I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case
that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case.
The latest data tells us that we're dealing with the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that the latest data
One priority.
I think truth is good for kids. We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more than society. We want everybody to feel good.
That's not the way life is.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie, you know, and I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
I'm not sure exactly who he is.
His name is J. J. Cooley, and I believe he's a consultant for CHD, and I believe he has
a PhD in some sort of scientific discipline from what I understand.
I don't want to be a liar, but I don't want to be a liar, and I don't want to be a liar.
Good morning, everyone.
This is Gigo.
I'm biological.
We're still working on the same enchantment.
We're still trying to build the knowledge necessary to dispel it.
Thank you very much for joining me this morning, wherever you are, whenever time it is, wherever
you are.
Thank you very much for being here.
It is greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much for joining me this morning, and thank you very much for joining me this
morning, and thank you very much for joining me this morning, and thank you very much for
joining me this morning, and thank you very much for joining me this morning, and thank
you very much for joining me this morning, and thank you very much for joining me this
morning, and thank you very much for joining me this morning, and thank you very much
for joining me this morning, And thank you very much for joining me this morning, And
thank you very much for joining me.
And thank you very much for joining me this morning, and thank you very much for joining
me this morning, and thank you very much for joining me this morning, and thank you very
but you don't say that the play that they enacted is a lie,
then essentially you're not questioning anything.
If you say that everybody in the government is a traitor,
but you don't question the laws that they pass,
then what are you really questioning?
And that's what they've gotten us to do
with all of these people.
That's what they've gotten to do with all of you.
That's what we seem not to be able to show each other.
That's not, it seems to be very hard to teach.
You don't understand Mr. Brown, the bottom.
When people decide to lie together,
the results are absolutely awful.
And these people who are agreeing not to question the faith,
no matter how they, whatever else they question,
I would argue are part of this.
And I know a lot of people don't wanna hear that,
but if you're just saying that there are bad guys out there,
well, yeah, great, thanks for the update.
I can see that.
But if you're not calling the vaccine schedule
what it is like every day and twice on Sunday,
then I don't think you're really fighting.
I think you're just dancing around the main problem.
The very easy thing, the lowest hanging fruit,
the thing that is backed by our history
is backed by history that we can still accurately trace.
And I think that's what's most important right now.
If we continue to allow these charlatans
to tell us the story that they wanna tell,
then the truth will never be available to our children.
And they will never get the power
that probably are only our grandparents had,
which is really sovereignty over our bodies
and what we do with our future.
I think we have been fooled into believing
we've been in control of very much for our entire lives.
Not everybody's parents were bad guys in this.
Not all the bad guys have bad parents.
Not everybody in this is part of the illusion.
Wittingly.
Sometimes it is, hello in the Philippines.
Goodness sakes, wow.
I hope that you have started to become someone
like this guy in the red there,
able to save people with a more rudimentary
and simple understanding of things,
able to understand the subtleties
of how what looks to be very easy is actually very difficult.
I hope you've been able to help someone else
learn to surf this wave.
I hope that we have helped some of you
that GigaOM Biological, which is really not just me,
but it's also my family that enables this to happen
and all the people that were on that first screen
that support this work.
I hope that maybe some of you have been helped
by GigaOM Biological to stay focused on the biology,
to not take their bait on television
and to love your neighbors irrespective of what's up.
The reason why we are here every day often is possible
and the reason why May is going to be another shift
in terms of output is because people financially
contribute to the work they subscribe
and also viewers spread the word.
That's the most important part.
How many people work very hard,
not doing anything else,
but trying to share the screen.
There's this guy named Soothe Spider
who's working on ways to try and make it easier
for me to put transcripts up on substack,
which you might actually think would be pretty easy.
I mean, if you look at some of these substack authors
can put three or four articles out in a day
and I find it very difficult having a video,
having a transcript and still find it difficult
to clean it up enough to get it on substack
in a satisfactory manner that I think is worth somebody
clicking on and that's what I find most extraordinary
whereas someone else with a farm or maybe two farms
and horses and emus can put out something
like 17 substacks every two weeks
and between 20 and 30 pages a day
on average during the week.
This is just extraordinary stuff
and this extraordinary illusion is only sustained
through your active participation.
If you actually believe that people can emu farm
and hand breed horses and tour the world in hot tubs
while fighting a, leading a resistance, global resistance
from the foot of the Shenandoah National Forest, I'm sorry
but maybe you should buy an igloo in Arizona too.
And this illusion, like I'm saying, is only sustained
through your active, if you believe that these people
are real and that their output is all just them
and that these, these substacked authors
are just covering what they want to cover
and nobody's telling them what to do again.
You're sustaining the illusion.
If you believe that a lot of these groups
that stood in front of fake microphones in 2020
and we're trying to point out something,
we're working for our best interest.
I think you're just mistaken.
I think you've been fooled by the same machinery
that fooled a lot of us in the very, very beginning.
And that's the danger really.
Hope I didn't just do a bunch of copyrighted music there.
I'm not really sure what that's all about there.
Mike puts some stuff in there.
A lot of this stuff is copyrighted
but the way that he mixed it in, this guy.
Mike Vandenberg, mixed date.
That's the, Mike Vandenberg is no longer with us.
He's a friend of mine from Amsterdam,
my time in the Netherlands.
He was a really great guy, real nice dude.
He was a DJ and so that actually made him
a very cool connection because every once in a while
you would find out that,
Michael, Mike Vandenberg,
I mean, Michael is his Dutch name.
He, you know, you might find out
that he was at a party or something
and I know one particular friend of mine
took a lot of advantage of that much more than I did
but that's actually who I met Mike through.
And then, yeah, I just realized that
what a funky opening music I could create
from Mike's mixed tape.
So anyway, I'm pouring a little coffee
on the curb for my friend, Mike.
Anyway, this is Gigo and Biological,
High Resistance, Illinois's information brief,
brought to you by a biologist.
We are coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
and here it is approximately 10.30 in the morning
on the 30th of April.
And it's a cloudy skies
and the temperature is incredibly warm.
We always seem to skip spring in Pennsylvania.
We go right from freezing every morning to,
I can't stand the heat.
And that's me making a little bit of a joke.
I gotta be very honest with you.
Pennsylvania is really one of the better places
to live in America, I've gotta say.
It's gotta be because the winters are easy.
The summers have about two weeks of pain
and the rest is, you know, okay, it's humid,
but I mean, I've been other places.
I know that this is not humid.
It's more humid because we've got a lot of grass around
and a lot of blacktop around, but it's not like Texas.
It's, you know, it's not that hot and it's not that humid.
It's not like Tennessee.
I've been to Tennessee in times
where I really wanted to off myself.
And so Pennsylvania has been a really wonderful surprise
coming here just because this was the one place
that would give me a faculty position.
My family has been very blessed to be in Pennsylvania
and to be in Pittsburgh where at least half the people here
have their head on straight.
And so it is my pleasure to be here this morning.
I'm really liking this 10-10,
although I'm late this morning.
It is a really nice time to be streaming.
It's still cool air coming in the back door
and blowing out the front of the garage.
And so welcome to the show.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances
with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent
and that's actually a well-known fact
or should have been a well-known fact
to most faculty members in the United States of medical schools
and biology faculty all around the world really.
And RNA cannot pandemic is something
that even the most sophisticated
and dogmatic bench biologist and chemist
or anybody that rudimentary rudimentarily understands
the basics of the DNA to RNA to protein dogma.
Should be able to understand what I'm trying to get at
when I say RNA cannot pandemic.
I think it's a better way of saying that an RNA molecule
is not a pattern integrity.
And even if you wrap up an RNA molecule
with a few enzymes, I don't think it constitutes
a pattern integrity.
And so that's really at the heart of this.
And once you start to see it for what it is,
you will start to realize that they have lied to us
about a lot of the fundamental biology
that they purport underlies the principle of a pandemic,
the idea of a pandemic.
And our current hypothesis remains pretty similar
to what it has been over the last,
it's evolved a little bit over the last six months.
If you're joining us for the first time here
at Gigome Biological, we pretty much have come
to the conclusion that the who declared a pandemic
of a dangerous novel virus.
And then through the use of nonspecific PCR testing,
in combination with a background,
which was not a clean background,
but whether it was a hot background,
full of noise that these nonspecific tests
could result in positivity.
And then financial incentives that were added
on top of this in certain places around the world,
United States being one of them.
Certain incentives where if you treated someone
for this new disease,
then there would be no possibility of malpractice.
And so there were not only financial,
but legal incentives in certain places like New York,
where these mass casualty events really,
New York is a shining,
these shining example because there is no other example
with the extent to which like a bomb went off
in three and a half or four weeks
where 20,000 people are purported to have died
in that timeframe.
In a system that's used to dealing with, let's say,
1,000 bodies a week,
now had to deal with four, five or 6,000 bodies a week.
It's very unusual for there not to be a busload
of traumatized healthcare workers in New York City.
It's unusual that there isn't a concrete memorial
with all their names on it.
And that glaring omission is just kind of the tip
of the iceberg.
It should just be the light underneath the door
that makes you curious as to what's on the other side
and the little shadows moving like,
oh, wow, what's going on in there?
That's how quickly you should be interested in.
Wow, let me, let's revisit what happened in New York City
to understand how it is that we were convinced
that this little thing here happened at the beginning.
You can barely see my arrow
when it's up here on the small screen.
But that little blip right there at the beginning,
which is up here also is actually
what the sage group in the UK also used to model
their projections in the UK based on.
And so the trick here to understand is that RNA virology
is not some high fidelity.
We've been monitoring these things
like watching the different populations of birds,
wax and wane over the last 20 years
and we understand the ecology of these things.
That's not how it worked at all.
They were very elusive.
They're very difficult to culture.
They're very difficult to follow.
They always have to look at proxy signals
rather than direct measurements.
Essentially correlates of virology
rather than like they use correlates of immunology.
That's how extraordinary these things are.
And that's how extraordinary this illusion has become.
And because no one questions it,
because no one wants to question Nobel Prize winners
because no one really is interested in working on something
that you can only understand by proxy.
The only people who have gone into this
and had any success at it seem to have been
artificially elevated, hard officially propped up.
People like Ralph Barrick.
Ralph Barrick is probably a pretty legitimate molecular
biologist who got co-opted into participating
in this illusion.
That's why a lot of times he seems uncomfortable
in doing what he's doing.
He hasn't gotten a Nobel Prize for any of the things
that he's done like David Baltimore got a Nobel Prize
for finding reverse transcriptase.
But I'll come to none of these people got a Nobel Prize
for finding RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
Could it be because we also have RNA-dependent RNA polymerases?
It would be very strange if we did
because for the last 15 years or so,
we've been using the presence of an RNA-dependent RNA
polymerase to indicate the presence of a coronavirus
or another RNA virus.
Isn't that strange?
I don't know if you've done your due diligence or not
in the last two days of the homework
that I subconsciously assigned.
But if you've gone to PubMed and you've looked,
you've probably found some evidence for us having our own
RNA-dependent RNA polymerases,
but they're only associated with a very small,
you know, niche mechanism of interfering RNA
or some other thing like that.
We are still being told, and I think this is something
that the last few days have really done very well
that our biology is very simple
and all the extravagant, crazy biology is found in viruses.
And so we've got to fight against them.
We need drugs to fight against them.
The goal is for us never to understand
to what extent this biology has to do
with understanding ourselves,
has to do with their quest to understand ourselves,
to somehow transcend our sacredness.
They want you to believe it's all just public health
and pathogens.
But it's never been about public health and pathogens.
It's always been about what the Human Genome Project
has been about.
It's always been about what even some of the nuclear
weapons programs and nuclear energy actually
were also very, those interests were all closely intertwined
with the idea of using nuclear energy to influence
or even accelerate evolution because they thought
that, well, Darwin was right.
It's just random mutations.
And so if we used nuclear energy to accelerate
the mutation rate, maybe we could accelerate
human evolution.
That's what they thought.
These same people who told us what AIDS is
and told us what tumor viruses are
and told us what retroviruses are.
All the same, it's all the same chain of teacher and student.
It's all the same chain of ideas passed down
from inspiring mentor to inspired student.
And you can hear it in all of them.
Paul Offit talks about his mentors and who are they?
Who does he look up to?
Think about that.
You want help thinking about that?
Check out Mark Hewson-Tonic Mark Koolack on Mark.
Mark does Hewson-Tonic ITS.
It's Hewson-Tonic Live.
He got another strike yesterday for one of his shows.
I find it really strange, quite frankly,
that Mark Hewson-Tonic gets a strike on his podcast.
But this video about the spike protein
being an engineered pre-on protein
by Veijon Medicine Shorts
by Dr. Philip McMillan has been up for two months
and that gets no strike.
Does that mean it's true?
And Mark talking about people
and who they talked about in their obituaries
or whatever, that's...
I think you got to see this for what it is, ladies and gentlemen.
What we've been trying to describe
is a very slow role of a narrative.
A narrative that had a lot of moving parts.
And the goal was to make sure that the entire globe,
and that's a big number,
the entire globe basically bought the premise
that a novel virus was discovered in 2020
and circled the globe for five years,
causing death, destruction, and economic chaos.
What the details are about what you accept
with regard to that story are actually irrelevant.
Because if you accept that story,
then this hypothesis or anything related
to the idea that a national security operation
was executed in order to convince you
that an RNA pandemic has occurred.
You will never get there.
And that was their job that remains their job.
And I think it's really important for people to understand
that this is not some kind of secret thing.
We are very, very close to being exactly on script
with this thing right here,
which is the sparse pandemic.
The plan of the sparse pandemic, right?
Let me just see if I can get over there.
And let me do this and bookmarks
and I can hide the bookmark toolbar
and then I can go over here.
So this is the sparse pandemic.
This is that thing that you can find on the internet
and it is something that was done,
I believe, by Johns Hopkins
and maybe also the Rockefeller,
Johns Hopkins, Johns,
a Johns Texas state,
recommended citations, Johns Hopkins,
Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Maybe it's not Rockefeller.
I don't know.
So the whole idea is that something happens in the Philippines
where there's hypothetical scenario
and it's the Philippines and I think it's pigs that get sick.
Let's just go through this really quick
and then I'll show you what I wanted to say
or what I wanted to point out.
So you can go through this document.
If you haven't gone through this document,
I don't even know where you've been.
We did this document like four years ago.
We started this document.
There might even be a bike ride about this document,
but I don't think there is.
It would have been a walk in the woods.
And so, you know,
I didn't even think I really needed to cover this document very much
because I think everyone has done it.
But if you haven't, I mean, please read it.
I mean, it's not meant to be a funny thing.
They use this as a gaming.
It's a game scenario.
It's trying to understand what might happen
so we can understand what might be appropriate solutions for it.
And so let's see.
So then it's a hoofed animal.
It's a coronavirus outbreak in hoofed animals.
And then I think what they do is they hired a company
to produce the vaccine.
This is a great story.
And then they produce the vaccine.
And I think after they produce the vaccine,
although it hurt some animals,
the virus jumps out of the animals into people.
So I don't think they make much of a story about the fact
that the vaccine did it or something like that,
but it's not not implied.
It's definitely something that when you read the document,
you can think, oh, wow, did the vaccine cause that?
And it's an interesting parallel to what Heritbund and Bosch
is now pushing with regard to the,
to the,
the transfection that these people keep calling a vaccine.
The transfection has caused SARS-CoV-2 to do.
That was my second cup of coffee.
We're doing great this morning.
And so then they have to use emergency use authorized drugs.
And there's some drugs that work and some don't.
And there's, there's misinformation.
And so it's very, very familiar.
Some people reject the untested drugs.
You know, it's all this, what, what kind of hypothetical debates,
hypothetical, you know, they're looking at pre-crisis partnerships
that could have avoided these things.
So they're, they're sort of implying that there are ways
that we can prepare for it, but I find most extraordinary
about where we are now, especially with regard to the,
to the video that I just referenced,
which hasn't gotten a strike.
It's just up there saying that the spike protein is a,
is a laboratory designed pre-on like,
in-capacitation agent.
That video's up, but Mark Gulak gets a strike.
If we go to just find something here,
I don't know if I, if I got to get my head out of the way.
Yeah, here we go.
And I got to get the mouse up there and then we go here.
I'm just going to put in neuro because I know what their talk,
I know where this is.
I've done this video or done this.
Done this document many times, I know how to get and navigate it.
So in chapter 17, which is, you know, you got to get there.
It's a long, it's a page 59.
They start talking about vaccine injury.
So this, this scenario goes from the outbreak all through the
response and all through the ramifications of a rushed,
uncoordinated, um, blind response, right?
And so all the scenarios that are now being pushed by teamwork case scenario
and by the fake dissident movement are precisely codified here in some mirror image.
I mean, it's just plain and simple.
You don't like it.
The existence of this document then is what it is.
Is it pre programming?
Then what do you want to call this document?
This is the bureaucracy preparing to execute what we just experienced.
What we are experiencing now is the next stage of it has not stopped.
And in this part of the document, they are detailing how a certain small fraction
of people are finding out that, wow, there is some legitimate.
There are some vaccine injuries and lo and behold, what's happening right now in
America, what's happening right now is a group of people are being elevated
specifically to say that there are vaccine injuries.
And even co-opting people like Denny Rancor have been speaking out since
2020 and taking only his part of the story that says 17 or 18 million people
were killed by the shot.
Not the part of his story that says said since 2020 that there's no evidence
that it was spread.
He's been publishing that longer that he's been publishing the damage of the
vaccine and that makes sense because before the vaccine came out, it was
already obvious to him and others that something wasn't right about the
narrative they were telling.
And it turns out it was about it was about lying about murder.
It was about falsifying records.
It was about fraudulent death dates.
It was probably about all of that.
And so this is the forward facing document of such a exercise.
This is the unclassified public part of an exercise like this.
What is the classified part?
What's the classified part that would be like the G.
or Dono presentation, but for people with a lanyard?
Because that's what you've got to read when you read a document like this.
Not read a document like this and say, oh, wow, now we know.
No, you read this document like it's the brochure.
The paid content is not in here.
And so if the brochure says seven times that vaccine injuries are going to be
neurological symptoms similar to those seen in the livestock exposed to the
GMI vaccine when you go all the way back to the beginning, you get
encephalitis and brain swelling and all kinds of other neurological
things that are damaging and they killed all those animals to avoid the
detection in the animal vaccine.
What an interesting story that is, isn't it?
Because our human trials were all screwed up.
Our human trials used a different vaccine according to these people.
It was process one versus process two.
So there are mirrors in every part of the story right up until we get to
preons and amyloidosis and the amyloidogenesis and the sudden synonymous
words that all mean the same thing that proteins fold from alpha helices to
beta pleated sheets and that sucks.
Even though before the pandemic,
alpha helices and beta pleated sheets and beta helices were all just kind of
standard run of the mill generalized terms for shapes that proteins can take.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are being bamboozled from the highest level in the
highest level of manner, you know, like the fifth generation warfare that
Robert Malone told us will never be able to figure out.
He actually said that on stage a few times.
Go find the videos where instead of talking about biology or his patents or
what he understands or doesn't understand about the shot that he took
or didn't take.
And he's given these fifth generation warfare talks.
One of the main talking points is you're never going to figure it out.
And why not?
Because it's people agreeing to lie together.
Even lie about each other together in coordination, you know,
like be opposers opposing each other in opposition.
Oh, he's not.
He's a fake guy.
Yeah, yeah.
Right.
He's my nemesis.
See, he was on 60 minutes.
Yeah.
Right.
That's how deep this theater goes.
And all I would need to do is sit down with a bunch of pictures and start typing
what I know about each of them in every one of the four years that we've been in.
20, 21, 22, 23.
And you would see a picture so clear.
You'd need sunglasses to look at it.
It is so blatantly obvious who was acting and who was trying to figure out what
and the hell's going on, who was being lied to and manipulated and who was doing the
lying and the manipulating because the only rational reaction to lying and manipulating
is frustration and fear and panic.
Exactly what you've seen me do a lot of times unwittingly.
It just lose it.
You, you, you panic because you tried to explain to people that you didn't want to see this
in the NFL.
You don't want to be telling people that they're, they're part of something.
But look at this document, understand that this is a brochure that the real plan isn't
published.
And that the real plan involves coordinated lying where the limited spectrum of debate
is actually two shepherds that argue about what's important and both arguments are wrong.
They're the wall of the cage.
And as we move forward and more and more people argue about the adulteration of the double
stranded DNA or argue that the spike protein is somehow a designer thing that can cause,
you know, amyloidosis to occur or cause preonogenesis.
Big words for, for protein folding in a maladaptive way with very little basis in mechanistic
understanding.
In other words, preonogenesis, amyloidosis, these are processes that sound as though there's
a high fidelity understanding underlying them, but they're not.
They're actually words that indicate very little understanding.
And so they use those words to hand wave because as they've moved through this space, they've
had to slowly navigate around this one problem that heretofore structure equals function.
Structure equals the amino acid sequence in combination with the ribosomal processing.
That's it.
We don't have any explanation beyond that.
Somehow or another, this RNA goes through and you get a protein on the other side.
Most of the time that protein comes out in this shape.
If you change some of these bases in these codons to silent mutations, you can actually
get misfolding that leads to rare genetic disorders.
We don't understand how that occurs.
And that was on the front of science magazine in 2011 with a cartoon mouth that had a zipper
through it.
It was the secret that nobody wanted to talk about that we didn't understand how silent
mutations that don't change the amino acid can be so highly coordinated, highly correlated
with genetic disorders.
It didn't make sense to us.
And it still really doesn't.
And so the level of understanding that is implied is a lie.
And it is a lie that falls right in line with a narrative about a novel virus that we had
to respond to, but we responded to rather clumsily and now have to respond to the response of
it.
We have to mitigate the damage from the response.
We have to recover from that.
And nowhere in this document that they talk about the loss of liberty or sovereignty and
the ramifications of that, that's not in this document at all because this is a sales brochure
for a plan.
And the real plan isn't published, but the real plan was executed on us.
The real plan involved people in front of the television, on social media with podcasts
and it involved insiders that pretended to be whistleblowers and pretend insiders pretending
to be whistleblowers, all of whom are participating in our governance through lies.
That's where we are.
And this spars thing where we go from, we could, how many times we can see the neurological
symptoms similar among the livestock and then we'll go down to the next one.
And while the FDA, CDC and other agencies were busy researching possible connections
between Corovacs and reported neurological side effects, their efforts were continually
undermined by epidemiological analysis produced by various non-governmental and individual
groups, a popular science blogger, EpiGirl, began posting interactive maps of the incidents
of COVID side effects.
Oh, EpiGirl.
Is that who Jessica Rose is?
Is Jessica Rose just EpiGirl in this SARS-CoV-2 pandemic narrative?
She's one of those people who could have called this thing transfection from the very
beginning but hasn't.
I mean, she's got like four degrees, right?
Is it computational biology, biochemistry, immunology, virology, applied mathematics?
I don't know what, when it's listed.
I forget them all because it's just so many.
But our first four or five publications are all making the mathematical simulations of
the virology paper that she's in.
And a lot of our papers and research has been funded by some NATO thing, which is I also
really strange because I was working in NATO member countries and nobody ever said that
I could apply for neuroscience grants that were funded by NATO.
I never heard of that.
And Jessica Rose also has not actually ever applied for or looked for a 10-year position.
She's not actually an academic.
She's done some postdocs but it doesn't seem like she's ever sought out a position and tried
to establish a lab because that's what people do in science.
And what I do in the Netherlands and failed and what I tried to do in partnership with
somebody else in Pittsburgh and succeeded at until the start of the pandemic.
Really?
I mean, we were killing it.
And we were helping other labs and collaborating with other labs.
I mean, we had become kind of the go-to patch clamp physiology.
You know, if you're having problems, go to them.
If you need an experiment done, ask them.
And we had partnerships with monkey labs and other labs with special transgenic mice.
They were telling stories about it.
And so I was doing really well and our lab was doing really well, even though.
And so I was playing the game legitimately.
I don't see the same thing in EpiGirl.
In EpiGirl, I see someone who now is doing very well as what is essentially a sub-stack writer.
And that's fine. I don't begrudge her that, but let's be realistic about what happened here.
She was in these hot tub pictures.
You know, she's been on stage with Robert Malone in multiple places.
She's been in these places where I feel like the narrative has only been reinforced and very carefully curated.
And with someone with so many degrees can only focus on a few things.
And when she's actually called to speak, it's always about bears.
It's never about the basic immunology.
Can you tell us a little bit about the basic immunology of this stuff?
It would be a very, very succinct presentation of ACE2 and all the other garbage that we were told from the very, very beginning.
That hasn't changed at all in the mainstream narrative.
I'm going to wake up right now, ladies and gentlemen. There isn't much time left.
And I can only share this truth so many times.
But they have planned this out.
And don't get me wrong.
There are lots of EpiGirls.
Brett Weinstein is an EpiGirl.
Brett Weinstein is just evolutionary girl.
And they started them earlier. They planted them earlier.
They did a stunt at a university, which was really a stunt, ladies and gentlemen.
How was it a stunt? Because when I was, my contract was no longer extended because of, of COVID, I had no recourse.
There's nothing that I could do. I was just a postdoc with a one year contract, tough shit.
He, on the other hand, and his wife got a half a million dollar settlement, got to speak and complain about it in front of the Senate.
Got a, got a pretty good start for their podcast that they now say that they lost their YouTube monetization because they let Robert Malone come on their stream and speak about how he had taken the vaccine to travel and try to avoid his long COVID.
And that they told everybody if we could just get everybody to take Ivermectin and vuvoxamine for 30 days, we could get to zero COVID.
And that focused hard lockdowns could get us to zero COVID.
Sounds like EpiGirl to me.
And once you realize that there's just been a bunch of EpiGirls around telling us all these things and now the EpiGirl people are telling us that there are going to be preons and they're, the preons are not just from transfection, which I could have told you.
The protein misfolding and protein disorders and, and, and mitochondrial damage.
This stuff we could have all told you is just the transfection.
It's not specific to the spike protein yet for some reason or another.
In 2020, there were already more than a few people who were sure that the spike protein was a neurotoxin.
The spike protein was a neurotoxin.
And I want to make this point every night, every day, any time and three times on Sunday, they seeded the narrative about the spike protein so that you would think that the average mouth breather that works at a gas station or at a 7-Eleven would think it makes pretty much sense then that picking that protein was a really bad idea for the shot.
And that maybe if they don't pick that protein next time, transfection will be fine and whatever they do with mRNA was fine.
It's just this spike protein.
Why was it a nasty thing?
And the funny thing is the same people are still saying that.
They have not moved even a minute.
I mean, they, they still say the spike protein is the only protein you have to worry about.
They still say that the spike protein has these special things in it like a fear and cleavage site and that makes it magic.
And they're all epigirls.
They're team worst case scenario.
They're there to control the narrative to make people ask a certain question that won't get them out of the loop to focus on a certain list of questions that won't get them out of the loop.
How about right away at the beginning to make sure that you paid attention to the right people?
Like what if I came out in March of 2020 and was convinced, absolutely convinced that the main thing that I was called to do was to oppose the people that thought 5G was important and oppose the people that thought they were no virus.
What if that was my primary mission that I just had a, had a sign up behind me that says, we've got to fight the no virus people because they're idiots.
And that, that we've got to fight the people that, that are opposed to 5G because they're idiots.
Wouldn't that strike you as odd?
That's not what I came out in. I came out against the, I came out the idea that previous immunity to whatever these things are is definitely better than whatever they're suggesting.
And that we should open schools because kids were never vulnerable to whatever they were suggesting they were vulnerable to.
And that somehow, some way that we were being lied to about this.
And yes, it took me a long time to figure out how we were being lied to in layers by layers of coordinated liars.
But once you start to tumble out of this, you tumble pretty fast and you realize when you hit the floor that holy cow, there aren't very many people down here.
Ladies and gentlemen, this document, the centerforhealthsecurity.org has the spares pandemic scenario PDF.
Read it, understand it, and realize that it is a mirror. It is a map of brochure of how this happened, a brochure of what they want you to believe happened.
And we are still being led by our noses through this narrative, which takes us right into slavery for our grandchildren.
And the people who are leading us, the people that are being put in front of us, they are willing participants at this point.
There are no people who have not woken up to the idea that something drastically wrong happened in 2020.
The people that have woken up like that are not being promoted anymore.
And it is very important to realize that Kevin McCairn, the guy who has known that the spike protein is very, very bad that a billion people might die in worst case scenario that masks are great, that had the had the virus from a super spreader event in Korea
and has been convinced that Andy Kaufman is the most terrible no virus person ever since March of 2020 has now been featured in life site news as a pre on expert and essentially quoted right alongside Kevin McCurnan, who's a genome sequencing expert.
Who's now also talking about mitochondrial damage.
And mitochondrial damage was known. It was expected to come not from the transfection, ladies and gentlemen, but from the lipid nanoparticle, the cationic lipids.
And so it's very, very amazing to me how all of this is right in front of our faces, right there for us to take all these relationships between these people that Mark has been outlining over the last two years, or three years.
These have been right there for the taking for any of these other people to find any of these other people to expound on and yet somehow or another they've all missed it.
The supplementary pure oxygen has been there for any of these doctors or may never mind doctors that are also JD's and also PhD's to have found, but they didn't find it.
They didn't see it.
How can that be by accident?
At this stage, it can't be by accident.
This confusion was created on purpose.
This pain was created on purpose and the distortion was created on purpose because it was a national security exercise.
And a very fun brochure of that near related exercise is called the sparse pandemic scenario PDF.
So, I think it's really important to understand that this is a national security event and that's what gives these people the confidence and the, again, can also coerce some of these people into telling the stories that they're telling and sticking to those stories.
Now, I don't know what they were told. I don't know what they were threatened. They all may have been threatened or told or given different things.
But I know that there are people who are really trying to fight for truth, trying to fight for America and trying to fight for their own country to be free of these globalists, to be free of these transhumanists, to be free of these people who think that nothing is sacred about human life.
Except for their own, perhaps.
So, let's see, where am I going here with this before I do the next slide. Oh, yeah.
Already there.
Now, I don't have any water down here because I couldn't find my friggin water bottle because I couldn't find my GoPro.
I am going to start helping my wife livestream her yoga on YouTube.
And so anyway, in helping set that up yesterday, I took my GoPro up there to make a secondary camera.
And then as it goes with a guy like me, I carried it somewhere after I took it out of its mount up there to bring back downstairs to my room in the garage.
And I don't know how, but I dropped it, put it down somewhere and for the life of me, I had to search the entire house this morning before I, of course, I found it.
And where was it? It was underneath. Yeah, anyway, it doesn't matter. It's a little black cube and a little black cubes when you're angry and searching quite quickly are very hard to see, especially when they're right in front of your face.
So anyway, I couldn't find my water bottle because I spent like 30 minutes trying to find my GoPro and then I probably won't even write anything down today because this lecture will be so bad, but I wanted to round off.
I'm spelling his name wrong on purpose here because I don't care because I don't have any respect for these people who I think now are just masquerading as biologists.
But I want you to see 10 years ago what the Baltimore classification would have looked like from his star student, Vincent Rassini, Rec and Yellow.
And I want you to hear how he talks about viral genetics and how virology is done.
These two short clips illustrate the mythology that I think we're fighting and the mythology that I think we need to.
We need to dispel before the end of the year, so at least among our family and friends so that we start to make real progress with dispelling it around the earth.
I know that sounds like an impossible, a ridiculous task for somebody in the back of their garage, but we each influence one person at a time.
That's the best we can hope to be as far as greatness.
I'm trying my best with my kids, and I'm also trying my best with giga home biological.
I don't know that everybody can stream. Not everybody wants to stream.
I don't know if I want to stream, but I feel like I'm a pretty decent teacher.
And so that's why I feel like I'm going to keep teaching this stuff.
If you like what I'm doing here, please remember that I'm only supported by people like you.
If you can find a way to give 10 bucks a month, that would be really great.
There's a place to do it on my website. You could also click on the PayPal link and set up to give $1 a month.
I finally figured out how to make that an option there.
And so no matter how little or how much you think you can give every month, please consider supporting the work because.
I really feel as though the next couple months are really going to be key for us breaking this this summer.
And fall.
I hope to really start to put out something that I think people will find worth supporting.
And I know there are more than 140 people that are already supporting me now and it's fantastic.
I think we have 130 actually 132 subscribers or something like that.
And there are also a few people that just give on their own every once in a while.
And so we squeak by, but this month has been the worst.
And this month has now been the hairiest for my family. I think we're pretty much really on fumes now so.
We want to do more. We want to we want to give more. We want to put more work into this.
But we're really doing as much as we can right now trying to keep track of.
This narrative and put it together in a succinct way. And so you'll see it in May.
What we've been working on behind the scenes and it'll become kind of obvious that there's something really.
Unique here.
Especially over the last few weeks, if you haven't been watching the stream regularly, we've made some really big breakthroughs and with the help of a few friends.
Some of the haziness of this biology has been clarified for me just simply because I can now see clearly what they really understand and what they've been hand waving for a very long time and what they don't want you to talk about.
And those few things that they don't really want to admit are the key things that I'm going to try and hone in on with regard to Vincent's two lectures here.
So I'm going to escape out of this and I think I have them already popping up here. Yes, I do.
First one.
And these lectures are from 10 years ago and they are clipped.
Which basically means that they are taken from an hour long lecture and they're both about 15 minutes long.
I'm going to play them at regular speed, but I discovered something that you might not know.
But when you're playing a YouTube video, you can hit the hit the pause button is the space bar, but I don't know if you knew this or not, but if you hold the space bar down, it will play at one and a half speed until you let go of it, which is kind of a thing.
If you're trying to fast forward through a video, it's quite handy and I didn't know that because I'm not really big into keyboard shortcuts.
And I know that somebody like my friend Ted on the other side of the planet would laugh because all those people that work on computers are know all the keyboard shortcuts and think that us people that don't use keyboard shortcuts are, you know, mouth breathers.
So I figured out a new keyboard shortcut today.
So I'm very proud of myself.
Anyway, here we go.
This is the first lecture.
I believe this one is called.
I should probably tell you what that one is called the Baltimore scheme.
So we're going to look at the Baltimore scheme and remember that Vincent Rancin yellow is the guy that invented infectious clones with David Baltimore where they took an RNA virus and they made an RNA copy of it and that RNA was infectious and that was the first infectious
clone that's a really significant thing because I'm arguing that infectious clones are the illusion of virology that what they want you to believe is that there are signals.
There are signals like this in the wild.
And they can grab them and grow them and study them but in reality they haven't been able to do that at all until they figured out how to convert them to DNA make a lot of DNA and then convert those by putting them on a cell culture to the RNA virus.
And you're going to hear a description of this which is going to be very imprecise is going to use transformation and transfection a little differently than I do because it's 10 years ago, but I believe it's because he's obfuscating the truth.
And so first the Baltimore scheme, then his description in the same course, I believe, of viral genomes and how we study them.
And so you're going to find this I think very enlightening especially if you followed along with the David Baltimore lectures from a couple days ago because remember, the Baltimore lectures from a couple days ago are from 2018.
And this lecture is from his student, but several years before that.
So it's not like what you're going to see from your you're going to find very quickly that what David Baltimore talked about over the last two days is not an update of what Vincent says it's exactly the same in those those 11 years nothing changed.
It's exactly the same story and that's what should make you very, very suspicious because genetic technologies have quadrupled or even by a couple orders of magnitude become more efficient and become more specific and become more powerful according to all these
people that worked in the human genome project since they were in high school.
And so if that's the case, then why hasn't our our resolution in virology increased why hasn't our our ability to measure these genetic signals in higher fidelity why don't we see that happening in virology why do we keep using the same things like plaque essays and this kind of thing
why is that?
And that huge question is never answered.
It's never answered because there is no answer other than virology is a great big exaggeration.
And it is covering up the fact that we understand that we have endogenous signaling that contributes at this regime and that this endogenous signaling is is part of our very biology.
And so if they told us that then they wouldn't be able to study it at all.
There would be no reason to mess around with it.
Try to interfere with it to understand it.
And there would be no excuse for them to, you know, sell you all kinds of cures for the the symptomologies of it. It's it's extraordinary.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get off on a tangent there.
Always good music.
Professor Vincent rents in yellow. Oh, record yellow. It's actually not that bad.
In the 1950s, the breakthrough in in virology was the demonstration that the nucleic acid of the virus is the genetic code.
And how did they solve that problem? They solved that problem with a bacteriophage called T four.
And it was the Hershey Chase experiment where I think they put some kind of radioactive radioactive marker and they could show that like the the phages took up the radioactive marker and that showed that the phages were being packaged with new DNA.
I think that was something like that.
And even though this sounds obvious today, it wasn't back then.
People thought that the proteins, in fact, might be the important part because they were so much more complicated nucleic acids were simple.
They only had four different chemicals in them.
And this conclusion came from initially two kinds of studies.
The Hershey Chase experiment, a very famous experiment which I'm sure you were taught in biology with bacteriophage T four shown here in an electron micrograph.
And then the work of Frankel Conrad with tobacco mosaic virus.
I'm not sure we're going to talk about this today, but what they did here was simply to take the virus and break it into RNA and protein components and showed that the RNA had the infectivity of the virus.
Hershey Chase will talk about right here.
So here is Al Hershey and Martha.
So you could say it another way that if you expose cells to RNA, you can transfect them.
And so infection or transfection is being distorted here.
And so what if it's possible for my immune system to send out a signal that will transfect my children's immune system.
In order to help them anticipate a signal that I've been exposed to.
What if my immune system is sending out signals that are designed to help conspecific females decide whether I'm an attractive healthy male or not.
Or whether I'm ill or have a genetic polymorphism that isn't compatible with one of theirs.
We don't know any of these questions, but we do know that this signaling regime is not exclusively dominated by pathogens that are obligate parasites that are essentially molecules and fat bubbles.
It can't be possible.
Even bacteriophages are more accurately characterized as part of the natural biology of bacteria that you should think of them more as bacteria signaling to other bacteria rather than individually acting little organisms on their own.
And I think that's the parallel mythological cartoon that they use with respect to bacteriophages.
And it still wants you to think that that moonlander is separate from the bacteria and it's obviously it's very different and weird.
So it must be different and separate.
But that could be more akin to the two types of parts of a complicated plant life cycle, for example, rather than thinking of them as phages as as obligate parasites.
Which in the context of a bacteria I think more clearly is kind of silly.
Right if you think about these as obligate pathogens of bacteria it seems like well that's a pretty big statement mate doesn't it.
It probably helps the bacteria as often as it hurts them like what's really going on here.
It's how bacteria evolve more likely.
And this is part of their biology but it's distorted in the exact same parallel way that exosomal signaling is distorted in mammals.
And can exosomal signaling become aberrant and then be something like measles or polio it's possible and I definitely would not rule that out.
I think it's very possible.
But that's very different than suggesting that the exclusive content of this fraction in a sucrose gradient is viruses when we know that a very large portion of that fraction is almost guaranteed to be endogenous signaling in the same sort of chemical
and and and physical size regime.
And I think that virology can be thought of as that kind of mythology where they have just taken sacred biology that they understand is being much more complicated and intertwined with our own and told us a story about how is exclusively separate from us so that they can have a monopoly on understanding it.
And weaponizing that monopoly against us and our grandchildren.
Case they worked at Cold Spring Harbor for many years out on Long Island and they did this very famous experiment using a food blender common kitchen blender.
And what they did they wanted to know if you take a bacteria page which is the genetic information which specifies the production of more viruses is that the protein shallower is at the nucleic acid.
So they would grow phages with radioactive precursors to protein or radioactive precursors to the DNA.
And when they labeled the DNA and then they would infect E. coli very briefly and then use a blender to shear off the infecting phase that was what the blender was for.
So they only let the phage attach very briefly enough to put the genetic information in the cell.
Because I mean it's you know obviously you can use a blender to remove phages right I mean that makes sense.
And when they did this the radioactivity was predominantly found in the cell after a brief infection when you labeled the DNA.
And then the DNA was detected in the next generation of phage and when you labeled the protein the coat of the virus that did not remain cell associated and it was never passed on to the next generation.
So this is called the Hershey Chase Experiment. If you ever go out to Cold Spring Harbor for a meeting there's a library out there.
I think it's called the Carnegie Library and they have one of Hershey's blenders in a glass case there for you to look at.
It was out there this summer.
So this was very important because it showed that the nucleic acid was the genetic information of the virus.
Now even the bigger surprise I'm going to push the space bar perhaps above that the nucleic acid is the genetic information because in fact for cells we already knew that the DNA of cells was the genetic information.
So this was a good move forward but not a big surprise but what really is surprising.
I told you a lot about all the viruses that are out there billions and billions and all different kinds, shapes, forms.
Yet in the end you can make them all fall into very nice categories because they only have a finite number of nucleic acid genomes and that is number seven.
And that's a number you should remember.
Yesterday I said six so I guess I skipped one. Sorry about that. I'm not a virologist. I just play one on Twitch.
It's a subway number but it's going to help you remember all the different viral genomes because when you count up to seven you'll be done.
Seven different kinds of genome and that will really help us organize all these viruses in terms of how they work.
It will really help you. Maybe there are DNA retroviruses and RNA retroviruses and maybe I skipped the DNA retrovirus. That might be the problem.
So the key fact that will really in addition to the number seven to help organize all of this is that every viral genome has to make mRNA that the host can translate because remember no virus encodes a complete translation apparatus,
which is a parasites of the host translation system. So every virus. So they are parasites of the host translation system. That's a pretty interesting way to to phrase it.
Whole viral genome viral genomes need to make it to mRNA and so they have lots of different ways of getting there, which we don't use.
We don't copy our RNA apparently. We just copy our DNA and then we make RNA from our DNA and then we make proteins from our RNA using ribosomes but viruses are able to use double stranded DNA single stranded DNA plus and minus single stranded RNA and double stranded RNA.
They're able to copy all of those molecules. They're able to, I mean, it's incredible. The kind of genetic diversity that viruses have developed in the context of being obligate parasites to our own cells.
What a tremendous thing that is it's almost like a, yeah, it's almost like a story that doesn't make sense.
Post this rule. And I would guess that if we ever found a virus that didn't, it probably wouldn't be a virus. It'd be a cell of some kind of very small cell.
So all viruses have to make mRNA that can be read. So if you think of that, then every virus replication cycle is simple in the sense that it all has to lead to mRNA that can be translated by the host cell. And that's a ribosome. Not a turkey. This is a ribosome.
It looks a lot like the other thing that DNA polymerase that it's not a turkey. It's a turducket.
All right. Now, David Baltimore. There he is. David Baltimore with a big fish. That's awesome.
Is that a red herring?
Who was a Nobel laureate for discovering an enzyme that we'll talk about later on in another lecture. He used this insight, the idea that every virus has to make mRNA to organize all the known viral genomes into this scheme, which is nicely called the Baltimore scheme.
And he put mRNA in the... The gapped DNA of the Hapatine virei day, Hapatine virei day viruses, the gapped DNA. Wow.
So seven is not what I said it was. That's not RNA and retroviruses are RNA. And this gapped DNA, I don't know what that is.
I'll have to go. I got so much to learn. It's just a great time to be alive.
Middle. He said every genome has to lead to this. And then he arrayed around it all the known genomes. This was in the 70s that he did that.
He put single-stranded DNA plus-sense RNA that goes through a DNA intermediate, other-plus-stranded RNA viruses.
Dude, I have an oasterizer upstairs. It's a real oasterizer. And it actually says on it that it's a commercial one that we got at a house auction here when we first moved.
It's like one of those old-school milkshake things. It has a square. But then the thing on the bottom of your mug has a star.
And so it just goes on in every orientation. It's like back when they used to make stuff for real. And it has a sticker on it that says this is OSHA compliant.
That shows you how old it is. Pretty cool. Oasterizer, baby.
Negative-stranded RNA viruses. Double-stranded RNA viruses. We're going to talk about each of these in detail.
He missed one. I didn't tell you double-stranded DNA, of course. He got that as well. All the ones that are numbered he got.
But at the time, when he made this scheme, the Hepatitis B virus had not yet been discovered. Its genome wasn't known.
And so that was added later. This funny double-stranded DNA with gaps.
So he said, all of these have to go to mRNA. So we arrange them in this very nice rubric, which, if you learn, it will help you.
So Hepatitis B has a double-stranded DNA with gaps as a genome. Interesting.
Enormously, because given a viral genome, you'll be able to figure out how it's expressed. And we'll go through that today.
David Baltimore, of course, likes the fish. That's him up there.
So before we go on with the Baltimore scheme, let's do some definitions. So we're all talking the same language.
And these have to do with polarity. As you know, probably, mRNA is, by convention, the plus strand.
Someone asked me, last year, does it have to do with charge or something electricity? No, it has nothing to do with any of that.
It's just convention that what is translated mRNA is called the plus strand.
So a DNA strand that is the equivalent polarity as mRNA is the plus strand.
And, of course, the complements of plus strands are negative strands or minus strands. So we use the word interchangeably,
plus positive, minus negative. And it's just a way to identify what strand we're talking about.
And, of course, mRNA, the plus strand is ribosome ready. It can be translated into protein. That's the definition of mRNA.
But one thing I want to tell you is that not all plus RNA, especially in the virus world, is mRNA.
There are some viruses that have plus-stranded RNA genomes, but it's not mRNA. It's not translated.
So just being plus-stranded is not enough to get you translated. There are other requirements as well.
So then when we look at the Baltimore scheme, these pluses and minus, that's what they refer to, the polarity of the nucleic acid with respect to mRNA.
Now, just keep in mind that, I wonder if I have it in this deck. I don't have it in this deck. I would have to open up a different deck.
And the standard cartoon for a coronavirus is that it's genome is translated, right? At least open reading frame 1A has to be translated.
And then that poly protein needs to be cut up and formed into something that does a lot of other stuff. But
plus-stranded RNA is not mRNA is an interesting statement. So we would need to look into it a little more into details about how well they have characterized the, let's say, translation of the coronavirus genome into the respective poly protein
that then assembles into the RNA dependent RNA polymerase in the transcriptile, transcriptase complex thing that does all the heavy lifting of making new genomes.
And in a coronavirus, that's a very special task. So because it's such a large genome and because it doesn't bring any proteins with it.
The poly virus is supposed to have a sort of fragmented genome, which allows it to evolve and reassort a little faster, but it's also supposed to be packaged with its RNA dependent RNA polymerase because it's a negative stranded RNA.
It has to have that in order for it to be able to turn its genomic negative strand into a positive strand, which can then be, can hijack ourselves.
Those kinds of little subtleties are important to understand and important to have in your back pocket because a lot of these virologists don't even know these subtle differences off the top of their head.
And it shows you how much they take for granted what they've memorized.
For example, the single stranded plus strand DNA viruses. They have a single strand of DNA. It's plus polarity. That is the same polarity as mRNA.
But of course, DNA cannot be translated. And that's one of the things you realize already by looking at the kind of nucleic acids that's present, you can already deduce what viruses have to do to get to mRNA.
So this is really an elegant system. All you have to know is what kind of genome is in the virus, and then you can tell me all of the steps that have to be taken to get mRNA.
Because in fact, when a virus, why is the genome into the cell?
Why would it be that if you look at this scheme that we can see my arrow, why would it be that a virus with a single strand of DNA couldn't use this DNA to generate either a positive, no, it can't do positive, it would be negative.
Why couldn't this positive stranded DNA use an enzyme to go first to negative RNA, and then that negative RNA could be translated to positive RNA? Why wouldn't it do it that way?
Why is it obvious that it would go from a single stranded positive DNA molecule to double stranded DNA to mRNA?
I don't think it's obvious that that happens here, and I think that's interesting. Let's just say part of this model.
That's what it has to do. It has to make mRNA to initiate the infectious cycle. So if you can remember this scheme, you'll be able to trace it, and that's really a lot of what we want you to know in this course.
So you don't have to memorize that there are billions and billions of viruses, but just that there are seven different genome types in the way that they get to mRNA.
So here are the seven classes of genome. We have double stranded DNA, so there's a bunch of viruses with DNA genomes.
They can be double stranded or single stranded, and they can be gapped. So that really covers everything.
I can't think of anything else, single double stranded in a gap. The gap was thrown in later, but it makes sense.
And then we have RNA viruses with RNA genomes, and this is, of course, what is in the particle itself? The virus particle, that's what I mean by the genome shown up here on this slide.
So we have double stranded RNA genomes, and then we have single stranded RNA genomes, but we have single stranded RNA genomes of three types.
So we have plus stranded. We have minus stranded, and then we have a plus stranded genome, which goes through a DNA intermediate.
These are very special viruses that we'll deal with separately. So those are the seven classes.
Those are the retroviruses down here.
You may ask, why aren't there plus single stranded DNA viruses and minus single stranded DNA viruses? I don't know.
There aren't any plus and minus DNA. There are some of the single stranded DNA viruses that package either a plus or a minus strand, but we don't know any that is exclusively either plus or minus like these RNA viruses.
You just have to accept that they exist, and we don't know why.
Now, in addition to these seven genome types, that's really the main thing you need to know, but I just want to show you the different kinds of structures that these seven types occur in.
So they can be linear. They can be circular. They can occur in segments.
So some viral genomes are in one molecule, unimolecular, if you will, and some are segmented. They come in pieces.
You could say that our genome is segmented, right? It's in chromosomes. It's in pieces.
And some viruses are segmented. They're not really chromosomes because they don't have the same structure, but they're some segmented.
They're gapped, as we said already, with the hepatitis B. Single strands of plus and minus polarity.
There's also a single stranded genome that's ambisense. It's got components of both plus and minus strands in it. Pretty unusual.
We have double stranded, of course. And then some genomes have proteins, covalently attached to them.
Some have the ends cross-linked. So you have a double-stranded DNA.
I'm pushing this base bar.
Five and three prime ends. They're just cross-linked. So you have a little circle at the end.
So if in nature it would become a single stranded circle.
And some have DNA with covalently attached RNA. So all kinds of things happen.
Now, this is less important. These are the details, which we'll explain to you.
But the seven is really important part. The seven are different genome types.
Now, you may be wondering, what is the purpose of all this?
Does having seven different genome types and all these weird configurations make a difference?
Does it have to do with the biology of the virus? Does it have to do with evolution?
Is it advantageous? And maybe most of all, you want to know if you have to memorize it.
So let me try and answer. There's a lot of ignorance here, unfortunately. I can't answer most of these questions.
But I sense that people think of this right away. Humans have the energy norms. All humans. All mammals do.
So why do viruses have to have all these configurations? Well, we don't know the answer. All we can do is guess.
And we get better at guessing.
The reason why they have all these configurations is because they are reflections of our own complexity.
It is very, very likely that many or all of these mechanisms are present in our own biology in some form or another.
And are being wholly ignored as such. So that this entire field can exist in its current state.
Which essentially a dual use scia that makes us think that all of the biology that is us is very, very simple and that all of the scary stuff out in the world we need protecting from.
And this narrative has to be broken. We have to break it in our children. They have to be able to see this for what it is.
It is a professor at Columbia University, one of the worst twisted weirdo places in America perpetuating a biology that he says hasn't essentially hasn't changed since he's been a student of David Baltimore.
It's just absurd. It's absurd.
So for example, the structure and composition of the genome, whether it's DNA, RNA, single or double stranded, is a reflection of how it replicates.
But that's really because the replication has to accommodate the strandedness and the polarity and the composition of the genome.
So it doesn't really tell us anything. There are viruses with all of these seven types of genomes out there.
And I don't know if anyone has a selective advantage over another.
For example, I would say, so if I'm looking at viruses from a human point of view, which is wrong, right, so you shouldn't do this as I told you before,
I would say the single stranded RNA viruses would be the most advantageous.
Because it's a plus strand. It's an mRNA. As soon as it gets in the cell, boom, it can be translated.
I would say that this would be the fastest in the most advantageous.
Now, there are a lot of plus strand viruses on the globe, but they're not the only ones.
There are lots of other.
I would think that self replicating RNA would actually be the most likely endogenous signal.
If you wanted to transiently change the target of a biological signal, you would use a self replicating RNA in an exosome and put on the outside a receptor that was specific for the target like a T cell receptor or a B cell receptor.
And then when that T cell or B cell took in that exosome, the RNA would be released.
It would replicate itself for a little while, fill the ribosomes of that cell with that RNA signal.
And for a very brief period of time, maybe that cell would change its physiology, change its signaling regime, go dormant, maybe even apoptose.
But the point would be that this is gotta be, this cannot be ignored as something that obviously must come from us, otherwise they couldn't have it.
We heard David Baltimore say yesterday that viruses couldn't evolve and tell cells evolve because they're obligate parasites that hijack our machinery and use it to make themselves.
So if you hijack a cuckoo clock, can you make toast? No, you cannot. You could make gears. You could make a different arrangement of gears. You could make a fake cuckoo bird with a gear around its neck.
You could make it ring at different times or ring different bells at different times of the day.
You could probably make the hands go backwards.
But because of the nature of a clock, you are limited what you can do with its parts and how you could use it in a different way, how you could hijack it.
And even though a cell is much more complicated than a cuckoo clock, I would argue, and I think a legitimate, any legitimate biologist really thinking about this and realizing that exosomes are real, that people have been investigating
exosomes in the context of cancer for a long time and that people like Bob Gallo and David Baltimore have sort of oversimplified it to say that these viruses are causing cancer rather than being a signaling regime that has sort of become
dysregulated in the context of cancer, and therefore a very useful indicator of cancer and also likely an indicator that this signaling regime is actually used in health and well-being.
That likely plays a very big role in health and homeostasis.
And is probably likely to play a very central role in the regulation of the immune system that heretofore is understood to only use chemokines and cytokines to communicate between these very separate acting autonomous amoeba-like cells.
Ignoring the possibility that retroviral signaling between these cellular regimes could cause a coordinated response, a coordinated dormancy, a coordinated crescendo and decrescendo of a highly specific inflammatory response.
That all of the mechanisms by which this would be done are somehow or another exclusively the operating procedures of viruses.
I just, I don't believe it anymore. I don't believe it at all anymore.
Strand viruses.
You should have told me to turn it up.
As you'll see with a negative strain, you have to carry an enzyme in the particle in order to initiate infection.
So, you see, none of this makes sense when you look at it from our point of view.
But from an evolutionary point of view, at some time, a plus strand, a minus strand, a gapped genome, it worked, it survives.
And that's all we can say at this point.
Not a great answer, but that's what we're stuck with.
Now, another...
Despite all the progress we've made with the high-resolution genetic technologies, we're just stuck with it.
The interesting question is, why do we have both DNA and RNA genomes in viruses?
And that, I think, we can address a little better, although it's still speculative.
I think you know the reason why is because we use exosomes with DNA and RNA in them to signal internally and externally.
That's why.
It doesn't need to have any other fancy explanation because David Baltimore told us that viruses couldn't evolve until cells had evolved.
Viruses can't exist without the machinery of cells, without cells already doing something extremely similar to what they call viral infection,
which is make exosomal signals and release them.
Come on, ladies and gentlemen, we're there now.
That's also why exosomes virtually disappeared from all the no-virus people's discussion.
What I'd like you to do is go back and watch Mark Hewson-Tonic, Mark Koolack interview the man by the name of Mark Bailey.
And you'll find in that interview at some point he asks him about exosomes.
And does Mark Bailey say anything about exosomes that matters at all?
No, he didn't know much about exosomes.
And the other guy that I reminded you before who went back to this story about RNA genomes being dominant on the planet at some point in primordial earth was not other than Joe Lee,
who now thinks that I guess I'm a controlled opera and idiot because I don't think it's all antibodies that are causing the vaccine injuries and chains of antibodies aren't the most important thing that they are for him.
And so now he lost his mind.
I see it's so clear now. It's just hilarious. I mean, there just aren't very, very, very many good guys. That's all.
There are lots and lots of meddlers, lots and lots of players.
Witting and unwitting players, but they're all players now.
Because if you're not fighting for the people that they've murdered and lied about, if you're not fighting for the deaths that they lied about and how those lies were used to bully people into accepting
transfection. Instead, you're complaining about the transfection or its adulteration or its rush or who paid for it or who got profit from it.
Then you're not fighting against this mythology, which is the foundation of the vaccine schedule in America, which compared to any other vaccine schedule is obviously criminal, even to an eight year old.
And they won't talk about it.
They won't talk about the murder and they won't talk about the vaccine schedule. They just want to talk about the transfection as a vaccine and then it wasn't perfect.
And they want to talk about lab leak and how they lied about it.
You know that many people believe that the first world of life was an RNA world where all the organisms had RNA genomes.
There's some evidence, some pretty good evidence for this from a variety of areas.
So we think that these RNA viruses evolved during the RNA world.
So there are RNA cells first and then RNA viruses evolved probably from those cells.
I mean, do we even know that there was an RNA world before there was a DNA world? I mean, that's amazing. I mean, that is really impressive.
Oh, no, to infect them. And those RNA viruses that existed then are probably...
It's a lot more complicated explanation than saying that, well, we signal using similar things that we would call exosomes.
And occasionally, I guess it's possible that exosomal signaling can go wrong and you can have something like measles or polio.
That would be a very interesting sort of explanation for pathogenesis and pathogenic diseases in the context of our own biology.
But instead, they make up this crazy story that has to do with accepting a theory of primordial Earth life generation.
We actually have to accept how life was spontaneously generated.
If you want to believe that viruses exist in the context of Vincent Rancin yellow's biology, do you understand that?
His class has to accept in this explanation that life was spontaneously generated on Earth by lightning hitting a mud puddle with nucleic acids in it.
And that's how he explains the existence of viruses, even though his teacher David Baltimore told us in 2018 from the video two days ago that viruses couldn't evolve until cells existed.
Which is a lot closer to the truth than I think he ever intended to be, which is that viruses, if they are anything, are just us.
They are just our signaling or our signaling gone wrong or our signaling functioning in a way that is being mischaracterized as a pathogen.
It could also be our interaction with these signals that have their own homolog and other animals and insects and plants and other night.
And it could also be, of course, the huge background of the same signal homolog in bacteria, and that is bacteriophages.
And multicellular organisms like mammals like ourselves have grown and evolved and existed in the context of this amazingly complex background for what we say are thousands of years.
So if that's the case, then this story of having to accept how this all came to be by lightning in a mud puddle is also a very interesting posit to put into this basic virology lecture.
Extraordinary, in fact.
The ancestors of all the RNA viruses that we have today, so maybe our RNA viruses are relics from that RNA world.
Now, at some point, the idea goes that there's a switch from RNA to DNA-based organisms.
Or maybe not a switch, but DNA-based organisms evolved, and the whole idea behind this is very interesting.
But there was another kind of organism that had DNA, and these RNA-based organisms slowly were competed out, but the RNA viruses lived.
Why would there be a switch? We have no idea. We don't know what the selection would be for that.
It could be that a DNA-based organism arose, so enzymes arose that could change RNA chemically into DNA, and they survived, and they had some kind of advantage.
That's really all we can say. So the way I look at it is there are motorcycles, and then at some point in time, some screwdrivers showed up, and then people started to take the motorcycles apart and put them back together, and then cars came.
And then we got some more wrenches. They flew. They just appeared. I don't know how they really came about.
And now we have mechanics and cars. That's how it works.
RNA viruses are pretty old. They've been very successful.
I smell fire. What does this smell? The DNA viruses are the newcomers on the block.
Now, in terms of memorization, this is the one thing I think we should memorize.
The number seven is easy. You have lots of number seven references here in New York City.
And this scheme, which is very easy to do, you put mRNA in the middle, and then draw the seven different kinds of viral genome around it.
I don't care if you know the numbers here. That doesn't mean anything.
All you need to do is draw all these viral genome types, and then be able to draw the pathway to mRNA.
Because just knowing that, you're going to conquer the first half of this course.
Because you're going to understand what we're talking about when we talk about RNA and DNA synthesis and so forth.
Now, as we illustrate these processes, we'll use specific viruses as examples, and you see I put a few of them here.
So you know what virus has a single-stranded negative strand genome.
Otherwise, it would be really not interesting to you at all.
So negative strand RNA viruses include influenza and Ebola, polio and plus-strand.
Retroviruses are the ones that go from a plus-strand to a DNA intermediate.
Carval viruses have to tie to B, adenovirus, herpes-reo, and rotavirus.
These are just a few of all the viruses that exist.
But we're going to come back to these over and over and use them as examples.
So you should know that rheovirus has a double-stranded RNA genome.
So you guys wonder, why would it be that coronaviruses, for some reason or another, don't need to go this way?
Coronaviruses don't do that, right?
So they're just a positive-stranded RNA molecule that gets translated right away to mRNA as far...
I mean, gets translated right away to protein.
Did you know that?
They are essentially a transfection.
They are just a lipid nanoparticle with RNA inside of them.
They're not even really on here, which is really weird.
And if this is where coronaviruses belong, then we never really talk about this negative-stranded RNA very much.
Is that the template from which the genome is made?
Is that the first thing that gets made?
It can't be because they don't come with proteins, you see?
Very curious how that fits.
I'm very curious.
Can we say on a test, a real virus is what, when the genome enters the cell, you're going to have to know that it's double-stranded RNA.
So this one slide is very important, but this is very easy to do.
Okay, so memorize these seven genome types, you should start doing it.
Maybe you could wait until the first exam, if you're good at that sort of thing.
And this is what I want you to know.
So memorize this stuff, so then let's go to the next one.
Let's go to the next one because I want to get this done before 1230.
Let's do this quick here.
This is the next one.
This is genetics of virology, and this one's really good because he's going to gloss over the infectious clone and how important it is, but gloss over it in a way that reveals it anyway.
I want to finish up today by talking about how we, the modern way of manipulating virus genomes, how we do genetics and how we study them and how we use them.
We can actually use viruses to treat diseases, but we're trying to anyway.
And just to make sure we are on the same page in terms of definition, we use wild type a lot in virology, and you've heard this in other areas of biology as well.
For viruses, this simply means that you're standard.
Whatever is in your lab and is your standard virus, you call it wild type, and then you make your mutants from the wild type strain.
It may not be the same as a virus that is infecting people or animals out there in nature.
It may have been isolated years ago, and you've passed it in your laboratory, but it's your wild type, so that's all that means.
When we get viruses from the host, a clinical specimen or an animal, we call these field isolates or clinical isolates, and those can be brought in the lab and they could become your wild type if you wish, but not unless it's a brand new virus.
Not unless it's a brand new virus, so that's a little slip up right there already, I think, if we analyze it a little bit.
So, a wild type virus is often laboratory adapted, so it grows in a dish, whereas all the ones that you get from the wild don't necessarily grow in a dish.
That's kind of a caveat already.
What he basically means is that almost none of them grow, and when they do grow, we grow them, but you're not going to be able to get another one from the wild and get it to grow.
And if it does grow, it doesn't matter, because he has, he said, unless it's a whole new virus, you can't use that as a laboratory stock. Anyway, that's a little weird.
That's already kind of admitting that stock is important, and that where you get your stock is important.
And I think Mark Kulak has also identified an interesting historical stock story about some lady by the name of Alice Moore, who is curiously connected with a lot of different early culturing cell culture, cancer people, and has a house next to it within a mile or two of all of Henry Kissinger's houses.
Anyway, that's Mark Kulak's stuff. I don't do people here, at least not very often, except for the people that have directly had contact with me and my family. Those people I'm happy to do shows about.
So here we are again, we're trying to define some of these terms, and what we should really be saying is redefining these terms under the auspicious of virology, because that's what they've done.
They've taken a lot of biological terms and redefined them under their own rubric with the idea of saying, well, in the context of virology, this is what we're talking about.
Wild type means the laboratory strain that grows. Wild type doesn't mean that one out in the wild, like it does with every other field in virology.
So let's start out with a giant contradiction or a giant inversion. I think a lot of the lies are essentially inversions because inversions are the ones that are easiest to confuse, right?
Is this my left hand or my right hand? When one of them's true and one of them's false, this is the best lie, right?
That's what you see here.
And so in viral isolates from the natural host, our clinical isolates, I'll let him do it.
Now an important method that we use in virology is DNA mediated transformation. This is when we put DNA into cells, we take cells in culture.
Now this is an interesting history lesson that I think we can take pretty much seriously, the origin of transformation and transfections, the words, but the modern use has segregated because of the commercial products that have come behind them.
And commercial products, I assure you, are segregated into transformation products, which are based on DNA and transfection products, which are usually exclusively based in RNA.
Now it can be that throughout this early history of the development of these technologies, these two words were interchanged, mainly because, and keep this very clearly in mind, anybody who cut their teeth in the Human Genome Project during their high school science project
could tell you that we weren't always able to make RNA as easily as we could make DNA.
And so there was a time when transformation and transfection might have been kind of the same word used to describe basically the same thing, which is used DNA to express a protein in a place where it's normally not found.
But as we started to commercially be able to produce RNA at a similar purity, it now became sort of commercially standard to call transformation any product to do with DNA and transfection to do with specifically RNA.
As long as you understand that this is historically just probably preceding this explosion of commercial products that were taking advantage of the cheapness of making RNA and DNA, that you'll see this history as it is.
And I think it's pretty good history, but it also accentuates the fact that any of these people could have called the investigational vaccines, either the adenovirus vaccines or the RNA lipid nanoparticle vaccines.
They could have called them transformations and transfections as I've insisted they should have from the very beginning and come closer to giving people informed consent over what was coerced into their bodies.
But they didn't. Brett Weinstein didn't.
I mean, CHD hasn't like all of these organizations, all of these people that I've been talking to since 2020 and beyond a very, very, very, very tiny fraction, very close to zero, have consistently been able to say these are not vaccines, they are transfections.
And we are the only people, giggle on biologicals, the only source of information you're going to find that's accurate enough to tell you that from day one.
So let's listen to Vincent define these two words and expand our understanding about the sort of semantic war that has been waged on us.
We take purified DNA, we add it to the cells and the cells take it up.
There are tricks that we use to get the cells to take it up. It's not very hard.
It's called DNA mediated transformation.
So why do we say this long word to describe it?
Well, transformation has to do with oncogenic transformation of cells, making tumors, for example.
We'll talk about that later.
So when people first described this process, they called it DNA mediated.
Now you may say, why did they call it transformation at all?
And that's a historical thing that goes back to 1944, this paper by Avery McCloud and McCarthy from right here in New York City at the Rockefeller Institute.
They found you could transform pneumococci bacteria into either a rough or a smooth colony by putting DNA
from one morphology into the other.
So we're transforming the cells with DNA.
This was actually the proof that DNA was genetic material.
So Rockefeller Institute, that's kind of interesting, of course.
It is after that.
I didn't believe it as well.
So transformation came from this paper.
Transformation of pneumococcal types.
So we're stuck with it.
So we call it DNA mediated transformation.
So he says we're stuck with it, but we're really not stuck with it.
What we are, it's as evolved since commercial products to use DNA and RNA to express proteins have been developed and used as these technologies and methodologies have expanded.
Confused with oncogenesis.
Now when we take a virus genome and we put it into a cell and we get virus out, this is called transfection, the production of infectious virus after DNA mediated transformation with viral DNA.
First shown with the lambda DNA.
And transfection.
First shown with a bacteriophage, right?
Sorry, first shown with a bacteriophage.
It comes from this word, transformation, infection.
It was coined by the people who did the lambda studies.
Now, unfortunately everybody uses transfection to just mean DNA mediated transformation.
It's not quite right.
So we try and use the right terminology.
But if you pick up a catalog from a biological supplier, they'll list transfection reagents.
There you go.
And specifically, I would argue that over the years, maybe the years that that proceeded from this, that that segregation became more clear, especially in the commercial space transformation was DNA, transfection is RNA and that's where I came out in 2020 was like, dude.
That's transformation.
This is transfection.
And neither of them are investigational vaccines.
These people are lying.
All right.
Because it's easier to say transfection than DNA mediated transformation.
But I just want you to know that transfection, in our view, means making viruses from DNA.
Now, when you genetic methods involve altering the virus genome so that you can study the function of genes.
Okay.
We make changes in DNA.
That's what mutation is.
Changes in DNA or RNA can make nonsense or missense mutation.
You know all this stuff.
But the point I want to make here is that a mutation is not what you do to a protein.
A mutation was originally coined to describe changes in DNA.
So we make mutations in viral genomes, and then we study the phenotypes.
The resulting proteins are altered.
They have amino acid changes or insertions or deletions, but they're not mutated proteins.
This mutation is a activity on nucleic acid.
Now, this assay, which we talked about last time, the plaque assay, is what made possible genetic analysis of viruses.
Because you can then start to isolate clonal populations of viruses by picking virus from individual plaques.
Do those look like individual plaques to you?
Here are some of these plaques are very close together.
So you definitely want to do multiple plaque pickings as we said last time.
So plaque assay allows genetic methods to go forward.
So from 1952, when Dobekko made the plaque assay for animal viruses, from that point on, genetics of viruses could be done.
So from that point on, we really haven't improved the way that we isolate viruses.
We use plaque assays.
And we believe that these things are working.
And they probably do for certain signals like bacteriophages.
I wonder if plaque assays work for coronavirus.
I wonder if they work for exosomes.
And I think that's where this whole mythology becomes a gross over exaggeration of understanding.
And this is what you get.
You get somebody who can tell you a very simple story.
He'll tell you a very simple picture and not need to explain anything because he can't.
Number four with bacteriophage because the plaque assay was developed for them earlier.
Now in the old days, people would have their virus and look for mutants in a tube of virus that they had in the laboratory.
They had no way of really directing mutations to specific parts of the genome.
As I said earlier, and we will come back to this many times, RNA virus polymerases are highly error-prone.
They make one missing corporation and every 10,000 to 100,000 nucleotides that they polymerize.
And they don't correct these errors.
So when you just grow up a stock of influenza virus, it's not one virus.
It's a collection of mutants.
And all you have to do is apply the right selection to get the mutant out you want.
If you want a viral mutant resistant to an antibody or a drug, you just apply selection and you can easily get it from a stock of RNA viruses.
DNA viruses have lower missing corporation rates.
Mutations are harder to come by in their genomes.
So typically you treat them with chemicals that mutagenize the DNA and then screen for your phenotypes.
So these are some of the phenotypes you can screen for.
As I said, drug resistance plaque size.
If your virus makes a big plaque, you see a small plaque on the plate.
It's a mutant. You pick it and study it and see what gene has been altered.
All right, so this is the old style of genetics in viruses.
We don't do this anymore because it's too haphazard.
Now what we do is we have, for most viruses that are studied, what are called infectious DNA clones.
You take the viral genome, whether it's DNA or RNA, you make a DNA copy of it.
You amplify it in a bacterial plasmid so you can get lots of it.
And then you take that DNA and you put it into a cell.
You transfect the cell and the cell will make infectious virus.
Wow, and did you hear how he stated that so very clearly you don't even need to use a T5 polymerase to make RNA from the DNA?
You can just put the DNA on cells and they'll make the virus.
Did you hear it?
Because that's what he means.
That's what I have kind of been suggesting for a while.
And one of the things that I think they talked to me out of as part of the obfuscation interference when they were still like,
Oh, infectious clones is kind of a good idea.
I really think it's important to realize that once they told you that they make the DNA copy of whatever nonsense they say they found
in the wild, everything after that is synthetic.
Nothing about whatever happens when they take that DNA and put it somewhere else has anything to do with the original signal
that they say they found in the wild, whether it's in a bat or a raccoon dog or in that sick child.
Because that doesn't recapitulate whatever they say the signal they're finding because now they have a quantity
and a purity that they didn't find in the first place.
So how can they say that this purity level even matters that it even represents anything related to that shadow of a signal
that they purport to have found in whatever clinical or patient sample or whatever they found?
They make infectious DNA clones of these things and then they play with them.
And that's how they can make a lot of it.
That's how they could put all these signals in different places and make it look like that guy had a PCR positive test.
That guy had a sequence in him.
That guy's virus was cultural.
All of those things can be created through the generation of a DNA infectious clone with the spike protein sequence
all by itself would be enough to put the spike protein DNA and RNA in all these places to put this toxin in all these places
to put this signal in all these places.
But if you wanted the whole genome you could do that too.
If you wanted the spike protein and the end protein you could put those to them.
Any number of combinations are possible and you could generate commercial quantities of them
because we have been making these things for years.
We've been making large quantities of RNA DNA and protein for years.
And so it doesn't need to be the magic viruses.
It doesn't need to be.
It can just be biotechnology.
It can just be the silly, you know, very clumsy things that we can do with DNA and RNA and that's enough to explain all the crap that they call virology.
That's what I think we're dealing with here.
And if it actually is just them obfuscating the irreducible complexity of our own biology and that of the biology around us
then we have a very, very big problem.
If we're going to pass this mythology to our kids they are going to become enslaved by it.
Bacterial plasmid so you can get lots of it.
And then you take that DNA and you put it into a cell.
You transfect the cell and the cell will make infectious virus.
This is actually a modern validation of Al Hershey and Martha Chase's experiment, right?
It shows that the DNA is the genetic material of the genome.
And you can make all kinds of changes to DNA.
So if you had an RNA virus like influenza virus the only thing you could ever do was to treat it with chemicals or just try and select out mutants from the population.
But now you can introduce specific mutations.
You can make recombinant viruses.
You can make anything you want.
And in fact people are very afraid of this.
You only have to look online to see people who think that the genetic engineers are going wild with viruses and making viruses that are going to kill everyone.
Well this is not entirely true of course but we can modify them.
It's not entirely true of course.
He actually said that.
It's not entirely true of course.
Ladies and gentlemen they've been planning this for a very long time.
They've been seeding this narrative into the beginning of movies.
The plots of movies.
The plots of TV shows.
Come on guys.
It hasn't been in the Simpsons and the X-Files and the new Planet of the Apes and a million other places for nothing.
It hasn't been in the sparse pandemic document and in the dark winter documents and the event 201 documents and in the lectures of James Giordano for the last 15 years for nothing ladies and gentlemen.
Come on.
That will.
So for example with poliovirus the virus contains an RNA genome plus stranded.
If you extract that RNA from the particle which you can do and you can purify the RNA.
If you inserted that into cells by transfection that would initiate an infectious cycle.
Just the mRNA.
See RNA into this thing is called transfection and he says the viral DNA is called transfection.
And my argument is that we became more precise in recent years and we have segregated transfection to RNA and transformation to DNA.
And that was the argument that I was making in 2020 when I got asked to not come into the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine anymore because they thought I was a danger.
Because it just has to be translated, make proteins and you initiate replication.
So the RNA is infectious but we can't really modify RNA.
So what we did was to make a DNA copy of the viral RNA in a plasmid and then when you put that into cells it gives rise to the virus as well.
You can either put the DNA into cells or you can make RNA in vitro and put that into cells and it's infectious.
So again this is the modern way we do genetics in virology.
The modern way we do genetics. This is the modern way we do virology.
Because before that there was barely any virology.
Before this there were barely any viruses you could work on.
And once you see this truth you will realize that they realize that a pandemic wasn't possible.
Pandemics don't happen and so they needed to create the mythological biology, the immunomythology that would underlie a pandemic.
And they needed to create that illusion over many years.
With many established voices that could establish an illusion of consensus about how much of this biology was not our own.
Did not reflect anything about our own irreducible complexity but rather about the dangerous irreducible complexities that are outside of us that we have to survive with the help of public health.
We hear about this all the time.
We're going to talk about experiments where we make X modification to viral genomes.
It's all going to be done with infectious DNA clones.
This is the way you do it for influenza virus.
I show you this because I want to tell you what was done with this technique.
Influenza virus has eight RNA segments.
So you have to make a plasmid for each of the eight RNA segments.
And these plasmids are very trickily made. They actually have two promoters in them.
All two promoter going in one direction and a Paul one promoter going in the other.
He is Earth's virologist. Of course he's the gatekeeper for this.
That's why he started making videos before it was cool to make videos.
Because he's an op.
It's not because he loves viruses so much he decided to make a podcast.
And then he decided to put all his lectures online.
It's because he's intended to be Earth's virology professor.
That's why he goes everywhere. That's why he has a nonprofit.
That's why he, I mean this is extraordinary but it's true.
There are players and you can see them now and this is a bigger one.
Because he's connected to one of the deepest of the deep dark people in this.
David Baltimore.
And when you are connected to one of these people like Bob Gallo or Murray Gardner or David Baltimore
or Hilary Kropowski or Stanley Plotkin, you are connected to some of the darkest narratives in American history
that are at the root cause of the public health disaster that we experienced at the root cause
of the criminal vaccine schedule.
Those people, if you are connected to them in your intellectual inheritance,
you are part of the problem. You are part of the machine.
You are part of this dark thing that we need to take away, pull our children away from.
I got about 10 more minutes. I hope I can get through this.
This plasmid into a cell.
It goes in the nucleus.
Paul one initiates here and makes the viral RNAs which are negative strand.
Paul two initiates here and makes mRNA's which make proteins.
So you take eight plasmids, you put them in a cell and you get influenza virus out.
So you can recreate any influenza virus that you want.
So it's not as simple as Fropolio because you need eight plasmids but it still can be done.
Now back in 1918, as many of you know, there was a big pandemic.
No explanation about how those eight segregate into eight, the eight right ones get in the thing.
You know, none of that. We don't need to explain how they also get an enzyme or two in there.
None of that needs to be explained. It's just obvious because they showed you the experiments.
The results are there and as long as it's his results and you know, it's oh my gosh, it's awful.
Well, Spanish influenza. Many millions of people died.
But we didn't have influenza virus at the time.
We didn't actually know it was a virus. Human influenza wasn't isolated until 1933.
So we didn't have this virus which was so devastating, we couldn't study it.
When people developed this eight plasmid transfection technique.
How would we know that it was not a bacteria?
How would we know that this is not the spread of a particularly pathogenic bacterial infection?
How would we know the difference if we never even isolated it until 20 years later?
What they then did was say, let's get the sequence of the 1918 virus and put it into plasmids and make that virus back again.
So how did they do this?
So it turned out that a lot of the people who died of influenza in 1918 got frozen.
People in the Army, right? So the Army kept a lot of their pathology specimens from their lungs.
They would take their lungs out and make blocks and fix them and embed them in paraffin.
Great.
So they had all those stored somewhere. So the investigators went down to them.
Stored somewhere.
You know like the room where they put Indiana Jones is where they put the law of lost art.
They also had all these pathology specimens stored somewhere.
They were able to sequence the viral RNA from it.
They got most of the RNA genome sequence from this 1918 virus.
So these are soldiers who had died from 1918 flu.
But they didn't get the whole thing. So what they also did, they went up to the permafrost up in Alaska where people had died.
It was an outbreak of 1918.
I'm just curious. Are they suggesting that the RNA from a flu virus was able to last for that long? The RNA? That's impressive.
I didn't think RNA could last that long.
People had died and they were buried and had been frozen in the ground since 1918.
And they opened up the graves. They did a biopsy of the lung.
And they pulled out tissue. This is all done with approval, of course.
They didn't do it surreptitiously at night.
And then they got RNA out of these biopsies and sequenced it.
And they completed the whole sequence. So then they put the sequences into each of the eight plasmids.
They put the plasmids in cells. And now we have the 1918 influenza virus.
This has to be worked at under BSL4 conditions because it's highly lethal.
Every animal that you put this in, mice, ferrets, guinea pigs, they're wiped out.
So we can understand what made this virus lethal.
It wipes them all out.
Somehow I didn't think influenza had such a universal, you know, you can put it in everything.
Or do they make a shit ton of it using infectious clones and then you can put it in everything.
Do you see the difference there? It's so funny.
I mean, once you see it for what it is, it's just a patent set of lies.
I mean, you can't bring it in this way. Many people think we should not have done this experiment
because these sequences are published. So anyone could go into GenBank and get these sequences
and make this virus if you wanted to do that and make a weapon, for example.
Kim.com is terrified of that. The next virus is going to kill a billion people.
It's much better than nuclear weapons because you can do it in your garage.
Robert Malone was actually in front of the UK parliament, or at least in a room in the UK parliament,
and told all the people in the room that it is possible for someone with a bachelor's degree in biology
to go on eBay and get the equipment necessary to assemble,
hey, gain a function coronavirus in their freaking garage.
So lucky I decided to start streaming, right?
And started to use my handwriting to teach biology.
Otherwise, I could get up to a lot of nastier things in here. Holy cow.
But I think that risk is pretty low. I think the benefits outweigh this, the kind of research that we can do.
All right. The last thing I want to tell you about is good uses of viruses for curing human diseases.
We have been able to make viral vectors and put foreign genes into them.
And so these are used for gene therapy. There are lots of diseases where patients lack a specific gene.
And so one of the most common approaches is to take cells from these patients.
Now we're beginning to take bone marrow stem cells out.
You infect them with a virus that will supply the gene that's missing,
and then you infuse these cells back into the patient.
And that doesn't work very well for very many things, including sickle cell anemia,
which they are not, we're doing it, but people are not.
It's not working out. Didn't work out for Jesse Gelsinger.
And Robert Malone got three New York Times articles out of that,
and then a breast cancer institute or something like that,
even though he calls that burning his career.
Of course, you need to use a virus that will not kill these cells,
and there are plenty of non-lidic viruses that we can work with.
Non-lidic, non-lidic viruses are viruses that don't explode the cell
after they make so many copies of themselves. Just in case you missed that term,
that's a term that comes back from David Baltimore's lecture a couple of days ago
where he said that one of the ways that viruses can leave a cell
is to bud off the outside, and in that case I guess all of the receptors
that the virus has have to first be on the outside of the host cell,
and then virus genomes have to go up to the cell surface
and bud off and be covered with receptors and then packaged correctly.
And then there are other models that are more complicated than that
and that include just making so much viruses that the cell explodes.
And those are lidic viruses, and so non-lidic viruses are viruses
that are more subtle or have more class and don't ruin the host cell,
but just bud off of them.
But a lot of these have been developed and are being used in very small trials
to treat a variety of diseases. We also use them in research as well.
There are some genetic diseases that are amenable to gene therapy.
For example, skids, severe combined immunodeficiency is a defect in a very specific gene.
So when you have a one gene defect, you can think about repairing it.
Factor eight, factor seven, and factor nine deficiency.
When you have a one gene deficiency, yes, you can think about repairing it.
You definitely can imagine lots of ways to think about it.
LDL resetocystic fibrosis is a defect in a channel.
Smokes matter.
So a lot of these and other gene defects are being corrected or trying to correct with gene therapy.
One of the most common vectors that's used is retroviral vectors.
The other one are the single-stranded DNA viruses like parvoviruses.
Those are being used as well.
Now a lot of this won't make sense to you yet because we haven't covered retroviruses,
but what you do if you want to make a retrovirus to do gene therapy
is you put the genome into two plasmids.
You have a plasmid that has the coding region to make the capsid proteins
and you have another plasmid with what's called the envelope proteins.
These are the glycoproteins that will be in the membrane of the virus.
Now if you take just these two plasmids and you transfect them into cells,
you get empty retrovirus particles.
There's no genome in there because you haven't inserted one.
You've just made a particle.
Now let's say you want to insert a gene in here.
You just take the same two plasmids and then you add a third plasmid
containing your gene of interest.
You want to correct the gene defect, you put the gene in here,
and you put signals in it so it will be incorporated into the retrovirus.
So three plasmids you transfect.
And they know those signals.
See, they know those signals.
They figured out those signals.
So they know that if they combine these signals,
so they figured out how exosomes are made.
You see, they figured this out and they call it pathology.
They call it viruses so that it's exclusively their intellectual property,
their intellectual space.
And then this mythology will be used to enslave our children by telling them a story
that's actually about their own sacred, irreducible complexity,
the biology that defines them and defines all of us as what we are
and calling it pathology and calling it obligate pathogens from alien places
or a pre-primordial world.
Inspect them in cells.
You now have a retrovirus containing a foreign gene.
And you can use that to try and treat genetic diseases.
Now these vectors, of course, are gutted so they don't cause any disease.
They do integrate into your DNA.
And there have been some cases where individuals have had tumors arise
because these vectors, they integrate rather randomly,
they integrate next to an oncogene and activate it.
And so tumors arise.
So there's a lot of work around.
I mean, there's even oncogene is already probably a biological term
that's going to go to the wayside at some point.
Although I haven't bothered to play with that one.
That we need to do still to make these work better.
But retroviruses, parval viruses, and a couple of other viruses
being increasingly used and maybe in 10 to 15 years,
this will be commonplace.
Identiviruses.
Maybe, maybe, you know, like Robert Malone said,
when he was in grad school and doing his stuff with Marie Gardner
and with ender verma, he was pretty convinced that within a decade
there would be a geneticist at every hospital carrying childhood diseases
with retroviruses.
Unfortunately, he was wrong about that.
Unfortunately, that seems to be an intricate part of this mythology.
A promise that can never be reached, but seems so right there.
Just over the horizon, just in 10 years, we're going to get there.
And people like Kurt Zweiler think that if he can just leave,
make it until 2040, he can have his consciousness uploaded
or replicated or cloned or whatever, and he's going to live forever.
Here's an example.
Exlinked adrenal leukodystrophy.
So this is a CNS disease, typically fatal.
It's a defect in a transporter called ABCD1.
And in this trial, a couple of two patients, two children with this disease.
Their bone marrow is taken out.
It was infected in culture with a antiviral or retroviral vector
with a normal gene, and then they infused these cells back into the patients,
and their state is stabilized.
They stopped degenerating, and one of them, I think, improved.
So a small clinical trial, but just an example of what you can do with the virus.
I bet they're dead now.
Hey, nice, nice way to end it.
I guess they're dead now.
Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, this has been giga-owned biological,
a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
We were doing Vincent Rancin yellow and virology 103,
and this is probably the last day that I'm going to do a study hall like this on virology.
I think now it's time for us to make a little bit of a summary of this stuff
and make a little bit of a summary on prions and that kind of thing.
I might come back later today and cover one of these prion videos
from either Stephanie Sineff or Kevin McCarron,
only just to see what we can add to our understanding of their implication
of what's going on here.
I suspect that it's really a spike protein-centered mythology,
and it's not really a genuine presentation,
but I'm willing to listen, and I'm willing to see what they're talking about now,
because I haven't been paying attention to them for a very long time,
and I did notice that Stephanie Sineff a couple days ago was actually on Kevin McCarron's broadcast,
which I think is an extraordinary milestone for us to reach in this narrative.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think that this hypothesis is still extraordinarily valid.
I think that they told us that there was a dangerous novel virus, but there wasn't.
It may have been a background.
It may have been a combination of a background and bad testing.
It is not about profit, though.
It is about control, and specifically, it is about controlling our grandchildren
with a mythology about public health, a mythology about obligate pathogens in the wild
that have nothing to do with our own irreducible complexity
that includes exosomal signaling in health and disease.
Financial incentives and other perks were put in place
so that people would be coerced into accepting this,
and very specifically, a national security event occurred.
And in the context of that national security event, people were co-opted.
People were told they had to participate.
People were told that certain parts of the narrative could not be touched,
because the security of the world, the economic system was in danger
and that we needed maximum compliance.
And in participating in this narrative, they helped coerce hundreds of millions of people
around the world into accepting multiple transfection events
that probably have permanently damaged their bodies.
And now, they would like to tell you a story about a virology, a viral protein,
a mythology that will essentially absolve this plan and its executors
from the guilty verdict that should befall them,
that they were guilty of spreading a mythology that they knew was going to kill people,
that they covered up this in order to execute this national security exercise,
where maximum compliance meant that the maximum number of people accepted a novel virus
that killed millions of people that transfection was necessary for
and quite effective in treating if it wasn't for rushing it
and that because it was gained a function, it could come again.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been Gigome Biological, a high-resistance,
low-noise information brief brought to you by biologists.
If you like what you hear, you can become a subscriber at GigomeBiological.com
for as little as $10 a month, or you can set up a recurring payment on PayPal for $1 a month.
We're going to be here every day, and my family's going to find a way, one way or another,
and that's what we do here, so I'll see you again tomorrow at 10.10.
And if you want to, you can try to find Fearla on YouTube today at 1 o'clock
because she will be doing a live yoga class, but I'm not going to promote that here.
That's something completely separate, but if you're interested in that, it's not too hard to find.
Thank you very much for joining me, and I'll see you again tomorrow at 10.10. Try to be on time. I will be too.
I did that wrong. Darn it.
I did that wrong.
You