I should be live now.
Peter just called me.
I talked to him on Zoom for about five minutes.
His voice sounds awful.
He can't always get sound out
and you can hear that there's all kinds of stuff in there.
You can see that he looks very tired
and he's been working all day.
So I told him absolutely not.
We can reschedule this.
What I wanted to talk to him about today was two things.
He had a poster, I believe.
I'm just going to zoom through these really quick.
Sorry about that.
I should have pulled that out.
He's got a poster about the autopsy findings
that was actually presented
at a University of Michigan meeting
and then also labeled as misinformation.
And then he also, we also have this
tell him honey and vinegar indeed.
Hey, we got a package from you today, Pamela.
That's very sweet.
I'm supposed to say thank you.
And apparently at least one person in the house
is very happy with that package.
And the other thing that I wanted to talk about with him
is this paper about a mild cardial assessment
of function in the heart of vaccinated
and unvaccinated people.
And I thought one of the reasons why it might be nice
to talk to him about this is to try
and understand exactly how this paper was done.
And so I did talk to him for about five minutes.
And the gist of it is that they can use PET scanning
to see a shift from fatty acid metabolism
to glucose metabolism.
And in general, if your heart is damaged or ischemic,
usually it's ischemic.
And there is a shift,
so ischemic means it's low on oxygen.
There's a shift from fatty acid metabolism
to glucose metabolism.
And people that have taken the shot
seem to have shifted their heart to glucose metabolism.
And then they can see some correlation
with pain in the arm and the more pain in the arm,
you have the more likely arm to have this uptake
of this dye, which indicates this change
in metabolic state of those cells.
So he said it was a really striking finding
because of the signal was so incredible and uniform it.
So I think it's an interesting observation
that I think Peter is just willing to add
to one of the many reasons why he would probably agree
that that, come on, man, what's going on?
Oh, that's a window, I forgot, that's a window, my bad.
That's probably why he would agree that,
and now that's moving, why is that moving?
Goodness sakes, it's just dumb.
I'm losing my mind here after having J Balacharion,
that was a really intense conversation.
I don't think that at this stage,
Peter would argue with the statements on this screen,
except for maybe the bottom one,
simply because he's not a virologist
or a biologist in that lane.
But I think that Peter Makala has recently taken the position
that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances
with the intent of augmenting the immune system
is unadvisable, and transfection in healthy humans
is criminally negligent, and he may have found
another aspect of the evidence,
which I think is his conclusive at this stage,
that they had to, had to have known
that the damage that would be done by this
was simply unjustifiable.
So there must have been some other national security priority,
some other objective that they wanted to accomplish
with this maneuver, other than just responding to a pandemic,
which we all understand now,
the claim for a pandemic is dubious at best.
And the reason why they're doing this
is because they want to invert our sovereignty to permissions.
Stop all transfections in healthy humans
because they are trying to eliminate the control group.
I hope you won't be disappointed
if I just leave you to redigest the JB interview with J.C.
And we'll come back to Peter McSee MD
as soon as we can with Dr. J.C.
And so thank you very much for joining me.
And I think I will sign off now
and try to help keep peace in the house this evening.
So thank you very much.
I'll see you guys again soon.
Good to see you again, Jeff.
Thanks for following
and the other Jeff to their UGG-001.
Pamela, again, thanks for the package.
And garden variety human, thanks for showing up.
Thanks for the kudos.
I hope that I hope you enjoyed that interview with JB
as much as I did.
I felt some friction or some resistance or some disconnect,
but I didn't...
Well, I don't know.
I just know that I've met him a few times in person.
I really like the guy a lot,
and I think he's also really trying to solve the process.
So I hope with further discussion we can get him
either to push back harder against what we're hypothesizing.
To either push back more effectively
on what we're hypothesizing
or digest a little bit more about what we're hypothesizing
and help us evaluate it better.
So either way, I think we made a lot of progress with Jay.
Can I know that Peter has come a long way since the last time
we talked to him?
So I'm really excited about getting his insight into this paper
and also just talking to him about
how his views about immunology
and the vaccinology have changed over the past three years.
I think it's a really unique opportunity
to talk to another person who has essentially had a few changes
apart over the last three years,
not unlike yours truly.
So it's been a very humble regret
that I say that I can't talk to him today
but I will talk to him soon.
Thanks guys.