I said it was a it was a very interesting perspective worth having a look at in terms of.
Good afternoon, everybody.
This is Jonathan Cooley.
This is GigaOM Biological.
It's a high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
I am giving an immunology lecture today for the UK Doctors for COVID Ethics, and so I thought I'd let you join me.
It'll be a few minutes before we're on, but I thought I would kick off the stream a little early to make sure that you guys could all be here.
So I'll be here in a little bit.
Don't worry.
And that's what you hear in the background.
And I'll show you some of the images that we took.
I'm going to transition over right now to the meeting, so the music is going to fade out.
Agenda 2030 wants to eliminate the aviation industry anyway, so he wants planes falling out of the sky.
Well, if you're not allowed to go anywhere, then you don't need the aviation industry, do you?
And yet, if you look at the list of relevant stakeholders – which, of course, is not you and it's not me – who have been part of the secret negotiations for the amendments to the international health regulations, you see
IATA, the International Airlines Trade Association.
You see Ethiopian Airlines.
I wonder how they got to be important.
You see a great many other aviation bodies as part of the group negotiating to eliminate themselves.
Perhaps they're getting something else.
You never know.
Well, that's right.
The question that was, I think it was Teresa who first brought that element of Agenda 2030 to our attention.
when we had a pilot come and speak to it, come and present to us, or sorry, he made an extensive comment as I was doing this work for these pilots here who have lost their jobs.
So, and, you know, that was, that was surprising.
Part of the agenda is to, in fact, dismantle all the airports except one in each country.
Anyway,
Anyway, it's in the question of why would they dismantle that?
Well, people do amazing things for money, Rima, as we know, as we know.
All right, any other announcements of substance of that we need to know in the next two or three minutes before we get formally underway?
Nothing has happened of
of huge moment.
Have we had any news on the update on the Netherlands election by any chance?
Can anyone give us a numbers on that?
Charles, I have something really brief.
Tom, yep.
Yeah, so we came together for an anti-war demonstration in the super very cold weather, but the irony is you get libertarians and green party and PSA and the
In People's Party, they don't want to co-op.
It's only the rogue people from the mainstream that co-op.
So there's a lot of disagreement, unfortunately.
It's like, I won't go to your demonstration because you believe in thus and such.
So it's a real challenge.
Tom, your sound is very low.
Can you increase your input?
Yeah, I'm just saying that getting coalitions with people that have different left right viewpoints.
There's these purity tests and, but we had a really good anti war demonstration with libertarians and.
A little bit of Green Party people, but most of the Green Party people boycotted the DSA, boycotted the PSL people, boycotted.
It's just, it's sad.
Both good and bad.
Alright, pass.
Thank you.
Yeah, well, that's part of the challenge of the EU Parliament, isn't it?
All these different parties.
People say it's a better way to run a country that we have one party running it.
I doubt it when I look at Australia's story, because what happens is one person makes a decision, the prime minister, like the UK system, left and right and bang, that's it.
On the other hand, Vera, give us an update on what's happening in Israel with all the demonstrations which are not being reported in the mainstream media.
Well, you know, I'm not exactly in Israel, you know, I'm in New York, but the demonstrations are, you know, people don't want to give up the judiciary's independence.
You know, I mean, they're right.
Every aspect has been trampled on.
So, yeah.
I do want to say the one thing and maybe sometime you'll invite me to come back to talk about it, which is the five part documentary that I've launched and I'm very busy promoting that and just never again is now global and it features Holocaust survivors.
their children.
I watched all five.
Many people here have watched all five, Vera.
So, Stephen, there you are.
Vera would love to come back and address us on that.
Yes, you're very welcome, Vera.
So, I'm just trying to think you could come
I'm just trying to remember, either Sunday or Tuesday, next Sunday or the Tuesday afternoon.
I don't think I'm free then.
I'm getting booked all over and I'm traveling too.
So at some point I do want to squeeze in and perhaps you can screen one part, which then will open up to questions because it's divided up into five different segments.
So Vera, so which of those five episodes, so I have had one person ask me, which one of these should I watch?
Which do you think, was it the second or the third maybe?
I'm not really sure what to say about Nick and Panda censoring people because they have dropped a couple of people from the website because they had disagreements with them and I wasn't really sure how that worked.
Um, so it's a little, it's a little hard for me to say, um, we can talk about this more though.
If you bring it up again, I can, I can strongly encourage the test Lowry summary that she did with a bear.
It's spectacular.
And that they both did an overview and they covered a number of segments out of, out of the other five.
Thank you Glenn.
And it's shorter.
It's a 45 to 48 minutes.
Someone, something like that.
That would be great to watch that, Stephen.
It's a great idea.
Anyway, I better get into this, but Vera, so we watch that for 45 minutes and then questions would be great.
Excellent, excellent idea.
Whatever you want.
I think that it's always better to, you know, this is the only documentary about the Holocaust that actually is directed and produced by a Holocaust survivor.
So it is also the only one that covers then and now, the parallels.
I understand.
Very important.
Yes, I agree.
Yes, excellent.
But we've liked you from the very beginning, Vera.
OK, well, I had to do this.
So how long are you booked up for?
Just give me an idea.
Well, it varies.
I mean, we can talk offline.
That's OK.
Sure.
I don't want to take everyone's time.
I understand.
Yes.
Very good.
Thank you.
All right, I'll start the recording.
Yeah.
OK, just one moment.
Recording in progress.
So welcome, everybody, to Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International.
Welcome to today's discussion with our guest, Jonathan J Kuhi.
This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost of Wales in mid 2021 during the darkest days of the COVID scam responses with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom, and health.
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
So he clearly sees through most things and he can particularly see through crap.
Sadly, the need for this group is increasing, not decreasing.
The forces of evil globally are not disappearing.
I'm Charles Kovets, the moderator of this group.
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur.
And my jacket is red because red is the color of passion.
The people who attend this group are indeed passionate about the aims of this group.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 30 years ago.
And over the last 11 years, I have helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions, doctors, lawyers, naturopaths, homeopaths.
healers, journalists, engineers, Holocaust survivors, Vera, writers, researchers, film producers, scientists, dentists, nurses, investors, financiers, patent experts, professors and educators, primate experts, military, police, both ex rather than current, thinkers, philosophers, peacemakers and troublemakers.
And we're from the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Borneo, New Zealand, South Africa, Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, and from other places.
If you are from elsewhere, please put it in the chat.
Many of us thought the vaccines were okay up to three years ago.
Now, many of us proudly say, yes, we are indeed anti-vaxxers.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat.
We ask you show your name on the screen so we know who you are.
If you publish a newsletter or a podcast or you have a radio or TV show, or you have written a book.
put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.
And please do so at each of our discussions because people look at their recordings of this and each time we're happy to have those details in the chat.
This group meets at least twice weekly in a true spirit of exploration and discovery to increase our understanding of what's going on and how to more effectively preserve and fight
for truth, ethics, justice, freedom, and health.
Most of us understand that we're in the middle of World War II, and that there are various battle lines as part of this war.
Some of us believe we are in a continuation of World War III, and some of us believe we're in a continuation of World War II, or the 5G war.
Carl Sagan wrote, science requires an almost complete openness to all ideas.
On the other hand, it requires the most rigorous and uncompromising skepticism.
We understand the development of science.
Many of us here have become friends offline and also collaborated to fight World War III together in different ways.
If you want to contribute to someone who's doing some work, put your hand up and say, hey, I'm happy to volunteer.
And there are people who have organized groups in this call who will take you up on your offer.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours, after which, for those with the time, Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you are able to join.
We will listen to Jonathan J. Cooey, our guest presenter, for as long as he wishes to speak.
And we're delighted to have him again, of course, because he was with us last week, and this is part two.
And after his presentation, we have Q&A.
If you wish to ask a question after Jonathan finishes speaking, raise your hand using the reactions tab on the bottom of your screen.
I'll just be consistent, JJ, we'll call him.
Stephen Frost, by a long established tradition, asks the first questions.
There is no censorship.
It's a free speech environment, but we have proper, efficient, and effective moderation.
Be patient with the process of the meeting.
Different people have totally different views about what is important, what is relevant, what is nonsense.
Free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms.
The tragedy these days is that the majority of people would choose security ahead of freedom and then end up with neither.
This group can help you to identify your beliefs and perhaps to help you change those that no longer serve you.
This group can help you raise your self-awareness, a crucial factor in your enjoyment and experience of your life.
If you find yourself upset by anything that is said, look inside yourself.
That's where your upset originates.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are genuinely not interested.
We reject the offense industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
I have a list of nine standard responses to someone who claims to be offended by something that I said.
If you want a copy, I'm happy to share it.
A number of you have already received copies.
I urge you to never apologize to someone who claims to be offended.
Decide to have an open mind.
It's the fastest way to learn.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you, suppresses you, depresses you.
Love, on the other hand, expands you, energizes you, enhances you.
Loving those with different views to your own is a challenge.
And we encourage you to embrace that challenge.
If you have a solution or a product,
That will help people put the details into the chat.
If you have links and resources that will be helpful put them in the chat.
The meeting is recorded and is uploaded within a few days onto the rumble channel.
I will put the link into the chat.
And now welcome to JJ, JJ Cooey, a genius.
And we thank for giving us his time again and his wisdom and his insights.
And thank you, Stephen Frost again for creating this group and for organising our presenter today.
JJ, you are a co-host and welcome, and I will put it on to speak of you so that you can do what you did last time.
And Stephen, happy to go?
JJ, happy to go?
I'm ready to go.
Yeah.
Thank you, JJ, for coming on again.
I am definitely ready to go.
Over to you.
So if you want to check me out, if you didn't know who I was from last week, you can go on to PubMed and you can search my last name, C-O-U-E-Y hyphen J-J, and you can find all of my work from my PhD through my postdocs and the stuff that I did up in through Pittsburgh.
It's important for me to say that because although my scientific training is 20 years of my life, I still really define myself as the best friend of my wife, the father of my children, and hopefully a grandfather someday.
So I'm a human just like you are.
I have the same basic goals.
And I have the basic same idea of what I think, excuse me, I'm on the wrong side here, of what I think we are trapped in.
So a lot of people, I've explained this before, think that we've been released, but we haven't been released.
We are still trapped inside of an inversion where we think we need permission to do things.
We need to ask our doctors what's right, and our doctors don't even know because they need to ask the CDC.
And the only way out of this is biology.
We have to learn this biology ourselves.
We have to understand how our immune systems work so that we can take care of ourselves.
We have to understand and acknowledge the mistakes that we've made as adults if we haven't exercised in 40 years.
If we've been eating fast food regularly for 40 years, we need to acknowledge these things.
and not just listen to what the TV tells us, which are all equally vulnerable and we're all equally susceptible to things that are to come out of bat caves and laboratories.
The reason why they've told us these mythologies is because informed consent and exercising that requires understanding.
If you are able to say no,
you have the ability to exercise informed consent.
And I would argue, and a lot of us know this is true, there was no ability to say no because of the coercion, fear, and misleading oversimplification of the biology that we've purported to experience.
So last week, I told you a story about this hypothesis, and I tried to explain
that the illusion of a dangerous novel virus was sustained by a combination of a background for which the PCR test was hot, and perhaps it's possible that they used an infectious clone to create a perfect molecular signature around the world that they could point to and say, see, there's a pandemic.
while the test was picking up a background.
And so the rollout of the test extended this illusion.
And they did this because they want to invert our rights from sovereignty to permissions.
So last week, the presentation was about the clone wars and about how they've done this.
It was about infectious clones.
So how they've overcome the weaknesses of RNA viruses to allow them to be useful on the bench.
And then finally an endemic hypothesis which explained how a previous background of coronaviruses combined with a PCR test that was not specific for a new one could be used to create an illusion of a pandemic.
So this week I want to focus very specifically on one of the four things that they did in order to convince us that bat cave viruses or laboratory viruses or animal passage viruses or even viruses that are stitched together can cause a pandemic.
The reason why they were able to do this and the reason why they did it is again to invert our rights from sovereignty to permissions and they did it in a way
made you believe you were figuring it out.
And so for 20 years, I argue that they've been talking behind the scenes to national security groups, to intelligence agencies, to grant funding groups, to non-governmental organizations like CEPI and the WHO,
and talking about how the dangers of pandemic viruses that exist in bat caves, that can exist in open markets, that can exist in large animal farms, that can be developed in laboratories, or even in garages if you're smart enough to know what to buy on eBay.
And this illusion is going to pin our grandchildren into a cage of
of public health measures and permissions if we are falling for this trick.
And the way that they got us, and I'm just trying to bring everybody to the same page again, I know I'm repeating myself.
The way that they got us is they seeded a common narrative, which was a debate about whether it was a lab leak, of course it was from the market, or whether it was a natural virus.
Of course it came from a bat cave that somebody just got on a train to Wuhan, and the next thing you know,
we have a pandemic.
And this argument was seeded and it was fueled by purposeful, misleading releases of emails, of releases of evidence of censorship, of really loud and obvious examples of censorship thrown in your face.
but controlled versions of it.
For example, Robert Malone is the most censored man on the internet and the purveyor of the most misinformation is Steve Kirsch.
These are all illusions that are designed to get you to fall for this debate so that you think you got to choose one side or the other.
Either you're cheering for the people on TV or you're cheering for these people over here on the dissident side.
And I'm afraid that a lot of the people on both of these sides are playing for the same team.
Just as bad as it looks here with Tom Frieden saying that the only people who are in trouble are under vaccinated and Pax Lovett helps if you would just use it.
It's not that much different than the story that some of the people on our side have been telling or not telling from the beginning.
And so last week I played this video of Robert Redfield explaining that he thinks the next one is going to be a bird flu and that it's obvious that this one was a lab leak.
So after three years of arguing about it, they've convinced the left and the right that they've figured it out.
That is the trap.
And I think the best way out of it is really immunology.
It is understanding who of these people on the screen taught us immunology, who on these people on the screen gave a real effort to try and make it so that we could exercise informed consent with the most understanding, the most knowledge so that we can make informed choices with our children.
How many of the people on this screen really did that?
That's the question you wanna ask yourself, because they have changed the way we think for a reason, and it's been going on for many decades.
So this was the list that I started with last week.
They changed the way you think about a respiratory disease.
They changed the way you think about all-cause mortality.
They changed the way you think about the immune response to disease, and they changed the way you think about immunization.
I'm gonna focus on the last two today, because these are the most diabolical.
Because what they are essentially have done,
is they have oversimplified what should be considered almost sacred in its complexity.
The immune system and how our immune system responds to the outside environment and sorts out food from bad stuff, sorts out pathogens from self, is nothing short of a molecular biological miracle.
And the idea that these people have sold us a dumbed-down, watered-down version of our immune response, that they could convince us that a dumbed-down, watered-down version of a therapeutic was worthy of augmenting it, is one of the worst crimes I've ever experienced in my lifetime, because it has essentially convinced our children that creation isn't that sacred.
and quite simple and pathetic.
And they've done that by changing the way we think about this very complex interaction between the outside world and our body.
They've done this for national security purposes.
I believe that they may have even been instructed in meetings to say, we've got to keep it this simple.
Antibodies are what you need.
And our products provide antibodies.
Don't stray from the narrative.
that we have been pushing for the last 15 years in all of our grant proposals.
And make sure that you don't do this because we don't need any scrutiny of the existing childhood vaccination schedule.
And I've shown you this video before, but I'll show it again because it's so amazing.
Look at how much energy and effort is put into this artwork.
of emphasizing that antibodies can snap-lock to a spike protein and make a normally dangerous virus completely useless and floating away.
What a joke.
And so antibodies are not how you build long-lasting immunity to a respiratory disease.
Not at all, and very few people on this screen ever taught you that in the first year or year and a half of the pandemic.
This woman, in particular, is quite a problem for me.
She is an author of this paper here.
It came out on October 31st, 2020, ironically enough,
on Halloween.
There's so much nonsense in this paper that it's hard for me to even read it out loud, but it's important to understand that after nine months or six months or seven months of a purported pandemic where we had shut down schools, we had terrified college kids as they went back to school, we did everything we could to extend this thing.
She writes a letter to the Lancet saying that we don't know if we can make immunity to this virus.
So we gotta wait for the vaccines.
We're gonna do it super fast this time.
Novel means everybody might die.
We don't even know if you can build immunity to it and your immunity might not last.
Right down here it says, furthermore, there's no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection.
The endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity could present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.
Lockdowns and masks work well, so let's mask up and shut it all down until we have the vaccines.
Zero COVID is the only moral choice.
There's no excuse for these words.
There's no excuse for this ignorance.
There's no excuse for the ignoring 50 years of previous immunology.
There's no excuse for any of this except for diabolical malevolence.
And after three years, it's okay to say it.
In 2020, it would have been a bit rough.
But I was saying it.
And so if we look at the list of people who are here, we can see a lot of very interesting human beings that are on social media like Zoe Hyde, like Devi Sridhar.
And here we have the prominent name, of course, of Rochelle Walensky.
So we're talking about some of the real champions on the internet.
They were talking all about the pandemic of the unvaccinated and how everybody who's not getting vaccinated is selfish, yada, yada, yada.
These are the people who are responsible for seeding a narrative where no one understood that this immunology already existed.
No one understood because they, no one understood anything about the warm base of manufacturing and the reason why the flu vaccine even existed.
the way Robert Malone explained it on the podcast, the Defender podcast that I was on a few months ago.
They have accomplished this by overemphasizing antibodies as a correlative immunity.
There was even a Saturday Night Live skit where the song was being sung in a rap spoof.
And they said, I've got, I-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y, that's what I've got, bodies anti.
It was spoofed over and over again.
This is not by chance, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very coordinated effort to make sure that people focused on specific ideas and not others.
And now they're focusing on trying to make us believe that as a serendipitous consequence of the pandemic, we've discovered that mRNA vaccines are safe, powerful, and effective.
And so again, I've shown you this video.
I'm going to show it again because I want you to compare it to an earlier one.
This is again showing mRNA squirting out of the needle and showing all kinds of lipid nanoparticles going all over the place.
But then somehow they just zoom in on the one that goes to the dendritic cell and say, nevermind all those other ones that might go to your ovaries or your bone marrow or whatever.
So transfection is not an appropriate medical therapy for any healthy human.
And so these two principles of immunology, these last two are what I wanna talk about today.
And remember, we summarized this before.
If you do the math correctly, you're gonna subtract from the total all the people that were improperly ventilated, all the people on remdesivir, midazolam, people that didn't get treated secondary pneumonia with an antibiotic immediately.
You're gonna count all the kids that got damaged, all the masking of children, and all the damage that was done to our social fabric before you even think
that there might have been a pandemic.
But it's not a matter of what is true.
It's a matter of what is perceived to be true.
And that's what all these people are.
Very many of them have been involved in for a long time.
And that's why they're tripling down now with this article in Scientific American, where they say that mRNA vaccines are safe, powerful, and effective.
Masks work.
Indoor air quality matters.
Wastewater tracking is useful.
And genomic surveillance is key for viral evolution.
Listen carefully.
— Activating the immune system can be taxing on the body, resulting in brief fatigue, fever, and muscle soreness in some people.
But this doesn't mean the recipient is sick.
It means the vaccine is working.
The body is producing antibodies to fight that viral protein that will then stick around to defend against future COVID-19 infections.
Do antibodies act like wrenches and pull viral particles apart or are they just doing that because it makes people understand?
Do you see how diabolical that is?
That's a gross misrepresentation of what antibodies do.
It's a gross misrepresentation of how antibodies functionally change conformation and what that functional conformation change does.
And now listen to what they say about the target of this protein.
This particular protein is likely to be found in most COVID variants.
These antibodies fight that viral protein that will then stick around to defend against future COVID-19 infections.
And since this particular protein is likely to be found in most COVID variants, these antibodies should reduce the threat of catching.
It is the most variable protein in the coronavirus genome.
It's the reason why, when they find a new spike protein in the wild, they say they found a new virus.
Because most of the other proteins are identical.
Or so homologous that you can't tell the difference and you can't call it a new strain.
It is the most variable protein in the coronavirus genome.
And she just said, because it's most likely the least of change, it's going to be there anyway, then our big monkey wrenches will pull those viruses apart.
Now, yesterday I did a four hour stream on my channel.
featuring Robert Malone and talking about some of the statements that he's made with regard to the vaccine, its effectiveness, and when he said it, and what he was doing in 2020.
And I think it's relevant to point out that in that video, I looked at a
a presentation of him at the WHO in 2011 where he's talking about the transition from egg-based vaccines to DNA and RNA-based vaccines and how it would be very handy to have a vaccine platform where you could just replace the manufacturing target
and not have to retool the whole manufacturing system, i.e.
mRNA and DNA, or growing proteins in plants or in insect cells like we did with some of these vaccines.
And so it's very important to hear this in this video and then go back and maybe check out the video that I showed on my stream yesterday, where you can see that Robert Malone for the last 15 years has been involved in brokering vaccine technologies between non-government organizations and governments.
And these ideas have been prevalent for 15 years, including the idea of being able to replace
the target manufacturing thing in the vaccine with a new one without having to go through all the regulations of FDA again.
Listen to her say it.
This approach offers significant advantages over previous vaccines.
Traditional vaccines contain weakened versions of live viruses or amputated sections of a virus.
both of which require time-intensive research to prepare and unique chemical treatments to safely inject.
But mRNA vaccines don't actually contain any viral particles, so they don't have to be built from scratch to safely adjust each virus.
In fact, every mRNA vaccine could have roughly the same list of ingredients.
Imagine a reliable, robustly tested vaccine that can treat any disease by swapping out a single... But of course, if you're a biologist, you realize how naive this is because it assumes that it doesn't matter what protein you encode.
Because she is pulling the same trick I've been telling you they're gonna pull.
She's pretending that once you test transfection, it doesn't matter what you transfect.
You can transfect frog protein for all you want.
It won't matter at all.
Once we've done it with one mRNA sequence, why can't we swap out another one?
This level of oversimplification is not by chance.
This oversimplification is designed specifically to remove the possibility of informed consent and remove the knowledge
that each of the products should be tested as a pro drug.
Each of the products would have a unique production profile, depending on how they folded and what tissues they were expressed, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
You can't do this.
This product doesn't exist.
And Robert Malone was selling this product already in 2011 in front of the WHO as a potential game changer, a disruptive technology.
And they sold it to us like that now.
A lot of the people on this screen sold it to us like that now.
A disruptive technology like this guy, Paul Offit.
And I believe that this is where we get into the meat of my talk, because I think that this image... JJ, before you do that, I've got speaker view and that's how it's being recorded.
Are you sharing your screen?
Someone said, could we ask you to share your screen?
So I'm a bit confused because I've got you in my full screen.
Yeah.
All you have to do is go up to the upper right corner and click on there and switch it to speaker instead of gallery.
And you'll see what everybody else sees.
Excellent.
Thank you.
Thank you, Diana.
There you are.
There's the answer.
Good.
So we keep going.
No problem.
Paul Offit.
I got exposed to him 11 years ago.
Keep going.
Paul Offit is a great guy, isn't he?
So I think that this cartoon in the background is really key to understand.
This cartoon was first released as a graphic
on Francis Collins's own blog when he was still the director of the NIH in the United States of America.
It was released, I believe, in June or May of 2020, and it was designed to show you how vaccines work better than infection, and it's simply showing you that a spike protein of a particular variant
can be bound to by an antibody from infection or bound to by an antibody from vaccines, but vaccine antibodies will bind to variants in the future that the antibody from infection will not.
Of course, they don't have any evidence for this.
There's absolutely no way.
In fact, there's no possible mechanism to explain this.
but that's what they want you to believe.
That's what Francis Collins was selling the country from the NIH director's blog in 2020.
And he said this in 2021.
Yeah, also you get shorter incubation periods and viruses that are progressively more contagious.
You need even higher levels, higher levels of neutralizing antibodies to prevent a mild illness.
And so make it all the more difficult.
The goal is preventing severeness.
We're trying to keep people out of the hospital and out of the morgue.
And we're doing it with this cartoon joke of an immunological model of how our immune system works.
And this is how NIAID calls for grants.
This is how NIAID calls for proposals.
This is how NIH functions with immunology.
And so you don't believe me, this is him writing the blog on the 28th of July.
Immune T-cells may offer lasting protection against COVID-19.
In case you're not familiar with how the titles of articles are chosen, especially in the field of biology,
The operative words in a title are extremely important because they convey the level of certainty that can be implied by the statement that you're making.
In this case, immune T cells may offer lasting protection against COVID-19 is contrasted very,
very starkly by this title, which is Virus-Specific Memory CD8 T-Cells Provide Substantial Protection from Lethal Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection, a paper by Stanley Perlman in 2014.
He has another paper from 2010 that says T-cell responses are required.
And the difference between may offer and required is not insignificant.
And it is in fact, I would say Francis Collins knows better.
Francis Collins knows better, but what he's trying to do is set that narrative that we just don't know.
Despite all the years of studying this stuff, we just don't know about this one.
This one's just so new.
It's just so fresh out of the package.
We have no idea whether T-cells do anything.
And we already knew from Stanley Perlman, even in this, this is another paper from 2014.
It's a review where he talks about it.
And here we are again, talking about T cells.
And it's specifically, he's talking about how infected cells in the airway epithelium
are producing viruses and dendritic cells in the airway epithelium here, pictured in light green, are going to travel back to the draining lymph node and present those antigens to T cells, which will then migrate back to the airway epithelium and destroy the cells that are infected with the virus.
I don't hear any antibodies here.
I don't see any antibodies in this picture.
Where are the antibodies?
Somebody help me.
T-cell response is the primary immune reaction to a coronavirus.
Moderna and Pfizer are not offering you broad T-cell immunity to any of the 31 proteins of the virus.
They're offering you one protein and the epitopes found in it.
And so they're giving you redundant memory focused on one of 31 proteins expressed during infection.
And so dendritic cells migrate to the draining lymph node and present viral protein fragments to T-cells.
T-cells clonally expand.
That means they divide, copy themselves.
And then they migrate back to the infection from the draining lymph node.
And so T-cells are aimed at fighting the cells that are infected.
This comes before there's a bunch of viruses in the blood.
Because those cells are immediately signaling for help.
We're going to talk about that in a little bit.
First, I just want to expand a little bit on the mechanism of T-cells.
You get this infection, the dendritic cells sense it and start presenting antigens of the virus to both CD4 positive T-cells and CD8 positive C-cells.
It's a separate presentation event.
The clonal expansion of CD4 and CD8 positive cells takes place as a result of that activation by dendritic cells.
And then there's a couple things that happen.
The CD4 helper cells can help local cells to start secreting antibodies in a process we'll talk about in a minute, or they can escort the CD8 positive cells back to the site of infection.
And in fact, they do that in addition to going back to the site of infection to help the CD8 positive cells cross
They also are migrating back to orchestrate the local response.
They can reinvigorate the macrophages and the monocytes that are at the site of infection, these cells that are returning back.
So the T helper cells are responsible for coordinating and amping up the response, both inside the draining lymph node and back at the infection.
So you need that expansion and you need that migration.
And you'll notice that the migration has
a location of infected cells, which are signaling, and a gradient away from it, which will not exist if lipid nanoparticles injected in your arm and it distributes randomly throughout your body.
There is no gradient of infection.
There's no source of infection.
There's no signal to follow.
So the activation of T cells is rather aspecific and also non-directional.
So here's a couple graphics explaining what happens.
The CD4 effector T cells are the ones that are able to open the gaps between the endothelial cells and allow the
immune cells to exit the capillary.
Without that permission, then the capillary endothelial cells, endothelium, will keep those tight gaps shut and then they can't enter the space where the infection is taking place and interact with these airway lumen cells.
This also occurs in the female reproductive tract and it also occurs at the blood-brain barrier.
There is a gating that occurs with T cells.
So that's the reason why it's important that they clonally expand because they need to go multiple places.
And so it's required.
We're still not talking about B cells.
I hope that's really clear.
We haven't even gotten to them yet because they're farther down the chain of cells and how they get activated.
So the most important thing to remember here is what we talked about the other day.
The infectious cycle consists of a set of steps that includes the fusion and uncoating of an mRNA that is positive stranded
a positive sense RNA that needs to get translated into RNA that can be made into proteins.
And for that to occur, the first thing that needs to occur is a polyprotein 1A, B, and 1A needs to be constructed and then chopped up into pieces and reassembled to make the replication transcription complex that will do the copying of this positive strand genome.
So this is a very important step because those are the first proteins that are expressed when a cell becomes infected.
And those proteins are highly conserved across coronaviruses.
So chances are, if you're as old as I am, you've seen these proteins before and you have T cell memory to them.
And so the functionally constrained proteins
of polyprotein ORF1AB and the N-protein are excellent targets for T-cell immunity because it's very similar across COVID groups, across, not COVID groups, excuse me, across coronavirus subgroups, alpha and beta.
They just have a very conserved RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
And the most conserved regions of that are very likely the ones that you made T-cell memory to a long time ago.
And so if we look at this protein, this ORF1A and what it translates to in a polyprotein 1A and polyprotein 1AB, and then these things get chopped up into pieces, all of these non-structural proteins do all kinds of special things.
One of the more important ones here, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
Another one very important is this EXON to a lot of coronavirus virologists because this is the protein that's responsible for proofreading.
but it's also the protein that's responsible for recombination, which also often results in defective non-infectious particles.
So if we look, just read this very carefully, of the 121 epitopes recognized by T cells in the patient cohort, five were determined as immunodominant based on the presence of T cell recognition in greater than 50% of the samples.
And so we're talking about ORF1A and N-protein, the most conserved regions of all coronaviruses.
And then here's Paul Offit a couple of years into the pandemic saying, protection against severe disease isn't mediated by neutralizing antibodies.
Wait, you told me that I needed even more neutralizing antibodies to get rid of them.
Now, he's backing up a little bit, because after two and a half years, they finally had to cede a little bit of the previous immunology was right.
It's mediated by T-cells, and more importantly, they recognize conserved regions.
This master of disguise, though, was still talking about the spike protein, and he hadn't even alluded to the fact that there were 29 other proteins, many of which were far more conserved in evolution, and therefore, much more appropriate and likely targets of your immune system.
just pushing the narrative while pretending to give in that the T-cells do something, but not teaching you exactly what the T-cells do.
This is the exact kind of clone wars that has been waged on us for three years.
It is a deception, an illusion, because these papers say it out loud.
Here we go.
These are all N protein epitopes.
This is almost exclusively N when they look in the right way.
And if we look very carefully at this, this is a Nature paper summary.
Theoretically, individuals exposed to coronaviruses might just prime ORF1, that's open reading frame one, what we've been talking about for a while, where the most conserved proteins of that copying complex are found.
ORF1-specific T cells, as the ORF1-coded proteins are produced first in coronavirus-infected cells and are necessary for the formation of the viral replicase transcriptase complex that is essential for subsequent transcription of the viral genome, which then leads to expression of various RNA species.
Those are the subgenomic RNAs that we've talked about with nanopore.
Therefore, ORF1-specific T cells could hypothetically abort
viral production by lysing, that means breaking, SARS-CoV-2 infected cells before the formation of mature virions.
This is why you don't get a common cold for the rest of your life, because once you have a T cell that remembers the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase's most conserved regions,
They can't multiply in your cells anymore because when they present these proteins, there are cytotoxic T-cells waiting to find them and trigger apoptosis.
This is why T-cells are so important.
This is how T-cells also prevent cancer and why a lymphocytopenia focused on T-cells would be dangerous to anyone who has a cancer under control or in remission.
or could potentially gate the formation of a cancer because your T cells that had it under control would be weakened.
So if we just keep looking at data sets, I'm just going to move my cursor around here to emphasize what you should be looking at.
And I know they're too complicated to explain.
But if you look at this picture right here, you're going to see the immunodominant epitopes in this paper.
Four of them are from ORF1 and one of them is from N. And if they look at the whole complement of the number of patients that have these, the spike protein is really not very represented.
And the vast majority of the immunodominant epitopes come from this ORF1A.
Again, this is the replication transcription complex.
It's very conserved across coronaviruses.
And that's why if we go to this one, you can see my arrow, right?
A patient up here, healthy donor over here.
And look, the healthy donor has almost all of the epitopes memorized already.
All of these are T cells in a healthy donor.
It's not by accident, ladies and gentlemen.
This is how your immune system works.
It's beautiful like this.
So if we go to this paper here, this paper was in July, I believe of, no, October of 2020, 31 days before Walensky declared that we might not be able to make robust immunity to this virus and we might be at this forever.
This paper unfortunately makes the same error that all the other papers make.
They invert the B-cells and the T-cells and they report the B-cells first even though I just told you and I'll tell you again, the T-cells precede B-cells.
So, I'm going to reverse that.
I'm going to go with the way that the figure should be.
So, this is a figure about T-cells if we zoom in on this table.
We're looking at the experimental groups here on the right side.
We have blood donors from 2019.
We have blood donors from 2020.
We have the experimental group.
which is the people that we're looking at.
Then we have mild cases.
So not experimental group, excuse me, exposed group.
And we have mild cases, and then we have severe cases.
And the exposed group, which is in the middle here in the peach color, are people who lived with the mild cases or the severe cases.
And so what they show you here first is T-cell activation to specific epitopes.
On the top here is S, that's the spike protein.
M is matrix, that's a protein in the shell.
And N, that is the protein that the RNA is coiled around.
So notice that the severe cases in red are all making T-cells to the N-protein.
All making T-cells to the N-protein are the mild people.
And almost all the people who showed no symptoms but lived with those people
develop T-cells to the N-protein.
If you can recall my talk from earlier this week where we looked at nanopore sequencing of a clone and we saw that the N-protein mRNA was represented 400,000 times to one compared to ORF1, it might make sense why people who are exposed to a person who's sick would develop
T cell memory to those mRNAs that are overexpressed in that infection.
So that's the same with S, you have less.
developing of S if we go to the antibodies.
So first of all, I should clear this up.
This is CD4 up on top here.
This is CD8.
So these are the helper cells.
These are the cytotoxic cells, the pair of cells that migrate back to the infection up here in Stanley's paper.
If we look at the antibodies, we see a very similar thing, except notice that more of the exposed group converted T cells than B cells.
So what am I saying there?
We're gonna go back one time.
This is the T-cell group.
The middle group are people who just lived with people who were sick.
And almost all of them converted to M T-cells, and they almost all converted N T-cells, meaning that they made new T-cell memory to the N protein or reactivated it, and also to the M and less to the S protein over here.
If we look at the antibodies, which again come after B-cell activation, you see that far fewer
of the exposed group are making the jump over the dotted line to being positive, over the dotted line to be positive, over the dotted line to be positive.
Why?
Because T cell activation was enough, and they weren't exposed to sufficient antigen to activate a B cell.
Wait, what?
You need antigen?
Yes.
because antibody response is aimed at the cleanup of the infection, the overspill of the infection.
The targeted attack of the infection is done by T-cells, not B-cells.
And so, memory B-cells are formed when antigen reaches a secondary lymph node and stimulates a B-cell that's asleep.
That's depicted here.
So an antigen needs to go from the lungs in the lymph, float around, get to the lymph node and bump into the B cell receptor of a naive B cell.
And at the same time, that antigen has to be separately presented.
Can you see my arrow down here to a T cell to activate that T cell to the same antigen.
then that T cell will come up here, awake, and this B cell will have taken the antigen in, processed it, and presented it.
And so when it presents that antigen to a T cell, which can recognize it because it has been activated by a dendritic cell, then that T cell will make antibodies.
And then so a patient who has only been exposed to someone who's sick will not have a lot of antigens in circulation.
They don't build an antibody response like somebody who has viremia.
So again, all of these things make sense if they're explained correctly.
Another real interesting signature of antibodies is a class switch.
You may have heard that when you activate a naive B cell in this scenario, that they don't start with an immediate production of IgG.
They actually produce IgM, which is a fivermer of a double, so it makes like a 10-pointed antibody.
And they're less specific for their antigen.
And then after subsequent remodeling and class switch, they become more specific.
But the first response that comes up when you are exposed to a new antigen is IgM.
And then a couple, three weeks later, you make a class switch.
to IgG.
So an interesting thing to look at with regard to an infection for a virus like this would be what antibody levels do we see during a novel infection?
And indeed, they looked at that in severe patients in Japan, and they found a very interesting phenomenon.
If you look carefully at the IgM responses to N, sorry, here's my arrow, IgM responses to N and IgM responses to S1, they're not very big.
But the IgG response to N and the IgG response to S are actually pretty robust right away, 10 days, 13 days before symptom onset.
If they look closer,
They see a lot of difference between critical and mild, which is just to show you that the antibodies are different in critical and mild.
So let's look again very carefully at these graphs.
I'll walk you through it.
The circles are IgM and the triangles are IgG.
The red is N protein and the blue is S protein.
So if this was a exposure to a novel virus with a novel spike protein awakening naive B cells, then we should see an IgM response to the N protein, which should be red circles, come up before the IgG response, which is red triangles.
And it doesn't.
Red circles should come before red triangles.
It doesn't.
And in fact,
Blue circles should come before blue triangles.
Blue circles.
Don't even come up here.
Blue circles.
Don't even come up here.
Blue circles.
Don't even come up here.
And in every one of these graphs, the red triangle is coming up before the greens are the red circles, which means that IgG is coming up before IgM, which means we are activating memory cells, memory B cells to previous Corona viruses.
Our entire response to this virus has been T cell based.
And that's the reason why the vast majority of anyone getting infected with a coronavirus as an adult is asymptomatic.
PCR tests being non-specific for a background made this a disaster.
And RNA transfection stimulating the immune system to build redundant memory to one protein from 2020, the most variable protein in the deck is absurd.
And so now I'm going to take you through a very quick cartoon and then we'll be done.
I know I'm always too long, but 15 more minutes, I promise.
How are these two processes different?
This is the process I really want you to understand.
It's called linked recognition, and it has to do with how B cells and T cells cooperate, which is what I showed you on that review paper, but now with my own diagram.
So this diagram I'm using to always do the immune system.
These are epithelial cells and the infected ones are in pink.
Natural killer cells are in red.
I have a little thing up here.
Maybe I can move it just a bit over.
And what we have here is just the idea of what these cells are doing.
We're going to zoom in a little bit here on these guys and just give you an idea.
Cells that are actively producing viral particles are in pink.
They present viral fragments on MHC1, which are human leukocyte antigen receptors on their surface.
They activate internal molecular cascades that work against the virus and signal to the immune system and nearby cells that a viral infection is present.
Two basic immune types are available to detect and terminate infected barrier cells, natural killer cells and memory T cells.
So notice the difference I'm trying to portray here.
These normal cells aren't presenting very much.
And what they present is self proteins.
Cells that are infected not only present foreign proteins depicted here as little moons, but they present more than non-infected cells.
So there are more MHC molecules.
And this combination of signaling attracts the natural killer cells and the memory cells, in addition to the fact that they're secreting cytokines.
And so these natural killer cells come around as a result of the cytokine signaling and interferon signaling, and also the cells nearby start to ramp up the same enzymatic cascades to prevent their own infection.
And so there are two basic cell types that are available to detect and determine those.
Those are memory T cells, again, CD8 positive memory T cells, and these natural killer cells.
They recognize the cells, they cause them to go into apoptosis, and then, of course, they release their contents for clearance.
Because when a cell dies, all of the stuff that's inside of it comes out.
All the impartial fragments of virus, all the RNA, all the endogenous stuff, everything.
In an infection, this process occurs at a cell barrier.
It occurs in your gut, it occurs in your lungs, it could occur at your skin, but it's not going to occur in the middle of your muscle.
It's not going to occur in your ovary.
After transfection, the only expression of a foreign protein is somewhere in your body.
And so infection is not recapitulated by this intramuscular transfection.
Don't think for a second because infection is so spatially organized and functions on concentration gradients that are created by, you know, a hotspot over here and a lymph node over there, rather than just a signal everywhere in the body.
And so again, what gets released when these cells are being lysed by the immune system?
Well, N-protein is in high amount.
We've seen that because the subgenomic RNA is at 400,000 times the concentration of the full genome, but also replicase proteins, M, S, and E proteins, and all other structural proteins that are present are released.
Those get taken up by macrophages.
They can activate memory B cells that are waiting to see the antigen they saw before, like an end protein.
And those antigens go in the lymph where they can float back to the draining lymph node and encounter B cells in the same flow as the dendritic cells that are collecting the antigens are going to go back to the draining lymph node to activate T cells.
It's parallel.
And so, antigens from the infection site float back to B cells.
Dendritic cells and other antigen-presenting cells bring back antigens from the antigen site to present to naive T, CD8 and CD4 cells.
The point being is that defective, interfering particles, all those viruses that aren't replication competent, are part of this cadre
of antigens that's floating back to the draining lymph node.
If any part of those defective interfering particles lands on a naive B cell that recognizes it, the naive B cell will process that antigen by taking it in
It will be activated better if more than one of its receptors is activated at the same time.
And then they will all be pulled into the cell, and whatever they bound to will be processed chemically, broken up into pieces, and then presented on the outside, hoping that a T cell will recognize something.
Now understand, if a defective particle containing the N protein, the M protein, and the S protein
connected to itself, comes into the B-cell, and the B-cell binds to the N-protein and then pulls that particle in, it will present epitopes from the E-protein, the S-protein, and the N-protein.
And any of those epitopes are potential T-cells, which could activate the B-cell, which originally recognized the N.
And that's linked recognition because the N-protein's antibody is linked to the M-protein by the T-cell that knows the M-protein and not the N-protein.
Do you see how that works?
Let me explain it one more time because that's the Monte Carlo effect.
That's the random sorting that your immune system does that makes your immune response unique and completely different from that of your husband, completely different of that from your wife, and completely different from that from your kids.
Because the assortment of antibodies that flows through from your infection is unique.
The B cells that recognize them are unique.
The proteins complements that they express or present as a result are unique.
And the T cell complements that get activated by those antigens are unique.
And so the combinations of antigens recognized by B cells that get activated by helper cells remembering something else is linked recognition.
And it's this unique combination that forms uniquely in every infection
that can't form if everybody gets immunized to the same tiny protein.
And so they process these bound antigens, they present the epitopes, and they hope they're recognized by a T cell, but it doesn't have to be the same one.
Because these antigens are all linked, and the B cell processes them in a way different than the T cells.
This is a very complicated process that is not as simple as, you can just let the, let the,
teach the immune system a new wanted poster.
And so the problem is right above my head is that in transfection, you have spike protein alone and cells randomly expressing it, getting destroyed by the immune system.
And then the immune system doing its best to clean up, but not knowing what to present because those cells weren't calling for help with the interferon system.
They weren't calling for help.
They were transfected.
And they were expressing a foreign protein on the outside, not on MHC two.
I'm sorry.
I'm not on MHC one, but just expressing it, showing it.
And so they needed to be destroyed.
The immune system couldn't differentiate between that and cancer or anything else.
Just get rid of it.
And then the link recognition that is possible here is extraordinary because all of the fragments of the spike are contained in anything that gets presented.
It's like limiting the overlap to a very, very tiny set of possibilities, which means that you'll get way too many T-cells recognizing the same thing as a B-cell.
And way too many times that happens from a perspective of antibodies means, wow, our product really works well.
We make a lot of antibodies.
And it's a lot of antibodies because you make redundant linked recognition based on the exact same protein instead of a random assortment of proteins.
And I would love to go through that again if anybody didn't catch that or didn't fully understand how hugely different that is.
But if we go through the ABCs of coronavirus infection, epithelial cells are infected with a replicating virus.
The presence of double-stranded RNA and other pathogen-associated molecular patterns initiates this interferon pathway, which calls for help.
The primary and initial response of a coronavirus is macrophages, natural killer cells, natural killer T-cells, and memory T-cells and B-cells.
because all of this immunity is based on previous coronavirus exposure, and the fact that you make memory to the genes that don't change.
Resident respiratory tract dendritic cells are activated by these same antigens, and they go back to the draining rimp nodes where they present antigens to naive T cells.
B cells can also be activated by soluble antigens, antigens that are opsonized, which means that they are bound by antigen.
I mean, sorry, bound by antibody, and they can also be presented to by even some dendritic cells.
Presentation of antigen to naive T cells occurs by these dendritic cells, and then you activate these different helper T cells.
And there's more to this yet, of course.
And then memory CD8 and CD4 positive cells with relevant specificity exist in everyone.
And so depending on the final distribution of RNA, different cells in the body will express after transfection.
And some fraction of the total amount of expressed protein will enter circulation.
And this will go all over the place as well.
Cells expressing the foreign protein are recognized as foreign and destroyed.
This process will introduce spike proteins into the circulation.
This process could lead to a whole host of incorrect interactions because you're forcing the body to decide between self and non-self in a scenario where it never has to do that.
Understand that the epithelium of your lungs is a place where the immune system understands that epithelial cells can die, epithelial cells replicate, yada, yada, yada.
Your immune system is not used to going into random places in your bone marrow, or random places in your ovaries, or random places in your bladder, or random places in your skin to find foreign proteins.
That's not normal.
And so this is all compounded by the fact that they've used pseudo-uridine modification and changed the codons in a way that we just don't understand what protein is being made and the amount of variability in it, which again, would contribute to even more unknown side effects with regard to augmenting the immune response.
Here's where it gets crazy.
I can't, after an hour and 10 minutes, I'm only halfway done and I have to skip the rest.
Because if I was to tell you about tolerance and how this
and this immune virus, sorry, this respiratory virus interacts with your gut, it's extraordinary.
But suffice it to say, there's an extraordinary amount of information missing because, again, your immune system protects you from the outside.
So if you're gonna think about this correctly, you should turn your little body here into this model that's behind my head, where you have a tube that goes through from your mouth to your other end, and that tube has a little branch that goes to your lungs.
And the blue line in this picture is where your immune system functions.
Your skin, the epithelium of your lungs, and the epithelium of the lining of your gut.
The black portion of this figure is the inside of your body that your immune system is protecting from the outside.
And so injecting antigens into the inside already defeats the purpose and organization of your immune system.
Interestingly,
And think about this very carefully because I'm not going to have any more graphics about it because we would be here for another hour and a half.
As you make defective interfering particles in your lungs and you cough them out, most of them stay in your mucus, which then goes down your throat, passes your stomach because it's mucus, and delivers defective interfering particles and replication competent particles to your gut where your body absorbs food.
And so unlike where you are in your lungs, there is a very special challenge for your immune system in your gut because it should allow things to pass.
It should allow food to pass and fatty lipid particles, lipid soluble things need to dissolve in the lymph in order to be absorbed.
You cannot absorb lipid soluble things into your blood.
And so your gut has two absorption areas that are essentially your blood and then also your lymph.
And this absorption of materials into the lymph has to be governed, of course, by your immune system.
Your immune system governs this area of your body, and in so doing, generates tolerance to a lot of antigens that come through your gut that are produced by the gut bacteria that are produced in response to digestion.
And any allergies you have to food are a result of this system not producing the tolerance that it should.
Now, please let it suffice to say that as you swallow defective interfering particles that are coming out of your lungs and go down into your gut, your gut processes those particles as well.
And the processing of those particles leads specifically to tolerance generating T cells
which at the site of infection interact with the T cells that are bent on infection destruction.
And it is a harmony.
between the tolerance built in the digestive tract and the Peyer's patch T-cells and the intolerance that's built at the barrier of the lungs that interact to form the crescendo and decrescendo of an infectious immune response.
Without both of these ends, you do not have the balance that's required to ramp up the attack and then bring it back down to baseline.
And again, the accurate and useful augmentation of the immune system must take this wing of the immune system into account.
And I don't think I need to remind anybody of how little we know, nevermind talk about, the immune system and its interaction with gut flora, et cetera.
And so we are far from understanding this, but my point would be to say that they started us out a year and a half ago with this extremely, three years ago, with this extremely simplified version of immunity to a respiratory virus, and they beat it into the heads of every man, woman, and child that didn't have the background necessary to penetrate this lie.
And as a result, they've sold us the idea that these vaccines work,
They've managed to make us forget that antibody dependent enhancement was a real thing.
And that's why we couldn't vaccinate against a lot of these targets before.
And we have now seeing those reactions in auto antibodies, which counteract the, for example, the interferon response that I talked about earlier, when cells try to signal to one another, they try to send an alarm with interferon to other cells.
And now it seems we're making antibodies
which interfere with this, if you will.
And these, again, are found especially in people who are stimulated by this transfection to the spike.
So again, remember how much functionality is contained within these two polyproteins that are conserved across coronaviruses that you make all your memory to and that they've never talked about since the beginning of the pandemic.
Antibodies do not equal immunity.
They've always been a convenient correlate.
They're indicative of a recent immune response and easy to detect, but they don't mechanistically define immunity at all.
Antibodies are indicative, actually, of a T cell response that occurred much earlier.
And in respiratory coronavirus infections, T cells can respond to many proteins besides the spike.
Pre-existing overlapping T and B cell memory has been demonstrated to exist before significant spread in California and New York and blood donations from 2020 and 2019 and in previous SARS infected patients infected in 2003.
Robust T and B cell immunity is consistently demonstrated in people who are in close contact.
That was a paper we talked about as well.
An incorrect subordination of immunity to immunization
So natural immunity to immunization has been consistent and blatant.
They're still doing it today.
And so they've changed the way we think about vaccination.
And of course, that means that we have not been able to exercise the principle of informed consent.
SARS were accidentally released several times and didn't disappear, but went endemic.
And they are part of that background swarm.
They've failed to adequately explain the immune response to a respiratory virus.
by omitting T-cells, omitting tolerance, omitting the dangers of antibody-dependent enhancement, omitting the dangers of antigenic sin, and recommending the product that produces antibodies.
They have failed to accurately describe the dangers and risks of transfection as a candidate immunization methodology by calling them
investigative vaccines.
If the principle of informed consent on PBS NewsHour would have looked like this, previous immunity protected healthy humans from day zero.
T-cell immunity for a respiratory virus like SARS is focused on non-structural proteins that are highly conserved across RNA viruses, including the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
High seroprevalence to structural proteins of many other viruses has led to antibody-dependent enhancement, and therefore emphasis of this as an immune correlate is dangerous.
And finally, transfection has not worked for endogenous proteins in rare genetic disorders, so it's likely that we will encounter similar problems expressing an exogenous or foreign protein.
That's what it would have looked like if they were going to tell you the truth.
So if you don't mind, I think it's really cool to watch this.
It'll only take about six minutes.
This is the lady who made the mRNA vaccine.
And I want you to hear just how extraordinarily off she is about the biology.
I'm gonna stop it occasionally to wax intellectual about how ridiculous it is, but I have it at one and a half speed.
So we'll get through it quick and then I'll be done.
Again, this is part of the bamboozlement.
This is from September of 2022, I believe.
It's just extraordinary.
Now, many of the people watching this talk by now will have had one, two, three, or even four doses of a messenger RNA vaccine.
With billions of these shots now in arms, it's clear that this new way of making vaccines is both remarkably safe and incredibly effective.
But did you know it's not the vaccine itself that's keeping you safe?
It's actually you.
because the human body has amazing powers to both prevent and cure disease by making its own medicines.
You just need to know what medicine to make.
And that's what your vaccine gave you, simply a set of instructions for how to protect yourself against SARS-CoV-2.
Now, vaccines are only the beginning.
As said before, the advent of mRNA vaccines is heralding in an entirely new era of medicines.
mRNAs give us the ability to not only prevent disease, but also treat previously intractable disorders.
But before I get to that, let's talk about, really, what is this new way of medicines really about?
Well, it all comes down to proteins.
Now, you may think of protein as simply something that you need to eat, an important part of your diet, something that's important for you to build muscle.
But it's not just muscle that contains protein.
Protein makes up a huge fraction of the incredibly complicated ecosystem that's your entire body.
In many ways, your body functions like a large city, full of myriad buildings, interconnected buildings, with lots of different structures.
Now, just as the word building fails to capture the incredible variety of structures that make up any large city,
The generic term protein gives no clue as to the incredible variety of molecular architectures at the molecular level.
Like buildings, proteins are not monolithic.
Our body makes many proteins, some like the collagen in our skin that makes our skin tough, but pliable, like the actin and myosin in our muscles that enable us to move.
or our blood is full of hemoglobin ferrying oxygen around, antibodies protecting us from disease, and clotting factors that close up our wounds.
And for any of you that have ever cracked a biochemistry textbook, this should look familiar.
This is the metabolic chart of the human body.
These are all of the reactions in your body that are keeping you alive and well right now.
And each one of those reactions is catalyzed by a different protein, whose names are shown here in blue.
So proteins are not only what make up the bulk of your body, they're also what make your body tick and keep you well.
Now, if we think again about buildings, the structures of buildings may look quite different in the end.
Ah, darn it!
So what I want you to do here in this part is think very carefully about how you know buildings are built in Japan.
with no nails, and with exquisite carpentry where the joints are interlocking and last for centuries.
And the idea that she's going to characterize the way the buildings are built by the materials that they contain rather than the way that the materials are arranged, and she glosses over
the arrangement of materials and just says that there's a wide variety of them that get organized in different patterns.
And it's such an oversimplification and such an insult to the beauty of our biology, but I need you to see this because this is the kind of regular exposure to this kind of mythology leads people to believe that this stuff is true.
Make your body tick and keep you well.
Now, if we think again about buildings, the structures of buildings may look quite different in the end, but they're all made of a limited set of building materials.
And how those building materials, which of those building materials are used, and how they're arranged, and how they're attached to one another, gives the buildings their final form.
The same is true of proteins.
If we zoom down to the molecular level, we can see that proteins, if we unravel their three-dimensional architecture, are actually just long strings of building blocks.
And these building blocks have different shapes and different propensities to interact with one another.
So it's which building blocks are used and the order in which they are in the chain that gives a protein its three-dimensional shape.
Now, here I'm only showing three proteins, but creating and maintaining a healthy human requires the combined action of over 100,000 different types of protein, and our bodies make them all.
Thus, our bodies are remarkable protein factories.
At the molecular level, the numbers are truly mind-blowing.
Each of the 30 trillion cells in your body, that's 3 with 13 zeros, contains between 1 and 10 billion protein molecules.
That means that you have as many protein molecules in your body as there are stars in the known universe.
And what Melissa Moore is implying here is that despite the fact that you have an orchestration of nearly as many proteins as there are stars in the universe,
they can augment the function of that orchestra with their mRNA product.
Imagine the kind of arrogance that's on display here.
She just got through saying that among the 30 trillion cells in your body, there are more proteins being orchestrated, built, destroyed, reorganized, recompartmentalized than all the stars in the sky.
And we are entering a new kind of immunology where we can augment the entire human system with our mRNA.
This is a level of arrogance that is really malevolent.
The cell type in your body makes a different kind of protein, a different set of proteins.
Like the rods and cones in my eye that are detecting light right now and the neurons in my brain that are interpreting that light and enabling me to see you right now.
So they make a particular set of proteins unique to it.
And like any complex building project, you can imagine that the process of protein synthesis needs to be tightly regulated so that the right protein is made at the right time and in the right place.
But of course, with anything so complicated, it's perhaps not surprising that there's an occasional mistake, a fault in the algorithm.
Let's go back to that metabolic chart.
It's estimated that one in a thousand newborns are born without the ability to make one of the proteins on this chart.
Therefore, they have lifelong complications due to inborn metabolic errors.
So inborn metabolic errors are children that are born without one of the proteins on this chart, and she's about to propose that with mRNA, we can put that protein back.
Let's take just one of those.
Let's talk about von Gierke's disease, or glycogen storage disease 1.
This is due to the lack of a protein circle here in red, whose job it is to release stored sugars so that you can maintain a healthy blood sugar level while you're fasting.
So, von Goethe's disease patients can't fast.
They must constantly eat small amounts of carbohydrates, including getting up every one or two hours during the night to eat raw cornstarch.
Now, imagine the toll that this takes on parents.
If they are ever to miss a feeding of their child, their child could slip into severe hypoglycemia, seizures, and possibly death.
But even if these patients can keep up this endless feeding cycle, they are plagued by lifelong complications, including delayed puberty, frequent infections, kidney disease, and liver cancer.
So, von Gierke's disease is just one example of a disorder where we know what protein is missing.
What if we could give those patients back the ability to make that missing protein?
Then we could actually treat their disease instead of just managing their symptoms.
Okay, now I'm going to just save you the pain of having to watch the rest of this.
I thought it was going to go faster, but it's too slow for me.
The basic gist of it is, is that she's going to claim that they did this, they put the protein back in the liver and for a brief period of time it worked, but in reality it didn't work at all.
It eventually resulted in autoimmunity and it eventually resulted in the failure of the trial.
And just like Robert Malone waxed intellectual when he was a grad student about how in 10 years there were gonna be gene editing scientists at every hospital fixing childhood diseases with retroviruses, this is the same kind of nonsense talk.
They haven't been able to achieve what she's going to say that they've achieved any more than they've achieved with this vaccine.
I think the most important thing to hear is destruction.
And so when I went on clinicaltrials.gov, a small protein, if that protein is only needed once, then maybe a single time of 45 days.
Cancer patients were creating personalized cancer vaccines to attack their cancers.
Listen carefully.
These are truly person.
Now, for personalized cancer vaccines to be the most effective, we need to get them made and back to the patient as quickly as possible.
We aim for a turnaround time of 45 days.
By January of 2020, we had already manufactured, quality controlled, and delivered to several dozen patients personalized cancer vaccines.
So we had the know-how and the capacity to manufacture vaccines quickly.
Thus, when the... When you're allowed to give an RNA vaccine to a person who's otherwise going to die, and you can manufacture that vaccine in 45 days, it's not exactly the same thing as being able to manufacture a vaccine in 45 days to give to healthy people.
But she's making that equivalence here as part of the war on us.
A sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was posted to a public web server on January 10th, 2020.
We got immediately to work.
Within two days, we had agreed with our collaborators at NIH on exactly which form of the spike protein to put in our vaccine.
Because we had done so so many times before, it then took our mRNA design team just one hour to design the mRNA that we immediately
One hour to design the mRNA that they've injected in 13 billion doses to augment the immune system of billions of human beings on the planet with very little understanding of how it would affect their bodies.
Remember that we talked about the swarm.
This is just another very brief one here.
Remember replication-competent variants.
This is another graphic that I already had from two and a half years ago that I found when making this talk.
I divided it into replication-competent and replication-incompetent, and then I drew different-sized circles to say that this ratio matters a lot.
And then I said what to think about, how many percent of them are pseudovirans, how toxic are they, how high-fidelity are they, and what mechanism has the immune system evolved to deal with this phenomenon.
It is very simple.
This quasi-species swarm thing has been around for a long time.
They understand it and we've summarized it very simply.
They've told you a story about how you can make antibodies or you make similar copies of a virus until they start coming out of your mouth, but it's somehow very hard to culture them.
It was trying to blame barrack
for figuring out how to make these things and finding some signature in here that finally lit the lid, finally lit the light in my head that said, wait a minute, this isn't about Barrick making these things.
This is about the idea that they're very hard to culture because they're RNA.
And all Barrick did... ...produces viruses.
Matter of fact, in most cases, a large fraction, if not the majority of the virus particles that are produced are defective.
and I'm good for anything.
And so when I heard Robert Malone say that, I knew immediately what was going wrong.
I knew immediately why they couldn't be cultured all the time, and I knew immediately why they needed to change a cassette tape into a CD, why they needed to change an RNA into a DNA, because then they could make large quantities of it using standard bench materials like E. coli cultures, etc.
and then they convert that to RNA with simple enzymes.
Then they transfect that into a cell culture like Vero6 cells.
Now they have viruses they can make animals sick with.
Now they have viruses that they can do cytopathic effect assays with.
And now these cassette tapes are doing what the natural one does.
But in the meantime, they have this CD that they can always go back to and generate as much as they want to.
This is not natural.
This is synthetic virology.
And it wasn't invented by Ralph Baric.
It was invented by Vincent Ransom Yellow and David Baltimore in the early eighties with the polio virus.
It is taking an RNA and making a DNA version of it.
And it gets rid of this problem, this deceptive, annoying issue here that, you know, we don't know how many of these viruses are competent.
So we'll just say they all are.
And we'll just draw pictures and we'll tell everybody that these things are scary.
No,
Bat cave viruses are cassette tapes.
Laboratory viruses in cell culture are cassette tapes.
Laboratory viruses in animals are cassette tapes.
And even viruses that are made in a laboratory and then stuck together are cassette tapes until you make a DNA version of them.
And then they become clones, and then they become dangerous because you can make large quantities of them.
And they want you to believe that all these cassette tapes are dangerous.
and they all represent pandemic potential.
When there is no pandemic potential in RNA viruses, period.
They turned an event like this into a drama by ignoring all-cause mortality.
This is my theory.
dangerous virus, PCR test, maybe a clone to invert your rights from sovereignty to permissions.
This is a WHO centered idea along with the World Health Organization.
That's also the United Nations and a lot of other stuff that I'm not an expert in.
If you want to know the numbers, there wasn't a virus because all cause mortality doesn't support it.
Please stop transfections in all humans because they're trying to eliminate the control group.
Sorry, I went an hour and a half.
JJ, wow.
Wow, wow, wow.
Great work.
Good.
Amazing.
Just everybody, just take a deep, take a deep breath and be grateful that we have JJ to share his extraordinary research with us.
Thanks very much for being so patient.
I really appreciate it.
I know I go long, but I don't want to give you half the story and I still had to, so.
That's wonderful.
And there's, we've had a couple of people say they want you to come back for version three for what you weren't able to cover, but just hold that thought for the moment, Steven, I'm giving you a moment to get your thoughts in order for questions.
We've got two hands up already.
So Steven, are you ready to go?
I think as ready as I ever will be.
Um, so, um,
So I'm not an expert on immunology or even biology.
Sorry, I can't see where you are, JJ.
Oh, there you are, yeah.
You're in the bottom right-hand corner of your screen.
So it's difficult to, so I wanted to ask you.
So while I remember, I need to ask you this because there was a stage when I was saying, well, we don't know what's in these injections called vaccinations.
So that is another reason why informed consent was never possible because no doctor in the world knew what was in these injections.
So he couldn't explain to the patient, obviously, sufficiently for the patient to be able to give informed consent.
So informed consent was never possible from my point of view, but also from your point of view, JJ.
So that's interesting.
So you're looking at it as a biologist, and I'm looking at it as a medical doctor, hopefully from an ethical viewpoint.
But I wanted to ask you, so I was asking,
I don't know, about a year ago now that, you know, nobody knew what was in these so-called vaccinations.
Goodness knows how they've managed to keep it so secret that there've been no whistleblowers, as far as I understand.
We still don't know what's in these damned injections.
And, you know, we certainly don't know whether the same things are in all the injections.
So in the different batches, are they different?
I don't know.
So do you believe the story which they put about, and they've told so many lies, it seems to me reasonable to assume that they're telling lies about the things that they want to put about.
So the spike protein, everybody is speaking about spike protein.
Do you think the spike protein is in these damn vaccinations and that it has the importance that they say it has?
Also, the mRNA, is that also to get people going down the wrong track?
So I just wonder whether you've thought about that.
If you haven't thought about it sufficiently to be able to
express a view, then of course, you know, you may want more time.
So I think, I think the, the feeling that I have is it's either, it's one of two things.
It's either very simply, they didn't care and they just put the spike in like Melissa Moore in that video seems to say that they did.
They just took an hour and changed some, some codes and, and went with it.
Or maybe it wasn't there at all.
Well, I think there's a better possibility given the fact that these people behind the scenes have been working on universal vaccine technology for a while.
And the one thing that has sat in the back of my head for a very long time
And it's because I'm a very diabolical thinker.
I've written a lot of grants that never got funded.
And I've come up with lots of ideas for how to get funded.
And one of the things that strikes me as extraordinary when I've read these grant calls is that if you could ever come up with
a proprietary sequence of 12 amino acids that would guarantee the immune system to be annoyed and produce antibodies to it, and you kept it a secret, you could produce a vaccine for anything.
Essentially think of it like a magnet that nobody knew was there and you just put that magnet in the sequence and now you can make what looks like a Zika virus vaccine because when you transfect people to it the immune system is attracted to that proprietary sequence and whatever is next to it you get an antibody response to.
Now I'm not saying that exists
I'm suggesting that there's lots of companies that have looked for it.
I've heard Robert Malone, for example, talk about this technology in 2011, 2020, where he talks about you can use computer modeling to find a consensus protein sequence that will bind to certain HLA subtypes, and then that will get you a T cell and B cell response directly
Or you can just express the protein and let your immune system sort it out.
And so these guys are aware of the fact that there are certain protein sequences that are very annoying to the immune system, and it wouldn't surprise me
if part of their plan was to say, Hey, we found this virus and it just happens to have this sequence.
And this sequence just happens to work really well to produce antibodies, even when you inject four times.
And so I see a very simple bait and switch where they just put something in that they could point to and say it works.
And then they said there was a virus that had that.
So they'd have a real easy excuse to put Melissa Moore on stage and say, we only took an hour to figure it out.
I know it sounds crazy, but that's what I think, because then it makes sense why people were primed to say that the spike protein was dangerous, primed to say that the spike protein could cause problems because the spike protein had this immune toxin in it.
Some people are saying there's a parallel between part of the spike protein and, um,
and Staphyloenterotoxin B. There's been some other super antigen sequences that have been found in the spike.
The question is whether those occurred by accident or whether they're part of the design in order to get that into the transfection with an excuse of, well, we took an hour and that's what we came to.
Yeah.
So did they absolutely have to have the spike protein or say that the spike protein was in the vaccine?
That's the most amazing thing, though.
I don't think that that's even the best.
If they were going to choose the best antigen, they would have chosen the N protein.
So it's strange to me from all the other papers that came up before this, they had already kind of rejected the glycoprotein, the binding glycoprotein as a primary immunogen because of its variability and because of the inability to get antibodies to focus on the receptor binding domain.
But often you get off target antibodies that don't do anything.
So why do you think they focused on the spike protein then?
again because I think it is a protein for whatever reason gets them a high antibody response and that's their claim for effectiveness.
So do you think it's possible that there is no spike protein in any of these damned vaccines?
I'm just asking.
It's not very likely because there's too many neutral molecular biologists.
I mean
I'm sure that there's problems with the sequence, there's problems with the fidelity, there's problems with the purity.
And so that means that how much pure spike protein gets produced is probably very low and the rest of it is random or cut short or misfolded.
So that's definitely a problem, but those are different, I think.
Do you think there's spike protein in there, or do you know there's spike protein in there?
I was asking this question a year ago.
I couldn't get an answer from anybody.
Do you know, in your own mind, with your knowledge of biology, very high knowledge of biology, that the spike protein, and for that matter, the damned mRNA, is there any mRNA in these vaccines?
Do we know that?
As far as I can tell, yes.
I mean, everybody that's analyzed it and looked at it has found it.
So who's done that though, JJ?
Kevin McKernan has done it.
We've had him on here, you know, he's a very nice guy, he's very bright, but he's one of these super specialists who doesn't see the other stuff that he doesn't know about.
Yeah, but he's the guy who has been, I think, leading the way now, also showing that the DNA plasmid that is used, the cDNA plasmid that's used to generate the RNA is also present in the shots.
and that's terrible because that DNA can integrate directly.
That DNA is definitely gonna be immunogenic.
So all of the response of these shots is tainted if it has a significant quantity of that double-stranded plasmid in it.
So- So you don't think the spike protein story is like the gain of function story, which we agree.
The gain of function story is to reinforce the story
in the public's mind that there is a danger of a pandemic both from these created viruses in labs, so that creates the fear which is necessary.
So we agreed last week that
That was never a possibility in our minds.
And we also agreed that a pandemic was not possible from natural viruses.
I think the one thing that you're missing, though, is that it's too big of an opportunity.
They had the opportunity to inject billions of people with varied levels of a new therapeutic.
And the assumption is they didn't keep track of any of this stuff, when I think that's ridiculous.
I think they kept track of all purities.
They kept track of all distribution so that they could crack the numbers and see what purities worked, what purities didn't, what purities had high levels of, of events and what's didn't.
And they have all of this data.
And if they don't, they missed a huge opportunity to get it.
It would be crazy to think that after 15 years of planning to convert traditional egg-based flu vaccines to an RNA-based and DNA-based manufacturing set, after all that time, that they would roll this out and then
just completely bungle it and miss the opportunity to titrate doses, to titrate concentrations, and to titrate purities, to test different manufacturing sets, all of this stuff, it would be a hugely missed opportunity.
And they've been planning it for too long for that to be a missed opportunity.
No way.
But JJ, it already is a missed opportunity because it seems to me that people now are questioning all the vaccinations when previously they didn't, me for one.
I'm not saying they did it perfect.
I'm saying that they would have seen this coming and they definitely wouldn't have missed it.
That's all.
So the other question I wanted to ask you is probably more important.
So what are the most important things for the public to understand from what you told us tonight?
So what the public are interested in is whether they've been lied to or not, whether they realize now that they've been lied to or not.
What do you think is the best message for us to put about?
Maybe you need to think about it.
Yeah, I mean, it is a it is the message that everybody has in their stomach in this group, that a holistic approach to health that includes nutrition and exercise and a
a reasonably objective assessment of how well you've taken care of yourself over your adult life can put you in an adequate position to judge, you know, what sickness is a result of crazy gain-of-function viruses and what sicknesses are probably a result of really bad choices.
And there are so many people in America who have no concept of exactly how
how bad their health is because they're surrounded by peers.
And so they don't really see it.
And I think that's a real big problem.
You can see it when you pick up your kids at school, that there's just such a contrast between kids that are being raised on healthy food and kids that just don't have the time or the money to be raised on healthy food.
It's a real disaster.
I don't know what the right answer to that is.
But to get people to listen to us about that, JJ, we need to somehow get the message through to them that they've been lied to, and not just lied to on small lies, massive lies.
So who do you think
but be careful with libel.
So if you don't wanna say, don't say.
Who do you think personally, but public officials, I don't think you can libel.
So Valensky and people like that.
Who's told the worst lies about the stuff you've talked about tonight in your opinion?
I guess the one has to be Fauci because he's been telling the lies the longest and everybody that works at the Vaccine Research Center in America, you know, Barney Graham and all these people that run that show,
are running that show based on the ideas that T cells are very elusive to study and there's not very many nice assays for them.
But we can get very easy assays for antibodies.
And so let's just, you know, move billions and billions of dollars based on antibodies.
And who cares what comes out?
I mean,
It's a disaster because the whole spending spree of vaccinology in America and around the Western world is based on seroprevalence being primary instead of, you know, at the very, very end of the cascade.
sure.
Also Sukrit Bhakti is an immunologist I think you know so he's in my mind he's one of the foremost well he's a doctor he's also an immunologist he's a is he a toxicologist he's an epidemiologist and and he's another special I can't remember there are four specialties anyway so Sukrit Bhakti would you say he's up there amongst the the the best immunologists
I mean, I don't know who else you would put there.
What?
I mean, well, exactly.
I don't know any other.
The point is that besides Byron brittle, no one has really bothered to teach the danger of expressing a foreign protein and endothelium or anywhere else.
And lots and lots of people are trying to
to avoid using autoimmunity, avoid using the complement system to explain what's going on when autoimmunity and the deposition of complement is probably what's causing almost all of the problems with the shot.
And it's already was known to be a problem with other transfections.
So it's really,
It's really something that to me summarizes the whole pandemic, because the guy who discovers the complement system tells you that the complement system might be being activated by the antibodies that are produced by the transfection, and then you call him a crazy person.
That's pretty spectacular, I think.
And actually, Sukrit Bhakti has pointed that out.
I think it was in Athens when he spoke to the Greek people in Athens.
I think Rainer Fulmik set that up.
It's a great video.
I don't know if you've seen it.
I mean, he was presenting this idea very, very early.
It came to him very early.
Yeah, he was talking about the compliments.
Yeah, exactly.
So the leading immunologists in the world, would you say,
Well, it's hard after the last three years.
They've all described.
Well, you can't really look at immunologists because they're they're these kinds of doctors that are that are trapped in their little tiny shave of their, you know, I work on T regulatory type two cells, so I don't know about anything else.
And very few immunologists are willing to give a general talk like I just gave, even though it's the only one that really matters because the details are all great.
So the next question, JJ, remember me saying that genomics, in my view, genomics, evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, and virology could have been constructed by these criminals.
Was immunology also constructed possibly by these criminals so that they could do exactly what they've done now and mislead the public?
Well, the only thing that I would say for sure is a misnomer is the idea that retroviruses are a pathogen in the sense that they describe them.
Because really what likely happened was we injected materials that were manufactured in other organism tissues.
Those organism tissues contained retroviruses from that organism and our immune system was incompatible with them.
And the likely reason why this is, is because all of our tissues in our body use exosomes, which are small viral-like particles to send RNA signals to one another.
And more importantly, it's very likely that a primary user of exosomes and retroviral signaling is the immune system.
We've always been
Immunologists have always been trying to figure out how these independently operating units of T cells, macrophages, you know, monocytes, acinophils, how do they all orchestrate all together while they're all amoebic and all alone?
It's because they communicate with exosomic signaling and viral
Virology is really a usurping of that biology by ignoring it and then assuming that everything in that fraction is viruses rather than the majority of it being endogenous signaling.
It was an absolutely brilliant talk you gave once again, and I just wonder how many more talks you could produce on those lines, because if you can, then you're welcome here again.
We're very grateful to you.
It's really brilliant stuff.
And one last question.
Why do you think so few people
There must be honest people who know about immunology as well as you and Sucrit Bacti.
Yeah, you've got to like to teach though.
So few of them have spoken out.
You've got to like to teach though.
It's challenging to teach and it takes a lot.
I mean, I've been doing it for three years now.
I was not this smooth in 2020.
Are you in touch with Sucrit Bacti, JJ?
Not recently, but I was in that group for a while, so maybe I should get in touch with them again.
Well, you've got his email address, have you?
I think so, but I wouldn't mind if you'd help me.
OK, very good.
Excellent.
All right.
Thank you, Stephen.
Here we got a lot of questions.
Hands up.
Winston the G from Canada.
JJ.
Wow, wow, wow, wow and wow.
That's a medical doctor, by the way, JJ.
I have to say,
I don't know if you're hearing me.
I don't know.
I can hear you.
Yes, we can.
Yeah, we can hear you.
That was an excellent talk.
Excellent.
And I am going to promote you today from doctor to professor.
I think you are an excellent teacher.
Thank you very much.
I was able to follow some of what you did.
And I think you should continue.
I certainly would like to hear you again and again and again.
And I think that it would be nice for me if I could spend the next 10 years
just being taught by you because you clarify things beautifully.
So with that, I have to ask you a question.
It is my impression, and I am only a humble, retired psychiatrist.
I don't know very much of anything.
But my understanding is that COVID was whatever it is.
It is a respiratory illness fundamentally.
And that
In that case, the T cells that you spoke about so eloquently, and CD4, CD8 in particular, at least as important, if not more important than the antibodies which were injected into people, along with whatever else is in that injection, so-called vaccine.
So I understand that there's an IG,
that IgG and IgA in the blood, but there's a secretory IgG in the respiratory mucosa.
Can you comment on that and the differences?
Yeah, so you have it slightly mixed up, I believe.
It's IgM and IgG are in the plasma and IgA is in the mucosal.
But there could also be IgM in the mucosa and there could also be IgG in the mucosa.
I could be incorrect on that, but I believe the primary antibody in the mucosa is IgA.
And so, the trick is to realize that the antibodies that are in the blood can't pass the lung blood barrier.
So, any antibodies that are in the plasma aren't going there.
And so, the only way that that can get there are the B cells that are already present and have migrated into the mucosa.
I'm not an expert on mucosal antibody production, but I know that they are less specific for particular viruses because they are aimed at glycoprotein repeating patterns.
So many of the typical pathogens that grow in your lungs, bacteria, have these glycoproteins, which are proteins that have a lot of sugars on them.
And specifically, it's a mannose-based sugar.
And so you have a number of A-specific antibodies, both IgM and IgA, that are aimed at mannose lectins.
Mannose baster, I can't remember the right word, but these mannose lectins are foreign signals, basically.
We reuse very few of them, and as a result, it's okay to just make antibodies to them because they inevitably identify foreign things.
And so a lot of these IgAs will bind to the spike protein because the spike protein is a glycosylated protein as well.
I hope that helps a little bit.
Well, yeah, but I think you've taken me from year one of study to year four.
So I need to spend more time with you.
But listen, again, just this one thing you said just now that perhaps I should ask you to clarify.
So you mentioned the B cells taking something from the plasma to the lung.
Is that correct?
Dendritic cells do that, taking something from, say it again, ask me.
Yes, yeah, it sounds as though you said the distinction I elaborated isn't so clear, but the M cells, I think it is you said, the B cells, take the inflammation from the blood to the lung, because otherwise it can't get across.
I see.
No, it's the T cells that do that.
So again, it's very tricky without the pictures and I understand why it's confusing.
But when your lung cells are infected, there are antigen-presenting cells that are waiting there to clean up the mess.
And once they are activated, they will migrate back to the draining lymph node and present to T cells.
And then those T cells expand their numbers and migrate back.
And it is the T helper cells
that facilitate the passage of the cytotoxic T cells through the endothelium at the site of infection in the lungs.
If there weren't the helper T cells to allow those cells to pass, then they wouldn't pass.
And you're right, when the B cells are activated and they migrate back,
to the infection site.
They are also licensed to pass through the endothelium cells by those present T helper cells, but that's a cooperative effort as well.
I hope that was your question.
Thank you.
Thank you again.
And as I said, I appreciate what you do, what you did today.
Thanks again, professor.
Yes.
And honoree, Winston has just awarded you your professorship, JJ.
Congratulations.
And Winston, just send the check for the enrolment fee to JJ.
Jerry Waters from Ireland.
Hello, Jerry.
You're muted, Jerry.
Almost there.
Stay on target.
Unmute.
Almost there.
Unmute, Jerry.
Come on, Jerry.
Stay on target.
He's panicked.
He can't.
We can wait.
Let's do Rima first while Jerry's looking.
No pressure, Jerry.
Rima, you first.
Then back to Jerry Waters.
Thank you.
And let me echo the intent.
incredible appreciation that other people are expressing.
Wonderful presentation, fantastically complex stuff laid out beautifully so that it makes sense.
Once again, thank you.
My question goes back to last week's presentation, JJ, and I may have gotten it wrong, but I thought that you were saying
that in order to have the phenomenology of widespread disease or widespread reported disease that we were alleged to have and that was given the name pandemic, there was spraying that took place of people around the world of pathogenic material to engender illness.
If I understood that correctly, my question is, is that a hypothesis or do you have documentation or evidence that such spraying took place?
We know that there's all kinds of geoengineering of crap going on in the skies of our planet, but I'm wondering whether that was, first of all, did I understand you to be saying that correctly?
Did I correctly understand you to be saying that?
And second of all, if so,
Do you have documentation that that is so or is that a hypothesis?
So let me do this first.
The theory that I have
revolves around the idea that there's background virus that the PCR test is not specific for.
So when you use the PCR test, you don't know what coronavirus you're picking up, but the TV has told you that you're picking up the new special one, right?
That's so far so good.
What I think is important to understand is that the only real evidence we have
that there is a novel virus are any of the places where they claim to have sequenced it from a patient sample.
And as far as I can tell, that happened in Wuhan, for a nature paper.
It happened in Washington State, in Seattle, in a CDC publication that went to New England Journal of Medicine.
And they may have done it in Spain, and in Italy, and in Iran.
And so my argument is if those molecular biological signatures are true, then they must have planted those molecular biological signatures in some way.
They could have sprayed them.
They could have dosed people.
They could have planted it in.
I don't know how they did it, but the only way
that the molecular signature could be identical in those geographically disparate places at the same time is if they distribute it because an RNA virus can't maintain fidelity over that period of time and that number of people.
Unless, indeed, there was no such sequencing and it was
Um, a lie.
And so that's why, that's why I was suggesting that what you heard, which was that in reality, all the other people that seem to have gotten sick in these places, but were never sequenced.
would not have had to have a clone.
They could have had anything.
They could have had an irritating spray of something completely unrelated to viruses.
I don't know what it would be, but anything that could make people cough for a few days would have been enough to cause panic if there was again, this molecular signature.
So I'm not suggesting I have evidence for it.
What I'm suggesting is, is that we should work together to find
ways to, ways to prove that there was no virus.
And I think the way to prove that there was no virus is to, is to look if there's, one of the things that has come up that I haven't really been able to figure out how to push forward, and you guys could help, I'm sure, is what samples exist from pre-pandemic that we could test for things.
So are there pre, are there pre-pandemic
Pneumonia samples taken from bronchiolovage or their pre-pandemic samples of blood or their pre-pandemic samples of plasma, like there were in these papers, where we can look for signatures which would definitively tell us that this pathogen isn't new or that the background was really there.
And I think if we look for those things, we're going to find that the background is there, which means the PCR wasn't specific.
And then now we're in big trouble.
because we know in retrospect, talking to our doctors, that the protocols killed people, that the tests were misused, that the diagnostics were exaggerated because of the financial incentives.
And so then the number of people necessary to have had this novel disease is just ever decreasing asymptotically to essentially a person in Wuhan and a person in Seattle.
And that's it.
And so-
Anyway, go ahead.
I don't know anything at all about the scientists who published the papers that you're referring to.
I have not looked at them at all.
But it would seem to me instructive for those people who are good at teasing out the histories and financial connections and cross-contaminations
of people as they move through and build their careers, it would seem to me instructive to find out whether these are, in fact, scientists who were, shall we say, on marionette strings and published what they were told to publish.
Absolutely.
There's no doubt that this is true.
I think I can recommend
a channel on YouTube, Housatonic Live.
It's H-O-U.
He's fantastic.
And he's really on this idea of what are the mentor chains that have led to the current group of people that's running this theater.
And the mentor chains are pretty tight.
And the mentor chains go right back to retroviruses and AIDS.
And all the same, people seem to be involved in manipulating this narrative to create a world of pathogenic potential.
What's the name of that site, JJ?
Housatonic Live.
I'll get it up on my thing and then put it in the chat.
Thank you, JJ.
I wrote to you, and you're a busy man.
But if you have a chance to respond to my email, that would be lovely.
No problem.
Thank you so much for your work.
You're welcome.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Rima, well done.
John Baldwin has put the link in there.
JJ, done.
Oh, man, John, you're like a lightning bolt.
Yeah.
All right, Jerry Waters has unmuted himself.
Congratulations on your technological skills, Jerry.
Oh man, come on now.
Now, look at the hair here, JJ.
This is the real Jerry.
Yeah.
It's it's a tribute to you, JJ, to try and make a connection.
The reason I have I had difficulty unmuting myself is that I've had a self-imposed exile from the Zoom meeting due to the rudeness of Stephen on every last occasion I spoke where he endeavored to try and get me to move on.
And
The reality, you know, I've got a number of questions, but I will, Stephen, keep it short and not go too technical.
The last time, JJ, we were talking, we were talking about the insertion.
Again, it comes back to the concept of gain of function with the assertion of the
19 nucleotides into the furin cleavage site, if you remember that, and you were explaining how the furin cleavage site worked.
Again, it comes back to the whole idea that, you know, whether this virus was, in effect, a gain of function, and it appears that there was a degree of gain of function, whether it increased the infectivity or the transmissibility or whether it increased the pathogenicity of it, it appears that there seems to have been some manipulation with it.
Now, you know, there's a number of things I want to point out.
I think it's very important that you pointed out the fact that anything that's in the gut or anything that's in the lungs is, in effect, outside the body.
That's a hard concept for people to understand, that even something that's in the alveoli
is outside the body.
Again, most people think that if it's in the if it's in the gut, it's inside the body.
It's not.
It's outside the body.
And you pointed that out very successfully.
I give talks to two groups of lay people.
So it's important that I understand this.
So I'm going to ask some some questions.
And the first one is, when you talk about the dendritic cells picking up the
the virus or acknowledging the virus, which is outside the body.
Again, you know, it comes down to what's inside and what's outside the body.
The IGAs, I had a tutorial from Dolores Cahill and Dolores Cahill, as far as I'm concerned, is one of the great immunologists
But I had, as I say, I had a tutorial from Dolores.
I had a number of tutorials from her to try and bring myself up to speed, because I didn't really want to expose myself as particularly ignorant when you start giving lectures to people.
And she tells me that, in effect, the IGA's are outside the body.
And that's what you're saying, is it?
Yes, that's correct.
And I want to just, because you brought it up, I just go back to a slide to show you, to show you what I mean, because it's, it's actually something they don't talk about very much, but it's in every slide that they show with dendritic cells.
But keep asking, I'll get this thing up while you're still listening.
So my question is, what part of the virus, which protein, is it the end protein that the dendritic cells recognize at the initial contact in the respiratory system?
Or is it the spike protein?
So it's interesting because when they display, they make a very good point in most of the papers that I've read, that dendritic cells are amoebic cells and that they are able to reach to the outside of the alveolus and actually reach into the airway epithelium and the mucosal layer.
So the interesting thing is, is that a virus, which is, if you can see my arrow, a virus that is bound by IgA,
will necessarily attract the immune system because again, binding of antibodies is an indicator of flagging of a foreign particle.
So when these are bound by IgA, when these dendritic cells reach in between the endothelial cells to look for antigens, they will specifically find things that are bound to IgA.
And so they can reach outside and then bring them in.
So I think that's what occurs.
So what is required is the presence of the IgA in effect outside the body.
Absolutely.
Yep.
And it also causes this opsonization.
So it binds the multiple particles together as well.
It causes them to clump.
So that's the use of the word dendritic cells.
Dendritic would imply sort of little arms or little tentacles on this.
So that makes sense that those little tentacles could kind of reach up through the epithelial cells of the alveoli and make contact with the bound virus to the IgA.
That's correct.
And it's actually, there's an even beautiful thing that occurs when the dendritic cell passes the barrier of the draining lymph node.
There are actually B cells that wait at the
at the opening of the lymph node, and they can steal antigens from the dendritic cell and present them themselves, which is one of the ways that nonspecific B cells, which provide IgM, are activated nonspecifically, is that when the dendritic cells first come through the door, these B cells are just waiting, and they take antigens and activate themselves so that they can make IgM immediately.
It's a recently found
non-specific attack on viruses.
The other question I'd ask then would be the memory T-cells, they recognize the presence of a previously recognized virus.
So again, this comes back to the idea that it would probably have been the N protein
as opposed to the spike protein, which again, the last time we were discussing it, we're saying that the spike protein had been all altered through gain function by the insertion of 19 nucleotides.
Am I right there?
Yeah, you are.
But I think that the trick that everybody might be missing
is that they try to tell you that the fear and cleavage site makes it more infectious and it's super dangerous.
And we've never seen a fear and cleavage site before.
But what they didn't tell you was that the fear and cleavage site means that a very small portion of the spike protein becomes a free circulating protein.
And very few things are better at activating the immune system than a small free circulating protein.
And it could be that their idea was to use that fear and cleavage site to make the immune system focus on that free circulating spike.
And so that their immunization to it would be more specific to that portion, which would be the neutralizing antibody.
So I see, what I see is some kind of weird deception where in order to shortcut the real mechanistic development of immunity, they have substituted this A specific activation of B cells that they can point to and pretend is immunity.
And that's likely why this insertion was put in there.
Well, I suppose this comes back to, you know, a question that has been asked, what was the point of all this?
Like, you know, you know, was this was this an intentional call?
are, was it purely to, as you say, an experiment, you know, driven on by mad scientists?
Like, as far as you're concerned, what was the point of getting this?
We have to accept that there's enough people saying that messenger RNA and lipid nanoparticles and perhaps graphene have been injected into
into seven or what, six billion people around the world.
I would say, Jerry, I would say that no one under 40 is saying that.
I would go so far as to say that no, no one under 30 is saying that.
They don't dare.
Saying what?
Saying what you just said.
Everybody under 30 believes that something good happened and that we did the best we could and that these vaccines work and that they'll take it again.
There is there are very few young adults.
Well, I'd have to disagree with you.
I hope you're right.
Well, I was in my contact with people.
And as I say, I deal with lay people.
I talk to groups of people, small groups, big groups.
I don't care.
I go out and talk to them.
And my experience is that pretty much everybody smells a rat.
I hope so.
And I would say, again, purely from my experience, you know, I possibly fairly unique in this from from I'm a doctor who actually goes out and visits with groups of people and talks to them and can spend four or five hours talking to people.
A talk can can start at seven o'clock in the evening and go on on to 11 and we're thrown out of an establishment.
Well, I wonder, Jerry,
I really wonder if Ireland is small enough and they went hard enough with the vaccine passports and everything that they actually overstepped.
And Ireland is more awake than other places.
I don't know.
I can I can only say what my experience is.
And I've been I've been struck off two years ago, over two years, years ago.
And so I would have become a sort of beacon in Ireland as somebody who publicly went against it from the very beginning.
And
So all right, well, I will accept it.
Perhaps I'm speaking to the converted, you know, like me.
We're going to move, Jerry.
We've got 10, 15 minutes to go.
Got a lot of hands up.
We'll probably go another 15 minutes, JJ, if you can.
And Jerry's done a great job out there.
And I'm with Jerry on this.
I don't I don't get this desire to take more jabs.
But anyway, we will see, JJ.
I hope Jerry and I are correct.
I'm talking from an Australian perspective.
Can I just make one last point?
The principal crime and the first crime about this was the panic spread by the propaganda and the lies to force people into the vaccine.
And I don't think I think it's very, very important that we don't lose sight of that.
We can go into the sort of technicalities and the science of, you know,
fury and cleavage fights and all that but at the end of the day the principal crime was the crime of lying to people and that was through mis-certification of debts and I know as a GP we were we were mandated to in effect
switch the cause of deaths from everything else.
Where did the flu go?
From everything else to COVID.
And that was the first and principal crime, as far as I'm concerned.
And that is what I continue to push.
I agree.
Correct.
Yep.
We're in heated agreement.
Well done, Gerry.
OK, Shasta.
Hi, JJ.
Hello.
Thank you.
I definitely am learning a lot about immunology from you, which I really do appreciate.
I'm an acupuncturist and we don't, from my perspective, there's many other causes of diseases like chill, wind, damp, dry, weakness of the body that would make somebody be sick.
So I don't totally,
by endoverology, but I wanted to know what, you know, my confusion with your hypothesis of virus clones is how you're alleging that if we can't find an original isolate of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
I've read through all of the original research papers of all the the original Wuhan man who got it, the one guy who had it, and I know that the sequences changed like within 24 hours according to the documentation there was no real clear one set sequence.
So I
You know, I agree with you that we've been lied to.
I believe we've been all the way lied to.
There wasn't even anything.
I think they just relabeled the flu and many other things.
There may have been some 2019 flu vaccine with 5G that may have made some people sick in a different way.
from my experience in my clinic, there were less people sick that year, and I believe around the world.
So, how do you have this hypothesis of a virus clone when we can't find an actual clear isolate of a SARS-CoV-2 virus?
So, it's a good question, but I think, again, you're, you are part of, partly trapped in this, in this idea that no virus is a position that's valid.
And it's not.
And I'm not trying to be condescending.
I'm trying to suggest that you can't take the position that automobiles don't exist because they're outside.
And you can't take the position that viruses don't exist because we have a hard time isolating them.
So I'm totally on the team of saying that how we find coronaviruses is very
low fidelity, that we look for genetic signatures in the wild that most of the time we can't culture and we can never sustain in a laboratory setting.
And we look for that genetic signature and make a DNA approximation of it.
And that's what all of RNA virology is.
Now, if you want to argue that that means that most of RNA virology is smoke and mirrors, you're totally on side.
And I totally agree with you.
But what I'm suggesting is, is that the molecular biologists who think they know what they're doing are not just moving around little Lego pieces and pretending that they're getting the results that they get.
When they sequence with 99 nested primers and they get 98 amplicons and they put them and they assemble them in Italy and they assembled them in Washington, they assembled the sequence that was incredibly close to one another.
And those experiments aren't fake.
How they did it, they took a sample from a patient, they put it in a cell culture, they got a bunch of RNA, they made a sequence, and they said they found a virus.
Is that legitimate?
I'm not sure.
But what they find there is definitely a genetic sequence.
And I have, over the past few lectures, delineated known methodologies that have been used in hundreds of labs around the world for decades to take an RNA sequence and make it a DNA approximation of it and use that as a proxy in a laboratory.
And that known technology
would be sufficient to create the molecular signal that the WHO, the CDC, the EU, the CEPI, and all of these other organizations have pointed to that indicates a pandemic.
It's not a pandemic, but I'm trying to give you a plausible way that a crime scene could be created that had the real data.
It's not an isolation of a real virus.
It's not proving a real pathogen.
but it is creating the crime scene that appears to look like that.
And so when you say there's no virus, you're not wrong, but you're saying there's no virus means there's no crime.
And there was definitely a crime because they didn't just convince people to tell a story.
without a reason in the same way that the buildings fell on 9-11, but maybe not for the reason that everybody thinks, but the buildings had to fall or the war on terror would have never been started.
And the Patriot Act would have never been passed.
And I'm arguing that some of these molecular signatures at the beginning were probably real.
And we've had the technology to plant them for decades.
That's what I mean.
I got that, but I don't think that asking if something's isolated means that I don't think there was a crime, because I definitely think there was.
I think we both want the same thing.
I look at the Seventh-day Adventists as Christian scientists, the Amish, and even myself as a holistic medicine person who doesn't believe in viruses at this point, only because of what I learned over the last three years.
if we don't believe in it, and those people have chosen not to, and they didn't end up getting very sick or impacted the way the 81-year-olds, 90% of the people who allegedly got it in America were 81 years old, then is it possible that all of that story of
original viruses and virus clones could just be people have been poisoned or psychosomatically working themselves up into being sick.
Is that possible?
That it could be certain kinds of poison?
I guess you're not really listening because you really want me to say that there's no virus.
No, I don't want you to say it.
I'm trying.
I've already said that.
I've already said that you only need to really wait.
I've already said it.
I've already said that it could be an aerosolized poison like cyanide or anything else that was done.
I've said that multiple times because the only cases in the beginning that needed to have a clone would be ones that were really sequenced, really cultured, like the guy in Washington that supposedly they took a sample and it grew in Vero6 cells and they could sequence it and send it to the CDC.
That's normally not possible.
And so if that really occurred, and it really happened in a laboratory where a technician was like, look, it's growing.
And then they put it in a sequencing machine and they really got a sequence.
And all those people were fooled.
They could have done it with a clone.
and they would not have needed to do it anywhere else.
Everybody else could have been normally sick.
Everybody else could have been mistreated by the wrong protocols and because there was a financial incentive to apply the test.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I just don't know why you need to insist.
I'm not arguing with you.
I'm inquiring.
Okay Shasta, come on, come on, come on.
We've explored it.
We've got to keep, we've got a lot of hands up.
I don't have any more questions.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
I just, it is frustrating because it's, it's, it's a lot of disagreement over nothing.
Thank you Shasta.
Jack.
Thank you.
Okay.
We're going to be quick everybody.
We've got two, four, six hands up.
Uh, JJ, are you okay till, let's go 15 minutes over.
I'm fine.
It doesn't matter.
OK, 20 minutes, everybody.
We're going to be tight.
Jack?
Well, JJ, I was very impressed with the extreme complexity of your deconstruction of this.
And I'm a retired psychologist.
And my first year of duty as a psychologist was with the US Army during the Vietnam War.
So I've been watching this empire for a long time.
I've seen a continuous pattern of terrorism by our government against our people.
The only time any atom bombs have ever been dropped is by us, two of them, to end the World War II, and they were unnecessary.
We were lied to.
The Gulf of Tonkin never happened.
We were lied to.
The towers fell down.
It was obviously an inside job.
George Bush declared the very same day that bin Laden did it, and that we were lied to.
There were anthrax released right after that, and we were lied to about that.
They came from Fort Detrick.
They were trying to frame Saddam or bin Laden for this.
There were no WMDs in Iraq.
How many times do we have to be lied to and terrorized into submission?
This has happened throughout my entire life.
The U.S.
government has never told us the truth, never, about any important event of this kind.
So of course we were lied to about this COVID thing.
And that was pretty obvious right from the beginning.
Now, I agree with you, JJ, about the likely distribution of the viruses.
There probably were viruses, because the CIA can distribute anything it wants, anywhere it wants, anytime it wants.
And what struck me initially, very interesting, is that it appeared suddenly in Wuhan, in China, our number one economic rival.
Then it suddenly turns up in Iran, our number one regime change target.
Then it showed up in Northern Italy, and I wondered, well, why would the CIA be targeting Italy?
I looked up something about the government of Italy.
They had a government at that time that was talking about leaving the EU.
That would have collapsed the EU.
They were talking about leaving NATO.
And all of a sudden, their intentions are distracted by this.
So I think you're absolutely right about your
your speculations.
And the important thing to me is that as a psychologist is how difficult this was for you to explain.
I mean, it took so much time, so much study, so much detail, so much exactness, way beyond what the general public will ever understand.
And it's the same with every other terror campaign.
It's been communist.
Look out for unattended briefcase.
You can't tell a communist from a human being, you know.
And then when the Soviet Union collapses, we have terrorism.
Well, you can't tell a terrorist from any other black hair, tan skin person, right?
I mean, 90% of the world could look like a terrorist.
So we have been constantly terrorized by phenomena that were essentially invisible, indiscriminable.
And the COVID scenario fits into the same pattern.
It's opaque.
It's very difficult to prove or to explain.
And so it just fits perfectly.
So I agree totally with that.
And I'm very appreciative of the enormous time and effort you've put into trying to unravel this mystery.
Thank you very much for the compliment.
Well said, well said, Jack.
Jim?
Jim, you're muted.
Thank you.
Thanks, JJ.
That was great.
I am not sure if this is working right now.
I see it.
I can hear you.
Great.
Thanks.
You're right on point with everything, including that the T cell and NK cells are the real immune system that we have to use but not measure.
And I gave an example in there and somebody here is they was the primary care of a ten-year-old who?
Got I who got kovat symptoms kovat kovat symptoms.
I put that in quotes and then what?
Tested with a blood test IgM IgG positive, excuse me IgM positive but not IgG positive ten-year-old and
was given chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, very low dose for a couple of days, symptoms went free, took the blood test again.
This time IgM negative, IgG negative, never went to IgG positive, all right?
That's critical.
What happened with that 10-year-old?
exactly what you said, T cells, NK cells.
That's the issue.
Okay.
And we have the primary care doc on this chat.
I won't signal that person out.
Okay.
That's very important.
Now, a couple of more things that you said that are very critical.
Only late in the infection
does that glycosylated protein go out and attach to T cells, okay?
Early on, the glycosylated protein is concentrating on the ACE2 receptor aspect of it, where it's killing your, where it's replicating itself, okay?
But only late in the game, in the, in the, um,
the study that was done at the Veterans Administration, okay?
Only late in the game did the study in the Veterans Administration show that the people with the T-cell damage had the worst outcomes.
So I want you to think about this, and you've already gotten it right.
The T-cells, early in the infection, the T-cells aren't killed off by the GP120, GP41 spike, okay?
afterward, when there's so much spike protein that is pouring out of your nose and you're PCR positive, only then do you get the T cell damage.
You see?
And that fits in with your theory, where early on, if you treat it early with the hydroxychloric, when you block the ACE2 receptor,
then nothing happens.
Then you get your, as the 10 year old did, your NK cell and your T cell fix.
So I think I sent you an email and I'd like to communicate with you further on this stuff.
So a couple of things, the intelligence agencies, if you think about this as an intelligence agency operation, they would only have to invent the spike protein.
Okay, not the coronavirus, spike protein.
I agree with that totally.
The other thing to realize is that directed evolution techniques are only useful on a protein binding basis.
They're not useful for like for a virus.
So if the intelligence agencies invented the spike protein, took the furin cleavage site and put it in there between the S1 and the S2 segments, and there's a TMPRSS2 cleavage site at the same place,
that gives some specificity to it I can talk about later on.
So if they put that in there, and they put in the and they have the GP 120 GP 41 in there, then
First off, the ACE2 receptor binds and replicates, and then the T cell, only after the replication of the spike protein so much that you're getting PCR positive, is coming in.
Well, you get that.
I'm going to go to the next topic.
You asked a question.
What could they spread for miles and give you the same symptoms as COVID?
And the answer is coxillia bernetti.
Are you familiar with Q fever?
Yes.
Axellia burnetii can spread for miles.
Okay.
And that gives the identical symptoms to COVID.
And it's treated by exactly what COVID is treated with hydroxychloroquine.
The person who came up with that treatment did not do a double blinded placebo controlled study.
Yet that person is
Who came up with that, the treatment for it?
It's under the CDC protocol.
And it was the same guy who was chastised from France.
Give me his name.
I'm forgetting his name.
Yeah.
No, not Montagnier.
Didier Raoult, thank you.
Didier Raoult came up with that treatment.
He did not do a double blind placebo control.
He said this fits with this, this fits with this, treat him with hydroxychloroquine, boom, gone.
And if we prophylax, and here's the secret, if we prophylax with hydroxychloroquine, we won't get the damn Q fever.
And here's another secret.
Before you give the Q fever vaccine, you must test for antibodies.
You know that?
Yeah, it's like dengue fever and a lot of others as well.
Okay, Jim, hurry up.
We're running out of time.
It's very, it's very terrible.
Yep.
Yeah, I know, but we haven't got endless time.
I apologize.
So the question is, is the SARS-CoV-2, so why didn't the Congress, so my question is, why didn't Congress ask to declassify the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein?
Thank you.
I don't know about declassifying it, but I do think it's important to reflect back on the lady that was asking about there not being a virus and piggyback on what was just said by Jim, and that is the transfection of the spike alone
in the lungs would cause a lot of the symptomology, the ARDS and everything else.
So again, you wouldn't even need to release a clone of an entire SARS-CoV-2 with the exception of the idea of getting the whole sequence to show up in the lab.
The reason why you might not need to do that is because the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and the N-protein are homologous across coronaviruses.
So if you express the spike and those other two were just there in the background, you would also get a PCR positive on all three amplicons.
But I think that's less foolproof than putting a clone in a few places, but it's possible for sure.
OK, thank you.
Jim, there's another Jim in the queue before Teresa and then Glyn.
I presume that's yours.
That was me.
I'm out.
OK, Teresa.
Teresa, then Glyn.
Jesus.
Hi.
Sorry.
Thanks, Charles.
OK, I'm going to have a very brief rant here.
There's three main questions.
Time for a break for Ed.
It's the question.
Virus versus no virus.
Look, I can deal with that, OK?
There's a toxin.
It appears that they're using multiple vectors, including synthetic viruses.
I can get behind that.
COVID-19 versus no COVID-19.
That makes me want to stick knitting needles in my eyes.
Many people in this group have been severely sick with COVID-19.
It's not the flu.
But the question, is there a spike protein?
Now that makes me want to scoop my eyeballs out with spoons and deep fry them.
We've got the murder weapon.
The spike protein is cardiotoxic.
People are dying of cardiotoxicity.
It's neurotoxic.
It's got a prion domain.
It's causing dementia and CJD.
I've got two aunties that have got severe dementia after their jabs.
People are dying from this neurotoxicity.
We've got dementia.
We've got CJD.
Despite protein is cytotoxic, immunotoxic, it's destroying CD8 killer T cells or making them kill themselves.
It's interfering with the BRCA and p53 systems.
It's triggering cancers and preventing the suppression of tumors.
People are dying of turbo cancer.
I've lost two relatives.
Okay, the spike proteins interfering with the mitochondria in the brain cells people are struggling struggling with What's the question even me right?
Can we please stop questioning the existence of the spike protein JJ?
You're highly Valued by this group you are respected by this group.
Can you please help me put this one to rest because believe me?
I don't want to scoop my eyeballs out, but I'm on the verge of it so
I agree, but I have a hard time with the separation of the shot from the virus.
So it's still not clear to me if the... I don't know really how to say it other than I don't know that we can
For me right now, the most important data that just came out was that they analyzed women who were having menstruation problems that were not vaccinated and those women still had spike protein in their bodies when they were working in places where there were people vaccinated, so they seem to have
direct evidence that not only is the spike protein being shed, but it's interacting with other people's immune systems.
Of course, you know that this was in the papers of the investigational vaccines from the FDA, and they said that you shouldn't have sex with people that are vaccinated, yada, yada, yada.
So they knew that the protein was going to be produced in enough quantity that you might shed it.
And so they also knew that shedding it would be a problem.
Now, if they thought that the protein was inert, then why would it be a problem?
So I'm not disagreeing with you.
I just don't know how to reconcile how we
I don't know how to reconcile the people that got sick in 2019 with the people who got sick with 2020.
I don't know how to reconcile the people who got very sick after they went to the hospital.
The people that I do take seriously are people like myself, who had two really bad sicknesses the spring or really early spring of 2019.
And then again, in the fall of 2020 or the fall of 2019, I was super sick.
The most,
chills and like painful lungs that I had had in my, I could remember in my adult memory.
But that was before the pandemic was declared.
And so I would say, yes, I also had something like that, but I don't have long COVID.
I don't have, didn't have any long-term side effects.
I was on my bike the next week.
So I just don't know how sure we can be
that what we just had was some kind of anomaly.
I don't know if five years from now I'm not gonna be sick like that again and then look back and say, hey, wait a minute, maybe what I had in 2019 was just a rare normal thing.
And so I'm not discounting anybody that got sick.
I'm discounting the fact that nobody got sick before this.
Of course we did.
And of course people went to the hospital with pneumonia.
And of course people didn't go to the hospital with pneumonia and stayed home and had the worst sickness of their recent life.
That's been happening for all time.
Maybe I had pneumonia in 2019 and didn't go to the hospital.
It sure hurt, but I don't know if that necessarily means now there's a novel pathogen that's never encountered a human before, because that's a big jump.
Well, okay.
Thank you, JJ.
No, thank you, Teresa.
Glenn is next, and then Stephen, and then we're stopping.
So Sandra and John, no time.
I'm in a tornado area, so that's why I've got my video off.
I'm going to put it on, hoping I don't lose the signal.
All right, Vera, I'm so glad you're still here.
If you could come off, Mike, so you could contribute to this discussion, I'd very much appreciate it.
No discussion.
We're going to be quick.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Give me a moment, child, please.
No.
Come on, I've already given 15 minutes.
Go quick.
I I excuse me.
The reason I use the Lord's name in vain was an emotional one.
I thought I was next.
I was in fact time order.
I was ahead of both Teresa and Jim.
In order for you to see the order, you have to look at gallery mode.
OK, I'm going to I've been in go.
Don't argue with me.
All right, so my focus here is around saving humanity.
And as part of that, I would like to advance, JJ, one of the things that you brought up last time in a subtle way this time.
And that's how do we make progress and how do we make steps forward?
And you indicated a concern that you have started to get more of JFK's opinion
Uh, but unfortunately too much of his opinion is still being shaped by Robert Malone.
And, and that, that is, uh, potentially dangerous because we, many of the things he is saying are suspect now, uh,
I, I believe there are a range of people here that are still here that have been on for a long time that have connections with, with RFK and could help influence him to believe more in you because that you, you are so brilliant, both on a, on a tactical and detail level, as well as a strategic one.
And, and if we could get more of your opinion to be adopted by, uh, by JFK, I think that'd be wonderful.
Now I have a.
and all the specific things, but this is why Charles, I wanted to have Vera be able to respond.
I believe she has strong connections and whether or not she could help JJ and all of us from saving humanity.
I wonder if I just short through the corner here.
Bobby called me last night.
I talk to him probably once a week.
I'm probably not going to talk to him this month now because he's doing all kinds of traveling and I'm helping him with the Wuhan book that he's writing.
As far as I can tell, right now when Bobby has a hard question about this, he calls me.
And as far as I can tell You know that that's that's the pattern that we're having going forward now It's not to say that he doesn't respect Robert and he doesn't still think that Robert has put his career on the line to help save the world and Whether or not I agree with that Interpretation is irrelevant because I see Robert F Kennedy jr as the kind of guy who would keep his enemies even closer than his friends and so even if even if
Bobby doubts Roberts integrity.
He's going to keep him close and he's going to hold him close because again, he came out through him and through Brett Weinstein and it's his best interest not to
I see Bobby as being somebody who has to balance on such a dangerous ball of influence and control and he has to push the ball in directions that he knows he can get away with while very carefully walking certain lines to avoid complete and total annihilation in the public sphere.
And so coupled with the fact that there's all these people that are just waiting for him to screw up, I think that
long after he has decided to stop being influenced by a particular person, that person will find out.
And so I think it's important to keep optimistic because I am, I am, I do have his ear and I am able to send him emails and he does read them and so far we are still collaborating.
So I would be very optimistic and
You know, I'm just trying to do it as subtly as I possibly can because Robert Malone sues people that he doesn't agree with.
And so I'm just trying to ask questions and point out that his track record before the pandemic is one of an extreme insider.
And now that he's a horse breeder, we shouldn't think of him as a poor farmer because horse breeding is a very rich person's hobby.
And so we're really not looking at somebody who's struggling.
We're looking at somebody who has done very well as a vaccine technology broker for more than 15 years.
And if he has indeed burnt those bridges, that's wonderful.
But I don't think that that conclusion is the most obvious one to come to given his, you know, track record of the last two years.
I would say that's about where I'm at right now.
And I don't think that, that, um,
the people that you're worried about are unaware of that.
That's the way I would say it.
Okay, so now let me ask the question that for specifically what my looking to and going forward.
In general, I believe the way you describe things, that no matter what your spiritual grounding is,
that everyone should trust in God's creation because of what a marvelous set of flesh that he has created and capable of handling so many different things.
So because of your skill set of going across both detail and tactical and strategic,
My recommendation to you is that this video you've just done be the key thing that gets repeated, that you don't need to go on a roadshow and have your time consumed, and that would be so much better off joining a strategic team around being in the centerpiece of the planning.
Okay, that's a comment, not a question.
Hold on.
So then my question is, are you willing to join my team together with
Jerry Brady and Sam Dubay and Raymond Strom, all of us who are on this call and active in trying to promote a world strategy that engages the public and moves us forward.
Absolutely.
Just give me an email.
I would love to.
I mean, this is what I do.
Okay, there's your answer.
Excellent.
Great question.
Thank you.
Stephen Frost, last question, and then we're finishing.
We're way over time.
And there we go, the Tom Rodman group for all of you with endless time.
So just two seconds.
So I'll just get myself on.
Sorry, I'm trying to get the.
So, JJ, I agree with you that RFK Jr., if only because of his name and
the people who preceded him is a massive target, so he has to be extremely careful.
And he hasn't screwed up so far, but I think that he, I hope, because I did recommend you to him and to Mary Holland, but also he's possibly seen last week's video, I don't know, but he may be listening to you a lot more than even you think.
And so when you came on, I can't remember, was it six months ago or something, I thought, wow, this guy's right on track.
And I don't know why your name slipped out.
Oh, well, we were in contact before Christmas, if you remember, and we were going to do something, but that was the fault of other people, I think.
So I don't think Glenn needs to be worried about, because
Human beings are very good at recognizing, well, they're not all very good, but I think someone like RFK Jr.
would have those skills very much to the fore when he's choosing people around him, but it's very difficult for him.
But thank you very much.
So I would say one thing that people being damaged neurologically,
by these injections and in other ways is not proof of existence of the spike protein, but we won't get into that argument again.
That's my comment on what we say.
Okay, beautiful.
Excellent.
Thank you for that comment, everybody.
You know, we have to, the reason why we're on two and a half hours is people plan their lives, you know, and huge amount, like someone said, we had a fire hose of information and all of you, I said, Glenn, right at the start, there are groups, Glenn is in a group who wants to volunteer
you know, like, please put your hand up and we'll farm you out to these groups.
Glenn, JJ, Glenn will be in touch with you.
Jerry Brady's working.
There's some wonderful groups doing wonderful work.
Thank you all for being here.
Thank you, JJ, again, your wonderful work.
And I think you articulated something very important.
You said it's taken you three years to become articulate in this.
And if we're not willing to invest our time in learning about this, and then I think John Lukacs made a comment, don't have arguments with people who haven't done the research.
Not worth it.
It's a waste of your time.
So that's what we're dealing with, everybody.
And it's a challenge in our tight time frame.
I come back to, hey, we're all about ethics, justice, truth, health.
We're coming from love, not fear.
We have different opinions, we have different stuff in the chat.
Come on, you know, we're working for the same goal and we have different views and be passionate about it, but we're supposed to love each other.
So try that.
OK, everybody, thanks for being here.
I've saved the chat.
And more information you would like to share with us or is that it for the moment?
That's good for me.
It's good for me.
Let us know when
when you have more.
As soon as I have the gut part done, I'll come back and give the second one.
Oh, excellent.
Yes, I was going to ask you about Sabine Hassan's work.
Do you know of her?
I do.
I haven't been able to interview her yet.
That's part of the reason why I don't do the gut lecture yet.
So as soon as I get in touch with her and get it approved by her, I'll do the gut lecture.
Excellent.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, guys.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you, everybody.
Thank you, JJ.
Thanks, everybody.
God bless.
Go to Tom Rodman if you can.
Happy Palm Sunday.
Wow, that was really tiring.
I'm done.
Thank you very much for joining me guys for staying around for that.
That was really very tiring, but I'll trim it and put it on the website as well, but we'll just leave the raw one up here.
I can't thank you enough for joining me.
I'm going to need a little break here, so I'm not going to do much of a sign off.
I have been reading the chat and seeing you guys and supporting me has been really helpful.
I hope you enjoyed it.
Those guys are always funny.
And Jerry's got this really long, curly gray hair, the Irish guy, and he always takes his hair down when he asks me a question.
It's hilarious.
I should have showed him, but they're not supposed to be on camera.
So thank you guys very much.
I'll see you soon.
I don't know what that was.
Sorry about that.
See you guys later.
Thanks for coming.
I really, really, really appreciate it a lot.
So many of you guys are here.
So many of you guys are here every day.
It's just really amazing how many of you guys show up and how long you stay.
Stop lying.