Thank 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, 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, 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.
They're moving into the street.
Now, did you read the news today?
They say the danger's gone away.
But I can see the fire still lights.
They're burning into the night.
There's too many men.
Trying to make it a base one.
I'm the sound of your laughter As I handle you tight
home tonight.
My generation will put it right.
We're not just making promises that we know we'll never keep.
Too many men, there's too many
To make it a place worth fighting for
the rules protect yourself at all times follow my instructions keep it clean touch gloves if you wish let's do it sweaty palms this is so crazy like goosebumps this is so crazy i feel so nervous like what in the world man
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Hello.
This is GigaOM Biological coming in loud and clear, I hope, from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
We have another show coming to you from the back of my garage, i.e.
the Starship Enterprise.
It is the 24th of July, 2024, and I'm happy to be here again.
We've got a lot of work to do.
And it took me a little while to convince myself that this work needs to be done.
But I do actually think that this work today that we're going to do needs to be done.
And so I have another study hall session for you.
And this study hall session, as usual, is trying to understand their illusion.
And I think trying to understand their illusion is something that, let me get my head on the screen.
Good afternoon, everybody.
It is 1.15 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
It's the 24th of July, 2024.
And I can barely speak because, I don't know, we've got a lot of work to do.
And I've been reading all morning and trying to re,
reorganize the calendar in terms of where these events happened and fell in place.
And I think it's really important for us to keep this straight.
I can't stress enough how not talking about 2020 is exactly what they want us to do.
But actually, you can even widen that time window quite a bit because the pattern of behavior that's been established by a lot of these people really at this stage, in retrospect, suggests
a coordinated narrative of liars.
And so if we're going to try to understand how weaponized piles of money got us to argue about these things, if we're going to understand how weaponized piles of money got us to ask the wrong questions or fight about the wrong people, we really need to look at how 2020 laid out, how 2020 sort of
What's the right word?
How 2020 sort of evolved and how people's positions evolved or didn't evolve during 2020, 21 and 22, so that we can see how many people were learning.
versus how many people were just already in motion, set already from the very beginning with the idea that, okay, these are the ideas that I need to push, whether it's no viruses and 5G, or whether it's bioweapons and the idea of an incapacitating agent.
So these mythologies, I want to argue, and I've been making the argument for several months now, if not a couple of years,
that this argument has been foisted upon us.
We've been coerced into participating into this argument.
When you participate in the argument, you accept its premises.
If you want to get out of this, I think the way to do it, I don't know why that's not, that should be like, just, it should be, that really annoys me when that's not the case.
There we go.
intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb, is a, sorry, is a very good way to start in terms of trying to get a conversation going with somebody that you might want to talk about this with.
If they're more sophisticated, or if you want to dare to go here, you could say something like transfection, transformation, transduction,
in healthy humans was always criminally negligent.
And the idea that we started calling them investigational vaccines in 2020 across the board is absolutely criminal.
And then finally, you could say that RNA cannot pandemic or viruses aren't pattern integrities and get people's wheels turning in a way that they may have not turned if they haven't heard these combinations of words before.
As we try to break out of this, I think we need a new consensus.
That's my argument.
I think we need a new consensus about what happened.
I think we need a new consensus about murder and lies and the idea that transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent.
That's what they needed the murder and lies for.
and RNA cannot pandemic.
So that's also what they needed the murder and lies for was to convince people that RNA can pandemic, especially RNA with special fear and cleavage sites or HIV inserts.
And then finally, we need a new consensus about the vaccine schedule in the USA in particular, as a criminal enterprise.
And I think we need to have some legitimate voices in and on social media saying these things besides giga ohm biological.
I think that this group of meddlers, which seems to be loosely organized around Robert Malone, because Robert Malone was at the head of the FLCCC and also at these international COVID summits and also at, I mean, he's on everybody's show.
He's been everywhere very early.
It seems like he probably set, even set Ahmed Malik in motion.
And so we have this really curious set of meddlers that pretends oftentimes to argue about things or disagree with each other.
But inevitably on social media, no one has ever been able to rise above these people.
And these people have generally speaking stuck to the rule of only promoting one another or opposing one another rather than engaging in a, what would be a more,
I don't know, spontaneous and honest debate with people who actually have good ideas or people that were actually offering good ideas when good ideas could have saved people.
And so these people have coordinatedly done this.
And I think it's really just about the idea of fearing free-range RNA molecules and misleading children about this.
I have tried to encourage people to put a little more pressure on Denny Rancor because
Although Denny Rancourt was able to present and hang out with and have dinner and breakfast with these people in Romania, he didn't seem to be able to convince them to say that there's no evidence of spread in 2020 and therefore there may have not been a pandemic of anything worth talking about except for bad ideas.
But for some reason he seems to be very reluctant to say Robert Malone won't say it.
He seems very reluctant to say Jessica Rose won't say it.
He seems very reluctant himself to say that they murdered people in America and then lied about it and modeled it as a spreading pathogen in order to create this illusion.
And I'm quite frustrated with that, I've got to be very honest.
And so I really want to say it very clearly.
These people all point to this as evidence of the start.
And Denny Rancourt is the only guy in May of 2020 to have said very outright, distinctly, that it doesn't appear to be the start of anything except for bad ideas.
And I'm frustrated that he won't insist that more of these people who kind of promote his work won't say that.
But instead, for example, came back and notably all of them in one harmonized malevolent chorus said that, oh, we saw this great talk in Romania.
Boy, it's exciting.
He says 17 million people were killed by the shot.
No mention of there being an absence of epidemiological spread around the globe.
And this is a very big problem for me as somebody who's trying to sort out things.
This is not a purity spiral.
This is a trying to save the grandchildren kind of thing.
And if we don't pull our head out and we don't demand that people start to say things as succinctly as possible and demand that other people do it, then we're not going to get anywhere.
And I am trying to make the argument and will make the argument today that they created this illusion of consensus starting in 2020 by doing that exact thing.
by agreeing to a limited spectrum of debate that was composed of questions that would never usefully free our college students, never usefully free our college students from the fear and uncertainty and doubt that would lead them to go back to school in the fall of 2020 and submit to all of the regulations and concerns and whims of their university faculty and administration.
And this was the mistake.
This was the clock that desperately needed running out if this national security operation had any hopes of making it to where we are in 2024.
2020 had to be a complete fear, uncertainty and doubt success.
And it was.
You remember from our introductions that in 2019, in December, Bret Weinstein and Sam Harris agreed to say that when there's a next pandemic, a real pandemic, we won't be able to tolerate anti-vaxxers.
And we had George Webb on 60 Minutes.
We have
his colleague Paul Cottrell streaming with Kevin McCairn and Addy Ads and them calling me and asking me to stream with them, all happening in early 2020.
Kevin McCairn identified Andy Kaufman as the number one no virus and 5G idiot that needed to be opposed at all costs in order to make sure
that a worst-case scenario of a billion people dead could be avoided because people needed to take it seriously, and people like Andy Kaufman were putting the whole world in danger.
Charles Rixey apparently had COVID very early, coming back from Czech Republic, and very soon was blogging about how this is the most contagious virus in the world.
Of course, we know that February, April, March, May, and December, and the whole year of 2020, Kevin McKernan
of the Human Genome Project was busy on podcasts telling everybody about how PCR works and about how he had to test the weed.
We also know that of course Peter McCullough spoke out about hydroxychloroquine and how it doesn't make hearts swell up.
We also know that Pierre Cory went to New York City, apparently, to try and help because he wasn't able to do it in Wisconsin, but he didn't quit in Wisconsin.
Then he testified in front of the Senate, and then he also was an expert witness for the George Floyd trial.
trial, all in 2020.
And at some point also a guy by the name of Brian Cole came out talking about natural immunity.
Oops, sorry, wrong button.
That was of course really good.
And Bobby Kennedy spoke in Germany about the lockdowns being dumb and about
how public health was a scam, and that seemed also pretty good.
And then I guess that meant that Children's Health Defense was behind him, and so that puts Meryl Nass on good standing.
And in May 2020, we had somebody like Alina Chan talking about how the genetic variability of the sequences that we're getting in is not comparable.
to the genetic variability that we measured during SARS-1 in 2002 and 2003.
An interesting paper that a year later also was of course the start of or the impetus for her to have a book with Matt Ridley about this stuff, but that paper was never published.
That paper was described quite well and cited in the working document in my substack, and you know that I did two separate bike rides about this paper and its implications for her credibility.
Had never once dawned on me in 2020 that she would be a state plant from Canada.
that would be given a position at the Broad Institute without ever having even published her preprint.
But that's exactly what happened.
And you can find a talk from 2021 still on YouTube where she's promoting her book and talking about how this preprint isn't printed yet.
I wonder why.
Because it shows that it's very likely, as I tried to teach those guys in my substack, that it's very likely that that's why the
The sequences were so closely related because they all started from the same place.
They all started from the same pure clone.
And what that means is pure quantity of the same molecule, the same signal.
And it only had to really be
that's right, it only really had to be the spike protein in some of these cases.
But again, we can debate all of that later.
The point is, is that this woman then got to go forward in 2021.
And she was part of this lab leak, natural virus debate, Scooby Doo thing, where they sat firmly on the side of natural, and that provided the the alternative to
people like Brett Weinstein and Robert Malone and all these people who were settling into this idea that a lab leak should at least be talked about.
And the censorship of the lab leak is a red flag.
Now, the reason why this is important is because, number one, I'd like you to watch that video of Alina Chan.
It's kind of interesting because it has
It has a lot of the Scooby-Doo in it, a lot of the Scooby-Doo.
And it's good to go back to 2021 and listen to how detailed the natural explanation was.
The natural justification for this just happens was very sophisticated and led almost at the tip of the spear by Alina Chan.
So the other thing that, the way that they're getting away with this rather, is that they're saying that the COVID shots are bad, just don't talk about 2020.
And they are focused exclusively on not talking about 2020 because murder happened there, if you can see that on my...
my little thing here.
And that's really where we are now.
All social media agrees that it's the worst case scenario.
The worst case scenario of did they let it happen?
Who's behind this?
Is everything under their control?
Let me just tweak these questions just a little bit.
Let me just tweak these questions a little bit and think if this applies at all to the way that everybody has pivoted almost exclusively to talking about, really, was it only that kid?
Are we supposed to believe that that kid pulled off the best operation in a couple days, planned it, went there with a drone,
figured out what roof to go up on and almost shot the president and got away with it because he's a jedi or we should believe that they let it happen or maybe there was more than one shooter including somebody up on the water tower that used a zipline to get away who would be behind this then what would be the reasoning behind it is trump supposed to be dead or are we supposed to think that trump's dead do you see
how the worst case scenario is, of course, a deep state narrative, a foreign nationals narrative, a white supremacist far leftist narrative.
It's all starting to come together now.
And the illusion of consensus that these are questions worth asking, that these audio files are worth analyzing because they're all real.
All of these audio files are real, so they should line up.
I mean, come on, if you put microphones in a bunch of different places and then shoot a gun off over there where it can echo around and there are people and everything, all of this stuff just lines up because that's the way sound works.
And so I want to take a trip down memory lane a little bit and look at the great virus, no virus debate that took place in 2022.
And I want to justify why we're doing that partly because Alina Chan was a very important part of the story in 20 and 2021.
We don't even talk about her anymore.
And the virus, no virus debate was actually a very prominent debate in 20 and 2021.
And the way that that debate was curated and who was allowed to curate it was what I believe made it impossible for anyone to escape the hamster wheel.
and also, quite frankly, made the Scooby-Doo mystery the most enticing and almost seemingly parsimonious solution.
The best set of questions obviously acknowledges that there are viruses, it obviously acknowledges that they work on viruses in laboratories, and none of these people will acknowledge that, so therefore, they just, meh.
It was kinda weak.
And this was by design.
They created this illusion of consensus, and part of the way they created this illusion of consensus was by curating the no-virus position.
One of the ways that they did it was by having people in place very early and by putting these liars in positions where they can create illusions of consensus around other people.
One of the liars that was put in place very early, even before the pandemic, was actually the daughter of Sasha Latupova, somebody who was a whole personality on YouTube with a million followers and promoted on Alex Jones in 2019.
And therefore it is impossible, it is impossible looking at the malevolence
and really military-level malevolence that is evident in her early videos and even the videos from during the pandemic, you have to really question how in the hell is it possible then that CHD has been promoting her with more than three hours of programming in 2023.
A year when I was working for Bobby on the book, Sasha Latupova is being promoted as a patriot and a dissident, and a very, very important one at that.
There's no other way to see it other than if she's also on the Epoch Times as an American thought leader, the same place that did a Robert Malone miniseries, then the only conclusion to come to, in my humble opinion, is that these people are all part of the same network.
And that's why Robert Malone said on Steve Kirsch's podcast about a month ago that Sasha Latupova and I are at odds.
That Sasha's not very nice and uses very mean language with me.
I don't like her.
This is all an illusion.
It's an elaborate theater put on by these people.
And you can see that that theater is these people when you see that right before the Red Pill conference, Andy Kaufman and Steve Kirsch did a whole podcast together.
Andy Kaufman, the guy that's got a photograph shaking hands with Andrew Cuomo about a month before the pandemic or two.
And so this crossover event between the guys in New Zealand and the guy, UK guy in Japan is significant because of course this crossover event was promoted by Tim Truth.
Tim Truth, who was just promoted by none other than David Icke with his video about who shot Donald Trump and how many shooters are there.
Stop lying!
I'm not lying.
I'm telling the truth.
That's actually what happened last week.
David Icke promoted Tim Truth's video about who shot and how many shots and whatever and nobody asks how in the world would the internet be used to take a 20 year old from four blocks from my house and turn him into somebody who was stupid enough to climb up on a roof with a rifle.
Never mind, did they let it happen or was there somebody else there?
All these other dumb questions, especially in light of the fact that Soph exists.
Alex Jones and Soph existed together on a show.
And now Sasha Latapova exists on a show with Robert F. Kennedy, exists on a show with Meryl Nass.
These are not random alignments.
These are alignments which indicate that they're all on the same team.
And this alignment in 2022 indicated to me that they were on the same team.
It didn't make any sense.
And I think we can learn a lot by watching it again.
I do really think we can learn a lot by watching it again, because we're going to see what they were doing in 2022 and how it would have been very easy for them to get past whatever it is that we should have gotten past.
And it's, again, the curation of the limited spectrum of debate.
That's how they get away with it.
And so in 2022, I want you to think of these two guys as doing this act.
They're going to get together and they're going to agree to argue about it.
And they're going to argue very big.
Oh, I got to hold on to the train because Kevin is pushing hard.
He's getting angry.
And Tim Truth is going to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, easy, Kevin.
Don't be so angry, man.
And then, you know, Bailey's going to stay real calm.
And he's going to let the, he's going to push the train started again.
And then Kevin McCarron is going to try and stop it.
And they're going to pretend and pretend and pretend.
And they're not really going to argue about much of anything.
And they're not going to say very much in terms of conclusions, because they've already limited the spectrum of debate.
And you'll hear several times complaints when McCairn goes outside of the bounds of that debate.
Mark will just say, hey, I thought, hey, Tim, I thought we weren't going to talk about this stuff.
And then you can see that the idea is not to get out.
And we'll talk about that in the end, in the summary, that you will see that the idea was not to get out.
The idea was to curate the debate, to get people to agree about what questions are important to ask.
And once we realize what questions were actually agreed upon in this discussion, you're going to be sick to your stomach because these are foreign meddlers.
Coached, wittingly or unwittingly, I don't know.
But I think they are part of a Five Eyes operation to destroy the idea of America.
That's what I think.
So let's watch this, take some notes, and see where it gets us.
I know it's not what everybody wants to hear today, but it's very significant.
If Tim Truth was retweeted by David Icke and what he was retweeted about was about the multiple shooters and nobody, I mean nobody but Mark Kulak and I are talking about who the hell is this kid and how the hell did they convince this kid to get up on that roof and who would have done it?
Would it have been somebody like Soph?
Because she probably had a big list.
That's probably what the character of Soph was used to do.
Because whoever subscribes to that channel, whoever downloads her stuff from Bitchute, whoever likes her videos on Rumble is definitely on an interesting list that I'm not on.
You see?
That's what that operation was about.
Probably to find kids just like Crooks.
And that's why you have to see it as a very malevolent and ugly thing that CHD promoted her with three hours of video.
It either means they don't vet anybody or they are absolutely and totally in on it.
And since she was with Meryl, it's pretty easy for me to believe that they're all in on it.
Those are the meddlers that I have identified personally because of their way that they've interacted with me personally.
Anyway, that's a long story.
We want to do biology today.
So that's what we're going to do.
We're listening to this for the biology.
So we want to listen to what questions they are asking about the virology.
Let me check if I got my paper.
I do.
And what questions they don't ask about the virology.
What points do they make?
What do they cite?
I'll just take some random notes and we'll see what happens.
This is on 1.3 speed.
So if it's a little fast, you're going to have to complain in the chat.
All right, welcome, everybody.
I've been so looking forward to this event.
I think it's going to be one of the best debates on this topic that I've seen yet, given how few and far between they are.
This is a really rare and special occasion for two differing perspectives to come together, talk it out, and try to convince the audience who are listening in that they have the right perspective on this issue.
So we have two perfect guests for this conversation.
We have Dr. Mark Bailey,
who, along with his wife, Dr. Sam Bailey, have a channel that's just massive on YouTube and on Odyssey, link down below.
I'm sure you're aware of the work if you haven't been living under a rock.
So please go show some support to both of these two contestants.
We also have Dr. Kevin McCarran, and they're going to start off with some introductory remarks to tell us where they're coming from uninterrupted, and just tell us what do they think about the issue at hand, which is, does SARS-CoV-2 exist more or less as described?
So let's start, we flipped a coin before we fired off the live stream, and we've decided that Dr. McCarron is going to go first.
So Kevin, the floor is yours.
You have between five and seven minutes, if you need the extra minutes, or if not, we can cap it at five minutes.
Can I just ask if there's screen sharing and we can present visuals, or we just have to do this?
Yes, you may present whatever you need to.
OK, so I'd like to share my screen if possible.
OK, let's get this working here.
I think I might have to click something.
OK, the first thing to realize is that every once in a while, of course, there are going to be rainbow dildos and things up on this screen over here.
So the first question you have to ask yourself is if he was legitimately fighting for his kids and his grandkids at some point in
in some of his appearances, I get it, if you're gonna do your live stream for three hours and that's your shtick, that you want it to be like this, you know, PC or not PC, very over the top kind of racist, you know, whatever he wants it to be, that's fine, I get that.
But when you're gonna go on a debate now and you're gonna try and represent yourself as a scientist and a professional and somebody to be taken seriously, it's laughable to me that these people
want us to believe that he's a real guy, but he left this screen up there because he thinks it's cool.
Or he thinks it makes him tough or something like that.
This is exactly the reason why you should see this as a performance.
It's a performance.
He's playing a character, and this character is now appearing on Tim Truth's show with this other character named Mark Bailey.
Now, Mark Bailey may also be part of the limited spectrum of debate and a rather unwitting participant.
He may participate simply because he's fine with the limited spectrum that he was given.
just like he's fine with the limited spectrum he's given.
He's supposed to get all loud and obnoxious and say all kinds of racist things and then put a link for Jonathan Cooey and Charles Rixey and Mark Kulak at the bottom of his webpage.
And if you go look at the McCairn Dojo right now, you'll see that Mark is still listed down there as an expert on the history of this science.
And so that was his job from the very beginning, was to associate and to direct attention to.
And who did he direct attention to?
The Baileys with the Bimbo Bailey memes where she had hot dogs in her mouth and then they used the old man feeding all those fat raccoons on his back porch.
That was all 2020 and 2021 building up to this debate, telling everybody that if you're paying attention to me, you know that I'm paying attention to them.
And so if you want to check out the other side, that's the other side to check out.
It's Kauffman and it's the Bailey's and it's Tom Cowan, and he said it all the time.
And so now if you see that he's not going to clean up,
You know, he's not going to put a put a McCairn back there or just a virus back there, not to distract, but to stay focused.
But instead, he's going to leave that running in the background.
Then you can already see that he's a child.
He's he's playing a character of an immature kind of, I don't know, unhinged dude.
And you can't possibly believe this in retrospect, you know, two and a half or three years later, that what you're about to see is anything but an elaborate hoax.
I mean, if you met this guy in person and realized that he's like a short little weeble wobble,
You wouldn't even believe it.
Like it's, it's shocking to me the way that he talks on his stream for four years about his expertise and all of these things.
And it's, it's an illusion.
And if you watch this video and realize the three people that are conducting this little illusion, you're going to be upset.
I think I just click present entire screen and let's do that one.
share.
And I'm going to bring up this.
So Mark in the earlier in, I'm not seeing it yet.
Hold on.
Okay, wait.
I need to pin it.
And just FYI, I'll be able to edit this after the fact for a really concise video.
So go ahead, Kevin, your time starts now.
Okay, so let's see if we can find grounds for agreement first before we get into what I hope is going to be an actual scientific debate where we use data and the proper scientific method to drill down into this question.
So Mark kindly sent me a essay in which he's written COVID-19 fraud and war on humanity.
I'm gonna agree with the war on humanity.
The fraud part is open for discussion.
And what I would like to quickly do is to go, I'll point out some issues in this document.
I agree that there is a oligarch globalist agenda that we all need to be careful of.
They're trying to take away individual and national sovereignty, something that should be fought intensely against.
I don't have any disagreement there.
But what I will do is we'll get to some of the descriptions.
Wait, I don't know if Dr. Mark wants this paper to be published yet.
No, no, Tim, this is fine.
This has gone out to over a quarter of a million people.
Fantastic.
I just wanted to make sure because I didn't know if we'd agree on going through this.
Yeah, I think Kevin should probably be clear.
It was co-authored with Dr. John Bevan-Smith and we published this in November last year.
So then we get to virology's double deception.
Now, in here are a number of tropes that you often see from those that go down the path of viruses don't exist.
I'll quickly list off a few that are methodologically wrong.
The first is that cultures are not starved when they're doing these tests, okay?
They're in a nutrient broth.
All nutrient broths for all cell lines contain a small amount of antibiotic and antifungal to protect the culture.
And with those concentrations that they've worked out and many, many years of refining these techniques, you can keep cultures alive essentially indefinitely.
So to be arguing that anything that they see with respect to cytopathic effects is due to the antibiotic or the antifungal or the withdrawing of nutrients is demonstrably wrong if you understand the virological literature, okay, and you understand or you've worked with virologists.
Now for the record, I offered Mark to have a virologist because he made the bold claim that no virologist
would dare debate them.
I have several virologists who would have happily come on and debated, but they refused.
I'd have to stop.
Tim, can you please clarify that's not what happened?
This feels like a bit of a setup.
It's not exactly what happened.
We were open to having a virologist come on if you were to find one.
And we might have another follow up if a virologist does step forward.
That'd be an interesting conversation.
But
What it was made clear to me was that it was going to be a one-on-one and I was happy to do a one-on-one with anyone, but at that point Kevin suggested two people coming on and as you said Tim, no we're not doing teams, we're doing one-on-one.
Did you not say that no virologist would dare debate you?
No, I didn't.
Did I, Tim?
I said that.
No, he didn't.
I would say he didn't.
We were just a little skeptical that a virologist would come out of the woodwork after not seeing it for so long.
I will find the... Yeah, Kevin, you're on.
So let's just clarify, first of all, that when I was going to be on the Defender podcast, unlike Sasha Latupova, who CHD and the Defender and Bobby decided to give her three hours in 2023, I was actually given a four on one.
a five-on-one.
It was Robert Malone, Robert Kennedy, Meryl Nass, Tess Laurie, and Jessica Rose meet Jonathan Cooey.
And in fact, when I was invited to be on the no virus people's discussion, it was going to be Massey and Zeck and Kaufman and Cowan and, um,
and Bailey, and they were all going to debate me 5 on 1.
But here it's supposed to be 1 on 1, but then Kevin McCairn was going to break the rules and bring a virologist, and that was going to be teams, and Tim, we decided not to do teams, so we do 1 on 1.
I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but this is just absolute lying.
It's lying, because they would only talk to me five-on-one.
They would only talk to me if we had a group against a group.
They would never do one-on-one.
Nobody wanted... That's how I met the Baileys.
I reached out to Sam and asked her to come on my show.
She told me she was pregnant and would get back to me afterward, and then this happened.
Nothing.
Zero.
Zip.
Other than them deciding that of all the people in the world to talk to on Tim Truth's podcast, Tim said he would try to make it happen with me too, but did he?
Nope.
I don't know what that means about Tim Truth, but I know that he said that he was gonna try and make it happen.
It didn't happen, but it definitely happened here.
Because it's a show.
What we said is that there's been two documentaries made recently.
The documentary team tried to get virologists to come on to speak with us.
They didn't.
And I also informed you that Sam has invited people to come on her show before and so far not one has accepted.
That's what we said, Kevin.
Well, I will find the exact words when it's your time.
But anyway, the description of methodology with respect to the obtaining of viral samples is demonstrably wrong.
Your understanding with respect to the sequencing is demonstrably wrong in terms of modern techniques.
Well, Dr. Campbell, we're going to get into all of this, I'm sure, but I really wanted to ask if you could focus on your introductory comments of making your case that the virus exists rather than trying to debunk what you think Mark's about to say.
Well, I'm working towards that.
So in order to have a scientific discussion where there is some common ground, I think it's important to establish what are methods that would be acceptable to a couple.
I just want to clarify that when this thing actually happened, I did a video right after it and I did a lot of the same things, only much more respectfully and was like, I don't understand how Kevin failed so badly here.
I mean, he really did poorly and that Kevin didn't like that.
Oh my gosh.
That's when, that's when things finally went South.
When he no longer tried to fake being my friend by email, no longer tried to fake being my friend by sending me messages on zoom, which he did for a little while, even though he was a creep on his show, he was still trying to be friendly behind the scenes because him and Rixie, you know, we're living together and going to the pool together or whatever they were doing.
then this stopped it right here, because I couldn't understand it.
Like this is the worst performance ever.
Sam Bailey is well known.
I've debunked a lot of her stuff.
And where would there be agreement?
Now, I would like to ask Mark, are you a proponent, as you don't believe pathogens exist, do you believe in the Bichamp?
Wait, hold on, hold on.
We have multiple segments of the,
Discussion where we'll be asking each other questions.
So I think we have plenty of time to do that in just a few minutes And we're already running into the we're at six minutes.
I know we've had some back and forth.
So you have some more time Dr. Kevin, but um, because we have whole segments about Socratic conversation and asking each other questions.
So let's just have what has he said yet?
You know, what what has he done?
What is where is he gotten?
Where what?
Premises other than to say that he's wrong.
He's just wrong as what he said about this is wrong He said the cultures are not starved.
I
Number one, that was his number one.
Number one cultures are not starved.
yuck interrupted introductory comments at this point okay so I mean I can finish up I can I can say that the the description of the methods are wrong they do not take into account modern methodology they don't take it that they've described established methodology wrong we can go through some data looking at visualization of the pathogen at hand and we will go through the the steps where the disease has been recapitulated in animal models and the agent
found again in different organ systems.
And there I can finish.
All right, well, thank you for that.
I'm sure a lot of those statements are contested by Dr. Mark, especially about you debunking Sam's work.
I'm sure that's not agreed to, but let's go to Dr. Mark.
You have between five and seven minutes.
You can even go a little bit over since I want to be fair.
And the floor is yours, Dr. Mark.
And I forgot to tell both of you, feel free to mention your credentials if you'd like, if you think that's pertinent to the discussion.
But I think most people know who you both are.
So Dr. Mark, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Tim.
Well, my background is as a conventionally trained medical doctor, and I worked in practice for two decades, including some time in drug development as a clinical trials physician.
However, in 2016, I ended my involvement with the medical industry due to dissatisfaction with allopathic models.
Like all doctors, I once believed in the concept of pathogenic viruses, and I thought I was seeing viral illnesses in my patients.
I assume that proof of viruses had been established in scientific experiments, but that's not true.
Any discussion regarding the existence of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be considered within the history of virology and its complete failure to fulfill its own postulates.
Firstly, what is a virus?
The word derives from the Latin and means poison.
Since the late 1800s, the viral theory has been through several iterations, from some sort of unseen fluid contagion to an infectious protein to the rogue genetic code model.
The definition of a virus became a tiny, infectious, obligate intracellular parasite consisting of a genome surrounded by a capsid.
The whole concept revolves around a replication-competent particle, and with alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, it is said to pass easily between people and cause disease.
However, for this to be established, there needs to be physical proof of such a particle.
It cannot be determined by epidemiological and clinical observations, PCR tests, or computer simulations.
Virology invented the theory of viruses, so whatever method they employ to prove their existence, it must satisfy that definition.
However, all of the methodologies to demonstrate the direct evidence of a physical particle that meets the criteria have failed.
One of the first problems with viral theory was the failure to find any viruses in humans or other living hosts with the invention of the electron microscope.
Even with people alleged to have trillions of variants inside them due to serious illness, not one such particle could be found when blood or other specimens were taken.
There are of course micrographs purporting to show viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, but the images are of dead material and the biological role of any image vesicles must be determined through other methods.
We can't even say if the appearances in the highly processed slides even resemble what happens in life.
Then we get to the problem of isolation.
These days, when the virologists claim they have isolated a virus, it is an act of double deception.
The first is that it asserts that a virus has been shown to exist, and the second is that it implies it has been physically isolated, when neither of these have taken place.
The methods of physical isolation described in virology include ultrafiltration and density gradient centrifugation as ways to purify alleged viral particles.
It is only through this that such particles can be characterized in terms of their composition and biological role.
To establish their viruses, such purified particles need to be introduced to host cells and there would need to be evidence that they result in more particles.
These particles would also need to be purified to ensure they are the same type of particle and capable of infecting more hosts.
Not only that, but we would want to confirm that they are disease-causing by properly controlled experiments, where the particles alone are shown to infect living hosts.
Even none of this has happened.
These days, when a declaration of isolating a virus is made, it can refer to anything from detecting genetic sequences, simply taking a sample from someone said to have a virus, or observing cytopathic effects in a test tube.
The latter technique has been used since 1952, when John Enders suggested that some mammalian cells breaking down in a test tube might be the result of a postulated measles virus.
However, the crucial element missing in his experiment was that he failed to perform a valid control.
That is, he didn't check whether the host cell damage might not just be a result of the experimental conditions themselves.
He did mention this in his paper, but for 70 years, virologists have continued to claim isolation of viruses through this technique without valid controls.
Now, there may be some viewers who say, hold on, they do do controls in the form of mock infected experiments.
However, this is another deception because they are not sticking to the definition of mock infection by changing only one variable.
Instead of adding comparable biological material, they only add culture media to the control.
It actually gets worse than this, and sometimes you need to contact the authors directly to find out what they did.
We had a startling admission from one of the first teams that claimed to isolate SARS-CoV-2.
If we get time, I can explain exactly how they completely invalidated their experiment.
Not only that, but we now have several institutions refusing to hand over the details of their alleged SARS-CoV-2 control experiments, despite multiple FOIA and Official Information Act requests.
The problem of controlled experiments extends into the creation of viral genomes, which had never been shown to exist in nature.
When Van Wu's team declared they had found a, quote, new coronavirus in early 2020, they had done nothing of the sort.
They had simply taken lung fluid from a man with pneumonia and, through metagenomics, went on a genetic fishing trip.
They assembled a genome through a computer simulation that produced its result by templating it against another so-called coronavirus genome.
or two genomes actually.
However, these template genomes were also created by computer simulations and were themselves templated to other hypothetical genomes.
I can tell you the trail and where it goes later on if you want.
No one has demonstrated that these sequences come from inside a virus.
Once again, our team has made multiple FOIA requests to institutions around the world seeking disclosure of their control experiments.
None of them will hand over the details and simply refer to protocols websites that detail controls for calibration of the pipeline, not validation of the methodology.
Then we have the animal experiments.
Aside from the fact that they simply assert that specimens contain viruses, the experiments are completely anti-scientific.
All of the ones we have researched involve ridiculous methodologies such as pouring high volumes of biological soup directly into monkeys' lungs and blaming any reactions on invented viruses.
They do not perform a valid control by pouring a similar volume of biological fluid that's said not to contain the virus into other monkeys.
Clinical transmission attempts between humans with alleged viruses have failed for over 100 years.
The claim of animal models demonstrating transmission of viruses are also flawed, as they do not prove the existence of viruses.
They simply show that genetic fragments introduced into one animal can also appear in other animals in contact with them, using the highly sensitive PCR.
In any case, the animals don't make each other's
So there he actually almost says it, where these experiments only show that a sequence that's put in one animal can show up in another animal, which is exactly what I said.
Transfection and transformation in one animal can make it show up in another animal, and that doesn't mean that you're getting new virus produced.
And that is a very important point that he makes, but he's doing well.
He's doing a lot better than Kevin did, which was one of the things that I just couldn't believe it.
Like, okay, if you're gonna show up on this show and they tell you you're gonna be able to make a statement, and then they tell you you're gonna have a back and forth, and then you agree on the format, and then that was his opening?
Like, wow.
On the other hand, Mark is representing the no virus side very, very well.
It's almost as though it was by design, right?
We've made an extensive effort for several years now to search for the proof of viruses, but on virology's own terms, such proof does not exist.
SARS-CoV-2 is the latest fiction.
Spike proteins, variants, antibodies, alleged antivirals, and vaccines are all distractions that do not require the existence of a virus.
Why people get unwell is complex and beyond what we are talking about today.
It's not germ theory versus terrain theory.
Today, I'm here to show that SARS-CoV-2 simply doesn't exist on virology's own terms.
Thank you, Tim.
That's the debate he wants to have.
And he didn't end with some kind of slam dunk, which would be something like, the vaccine schedule around the Western world is based on fraud, and they would kill people in order to make sure that fraud is never discovered.
Because isn't that the logical conclusion of what he just said?
If you can go all the way back to the original measles paper and all the research that he's ever done indicates that their idea of what viruses are is incorrect, is untrue, and that the reasons why people get ill are much more complex, but beyond the scope of this talk, wouldn't it be simple enough to say that the public health measures called vaccines are based on this bullshit and that they would kill people in order to keep that a secret?
Why doesn't he say it here?
Why in 2022 wouldn't they be saying that all the time?
Don't you see it now?
Isn't it so easy to see?
2022 is a long ways through this crap.
while they were putting up with someone by the name of Jacinda Ardern as their prime minister.
But somehow or another, they couldn't get the language out, and instead they had to limit the spectrum of their own debates all the time, focusing exclusively on, is there SARS-CoV-2 or isn't there SARS-CoV-2, even though they are willing to say that there's none of these things.
And if there are none of these things, then the logical conclusion is that
They would murder people in order to make sure that secret doesn't get out.
It's gross.
Thank you for that.
That was an amazing intro.
This is really awesome so far.
I just want to take a moment now that we've gotten through the intros to remind people that the links to both of these fantastic guests are down below, and we are so thankful for their time, and we're going to keep this going.
So the next section here is a 15-minute, although we can change the time a little bit as needed if we wrap it up sooner or if it needs to go on a little bit longer, Socratic conversation.
So what we're going to be doing, I want it to be mostly 50-50 on who's talking, but maybe make a statement or two, ask questions, answer questions, respond, go back and forth.
And we're just really doing this for the sake of the audience who's listening in.
And we're just trying to explain our thinking processes and go back and forth.
So let's start with Dr. McCarron.
If you'd like to make a statement and then ask a question and then back and forth back and forth go ahead sure so I think I think it's important that we constrain this discussion by established scientific methods and I would assert that in coming forward with you know, it's obviously coming from the terrain theory camp and
What is his falsifiable hypothesis with respect to rejecting terrain theory?
And does he as a terrain theory believe in somatids, mycosis and the pleomorphic cycle that the body auto generates pathogens for cleansing?
Sorry Tim, that's not what we're asked to talk about as far as I was aware.
Yeah, it's a little bit off topic.
It's a simple question to get to how do we define whether a virus is real or not?
You want to say that viruses aren't real, you have to have an alternative hypothesis.
We know it's terrain theory.
Please, could you tell us what is it that you think pathogens are?
I know that there's a correlate.
So you're asking Dr. Mark why people get sick if he doesn't think it's virions?
Yeah, bacteria, yeasts.
So I see why Dr. Mark, you know, doesn't want to go off on a big rabbit, go off on a tangent here.
He doesn't have to go off on a tangent, he just has to confirm, he just has to confirm the position that he's coming from.
So that's already a weak position, right?
And we've said it, and Mike Eden has picked up this message, and I think it's a very good one.
You don't have to have an alternative hypothesis to disbelieve the infectious cycle cartoon.
You don't have to have an alternative hypothesis to know that Kevin McKernan is lying about the fidelity of RNA copying in coronaviruses.
Once you watch the show from yesterday and listen to Ralph Baric unconvincingly explain the molecular mechanisms behind that proofreading.
It's a joke, it's hand-waving.
And he even said, Ralph Baric even said yesterday in the video we watched, that they can adjust their fidelity of copying depending on whether they need more variation or not.
Stop lying!
And so again, must have an alternative hypothesis if these people have coordinatedly lied about exosomal communication and called it virology.
No, no, and that position is not logical.
From that we can establish a scientific baseline upon which we can proceed with the further discussion.
Okay, well Dr. Mark can address that as he pleases, but we do want to stay on topic as far as whether viruses exist.
I will be focusing on the methodology for identifying viruses.
Okay, well let's let Dr. Mark respond.
Sure.
Well, Kevin, I worked in clinical practice for two decades and why people get sick, it's not something that we can talk about in an hour.
I mean, it's a simple yes or no question.
Do you believe in mycosis and the pleomorphic cycle as put forward by the fathers of terrain theory?
Well, once once again, Kevin, we've been asked to come here to discuss with a simple yes or no answer.
Do you believe in it or not?
Is that OK?
I got a problem with what what Mark Bailey answers.
And so I'm going to say to play it again.
And then I want to tell you why.
Sure.
Well, Kevin, I worked in clinical practice for two decades and why people get sick is not something that we can talk about in an hour.
Why people get sick is not something we can talk about in an hour, but it does kind of imply that he knows.
It does kind of imply that he understands why people get sick.
which I don't think is a good position to take.
I don't think this is a, it's an interesting thing to say though.
And he said it also in his statement that he doesn't want to get into why people get sick.
It's beyond the scope of this talk, beyond the scope of an hour.
It's interesting, right?
It's a very different position than addressing the question that Kevin is trying to throw at him, which is specific terms about terrain theory or something like that.
I hear it.
And it's a simple yes or no question.
Do you believe in Michael Zeimer and the pleomorphic cycle as put forward by the fathers of terrain theory?
Well, once again, Kevin, we've been asked to come here to discuss with a simple yes or no answer, dude.
Do you believe in it or not?
Is that your working model for trying to deal with people that are ill?
Yes or no.
Sorry, Tim, this is not why you asked me to come.
Because I'm going I'm going to get to I'm going to use it as a part of the logical progression towards explaining how we identify viruses.
It's a simple yes or no answer mark.
We'll keep in mind that we're in mycosis and the pleomorphic life cycle.
Well, keep in mind, guys, that we're doing this for the audience, so everyone's watching and making up their own mind, listening to what questions are asked, what the responses are.
Well, I think the audience should take note of the fact that Mark won't answer a simple question with respect to... Well, he says it's off-topic.
No, no, no.
Let's be very clear here, Tim.
He's attacked the whole field of virology, okay?
And he's coming from a particular ideological viewpoint.
Well, that's the topic.
That's what his argument is.
Yes, but in order to answer this question, okay, we need to understand his frame of reference.
So it's a simple yes or no answer.
Or if he doesn't want to comment, that's an answer too.
We're here to discuss it on virology's own terms.
Yes, and this is virology's terms.
Okay, all right.
We don't want to spend too much time on this.
It is a bit off topic.
Virology is a set of hypotheses and data and observations, okay?
And in order to establish them, or in order to negate them, you have to have an alternative model.
Not necessarily.
That's not logical.
No, it's the scientific method.
If you come with an alternate hypothesis or a criticism... No, you don't have to have an alternative hypothesis to debunk something.
Yeah, the scientific method involves falsifying hypothesis, given it doesn't mean that you provide... And so I'm going to... Now, keep in mind that for the last year and a half or so, we've had an alternative hypothesis that they are lying about exosomal communication in the form of RNA viruses and in the form of retroviruses as a solely pathogenic outside of our own biology thing, when in reality, our immune system and our healthy tissues communicate using these things.
That's my alternative hypothesis.
That's why those signals are there.
That's why they're so ubiquitous.
That's why they show up stronger when people might have an immune reaction to something, because it's all part of our biology that's an irreducibly complex immune system.
an irreducibly complex communication system, a packet communication system that these people discovered while they were mixing concoctions from other animals and putting them in people and realized that doing that would dysregulate their immune system.
And lo and behold, they connected it to a retrovirus.
But they said that that retrovirus was infecting the monkeys and then it infected people.
No, it is exosomal communication from monkeys
disturbing permanently the balance of communication, the functional communication of someone's immune system when they were injected with it in a hepatitis vaccine to prevent gay people from getting sick.
And so we have to have an alternative hypothesis is also kind of a weird thing to say, because of course these no virus people should have an alternative hypothesis by now.
It's two and a half years.
And in the beginning of the pandemic, when Andy Kaufman was presenting in 2020, he did a lot of podcasts where he told everybody about exosomal communication.
So it'd be pretty easy for Mark Bailey to say two years later, well, one alternative hypothesis, although it may not be the right one, would be that exosomal communication is a very ubiquitous thing that happens in healthy and sick tissue, and we are misconstruing this background RNA signal as exclusively pathogenic.
How easy is that?
Instead, we're getting all angry, and all three of them are agreeing that, ah, it's angry, it's not logical, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
What's not logical is to follow your conclusions to their logical endpoint.
That's what's not logical.
To say there are no viruses, but then not to say that the vaccine schedule is criminal in the Western world is not logical.
To say that there are no viruses, but then not say that they're killing people to cover it up is not logical.
And to say that you don't have an alternative hypothesis when the leader of this movement was saying the alternative hypothesis is exosomes in 2020, that's not logical.
That's lying.
I'm going to employ the scientific method as a and I'm going to use the terrain theory and its its mycosis and pleomorphic cycles all right we spent too much time on this establish virology right you want to establish the virology right well the question is does SARS-CoV-2 exist as described so that's what we're really focusing on but it's everyone can make up their own mind as to what just happened but let's go to the next question uh Dr. Mark the floor is yours
Oh my gosh, that was sad.
I'm not quite clear what part of the cell culture process Kevin implies that I don't understand.
Well, you state that they starve the cultures and the cytopathic effects are due to antibiotics and antifungals.
So you're aware of what's the standard number of passages that they do for cell culture?
In what context?
If they're looking for a virus.
It can vary.
Sometimes it can be a few hours.
Sometimes it can be days.
It depends on the virus.
Cytopathic effect is not the only effect that they're looking for.
I didn't say time.
I said the number of passages they're doing.
Well, that's the time.
So you can do one to as many as you want.
He doesn't understand.
He doesn't understand the question.
He doesn't understand why it's important to know how many passages are used.
And it's also very relevant to understanding how infectious clones are used to, as Ralph Baric said yesterday, harvest full-length virus.
Which is exactly what he said.
We make a DNA clone, and then we use that to harvest full-length virus.
It is transfection and transformation of cell culture being misconstrued as virology, and Mark Bailey is kind of saying it, but not really, because it's a limited spectrum of debate.
This is a performance.
So this is one of the problems with the cell culture technique is that it's not standardized.
They pretty much do what they want.
They try different cell lines.
They try different numbers of passages.
They try different antibiotics.
Now, I think the key thing you missed with regards to the cell culture process is it doesn't actually matter exactly how they do it.
They have to have a valid control.
Now, when you look at any of the papers where they've claimed to isolate SARS-CoV-2, what have you thought about the control experiment?
So there's a so when doing scientific studies, I've done many how many of you published
That wasn't the question, Kevin.
No, I just want to ask, how many of you published?
Just answer the question.
You evade every question that I'm putting to you.
I want to know how many scientific publications you've done.
Tim, I thought you said we were going to ask questions and stuff.
I'm asking questions.
If you can't engage in the debate, then... Well, he asked you about the control situation.
Let me just clarify.
Let's be perfectly clear.
I'm not a virologist.
I've used viruses.
Okay, I'm not a virologist, but I play one on the internet.
So let's let me let me try and establish some scientific ground truth.
Mark, do you believe that proteins are isolatable?
Kevin, I asked you a question.
We were talking about the cell culture process.
I told you that it depends on the virus how many passages that you do.
No, no, no, that's not the question.
I asked you what you thought.
So if you think SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, when you look at one of the isolation or the claims to isolation, what do you think of the control experiment they did with the cell culture?
That you keep a standard cell culture, you put a control fluid on it that would be a close match without the pathogen, and you see if you get anything approximating the disease effect.
Did you contact any of the authors?
And when they say mock-infected, do you know what it means?
Yeah, they're putting artificial lung fluid, artificial... wherever they've extracted it from, that's usually what the control would be.
When I do a control in my field, I inject artificial cerebral spinal fluid, okay?
Minus the drug or the agent that I'm interested in.
Well, it may shock you to know that they didn't do that.
So, when all of them said they did a mock infection, they only added the culture nutrient.
So, they didn't add a comparative biological sample.
So, you want them to add some saline then, some physiological saline?
No, no, no, you have to change one variable.
So the variable that they claim is the virus.
They say that this is a lack of lack of effective material So you have to take a comparative biological material?
So if it was a sample from someone's lung, then you need to get a sample from someone else's lung Preferably someone who's sick, but doesn't have what they say that's asked of do now because then you've I'm not really sure they have to be sick with something else.
I don't think that's
requirement for it to be a control.
But I agree that if you're gonna take a bronchial lavage from somebody and put it on a cell culture and then say whatever happens to that cell culture is because of the bronchial lavage contents, then you better take a control bronchial lavage from a healthy person and put it on the cell culture and so that the cell culture is happy as a clam.
Of course that needs to be done.
Of course.
And it's funny that they're going to debate this now for like 10 minutes.
Then you've added variables.
You haven't taken a variable away to control.
That's a nonsense argument, in fact.
If you look at... Wait, wait, wait.
Let him go.
You can look it up on the internet right now.
Look up what mock infected says in a viral experiment.
It says you're doing it exactly the same, but without the viral agent.
I mean, if Kevin wanted to argue back correctly, what he should do is say, well, why don't, why, why we would use like a, a ultra centrifuged pellet.
so that we would only use the viral-sized particles that are isolated in this bronchiolavage and then use the virus-sized particles isolated in this bronchiolavage and show that only one of them causes the disease and shows the sequence of SARS-CoV-2.
But incidentally, no one ever has done that experiment.
And if Kevin were to have responded that way, then Mark Bailey would have said, well, yeah, but nobody's ever done that.
They don't do that.
So you see where we are, right?
This is a very, very curated, limited spectrum of argument that's never gonna make anybody feel resolution.
If anything, you're just gonna feel like, wow, I guess I'm a little disappointed in my friend, Kevin, or you're gonna feel like, wow, Mark Bailey is such a Jedi.
Yeah, so how can you be sure that the person you're getting fluid from, every person has a virome and a biome.
Do you accept that biological fact?
I don't accept a virome, no.
I don't accept a virome, but you could say that there are signals at this size scale that might include endogenous signaling like exosomes.
Again, it's this lack of nuance and this lack of ability to push the ball across the finish line that really bothers me.
They agree to this limited spectrum of debate and then they stick to it to their own detriment.
Except a biome?
There's a microbiome in humans, for sure.
I mean, we're covered in trillions of bacteria.
But you reject the fact that there's a virome as well.
A virome that covers all life, soil, trees.
You reject that level of analysis with respect to biology.
Not at all.
No, we're talking about control experiments and you keep trying to drift off the topic.
Let me reel this back in, guys, real quick.
And so then admitting that there's a microbiome also admits that there is a microbiome produced and constantly changing bacteriophage background.
which is another thing that we could acknowledge here as part of that background that would be isolated at that ultra centrifuge level, but we're not because they're not sophisticated enough.
The narrative discussion that these guys are having is not sophisticated enough.
It's exactly the opposite of what Dr. Lee Merritt and myself did on her podcast.
It's exactly the opposite discussion.
Whereas Lee Merritt and I could jump from subject to subject and talk about it in depth and scrape the most useful ideas off and then go to the next thing like we're a revolver.
These two guys, even when they're already scripted to stay on topic, they fail.
Let's connect the dots for the people listening.
The control experiment would be in regards to the cytopathic effect, CPE, which is what they say proves that there's a virus because they add some sample, which they say has a virus, into a cell culture and they say, hey, look, it breaks down the cells.
So that's the virus doing that.
So the control side of this would show us a problem if the control experiment also broke down in the same way.
So that's why this is important.
Go ahead, Mark.
Now, you'll notice that that is exactly the experiment that they supposedly say they did.
which is that they showed that the cytopathic effects show up irrespective of whether the sample is hot or not, whether it's the experimental or control group.
And that's the experiment they were hyping a few weeks ago.
I haven't heard much about it since because, of course, all of these no-virus people have pivoted
exactly in line with Brett Weinstein and Chris Martinson and Robert Malone and all of them have pivoted to discussing the audiophiles and how many shooters there are and who was on top of the water tower that made that shadow.
And that's pretty extraordinary because it wasn't even two weeks ago that they were finally done with these cytopathic effect experiments that debunked virology forever, but they stood on that for about a week and then they're already bored of it.
even though what that should mean is that governments around the world are willing to lie about the existence of viruses in order to keep the vaccine schedule in place.
That should be their story, and it's still not their story.
And that's really weird.
You can't take fluid that you don't know the full nature of its contents.
Everyone has a biome and a virome.
So you're taking sterile cell culture and then adding someone's virome and biome to it.
That's not a control.
That's just an increase in variables and complexity.
Well, then how do you know what's causing the cytopathic effect?
Oh, there it is.
So by taking the diseased fluid, okay, that you know, look, we can, we can make artificial CSF, we can make artificial lung fluid.
We use it in, I don't use it, but it's used in.
It is full of the microbiome and the virome, and then you're going to put it in a cell culture and then claim you understand why the cell culture did what it did.
It's a perfectly good argument that Mark is making, and this guy's ignoring it.
Treatment all the time.
Okay, and you that becomes your control because you know that that's clean That's not a valid control.
Yes No, you can't you can't go taking stuff that you know is contaminated and say oh that's that's a that's a valid control because you don't know what the contamination is in there and you you will admit that your your lung fluid has at least a biome and
I don't think you seem to understand what's going on here.
So when... Wait, Kevin, hold on, hold on.
Actually, the last thoughts to Dr. Mark, because this is the last bit of this segment.
I don't think you understand what's going on here.
That's got to be one of the worst things you can say to Kevin McCarran in a live interview.
So take your time, Dr. Mark.
What did you want to say on this?
So Kevin, when Fan Wu and their team claim that they isolated a virus from the 41-year-old man who had pneumonia,
I mean, they just took the lung fluid from the sky.
So if they saw a cytopathic effect, well, Van Wert didn't even do cytopathic effects, to be honest, but one of the other teams who did.
So you're saying we don't know what's in it that would cause the cytopathic effects, but they are saying it's a virus.
So let's be perfectly frank here, okay?
You can't expect all studies to do all things, okay?
And in the case of SARS, and I will agree that there's a lot of skullduggery going on around SARS about where its origin is, how it's being used with respect to
control of people and populations, etc.
But your attempts at scientific argument are just falling flat on their face.
You haven't even got to anything approximating scientific argument.
You won't define an alternative hypothesis.
Your understanding of what a mock control would be is wrong.
And then you want to try and say that the cytopathic effect, well, in your mind, what causes the cytopathic effect then from that diseased person?
Well, it can be multiple things.
I mean, often it's done with, say, Vero monkey kidney cells.
One of the antibiotics that you'll commonly see is streptomycin, which is... It's always in there.
It's always in there to keep them alive.
Kevin, settle down there.
It couldn't be the exosomes coming from the lungs of the animal.
It couldn't be the exosomes coming from the lungs of the human.
The immune signals that are coming from the lungs of the human that would then cause cytopathic effects in the monkey kidney cells couldn't be that.
It's got to be viruses.
There's only that's all that's there except for the microbiome and the and the virome and
And, and, and I don't know, everything else, bacteriophages, all that stuff.
It's nonsense.
This is nonsense.
Well, that's your opinion.
And we're gonna let everybody make a scientific fact.
All cultures have antibiotic in all cultures have fetal bovine serum in as a form of nutrition.
They have an antifungal in as well.
Those cultures will you have to keep plating them off because they'll just keep growing and growing and growing in that culture medium.
The antibiotic does not cause the psychopathic- I mean, I'm in that picture right there as the third person, you know?
Like, that was still when he was using memes and I was cool, that a guy right next to him in the yellow coat is me.
Then 2022, he was still using memes where I'm a good guy, not in a Scooby-Doo or with a crack pipe or whatever he's doing now with a shotgun in my mouth a week before the little teen meddler from my neighborhood decided to go shoot the president.
It's all one network.
Maybe they even knew that Crooks was gonna do it.
Maybe they even expected it to happen.
Maybe they even hoped that I would show up in Butler, PA.
That's a little bit egoistic.
I apologize for that one.
But it is true.
I'm on that picture right there.
Perfect.
All right, guys.
Go ahead, Mark, if you want to respond to that.
But we're a little over time on this segment.
Yeah, there's multiple reasons why cells can eventually break down in a culture.
And to claim that it's a virus is preposterous when there's so many variables involved.
I mean, Kevin himself admitted that lung fluid contains all sorts of things.
So to claim that it caused that the effects came from a virus is simply preposterous.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Cross-examination.
Gonna switch out.
Hey, uh...
I am right now actually using a pen that I got from a viewer, and it's actually a really nice pen.
It's a Conklin pen.
I actually have a friend named Conklin that I don't think has anything to do with this pen.
I wanted to say thank you, but I also want to tell people that you shouldn't get into the habit of sending me pens.
This will go wrong very quickly.
I appreciate it.
This is a really nice pen.
It's got a really nice nib.
It screws in nice.
It writes pretty well.
It doesn't skip lines.
It's a good pen.
And I'm very appreciative of it, but I just want, as I acknowledge that this is from my viewers, I also want you to understand that I don't want you to send me pens.
Please don't, because they're expensive, because nobody needs a lot of them.
You just need a few that work really well, because the rest don't work that well.
That's why I have so many pens, otherwise I wouldn't have bought that many.
And I don't want anybody wasting their money on that.
My family needs
like bologna and sandwiches and rent money.
So if you're gonna spend money on a pen, which this is really, again, I'm not saying you did anything wrong, viewer.
I just don't wanna start a trend while at the same time saying, thank you, thank you very much for this pen.
Let's go back over here.
premise.
Does the virus exist?
That's what we're trying to solve.
I will go with the premise that Mark is being intellectually dishonest about his scientific opinion.
I don't think that's the case, man.
He won't state a simple yes or no answer to does he believe in mycosis and the pleomorphic cycle.
But he answered why.
He said he thinks that's off topic and he wants to stay off topic.
Well, so let's get to the cytopathic effect.
Is that consequence of the pleomorphic cycle and the emergence of somatids or mycosis?
No, you don't need to involve any of that.
I mean, you've got cells in a test tube under artificial conditions, and some of them will break down eventually.
But they live in perpetuity.
So saying that they'll break down eventually is a convenient way of dismissing that there might be more going on.
It's also dismissing the idea that cell cultures are a relatively robust phenomenon, which they actually are.
HEK cells, these kinds of things, if you culture them correctly, they grow really well for a really long time.
Like you can make blankets and blankets and cover, you know, a huge amount of surface area with a single cell layer of HEK cells because of the way they grow.
And so if you say that these cell cultures are going to eventually break down, you're dismissing the possibility of intracellular signaling by exosomes.
You're dismissing the possibility of extracellular signaling using retroviruses.
And that is part of this mistake.
I don't know if it's on purpose or on script, but it does feel incorrect here.
And I think that if I was in this debate, even back in 2022, I would have had that nuance already on the table.
Lines last decades.
Yeah, I know Kevin.
I've studied them now Kevin the other thing is so we contacted one of the teams that claimed that the isolated SARS-CoV-2 one of the first teams out of Wuhan and We had another interesting admission from them.
So they had 96 valves where they did their cytopathic effects a mixture of HUH7 cells and Vero E6 cells after them they said were control and half of them were experimental and
Now, with their Vero E6 cells, they had 24 wells in their experiment where they exposed it to what they said was the virus.
Do you want to take a guess how many out of the 24 wells showed what they said was cytopathic effects?
I don't know.
Tell me the number.
But did they get a cytopathic effect in this case?
And then you hone in on that data point.
They got one out of 24.
So you hone in on that.
But it's not the... Then we asked them, did you do exactly the same thing to your mock infected cells compared to your experimental one?
Yeah, but your understanding of what mock infected means, I've already showed you, is wrong.
Kevin, just listen to what happened.
They used double the antibiotics in the experimental one compared to the mock infected one, including a 2% streptomycin with kidney cells to see cytopathic effects in one out of 24 wells.
And then they declared they had a pathogen.
It's not a scientific experiment because it's invalid.
I mean, I would be asking, for example, did they sequence all 24 wells or only the well that had the cytopathic effects?
Because that would be another way of built in control that wouldn't involve some of the things that he's described.
There are lots of permutations of this that they could be thrown around here.
But again, this is a limited spectrum of debate not designed to
to expand our understanding of the possibility space, but to confine us within it, you see?
Like I said, you've got a skewed understanding of culture medium, how the cultures work.
Again, you're evading questions as to... What I'm trying to argue is, and I want to be very clear about this,
is that cell cultures are thought to be well understood in academic biology.
So the use of cell culture itself is a pretty standardized and what people in academic biology think is a very robust methodology.
So we need to be very precise when we talk about it, and we need to be very precise about what we're talking about and how they're handled, and I think we need to be as precise as Mark is being, and not as lackadaisical as Kevin is being.
Why you think cytopathic effect would occur, and you want to... Let's not do the commentary on...
that you think you're winning the debate.
Let's just focus on asking him questions.
I want to try to get to what I think is some scientific ground truth about which we can agree.
That's why I ask, do you think we can isolate proteins?
Yes or no?
Well, of course we can.
OK, can we isolate genes?
Can we isolate genes?
We don't have time to go through all of biology and genetics and everything.
These are a few simple questions.
So you agree we can isolate proteins?
Yeah.
Can we can we isolate genes?
What is a gene?
So stretches of genetic material, either DNA or mRNA, which code for proteins.
Well, how many genes does a human have?
About 22,000.
How many proteins do we have?
About 100,000.
Yeah, so already there's some problems with that.
No, because you're making a simple one-to-one comparison and trying to think that... And so there, Bailey, again, is right on the money with regard to the Human Genome Project and what we've done and what we haven't done.
And Kevin McCairn is actually dead on balls narrative.
and wants us to believe that the Human Genome Project was completed, that we mapped the human genome.
We know all the genes.
We have a certain number of genes.
I mean, he said that right now.
Mark Bailey walked him right into it.
How many genes do we have, Kevin?
And Kevin answered it.
We don't have that certainty.
We don't have even close to that certainty, and yet Kevin is sure we do.
Well, how many genes does a human have?
About 22,000.
How many proteins do we have?
About 100,000.
Yeah, so already there's some problems with that.
No, because you're making a simple one-to-one comparison and trying to think that DNA acts like a... We're trying to keep this on topic.
We're talking about the existence of SARS-CoV-2, so we can talk about the papers.
Yes, I want to get to the existence of SARS-CoV-2.
Let's get there.
I really do.
But in order to do that, I need to know what is the understanding of the scientific
Ground truth here.
Does Mark believe that we can identify genetic material?
Yes, you believe that?
Okay, so all right.
I'm going to share my screen again, and we'll work through a few things.
I would like to present some data, rather than just go back and forth with respect to anecdotes with you.
Sure, present some data.
You have five more minutes.
So are you familiar with Millipore gene transcription and identification?
Well, tell me how it's relevant to what we're talking about.
Because you make the assertion that in order to identify genes, they cut them up with ligases and then piece them together in a computer.
And because they do it in the computer, it's just garbled nonsense and they get what they want.
Nope, that's that's a strawman argument.
I can tell you again We can talk through the process of how a sars-cov-2 genome is created if you want to do that And I can show you why it's invalid and I can also tell you that it's not controlled either They do no valid controls through this process.
Okay, so you tell me how they have identified the genome of sars-cov-2.
Well, they haven't Okay, so what have they identified?
Well again, they've identified an in silico creation through a computer.
So essentially what Van Wu did when they claimed that they found a virus was shotgun sequencing.
So they had rates that were about 150 base pairs long.
And then when they reassembled it, well first of all they tried using Trinity and it didn't work.
Well they got a
The longest contact was about 11 000.
So if that is simply used trinity, they wouldn't have even found the virus, right?
So let me let me just establish something for the people that are listening here.
So millipore sequencing, um can uh sample mega bases long.
Okay.
And uh, the the 30 kilo bases of in millipore sequencing means that you can extract the whole genome With that whole genome you can make a series of predictions about what proteins are made Where where it would be uh an attack vector
and build from that concept.
And that's all done with a DNA clone.
See, that's where you start.
You start with a DNA clone and then you transfect a cell culture and you figure out what proteins are produced and what subgenomic RNAs are produced.
That's what he's talking about and he's saying it very incorrectly.
Are you aware of millipore sequencing?
The Chinese did millipore sequencing.
Extracted the whole genome.
No, but the problem is given they never showed that any of those sequences came from a virus They had to template it against something else another hypothetical genome.
Okay, so you get so they get a readout of the back of the base pairs Okay, and then what they do is they have libraries of where they know that there are stable proteins like the RNA dependent polymerase
okay that that is very stable across uh many many coronaviruses okay so the rna dependent rna polymerase is stable across many coronaviruses that's an interesting statement it could just be really stable across all those coronaviruses because it's an endogenous enzyme that we use to signal stop lying
And that's what they use to say, oh, we find that protein or the read for that protein.
If we find similar, then we expect it to be within that particular family, and then they'll do deeper sequencing on it to build out phylogenetic trees.
And I can assure you that they can take whole genomes, the whole genome of the virus, sequence it, and then do comparisons.
And it's not dependent on PCR.
This is whole genome sequencing through millipore sequencing.
And the interesting thing is, is that he's citing millipore sequencing, that it can do megabases, but then they never get full genomes.
They only get fragments.
even though they don't need to amplify it, even though there's no PCR necessary, this is the argument that I've been making against the clone idea and using it to build up the evidence that clones are a pure quantity that cannot be created in any other way, including here, where he says they use millipore sequencing to look for the virus, but did they get any full reads?
No way, not even close.
They didn't even get a 10,000 base pair read.
That's the point.
He implies that it's possible, but then we should have only looked for those because those would be the full virus, right?
What Ralph Baric described yesterday as using a cDNA clone to create, to recover full sequence virus, full genomic viruses.
You see that this is all elaborate illusion that Kevin McCarran may not have even understood in 2022, but he was sure vigorously defending it as if he did.
So Kevin, where did the first coronavirus genome come from?
Where did the first data about human chromosomes come from?
Do you agree that we can identify human genetic material?
We can, but I asked you where did the first coronavirus come from.
The first published genome, do you know what year it was?
Back in 2002, I believe, when the first cases happened in London.
No, no, no.
I'm talking about the first coronavirus in general.
He doesn't even know when the first coronavirus was isolated, but he considers himself an expert on them.
But I looked at the paper from 1984 and there was no evidence that I purified anything They had what they said was infectious bronchitis virus avian Infectious bronchitis virus they call it and they didn't show any signs in their experiments that they had a virus they just did a culture and some eggs and then said the virus was in there and then sequenced up the RNA and Then use that to create a complementary DNA.
I think they had about 17 and
complementary DNA sequences, and that was the basis of the first ever coronavirus genome.
Okay, so a first attempt at measurement in science that has been refined and results replicated over decades.
No, it doesn't matter about replicating because if the method's invalid, so if you never showed where it came from, see, the confusion is if you're talking about something like a human genome, we don't have a problem with the provenance.
So we can take a sample from a human, we can take their blood or a cell and we know exactly where it came from.
If we take a cell culture,
there's no way to prove that these sequences are viral and origin.
Well, I would say this.
So we know the providence of the culture.
We know the expression products of a monkey kidney cells, because you know why?
Because we keep finding all types of, uh, uh, oncogenic viruses in them.
Right.
So, uh, this is Kevin's last few minutes or last few moments.
If he wants to ask any other questions, then it'll be, uh, the roles swapped.
So, uh, okay.
So do you, do you think that proteomics is a replicable discipline?
It is but it doesn't matter because you have to still show that if you're claiming proteins come from a virus you have to show that to be the case and you can't do it through processes where you're dealing with mixed specimens.
You have to purify what you've got so you know where the proteins and the genetic material is coming from.
So if you find through proteomics a bunch of proteins that hypothetically come from a viral source
Okay, and you can and from and from the proteomics you can work back.
Oh, it's that amino acid It has to be this combination of base pairs.
You understand that step, right?
This doesn't matter you have to establish where it comes from.
So okay, so if if we know if we know the Like humans, okay, you said you agree that we can genotype humans and we know the providence of that tissue We know we know the genome of monkey kidney cells or human epithelial cells We know their gene products
Yeah, so what's your point?
So if you see different genomic and proteomic products, you know that it's from something different to the genome of the culture.
Well, that's not quite correct.
I mean, if you're aware of Barbara McClintock's work from the 60s, genetic expression does change.
So no, that is problematic.
Oh, so now genes are not stable.
We know now through protonomics that you have things like copy numbers, where there was an assumption that you just have two genes, etc, and that those things can change.
It's a complex science, it's not settled science.
I would make the argument that Marx would
from what he thinks is the set of signs, but the point being is that we can identify through proteomics, okay, the expression products from these cultures, and we also find the same expression products when we start sampling from people who are infected.
from there you can work backwards and say there's a amino acid sequence.
Now remember what's so fascinating about this is that Kevin McCarran wants us to believe that it's a bioweapon, wants us to believe that it's an incapacitating agent, wants us to believe that the American government is willing to lie about the existence of these things, lie about their deployment, and lie about their abilities to
cover the world in them, but it couldn't be a transfection to an immunogenic protein.
It couldn't be a transfection that was used to distort the background signal and make it seem as though this was happening.
It couldn't be a combination of murder and lies.
It's gotta be virology, and virology's gotta be real, and nothing that Mark Bailey says can be remotely close to
to something that needs to be understood with some nuance or some subtlety and that's the most extraordinary part of this performance.
In 2024 you can't see this as anything other than an agreed upon group of liars because Mark Bailey could have dunked on him 20 minutes ago
Tim Truth could have dunked on both of them 20 minutes ago, saying that, yeah, but doesn't this mean then that the whole vaccine schedule is bullshit, and that they would just kill people to cover it up?
But they have agreed.
They have all agreed to stick to this very limited spectrum of debate.
And even Kevin McCairn has agreed to go outside of that debate in directions that are not useful.
You know, like the pleomorphic cycle and all these different terms that come from that.
And terrain theory and blah blah blah blah blah.
And you don't know anything about cell culture, blah blah blah blah blah.
It is a performance of the most malevolent kind because it was designed to trap American kids and American young people.
This isn't aimed at people in Japan.
This isn't aimed at people in New Zealand.
This is aimed at people in the UK.
It's aimed at people in America.
It's aimed at the places where the people have the nationalism and the belief in their own God-given sovereignty that they need to be beaten down.
They need to be demoralized.
They need to have the idea of America permanently neutered.
That's what these people are doing by agreeing that this is the debate to have and that, you know, I mean, come on, this is ridiculous.
And then from there, you can make predictions about the base pairs.
And all that's new in the age of Millipore sequencing, where you can grab the whole genome in one go.
All right.
Fascinating.
You can grab the whole genome in one go.
But for some reason, when they do it, even with infectious clones, when they use pure DNA, they don't get the full genome to show up, Kevin.
And you know that because I presented those papers right after this in 2022, which resulted in the big rift.
discussion.
Let's go to Dr. Mark asking questions to Dr. Kevin.
The floor is yours, Dr. Mark.
Sure, yeah.
I mean, I'll just point out that it doesn't matter, you know, whether you're looking at proteins or genetic material.
What it comes down to is a virus is a replication-competent particle.
It's supposed to be able to get into a host, cause disease, create more particles.
The virologist can't demonstrate that, so it doesn't matter about getting distracted
So what's the level of proof here?
We've got electron micrographs of viruses absorbing it, being taken into cells.
At what point does the threshold of evidence emerge that you can say, OK, that looks like some entity engaged in the process of cell invasion and the beginning of the disease process?
If you want to answer that, Dr. Mark, but it is your turn to ask questions, just by the way.
Yeah, sure, I'll answer that.
I mean, I outlined that at the start, Kevin, because the problem with electron micrographs is that they don't tell you the biological function of the particle.
I mean, you're seeing a vesicle.
You can't say it.
OK, so they're not going to say it, so I'll say it.
We'll listen to what they say in a minute.
So replication-competent particle is the buzzword that Mark Bailey wants to use.
And I'm going to show you right here why, even though he's got the right buzzword, he doesn't seem to use it as the proper tool that it is.
So I'll give you a couple hypotheticals.
We have a cell culture.
We put virus into it.
If it's a replication competent particle, then if we were to take all the RNA out here and quantify it.
Yeah.
And we were to use, use some probes.
You can use radioactive probes that will identify the viral RNA.
and make it glow.
And you could actually use that to use the glow to quantify it if you have a scalar in there.
So if you use a couple of controls, you could actually quantify the amount of viral RNA that's present using probes that are specific for the viral RNA.
These are things that Kevin is kind of talking about, but not really talking about.
And what Mark Bailey could say here
instead of worrying about the bronchiolavage controls all the time, is that they have methods of measuring and quantifying RNA.
There are methods for that.
So a replication-competent particle with some time
with some time passing, then the amount of viral RNA that should be here in the cell culture should be different than the viral RNA that you started with.
And if you start with a known quantity, you know, like a clone, and you put one nanogram of that clone in there, then when you add, when you let a certain amount of time go on, then you should have one nanogram plus replication.
And the crazy thing is, is because we have millipore and because we can quantify RNA, there are multiple ways that we could verify that full genomes that we put in this cell culture were increased in number after time.
We could measure the RNA using probes and fluorescence and radioactivity.
We could also use, as Kevin said, millipore or nanopore sequencing to show that we get a certain number of sequences when we do it here, and we get a hell of a lot more when we're over here.
But do we make that argument?
Do we discuss that at all?
Does Mark throw that back at Kevin, or does Kevin throw this at Mark?
No.
And it's not incompetence, ladies and gentlemen.
It's not that they're not as good of drawers as I am, because that's the worst drawing.
This is not a pen for drawing.
This is a pen for writing.
So that's what's really extraordinary here.
They're not going to get to that stage where they're going to have a useful discussion about this or make useful progress in understanding each other's position.
They are stuck in this limited spectrum of debate because that's exactly what they were supposed to do.
That's a virus.
A virus needs to replicate.
It needs to be a disease-causing particle.
An electron micrograph, probably the only thing that the virologists should use it for is to make sure they've purified their particles.
And they used to do that.
I mean, it's not done so much anymore.
But it's been done for SARS-CoV-2.
I'll show you.
Yeah, what you're showing us is just a picture of something that's alleged to be SARS-CoV-2.
And also the proteomics match with predictions.
We can go down to angstrom level scale.
Predictions about the proteins also don't mean anything if you're transfecting or transforming a cell culture, you'd expect the proteins to show up.
It just doesn't really, it's annoying because what we did yesterday with Ralph Baric was we identified him saying over the course of many years that they make a DNA clone and then they use that in cell culture to recover full-length genomic viruses.
And so if that's the case, what they're doing is that they're putting that clone
cue on the cell culture and then they're recovering virus.
But they're not justifying that they're recovering virus because if they were to try and justify it and look using nanopore sequencing, look for full genomes, they wouldn't find them.
And Mark Bailey must know that because that's part of his no virology thing, right?
He would have gone into this in detail.
or not, if the goal isn't to actually free our children with the truth, but it's just to make people ask the wrong questions for four years so that we run out the clock on this scooby-doo.
This is in 2022, ladies and gentlemen, a full two years ago, and these clowns are making no progress, the three of them.
OK, and an image that the proteins on the surface of the of the virus.
OK, you're calling it a virus, but it's not been you're calling it a virus, but it's not been shown to be a viral particle, a hypothetical alleged viral particle.
As a scientist, I would want multiple measures to convince me that we're looking at the again, there are.
multiple measures.
You could measure the total viral RNA.
You could measure the total RNA of whatever you're looking for.
You could also use nanopore and millipore sequencing to show that you've got more full genomes in the replicating sample.
Multiple ways that people could have probed the fidelity of our understanding of the infectious cycle, and they have not done it ever, and Mark Bailey's totally right about that.
Phenomenon of interest.
And that would come from when you do the proteomics, and you make predictions about the weight of the proteins that you would see, that you sample with respect to proteomics, and then you do a whole bunch of confirmatory tests like Westin
But the RNA would work a lot better for that because the weight difference between subgenomic RNA and full genomic RNA is much larger.
So they separate much more easily on a gel.
And when you do that, you don't see that the full genome is being copied.
You just don't see it.
And it's so weird that neither of these guys seems to be aware of that.
It's a very simple fact.
Mark Bailey seems to avoid dunking on him with that very simple fact.
That if you start with full genomes, and you're saying that those full genomes are copied, and you're telling me that nanopore sequencing and millipore sequencing works the way it does, then how come we don't see more full genomes in the sample after it's been grown?
After it's been cultured?
How come nobody has shown that using quantitative measuring of the RNA?
Why won't Mark ask those questions because it's 2022.
We're not supposed to be there yet.
Fine.
large-scale proteomics all these things add up to say well we can see in that sample we've got we can we can look down and see the spike proteins at virtually the atomic scale and everything scales and matches up that's interesting if you need to jot down some notes for your concluding comments that might be the best way to do this because I just want to let dr. mark be able to ask any questions that he wants and then we'll move on to the concluding comments but we still have he can see the spike protein in those pictures so that it's the proteomics proof that the viruses exist
It's really awful.
I mean, it's really awful.
It's such a failure.
You know, a good amount of time in this segment.
So go ahead, Dr. Mark.
Yeah, sure.
I mean, I think, I'll just say, Kevin, have you seen evidence of a particle alleged to be SARS-CoV-2 that results in more particles?
Because that is what the definition of a virus is.
So the particles by themselves that are able to cause disease.
So I read all the scientific papers.
Have I done it personally?
He reads all the scientific papers.
Have you seen it in any paper?
Yes.
Which one?
I'll show you.
It's the science paper.
And in situ structural analysis of SARS-CoV-2 spike reveals flexibility mediated by free hinges.
There are 26 pages of methods in that paper.
Spike protein paper.
But they go through passaging to culture the virus, so it increases in number.
Now, I could make the argument that in your... They transfect a cell culture, and then there's more protein at the end of the cell culturing than at the beginning, which does not in any way, shape, or form confirm that new virus particles are being made.
view because these are just cellular debris of dying cells that they should be non-replicant but what they do is in this study is they take they do one set of passaging they take that they do another one and the number keeps increasing they can take and calculate the number of infective particles per microliter of fluid that they're dropping so tell me how do they do that what's the methodology you think that they show infectivity
So, in this case, they're showing a cytopathic effect.
Now, it's up to you whether you want to take that as a useful metric or not.
Most of the scientific world, and like I say, not all viruses have a cytopathic effect.
It depends on the virus.
But in this case, there's been a report that you get a cytopathic effect, okay?
Now, we can, I'll show on the screen, and I'll show a bunch of stuff, okay?
Real, real quick.
Okay, well, if you want to pull that up, that'd be interesting.
You can always do that during your concluding remarks, but go ahead, Dr. Mark.
No, I'm good.
If there's any more questions, Tim, that you have, I'm happy to answer them.
I mean, as I say, what Samantha and I have done for several years now is
When there's a claim of a virus, whether it's SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus, we basically follow the evidence trail.
And sometimes that means going back to original papers, right back to the late 1800s to see, did they actually establish that they had an infective particle as they described?
And we do not find that in any of the papers.
We find a whole lot of indirect methods.
that have developed over time, and these days a lot of it revolves around genomics in particular, which as I've explained is incredibly problematic when you can't show where your genetic sequences are coming from.
But it gets back to such a simple, it's such a simple thing.
We need a particle that results in more particles, one that causes
It's such a simple thing that we don't have viruses and therefore the entire vaccine schedule of the Western world is a criminal enterprise.
And so we want to, Sam and I want to save, save the kids from the vaccine schedule.
That would be the logical conclusion, Mark.
That would be the logical concluding remarks, Mark.
that the American and world health organization, the American public security, public health state, whatever you wanna blame it on, is willing to murder and lie about this stuff.
That would be the logical conclusion, not just, okay, we've proven that there's no viruses, so I'm gonna go have a beer at the pub.
Do we all agree there's no viruses now?
Great, now we can move on, right?
Let's go make dinner.
It's like, wait, what?
What is the logical conclusion of two and a half, three years of work to show that there are no viruses other than saying that the public health vaccine schedule in America is so disgusting and gross, we have to save those kids.
They don't get there.
They're still not there.
And it would be such an easy slam dunk to say that we don't do it that way in New Zealand.
Keep in mind, who did he save in New Zealand from Jacinda Arden or whatever the hell her name was?
Who did he save from them?
Who's he saving in New Zealand with this video?
disease in living hosts such as humans and it's just nowhere to be seen I mean as I've explained in my introduction even in the animal studies there's no relevant animal studies which show what about aerosol infection in animal studies yep so we've looked at all of those too so are you which ones are you referring to like ferret ones with the primate
The primate ones, yep.
So are you meaning inoculation studies like the monkey sort of ones for SARS-1 or which ones?
No, SARS-2.
Yep.
So what do you think transmits though, Kevin?
That they're taking a cultured batch of SARS, of supposedly SARS-like viruses, they
put it into a experimental model, which is a monkey, but we're not allowed to do that in human beings.
Even though there have been challenge studies done in human beings with SARS-CoV-2, usually what you hear is some referral to a book written in the 1900s where they were supposedly trying to transfect people with the flu and no one got ill.
He said transfect.
some referral to a book written in the 1900s where they were supposedly trying to transfect people with the flu and no one got ill.
To be basing your arguments on over 100 year old experiments in the light of modern molecular biology is, well, it's deceptive to say the least.
So I think what we should do is look at the data that we have, because the thing is, you say you've read the papers, have you done any experiments?
I don't need to do the experiments, Kevin.
Yes, you do.
Well, let him answer.
Go ahead, Mark.
So Kevin, can you tell us, you were starting to talk about an experiment.
I'm going to talk about a whole bunch of experiments.
Yeah, if you want to share your screen, go ahead.
I'll add, since somebody asked if I wanted to ask a question, I find the claims about viral reproduction especially fascinating.
So anything that we could talk about on that regard, before we get to the concluding remarks, I think would be very interesting, because they say that the viral particles go into the cells, and then they get broken open, and the genetic material gets duplicated with some enzyme, and then you have a bunch of copies of this, then also these ribosomes are processing
the genetic material and churning out the proteins, including the nucleocapsid protein, which somehow magically scoops up all the RNA into these newly developing balls.
So I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the claims there.
So it's very, it's very complex biochemistry.
Let me, let me ask Mark another question.
Gene transfection technologies for these vaccines that cells are producing the spike protein by being transfected with the mRNA that they've put in those lipid nanoparticles.
Yeah, I mean, there are some studies, it depends if you, how accurate the staining methods are.
So he knows they're called transfections.
I wonder where he learned that word from.
So we had the study that came out, I believe in last year actually, which looked at this, I think it looked in the unilateral lymph nodes in women that had had mastectomies from memory.
And there did seem to be evidence of spike proteins inside the lymph nodes.
So that mechanism worked, didn't it?
Now, I'm against this gene transfection technology, but the point is that the principle worked.
No, it's very different because in that circumstance... The principle worked.
He sounds like Robert Malone.
The principle worked.
It's a decent idea.
No wonder Kevin McCarran hasn't even said anything about Robert Malone in four years.
You've got something that's being injected into a human with a lipid nanoparticle coating.
So the difference is is that that's a an artificial creation and the person isn't they're not infecting anyone else So it's different but I think what Tim actually mentioned with regards to the vital theory is quite interesting because Tim this is a problem and it's with regards well with regards to how a virus is supposed to make someone sick because Like some days it's supposed to be in your cell one yourselves and many of yourselves supposed to be replicating and the reason apparently that you get sick is because it starts rupturing yourselves and
Not necessarily.
You can have philopodia effects, which is part of the SARS-CoV-2 mechanism.
And so again, this is Mark trying to push back on the virology model and Kevin McCairn kind of defending the virology model in such a vigorous, almost religiously zealous way.
For some reason when we look inside people we can't find a single variant like it doesn't matter what they call it Whether it's HIV or SARS-CoV-2.
It doesn't matter.
Okay, so I can answer that very quickly There are studies which show okay, and they've done the comparison how much spike protein is detectable in the blood versus viral infection natural infection versus gene transfection with the vaccines
Yeah, but the problem is, given the spike protein, its origin is not the coronavirus.
But the point being is that they can find a correlate.
Often with science, especially biological science, causality is very difficult.
I've spent a long, long part of my career drilling down into refining mechanisms so that you can point at something and say, that's probably... Look at his career and see how long he's been drilling down and what he's been drilling down into.
Stop lying!
Because all you can do is give it a statistical measure of what you think it is, okay?
None of it's definitive.
It's just the result within the parameters of the experiment that you've done.
Now, you try to exclude as many confounds as possible.
We've understood that your understanding of what a proper control is, it's completely wrong and would just complicate, it wouldn't be a control experiment.
it's
even comes close to replication won't even won't even have the courage to stand by what he thinks is the uh the in 2022 was when steve kirsch wanted me to review the proposal for experiments by kevin mccairn to decide whether or not he was going to fund it
suggested that he would pay for me to go to Japan to work with Kevin McCairn.
This is real.
This is actually what happened in 2022.
That's why I'm especially upset about these people having lied to me over many years.
I was in Steve Kirsch's steering committee at a time when I didn't realize that almost all the people in that steering committee were also liars.
or unwitting participants in this charade.
And Steve Kirsch wanted to pay for me to go to Tokyo to work with him on these mouse experiments.
They are liars.
Disease-causing mechanism in terrain theory.
Well, he just thought it was off topic.
But I'll let Mark respond to that if he wants, and then we'll get to the concluding remarks.
Tim, I don't think there's anything to respond to here.
Fair enough.
Tim, can I just suggest that I'm not here to convince anyone.
I think the people that know what Sam and I do, and other people like Andy and Tom and Stefan and Mike Stone, etc.
I mean, look, we've got huge followings.
Most of the content we provide is absolutely free for the public and we just invite people to come have a look and find out you know that there's some fascinating stuff when you dig beneath the science.
It's fascinating but they don't actually spike the football which is what you should be doing if you believe what you believe.
They are very careful, and they don't say anything that's controversial or might actually save anyone.
They just say that they don't isolate viruses.
There's no proof of isolation and purification, and our FOIAs show it.
They don't bother to say that because of what we've found, you're injecting your children with poisons they don't need, and America's vaccine schedule is criminal, and we want to save it.
And they should have been saying that.
If they are who they say they are, trying to fight the fight that they say they're trying to fight, then the logical conclusion, the logical conclusion statement is that public health is an illusion based on the virology illusion and they would murder people and lie about it in order to maintain this for generations to come.
Why don't they say that?
Have a look at things then.
We're not here today, as I said at the start, to discuss alternative models of health, but we certainly do that kind of thing in some of our videos and presentations.
So yeah, I just encourage anyone who wants to learn more just to come and check it out.
Absolutely, and the links are down below.
I recommend everybody go check out Dr. Sam Bailey on Odyssey and on YouTube, and we're so thankful that Mark was able to join us.
Let's get to the concluding remarks, just because I want to allow an uninterrupted final word from each of you, and I'm so thankful again for each of you spending your valuable time with us today, and I think we should try to convince people because this is such an important topic, and I know both of you have done a tremendous amount of research on it, and many of us, myself included, are on the fence trying to figure this out, and I think it's important, it's paramount for us to have an understanding of this given the current political climate.
Tim Truth says that they're asking the right questions and that they're engaged in a real debate and that these two guys are to be respected for their respective amount of work that they've done for this.
And it's really annoying because I really thought that Tim Truth was kind of a good guy until he got promoted by David Icke about the stupid Trump shooting conspiracy with three or four shooters in a water tower.
and not talking about the little teenager that got tricked into being part of that, and who did it, and how they did it, and what social media was used.
Nobody wants to talk about that.
Everybody wants to talk about the SUV that was registered to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture or a particular phone call that they made to a particular cop.
This is ridiculous and it's the exact same show.
It's one continuous show designed to undermine our identity as Americans and the world's concept of what America means.
And that's why these are foreigners engaged in this little theater.
and why Americans are cooperating with these foreigners.
It's always Americans cooperating with foreigners.
But let's start, let's see what the order was.
I think Dr. McCarron, you have the first go at the concluding remarks.
The floor's yours.
Unmute.
You're muted.
Because you muted him.
You have to hit unmute.
You have to.
Oh, okay.
I went first.
I'm happy to yield to Mark for his conclusions.
Then I'll respond.
Well, but that's the order with the coin toss.
So go ahead, Kevin.
Well, there's a how long do I have?
Let me check my notes, what I sent over, just to make sure we go with what I said earlier.
It's five to seven minutes.
Go ahead.
Five to seven minutes.
Well, I'm going to rattle through a set of slides looking at data, OK?
And then that will be my concluding remarks.
Is that OK?
That's great.
Yes, share your screen.
All right.
And let's see.
Hopefully you can see the PowerPoint.
Yes, it's coming through.
Right, it's coming through.
I won't do it.
I won't set the presentation.
But like I say, the Bailey's are well known.
There's Samantha Bailey.
They sell a book.
Andrew Kaufman is part of that book.
Their fundamental basis is interesting.
I think I see.
Does he do what is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
on the front of that book?
Is that what I see right there?
What in the shithell is that?
I did not know that.
Wait, I gotta look at this virus mania.
And it's got a forward and with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
on vaccines, fraud and harm.
Wow.
Okay, well, I mean, I don't know what to say anymore, then.
That's incredible.
Free based on pleomorphism, which is that the body auto generates pathogens.
And that's what makes you sick.
This is who is one of their biggest supporters, Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
I've busted him 100 times.
Let's just listen to Andrew Kaufman.
No audio's coming through.
Let's stay on topic, please.
Well, I'm getting on topic.
These people sell books, charge nearly $2,000 for a teleconference, telemedicine, to tell people to eat chicken soup.
I wanted to show Millipore-type
techniques but I don't have the time for that but let's let's just look at the precision that we get with modern-day technologies okay so here is what what's been hypothesized in the scientific literature again and again the same feature which we associate with coronaviruses and SARS is a coronavirus where here we can see the individual virions and the spike proteins okay we can work through that and we can we can slice through it nanometer by nanometer okay
And there you can see them appearing on the screen.
And we can make predictions about the proteins that are on that slide.
Okay.
And the
all of it matches or converges onto a extant phenomenon that we can make predictions about.
The genomics, the proteomics, the visualization, and then we can go to the disease models.
So we'll just go straight to monkeys.
Who are we citing here?
Albert D. M. E. Osterhaus.
That's the guy that we watched the video of from 2009, where he's talking to his Dutch friends, including his Dutch postdoc by the name of Ron Fouchier.
Yes, that's right, the flu guy.
And he was still a postdoc of Osterhaus at the time.
And they're listening to the first case of Mexican flu be identified in the Netherlands.
And then he gets a text in the hallway where there's 35 million doses have been ordered of his vaccine.
That's who he's citing right now for animal models of SARS.
Because Kevin is 100% dead on balls narrative.
You can take this pathogen, put it in the nose or the eyes, and it spreads to other tissues.
Other tissues that are beyond the respiratory system, including the brain.
But here's examples of diseased tissue here from the same isolated particles that was... I like that question, Soothspider.
It would be interesting to see if we could make a three-dimensional model of RNA and then try to
try to triangulate or estimate how much space it takes up, even if it's, you know, extremely well folded around the end protein, that end protein also takes up space.
So if the RNA is wrapped around a lot of end protein, then there would be a certain expected volume for 30,000 bases.
And I wonder if that expected volume somewhat correlates with what we see at that scale of angstroms.
It's a great question.
We see a repeatable set of symptoms,
Okay, that matches what we see in humans.
I say if people want to ask me questions about the details of this I'm happy to go through it a repeatable set of symptoms that is is reachable by many many different roads because ARDS is a common advanced lung condition as Ralph Baric told us yesterday that can be reached by that virus but other things too including high flow supplementary oxygen applied incorrectly and
at a later date, we can, like I say, there's your diseased tissue, it's replicable in monkeys, we can, they've done aerosol studies, and in those aerosol studies, they can find that the pathogen spreads to the brain.
I mean, aren't you convinced by the way he's using these slides?
This is as good as Christine Grace's presentation on Vijon Health.
I mean, this is a joke.
Well, well beyond the area of transfection.
OK, now, if they wanted to get into dark field microscopy, I'm happy to do that and show that the pleomorphic cycle is nothing more than bits of plasma membrane that break off.
How often is he gonna say pleomorphic cycle?
Like, seriously.
Okay, and we can track that across days.
But I'll leave it there.
We can see down to virtually the atomic level, the genomic level, the proteomic level.
We can replicate that illness in animals.
And when looking at the illness, we can see that it goes beyond what would be the classic infected.
I mean, I'm gonna say it out loud.
Kevin McCarron is as convincing as Peter Daszak and as convincing as Nathan Wolf.
They are the exact level, the exact same level of sophistication.
They actually make Ralph Baric's presentations look quite technically advanced and pretty spot on as a teacher.
I mean, this is just God awful.
And if you look back on it and see it as 2022, the great virus, no virus debate hosted by none other than Tim Truth, you can see an American cooperating with two foreigners to mislead Americans.
tissues, the lungs, the well, the oropharyngeal and lung tissue.
OK, it's and then don't get me wrong.
It could be that Tim Truth is just being taken advantage of by these two foreign meddlers that are agreeing to to lie to him behind the scenes.
I think it's much more likely that Mark Bailey and Sam Bailey are in regular contact with Kevin McCarran than that they are bona fide enemies of each other.
And it is very likely that with regard to this particular appearance, they coordinated it so that Tim Truth would be, if he is not involved already, could be duped into thinking that a genuine debate was happening and that indeed Mark Bailey waxed the floor with him.
It spreads throughout the body like you would expect a replicating pathogen to do.
Now,
If they want to use pleomorphic theory to try to rebut that, I'm all ears.
So I yield the floor to Mark.
OK.
Well, I just want to point out that I'm a big fan of Dr. Kaufman and the Bailey's, and I think those are kind of some low blows there, Kevin, but we'll put that aside.
No, but they've never done virus research.
Those are his words.
He's never done virus research.
Neither has he.
No bench work, never published.
I think reading a lot of papers is research.
And the only bench work that Kevin may have done is using an adenovirus produced commercially, which is the same reason why I thought I knew what I was talking about for so long.
So, but that aside, let's go.
I can read a lot of papers about flying jumbo jets until until I've sat in a seat and flown one.
It's all just theory.
All right.
Let's go to Dr. Mark for the final words.
And Tim, I'm not going to dignify Kevin with a response here.
I mean, I think that was because you can't.
You can't.
You don't have the science, dude.
You don't have the science.
Well, Dr. Mark, what I would ask is if you could address the audience, because there's so many people like myself who are trying to figure this out, whether viruses exist.
And we're so thankful for your time.
I'm sorry for the low blow there from Kevin.
But we're all ears.
We want to hear what you have to say.
Yeah, no worries.
So with the animal studies, Kevin does not seem to be familiar with virus mania.
I don't think he's read it, because the SARS-CoV-1 alleged viral studies were dealt with there pretty thoroughly.
And also Sam's made several videos now about the animal studies.
I think Kevin misunderstands when
between transmission and inoculation.
So with the monkey studies and the other kind of animal studies, what they tend to do is pour the biological soup directly into the lungs.
So probably because Kevin's not familiar so much with clinical medicine, what that's called is a pneumonitis.
It's not an infection when you pour the material directly into the lungs.
So you ask any doctor, and particularly an anesthetist, if you pour those volumes of fluid into a mammal's lungs, you will get those kind of reactions.
They are not specific to a virus.
That is completely untrue.
And with regards to it spreading around the body, we're talking about
RNA sequences that are being picked up in different parts of the body that is not proof of a virus.
The transmission studies that he's saying with aerosol that only relates to detecting genetic sequences, it doesn't relate to detecting actual viruses themselves.
So as I say, if you come on over to have a look at the work that we've done on Sam's channels, you'll see that we've talked about all of these studies and dealt with them in depth and shown why they're not, they're just simply not valid.
fascinating stuff, and I really appreciate you coming on, Dr. Mark, and I second that.
I've learned so much on your channel with Dr. Sam, and keep up the great work, and thank you so much for your time, and I put the links down below, so please go over and check out Dr. Sam Bailey's channels, and yeah, we'll end it here.
I'm gonna edit this together and put it out there.
Thank you so much to you both, and I really appreciate
you coming and addressing this topic, because so many of us, like I keep saying, are trying to flesh this out.
I think it's one of the most paramount issues of our day.
So I really applaud your courage speaking out and coming on the program.
So thank you both very much.
And I hope we can get you back on the show, Dr. Bailey, and we can ask you some questions directly and just walk through your research without any interruptions.
That'd be great, Tim.
We've actually got a follow-up essay to the COVID fraud, the one we wrote last year.
This next one is a lot bigger, goes into a lot more detail.
And perhaps when we publish that, I could come back on and have a chat about it.
Fantastic.
Good luck wrapping that up and getting that out there.
And I'm always really excited when I see a new video pop up from you guys.
So like I said, keep up the great work and we'll wrap it up here.
Thank you everybody for watching and have a great rest of your day.
So I think that was an elaborate charade.
I kind of have to assume that they were all three involved in it.
Basically, Mark Bailey was able to get one and only one football across the touchdown, across the end zone, across the goal line, is saying that the controls are not valid in virology and I agree with him.
Kevin McCairn, on the other hand, was dead on Ball's narrative.
He basically was fighting for a guest spot on TWIV and said that gain-of-function is real and points to many standard papers, including one from Osterhaus,
who's like one of the most connected of all the Dutch scientists, including being the former supervisor of Ron Fauchier, the famous flu enricher in ferrets in 2012.
Now, I want you to imagine carefully what would have happened if the main messages that these guys would have had were that they would murder people to cover this up and that transfection and transformation are real and sequencing and PCR work.
Imagine how much common ground they could have had about synthetic DNA and RNA used to transfect and transform cell culture and how this could have resulted in sequences being found, resulted in inflammation, resulted in very uniform signal detection.
And we can agree that RNA virology is basically done with transfection and transformation, but they didn't even use those words, except when Kevin made the mistake.
Bailey never used those words.
It would be a great way for them to advance their language and discussion, but they haven't been able to do it in four and a half years.
And that's why I don't believe them.
That's why I think they're part of this illusion of creating this illusion of consensus by sticking to a limited spectrum of debate, which you saw in spades there.
Sticking to a limited spectrum of debate is exactly what Alina Chan did in her book.
and sticking to a limited spectrum of debate is what's gotten most mouth-breathing, TV-watching, skilled social media users to come to the conclusion that transfection in healthy humans worked, but it was rushed.
You even heard Kevin McCairn say in that video that transfection works, but he doesn't advocate for it.
Free-range RNA cannot pandemic, but of course Kevin McCairn believes it can.
Of course all these people believe it can.
And of course all of these people believe it can.
That's the problem.
These people created the illusion of consensus about a novel virus that killed millions and millions more were saved from by transfection but could come again because gain of function is real.
That's what this whole lie was about.
That's what this whole illusion of consensus is about.
And that's what you saw in that 2022 fake debate, no virus, virus, McCairn versus Bailey.
It was fake.
just like Brett Weinstein pretending to listen to me on Signal in 2020 and 21 about all the things I had to tell him was fake.
That's why them promoting me on their stream was obviously fake.
That's why they didn't say gigaohmbiological.com.
That's why they didn't say go support Jay and watch his stream.
They just said my name a couple of times, even if they said his insistence on calling it transfection in 2021.
They're not going to stop lying because they're part of this illusion of consensus.
They're part of the mechanism by which we are governed.
These people are part of the mechanism by which we are governed.
That's why Bret Weinstein showed up in the Senate.
That's why Bret Weinstein was across the pond in Romania before that.
That's why Bret Weinstein has been in Europe before, because these Americans that are involved in creating this illusion of consensus about a laboratory leak and about the DNA contamination in the shot are covering up the murder and lies that were used to coerce people into where we are now.
And we need a new consensus, a new consensus, a consensus about the fact that transfection, transformation, transduction, whatever you want to call it, in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and thousands of academic biologists should have known better.
RNA cannot pandemic and thousands of academic biologists should be able to know better than that.
And doggone it, the vaccine schedule in America is especially criminal.
And anybody that thinks that there are no viruses should definitely be singing this from the rooftop because thousands of children are being subject to this lie every freaking week.
But they're not going to say it because they are supported by the weaponized piles of money that are getting us to argue about their mythologies.
And by arguing about their mythologies, we are agreeing to accept their premises.
Ladies and gentlemen, stop all transfections in humans because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
And if you like what you saw, please go to gigaohmbiological.com and find a way to support the stream.
If you want to share it, please share stream.gigaohm.bio because it's the only place where you don't have to log in or give any data to anybody.
You can just watch the videos and share them.
You can also download them, and that's also where you can find Jeff's clips.
And you can also find Housatonic and his work.
Mark Kulak is also posting there as well.
In case Mark doesn't come on today, I might be on later to fill that space.
So stay alert, stay awake.
There may be another GigaOM Biological coming up.
I love you guys very much.
Thanks for your support.
Thanks for being here.
And I'll see you guys again tomorrow.
What's your question?
Type it in.
There's still music.
Come on, Carrie, type it in.
I'm waiting.
Still waiting.
Must be typing.
How does the genomic sequence relate to the double helix structure?
As far as I know, the only thing the double helix structure has to do with is the fact that there's a redundancy, so it allows a very high fidelity copy to be made.
That seems to be the main thing.
How that translates to which side we read or which one has the information and which one doesn't is a much more complicated question.
And my guess is that they've hand-waved over that.
and just kind of assume that one has it and one doesn't.
But, you know, that's, that's a, that's a very interesting question.
Thanks for asking it.
I'll see you guys tomorrow.
There is a little video here.
Drill to left field.
A long home run for Aaron Judge.
Into the second deck, his ninth of the season.
And the Yankees have tied it.
And a young Yankee fan catching the home run ball from Aaron Judge.
Out in left field.
It's now 1-1 game.
You say he gets away with a lot of those and it's hard for hitters to square them up.
We don't see that a whole lot.
But Judge was on it.
Not only a Yankee fan wearing a Judge t-shirt.
It's a blue jay fan like a blue jay dad given that Yankee kid the home run ball.
So good job by everybody out there.
And how about some pretty nice sportsmanship by a blue jay fan out there.
That's what that's what it feels like to get support from you guys.
I can't thank you enough.
And I'll see you guys tomorrow.