you things that in a minute say what we said
on this call yeah maybe you're subsequent but first of all if if johnnie on his street johnnie
needs to see this a couple of times stuff because it's very shocking in other words because you're
gonna you are asking people to think in a completely not that johnnie on his street would
johnnie and she might understand this better than even medical doctors who actually have two hours of
immunology and virology and vaccinology and even common sense so but the point i'm making is you
are actually saying what people like myself were arguing which is that from the get-go this was
benign and mild mild enough this is my argument gee and tell me if it fits with your presentation
that had we done nothing had we done nothing no lock thumbs no school clothes of nothing
just just isolate anybody who's really sick with symptoms no vaccine nothing no therapeutics
just make sure that people who develop pneumonia which which is most likely elderly people
etc got their antibiotics we have lost a vast vast number of fewer people in other words
every single thing that we did from lock thumbs to to to the therapeutics that we use to the
vaccines and to how we treated people in the hospital setting which is the situation with
my dazzle arm the lack of antibiotics they do not resuscitate the pump emitter gram decivir
the ventilation etc the toxic drugs the isolation that is what killed our people not
this benign virus as you just explained it am i correct i i i you're nine nine nine nine nine
percent there in the sense of i do think that that we have to keep
open the possibility that they that the clone uh molecular entity that they use to create the
signal that molecular biologists and hospitals experienced around the world which is symptomology
and you know culturable virus um was done with a clone and so that means that as i drew in that
picture the people that were infected with the clone or near the release point were likely
experiencing a very severe respiratory disease but that respiratory disease did not have the
capability of propagating around the world from any of those points and that's what we need to see
why wasn't the southern why wasn't it two weeks later that hospitals in the south of Italy had
exactly the same as what they had in northern nearly why didn't that happen it's not because
of lockdown because that's not how viruses work those people were on the train those people were
going back and forth but somehow where these extremely sharp peaks of death like in new york
city in the beginning happened probably happened where the clone was released and so if my hypothesis
correct then the reason why these early treatments like hydroxychloroquine or ibramectin early in 2020
were so effective is because where they were being given to people that hadn't a unnatural
viral load that could only be generated by exposure to a clone and that's what makes this very tricky
yeah in other words that's where we back it up to what we're seeing you were right and you were
wrong and that's what you were trying to see yes we are not coming out we're trying to get people
to think in a different way to appear as you say behind the curtain we're not saying that you
were wrong so in other words what you are just said is early treatment hydroxy ibramectin the
the that mccollinies people fashioned you know multi-sequence combined antivirals corticosteroids
etc had has its place in these types of respiratory illnesses but for most severe illness in other
words if i am if i'm trying to understand what these slides are showing and what the argument
here is and what what we are asking people to think about is that benign more low level non-consequential
infection cannot really respond to early treatment it may be a wash in other words you know it may
be a wash yes that's what i'm trying to see and and that is why when we say that the vaccine
cannot work did not work it's in other words if i even back it up one more step what i'm saying
the one thing that we did here for sure was take lives with the treatment of people and bringing
this gene injection that is seemingly killing people in other words again had we done nothing
the early treatment have its place and role yet for initial release of clones direct
clue serious serious virus am i i'm trying to just put my yeah so remember that one of the
arguments i am trying to make or i'll bring it up again not remember i don't want to sound
condescending it's a lot of disparate ideas that the purity of the virus is more important
than the content of it so they want you to believe that a particular combination of genes
or a particular inserted sequence on a particular spike protein can result in a in a in a
in a virus that's now capable of producing a pandemic where without that little gene or
without that little insert it wasn't it was just a normal one and this is a is a shiny object
that they can talk very complicated about and give you all kinds of papers that show that this
particular sequence is really important in this experiment and blah blah blah blah but what they're
talking around is the the what i would argue is the real problem that if you make a pure version
of any of these corona viruses and make it in sufficient quantities then someone who gets
infected with that pure viral swarm will have a noticeably more severe respiratory infection
with a noticeably higher viral load than can be created if you stumble into a bat cave and get
sick and that's because the clone is so pure and so replication competent that it can create
a level of virus replication that's not it doesn't exist in nature if a regular natural virus produces
one in ten and a clone starts out ten for ten then you are really in trouble if you get in
think of it this way paul if you go out into the sandbox behind your house there is a small
quantity of uranium and no matter how much you pound on that sand with a hammer it's never
going to result in a nuclear explosion but if you take enough dirt from your backyard and you take
all the uranium out of it and you put it in one tiny little place you can create a little nuclear
bomb it is the purity of the virus that they create with infectious clones that cannot even
doesn't it cannot exist in nature and when they release it it exponentially reverts back to this
non-infectious particles swarm and so it's only at these points of release where the biology
and the math and the epidemiology can add up to this supremely uniform molecular signature this
is the part where most of the mystery gets solved because there's just no way for a virus to to
to make as many perfect copies of itself as would be required for the story on television
in other words what you're saying is based on how virus operates in the natural environment in the
wild and let's say let's even use that to a mule's ratchet that over time viruses would in their
replication in the mutations that are coming would mutate downwards into less less lethal
mowing factors but less pathological versions that's what you're arguing that that left
in its own that's where we're going to go and if we accept that this was a release of using let's
use it to impure if I clone yes initially that with time the virus would settle down and become
behave like how it should but that initial release likely across the world simultaneously
or near simultaneously those people who were exposed in the initial waves were the people
who suffered pathology and were our loved ones who died yes but subsequent subsequent to that
people died principally because of the lockdowns how we treated them within the medical system
and now this devastating vaccine that we brought that was to me never needed no I think actually if
you look at the the immunology of it and realize that that the other implication of the hypothesis
that we're currently discussing is that vaccination to a structural protein of a coronavirus could
interfere with our previously existing immunity to the endemic background and what they may have done
with the people that took the shot is taken their very strong innate and acquired immunity
developed over their whole life to the background coronaviruses and reset it or
or augmented it in a way that doesn't help them in the future and this has been seen with other
viruses when you vaccinate people against dengue fever or a yellow dengue fever and you vaccinate
them with the with the attenuated or weakened virus they make antibodies to the structural protein
and those antibodies end up making the next infection much worse and the inflammation
response to the next infection much worse and so there's a possibility that when a lot of people
are experiencing is that the whatever happened in terms of augmenting their immune system by
exposing them to lots and lots of this imperfect spike protein product has caused their natural
immune memory to the background coronaviruses to fail and that's why a lot of these people
are getting sick that's why they're getting repeatedly infected you don't have to say they're
getting repeatedly infected with covid they're just getting infected again and it's because
their immune system is no longer functioning normally other than that i don't know what to say
other than their immune system is not functioning normally my kids haven't been sick really this
school year but um they have friends who are who are twice injected that their mom laughs
about how often they have to stay at home and they went from strep to something else to something
else and you can just shake your head and say i told you not to do this but people are going to
have to learn that that we have very good understanding of what um what limitations there are to how
we can augment the adult immune system and the kid immune system and we have just thrown all
of this basic understanding out the window when it comes to vaccines in america and as a result
unfortunately a lot of the other western nations are more or less following behind they're not nearly
as bad um but the vaccine industry in america is is is just a farce i mean we already know that
it's a farce well j two things quick i want to mention
findin bosh one yes i'll ask i'll ask you a question too i'll mention um the uk in the report 42
i'm trying to remember it exactly because there's so many like yourself papers always in our head
there was one i think report 42 in um 2022 earlier on march and they stopped reporting
and in the report 42 they said that something unique and it was one line hidden deep inside
of that report that was showing that you vaccinated are actually second and second shot third shot
will become more infected than you unvaccinated but it was a line that was inserted in the in
the discussion section that unless you found it it was in fine print they said that persons who got
two shots and then were infected they found that they were not producing end protein
an antibody that's correct and that that gets yes that's a huge huge evidence it's a huge
it's a huge red flag again because what they argue is that they've augmented your natural
immune response and it turns out that at least from a seroprevalence perspective the strongest
signal in a natural infection is the end protein which if i can remind you what we just
looked at please remember that this all matches up perfectly if we look at this old paper
ah no that's not the right slide all on one second let me just move it uh if we look at this
old paper here and we look at the the data from their their gel get up here and get it in here
you can see that already back way back when they've looked at this and the largest portion of RNA
that's produced during a clone infection in a dish is the end protein RNA that means there is no
doubt that the most abundant protein in an affected cell is the end protein so it makes perfect sense
given their own data that the first and most prevalent immune response to this would be the
end protein here's the problem though Paul the end protein is a highly conserved protein across
lots of corona viruses because it is the protein around which the genomic RNA is purported to be
wrapped so if you change that protein too much it won't be able to not up the the RNA in a correct
way to make the packaging go so the end protein almost can't change so if they made you uh if
they forced you or or suggested to vaccinate you against that that would have actually maybe been
a very good target for a one shot shot but they knew that they knew that that's been already
discussed a long time ago they've tried the end the the homologous protein of the end protein
with AIDS it's not a suitable target for immunization either that's just already been tested
it's terrible yeah but i mean it's i mean to a non-birologist like myself
when i look at it i would ask myself for immunologist i would say why then
looking even though you say it's not a good target they actually chose the most unstable
mutable portion of the virus to pose as a target so it's almost as though jay it was designed to
fail yes yes i totally agree with that it that it was it was designed to because they could get
more shots in arms they could get they could justify it they could explain the the evolution
of the virus it's all part of the planned story but i think you if you could go back and do the drawing
again because i think in presenting this as the first salvo is the first salvo people need to
understand that concentration of purity that you argued about can you go back with a clean
pH again sure sure no problem i'll draw it a little better that is what the late person needs
to wrap there because your whole theory this whole theory spins on this issue here
so i'm going to just draw the same thing with squares these are two people
um this is a dude here and this is a dude here so the star guy is his lungs are going to be
infected with a clone and the circle guy is going to be infected with a natural virus
so the first posit here is that a natural virus when it makes copies of itself it makes
imperfect copies of itself and all virology understands this all virology calls these
non-infectious particles or defective viral particles something like that and so for the
purpose of this illustration we are going to use a ratio of one to ten meaning that when it
makes a copy of itself nine copies will be non-replication competent they will be erroneous
they'll missing something they didn't copy perfectly and so they're not good enough
to make another person sick but one will be a perfect copy we'll color that one in
that one has all the genes necessary to go on and infect another person it might even be better
than the original virus like a new variant but the rest of these can't do anything other than
irritate the lungs of anybody that they get into now if we make a clone of this wild virus
what we're going to do is we're going to make a DNA copy of it
right we're going to make a DNA copy of it and that DNA copy we can grow up lots of copies of it
in a bottle with bacteria in it and that results in many many many copies of the same RNA
after we're done with it and so that means rather than getting infected with a natural virus
we can put as many perfect copies of the virus as we want into our our experimental animal or in
this case our experimental person so and to make these similar and to understand the difference
between a natural infection and a clone infection we're going to use 10 particles so we're going to go
one two three four five six seven eight nine ten for these particles here being in our friend
the circle and then we're going to take 10 cloned particles that we grew in a dish after we
exposed the dish to the RNA that we made from copies of DNA so perfect copies of this virus
we took this virus alone this sequence and we made lots of copies of it so this guy gets 10
one two three four five six seven eight nine ten and this is the difference because now we're
going to go through one cycle of replication meaning that all the all the viruses that can copy
will copy themselves and they will copy themselves in the normal way that the RNA will copy it's
RNA it can't be perfect it's perfect when it's DNA you can make as many copies as you want here
when it's in the in the bacteria and they'll all be perfect or really close to perfect but once
you translate them into RNA and let the RNA go into your dish or your RNA be passaghed or your RNA
go into a person or in an animal then it's RNA copying RNA and so then it's going to go revert
back to the normal ratio of 10 to 1 so then what happens in the first round of replication well
you get 90 non-replicating particles because each one of these will make 10 nine that can't
copy and one that can so out of all these 10 there will be 90 that cannot copy that's the open
circle and there will be 10 that can copy themselves so in total after one round of replication in
this person's imaginary lungs there are 110 particles 20 of which are replication competent
particles and 90 are non-replication competent and all of those can irritate your kids all of
those can irritate your grandparents all of these can cause new infection in anyone that they get
into now let's look at the natural infection well it's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
after one round of infection in the natural infection most of the particles here are not
infectious only two of them is infectious most important thing to understand is that this guy is
only fighting against two infected actively infected cells whereas after one round of replication in
the lungs of a clone infection up to 20 different cells are now making viruses it is a step up
from the natural infection by at least 10 fold and now this is on the very simple math of one for
every 10 is infectious and what I'm trying to argue is that the the slides and the papers that
we have looked at suggest and maybe this is maybe the slide that I should use suggest
that hundreds of thousands of RNAs of the m protein are made hundreds of thousands of the
m protein hundreds of thousands of the e protein are made all of which could potentially be packaged
as as as non-replication competent variants because they're RNA they're doing something they're
in the sample they're measuring them they're counting them as present how else can we explain
the non-infectious particles if we look further for the long form RNAs they found two
so for me the best explanation would be go back one slide and say well the ratio of
n protein containing particles to full genome containing particles is somewhere between 100,000
to 1 and 500,000 to 1 that changes our little our little calculation on the paper an awful lot
if a natural infection is one out of 100,000 and a clone is one for one now we have a very very
big problem because a natural coronavirus infection is a viral load with a ratio of one to 100,000
and we know how to fight that we have normal immune responses to it we have normal inflammatory
responses to it what happens yes but what happens if we are infected with a pure infectious clone
where the ratio at the start of the infection is one to one now we have a very big problem
because that means that instead of instead of inhaling a cloud that will only actually irritate
a lot of cells and infect a couple you inhale a cloud that will infect every cell that it interacts
with and irritate every cell that it interacts with and that is the exponential difference
between sorry a clone infection and oh yeah I got to escape out of there and and what we were talking
about is a natural swarm infection and and keep in mind that that everywhere in every laboratory
they are using infectious clones so everywhere that you would get infected in a laboratory you're
going to get infected with a clone not with a natural swarm this this increases the danger of
laboratory work but it actually also shifts it completely away from what they told you it was
which is these people making unique combinations it has very little to do with the unique combinations
and much more to do with the pure nature of of these clones that's where the danger is and maybe
even worse that's where their utility is the only way that they could usefully convert a harmless
background of coronaviruses into something that they could monetize and govern us about forever
is to make us believe that that very safe and and and and and and uh friendly background of
coronavirus is actually a very dangerous set of pathogens that is even more dangerous because
there are people like peter desak tweaking around with genes and making combinations that wouldn't
exist in nature and it completely distracts you from the fact that the real danger is that they make
these high purity DNA derived versions of these RNA viruses and if once you understand that then
you can see that the biology of those RNA viruses is not high enough fidelity it is not
robust enough to produce the pandemic that they've told us it is produced
so nothing worked because nothing could work yeah something like that indeed are very
you know like um this this conversation has gone on for longer and i know you allowed me to
sit in and just ask question but for the second um segment would you be allowing the other
participants to ask questions and also um when would we have the second uh what would be where
would we go yet how could we move forward with this um the second one could be a little bit more
in depth and cover some questions that people can send to you or me in the next 24 hours
for example another thing that we can focus on is right now we didn't really talk about the
immunology at all we could do a very brief overview about the real response to a respiratory virus and
why seroprevalence and antibodies are a distraction which is something that i think everybody should
understand you shouldn't take my word for it and so i that could be a really good subject
actually is just do the basic response to a respiratory disease and and uh what we knew before
2020 and then how they've told us you know that this these products are supposed to work so that's
another thing we could discuss is transfection and why uh why the why i call it a transfection why
everybody should call it a transfection and why you should be very suspicious of transfection being
used in animals that are supposed to live for 20 more years um i think that might be a couple
good things to hit in other words jay i agree with you so maybe even if not Friday to be as
Wednesday tomorrow might be difficult you know we could even find time over the weekend i don't
know if you're cool i'm always not i i meet whenever i meet where you tell me the time and i
will fire this up i could make myself available Saturday or Sunday and um i like that i like that
topic and and the way what i'm suggesting is because because i myself want to share this across all
the groups i'm working with to begin this come because you have i think the main message here is
nobody is right and nobody is wrong and we have to be able to be adults in this discussion or
we are we are scientists we are we are doctors we are we are the public the public actually is
more advanced than scientists to me but we are people who are thinking all of us the public all
of us together we are part of humanity we are part of this society so let's not put distinctions
behind us here but we are so grateful i'm so grateful but somebody like you amongst other
people that i have known but you have you have you have explained something that is
that is so very complicated yet so elegant is simple because because you did not overwhelm
our still listener and i guess a lot of your people who follow you are sophisticated
biochemists and all sorts of different things um skill sets i mean but you did not try to do
that here you're trying to make people understand your thinking you may not be you're not trying
to force it than anyone you're asking people to think right absolutely i i just i can't stress
enough you give me the time i'll schedule it i'll blast it out and on the meantime i'm gonna take
this video and cut all the nonsense out of the beginning and shorten some of the things that i
just to make sure it's it's crystal and then we'll put that up on youtube and bit shooting
everywhere else in a couple hours can you well let me ask you a question can you also give me
all of the when you take all the edges that you say like they are chatting you know whatever
doesn't matter to me but it could stay but can you give me a copy because i like of course yes
absolutely so yeah that's gab twitter everywhere absolutely so but what i'm saying is what you're
trying to say is that um we need to figure out what really went wrong here because lots went wrong
and at the end of the day we have a reported one million people in america died alone and the
question is really we need to know how much of that was from real virus and we are beginning to
argue not that appreciable portion many people we can't discount it this virus this whatever it was
was devastating to some very vulnerable people no doubt but what we begin to argue is that
is that the things that went wrong here need a real serious sophisticated thinking now
with a very elegant explanation but it's sophisticated that you that you willing to step back and say
you know what my preconceived notions of what happened was wrong oh it's it it it now it has
been updated and i have to be willing to consider at least consider what j is saying what we are
trying to argue because i'm in this discussion with you because i actually accept in total
what we are seeing i mean they have questions here and there but with all that i've been through
and see and know and read and i'm heavily read in the area i think this is one of the most logical
explanations because we are trying to make sense of what the hell happened and nothing makes sense
but this explanation does far and if we can evolve it more and but not any edges and stuff
i think i think that you have a very very cogent argument to be needed and um we have to get it
out there i love it i love it do you mind if i quickly before you go play that video that i
played for you of dr g or donald explaining how he would do it in 2017 okay just going to end on
that and then we'll we'll be ready for the next one early but i want is high morbidity i want
people to complain so what do i do i go to demoy ladies and gentlemen of people on the screen i
have nothing against demoy and i live there for four years i go to demoy i infect a couple of
sentinel cases in demoy i go to seattle i infect a couple of cases there i go to north carolina i
go to wisconsin what i'm doing is i'm using a dispersion methodology to be able to infect sentinel cases
with a highly morbid condition these individuals complain again this is a central nervous system
condition so they're complaining of whatever the bug may do it'll produce some cascade of
neurological and neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms and then what i do the real bug that i use
is the internet i take attribution for that yes i'm a terrorist group
and i have done this by infecting with a highly little agent and the first signs and symptoms of
lethality are x y and z these people are really sick with this but then i say others who are also
infected will show subdramal pre-dram signs of lethality and what that will be is anxiety
sleeplessness agitation what i've now done is i've got every individual who is diagnostically
hypochondriacal and i've got every individual who's the worried well flooding the public health system
banging on the door the cdc comes back and says nonsense that's not real i come back and say
that's fake news and as i just want to say that the chat is thanking you profusely for coming
they hope that you will come back and i know you will i can't thank you enough you like a new
brother i have from another mother i love it i love it i'm so grateful for you joining me
i think it's good to cut it off sharp here and just try to find a time when we can do it again
very soon and promise me that you will yes part two and i'll be here we just need to
spend a long time on the weekend please we can't we can't let too much time go and when we start
the next show if you could jay because this is really your and i want to put you out there i want
to make you center stage this is can you do a quick five-minute recap first of the first show
so that so that so the people we could then hit the floor running again at bill absolutely right
i we will do it yes thank you sir thank you very much thank you to all your listeners for
bearing with me thank you bearing with me he says can you believe what just happened
can you believe what just happened
Paul Elias Alexander was on the stream and we discussed the basic big ideas of an endemic
background and of a SARS infectious clone being used to see the idea of a pandemic he really likes
it he follows it well this is something that we need to push forward so if you want to help
and you never did before please sign up for twitter and share it put it on facebook
send it everywhere in a few minutes i'll have it up on vimeo where i can put a link on my it will
be on the first video on gig home biological and then you can also use that to link it to places
and then i'll try to get something up on bit shoot and rumble and stuff after
the afternoon i have a meeting with the writing team so i'm not sure if it'll be until three
but all of this is planned we're going forward and you heard
Dr. Alexander he's coming back for sure so get ready get fired up i told you that we weren't messing
around i told you that we were going to do something serious this is it so again thank you very
much for joining me this is getting a gig home biological high resistance low noise information
stream brought to you by a biologist i can't thank all my subscribers and supporters and
people to share my work enough we are finally starting to make progress i feel a real kind
of momentum here and i hope you do too i hope you're as excited as me i don't know if i'm going to
see you until tonight um in fact tonight i the the talk that i'm giving at at eight will not be
streamed but the the clubhouse meeting at four will be streamed so i guess i'll see you at four
thanks for coming and i'll see you guys again soon
so
So that was the name of the mysterious bear.
It turned out she was holding.
I had to tell so many stories about them,
so many rumors.
I thought someone told me that they had a talking bear.
I thought the bear would never speak it.
MUSIC