so
Yo, welcome to the Spaz Passage.
Let's see how I'm passing.
Yo, you remember O'Hara.
My boy, Sulu.
Hey, yo!
What up, Spock?
Baby, no salsa on the leather.
Keep it on the chips.
Artwork.
Dope.
James T. Kirk, president of the council.
This boy love that leftover roast beef.
Spock, it's solid beef, baby.
If you like it a little, you know, rotten.
And this here is my sanctuary.
See, this is where I chill, where I relax, where I chillax.
The title was just wrong there I should have I
Have a guest very soon on Zoom and we'll have a little chat.
We'll see what happens.
I'm pretty excited.
you
I think truth is good for kids.
We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in this 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.
introduced Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest 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
a 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, when we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality and it's not,
there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs.
It'll be a moral emergency because it has to be.
The.
Hello, everybody.
Welcome to the show.
This is Giga Home Biological.
We're trying to dispel the enchantment one day at a time.
I'm hopeful that I'm going to have a guest in a few minutes, and we're going to have a little chat about this kind of thing, about being a Galileo Galilei when it isn't cool.
And I think my scheduled guest is somebody who can definitely speak to being a Galileo
when it isn't cool or wasn't cool and can tell us a little bit about the different sides of the truth.
Because he's keenly aware of the fact that what's perceived to be true is all that matters to these people.
That's how they've been controlling us for quite some time.
And that's why it has become true that our consciousness is actually the prime real estate that they are competing for.
And it's become ever easier for them to
to pull this off because of social media and the permissions that we've given them, the access that we've given them to our consciousness.
and so there was no spread in New York City that can really be detected by any normal means.
Infectious clones, the term, is actually the only real threat if you understand it.
Placebo batches are never really mentioned, but they're the most obvious way that a known sort of deadly new kind of
of medicine would be rolled out and could be confused enough so that transfection in healthy animals, which was already dumb before the pandemic, could be misconstrued as something that saved anyone.
Um, and, uh, yeah, the protocols were murder.
Gain of function is definitely a mythology and they made you feel like you were solving a Scooby-Doo mystery, uh, in order that you would teach your kids all about gain of function and all about viruses.
And, uh, as long as they remain spectacularly committed to these lies and you, you keep thinking you're solving this mystery, catching them in their, in their act.
You're never going to wake up to the fact that it's very simple.
They murdered people and lied about it and they do it all the time.
And then instead of telling you the truth, they just attribute bad motives to everybody that disagrees with their story.
That's how we do it now.
That's how we've been governed for a very long time.
And now we have weaponized piles of money that are doing it to us.
And if we don't show our kids the truth, they might never see it.
Even if they are kids that would normally see it, social media is especially malevolent.
It's not easy to see through.
And a lot of us thought we were solving this mystery on Twitter, thinking we were using Twitter against them.
That it was some kind of tool that we had in our toolbox that we could use against the oligarchy or the big weaponized piles of money, and it was just kind of a joke.
They're still right on schedule with their little
They're right on schedule with this, this, you know, AI is going to collect all the data.
And, uh, if we don't learn the history that's still available to us and talk to the people who lived it, I don't know how we're going to get out of this.
We inherited these charlatans from our parents.
Actually, we, they had power over our parents and that's why they kind of why they have power over us.
That's the real truth.
And if we wake up to that truth, there might be a way for us to, to, to escape.
Um,
I'm just gonna pause for a second and make sure that I sent that mail because somehow I'm having the feeling, oh, he joined already.
Then what's happening here?
I don't see him there actually.
So it says I got an email here that he's joined my personal meeting room.
Start the meeting.
Oh, I see.
Maybe that's what I did.
Ships.
End the meeting.
Hold on a second, guys.
Let me get this done.
End the meeting for all.
Zoom is not going to be happy with me right now because I'm also streaming, of course.
I'm here.
Hello, everybody.
Hello, hello.
I just have to screw this meeting up, of course.
I'm going to start this meeting.
And what did it do there?
Oh, goodness sakes.
Really?
Okay, you're going to have to give me one more second because this is really, uh, I have, I have a problem here with, with, um, my browsy browsers causing me some trouble here.
So let me see if this is going to go now.
If you are the meeting host, start the meeting.
Oh, I'll just do that then.
Duh.
Zoom.
New meeting.
Start video.
Use my personal thing.
There we go.
I didn't have a certain box clicked.
So I was starting a new meeting with a different address instead of the one that I had programmed in, which I think we should be on now.
Hopefully this is going to work.
Let's see.
That's off.
That's working.
I see my sound is working.
I don't see my virtual camera on.
I'm going to turn that on.
There we go.
That's on.
I see myself, but I don't see anybody else in this meeting.
Oh, there he is.
He's connecting right now.
Okay, we're gonna continue with this and he will be with us in a second.
I'm just gonna finish this up quick.
Getting started here.
I see you there, David.
We're trying to make gentle the life of this world, despite the fact that they're using some of our our history against us.
This is a very coordinated effort.
It is a coordinated effort that results in a
a false wave of consensus.
And if you want to teach your kids to see through this false wave of consensus, you're going to be able to, you're going to have to be able to teach them a little history, but also a little bit of contemporary biology so that you understand why, despite all of these new technologies and all of these new ways to sequence things ever easier, we haven't learned very much about virology and the infectious cycle in a very long time.
And that's because this wave of consensus about what virology is
has been weaponized against us in a way that involves a lot more than Tony Fauci and a few people at NIH.
But it is a national security operation.
And if you don't stay focused on the biology and you take their bait on social media and you do not love your neighbor, I'm afraid that you're going to be part of the controlled demolition of America and maybe the whole West.
And so we're trying to save some social media users today and we're trying to give this advice to people in America especially stay focused on biology don't take their bait on social media and love your neighbor.
The way this works is that people share this stream and as it gets shared people get the biology and they wake up.
I'm gonna just pause it right here actually and hit escape and just go right away to
My recent colleague, and I should say just recent colleague because I'll just transition out of this music and do recent colleague here.
My recent colleague has degrees in chemistry and biology and
And he has been in the pharma and biotech industry between 78 and 96 or so.
And then after 1996, he started working on cancer.
And so I suspect he's got a lot to tell us about that as well.
We're just not really sure where we're going to start this conversation.
To go on further, just some tidbits here.
He was the AIDS advisor to the South African president in the year 2000.
He's got more than 30 or sorry, 40 scientific publications and at least two books.
And so far be it from me to give more of an introduction than that.
Instead, I just like to turn the floor over to Dr. David Resnick.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Am I saying your last name right?
Rastnik, yes, that's it.
Good to see you, Jay.
Yeah, good to see you.
I'm going to put myself down here in the corner and then if you wouldn't mind improving on my introduction and maybe if...
I mean, the way that we know each other, ladies and gentlemen, is that we've been working on a case together and it's about PCR testing and this kind of thing.
And so we haven't really met before until right now.
And so this is kind of a fun time for both of us.
And I thought it would be nice if we do it live, it'll feel better and everybody will get to, well, you'll feel the honesty because, you know, we've never even been on Zoom before.
So I'm going to switch over here and then put myself down here.
And then if you could improve on my introduction, that'd be really great.
Thanks.
Okay, well, I don't like to go into too deep on that stuff.
I have a website, davidrasnik.com.
People can go there.
It's got 40 years plus stuff on there.
You got it right.
I was in the pharmaceutical industry for about 20 years.
And then I left that in 1996, permanently joined up with Professor Peter Duesberg at UC Berkeley to fight the AIDS stuff.
And also that same year,
Peter and I also joined up and worked on the chromosomal imbalance theory of cancer aneuploidy.
And we've published a lot.
We've published a lot on AIDS together and a lot on cancer together and books and things.
Like I say, if you want to know more about that, go to the website.
Jay and I have some more pertinent things to discuss today.
than that, and I just, Jay, I just saw your red pill thing today.
I'm glad I did.
Oh, very good.
I found it, and I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed it, and I couldn't find a single thing to disagree with, you know, that I said, oh my goodness, he got it wrong, and all that sort of thing, you know, or have, not really wrong, but, you know, I have a different view or a different opinion or whatever.
Well, that makes me feel very good.
Thank you very much for that compliment.
I appreciate that.
Yeah.
And so I've been fighting the AIDS stuff since 1985, actually.
And I think the thing that I think Jay and I, leave it up to you, but we really need to talk about what's going on now.
Jay, you're a warrior, I'm a warrior, and I'm gonna be talking about other warriors, people that I knew either personally
or professionally, for example, like Kerry Mullis was a friend of mine, the inventor of polymerase chain reaction.
And he, a curious thing happened.
He was the, probably the most credentialed combination of credentialed, he's Nobel Laureate, outspoken critic of Anthony Fauci, started with the AIDS stuff.
And unfortunately, Kerry died in August 2019.
And I guess the second most, it's almost neck and neck tie of outspoken critics, credentialed outspoken critics of Fauci is Professor Peter Duisburg, a friend of mine, my colleague.
And he was going to meet with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
for supper.
in 2021, and a couple of days before that, he had a stroke.
Pretty bad stroke.
He's recovering now.
And then we had Luc Montagnier, another Nobel laureate.
He got the Nobel Prize for discovering HIV.
And he died February 2022.
Now you have, these are the three most potent and credentialed critics of Anthony Fauci.
And I personally am very, very skeptical or suspicious about the timing of these deaths, the two deaths and the stroke of Peter Duesberg.
If you were Anthony Fauci and if you wanted to keep the PCR thing going, you'd want to get rid of, silence somehow, the three most credentialed critics of the principal public criminal, which is Anthony Fauci,
They've been fighting Fauci, at least Peter and I have, for decades.
And two Nobel laureates and Peter Duisburg, a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
So I have to get that off my chest right off the bat.
I would just add that there is a Canadian guy named Plummer who also worked on HIV that died right at the beginning of the pandemic.
And there was this airplane that got shot down over Ukraine that had a lot of AIDS experts from the Netherlands on it.
And they all died in one airplane also, which might have been 2019 as well.
That's new to me.
I think I might have heard of the other guy, but I don't know anything about him, but I didn't hear about the airplane.
Yeah, the airplane had at least four prominent Dutch people and their lab mates or their postdocs.
It was pretty hardcore.
Yeah.
Well, I encourage your viewers to see your talk at the Red Pill.
I gave a talk at Red Pill, I think it was 2021.
on the link, going all the way back, those decades, all the way back to Anthony Fauci, when he started with AIDS, and then it moved on all these other phony pandemic plagues or whatever.
I wonder if you can tell, if this will not be too boring of a story, I have this pressing question that I've been wanting to ask you since I realized that we were gonna be in contact.
Can you kind of relate at the time, was there ever
just doubt in, in when, when did the doubt in viruses versus the doubt in particular claims about like, I mean, how does that all wrap in with the discovery of reverse transcriptase?
Because you know, they use that enzyme to indicate something or not indicate something.
When did the skepticism of virology start versus skepticism of their use of it?
And how can we navigate?
That's where I feel like I'm at.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, I was as mainstream as you could get up until about 1985.
I just moved to San Francisco in 1980 from Abbott Laboratories in North Chicago, Illinois, to set up my first little biotech company in the San Francisco Bay Area.
And of course, that year, 1980, was when the AIDS stuff started and everything, but it didn't have that name.
And I've told this story
countless times.
But I was as mainstream as you could get until 1984 is when it was, let's see, Reagan's end of his first term in office.
And they were afraid that the Democrats would make AIDS a campaign issue since Reagan had talked about it.
So Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services,
was brought out April 23rd, 1984 at a press conference, brought out Robert Gallo.
And they said he was discovered the probable cause of AIDS.
It was one of his retroviruses.
And they dropped the word probable the very next day.
And all of the dogmas about AIDS became a government policy that day.
AIDS was contagious, sexually transmitted, started in Africa.
It's weird when they show you that it's weird when they show that video that it doesn't seem possible that that was it But that was really it just that press conference and the day later.
It's that's that's the reality That's reality and say I'm not a virologist or anything like that I'm a chemist and I was working on tissue destroying diseases and I assume these people knew what in the world they were talking about so I I started you know, once I found out retroviruses have Mattel Oh have a spiral protease.
I've started designing
inhibitors for that, but I stopped quickly because I remembered I had a friend at Abbott.
He had 20 chemists working on human aspartyl proteases, and I figured he was way ahead of me, and he was.
But I sort of bought it hook, line, and sinker right there, because I figured if it was a national broadcast from, I guess, from the White House or wherever it was, there must be something to it.
But guess what?
There was nothing published.
When I started looking into it, there was not a single paper in the scientific literature
published on that until later, until after that press conference, you know.
And then in 1985, about a year later, when I was really looking into this contagious component, it was clear that AIDS, what was called AIDS, had nothing to do with contagious disease.
It did not have a single property about it, aspect about it, that made it a contagious thing.
And I brought that up with my colleagues, and of course they all shut up and wouldn't talk about it.
That was sort of what I call my red pill moment.
That's the phrase these days.
And then I really did a deep dive into this, and I have been ever since 1985.
And I learned about Peter Duesberg around, oh, 87 or so when he had that paper, his famous paper criticizing retroviruses in general.
And then I really accepted everything about contagious diseases and viruses until I'd say, after I joined it with Peter,
And I was at UC Berkeley and I went to a seminar there.
This was probably 97 or so.
And I saw an epidemiologist, a professor there.
He went through the history or the timing of these plagues.
It didn't have to be virology, but contagious disease in general.
There were three of them during World War Two.
Every war, every war or global catastrophe, whatever, there's some sort of disruption where people get sick.
You know, the environment's destroyed, the food's destroyed, the poison's everywhere.
And it was whooping cough and polio.
And I forget there was the third one here.
It was going on during World War Two in the United States.
And he showed the time of these infectious diseases in the United States.
It showed during World War II, they were very, very high.
And then almost overnight, after World War II ended, there was this rapid decline in all three of these.
I only remember the two, the whooping cough and the polio.
And had they not brought out the stock vaccine in the mid-50s or sometime in the 50s, polio and the whooping cough had almost totally disappeared before the vaccine came out.
And one of the very few things that the CDC ever did that was a benefit to human beings that I'm aware of
was that they discovered that the natural decline in polio cases stopped, right, it coincidentally stopped, the natural decline stopped when they went out with the Salk vaccine.
So then they immediately, I was young in those days, but I was around, I remember this, immediately they came out with another one, the Sabin vaccine to replace the Salk vaccine.
And then the natural decline in polio that was almost off scale before the Salk vaccine was there, then it went ahead and on its own disappeared.
And they gave credit to the vaccine, to the Sabin vaccine, of something that was going away on its own, and also the whooping cough.
And then I said, hey, there's something really fishy going on here.
And now I have no confidence at all that there is such a thing as a viral disease.
That's not to say that there's not such a thing as a virus.
I have not concluded that yet.
I am satisfied that there are these things called exosomes that for all the world look like viruses.
And you talked about it in your red pill thing.
And I've been studying those things for a while as an outsider, not as a professional.
you know, what you said made perfect sense.
And so then I, what I did instead of just jumping to conclusion that there was no such thing as viruses, I took them one at a time, all these viral diseases.
And I looked at the time course.
And I didn't find one.
I don't care if it's smallpox.
I don't care what it was.
There was not a single disease, the so-called viral disease, that didn't have that sort of same thing.
It peaked and it went away on its own.
And vaccines had nothing to do with it.
So then finally, I concluded that I didn't exhaust it.
I did it one viral disease at a time.
And finally, I could not discover an exception.
So I just said, the simplest thing is that there is no evidence for viral diseases.
There's no evidence that a vaccine has ever prevented a spread of viral diseases or had any effect at all on a viral disease.
And now here it is.
2024, and for a couple of years now, I'm comfortable saying that there's no such thing as a viral disease.
There's certainly no evidence for it.
And to me, that's good enough.
Whether viruses exist or not, who cares if they don't cause disease?
So I've been going on and on.
We'll go someplace else with that if you want to.
Yeah, I know.
I guess for me, it's been a real journey to try and look backwards and see and try to figure out who were the granddaddies that needed to insist.
I really feel like David Baltimore's got to know.
and just insists that his scheme of viruses is right, and there are these double-stranded and single-stranded and positive and negative-stranded and all this stuff.
And in reality, he's got to know that these things don't hold up.
I'll get off viruses after I just mention this.
The thing that has really come to my attention over the pandemic is the
absolute expansion of these really powerful and cheap sequencing technologies and how scared virology is to adjust their methodologies for that so that they, you know, maybe just revisit a few assumptions and see what you find out and use these extremely cheap and high resolution sequencing things so you can show us how this really works and they just don't do it.
They're happy to rest on the assumptions that they basically have been doing experiments with since the 70s or even earlier.
So we met through a court case where
An entire city in California was sequencing, well, let's not say that.
Let's say they were swabbing or requiring saliva samples from their municipal employees every week.
And in this case, coincidentally or not, I don't know, it seems highly unlikely that a city in California would just choose a guy who
has another career as a porn movie producer.
But anyway, the same basic scam, I'm just wondering if it's molecularly actually even a simpler scam that they're pulling on us now than they ever tried to pull with AIDS.
And for that, what I mean is that they had 10 years since the first SARS to go and test to see if they could make a, I don't know, find a background signal that would be useful for this.
And then they could make molecular tools that did work, but misconstrued them as what they were working to show us.
And anyway, we've looked at this test, at least the one that we've seen, and what's very interesting about it is that I feel like we actually came in late enough so that the court can kind of avoid both of our expertise, or at least is trying to avoid it.
Is there any parallel to this in your mind, or is it easier or harder than what they did in AIDS, or am I just being silly?
No, well, I know where you're heading with that.
I've watched this over the decades.
And, you know, there I've looked all for HIV.
That was the first one.
There is clearly absolutely no evidence, whatever, that there is such a thing as HIV that I'm absolutely certain of.
And I knew that before I doubted viruses.
Wow.
I was just looking for the evidence, you know, and there was no evidence, zero evidence for it.
All right.
and the only test for it was the antibody test.
They had that and then they had the western blot and then they had the PCR thing came out in the 90s with David Ho.
And if you look at, if you download, it was, you know,
Kerry Mullis's PCR, but David Ho used the polymerase chain reaction, which is just a manufacturing technique, really, or you can use it for purposes.
But it's absolutely not usable for diagnosing an infectious disease.
And let me tell you something before I forget.
When I was looking at those first papers, like the Wu study in 2020, where they did the isolation, they so-called put it in quotes and everything, I read the thing.
They never isolated anything.
They never even attempted to isolate anything.
And that metatranscriptomic stuff that they were doing, you know, I mean, it's all technology now.
There's no biology to this stuff.
And the technology took over in the 80s with AIDS, where they, like with HIV, there was never any HIV there.
And then from that point on, Anthony Fauci is there at the NIAID, and there was never, they never worried about viruses since then, they had the PCR.
And if you download the inserts that come with the HIV test, doesn't matter which one you pick, PCR, the antibody,
They tell you right in the insert that there's no recognized reference standard for the test, which means there's no virus there.
All right.
And they say this test cannot be used to diagnose the presence of HIV or AIDS.
And that's how we won a lot of court cases.
I've been involved in around 50, 50 plus, something like that, court cases, as expert witness.
on the HIV stuff, mostly.
And we won most of those cases.
I forget how many states had criminal laws for people who knowingly exposed somebody else to HIV.
Most states, I think it's probably still in the books, those criminal cases.
And we won most of those cases just by using the evidence of the package inserts that came with it.
They would drop it before it even went to trial.
And then when it went to trial, it was even worse for them because then we got to go there on the witness stand and show the evidence.
you know, to the judges or who's ever was in there, jury or whatever, you know.
So then there's this whole... To this day, the same is true with SARS-CoV-2.
The CDC doesn't have any SARS.
Nobody does.
No.
Nobody has it.
No MERS, no Zika, no Ebola.
Somewhere in there, though, somewhere in there, they were able to slip in this idea that they can find a sequence in the wild and then they can make it.
And that's...
I realized early on, I'm interrupting because you reminded me of this.
Early on, when I looked at that Wu paper and the metatranscriptomics, I told myself when I looked how they did it, they had to know what they were looking for before they ever started.
Because logically, it made no sense to do that.
And then in your talk,
that you've made that same point, but even more forcefully.
I forget exactly the words you used, but you started off this discussion a little bit with it about how they use known sequences.
I believe that's what you said, known sequences of coronavirus.
And which I think you're absolutely right.
I think you're absolutely right.
I think they were looking for a coronavirus from the beginning.
I didn't use those words.
But I said to myself, they knew what they wanted to find before they started.
Yeah.
And for me, it's you know, it would be very easy for me to believe that that even the at this stage, I got to really be honest with you, there's really very few.
working experts in coronavirus virology that actually go out into the wild and find them and claim to do this kind of cave virology.
And Ralph Baric really feels to me like somebody that the government set up to create this illusion.
I was gonna make this point, maybe now is a good time to make it.
I'm just gonna start showing you books, okay?
This is crazy.
Now, this is a book about chemistry.
See how big it is?
It says chemistry on it, right?
This is crazy.
These three books are about medical virology, whatever that is.
And then there's...
This book, thick, gigantic book is called Vaccines.
Look how big it is.
They get bigger and bigger.
Virology is actually two volumes.
Field virology is actually two volumes.
So it's really an expansive field of science that requires new volumes every couple of years.
And then if you go further, you can find even the
Holy shit, even prion disease has really, really thick, thick, thick books about prion disease.
But then, what I find really shocking, plant physiology is almost like a magazine.
Like, who cares?
There's hardly anything to know about plants, I guess.
That's weird.
You know, study in the brain is also this really thin book neurobiology.
It's, you know, it's, it take you a weekend or something.
But I mean, if you want to get through virology, you've got a whole encyclopedia of stuff to read.
And so I really, I feel as though that insistence of the depth and breadth of biology kind of belies the actual sort of fraud of it all.
If it was such an expansive thing,
then it cannot all be outside of us.
I guess that's my point, is that they study it in a very funny way.
One of the favorite things that I found in our case together, I showed it a couple of days ago on my stream, is the idea that the control for our PCR that we were looking at was a bacteriophage that had the RNA sequence, or the DNA, I don't know, RNA sequence they were looking for,
And so they could make that as much as they wanted.
They could make industrial quantities of that and put it anywhere they wanted to and create a perfect PCR positive.
All of the techniques are available.
That's the crazy part.
All of these techniques are available to them.
And it's cheap now to do these things.
And yet they are insisting that maybe I have to take a left turn here.
As a biologist and a chemist,
I was recently challenged by somebody at the Red Pill Expo in the discussions that actually biochemistry is almost not taught anymore in university.
And one of the problems that we have is that there's all these biologists and medical scientists and whatever, but they're actually not at all trained in biochemistry.
They can be completely bewildered by the idea of molecular interactions or active sites and this kind of thing.
They don't really understand the biochemistry that's happening there.
And they just take the word for it of these people that almost don't exist anymore, probably like yourself, who as a biologist and a chemist and being in pharma at that time was well-trained in biochemistry.
And so one of the biochemical problems that I see
with a pandemic of an RNA is that there's no evidence that RNA can do that.
Like it it would be very, very crazy if the wrong combination of nucleic acids could do that.
Yeah, I. But biology, living things are too robust to.
Think about living things have been around on this planet for billions of years, I guess, you know.
life and up animals and trees and things been around, you know, for hundreds of millions of years, at least.
I don't know and don't care.
The point is, it's been a long, long time.
And think of all the trials and tribulations that have gone on.
And yet look at the, when you just go outside and you hear where we live, I live in North Carolina, all the trees and all the animal life and everything, you know, that's robust here.
Well, I tell you that there's no way, this is one reason why I've convinced myself as a scientist, or confirmed it as a scientist, there's no way that something with so few genes like this little, whether you want to call it a virus or an exosome or something like that, that it's going to wreak havoc on people, you know?
It just can't happen.
I mean, when you look at the robustness of the innate immune system and all the backups and all the auxiliaries and all this kind of stuff, it makes no sense at all.
Yeah, but it had a fear and cleavage site, though.
It was a real special fear and cleavage site, so it could really, it really went fast.
Oh, the point, I really, really, really liked your red pill thing.
There are so many stories going on out there
to keep it like what do they call it?
Limited hangout, I guess, when you acknowledge some things, you know, and then you you put out this phony stuff like that.
They say, oh, yeah, but it's they want to keep the viral thing here and they will be a plague.
OK, or they like the argument.
Well, was it manmade or was it natural or something like that?
Rather than, you know, that just keeps it going.
Yeah.
Rather than dig deep.
These people are criminals.
They know what they're doing.
And they've been using these strategies now for decades, if not more.
But I personally know of it for decades.
But it works with the people.
Because it sounds like they're getting the story.
They're getting bits and pieces of it, but they can't dive into it.
Your discussion about CHD and RFK and things like that, I totally understand your frustration and everything, but I also understand what's going on in a different way.
You and I are individuals.
we're pretty free.
And one reason why we're able to do and think what we are, and I had my own companies for decades, free to work with Peter and all that, I'm pretty impervious to this propaganda stuff.
And I can't be bought.
I'm not part of a big institution.
They put pressure on me.
But when you have a big organization like a CHD or a
informed consent, you know, the good guys, you know, and, you know, they got pressure put on them too, from the structure of the thing that they're working on.
I mean, when Kennedy tells the story, and I totally understand it, and I get it, he really didn't want to have anything to do with vaccines as being a problem.
And it took those mothers to force him to read those papers.
This is the story, you know,
And then he got involved in this thing.
So I mean, it took some badgering, you know, to do it.
But now he's still part of an organization.
He's running for president and things like that.
He doesn't have the luxury that you and I do, or the freedom
And a lot of people don't.
I mean, if you're in a big corporation, OK, we understand it.
But if you're in any organization that has a structure to it, has a financial base to it, you know, and you want to keep it going, I can see why you, you know, you pick your battles.
You know, you and I, our job, your job and my job, as I said, we're basically soulmates in this thing.
is that we don't have to worry about stuff like that.
All we have to do is remain people of integrity and to own up when stuff, you know, that we don't know or we change our minds about, like, you know, I used to accept viruses.
Now I don't.
But I can afford to do that.
That's what scientists do.
We change our minds all the time, you know, if given reasons to do that.
But institutions, people or institutions, you know,
Maybe they can personally, but they're hamstrung by the institution that they're in.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I understand.
I'll shut up and let you.
No, no, no.
I'm sorry.
I wasn't going to cut you off.
I just wanted to say that you're right.
I mean, for me, I really fought hard against this.
I got to be very honest.
I thought
I still think, I was told, I bought, I thought I was using adenovirus to transform my mice and do optogenetics.
And so I thought I knew what viruses were and how they could be used as a tool on the bench.
And so when they said they were gonna use them as a investigational vaccine, I was already like, yeah, I don't think that's okay.
Like I can use it in my mice, but I wouldn't be putting a foreign protein into the body of my grandma.
But for me, that did not, that did not equate to me ever understanding that, I mean, what part of my job would have ever made me question virology when I thought I was using an attenuated version of a virus as a tool on my bench.
And so it took me a long time to understand what these people were saying when they were saying that, look, they didn't isolate anything, this stuff,
is just sequences and whether these sequences even exist or not or whether they exist in the order that they're presented or whether all of this didn't, it took a long time to sink in just because I'd spent 20 years assuming that I, because I was, I don't know, baking in the kitchen that I understood chemistry.
And in reality, I don't think that I did as well as I thought I did.
And so now I'm in a very different place and
It's crazy, I just, it's hard for me to believe that so many of you were here in the 90s when I was in high school or college, and you already knew that what I was being told in classrooms was extremely wrong.
It's just shocking to me.
It's still hard for me to understand.
Almost on a daily basis, I'm confronting new information that is shocking.
You know, really bad stuff.
that has been going on for a long time.
And I don't know, you know, I'm beginning to suspect just about everything.
Yeah, well, absolutely.
Me too.
I mean, I know right now that I'm very worried for our country because it is
I have grown up a multiracial American, so I never really had even a hyphenated, I couldn't even call myself Filipino-American when I was growing up, because my mom is other things as well, and I'm too tall to be a Filipino.
Anyway, so I've just always thought of myself as American, and I lived for 15 years in Europe, and that made me feel that way even more.
And I just, I want the truth to be told, and I'm afraid that
were being given very easy out here.
I don't know what's happening here.
I really don't.
But I know that the case that we're working on is terrifying to me because I can't believe it's probably one of hundreds if not thousands around America of similar cases where
You have an absolutely fraudulent.
I explained it a couple of days ago, so we don't have to do it again.
They can go back and look at that stream, but it's an absolutely fraudulent.
There is no attempt to make it specific for anything.
There was no attempt to, to, to, to,
It's just extraordinary to me when I've used PCR to try and show things, the amount of scrutiny and sort of ire you get from people when they're like, well, whatever you're pulling up here doesn't prove what you want to say.
You got to do three more controls and you should do all those in triplicate.
And even then you can just use a plus sign or a minus sign.
You can't use a number because that's just, you're overextending your data.
But then here we are looking at a,
something that could have maybe put that guy out of a job, or could have made him stay home, or whatever it is they were doing with these tests.
And it was based on nothing.
I mean, even the
The data that was, not the data, the information that was required for the EUA, the only things that we could see, we couldn't really learn anything from anything we found.
I mean, the FDA might have just more or less rubber stamped anything they got in the mail saying that I'm gonna, we should have gotten into that business and we probably could have made hundreds of thousands of dollars doing nothing.
We would just test nothing, who cares?
I mean, we'd just,
produce that 10-page document and send it in.
It's extraordinary, I don't know.
Well, the FDA's been a captured organization.
God, I forget when it was.
I have it in my book, the exact year and everything, where they allowed the pharmaceutical companies to pay the FDA.
I think 60%, at least now, of the FDA's money comes from pharmaceutical industry.
And I distinctly remember when that year or two after they passed that, that somebody at the FDA boasted that they now consider the FDA a virtual drug company, you know.
So, I mean, the people that work there, they know what's going on.
Oh, I mean, another little story, has nothing to do with this one, but it has to do with the area of cancer.
And that's because I worked in that for many years now.
And I delved into it really deep.
And it's a big money area, just like infectious diseases, as we know, big money areas.
And it's very clear that the big name people in cancer research, they all know, and they've said it in print,
And I've got the quotes of them, that they know that the gene mutations do not cause cancer.
They know that gene mutation theory does not work.
And they can get away with it like that because they don't go public on television or anything.
And they got these big names and they still get the grant money.
They still write grants for these things and work on it.
But they admit it, and they admit it in big, huge books like you're talking about that you held up on cancer, and in the papers and their talks, they know it doesn't work.
It's wrong, but it keeps going, and they stay in it, you know?
Somebody offers them a lot of money to start up another company or something, and they will do that for gene mutations.
So my guess is that science in general
is probably corrupt to its core, especially if it's big buck science.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think that at the heart of this, I want to call you Dr. Rasnick, but if you don't mind, I call you David.
I like Dave myself.
I prefer that.
I was just talking to someone yesterday who was kind of pivoting to this ivermectin cures cancer, and it's because cancer is caused by parasites or intracellular parasites.
And there is a lot of people that are saying this now.
And I mean, do you want to comment on that?
Is that as crazy as it sounds, or is that actually not so crazy?
I heard that too.
I didn't hear about the parasite thing, but I did hear that people were using ivermectin
treat cancer.
I don't know if that's because it's turbo cancer business is going on and ivermectin is hot now, popular and all that.
I can't say anything confirmatory.
I'm very, very suspicious.
I don't think it can cure cancer.
It might do some symptoms but from what I know about cancer, there is no molecule
that will stop it.
There is no molecule that will stop cancer.
No five or 10 molecules that will stop cancer.
So that I'm certain of.
It may have some benefits, help your body be a little bit more healthy.
I mean, I could go on and on and on about this, but you know, when I hear stuff like that, there's so many things like that, I just drop it because that's just,
right now to me with no substance.
I mean, is one of the weaknesses of that though, that should we be thinking of it still as this umbrella term cancer?
Or are we really talking about a wide variety of cellular dysfunction in one great big?
Oh, I tell you, I highly recommend to people watching this, go to my website, have tons of stuff on cancer.
And I even have it on my homepage.
The book that I published for cancer researchers is technical.
They've been dropping links in my chat, so that's already available to them.
All right.
Yeah.
But it's got 1,100 references.
And if you could feel like diving deep into it, that's great.
I am trying to get a book published for the general public.
I call it The Outsider's Advantage, A Personal Odyssey into the Essence of Cancer.
It's sort of a plain language
explanation for the public at large, basically tells the same story, but a much larger story than just cancer.
It's about the whole pharmaceutical industrial thing.
Wow.
How far are you on it?
I mean, do you have a draft ready?
I'll be, I do.
I mean, the text is finished.
I'd be happy to send you a PDF of it.
Wow.
It's got table contents.
I'm still working on, I'm about 80% done with the bibliography.
And I'm trying to find a publisher.
Have you heard of Celia Farber?
She's one of the AIDS warriors.
She's a very, very good friend of mine.
She's trying to help me get it published.
But it's hard to get anything published these days.
She should have connections.
Yeah.
And she's got so many irons in the fire.
She's one of these warriors that goes back to the 80s, I tell you.
She's something else.
So, I mean, there's so, you know what we need to do?
We need to do another one of these things so we can focus on individual things.
Because you and I as scientists, it'd be very interesting for us to have a conversation more focused.
Right now, I think we're doing the right thing, getting to know each other, cover these big picture general topics and everything.
But, you know, scientists love to talk.
Don't trust a scientist that won't talk to you.
And you and I are scientists.
And I would love to get into the weeds, as some people say, with some of these topics.
I'd love to talk to you in detail about cancer, because it's such a fascinating thing.
But just really, really quick, just for the folks, I didn't discover the true cause of cancer.
This was actually done by David Hanselman and Theodore Boveri back in the turn of the late 19th, early 20th century.
Theodore Bovary wrote a book in 1914 about this and I got it translated in English and he was right on.
He actually had to do with chromosomal imbalance and David Hanselman used a microscope and looked at cancerous tissue and all the cancer cells were different.
They all had different combinations of chromosomes.
Theodore Bovary provided a theoretical explanation
And he was right, I'd say at least 95%, maybe 98%.
I can't think of anything really substantial that he got wrong in that book.
And then Peter and I, when we joined up in 96, he went that year into 96 on a sabbatical because he lost his grant funding from the NIH because of his opposition to the HIV stuff.
Went on his very first sabbatical in Germany to work on what the aneuploidy theory of cancer, what Theodore Boveri's
idea and Peters is a researcher wanted to do experimental work on it to sort of confirm it and I did the theoretical stuff I know a lot about enzyme kinetics and things like that and and I looked up the literature and everything and he and I together Proved Bavaria was right.
We published a lot of a lot of stuff on that and that book that I that's on my website for cancer researchers that's got it all in there and I
We had three very successful international conferences on this.
And so, you know, we did, we nailed it.
We know what it is.
And the other people, the gene mutation people know what it's not.
It's not gene mutations.
And I think they have a pretty good suspicion that we're right about the aneuploidy stuff, but they can't really talk about it.
And I'd love to have another one of these where we can go into detail.
Is aneuploidy, is that more than, more than or less than the normal number?
It's both.
It's an imbalance of chromosomes.
Okay.
It turns out that a loss of, a gain of chromosomes is more survivable than a loss of chromosomes.
But an imbalance of chromosomes is always dangerous for the health of a cell.
They almost always die at some point as they try to progress.
It's really weird because I held this book up before because I'm almost sure that there are examples of this in plant physiology that the plants are really crazy with their chromosomes and they have.
Oh, they are.
And so they really do some nutty things when their chromosomes change.
So it's an interesting sort of, hmm, could be a reflection there somehow.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.
I really haven't looked into plants much, but I know that they're very, very interesting things, and I should look at them.
I really should.
Yeah, my wife was a plant PhD, and for the time that we were courting in Amsterdam, I tried to get into it a little bit, but the genetics are just so baffling.
I made myself look like a fool.
At some point, I just surrendered to the fact that I study simple eukaryotes, like, you know, just mice, that's it, nothing else.
I can't do the higher plants.
And they might be related because they have nuclei, but that's about it.
I don't know.
They have lots of chromosomes.
Plants have lots of chromosomes.
Yeah.
And they go through haploid and diploid and quadriploid states, so it can be really, really complicated.
And all these people know how to breed them, which I find absolutely fascinating.
As long as they stay balanced, as long as the chromosomes stay balanced, life is possible.
So interestingly enough, you know, there's a couple of these futurist transhuman people that are really interested in adding artificial chromosomes so that they can, you know, boost functionality or add genes.
And that sounds like you're saying that that's not going to be so easy as just squirming in there.
I'm not worried about that.
These idiots.
I mean, these people, I mean, they're idiots.
They think that, I mean, think about it.
You and I, both scientists, think of the work, the effort it takes to do something, to understand something.
And it's just a progress, you know, you make progress and then you pull back, you fail here and you fail there.
These people are talking like, man, it's at their fingertips right now, they're gonna do this, they're gonna, you know, they clearly have not a clue what they're talking about.
I am not worried about any successes on their part.
One thing, they can't build anything, not really, but they can destroy things.
Wow, that's a very dark but exalient point for sure.
Wow.
They can't build things, but they can definitely destroy things.
That is something.
Almost everything we know about the brain is from lesion studies, right?
I mean, they can break stuff.
That's for sure.
That's right.
If something goes wrong, then you compare it with something that's normal.
That's about how you learn.
Yeah, right.
Right, right.
So what is the way out, do you think?
I mean, you must have been thinking about this for a long time.
I mean, obviously,
Social media isn't helping us I Have been thinking about it a long time.
I on my website.
I'm looking at it right now I have a couple little articles on there like on the on the home page The tyranny of dogma is one but out of kilter out of kilter is a little article that I wrote To
had to do with the AIDS stuff, about how everything was kind of wrong.
I could see society was going in a really bad place with all the AIDS stuff and everything, and about how it got there.
And I put in a few thoughts about how to fix it.
And it wasn't that I thought that you could fix it anytime soon, but only if there was some magic involved.
And now, oddly enough,
since these people that are talking about build back better, what that implies, a lot of people don't understand, what that implies is you have to bulldoze things.
You have to destroy what's present before you can build back.
See, there it is, out of kilter, tyranny of dogma.
Oh yeah, right here, okay.
Yeah, right there, those little things.
Those are downloadable too.
I try to have
Most of my stuff is downloadable if I have it.
And wow, man, I mean, yeah, it's awesome.
This is awesome.
Yeah, I'm excited.
So then I was thinking, you know, that when I realized that they that they are in the process of destroying society, destroying everything, destroying businesses, destroying infrastructure, they want to wipe out large fractions of the population.
And they're well on the way of doing that right now.
Just chaos.
I mean, we haven't seen anything yet, I'm afraid.
You know, it's going to get a lot worse really fast, I'm afraid, especially this fall.
If the predictions and what they want to do stays on track, it's going to be a nightmarish fall into next year.
But the thing is, the destruction cannot be stopped.
And frankly, do we really want the structures and the institutions and the things that are destroying us?
Do we even mind that they're destroyed anymore?
They're working for us.
They're not saving anything.
So, okay, they're going to be destroyed no matter what.
All right.
So now we have to start thinking.
I never thought I'd live to say what I'm going to say right now, because I thought in my little, that little article out of kilter, I thought, oh, that's just me fantasizing, you know, about what the ideal situation.
But here that I've been thinking recently, you know, I might have to start talking about this little thing again, about trying to correct the errors, how we got here.
So it's just a very superficial thing.
Talks about it in general, sets it up, and then my little thoughts.
And I think there's some substance to it.
Very, very simple approach.
Things we have to learn.
I think elected office.
I realized in 1980 that I think that was the election between Jimmy Carter and the one, what's his name?
The actor guy in there.
And that's what I realized as a young guy in 1980.
And I realized there is no such thing as representative government.
At least they don't represent the people they're supposed to.
I realized that all the way back then.
And I'm not going to go into those details why, unless you're curious.
So then I was thinking, what would work?
We draft people in the military against their will, all right?
So my little thing, I'll just give a little short story, a little short introduction here, is that yes, we do have representatives, people that represent us.
And we keep the structure like, you know, one third every two years, you have a new replacement.
No elections are involved.
But you use a lottery.
You say use a lottery, which means
The real people of the United States actually are going to be drafted into the government, what we call Congress, you see, to be Congress, to make those decisions.
And think of it, though, the people in our society, you, me, everybody else around, we're the ones that build things.
And we look at all the stuff that we're communicating now because of this COVID crap.
I would have never known of you or Catherine Austin Fitz and all these other people that I've been talking to and collaborating with had it not been for this catastrophe.
And it's like a renaissance.
You know, we're in a weird sort of renaissance right now where people with all these skills who are not totally brain dead and basically independent for the most part
are coming together, sharing that people have skills and are curious.
The other thing is, is that we're curious.
Don't trust people who are not curious.
Don't trust people that don't ask questions.
And I say, don't trust people that don't laugh.
That's the criteria that I use.
And when I see the people that I've been meeting on these Zoom things, personally, everything, they all satisfy that criteria.
you know, the ones that I'm happy to be with them, we laugh a lot, have a good time, we learn, share information, you know, that's the people that build things.
That's what they do.
And that's what they've always done.
All right.
And so we're the ones, you know, that have to think about at some point, we're the ones that have to think about the rebuilding part.
And, you know, and it has to be a new, it can't,
I would do away with elected office.
It's obviously failed.
But I like the idea of democracy or a republic.
If you have a big space, if you have a republic, then you have to use a draft.
It's not elected, you know, and I'd keep it very small.
You know, the states are a good idea.
I think the states, the sizes of states, I think that's a good place to start with, you know, and just draft people.
And I was, in my little thing,
They would be paid a million dollars a year for six years, just like the Senate.
They're in office in the Senate because here they are, they're being drafted.
But you're gonna pay them too, you know, so that they haven't wasted anything.
So it's like jury duty from hell kind of though, right?
It's jury duty from hell, but you get paid for it.
Nice.
And, but, you know, I was thinking, boy, you can do all kinds of things when you, when these people are drafted, you know, each and every one of them, you have their stories, you know, you tell their backgrounds there.
I mean, you can have a lot of fun with it, you know, and then these people are in there and they're just regular folks and everything would be live.
You know, there would always be live broadcast, all the time, everything they do.
I would get away with having no secrets in government.
It's okay for individuals to have secrets.
It's not okay for governments to have even one secret, in my opinion, to not even have one secret.
but what if the whole congress is just a show it's a theater and all the real things happen behind closed doors anyway i mean then we're in trouble that's that's absolutely right it's so anyway here i you see you see i get i get enthusiastic about i know i am too i'm very enthusiastic about it i really want to save america but we've got a
I think that the reality is the reason why we're here in COVID is because most of these people are part of this little theater and they know it already.
They've already, they've already, they've signed on because they're, I don't know, maybe there's an arc or something that they know about that we don't know about.
But, um, I, I'm, I'm still humans with a certain level of consciousness.
that they don't feel good about themselves in a way.
I think, you know, there are some, like Anthony Fauci, I think he's totally completely lost, has zero conscience.
No, probably not.
Yeah.
I mean, but he, you know, he's a guy who, who that you can't explain him being there except for that.
He's perfect for the role.
He is.
Otherwise they would have replaced him with someone better, but he's perfect for the role.
Yeah.
Yeah, he's been in for a very, very long time.
I mean, some of the videos of him when he's young and talking about AIDS and whether kids can get it or not are very terrifying.
It's hard for me to imagine the kinds of things that aren't available anymore, but would have been back then, the things that were said and the way that that went.
Yeah, I mean, we could go on for many, many hours, but it's an hour and 10 minutes now, and it's kind of a good introduction if that's how you feel.
It's okay here.
We can keep going, whatever you'd like.
I've been diving in in all different directions now, and because, you know,
I didn't really figure it out until 2022.
So for me, I was still believing that I was part of an effort to expose this and an effort to save everybody.
And so I still have a lot of learning to do.
So if you want to come back.
We all do.
Yeah.
I have a feeling you're ahead of me.
You should, you should feel very good about yourself and look at Naomi Wolf.
I mean, she is something else too, because how, you know, she's such a good independent individual and she has a good mind and she is such a different person.
I mean, in the sense of public, a public person.
Uh, uh, I mean, from what I see and you know, I don't hold it against people, uh, that,
accepted things for a while, but when they couldn't accept it anymore, they didn't.
They stopped.
That's good.
I think that's a good experience.
Yeah, I definitely do.
I'm worried about the
The way I feel is that a lot of people actually encouraged me to go the wrong way.
And if I had continued to go the wrong way, I think they would still be encouraging me to go that way.
And so I start to become worried how many of those people were put in place very early in order to encourage us to go the wrong way.
I think that's the level of,
of what is it, it would be pessimism, I guess, that I'm very pessimistic that there were actually, I mean, if they would have been saying, look, David Resnick knew this already in the 80s and the 90s, and we should listen to him, that would have been one thing.
But not very many people pointed backwards and said, hey, other people have been arguing this.
And instead, they stepped right into the spotlight and didn't really usefully help us for quite a while.
Oh, this has been going on since at least the 80s at the academic level, especially.
I didn't know it took AIDS to do it because I was collaborating with people at University of California at San Francisco and other places and we had good collaborations.
But then with the AIDS stuff, the whole establishment
You know, at that university, UC Berkeley, for example, UCSF, these other places, you couldn't talk about it.
You know, we could talk about anything, but the politically sensitive stuff like AIDS, nobody at the whole institution would talk to you about it.
Wow.
And that was at Berkeley and at UCSF and that was in the 80s.
So it was probably going on before the 80s.
But I know for a fact that it was going on in the mid 80s.
And it's gotten worse.
I heard a story that your friend Peter Duesberg was about to be on national news and got canceled like minutes beforehand.
Oh, so many times.
So, so many times.
I mean, but that really is like a, that's like a almost there kind of moment.
And maybe we're here now where instead of, you know, getting, getting canceled and not getting out there that finally this is going to start to break through and, and, and become common knowledge for enough people so that we can make a difference.
I mean, if we can start to even wake up a significant portion of
the college kids, because right now I think the college kids are the ones that got screwed.
We adults let them go back to school and left them at the hands of those monkeys.
And so they know that these adults are liars.
They definitely know that.
Now, the question is, can we use that momentum and wake them up to this in the right way?
I think it's a real opportunity.
It is.
They're going to have to wake themselves up.
That's the key.
And the way they do that, like I say again, with curiosity, imagination, and then if they still have any in them, which young people, I hope they do, then they will discover us.
Like we're discovering each other now, so we just welcome them.
But there's nothing we can do.
They have to do it for themselves to look, to look for answers.
you know, and find out, you know, they got to put in the effort.
Very good point.
I think that's really valid.
I'm sure you've gotten this a lot of time.
Hey, can you just send me some papers so I can figure this out for myself?
I've been hearing that for many years now.
Can you just send me a few papers?
Well, I tell you what, people can go to my website.
Yeah, you're different though.
That's different.
Yeah, indeed.
That's different.
You've definitely got that up on me.
And so I'm dropping that in the chat again.
It's there right in this one.
And yeah, it's been a real pleasure talking to you.
And it's been actually really funny that we have only been on email up until now.
And they've been very interesting email threads to say the least.
It's been nice.
That will make a story in its own right someday.
Yes.
Hopefully, it'll be a very exciting story that ends with, I don't know, a lot of forfeiture and that kind of thing.
OK, OK, my friend.
Well, nice meeting you.
Have a great afternoon.
OK, have a nice afternoon and we'll do this again very soon, I promise.
OK, very good.
I enjoy it.
OK, bye bye.
We'll see you.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that was it.
It was pretty random.
I apologize for that.
I don't really, I apologize.
I don't know if that's the right term.
I mean, maybe it became more obvious that we were just kind of shooting the shit.
And I think that's a good way for us to meet.
And yeah.
I think that was a good way for us to first explore things.
And I really liked the guy.
I got a really good feeling about that dude.
Unlike some of these other dudes who I have a less, whoops, I have a less good feeling about.
I don't know exactly what they're hiding, but I do know that they are hiding transfection and transformation of cell culture in animals being the primary methodology that's used for RNA
Virology, I do know that they know very well that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
I'm pretty sure they know that transfection in healthy humans was always a bad idea.
And I'm pretty sure they know that RNA can't pandemic.
And that's why I say that bottom one RNA virology is just transformation and transfection of cell cultures and animal models.
And if you understand that, then virology sort of works, but not the way they say.
Please stop all transfections in humans.
because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
And so yeah, wake up your friends, wake up your neighbors.
They don't need a shingle shot or a pneumonia shot.
If you like what you saw, please show back up at
gigaohm.bio which is a little place to chat and please share the videos at stream.gigaohm.bio and you can support the stream there at gigaohmbiological.com.
Thanks very much for joining me.
It's been a real pleasure and I'll see you tomorrow for sure.
We've got a lot of work to do.
It's been nice, a little relaxed schedule but we've got a lot of work to do so I'll see you tomorrow.
Thanks everybody in the chat.
See you tomorrow.
Should be up, should be in the morning, should be in the morning.
I should be able to do it in the morning.
See you later.