I soon know where I've been.
Hanging on the promises and the songs of yesterday.
And I've made up my mind.
I ain't wasting no more time.
Though I keep searching for an answer, I never seem to find what I'm looking for.
Good Lord, I pray you give me strength to carry on Cos I know what it means To walk along a lonely street of grief And here I go again on my own Going down the only road I'll ever know Like a drifter I was born to walk alone
I ain't wasting no more time Just another heart in need of rescues Waiting on love's sweet charity I'm gonna hold on for the rest of my days Cause I know what it means To walk along the lonely street of dreams
Like a sister I was born to walk alone
♪ Like a drifter I was born to walk alone ♪ ♪ Cause I know what it means ♪ ♪ To walk alone and honestly to dream ♪ ♪ And here I go again on my own ♪
We understand less than 1% of the human genome, so trying to be manipulating that and creating a variance of that I think is
To me, it's unethical to do because we're doing it without knowledge.
At some point, it would be really good to get rid of diseases like Tay-Sachs and other horrible debilitating diseases for young children.
But we don't know enough about the human genome that knocking out genes, we don't know what other functions they have.
Things like CRISPR are not the precise tool that they're made out in the press to be.
They have what's called off-target effects.
They make changes in other genes.
We're just so not ready for doing this.
Be very careful there, Daniel.
That was actually Craig Venter, one of the godfathers of the Human Genome Project and of just genetic exploration in general, in a rare moment of high morality and respect for the sacred.
You don't get him to say that very often, but that is a wonderful example of it.
It looks vaguely like G. Edward Griffin, but it wasn't him at all, just to make sure you realize that was Craig Venter.
Sorry, I keep saying that wrong.
I would need to go look it up.
I don't know when he said that.
I would need to go look back to the original file.
But I can do that at some point if that's really important.
It was on YouTube though.
I just pulled that screen capture from YouTube.
I gotta tell you, G. Edward Griffin is sharp as a knife, man.
That guy was funny and witty and sharp.
And I felt very privileged to have met him.
So thanks for that reminder to shout out again to the old school OG, G. Edward Griffin.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case scenario.
I think truth is good for kids.
We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in 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, 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.
Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest kind of distillation of what the pandemic means to society, to biology, to science, and to democracy, and to the whole kind of idea of empiricism and integrity.
And then each of us, this incredible preeminent panel that we have, each one of you is going to get a chance to comment
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones, you know, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, you know, and, you know, it's not, it's, you know, measles plus, you know, okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles because, you know, not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end, but no one,
When we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality and it's not, it's, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these three.
It'll be a moral emergency because it has to be.
you
Every time I think I have that music ready to go, I've got that stupid slider on my left too low.
Here we are again, trying another day of enchantment, dispelling, disambiguation, a little bit of something and a little bit of something.
Good to see you, everybody in the chat.
Get our telescopes out and enjoy the view.
Got some really goopy stuff going down lately.
And today we have sort of the Fonz on the Fonzarelli is gonna jump a shark today.
And the narrative about the COVID pandemic, two very unlikely characters came into contact in real life, which I wouldn't have predicted was going to happen so early.
And I think that's actually because these guys are so off script that they don't even know what to do anymore.
That's how it feels.
Because they are doing everything they can to swim away from talking about New York City anymore.
The only person that was talking about New York City seems to have vanished from the internet.
Infectious clones?
I mean nobody's talking about that anymore except for some guy named Quay who I guess said the words or said synthetic clone but didn't say infectious clone because of course infectious clone is the term that you need to search
in the virology literature in order to see it.
Because otherwise, if you just search clones, that's not going to get you to the goal.
Placebo batches, still just crickets.
And the word transfection and the word transformation, still just something that nobody seems to realize was on their own resume.
If you're an academic biologist or an academic doctor who has a lab at a university somewhere, you've used this technology before.
And it was just kind of, I don't know, negligent for you not to see that they weren't investigational vaccines.
They just renamed something that you already understood very well.
And so the protocols were murder, it's just a question of how many different ways and how did they get it all started.
Kyle Seidel might be able to tell us something.
Cameron Kyle Seidel.
One of the guys that Kevin McCarron thought was most important in April of 2020.
Is that a coincidence?
I don't think it is.
I don't think it's a coincidence at all.
Scooby-Doo is real.
And there's a spectacular commitment to lies going on, ladies and gentlemen.
That's why people's behavior starts to behave, their behavior starts to not add up, you know, because people that are really, you know, operating from a standpoint of integrity and aren't cooperating with other people to bamboozle us and our children,
They display a pretty normal kind of behavior pattern, you know, where they have other stuff to do and they have other time for other things.
And Substack is a pretty huge commitment.
I mean,
Getting on Substack and writing articles and then checking your grammar and formatting them and putting in little clips and all this other shit that people do seemingly in their sleep is not easy.
Adjusting yesterday's slide deck for today's show takes me 25 minutes to a half an hour.
And deciding what I want to do and taking notes on it for a little while first takes a little time too.
And then I got, you know, three kids and a wife and there are meals and there's a lawn and you got to get stuff from outside of the house every once in a while.
And then there's the, you know, like, it's just so weird how some people can put out 17 pages of Substack every day.
And also, I guess, maintain all kinds of other things in their personal life besides hundreds of tweets a day that are all snarky with the right, just the right this or the just the right that.
What you see on Twitter from me is two cups of coffee.
I just go as quick as I can trying to, you can see there's lots of typos.
I don't use much time there and whatever I find there, I tend to make note of and that's about it because I've come to understand it as kind of an application like Slack.
And I'm not a super user.
I'm not an administrator of my Slack group.
I'm just a user.
And so if nobody invites me into that chat group over there or that channel over there, then I'm not allowed to see it.
But there are administrators of Slack groups that can see all the chats and can see all the messages and know who's watching who and where they're spending their time on the app.
That's how it works if you're an administrator on Slack.
Nevermind, I guess, if you're a super user of it.
And so make no mistake about it, Twitter may have been one of the primary ways that this pandemic and the narrative of it was so efficiently disseminated.
And I've noticed an eerie, eerie, very remarkable pattern in the
early videos that we've been watching of Kevin McKernan, and also now Kevin McCairn, where two different videos, two days apart, preceding that video that we watched of Kevin McKernan on the Vance Crowe podcast on the 24th of April, 2020, that remains on YouTube.
These two videos were both started with a George Webb associate named Addy Adds, Atikin Skywalker, YouTube's chosen one.
enunciating that it seems like this debate's really happening on Twitter, huh?
And then showing each other's Twitter page and what they're doing on Twitter.
And so I think we need to come to the conclusion that that's why Drastic was a group on Twitter.
And that's why all of these people that are in this dissident movement have a very active Twitter account.
And most or all of them are very pro Elon because it's all part of the show.
And I know that, you know, it's easy to say that it was always part of the show, but how it was being used and thinking about it as an app, like a Slack with super users and administrators and also us little, you know, employees down here that only see it as Twitter.
And now imagine if those people are multiple accounts and that some of them have access to the same anonymous accounts so that whenever they get a good idea for one of those accounts, they can just do it.
Maybe there's a whole table of people that's gaming this out so that none of these people waste any time on Twitter.
It just looks like they do because every once in a while they contribute.
And of course it's on their phone so they can keep track of what the table is putting on their account and how they're being used.
to meddle with these real people that we're trying to get us out of this maze.
That's why these subjects are still not touched.
That's why the only thing they can do is attribute bad motives to me and why the latest and greatest out of the clown that I guess, according to LifeSite News, is based in the UK, but I thought he was based in Japan, Kevin McCairn.
The latest from that clown show is just...
elevation of the same meme against me that that Brian Dan Wilson debunked the funk also recently promoted against me that also the cancelled mouse actually initially promoted against me so think about how well we just are all united in the fact that Jay's kind of a whatever they call me
That's the stage we're at right now.
There's no other, I don't know how else to interpret it because they long ago gave up talking about biology.
And so, yeah, I don't know what to say other than we have to be winning like crazy, otherwise you can't explain their ridiculous behavior.
Yeah, you can forget about the bird flu.
Whatever they tell you, of course it's gonna be nonsense, so you gotta try and, uh... We're gonna make gentle the life of this world, ladies and gentlemen.
And we're going to do it by pointing out how these people are an artificial wave of lies.
That's what it is.
It's a perfect artificial wave of lies where inevitably people are drawn to the controlled opposition of Jessica Rose and Meryl Nass and Pierre Cory and Robert Malone and Jill Glasspool Malone.
and these people that are actually just playing against us.
For whatever reason, coerced or not coerced, willing or unwilling, witting or unwitting, they are definitely part of this wave of consensus that is an agreement on a faith, on a lie, and skilled social media users are very, very vulnerable to this illusion of consensus.
If you stay focused on the biology, you don't take the bait on social media and you love your neighbor, you can generally escape from this.
And so first and foremost, please, we need this to share and share quick because I don't know how long we're going to be able to sustain it, right?
I just got to have faith that tomorrow I can do it again and tomorrow I can do it again.
And at some point, I think we'll get there.
But it's not like the momentum is building very fast.
So more than anything, I need people, if you're not sharing it, find a new way to share it.
If you are not emailing people yet with the direct links to Stream.GigaHome.Bio, please do include that in your link list.
because that is the place where they can't get lost.
They won't get ads thrown in their face.
You see, if you send them to stream.gigahome.bio, they don't get any of that.
Um, and that's the whole point of paying for that.
Otherwise, I don't know what I'm paying for it for if no one's gonna watch it.
Although the views are going up, so I'm not, I'm not complaining.
Don't let me sound get angry.
Okay, so anyway, this is GigaOM Biological.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Uh, thank you very much for joining me.
Okay.
Good afternoon.
It is 445 here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
It's the 21st of June and I'm coming to you live from my garage as usual.
My name is Jonathan Cui and this is Giga Ohm Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist and basketball enthusiast
Um, I saw something in the chat about, uh, an RNA being able to spread for a short time by Ian to the fray.
Um, I'll try to do two minutes.
Um, but I, it really, that's the frustrating thing about any invitation at this stage.
Um, it's very hard to, uh,
Quite a lot of work needs to be done to try and kind of spontaneously respond to a few people in a room because the level of knowledge in that room alone could be so varied that, you know, if I have to keep backing up, keep backing up, keep backing up, then where I am now can be very burdensome.
With regard to the RNA can spread for a short time but can't pandemic question, I want you to think very carefully about the analogy that I use a lot and that I used in the Red Pill Conference, where I said that you cannot make your cells do something that they don't already do.
So if they can't do something that they don't already do, that means that they already do package RNA and DNA and send it around.
And so
What that means is, is that if you transfect or transform the cells of your body, it is possible, and it's not crazy to imagine because they do it already, that they might take some of that RNA and DNA and in the process of doing whatever they would normally do with it, which might be translated into protein, but it also might be copy it, they might also package it up.
And so if they do, then for a short period of time, it's possible to imagine that someone who is transfected by an RNA or a DNA could transmit that to the next person.
But it's very difficult to differentiate between a DNA
like pollen that you inhale and then exhale again and someone else inhales it as transmission or exposure or proximity.
And so, one of the arguments that I think is very valid that attacks at the heart of what virology is or isn't is the differentiation between proximity.
In other words, if you put
million molecules into the first dish of a of a cell culture and you grow it for a little while and some of the cells get mad and then you take the supernatant off and you put it in the next cell culture and then you do that again and you do that again and you call that three passages and
If you're not doing really hardcore controls, how would you differentiate between you just taking some of that DNA each time from this to this and it's just a dilution?
But in the end, there's still detectable amounts of DNA.
So when you PCR, you find it.
And when you sequence, you find it.
And it might be slightly different, but that's because the thing that you put in the first dish, it wasn't
Completely homogenous to begin with because even the DNA or RNA clone cannot be homogenous to begin with it's a 80 90 maybe even 99 percent pure but there's gonna be errors and there's gonna be some variation and so that in and of itself could lead to sufficient let's say
Unknown that you could, by the time you diluted it three times across the cell culture, depending on how you did it, you might take anywhere from 50 or 60% of the original amount of DNA with you, depending on what's actually happening in that, in that experiment versus what you assume is happening in that experiment.
And so I suspect that's one of the things that if we find out that some of the control, quote unquote, experiments that these no virus people are doing, they may invalidate, and be very careful when I, listen to me when I say this so you understand what I mean.
They may invalidate the methodologies that they purport to invalidate, but that might not necessarily invalidate another way of observing
these self-replicating RNAs in the wild.
It is possible that there are RNAs that can be found in the wild that have an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene attached to some other genes.
It's possible.
I'm not a virologist.
I haven't done this bench work.
So I don't know to what extent that much knowledge is known or not known.
But I do know a lot of this is based on the presence of the sequence and not the confirmation that the sequence itself is able to perpetuate itself.
And they use these cell culture techniques that aren't as foolproof and aren't as, let's say, rock solid as they were thought to be in earlier days when we
you know, understood these things a lot best.
Maybe one great example of this progression of knowledge is, in case you didn't listen to Mark Kulak's show, It's Up Now, where he listens to this audio recording of Liederberg.
And Liederberg, it's talking about fertilizing the egg of a gorilla with the sperm of a human.
And it's
There's so many things there that don't work that we don't even understand why they don't work.
But at that time when Lederberg was speaking, it was just a question of, well, of course we'll figure out how to make that work.
It doesn't work now, but we could easily figure out how it works.
It's just, you know, and that assumption is kind of opposed by, you know, what,
Craig Venter said in the beginning of this, over the credits, where he says, you know, we understand less than 1% of the genome.
That's less than 1% is a lot less than 1% of the genome.
And so to be doing what we're doing with the genome we are now, it's kind of unethical because we're doing it without knowledge.
He said almost those exact words, which is pretty extraordinary.
So, um,
The reason why I answered that is because I want you to see that if cells do occasionally replicate RNA and package it, then if you put a self-replicating RNA in your cells or you're exposed to one, then it's possible that that self-replicating RNA could find it to another person, but pandemicking
The verb, pandemicking, would mean being able to do that millions and millions of times.
And because RNA is so low fidelity in its copying, and because the transfection of the next host is so low probability, given our immune system, then the idea of even a significant quantity of some kind of self-replicating RNA getting to 1,000
or 10,000 people is almost solely dependent on the initial quantity that's created.
And so my guess, for example, would be that the original SARS virus was a known quantity released in a known way in a known place.
And then they just watched and see to what extent they could detect it.
And it was an experiment.
And so they could do a very similar thing.
And if they, you know, got another, whatever many people now just imagine if they released a signal that they didn't want to be able to very easily differentiate it from the background.
Then then it would be a joke for them to create the illusion of a pandemic with any number of molecular diagnostics that they have the sole proprietary control over.
That's the scary part, right?
Because none of these tests were ever verified to be real, except for by the very people that we know have executed this national security exercise on us.
I'm a human just like you.
I don't have any answers.
I just know they're lying.
And that's the point.
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 RNA cannot pandemic.
And these things can be said in other ways, but they always mean the same thing.
The vaccine schedule in America was always criminally negligent.
And so I don't really know why.
these people are still beating around the bush about this particular thing.
I think that this is all a very nasty way of trying to mislead the young.
And it's a long game because this is a multi-generational war that, a war of creating an illusion.
And that started with people like Gallo and Kaprowski and Plotkin and Baltimore and
you know, Murray Gardner and lots of others that I can't name, but I think Mark Hulak would be a great person to give us a top 20 list of the baddies.
But it's all a collection of people that are willing to stick with an unwavering commitment to the lie.
And that lie is that faith that I show all the time about a novel virus that killed millions and millions more were saved from.
And the way that they stick to that lie is not talk about what they were doing in 2020, what they said in 2020 or where they were in 2020.
Because if you do look at what they were doing, then you will see an inevitable evolution of understanding in the wrong direction that will usually start with a hyper acceptance of what the TV narrative was.
a hyper-acceptance of what the TV spokespeople like Fauci said we should do, and a complete lack of mistrust of government.
That's Jordan Peterson, that's Brett Weinstein, that's Sam Harris, that's Eric Weinstein, that's all of these people.
And if they opposed anything, what they opposed was the lockdowns, and what they opposed was the mandates.
Instead of saying hey, you know before the pandemic we already knew that the vaccine schedule is criminal So there's no way in hell.
We're gonna trust this public health apparatus to save us from a pandemic But nobody said that They just said it's a power grab Not that they would lie about something for a power grab
but just a power grab.
Not that they would murder people for a power grab, but just it's a power grab.
They're taking advantage of the crisis, but they wouldn't have created it.
And this is what they all agree on.
And that's why the illusion is so strong because it goes across to the TV people that are on the far right there.
And so a lot of people seem to be broken free of this, but it ain't very many.
And I still don't trust them all.
Because lots of these people still say we need to fear free-range RNA molecules and I'm arguing that there is no biological basis for this fear.
Yesterday I showed you that this little sitcom jumped the shark already once because two meddlers that have been meddling with me for four years going now
One of the stars of the show, Kevin McKernan, and one of the, I don't know what you would call this guy, I guess, scrubs, that is over in Japan or over in the UK, according to this Life Science site news article that they both share reference in and a video link to, and then they both agree that the mRNAs are causing frame shifts that can lead to prions, whatever the hell they are,
It's just absurd.
It's absolutely absurd that this guy, Kevin McCarran, would be speaking in front of some Australian group about what's going on.
It's absolutely absurd that this guy who dropped out of college to work for the Human Genome Project and then got to take intellectual property away from the Human Genome Project and make a multi-generational pile of wealth is somehow coming to save us.
when he was on a podcast 24th of April, kind of saying that it was a novel virus, but not really because it probably just came from the backwoods of China where nobody was sequencing for the last 40 years.
And so I started to sequence because I'm afraid they might say it's in the pot.
And this clown is up here saying that it's gonna be a billion people dead so my wife's staying home and making masks and you should too.
It's too bad we can't lock everyone down for 60 days.
But you know the United States is really all about free and stuff like that so you never, I guess it's never gonna work over there.
You guys really aren't locked down at all so don't be surprised if it goes absolutely bananas there.
That's his basic job from Japan.
As I guess a retired by injury neuroscientist.
And so they got featured in a LifeSite news article on March 4th, 2024, where they plugged a video of this meddler who actually came to Pittsburgh and this meddler who went from being twice on my stream to tortious interference with my employer.
or my employment.
So interfering with my ability to make a living from his semi-retired state on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean with his $10,000 cats.
I'm fighting for my kids and he's fighting for his cats.
And now it's these two characters.
who Kevin McCairn said this guy was the number one no virus guy that everybody had to pay attention to.
And for six or eight weeks in a row, streaming with close friend and associate of George Webb, Addy Adds, and Paul Cottrell, hero of George Webb,
says week after week after week that I gotta work on these no virus people headed by Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan and I gotta work on these 5G people.
Steve Kirsch actually offered to fly me to Japan and work with Kevin McCarran on some mouse experiments a couple years ago.
He actually asked me if I wanted to read Kevin McCarren's proposal for mouse experiments to see if Steve should fund it or not.
They tried to pretend like, you know, I'm considering funding this guy, Kevin McCarren.
Do you think I should consider him or not?
Do you know who he is?
And it's all just one big show because it's all one big group of liars all working for the same weaponized piles of money.
That's the best I can tell you because that's why after four and a half years, after I was sitting on his steering committee for a year or a half a year, he decided to send me a message that I didn't email to myself.
So I'm just gonna have to play it into the microphone.
How many times in the last month or two have I called Steve Kirsch one of the worst liars and traitors in America?
And yet somehow or another, this guy actually sent me a message.
How am I gonna get where?
Oh yeah, sorry, it's in my voicemail.
Sent me a message, called me while I was at the Red Pill Conference after I had presented
the day before I was going to see Andy Kaufman because he was going to present.
And he sends me this message, which is just absolutely hilarious.
Oh.
Talk to you.
Hey, this is Steve Kirsch.
I've been engaging in the no virus debate and somebody said I should talk to you.
And I'm assuming they think that's because you think that viruses don't exist.
But if you don't believe they exist, I definitely want to talk to you.
So give me a call, thanks.
Now, I guess what I'm supposed to believe from that is that despite our relationship already going back two years and me more or less being able to explain this for the last year and a half, he's not aware of my understanding of how virology may or may not be real and how the illusion of virology is created by transfection and transformation in cell culture in animals.
and how actually the production of that synthetic DNA and RNA for transfection or transformation is the only thing you really need to understand.
He wants to hear my side of it now.
That's the desperation that they have.
Not only have they brought these two people that probably should have never come together.
Remember, I've got a photo of this guy with Andrew Cuomo in 2019, shaking hands in front of a grant award
because he was gonna start a little company that was gonna make electronic monitors for prisoners to make sure that they don't commit suicide.
And the state of New York gave him a grant.
And at the poster presentation for that grant reward, there they are taking a picture together, Andy Kaufman and Andrew Cuomo.
And then the pandemic started.
Isn't that just peachy?
And then some guy in Japan knew right away that these no virus people are nuts.
And it's Andy Kaufman in America.
I didn't know who, what?
No virus?
Who said that?
I'm reading what?
And now suddenly Steve Kirsch and Andy Kaufman make a video together with a nice pretty thumbnail and they're going to spend hours legitimizing each other as authority figures on one side or the other of a debate.
And if Andy Kaufman seems to wipe the floor with Steve Kirsch, then it's going to be the rise of this absolutely fake traitor
who could have saved us if he was real, but he wasn't.
Because at one point in the beginning of the pandemic, he was using the words exosomes and he wasn't just calling them cell trash.
But that lasted for about a month.
I've got all the recordings.
And at some point exosomes disappeared from his lectures and it became this pleomorphic cycle.
And he started to say more and more of the more weird stuff like, you know, bacteria also are generated by some kind of cycle with cells rather than being, you know, separate things like we understand them.
And so it's very, very extraordinary because that's the trick of the no virus people.
Sometimes they are dead on balls accurate.
And then they also think that if you freeze water while you're thinking of your wedding, then it might make a ring.
And if you're thinking of, of, of your dead dog, then it might make a bone.
And so this crossover is really, really interesting because it's a false narrative of asking the wrong questions.
And I bet you anything, it's going to be the worst display of this kind of pseudo arguing, this pseudo discussion where they're just going to come to an impasse because they can't seem to agree on the meaning of words or something stupid like that, which of course is the worst kind of disingenuous debate.
But that's how they do it.
That's what the Scooby-Doo is, is a disingenuous debate where people are forced to accept that antibodies are a correlate of immunity worth arguing about.
It's forced, you're forced to accept that the genetic diversity of the 6 million sequences that Kevin McKernan can vouch for being real are worth debating about and have to be answered.
That the unusual fear and cleavage site is like really like a,
you know, a Twinkie in the washing machine, and the DARPA diffuse proposal is a slam dunk.
And so it's impossible to get out from under the weight of the illusion of consensus around these things.
And that illusion of consensus around these things is built by these liars, either not asking questions or actively promoting these ideas from the beginning.
And that includes amyloidosis and prion disease, which I would argue these guys, not McCairn, but McKernan and anybody that uses transfection and transformation in higher animals knows that that dysregulation of protein folding and maybe catastrophic autoimmune disease that could be characterized as amyloidosis or characterized as prion disease most certainly is probably an expected outcome of transfection in healthy humans.
So they had to seed it in the viral narrative of gain of function to make sure that when it started to happen a few years after the transfection was rolled out, that people wouldn't freak out and that they would have an out that was the spike protein that did it.
And that's what these people are up to.
They are controlling the narrative.
That's why in, for the love of goodness, on the summer solstice of 2024, we are still trapped in a Scooby-Doo.
And so, it didn't matter who you got in the car with, if you followed around Rose for a while, or Panda for a while, or Heart.
Oh my gosh.
Just, it's literally turning into worst case scenario.
If you followed Kevin McCairn or George Webb or Paul Cottrell or Mark Kulak at Housatonic Live, you were gonna be talking about a lab leak that might've been leaked at the Wuhan games.
They might be trying to cover up, maybe it was an attack.
Maybe the China doesn't even care and they attacked their own people knowing it would bounce across the pond on planes.
all these crazy speculative stories about who attacked who and what those videos on the street mean and why would they ever build such a hospital if it wasn't real?
And all of these worst case scenarios wove together and reinforced the narrative that the national security state needed our kids to believe in, which is that vaccination works and is worth doing, and we understand enough about the immune system to do it, that novel coronaviruses can jump species, and that's what happened here, that PCR false positives are rare and asymptomatic spread is very real.
Variants are evidence of both spread and continuing evolution of a single SARS virus, as opposed to a background signal that's being distorted as spread, that they might not even be detecting what they say they're detecting.
How would we know?
The EUs were approved based on paperwork.
Kevin McKernan on April 24, 2020 on the Vance Crowe podcast was complaining that the FDA was in the way, and the regulation was in the way, and that it was going to cause millions of people to die because we aren't allowed to just do it.
They need to get out of the way.
An EUA requires 10 pages of paperwork, but it doesn't require firsthand data.
It requires summaries, which means that you could just write a summary about the experiments you did, and the controls you did, and the primers you used, and the results, and have to show no gels, have to show no raw sequencing data, to show no raw data of any kind.
I know because I've looked at them.
These EUAs are granted because these people say, well, here's the things we used.
Here's the things we bought.
We mixed together.
We did the controls and we got 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.
And we did the other ones and we got 37, 36, 35, 37, 36, 35 done.
I don't see any curves.
I don't see any data.
I don't see anything.
They just had to say they did it.
And since we already know there's a spectacular commitment to lies going on here, we already know that pandemic potential is created by putting pandemic potential into the title and abstract of papers, and that's it.
And yet we are on the precipice of having our children grow up in a world where they really think a pandemic happened, and we can't let that happen.
Gain-of-function research is a mythology even if he says...
So we've been in the car with these people for a really long time, and sometimes they pull over and somebody like, you know, let's say Matt Crawford might say, ah, you guys aren't listening to me, man, because I think the DMED is the most important story, and nobody will listen to me.
And he'll get out of the car.
But then somebody like Steve Kirsch gets in the car and says, wow, what was up with that guy?
He was kind of all upset about something.
What do you guys know?
Oh, I'm really intense because, you know, my housekeeper and like her husband and one other person.
And that's like totally crazy, you know, because that's statistically impossible.
N equals three in a country of 340 million, but you know, he's convinced he's got data.
He decided, wow, I finally got to speak out.
I was chasing an EUA and funding early treatment with Robert Malone for a year, but then I turned my ship around once I realized that my housekeeper and her husband and her friend were all hurt by the shot.
And so I don't want to get in the car with these people, but I've been in the car for a really long time.
I'm still in the car with them.
I got 17 hours of Kevin McCarren spitting on his camera about me.
Making, you know, cheap jabs, calling me Judas.
So,
This is far from over.
They have nothing left because we can finally see that they're all the same people.
LifeSiteNews published an article in March of this year which featured this clown and the previous one as experts in describing how the transfections, but they call it mRNA shots, are leading to prion disease.
the expert in this guy's friend, who's an expert in the PCR space that he's so happy to know, this guy who used to work for Monsanto and the World Bank, who decided to go into podcasting in the beginning of the pandemic, because you know what the hell, I got money.
And he just has this random dude from Boston on with from the Human Genome Project who works for dope, likes to sequence the dope, all into the dope genes.
But since, you know, he was afraid that the CDC might say that the dope is carrying the COVID, he decided to sequence his dope for the COVID.
And that's what got him into, you know, the whole testing space, you know.
Just, you know, the same lucky way that he just dropped out of college and decided to go into the Human Genome Project.
It had nothing to do with his dad or anything else, his brothers, just him.
Pulling himself up from his brute straps.
Just, you know, fighting for our kids, podcasting away in 2020, just because he wants to save his cats.
So much so that CHD decided to drop me as a biology teacher and drop me as a guy who they could have used to spread any message they want to, and instead fired me and, you know, promote him on several podcasts.
They even gave him Mary and Brian at the same time once.
And because I did a show about it, everybody got their sand in their folds.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are just coordinated liars.
The ones that aren't Americans are foreign meddlers, and the ones that are Americans are just downright traitors.
They put a bunch of people together and create this illusion of consensus.
The consensus is that you're being listened to.
The consensus is you're being heard when in reality you are being diluted to irrelevance and these people are going to go on and ignore you.
That's the same thing that they did here to Byron Bridle and the same thing they've been doing.
That's why Steve Kirsch and Brett Weinstein and
and Robert Malone's original podcast on June 21st, 2021 was probably because Byron Bridle came out with the data that he came out with, with the pedigree and the background to say what he said, and they needed to steal that limelight while they shut him up in Canada.
And so they did.
It might not have even been a plan for Robert Malone to be so early, but they're no different than these people, except these people may be unwittingly participating.
And the only one that might know is that clown up there.
But he knows.
Because he is one of the first people ever to create what is called an infectious clone.
And he did it with David Baltimore.
And since then, he's been kind of the guy.
Is that Columbia?
What I want is high morbidity.
I want people to complain.
So what do I do?
I go to Des Moines.
Ladies and gentlemen, the people on the screen, I have nothing against Des Moines.
I lived there for four years.
I go to Des Moines.
I infect a couple of sentinel cases in Des Moines.
I go to Seattle.
I infect a couple of cases there.
I go to North Carolina.
I go to Wisconsin.
What I'm doing is I'm using a dispersion methodology to be able to infect sentinel cases with a highly morbid condition.
These individuals complain.
Again, this is a central nervous system condition.
So they're complaining of whatever the bug may do.
It'll produce some cascade of neurological and neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms.
And then what I do, the real bug that I use is the internet.
I take attribution for that.
Yes, I'm a terrorist group.
And I have done this by infecting with a highly lethal agent.
And the first signs and symptoms of lethality are X, Y, and Z. These people are really sick with this.
But then I say, others who are also infected will show subdromal, predromal signs of lethality.
And what that will be is anxiety, sleeplessness, agitation.
What I've now done is I've got every individual who is diagnostically hypochondriacal, and I've got every individual who's the worried well flooding the public health system, banging on the door.
The CDC comes back and says, nonsense, that's not real.
Banging on the door, and those that we can, we put on supplementary oxygen, maybe 60 liters a minute, like Cameron Kyle Seidel explained in his video.
The thing that's interesting here is the use of the internet and a terrorist group claiming, yes, we did it.
What if instead we had a group of people like this that just decided to agree that it must be a lab leak?
Now we don't need to have a terrorist group anymore.
Now there's no real blame to spread around.
These people are all working together as one coordinated group.
I don't know why, I don't know for who, but I have a feeling it's more politically oriented than it is biologically oriented, even though it does seem to be related to the pandemic and the pandemic narrative.
They really didn't do anything but keep us from realizing the truth that inevitably we're gonna get to and try to make sure that we don't get there before the clock runs out.
And I think now they're desperate.
I think we're very close to a threshold where people are starting to realize that we didn't ever need to really fear free-range RNA molecules.
What we probably need to fear is transformation and transfection without our knowledge, however they would do it, wherever they would put it, because they can make the DNA and RNA and cheaper than ever.
So it's these guys and this behavior, this nonsense.
We really got to know their names and we got to say them out loud because just like Edward Bernays said in 1924, the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions is how
we are governed.
It's the true ruling power of our country.
So make no mistake about it.
Noam Chomsky was right.
These people are strictly limiting our spectrum of debate and pretending to have a very lively discussion within it.
And that's why it has to be these people.
That's why it can't be me.
That's why it can't really be Brian Hooker or that lady from the NVIC.
It's got to be them.
Because if they go off narrative and tell people the truth, it will spread too quickly and we will be free.
That's why it's gotta be these two guys that get to be on YouTube and have a cordial debate about nothing to do with murder.
They agreed to argue about it being a lab leak and agreed to argue about the effectiveness of the shot or the morality of the trials or the exact numbers of some paper or that paper, instead of talking about the fact that they murdered people and lied about it and called it a pandemic and they want us to teach our kids that.
And so Zuby and Dan Wilson,
and the canceled mouse and Jonathan Engler, all of whom essentially work together to make me think that I should stop the train with them.
And that if I work together with them, it will be effective when it has nothing to do with that.
that they have no intention of actually getting involved in breaking the spell.
They want me to be a part of the spell, a part of the spell casting.
That's why that whole thing with the review happened.
That's why the exposure of heart is actually really painful for them right now.
Because when this tweet appeared and I attacked it, every one of these exact people came to a rescue, not in public, but in DMs on Twitter.
Immediately people defending that she can have alternative views.
There's lots of views in heart.
Lots of views in heart while Jonathan is going around the around the internet crapping on random people because they don't say things just right.
Acting all high and mighty because he knows there was no pandemic but it wasn't because of any biology he learned by his own gumption or by his own scholarly work.
It's because he heard me speak three times in front of Panda over the last three years and didn't do anything but try to incorporate those data and those ideas into Hart's own fricking non-dangerous message.
These are the meddlers of the highest order because they're not only meddling in America, but they're also ineffective or making the ability for their own countries to respond very, very ineffective.
It's very disheartening for me to see this video of this woman where she's talking about testing and saying all kinds of nonsense.
This person involved in the 100,000 Genomes Project in the UK.
She's a tester.
She does tests.
She's a pathologist.
She likes tests.
She believes in testing and in sequencing, and she works in AI diagnostics in cancer.
Listen to this video.
It's crazy.
Now, testing itself can fail.
Every test involves a compromise.
You have to choose, do I want to find every possible case, or do I only want to find the definite cases?
And at the beginning of an epidemic, when cases are growing, over-diagnosing a few people is acceptable.
But at peak dust, you have to change strategy.
You change strategy.
Instead of focusing on the individual, you look at the population.
Instead of trying to diagnose every possible case, you want to find the definite cases.
And you have to change your laboratory strategy.
So you may have heard people talk about restaurants and say that there are three things restaurants can do, but they can only do two of them well.
You can have fast food, cheap food, or high-quality food.
Well, it's the same with laboratories.
are high volume of tests, high speed of tests, or quality test results.
And you choose two.
We chose volume and speed.
And actually, those are good ones to choose at the beginning of an epidemic.
But we haven't changed our strategy, and we have compromised throughout on quality, which has resulted in unreliable test results.
somebody who's infected will release up to a hundred thousand virus particles into the air every minute about the size of every minute and waving a test swab through that air they're about the size hundred thousand virus particles every minute into the air they're about the size the aerosols every minute particles and waving a test swab through that air could be enough to have a positive test result
In fact, in a five microliter sample that gets tested from a patient, you need 5,000 particles of virus to represent a patient.
Think about the fact that behind the scenes, that guy who wanted me to write a critical review about virology and claims that he wrote a critical review about virology with this Martin Neal fella and included me in it somewhere.
tried to honestly represent the ideas that they've learned from me, and you think that they're not liars, then you shouldn't be watching this show anymore, because these are the liars.
These are the ones.
When we shed these people, there's probably nothing behind them but truth tellers.
There's probably lots of good people in Hart.
It just isn't Jonathan and Claire.
That's why they're co-chairs.
That's why they've never talked to me.
And when they do talk to me, they meddle with me and they lie to me.
And they say, well, there's lots of points of view in Hart.
This is a liar and a meddler and somebody who's been on the wrong team since the beginning.
All you gotta do is watch that video.
And the idea that Jonathan Engler is defending her is laughable to me.
And what these two guys pretended to try and do with me is also laughable.
This article, which you can read for yourself, is laughable.
And I was...
I didn't make them happy because I wouldn't edit it.
And in fact, I shared in my stream the messages that I sent to them.
I didn't get a chance to do anything, but I'll skim it.
But skim it, I'm sorry.
I'll be honest, this is the review that everyone wanted me to do.
Go to their books and their papers and tell everyone what's there.
No thanks, that's not the answer.
That's the trap we're currently in.
The no virus crew can jump on this and they will.
I'm sorry I didn't help you, but this isn't the review that the world needs, yada, yada, yada.
a week later, then Jonathan Engler pretends that I didn't say that and again asks me in kind of a snotty way, how come you're not cross-promoting our little review?
Stop causing trouble in public and cross-promote our review.
And so I had to write again why, you know, I asked you for help.
We were going to work and rebut Kevin McKernan and you guys didn't do squat.
And then you bring me this garbage review where you don't even represent my ideas very well.
Get out of here.
Our kids need more humility and honesty than they are getting.
And I ask at the end, if you say almost no one says it right, why not promote the one guy you know has been saying it consistently and might have the biological chops to argue it?
He's seen me present three times at Panda.
And every time I presented at Panda, I was given an overwhelming positive review of like, wow, that was the best talk we've ever heard at Panda.
Wow, that's the best immunology lecture I've ever heard.
You should give that at every medical school in the world.
Wow, thanks a lot.
That's really crazy.
That cleared up a lot.
That's great.
That's the best presentation you've ever given.
And then crickets.
like a year and a half or two years of crickets.
And then when it suddenly came around, there was one American and some panda people, all of whom were actually panda people, that wanted me to write this virology review for the last six months, off and on, something, something, you have to write something, we'll help you write something, we'll promote what you write something.
Liars, meddlers,
that didn't have anything on the line, didn't lose a job, didn't lose a way of living.
No one's ever attacked them.
No one's ever asked them to help them write a book and then disown them.
No one's ever hired them at an anti-vax charity and then fired them because you were too anti-vax.
None of these people have the kind of pandemic
resume that i have all of these people are semi-retired uh i was independently wealthy oh i was already hurt and retired and living in japan i guess oh i was a trader and then like a day trader for a catholic charity and now i'm taking a course at harvard so i'm dr paul cutrell oh i'm a gumshoe kind of guy all these fake people
And the only guy that you know that's lost a job from a university of the United States, nobody talks to.
Nobody wants to hear.
Nobody, everybody just wants you to ignore.
Why?
Because we're telling the truth and we're the last, this is the last line of defense.
That's why all these people, all of them, all of them, and now those two guys too are included.
And they probably have all sat at a table together at one time or another.
They've all had steak.
And if they haven't, they've all shared a Zoom.
The amount of times that these people have crossed paths is probably vomitous.
Even if it's just by email, or signal chat, or Discord group, or Telegram group.
And so Neil and Engler, after all this time and all this work and all this reading, didn't make it any farther than Virology 101 and poorly at that.
And they didn't manage to understand what infectious clones were despite all of my efforts of explaining it.
And I think the way you need to see it is that when these people say, we want you to go on a prerecorded podcast and we're gonna release it in four weeks, what they're doing is just trying to come up with arguments.
and they are getting you to respond to particular questions so that they can come up with arguments and absorb them.
Make it seem like somebody in New Zealand came up with that phrase, or somebody in America came up with that phrase.
You know what Andy Kaufman is listed as in the Red Pill Conference bios?
He says he's a recovering physician, quote unquote.
In case you're not aware, I'm a recovering
academic, a recovering, a catamagician is what I wrote.
These people are just cheap liars.
And they have no real shtick of their own because they're playing a role.
they're puppets at best.
And when they go off script, they usually make mistakes because again, when you're a liar, it's hard to keep everything straight.
So that's what's happening with some of these people.
And so they just have to keep a smile on their face or pretend that I haven't already told you, leave me alone and leave a message like, oh, I heard maybe you don't think about, you don't think viruses are real, really?
First, Andy Kaufman pretended not to know me at the airport after I shook his hand on the plane.
And then when he remembered me, he called me JJ.
And about half of me wanted to facepalm him, but I just walked away.
They're cowards.
And they're traitors to their country, if they're Americans.
Oops, sorry.
Shoot, that was not my intention.
I do have to stop the show, though, because I didn't have it queued up, which I normally do.
But I did have it downloaded, so do not worry.
Let's see, where do I got to go?
Here?
Then here?
And there, excellent.
Let's do this.
I'm just gonna go a little bit slower.
But I did see a picture of him today, and even with, you know, under the circumstances, he just.
So did you see the start?
So this is the rumble.
They did it live on X. And so after four and a half years, announced on the scene to me and a lot of people as the no virus king, Andy Kaufman finally met Steve Kirsch on the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation live show and had a debate, the great virus debate.
I'm sure it's called liars, cheats, and crooks.
You want me scared.
You want me weak.
You want me brain dead.
No, I'm not saying that this guy's good or bad.
I just don't want you don't need to listen to it.
We'll see what we see here.
I'll just fast forward.
I'll see you a little later.
Thank you all.
You're beautiful people.
Thank you so much.
Tonight on BSRF Live, Steve Kirsch welcomes psychiatrist and molecular biologist, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, who has risen to fame during the pandemic for his unorthodox views on the existence of viruses.
There was just the appearance of devastation, like changing the numbers of flu deaths to COVID deaths or
recategorizing heart attacks to COVID, or dementia to COVID, or car accidents to COVID.
That's what we saw.
We did see also hospital and nursing home protocols in various discrete locations killing people.
We saw people dying of that.
But nowhere was there evidence
of any kind of biological weapon of any kind.
And so this is a very dangerous narrative because it perpetuates the idea that viruses are real and dangerous.
I think one of the things you need to be prepared for is what I warned you earlier, that it is very possible that part of the narrative, that the narrative curation that was happening was that those people in this corner up here were always going, were always in place from the very beginning.
Sorry, I'm going to end the slideshow.
And then that these people were put in place very early.
And that's, I'm not even kidding when I say that I've said this for years already, that it's very possible that some of those people up there were curating the narrative of no virus specifically to make sure that it didn't make any useful progress until the time was right.
And then these people,
Perhaps Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman, the two guys that Kevin McCairn already had on his list, were on his list because they are part of the eventual rollout of these ideas where, you know, they lied to us about coronaviruses and they lied to us about RNA pandemics.
But the thing is, is that our language and our understanding and our explanation
is more acidic.
It's easier to understand.
It makes more sense.
It appeals to a lot more people.
It doesn't require you to know a bunch of words.
It just requires you to have common sense.
And they were never able to get there in the last four and a half years.
And now they play a clip where it sounds like they've always been there.
but I assure you they haven't.
And he didn't really say that they murdered people and lie about it.
He did say that some people were killed in certain places by protocols.
He did say that they attributed heart attacks to COVID, but he didn't say anything about do not resuscitate orders.
He didn't say anything about what those protocols were, because again, the controlled narrative was gonna be remdesivir, was gonna be midazolam, it was gonna be ventilators.
because the disease progression wasn't caused by any of those things.
The disease progression in hospitals and the deterioration of these patients was always going to be caused by the supplementary oxygen that Cameron Kyle Seidel was the primary lead PSYOP for, who conveniently was being promoted back when Kevin McCarron had just entered the fray and just signed up for Twitter and had less than 200 followers.
He had Cameron, Kyle Seidel, M.D.
tweet, pinned, talking about how we need and other hospitals could run out of oxygen.
Talking about thousands of liters of oxygen every day being used in his hospital alone because people are on 60 liters a minute and he showed the machine.
And so after four and a half years, and four and a half years of wandering around in this cave, suddenly I got a huge breath of fresh air and could see a light brighter than I haven't seen in years.
Because it all came together.
George Webb was a follower.
Addie Adds was his host.
The hero and fake doctor, bus rider MD, Paul Cottrell, was a co-host and a co-debater.
And Robert Malone says that George Webb is one of his arch nemeses and shared the 60 Minutes video of him that got him and Mark Kulak tied together already very early in the pandemic and probably kept Mark very locked into George for a long time because it seemed legitimate if he got on 60 Minutes.
We don't need to fear the free-range RNA molecule, no matter what unusual fear and cleavage site it has, no matter what unusual lies these people tell.
Oh yeah, I don't need that anymore.
Sorry, we were back here.
My bad.
I almost went right back into the presentation.
Here we go.
Good evening and welcome to another special episode of VSRF Live.
I'm your host, Livio Sanchez.
And as always, I'm thrilled to be here with all of you tonight.
Joining us this evening is Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
Dr. Kaufman is a self-proclaimed recovering physician.
He has transitioned from a career in mainstream medicine to becoming a prominent critic of the allopathic medicine paradigm.
Tonight, we will have a colorful discussion on germ versus terrain theory and whether or not viruses exist and are the cause of illness.
I want to bring on our very own nurse.
Welcome, Nurse Angela.
How are you this evening?
I'm great, Livio.
How are you doing?
I'm doing well.
We talked earlier, and you're here because you have an update on a very special person that you've been really instrumental in helping get care for.
Can you give us an update on Cody?
Yeah, so unfortunately, I got a phone call last night from Cody's mom, Heather, that Cody was not doing well.
And for those of you out there who don't know who Cody is, he was 21 years old when he got vaccinated.
He suffered an immediate reaction.
He had blood clots.
He was coughing up blood.
He had cardiac damage.
He's been really fighting for his life ever since.
And it's been a miracle that we still have him here with us.
He's a really, really tough kid and just super, super sweet.
And this morning, I got the message that he was admitted to the hospital.
They are really concerned with a spinal stroke and blood clots on his spine.
He's really, really in hard shape.
And so we would like to donate any of the proceeds that we raised tonight for Cody to help out this special family.
We're going to put the link in the chat for his gifts and go.
It's just really tragic.
I remember being at Steve's house late fall of last year, and I was with Bobby Kennedy.
And Bobby Kennedy and I FaceTimed Cody.
He was in the hospital.
He had blood clots in his groin and in his arms, his legs.
And Bobby Kennedy said to Cody, you know, don't give up.
Hang in there.
Just keep on keep on going and we're rooting for you.
And we'll always fight for you.
And Cody is doing just that.
I mean, he is the toughest kid I know.
He's just fighting and fighting.
And one of his goals is to recover and get better, even though he has a fatal condition now called antiphospholipid syndrome, which actually my mom developed that as well after her booster that caused blood clots in my mom's eyes.
But he has been doing exactly that.
He just wants to get better so that he can be an advocate.
And he's really, really dear and special.
So if any of you are able to donate, we're going to put the link in the chat.
And if you donate to our organization, we would prefer it to go directly to the GiveSendGo.
But if we get any donations in tonight, we are going to donate 100% of that directly to Cody and the family because they're taking care of him 24-7.
He's not able to walk unassisted, and he's in excruciating pain.
But I did see a picture of him today, and even under the circumstances, the warmth in his heart is overwhelming to me.
So help out if you can.
If you can't, please pray for him, spread the word, share his gifts, and go.
And we will continue to help take care of these people.
He's such an incredibly resilient young man.
His will to live, I've never seen anything like that before.
I don't know if I could do it personally with what he's been through.
I mean, his mom has actually literally driven him in the back of pickup trucks because they couldn't get him into the car while he's coughing up blood and unable to breathe and white as a ghost.
And we've almost lost this kid so many times and he's fighting right now as we speak.
So just lots of love to you, Cody, lots of love to your family and we will help you the best that we can.
Thank you for all of our viewers out there who, you know, any little bit helps.
We have, we'll probably have thousands of people watching.
So even, even just a small little amount goes a long way.
Yeah.
And remember everything for tonight's show, we'll be going to help Cody and his family with their, their medical situation, their medical debt.
Yes.
Well, thank you.
And at the end of the show, I want to remind everyone, we're going to, you were at, uh, we were together at reawaken America in Detroit last weekend, and I'm going to share a snippet of your speech at the very end of the show tonight.
So we'll see you again and maybe we'll see you during Q and a. Thank you.
Thank you.
Have a great show.
And now I'm going to just race into Steve Kirsch.
Let me bring on the founder of VSRF.
Welcome to VSRF Live.
Steve, how are you this evening?
I'm good, Livio.
I am looking forward to this conversation.
I was talking to Dr. Kaufman backstage before you came on, and I already learned quite a bit about my own history, so I'm really looking forward to this.
As am I. Well, let me just bring him on right now without too much jabber.
Hello, Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
Welcome to VSRF Live.
Hello again, Livio, and nice to meet you, Steve.
Thanks for having me on.
Thanks for being on.
I'm going to quickly read your bio so that people that don't know about you get a great understanding, and then I'll leave you and Steve at it.
So here we go.
Dr. Andrew Kaufman is a forensic psychiatrist and molecular biologist.
He became more and more skeptical of the allopathic paradigm until he finally blew germ theory wide open and became a COVID whistleblower.
Since then, he has been speaking and teaching the truth about medicine, viruses, natural healing, and other important subjects, such as economics, law, education, and science.
Dr. Kauffman received his bachelor's of science in biology at Steve's alma mater, MIT, his MD from the University of South Carolina, and did a psychiatric residency at Duke University.
Dr. Kauffman has served on medical school faculty, has been a leader in academics and professional organizations, and has conducted and published original research.
He patented a medical device and ran a startup company.
He has also testified as an expert witness in local, state, and federal court.
quite an impressive resume, Dr. Kaufman, thank you for being here.
And I want to remind our audience, put your questions, all capped questions in the chat, and we will have a Q&A later.
I can almost guarantee you that the reason why he talked about a startup and technology is because we found that story about him and that
grant he got in New York.
So he's got to say something about that picture where he's shaking Andrew Cuomo's hand.
And so he said it just like that.
He's never hidden that from anybody.
I'm very forthcoming in the fourth and a half year in.
Don't forget, it's 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and we're in 2024.
These people have been lying to us for almost five years.
They don't deserve any quarter here.
They don't get to finally say it right now.
Questions for Dr. Kaufman and for Steve.
Take it away, gentlemen.
All right.
Well, first of all, just for time's sake, what's the Dr. Kaufman?
I think you need to leave in about an hour and a half from now.
Is that right?
So we should make sure that we have plenty of room for questions from the audience.
Yeah, absolutely.
That's a good time frame.
I'm on the East Coast, so it's a little bit later.
OK, so I'm going to try to target.
Sounds good.
us believe that there shouldn't be any kind of mask regulations, that masks don't work, that lockdowns weren't effective, that we shouldn't have vaccine mandates, that science was not being done properly, and that there was a lack of autopsies that should have been done when people died from what they claimed is the virus or the vaccine.
Is that fair?
Yeah, all good points.
All good points, Steve.
Good.
And I think we also agree on how science works, that the hypotheticals don't work.
So I'm going to try to target
Sounds good.
Us believe that there shouldn't be a mask, any kind of mask regulations that masks don't work, that lockdowns were ineffective, that we shouldn't have vaccine mandates, that science was not being done properly, and that there was a lack of autopsies that should have been done when people died from what they claimed is the virus or the vaccine.
that the virus died from mandates, that science was not being done properly, and that there was a lack of autopsies that should have been done when people died from, science was not being done properly, and that there was a lack of autopsies that should have been done when people died from what they claimed is the virus or the vaccine.
Is that fair?
Yeah, all good points.
All good points, Steve.
Good.
And I think we also agree on how science works, that the hypothesis that better explains the data should win at the end of the day.
Well, it depends on how the data is acquired, Steve, because science, we have to stick to the scientific method and its attributes and what it can be applied towards and separate that from other things purporting to be science, which are really observation or simulation, things like epidemiology, like computer modeling, in vitro studies, things like that.
Okay, but hard data, it can be collected in a variety of different ways that if you have the proper hypothesis, that you should be able to explain the hard data versus the model data or the artificially created data, right?
Well, like I'm saying, again, Steve, data has to be generated through a scientific experiment in order to generate a cause and effect relationship.
You can have data that is worthless.
Like, for example, when I was at Duke, they made a big announcement while I was in my training that they had found definitive evidence that serotonin receptors are involved in depression.
And what happened is they had a large data set that was from nursing homes across the country, and they found an anomaly that suggested to them that there was a genetic finding like of a gene for depression.
And they were really excited.
There was like a cocktail party, like impromptu in the department.
It was like people were celebrating like mad.
And then two weeks later, I noticed that there was no further talk about it.
And what had happened is several other groups with similar data sets found out it was just a statistical anomaly because they were data mining.
and they essentially encountered an anomaly and then misinterpreted it as an actual finding.
And so here we are in a succinct place where he could say that looking for genes in a population being altered and then calling that a correlation and explanatory for the disease that you're associating it with is ridiculous.
He used an inordinate amount of words to tell you nothing.
It's exactly what he did at the Red Pill Conference.
He showed slide after slide of the top half of different scientific articles with a sentence or two that was highlighted in the abstract.
And that's the talk he gave about all these different chemicals that they're putting in our stuff and are making our kids less men and less women or something like that.
It was the worst talk I've ever seen.
The idea that they supported or paid for him to do that would be absurd.
And now here he is, instead of succinctly explaining how science has gone wrong, like somebody like Greg Glassman or Emily Kaplan might do from Broken Science Initiative, or how Gert Gigerenzer did it on the show that we watched together,
the lecture where he explains how probability, if applied the way it's applied, isn't even a testing a model anyway, because they're testing a null hypothesis, which doesn't even test their model of reality.
And so rather than talking about producing good models of reality, which is what they should be doing with the no virus group,
He's talking nonsense and saying nothing that will illustrate that he gets the big picture of how science has been corrupted and how it could be used against us.
And certainly Steve doesn't understand.
Look how bored he is already.
Boy, he's really excited about the great no virus debate.
Come on, it's already over.
Like this is just a joke to me.
And then don't forget after this conversation, we're going to have something like this happen where Steve says, Hey Jay.
Hey Jay.
Hey, this is Steve Kirsch.
I've been, uh, engaging in the no virus debates and somebody said, I should talk to you.
Um,
And I'm assuming they think that's because you think that viruses don't exist.
But if you don't believe they exist, I definitely want to talk to you.
So give me a call.
Thanks.
So he has no idea what I think, even though I was on his steering committee for almost half a year.
He has no idea what I think, even though he's heard me argue with Mark Giordano in his steering committee.
He has no idea what I think, even though he's heard me present in his steering committee.
He has no idea what I think, even though he showed up at a broken science meeting and was like, what are you doing here?
Instead of, wow, I get a chance to meet someone from my steering committee in person.
Let's sit over here and have a drink.
He walked away from me because Steve Kirsch is a liar and a traitor to America.
And it's very likely that this guy is too, because who did he talk to?
Steve Kirsch talked to Andy Kaufman, but Andy Kaufman pretended that he didn't know who I was in the O'Hare airport when I was standing right next to him and shook his hand on the plane an hour earlier.
And then when I finally kind of stared him down, he said, oh, are you JJ?
And once you hear the name JJ, you know that they've all been at the same table.
They're all playing the same limited hand of cards.
It's they don't have anything else.
I wish I could tell you that I pushed through him or that I bumped him out of the way.
That's what I imagined I did.
But I think in retrospect, I just walked extremely close to him and uh,
The funny thing is, is he sat down on the plane in front of me, one row in front of me next to a friend that I had just made over the course of that weekend.
And I was able to text that friend about Andy while he was talking to him.
And I was able to hear before we took off that Andy opened with, yeah, have you ever heard of Mark Bailey?
And so my suspicion is, is that Mark Bailey's Farewell to Birology is a legitimate scholarly work.
And that in order to make sure that that legitimate scholarly work never really had the effect that it should, until the time was right, and it only rewarded the people that it should, when the time was right, these people have cooperated in keeping Mark Bailey behind the scenes, keeping people focused on his, on Bimbo Bailey as, as Mr. Kevin McCarran so, so eloquently,
named her in 2020, complete with hot dogs in her mouth and the old man and the raccoons video.
And so they've been steering this attention and the only person that Mark Bailey ever debated on air was when he debated somebody on Tim Truth's podcast.
Who did he debate?
Oh yeah, that's right, Kevin McCarron.
It's all one network of liars.
The Americans are traitors.
The foreigners are meddlers.
It's probably the global network for Palantir and Peter Thiel and Elon Musk.
And that's why they all want to use Twitter.
That's why his VSRF is now live on Twitter, just like CHD is live on Twitter all the time.
Because Elon Musk is really giving us free speech.
Liars.
All they had was a big set of data.
It wasn't data that was from an experiment designed to test a hypothesis of cause and effect.
It was just kind of data that was for another purpose, for another experiment that they were just put into a big number crunching, you know, software and essentially ran simulations and then came up with false conclusions.
Okay, so I'm sure we could spend another hour on that topic.
But just in the interest of moving on, let's just say I don't completely agree with what you're saying.
I think that data is data and you can, what science should do is interpret that data and assess whether or not that data is going to be reliable or not.
And that's part of science.
If we can't stick to the scientific method,
where there's an independent variable, there's a control, there's a dependent variable.
That's the only way you can essentially ascertain scientifically any cause and effect relationship.
Okay, so there's where the Broken Science Initiative, I think, can be used to correct the scientific method.
Yes, the scientific method is hypotheses, and yes, the scientific method has experiments, but what the scientific method is supposed to do is to validate a model of reality.
your experiment should be to test the model of reality that you are currently operating under.
The hypothesis should have some relationship to your model of reality.
Now, if the hypothesis is really just a straw man called the null hypothesis and your experiment is designed to disprove the null hypothesis, then you're not doing real exploration into new knowledge.
And these guys are not gonna bring anybody to understand that subtlety.
They're going to talk and talk and talk about the usual things, the independent variable, the control and whatever.
If the experiment is designed stupidly, that the control and the independent variable and the experimental variable or whatever terms you wanna use for these things are irrelevant to testing your model of reality, then you're not doing science.
And so if looking for seroprevalence doesn't test the reality of whether or not the virus is causing disease, then goodness sakes, don't forget everybody, sign up for the Brownstone event.
It's at the beginning of November.
I think it's the first and the second.
It might be a Friday and a Saturday.
I'm definitely gonna be there.
I think Jessica Hockett's gonna go and Nick Hudson's gonna come.
And so it could be a really, really cool showing for the good people.
And I hope I can convince some other people to show up, but I don't know yet.
And worst case scenario, I'll be across the street with a small card table that says the Clownstone is a controlled op, prove me wrong.
And so in that case, it might be even better to come
to Pittsburgh for the brownstone than if the brownstone just lets me show up.
So let's get going with this.
OK, well, like I said, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.
But I mean, this is the scientific method is well published and agreed upon throughout the world of science.
So if you disagree with that, I don't know what we could talk about.
Oh, OK, so let me give you an example.
I claim that if you take a golf club and you hit a golf ball, that the club is actually causing the golf ball to move.
And it's the contact with the club that causes the golf ball to move.
And it's not the air of the golf club that causes the ball to move ahead of the club hitting the ball.
I don't believe that I need to do a randomized control trial in order to figure stuff like that out.
Or if I jump out of a plane with a parachute and the parachute doesn't work, will I die or not?
We don't need to do a randomized double-blind trial on jumping out with or without a parachute.
Well, two things.
One, a randomized double-blind trial is not necessarily a scientific experiment because it's not designed to
to highlight or prove a cause and effect relationship in nature.
It's done for pharmaceuticals, which are man-made.
But the other thing is there, you could actually, I mean, of course, I agree, you don't need to necessarily do an experiment to see if the club is moving the ball, but you could do an experiment, right, where you could swing just air, and you could swing the club, and the club would be the independent variable.
and the dependent variable would be the motion of the ball.
And the control would be swinging air instead of swinging the club.
So when you're talking about invisible things, you do need to very carefully design and perform these experiments, because it's not so obvious as observing someone swinging a golf club.
Okay, so you're saying that all... Make it stop!
...completely useless because you couldn't control anything in the environment that you're observing.
You had to take the
the data that you were given, and you didn't control for that.
You control for it after the fact, or you try to control for it after the fact, but you're saying that observational studies are junk.
Is that?
No, I'm not saying they're junk.
I'm just saying they're not science, because you can't make any cause and effect conclusion.
Let me just finish.
Observational data, like epidemiology, is only useful to generate hypotheses.
You can't conclude anything.
If you can conclude things from that, then you're basically saying that causation equals association.
OK, well, like I said, so this is the paparian view of science, that the only way you learn things is you can't really learn things.
So you just have to falsify things.
And that that sort of thing where, OK, you have lots of observations, but you still haven't learned anything.
It presupposes a whole level of understanding that, again, is how science has crippled us.
Because scientists first have to discard and admit that they don't know anything, and then they're allowed to specialize in knowing something very, very, so very thin, and then have to regularly submit to the admission that they don't know anything else.
And in a very similar way, he's kind of reinforcing that idea by saying that, what did he say?
We can't, we can't really know anything just because we have a bunch of observations.
You control for it after the fact, or you try to control for it after the fact, but you're saying that observational studies are junk.
Is that?
No, I'm not saying they're junk.
I'm just saying they're not science because you can't make any cause and effect conclusion.
Let me just finish.
Observational data like epidemiology is only useful to generate hypotheses.
You can't conclude anything.
If you can conclude things from that, then you're basically saying that causation equals association.
OK, well, like I said, we could spend a lot of time going down this particular topic, but I really want to focus on what you're about here with whether viruses exist or not.
So I think we just need to table this, because otherwise we're just not going to get anywhere in this call.
Well, this is the framework for this discussion, Steve, because we're going to talk about a scientific claim of cause and effect of a natural phenomenon.
And so you can only get to the answer of that using the scientific method.
You can't get to that answer with epidemiological data.
And any epidemiologist will also admit that.
OK, well, let's just move on, and maybe we can go back to this point if we need to.
But would you agree with me that science, if you should have repeatable results, they should be explainable by your theory?
For example, gravity has been replicated in a number of different locations all over the world.
Things don't fall to Earth and accelerate any faster than gravity or any less fast than gravity at all.
It accelerates at the rate of gravity, and people have observed that all over the world with mostly millions of observations.
Would you accept that gravity is a scientific fact?
Well, you can observe gravity, it's a fact of nature, but nobody knows what causes it.
I didn't, I didn't ask that.
I'm just saying that, that the, that if I release an object, it's going to go and fall and to accelerate, uh, at the, the, the gravitational force is going to accelerate that object.
Uh, when I draw, you know, I mean, of course it has predictable behavior.
There are equations you can apply and predict it, you know, with some degree of error, but fairly accurately.
Uh, no, I don't, I don't debate that, but you know, once again, that's not a cause and effect relationship.
Okay, well, I'm going to move on to the next point, which is that we would agree that all scientists should be open to public challenge, right?
If you say something that you should be open to being challenged by your peers on what you say, would you agree with that?
The main principle of science is falsifiability.
So it's necessary for science, not just permissible.
So you agree with me that people should be open, whether people agree with you or disagree with you, that you should be able to challenge them publicly and they should be able to challenge you publicly.
Well, I mean, if you participate in a public discourse, you're always open to challenge, but I'm not going to say what people should and shouldn't do.
But I will say that if you're serious about science, then a scientific hypothesis or theory has to be falsifiable.
That's one of the standard principles that defines it as scientific.
Right.
And the goal is to seek truth, right?
Well, that's my goal.
I mean, I would hope a lot of people that do sign.
So the theory has to be falsifiable, right?
So the theory has to be falsifiable.
So what we're talking about is the null hypothesis.
And so their null hypothesis is that viruses don't exist.
And
Now, I'm not gonna say this correctly, probably, because it is actually such a contorted argument.
Because remember, they're gonna play semantic games, and viruses are defined by virology, and they have not sufficiently justified their description based on experimental data.
They've got a lot of inferences, they've got a lot of hand-waving, and a lot of assumptions, and I totally agree.
The question is, what are the assumptions?
And what is your model of the real world?
Because if your model of the real world is that there is no signal at this size scale, that there's no RNA and DNA that could be misconstrued as being something other than it is, like a virus versus something else, but they're saying there's nothing there, then it's an argument that can never win.
Because molecular biology is real.
It might be flawed, but it's real.
and the ways that we know how to apply it, the way that we know how to use it for synthetic sequencing, synthetic DNA, synthetic sequences being produced in large quantities by vats of bacteria.
These things work and we understand to what extent they work and how high fidelity they are because we make proteins using these processes all the time.
And so there's a very high fidelity understanding of certain aspects of molecular biology, which means that we're going to have to have a pretty nuanced understanding of how virology could be a hoax, while in the context of molecular biology appear to be real.
And that is the goal of GigaOM Biological, and anybody that would really be wanting to save our children, is that you've got to explain how it is that we can have such a high-fidelity understanding that someone like Kevin McKernan and his brothers and his dad could have built multi-generational wealth based on real science, but also been a part of an operation to mislead us about the fidelity of that science and its implications for our understanding ourselves.
versus being able to just make stuff happen in certain contexts, in certain controlled conditions with some level of predictability.
And that virology is probably one aspect of that, where with transfection and transformation in certain conditions,
in certain methodologies results in what appears to be kind of some kind of virology where things are packaged and you can move it around and they don't really understand it, but they would like us to believe that this is evidence of pathogenic RNA and DNA molecules.
And so it's gonna be extraordinary that they've had four and a half years to hone their message and get the elevator pitch down to two minutes where, you know, even a gas station attendant can understand it.
And where are they?
Take it away, Andy.
Their goal is to be rich and famous, maybe, or some other purpose than, you know, finding the truth.
Right.
Okay, so, and we also agree that there are scientific procedures, such as the PCR test, that have design centers for the tests, and they're designed to be used in a certain way on a certain thing, so if you use them improperly, you can get results that are nonsensical.
So, let me give you an example.
But the test could never be fraudulent.
The test could never be fraudulent in terms of their fidelity or representing a background to spread.
These are not even, excuse me, I'm eating M&Ms.
These are not even on his radar, even though I was in his steering committee and explained to him how a background signal misconstrued as spread by a bunch of people who just made bullshit tests could be enough to create a pandemic.
And they don't even seem to acknowledge that it's not
The misuse of testing, it's just lying.
It's just making a false test and claiming that it works because the FDA didn't look at data.
The FDA didn't look at data for not one single EUA, not one gel, not one PCR curve, nothing.
They weren't required for the EUA that Kevin McKernan on the 24th of April, 2020 was on the Vance Crowe podcast to bitch about.
that the FDA needed to get out of its way with its 10 pages of paperwork for an EUA.
Holy shit, it's holding us back and killing people.
So they can't see, these guys can't see that the virology narrative was propped up by people that just needed to do fake tests or understand the background and then fake pretend that they were just finding it.
And I tried to give them these arguments for three years and they won't listen, not the no virus people and not the gain of function virus people because that's not where we're supposed to be yet in the slave narrative.
for the slavers who they work for.
We would agree that a PCR, that's a lateral flow assay test that is designed to detect whether a human being is infected with SARS-CoV-2 may in fact have a false positive if it was given a papaya or something else, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the test is invalid.
It's just, it means that you did not use the test in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations because the test was designed with certain limitations in terms of how it should be used.
Well, I don't think really we should be discussing tests because tests apply, you know, to something that's already established.
But what I would say is that a test... Tests apply to something that's already established?
What?
I'm sorry, Claire Craig, what did you say?
Is he seriously gonna drop this ball?
Steve Kersh just put a tee, a ball on the tee, and then he's put his face right in front of it and says, swing.
And now he's gonna miss?
Whoa.
You can't presume a test is valid.
You have to actually validate the test first.
So if you were to validate a test, for example, that was going to diagnose someone with an illness caused by a virus per se, well, then you'd have to do a validation study where you have a population of people with that viral illness and other people that either have an illness that's not.
So are you telling me that his argument is that the PCR tests were not validated?
Is that a complicated way of saying they're lying or a complicated way?
What is he doing here?
Viral and people who are healthy probably as well.
And then you have to be able to find the virus directly in the people who are sick and look for it and all the other people to make sure you don't find it and then do the test that you're proposing in all those people.
And then that's how you actually calculate those error rates, which, you know, like false positive, false negative.
and any other types of errors from that.
But for all the COVID tests, they didn't have to be validated because of emergency use authorizations.
So those things were never done, those studies.
Right, but that wasn't my question.
You didn't answer my question.
Okay, so maybe he got that right.
He said that they weren't validated because the EUAs didn't require it.
And as he's right, they could just lie about it.
But the EUAs did require it.
So somebody at the FDA could say very easily, no, no, we required it, we asked for the summary.
And all of these people provided a summary of the controls that they did and the control reagents that they used.
And they provided a summary of the results.
Negative, negative, negative, negative, negative, positive, positive, positive.
See, it works.
And so the FDA has plausible deniability because they required people to fill out 10 pages of paperwork Kevin McKernan told us in April.
And so already it seems to me that the reader on the left side
is actually putting out a narrative that can be easily debunked by anybody on the far end of the TV narrative spectrum by just saying, what are you talking about?
You can look at any FDA EUA document and see that they were required to do positive and negative controls and report the results.
They weren't required to show the results.
They were required to report the results.
So what he said there was technically wrong, which is extraordinary if you think about it after four and a half years, he still doesn't have it right.
Unless you think he's a meddler.
I thought you were saying we agree on that that test could be misleading if the procedure is not followed.
Correct.
So if you go and you use a PCR or a lateral flow assay test to assess a human being that if it's used to that if you take a lemon and squeeze it on the lateral flow assay test and you get a bar on it that that's meaningless because the test was not designed to be used.
How is it possible that we're still talking about this bullshit when this was supposed to be the great no virus debate?
in that way.
I'm not asking you whether the lateral flow assay test works.
I'm not asking you whether it's valid or anything else.
I'm just saying that, would you agree with me that if a test is used in a way that it was not designed to be used, such as trying to use a PCR test or a lateral flow assay test on squeezing a lemon, that it's perfectly reasonable that you could get nonsensical results.
Would you agree with that?
Well, Steve, I'm not really sure why you're asking this kind of a strange question, but let's say you had a pregnancy test and instead of peeing on it, you licked it.
I wouldn't expect you to get an accurate result if you did that.
That's correct.
But a pregnancy test has already been validated in a sample.
So what's happening here, in my humble opinion, is that a few people are going to leave Steve Kirsch's clown show and turn to the no virus guy here.
And they risk nothing by doing that.
by making Steve look a little dumb and making Andy Kaufman look a little smart.
But this is laughable to me.
Population.
No, I'm just saying that if you looked on a pregnancy test, you should not pay attention to the results.
I think we agree on that, right?
Yeah.
I mean, you know, I don't know, maybe I'm just trying to, I'm just trying to, I wouldn't advise it.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Great.
And then I want to mention before we get started here into the specific questions, if this is not my area of expertise, genomic sequencing, I admit it front that I could probably ask questions that may be nonsensical or make mistakes just because I do not claim to be an expert in gene sequencing and you know that.
Well, I'm not an expert in gene sequencing either.
Okay.
Great.
So let's start off with just real simple softball questions just to get this going here.
So your name is Andrew Russell Kaufman, M.D.
Is that correct?
Is it yes or no?
Well, I wouldn't say M.D.
is part of my name.
Okay, but your middle name is Russell, just to make sure that we have the... I can tell you for sure that Andrew Russell is my name, but it would only be hearsay that Kaufman is my last name.
I have no direct first-hand knowledge, but I go by it.
Okay.
And have you published papers in genomics?
Have you published any papers about your theories about... What does that mean?
What does that mean?
What is that?
He has no firsthand knowledge that his name is Kaufman.
Are we playing games here?
What is going on?
Great.
So let's start off with just real simple softball questions just to get this going here.
So your name is Andrew Russell Kaufman, MD.
Is that correct?
Is it yes or no?
Well, I wouldn't say MD is part of my name.
OK, but your middle name is Russell, just to make sure that we have the- I can tell you for sure that Andrew Russell or my name, but it would only be hearsay that Kaufman is my last name.
I have no direct first-hand knowledge, but I go by it.
Okay.
And have you published papers in genomics?
Have you published any papers about your theories about whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists?
Are there any papers either on a preprint server?
Are there any published papers or even unpublished papers that people would want to take a look at?
Well, there's a paper I wrote with Tom Cowan on my website, but there's a very, very low likelihood that any journal would publish any paper that I would write on this topic.
Because if you look at some of the other attempts at publication,
even in much, much less controversial areas, like the Dutch group who actually did a randomized control trial of masks during COVID.
They had to basically violate statistics 101 to get their paper published after three rejections.
So that would be kind of a fool's errand in my opinion, so I never pursued that.
Right.
No, I get that.
But you have a paper that's available on your site that people can read that explains how all this works and what your theories are.
Well, it only specifically talks about isolation experiments and electron microscopy.
But yes, it gives the basic ideas.
But I have lots of published lectures like slideshow type lectures that explain all the arguments and even a documentary film.
Okay, so people can go to your website and you want to give us the URL for that?
Yeah, it's just AndrewKaufmanMD.com.
Great.
Awesome.
Easy to remember.
Okay, so let's get into the key question here, which is, I believe that I've seen the Dell BigTree interview.
I saw the excerpt that
I debunked the funk posted to the web, where you're answering some questions.
So I'm, I tried to do my homework, and it appears that you claim that and so you can correct me if I'm wrong but my.
I'm trying to summarize that it appears that your opinion is that coven.
sorry, that SARS-CoV-2, the virus, isn't in fact a virus, that it's an exosome causing this, that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't exist.
And so I believe I got that part right, but I wanted to make sure that we're crystal clear on the second question, which is, do you believe that any viruses exist?
Do you believe that the measles virus exists?
Do you believe that smallpox virus exists?
Do you believe the polio virus or polio myelitis virus exists?
Or do you think that there is no such thing as a virus?
So let's just start with SARS-CoV-2 just to make sure that I got that right.
And then if you can answer clearly the second question as to whether you think any virus exists, and if so, then which ones?
Yeah, sure.
So you're partially correct.
You're in the ballpark on about SARS-CoV-2.
I tried.
Basically, what I've said is that the claims put forth that this virus exists and is causing disease are baseless.
If you actually look at the published studies which assert those alleged facts, they did not meet the bar for proving anything or demonstrating everything.
And we can, of course, talk about that in detail.
And, you know, in my journey of discovering this, of course, I looked at many other alleged pathological viruses, right?
Those are alleged viruses that are said to cause disease, like you mentioned a number of them.
And I haven't personally looked into every single virus that's in, you know, a microbiology textbook.
But I've looked into all the ones you mentioned and several more.
And then some of my colleagues who also have examined the same material and have similar conclusions, they've looked at the rest.
So there's a large body of work out there.
some of it in written form in papers and blogs, and a lot of it in video form about all of those different viruses.
So in terms of viruses that are alleged to cause disease in humans, I haven't found any prima facie evidence that any of them actually exist in the real world.
There are other nanoscale particles that are real, that live within microorganisms, like for example, bacteriophages, which are often compared to viruses, but those, they're able to actually demonstrate their existence in reality.
Okay, so you agree that bacteriophages do exist.
We have bacteria all over us.
We have bacteria all around us.
And bacteriophages exist.
So if you accept all of those things, then you already accept that there is an infinite background of RNA and DNA potentially out there and surrounding us.
And that's why when you put a collector of these signals on the top of a mountain in Spain, you collect millions of viruses every month.
A lot of them are bacteriophages, but they all have DNA or RNA in them, and RNA and DNA is what you test for in PCR.
A replicating DNA or RNA that was replicating in the microbiome of your lungs, or the microbiome of your mucosal, in your lungs and throat, or in your saliva, in your mouth, or in the microbiome of your gut, would be a replicating DNA or RNA, would it not?
And so very, very quickly, the nuanced level of discussion necessary to explain how a background signal of genetics from all over the living world could be misconstrued as a signal with almost nothing there.
It's just all signal.
There's no noise at all.
We can just pull this one RNA right off the background because it's such a clean chalkboard.
And so again, are they gonna manage to explain the conundrum succinctly enough so that anyone can understand it?
Of course they're not.
They do infect bacteria.
Well, their actual role in the bacterial culture is not nearly as clear cut, but they definitely exist because you can find lots of studies where they're purified.
And the only thing you see on a microscope image is identical, very uniquely shaped particles that, you know, it's obvious that it's one thing you're looking at.
And so then they can also purify things that look like what people have called viruses, but they're really not.
They're just lipid bound particles that often have genetic signals inside of them.
We don't even know if these particles that they call retroviruses and these other viruses like flu viruses that are supposed to have an enzyme in every particle.
And they certainly haven't demonstrated that.
You can demonstrate the presence of an enzyme in a dish, but you can't demonstrate that an enzyme is actually inside of a lipid particle next to an RNA or a DNA molecule and show that it's all one thing with a combination of labels and microscopy.
You can't do that.
And so is he going to explain that it's at the limit of our ability to detect and the limit of our ability to label for them to claim that they understand it with the fidelity that they claim?
It's impossible.
We can't visualize things that small and in that close of proximity.
Well, he's not a virologist.
He's not an expert on sequencing.
He's never probably used a high powered microscope before, but he's got a paper about electron microscopy.
Posers ladies and gentlemen posing from the very very beginning Promoting each other as rivals from the very very beginning That's why Kevin McCarran knew his name and that's why Andy Kaufman is now on Steve Kirsch's podcast because it's all one big traitorous show
Okay.
But, but, but as far as you're concerned, you do not believe that, that viruses exist, or you have not seen any conclusive proof that, uh, that viruses exist, even though bacteriophages exist.
Correct.
The ones that are alleged to cause disease.
Okay.
So, so that's interesting because if you were to, uh, look up bacteriophages, uh, you would find that they're considered to be viruses.
Yes.
Well, that's why I'm, that's why I'm kind of specifying what I've looked at because
You could call them that, but the functional definition of virus hasn't been fully established for bacteriophages either.
But they definitely can demonstrate that they're real.
Okay, so we're talking about nomenclature that in, bacteriophages exist, they do infect bacteria.
No, no, no, I'm saying that there's no evidence that they infect bacteria.
They're present in bacterial cultures under very stressful conditions in a pure bacterial culture, which is not a natural setting.
But there's no experiments that show that they cause an infection
two bacteria.
Okay, then we'll get into to this more later, but I just want to kind of establish your position.
So essentially, you're saying that, from your point of view, you're not convinced that any virus exists, that they may, you could, you would probably say that it's possible that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could exist, it's possible that the measles virus could exist, but from your perspective, you haven't been scientifically convinced that these viruses do exist.
Is that, would that be fair characterization?
Yeah, there's just not sufficient evidence to demonstrate their existence.
Great, okay.
I'm gonna start off with a bunch of short questions, softball questions.
Hopefully I can get a quick answer on these, because they should be yes or no questions.
I saw this video that was posted by Debunk the Funk three years ago on YouTube, where Tom asked you a question.
Why in the world would this guy waste any time saying the second time in a row now, debunk the funk, unless it was all the same network of people?
Why in the world would they waste their time saying his name out loud, knowing that he just did a stream with Zuby, who's been on Rogan, who's been on Weinstein, who's been promoted by this guy on VRSF.
It's all one cozy little anti-American group.
Traitors and foreign meddlers all working together.
And that's why Jay Bhattacharya is doing a podcast and a sub stack with a Canadian that Brett Weinstein promoted instead of somebody like me, that he's met four times in person at the Broken Science Initiative meetings and always told me that you're the greatest, but I can't evaluate your biology because I'm an economist.
Traitors and liars.
Here I go again on my own.
It's the only road I've ever known.
You know, one of your seminars, and you said that you would follow up and you would examine the paper and get back to him.
And, um, and you're also talking about when someone sabotaged one of my webinars and got access to their camera and stuff and put, and then made a video trying to make me look bad and call me names and said, and go to medical school you're talking about.
I'm talking, I think we're talking about the same person, and I'm not sure that I can reveal his last name, but he was referred to by Debunk the Funk as Tom, and he basically said, here's the paper, and you said on video that you would review that paper and that you would discuss it with him, and I'm just inquiring as to whether that discussion took place, and if not, why not, and also that he suggested that you take a course in, I think, genomic sequencing, and I was wondering
So I heard on another stage of this Lollapalooza of liars that you were lying in coordination with somebody else when another one of these liars from the other stage snuck up on your stage.
And I was over there on Brett Weinstein's stage lying with Robert Malone, so I didn't see what you guys were lying about on your stage.
But how did that go?
Did you guys end up lying together or you guys lied apart?
And if you took him up on that offer as well, you know, simple yes or no question.
Now, Steve, this is what you call a logic fallacy here.
You're trying to defame my character by saying I didn't, you know, have a discussion with a guy that I said I would.
That sounds a lot like what Zeck and all these other people are doing with me now.
pretending that I didn't respond, pretending that I didn't write any emails, pretending that, well, we asked you to send papers and you didn't send papers.
You know how bullshit it is to say send papers when somebody says that they're lying about viruses, it's all just infectious clones, and they actually tell you to send papers to prove that clones exist?
These people aren't real.
These people aren't genuinely trying to solve any problems.
They are playing a role.
They're doing what they're told.
Christine Massey was probably one of the people that was absolutely played by these people, because she was doing something useful before the pandemic, like fighting fluoride in the water.
So they gave her a really important job.
You write all these FOIAs, and then we'll promote your work.
And in the meantime, they'll keep everybody else running in a hamster wheel.
to never usefully make any progress into understanding that they're willing to murder people and lie about it in order to make sure that we teach our kids that viruses are real.
Think about how easy it would be for Tom and Andy to have won if they could have come to that very simple combination of words about three years ago.
You know, they're willing to murder people and lie about it in order to make sure that we teach our kids that gain-of-function viruses are real.
I just summarized the whole pandemic in one sentence that none of these clowns will ever be able to get to because they've never been trying to get there.
You see the difference between me and CHD?
Do you see the difference between me and Mary Holland?
Between me and Meryl Nass who've had years and years to come to that succinct language that they're willing to lie and murder people in order to make the biosecurity state narrative hold?
that they're willing to make fake videos about airplanes and blow up buildings in order to make the mythology hold.
They're willing to kill presidents to make the mythology hold.
and they will use weaponized piles of money to make the mythology hold.
They will make us fight about student loans to make the mythology hold.
They will lie about how a person was killed or not killed by the police to make the mythology hold.
And they will have coordinated groups of liars in place for five years come together to have an argument in order to make the mythology hold.
No, I'm just trying to ascertain whether you did.
I can't be defaming you because I'm not accusing you of not having the discussion.
I want to only talk about the scientific issues, not about some random guy who tries to insult people on camera.
Okay, well, this is not a random guy and he presented scientific evidence to you, which you said that you would have to look further into the details of the methodology.
I made a video interpreting the paper that he gave, so you can find that on my platform.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
Okay, but you never engaged with him on... I'm not going to engage with people who insult me on camera.
I mean, why would I do that?
I didn't think that he was insulting you.
Yeah, he called me names and said that I didn't graduate medical school or something and put up freeze frames of my face in an awkward position.
So rather than talking to the Breggans, maybe they could talk to this couple that has been fighting the illusion of psychiatry and psychiatric medicines for 20 years before the pandemic instead of this fake person.
But we wouldn't do that because this fake person was put in place at the beginning.
That's why Kevin McCarron in Japan knew his name.
The same Kevin McCarron that was followed by George Webb at the beginning of the pandemic, that streamed with Paul Cuttrell and Addy Ads at the beginning of the pandemic, and that also had Cameron Kyle Seidel, MD, as a pinned tweet when he just joined Twitter in March of 2020.
It's all one big lie.
These are all the liars.
They told us lies so that we wouldn't figure out they murdered people in order to make this pandemic happen.
That's it.
Kind of teenage stuff like that.
Okay, so let's move on to the second question.
Is it possible to get to passage 4 stock if there's no replication?
Wait, say that again?
Is it possible to get to passage 4 stock if there's no replication?
That's the test, that's the question that he asks.
So passage four is when you have a cell culture and then you dissociate the cells and you put it into a new one.
You dissociate the cells and you put it in a new one.
And so you're either taking the supernatant off or you're moving.
So passaging cells is splitting them.
And I think that a lot of times, this is very disingenuously said.
So let me make sure that you understand this, because this is something that a lot of people don't get.
So if you are passaging cells and you draw it like this, you're not really drawing the cartoon correctly.
Because what really is happening, of course, is that you start with this plate of cells.
And at some point, the cells are dividing.
And so they fill up the plate.
And if you don't passage them,
which means you don't take and split them into two plates or split them into a double volume and throw half the volume away, then they'll get too crowded on this plate and they'll die.
And so passage is a natural consequence of culturing cells because they're always growing.
Human embryonic kidney cells are always growing.
So you have to passage them.
You have to put them in new plates and replate them so that they're not overcrowded.
And so if they're passaging cells like they do in traditional cell culture, and they transfected this one, then when they passage two plates in the A, and the A, and this is the number one prime one, right?
Oh, sorry, you can't see that.
Get out of the way.
So if they're splitting this, then if they transfected the first dish, then both of these dishes are gonna be transfected.
And then if the cells keep growing and you split them again, then these guys are all gonna be transfected.
But that's not replication of a virus, that's replication of the shit that you put in those cells.
And as those cells divide, they might be copying it or they might be splitting it among their mitotic sister cells.
But that's not the same as replication.
And in fact, most, if not all of the time in virology, the rate of replication or quantifying replication is never done.
Because a plaque assay is not counting that.
And that's the only assay they have for counting viruses.
And so you might think that when they say passage, what they mean is they're taking the supernatant, they're taking the juice off the top and putting it into a clean culture.
and then taking the juice off the top again and putting it into a clean culture, and then over here they say they have viruses.
But if they're actually passaging, which is how they describe it in many of their methodologies, then they're doing it this way.
The cells are growing, and so if you put shit in the original cells, and then those cells divide, chances are the shit's gonna be in their sister cells after mitosis.
And then again,
And so as long as you don't go too many passages away from the original transfection, you don't need any replication for it to show up in all of these passages.
Because you put a highly pure concentration of one single molecule into this original dish and called it infectious clones.
And so it's almost like Steve is asking a question that should be kind of a instant, oh my gosh, this is a teachable moment.
I'm gonna teach you what these people are lying about.
Here we go.
Is he gonna do it?
I'm afraid not, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm afraid he's gonna fail miserably to tell you what passaging means and doesn't mean and what supernatant is and not.
And he's just not gonna get there because that's not the goal of this charade.
this fake discussion.
Well, what do you, I mean, passage is just taking some fluid from one cell culture and adding it to another cell culture.
So what do you like?
All you need is a pipette and cell cultures to do that.
You also have to dissociate the cells because again, as I said, passage means that the cells are growing and you need to give them more room.
It's not just sucking the juice off the top.
That's removing the supernatant.
But I forgive him because he's probably never done cell culture before like I have.
You know, I have publications where I used HEK cells for a few years at the University of Chicago.
Another unfortunate expertise in my background there, guys.
Unfortunately.
Is that what you're asking?
You understand what I mean by passage for stock, right?
Are you talking about... Okay, there was an original sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
It's in that paper.
This is a direct quote from the paper, which I'm sure you're familiar with because that's basic.
And so now he's pretending to dunk on Andy because he's pulling a quote from a paper that Andy discussed before, and now Andy's gonna fight back and say, well, that's not really fair and blah, blah, blah, blah.
and they're gonna get nowhere and argue about nothing meaningful, and the people that like Andy are gonna say, wow, you really kicked his ass, didn't you, Steve?
And the people who like Steve are gonna be like, well, that guy's not very nice anyway, and he's kind of an Android.
And so in the end, nothing will happen, nothing will be learned, nothing will be gained, no progress will be made, and the same division will exist.
And that's the reason why they never wanted me to have a discussion with them on the CHD platform, or we would have been able to figure this out, and these people would have been exposed for the liars that they are, that have never been coming to our rescue on white horses.
We're always working with the slavers.
Literature that everybody would be familiar with who looks at SARS-CoV-2.
Are you talking about the paper I sent to your staff, the fanwood paper?
Um, I, uh, I don't think it was, um, the first published, uh, genome of SARS-CoV-2.
No, no, no, no, no.
The first one in the United States.
The Sohomish County man.
Only the first genome matters because they used templates for all subsequent, uh, genome sequencing.
So, okay.
So let me, uh, that's why I submitted the fan Wu paper to your staff.
Did you have a chance to read the papers I submitted?
No, because they didn't provide it to me.
Oh, I gave it several days ago, Steve.
Oh, so now we're going to have some fake debate about whether he sends papers.
So when he sends papers, then that means you got to send papers.
You didn't read the papers.
Then what in the world are we doing 39 minutes into the discussion?
They should just have the Benny Hill theme in the background on repeat.
It's so stupid.
Steve, why didn't you have a chance to read it?
Because they never, I'm telling you, they didn't provide it to me.
I see.
Well, why?
Okay.
So the paper that I'm talking about is titled isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient.
Okay.
I mean, I read that paper, but I read it, you know, a couple of years ago.
Okay.
But, um, let me, let me read the, uh, let's see.
So, uh, pass, um, I'm looking at the paper right now.
Um,
We subsequently generated a fourth passage stock of SARS-CoV-2 on Vero E6 cells, another fetal rhesus monkey kidney cell line.
Viral RNA from SARS-CoV-2 passage four stock was sequenced and confirmed to have no nucleotide mutations compared to the original reference.
So imagine if they're passaging, not by taking supernatant, by just splitting the cells.
transfect the first, let him divide and fill up the cell dish, dissociate him, split him in half, plate him again, which is exactly what passage is.
And I'm quite, frankly, I'm getting very frustrated because I have a feeling that that's one of the lies that they are telling in this thing that I never thought, I just thought it would be bullshit.
But actually they are putting down this lie or this misconception that passage is the use of the taking of supernatant off the top of one cell culture and putting it on another cell culture.
That is not passage.
Passage is when you actually dissociate the cells and make room for more by putting them on two plates instead of one.
And what passage you're on is how many times have you replated them.
And if you get to a certain passage, you can expect the cells to misbehave.
If you transfected the first cells with an SK channel like I did,
and then you want to grow a dish of those, you wait until the eighth passage when the expression is pretty uniform, and then you work on those cells.
It's very, very, very interesting that they talk about transfection and transformation of cell culture.
And in 2024,
Dr. Andy Kaufman is still not sophisticated enough to just tell Steve that what you're describing there is actually just transformation and transfection of cell cultures that they then subsequently split by passage.
And so they've just put it in the cells.
And now you shouldn't be surprised that it's there after the fourth passage, Steve.
They put a highly concentrated, almost pure version of the RNA signal called SARS-CoV-2 on the original dish.
So to go four dishes into the future and find out that that signal's still pretty high fidelity is not really surprising because it started out pure!
And that's why this guy didn't talk to me in the airport and pretended to didn't know me and then figured out that my name was JJ and has been avoiding talking to me or anyone related to me since the beginning of the pandemic just like the rest of them have.
because they don't want to admit they could have gotten here in 2020.
They don't want to admit that they could have just said, well, you can't make yourselves do something that they don't already do because the cuckoo clock can't make toast.
And so, you know, when they did this stuff, they're just transfecting cells and calling it virology.
And just because they find a sequence doesn't mean it's replicating in you.
It could just be proximity or exposure.
It could even be a background signal.
You can talk about all of this stuff and summarize it in like 10 minutes, especially if you've been trying to do it for four years.
You'd think.
Sequence.
And then they give the GenBank accession number in that paper.
So how is it possible, Dr. Kaufman, to have a fourth passage if there's no replication?
Well, what is the starting materials of that experiment, Steve?
Did they have a virus and put it in there?
Is there a virus in that experiment?
You said you read the paper.
No, I said I read that paper two years ago.
You think I remember the details?
But I know how all these papers are done similarly.
What was the starting material?
It doesn't matter.
This is a generic question.
It doesn't matter.
So is Andy about to explain?
No, a lot of these papers start out with just a synthetic molecule, a very pure synthetic molecule, and then they transfect or transform the cell culture and claim they're doing virology.
I'm simply asking, hang on, you're interrupting.
Is it possible
to get to passage for stock if there is no replication.
This is an easy question that when I ask any of my experts who do this stuff for a living, there is no question as to what the answer to that question is.
And so it troubles me that you're asking questions like, how is this prepared?
This is a simple cut and dry object.
When I ask my experts that do this stuff for a living.
Stop lying.
Wow, that was gross, Steve.
That was gross.
It's so gross, I'm going to play it again.
Is it possible to get to passage for stock if there is no replication?
This is an easy question that when I ask any of my experts who do this stuff for a living, there is no question.
I wonder what experts he means.
Does he mean like,
John Bodwin or does he mean Stephanie Seneff or does he mean Jessica Rose or Matt Crawford or Mark Giordano or who else in his steering committee is he talking about as experts because I didn't know anybody in his steering committee that did anything for a living besides Substack except for me.
Wow, this is a joke.
As to what the answer to that question is, and so it troubles me that you're asking questions like, how is this prepared?
This is a simple, cut and dry, objective question.
Is it possible to get the passage forced on if there's no replication?
Yes or no?
Steve, I can't answer that question because I don't know what you mean, is it possible?
Like I said, passage just means you pipette some fluid from one culture and put it in a subsequent culture.
So you can do that a million times, right?
As long as you have enough pipettes and enough cell cultures.
So if they put pure DNA on one cell culture, or pure RNA on one cell culture, and then they use the exact technique that this guy said, which is pipette some juice into the next culture,
Do you need to have RNA or DNA replication to find the RNA in the fourth time you do that?
The answer is very simple.
No, because they put a large quantity of pure RNA into the first passage.
And so to find it in the fourth one is not very surprising, Steve.
It's a very small molecule and it was very pure.
Can anyone see how easy it would be for Andy Kaufman to dunk on him if he would have taken the time to maybe listen to my talk at the Red Pill Conference?
Instead, he was not at the Red Pill Conference, he was doing this appearance.
And then afterward, told Steve Kirsch to call me because, listen, that's what he says, call me.
Hey, this is Steve Kirsch.
I've been engaging in the no virus debate.
Engaging, yeah, right.
And somebody said I should talk to you.
And I'm assuming they think that's because you think that viruses don't exist.
I presume that he's using the word they because his pronouns are they.
Otherwise, why wouldn't you just say, I spoke to Andy Kaufman about the no virus thing, but he said they, because I guess that's his pronoun.
So we learned something about Andy, at least that.
In order to, you're interrupting me now.
Okay, I was gonna try to answer your question.
In order to understand what this experiment, because you made that question completely out of context.
What is the experiment?
Like what are the procedures?
What, how many samples do they have?
Jason, that message was from this weekend.
I got that message while I was at dinner with people that I met at the Red Pill Conference.
Like that's real.
That guy called me out of nowhere right after he made this recording to tell me that they, I guess he's referring to the pronouns for Andy, that they said that he should talk to me.
I guess he forgot I was on his steering committee and I've already publicly declared him one of the worst liars and one of the worst traitors in America right now.
one of the largest single donors to the DNC before the pandemic.
This guy has probably done cocaine with Hillary Clinton before.
I mean, this is just gross.
Who are they from?
Is it one sample from one patient?
Did they purify a virus out of it?
Did they prove a virus is in it first before they started the experiment?
How do you know there's a virus in the experiment?
So what they did is they a patient with so this is I'm reading directly from the paper a patient was identified with confirmed cold with confirmed kovat 19, Sohomish County man in Washington State on January 22nd 22nd paper that proves that kovat exists.
How can you start with already knowing that they have kovat?
Because we're talking about kovat kovat 19 which we're talking about somebody that they put a clone in
They put a highly concentrated DNA or RNA representing the sequence that they wanted to find.
They brought the guy into the hospital, they swabbed him, and lo and behold, they found it.
Lo and behold, they found so much of it that they could put it on a cell culture and passage it once or twice.
Do you know that this would cost like 50 bucks?
Because making a DNA sequence and then putting it somewhere is cheap as shit.
Ask Kevin McKernan.
is the disease, not SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus.
Gotcha.
How do you diagnose COVID, though?
Well, let's see.
The sound of dental drills and I don't know what else belongs here.
Okay, so what they did is they used a cycle threshold of 18 to 20, both in the throat swabs and nasal swabs.
Okay, so they did a PCR test, right?
They did a PCR test, correct.
Okay, so how do you know that the PCR test... So for what amplicon?
And did they use nested primers?
Is he gonna ask that question, which would be the right question to ask because nested primers makes PCR foolproof.
And without nested primers, it's stupid.
And anybody at an academic biological bench that uses PCR in their laboratory knows damn well that in addition to nested PCR primers, you're also going to have several negative and positive controls so that you have a gauge as to whether or not you're comparative to signals you understand.
And yet all of these PCR tests that I've ever looked at never had a positive and negative control.
And the negative control and the positive controls were never run alongside the experimental control Amplicon.
I mean there's real easy ways to explain how the PCR test could be accurate and not accurate.
be high fidelity and not high fidelity and have nothing to do with the disease that they say is going around.
But Andy Kaufman, just for whatever reason, after five years, can't even get close to coming to a reasonable approach of possibly ever mustering a reasonable explanation for how that could be.
Because he's a traitor and a liar.
They didn't say that.
They just said that it was confirmed that the PCR test said it was COVID, and that they did... The whole thing is based on that that patient has COVID, right?
And they're saying they have COVID because they have a genetic test, right?
That the genetic test is supposedly testing genetic sequences from a virus.
But this experiment is to prove that there's a virus.
So they assume there's a virus, they have a test for it, that without ever finding it, and then they use the test results to prove that it exists.
This is circular reasoning.
Where's the prima facie evidence that there's a virus in the first place?
You can't have a PCR test without that because the genetic sequences allegedly belong to that virus.
How do you know they belong to it if you haven't discovered the virus first?
Well, but they did discover the virus first in an earlier paper out of China.
And so these PCR tests were- You know about the one I submitted to your staff, the Fan Wu paper?
It probably was, but I don't know what the origin of the PCR test was in this paper, and maybe if I had time to read it more carefully.
But my point is this, that everybody I've talked to says it's not possible to get to passage four stock if there's no replication.
So you're claiming- Everybody that he's talked to claims it's impossible to get to
Passage 4 stock, unless there's replication, but I just explained it to you right here.
That if you put a pure quantity of DNA or RNA onto your original passage 0, and then you do standard cell culture passage, you're splitting that cell culture up.
And so it doesn't even matter if there's replication because those cells are dividing and they're splitting up whatever's in them.
Alternatively, not all the DNA stays in those cells, and some of it is shed into the supernatant, and when you split, then it's still there, and then you split, and it's still there, and then you split, and it's still there.
So if you put a high enough quantity in the original dish, and it makes it to cell passage four, it doesn't mean it's being copied, it just means that the PCR positivity didn't go to zero.
Because Andy's not gonna point out that, well, you don't quantify it.
in the first one, you don't quantify it in the last one.
And if you don't quantify it, then how do you differentiate between replication and just it following your pipette?
That's the argument to make, Andy.
Like that's how you dunk on him.
You explain that they started with a pure RNA.
How could it be possible?
How do you differentiate unless you're quantifying it at each passage?
How can they possibly make that argument?
That would be the easiest argument to rebut.
What does that mean?
What's not possible about it?
You mean that you won't have a positive PCR test in the first place?
No, no, that you can't get to the next stage.
In order to get to passage four, it means that there are basically four replications where you measured that the thing that you're looking at has replicated.
When you say replication, what do you mean?
Well, in order to go and do genomic sequencing, you usually start off by taking a sample.
You're talking about cultures, aren't you?
Yes, cell cultures.
Yeah, cell cultures before the sequence.
You don't just take the- So what's the positive control, Steve?
Like, what's the positive control RNA target in Vero6 cells so that we can have a relative idea, okay, in this cell culture, the level of RNA of this
this expected signal is here.
And then the signal of our RNA of the virus is over here, over there.
And we can see it relative to a constant signal that we kind of understand for our cell culture, which is how anybody would do an academic application of PCR, not nevermind the nested primers and all this stuff, but just the idea of having a proper control, a positive control that you know is there, something that the Vero6 cells produce at a known level all the time.
that could kind of give you an idea of how crowded the cell culture is and how active the cell culture is in normal homeostasis and then compare that to your experimental measurement of the viral RNA.
That's how you explain this Andy and you've had like four and a half almost five years to be able to nail these people down and it's kind of striking that you can't nail someone down as retarded as Steve.
the swab, and then try to genetic sequence that, you would go and try to... No, you're right.
You got to take genetic material from an actual organism to sequence it, so you know what you're sequencing.
Right, but then you go and you put it in these Vero cells in order to replicate it, so that you have lots of copies of it, and then you go and run the sequence on it.
Why would you do that?
You can amplify it with PCR, you only need one copy, and you can make infinite amount with PCR.
You could.
No, that's not true.
You can make infinite amount.
PCR doesn't make an infinite amount of any size molecule.
PCR has its limitations as to what it can amplify.
It can only look for a certain size amplicon.
Is he really that mal-informed?
Are we really gonna be this bad right now?
This is terrible.
I'm terrified where this is going.
Just take the swab and then try to genetic sequence that.
You would go and try to- No, you're right.
You gotta take genetic material from an actual organism to sequence it so you know what you're sequencing.
Right, but then you go and you put it in these varro cells in order to replicate it so that you have lots of copies of it, and then you go and run the sequence on it.
Why would you do that?
You can amplify it with PCR, you only need one copy, and you can make an infinite amount with PCR.
You could.
Why would you need to culture it?
Because you want to culture the entire genome.
Does that make sense?
You can't culture a genome, Steve.
You can only culture organisms.
Yes, but your culture... There you go.
Ooh, I like that.
You can't culture a genome.
You can only culture organisms.
Of course, that was my message about pattern integrities for the last two years.
And that viruses are not pattern integrities.
They can't pandemic.
During the virus that you believe exists.
And what happens is that they do this and they find that virus replicates.
That you prove that you're culturing the virus by detecting these sequences that you can't prove came from the virus?
What you can do.
How do you know the virus is in that experiment?
You don't necessarily know that, but you're replicating something.
Something's replicating.
Do you think you can get to passage if nothing is replicating?
What do you mean by replicating?
How do you tell if something's replicating?
Because if you have twice as much as something, and you then go through another process of replication, then it's clear that something is replicating.
You have twice as many viral particles?
You have twice as many particles.
Okay, where are the pictures of the particles going from half as many to- Oh, so he's kind of got him here.
You have twice as many particles.
So that's probably why it's passage.
It's passage.
They're just dissociating the cells and putting them in new dishes.
And then after fourth passage, look, we're still doing virology because it's still there.
They transfected a cell culture and did passage on it.
And then they found what they transfected in the passage four cells and said, look, it's replicating dad.
Impressive.
Twice as many.
I'm just asking you, the point is that when you go, I mean, these are pretty, I didn't expect to be stuck here.
I'm telling you that all of your results that you're talking about are- He didn't expect to be stuck here, but they were stuck somewhere else like for a half an hour first about something to do with scientific method and then something else.
Oh my gosh, it's hilarious.
Based on PCR testing with looking at, well, then what are- Passage 4 is not about a PCR testing, it's putting these samples into viral cells and having them replicate.
in the viral cells.
How do you detect their replication?
Like I said, I'm not an expert on this.
Well, Kevin McKernan can tell you all about how the RNA dependent RNA polymerase makes perfect copies of the genome.
And that those perfect copies of the genome are just really hard to detect with nanopore sequencing, because nanopore sequencing isn't perfect.
And it likes small, little DNA and RNA a lot better than big RNA.
It's all liars.
It's all just the same group of liars lying about different aspects of the lie in order to make sure that the lie never becomes visible.
But it's totally visible now because these monkeys are visible.
Talk to people and people think this is a problem.
Have you ever done this stuff before, Dr. Kaufman, yourself?
Done which stuff?
Have I worked in a laboratory with culture, cell cultures?
Have you ever taken a swab of somebody who has supposedly, hypothetically, a virus?
Have you ever taken a nasal swab and have you ever placed that into a varro cell and then replicated that and done a whole genome sequence on it?
Do you know what a Vero cell is?
Yes, it's a monkey kidney cell.
So let me ask you, if this virus grows in the lungs, why do they need to use monkey kidney cells that are genetically modified, by the way?
Surely, Dr. Kaufman, I can't believe you're asking me that question.
You're telling me that you don't know the answer to it?
I'll tell you the answer to it.
I know the answer to it, but I think we have different answers.
Okay, well, I can tell you the answer to it as far as I know.
This is the fake kind of crescendo into, oh my gosh, I'm going to dunk on you.
I don't think I'm going to make it much longer because it's so fake.
But I assure you, I assure you that these two people are the highest level of traitor right now.
There's no possible way that these two guys haven't been working against Americans since the very beginning.
And that's why Kevin McCarran enunciated this name before any other American's name.
He said his name more often than my name in a stream when we were streaming together.
And AddyAds and him, both very close associates with George Webb, agreed that this battle should be fought on Twitter, just like Kevin McKernan agreed and just like all these people have agreed ever since.
Even CHD and Bobby Kennedy are assured that at least I don't get censored on Twitter.
These people are all working for probably Peter Thiel and Palantir and Elon Musk, and they are working to be part of the new way that Americans are governed.
I think we're going to have to make a very hard decision to absolutely positively leave Twitter.
We're just gonna have to turn it off because these people are super users of Twitter.
They might not even use Twitter.
They might have, the military might have people at Twitter headquarters that tweet for these assholes.
So that while we waste a few minutes every day trying to combat the nonsense that they say or respond to their DMs on Twitter, they're doing other things, you know, like tour in the world and making hot tub photos.
raising money for their vaccine safety research council and it's broadcast that deserves nothing but ire and disgust.
Again, I'm not an expert on this.
But the reason they use these cells is because these cells are basically, they're these immortal cells that are easy to grow stuff in.
And so it's simply a scientific container to allow a replication of a virus that comes from a human or some other places.
And it happens to be a nice medium for growing things.
It's like dirt, effectively.
You know, with dirt for plants, you take a plant, you put it into dirt, the plant grows.
The same thing can be true for putting these foreign cells, this virus, into varro cells so that you can go and replicate the virus.
So, Steve, this is a good point because the paper number two, if Livia wants to pop it on screen at some point,
talks about this, that SARS-CoV-2, even if you think it's real, even mainstream people say it doesn't affect the kidneys.
So how could you culture it in kidney cells?
But this article shows how they have kidney biopsies from pre-COVID and during COVID, but with all negative, unvalidated COVID tests.
And they found
particles on electron microscopy that look identical to what they say coronaviruses look like, the same size with the spikes.
And they basically say that you can't identify it from these images, and that this problem has been known about since the 70s.
This is what it says in the paper.
And even there's another paper that the CDC published about this issue, that by looking at these microscopic images, it doesn't tell you what you're looking at.
that these things could be confused for all types of subcellular particles.
And that's what the exosome discussion came from, because exosomes are just one type of many subcellular particles that are found in the body, and they're much more common.
in pathological conditions like disease and injuries, that they can't be distinguished morphologically by sight, by shape, by appearance on microscopy from each other.
There needs to be some other way of identification.
Just like in the experiment you were talking about, there was no direct visualization of viral particles that are being replicated.
There doesn't need to be.
We have whole genome sequencing.
Well, if you don't detect the actual thing you're looking at and use a proxy variable or a covariate, it needs to be validated.
It is validated.
The whole genome sequence, Dr. Coffman, do you know how many countries have validated the whole genome sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus?
They haven't validated it.
What they've done is they've run a template and not gotten the same results, which is why there are millions and millions of variants.
Yes, but they're very similar, aren't they?
I don't know.
We're very similar to chimpanzees, but we're not the same.
But, you know, the size of the genome for a chimpanzee is quite a bit different than the size of the genome for SARS-CoV-2.
Do you know what the size of the genome for SARS-CoV-2 is?
There is no genome for CoV-2 because SARS-CoV-2 hasn't actually been shown to exist.
Let me call it the gene sequence, or sorry, the sequence of nucleotides for SARS-CoV-2.
Do you know how long the sequence is?
Steve, let's look at the FANWU paper because... It's a simple question, Dr. Kauffman.
You don't know how long it is?
There is no valid genome.
I know how long they say it is, but... How long do they say it is?
It's roughly 30,000 base pairs.
Is it more than 30,000 or less than 30,000?
Well, we can look at this paper.
It has the exact number because this is the paper that... No, no, no, but their sequence... It's not that one, Livio.
It's the fourth one, number four.
There are sequences, Dr. Kaufman, from over 100 countries in the world.
And it's amazing, it's amazing that 100 countries all detect sequences of virtually the same length, with virtually the same structure, with minor differences here and there in the sequence.
So it's a logic fallacy to say that just because something has been done by a lot of people that it means something.
Really?
Okay.
So how do you know he had a virus?
In what study?
Fan Wu original genome paper that we discussed.
Oh, I'll tell you why we know that.
One patient.
Yeah, I'll tell you why we know that.
because because we've been able to replicate the genetic sequence it's a novel genetic sequence and we've been able to to find that genetic sequence in people in millions of people throughout the world never find the identical sequence twice okay but 12 million variants because every sequence is different
No, no, no, because there are only about 30, in any given point in time, Dr. Kaufman, there are only about 30 or so variants that circulate.
And that's amazing.
So that's him defending to the teeth the theories that he learned from Kevin McKernan.
And he's very confident because he believes Kevin McKernan.
I think it's possible that Steve Kirsch is a bit of a dope.
He probably doesn't know to the extent to which he's being used.
He's never come off to me as somebody as a serial entrepreneur with good ideas all the time.
Whenever he's been in this Steve Kerr steering committee, he's not the smartest guy in the discussion.
The kinds of things he says do not suggest that he's an impressive, bright guy.
I don't know, I just, I'm confused what's going on now.
think I'm gonna have to put my thinking cap on because I don't I don't really get it anymore I'm starting to I'm starting to need a little help here I'm gonna put my thinking cap on and see where we go with
I'm afraid this question is going to make me sad.
That exist at any given point in time.
This is not millions of variants.
There are right now at this moment, there are probably 30 different variants of SARS-CoV-2 that are prevalent in the United States.
I mean, listen to the certainty that he knows how many variants are in circulation after five years of a release of an RNA molecule in a mud puddle or from a laboratory leak.
It's just absurd.
Come on.
the states of america as an example it's not three hundred million thirty that's a scary very small number and i'm gonna ask a different question if that's okay uh... go for another boyson page the promo bit for this debate showed doctor kaufman talking about mislabeling deaths and hospital and nursing home protocols killing people early in the pandemic could doctor kaufman please expand on those get some
And I'm not sure what they mean, because obviously those patients were sick, but I think I'm insinuating the protocols.
How do you expand on all these deaths?
This has been covered extensively, but it varied from place to place.
New York was the place where they went crazy for ventilators.
You know, put people on ventilators that were breathing on their own perfectly fine in various places in Europe.
You had a lot of euthanasia type drugs like hospice treatments for people with an acute illness that were used.
You know, it's been extensively reported on.
There's also a lot of acutely ill hospital patients were sent to nursing homes where they couldn't receive any treatment because nursing homes are not equipped.
to deal with.
I wonder how they did that.
Did they do that with dexamethasone?
Because I think that's what Robert Malone said to Paul Cutrell in August of 21.
Maybe, maybe Kaufman could point out that Robert Malone said they were murdering people with the hammer called dexamethasone.
sending them back to care homes with limited symptoms and then letting them die of secondary ammonia.
He's not really saying that they murdered people and lied about it though, is he?
Certainly not saying that they gave him supplementary oxygen as a way to get them to an on-ramp where they would beg for a ventilator.
He's certainly not saying that, yeah, you know, somebody like Kyle Seidel was pretty much set dead on about 60 liters a minute and thousands of liters of oxygen being used in every room.
So, you know, there were a lot of different things.
And then, of course, we had, you know, some of the toxic pharmaceuticals that were put into the, you know, COVID protocols that were reimbursed very well.
And then, of course, ultimately, the poison injection.
So, you know, this iatrogenic problem was, you know, explained quite a bit of the
So the word is murder.
The crime is murder.
And at worst, it's manslaughter, but they're not saying that.
Iatrogenic doesn't say it.
Euthanasia doesn't say it.
Murder and manslaughter, those are the words that are defined in all 50 states as crimes.
You monkeys.
Illness and the brief, you know, especially it was probably the major cause of that brief, short-lived mortality spike in the spring of 2020.
The protocols in the hospitals, basically.
Yeah, combined with the nocebo effect to a degree as well.
Another question here from one concerned world citizen.
When a family all gets a cold around at the same time, what do you think caused it?
Well, this is, you know, once again, an example of a straw man, right?
Because I'm saying there's no evidence that there's a virus causing it.
So I don't know definitively what causes it.
I, of course, have my own hypotheses, but they're not tested scientifically.
I think it was a pretty good question.
I think it was well phrased.
I think they whiffed on it on purpose.
He's gonna say that, right?
But he's not gonna say that they lied about murdering people so that they could create the illusion of a virus.
He's not saying that.
I don't know why they're not saying that.
I don't know why they're not connecting the criminal vaccine schedule in America to the same impetus that they have to cover this all up.
It's gotta be all one play.
The old vaccine schedule wasn't as good as the new ones because the new ones saved us from a pandemic that was probably a gain-of-function virus.
Explain it to them that we were fooled into solving a mystery.
that covered up the murder instead of, yeah, yeah, there were some people killed and that's true.
There were some people killed in the hospital and some people were killed in nursing homes.
No, those were the only deaths that they had to point to besides of course, the opioid deaths and the do not resuscitate orders that caused the heart attacks to go up.
It's just such an imprecise, impotent explanation.
of what actually happened, which they tried as many creative ways as possible to be able to murder people and lie about it in order to create the illusion of a gain-of-function pandemic and trick us into teaching our children this mythology.
Instead, they've talked for an hour and a half and gotten nowhere.
And even when someone from GigaOM Biological puts the ball on the tee and gives him a one-wood
Just weak.
It's just really weak.
That's because they're traitors, ladies and gentlemen.
They're all traitors.
That's what you should see.
They are all traitors.
These people right here are all traitors.
That's the deal.
They're all traitors.
Every single one of them is covering up the idea that
that it's something more complicated than a conflated background signal.
They're all covering up the idea that it's nothing more than a conflated background signal by debating the nuances of the Scooby-Doo.
And that's how they're gonna get us to teach this shit to our children.
If we don't wake up, they're gonna teach it to our children.
I swear to you, they're gonna lie to us about laboratory viruses when the only thing they've ever done is transfect stuff.
or stitch stuff together and then transfect that stitch stuff into a cell culture or an animal.
Yes, they can make DNA.
Yes, they can make RNA.
Yes, they can make it in quantity.
And that's about it.
And a lot of these people have a resume with pharmaceutical companies to know damn well that that's true.
Robert Malone knew damn well that you can't use anion exchange chromatography to purify RNA because you can't separate nucleic acids from each other using that standard technique for cleaning up any other biologic like a monoclonal antibody.
There's no good reason why this guy was a court witness for the Floyd case.
There's no good reason why he spoke in front of the Senate about what happened in New York City.
And there's no good reason why those two facts weren't combined by the only person who was ever an expert on Pierre Kory and New York City.
But you know,
They're not biologists, so they can't evaluate the stuff that I teach, like 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 RNA cannot pandemic.
So yeah, that's where we are, ladies and gentlemen.
We are kicking so much ass that they can't even respond to us anymore.
And so we're gonna keep pushing.
think of me as like somewhere between the Mike Ditka of biology like a linebacker and the Michael Jordan of biology like somebody is gonna dunk on him and they're gonna learn what's printed on the bottom of my shoes by the end of the frickin summer I can guarantee it ladies and gentlemen they're gonna be reading the print on the bottom of my shoes while I hang on the rim above them
Because that's what we do at GigaOM Biological.
Please stop all transfections in humans because they're trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
And if you liked what you saw, this is GigaOM Biological.
You can share it down there with stream.gigaom.bio.
You can talk to me here at gigaom.bio and you can find ways to support me at the main website, gigaombiological.com.
We do need support because this is a family of five and this is what we do This is what I do and this summer.
I'm gonna be putting together some mini courses that they're already trying to respond to before they're out And I'm gonna use their silly responses and pre
preceded courses like the one that Herdband and Bollschutz put out and we're going to use those courses as evidence as to how very little they want to do to help us.
This is the summer of the wind.
This is going to be some serious stuff, ladies and gentlemen, and you're witnessing it in real life, real time, real time.
It's 106 miles to Chicago.
We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.