We have spent more than $2 billion on the greatest scientific gamble in history, and we have won.
But the greatest marvel is not the size of the enterprise, its secrecy, or its cost, but the achievement of scientific brains in making it work.
And hardly less marvelous has been the capacity of industry to design and of labor to operate
the machines and methods to do things never done before.
Both science and industry work together under the direction of the United States Army, which achieved a unique success in an amazingly short time.
It is doubtful if such another combination could be got together in the world.
What has been done is the greatest achievement
of organized science in history.
The next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of America, of the American people, is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us, to ruin maybe America, I don't know, crash the dollar, I don't know, steal the rest of what limited treasury value we have left, I don't know, but I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary, and more importantly, never be possible.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Whoa, Albert and Pamela met in Harlem over the weekend.
What a spectacular connection that is to hear about.
I get little goosebumps thinking about that.
Thanks for sharing that with me.
That's absolutely fabulous.
do do
you
do
so so
My throat still hurts a little bit.
Ruby is doing pretty darn well for what she went through.
She's still probably recovering a little bit with weight and everything, but temperament-wise and everything, she's doing 10,000 times better.
yeah that's for sure go ruby go go ruby go i think everybody is feeling like uh go go gadget here i'm running around in circles uh it's been five years of social media running around in circles like that watching fancy computer generated cartoons that are supposed to give us some idea of what
reality is looking at our own little curated window of artificial reality in social media.
I'm afraid we're surrendering a new level of power to these charlatans as we engage in this pseudo free speech on social media and we've really really got to make sure
that we don't miss this last, maybe last opportunity to take back the power from these charlatans and not, more importantly, not allow our children to inherit the same charlatans and their descendants.
It sounds spooky, but I think it really comes down to some pretty simple ideas.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent, and RNA cannot pandemic because viruses are not pattern integrities.
I need people to understand that the mystery virus does not equal all the excess deaths.
In fact, they knew these excess deaths were coming, and they swept a few extra together in order to create this illusion.
If you look at it under a real scale,
where between 70,000 and 50,000 people die every week in America, you can see that this mystery virus is not equal to the excess deaths.
But instead it is, can be explained by a series of lies and misdirection that led to the murder of perhaps thousands of Americans.
And then these murders were misconstrued as evidence of a spreading pathogen.
And that was used around the English speaking, in fact, around the entire world.
And within the context of our own legal system, despite 10 years of this being a pseudo issue, no one can seem to tie the two words strict liability together.
No one seems to mention what role the Seventh Amendment might play in interpreting some of these legislative traps that we are in.
We need a new consensus about the vaccine schedule in America.
I think we need a new consensus about the vaccine schedule in America.
I think we need a new consensus about what academic biologists and academic doctors and any bench biologists could have known if they would have just done the due diligence that a normal adult would do.
And any biologist can actually work hard enough on PubMed to prove to themselves that RNA cannot pandemic.
There's only a few papers
that might argue against this and it really um if you take away the papers that talk about remdesivir you're left with like one and that's the reality of it uh that's the reality that none of these people want to discuss that's why they went from
kind of in small groups paying attention to me, to eventually all of them ignoring me.
There's an illusion of consensus that's being sustained by sticking to a limited spectrum of debate.
And if we don't get out of that limited spectrum of debate soon, then our children will inherit it.
That's actually the kind of new totalitarianism that all of these people envision.
And in fact, it's the no-sphere that
Yeah, Thiel Desjardins was talking about in a book a long, long time ago, the 1930s already.
And so with the help of social media, with our own acquiescence to using social media as a primary means of communication, we have surrendered essentially to this highly trained set of acolytes.
And behind them, the ruling oligarchy is just quietly running the show.
Every once in a while they send one of these people to a podium and they say a few words that seem to acknowledge that what the general populace is thinking on social media is acknowledged by them.
But in reality, this is all a show.
And the latest iteration of this show is called Rescue the Republic, and it's at jointheresistance.org.
And if you go there, you can see exactly what I'm talking about, that weaponized piles of money have used their acolytes on social media, some of them being these people, many of them being these people.
And it is these people who have convinced us what to argue about when and with whom to argue about these things.
And it is not by accident that these people have assembled now because it is their continuing role to frame an argument that will accept the ruler's narrative by default.
And we will continue to be governed by this theater until we take back the
the sort of assent to do it.
We take back the consent.
We have to take back control of social media somehow.
I mean, I can envision open source type social media that's decentralized, federalized.
that everybody could have their own instance of.
I can envision a lot of interesting ways to do it.
Look at our PeerTube.
You don't have to sign in.
Everybody can access it.
There's no algorithm that's going to throw ads your way.
There's no none of that at PeerTube.
In case you're wondering who you're listening to, you're listening to a used to be career academic looking for tenure.
You can find
the methodology, the papers that I've been involved in on PubMed using my last name C-O-U-E-Y dash J-J, and all of those papers that come up will show you the rather mediocre scientific record that I have relative to some of these heroes in the NIH and people who really succeed at a career in academia will have two or three times the papers that I have there over that.
roughly 20 year span.
If you want to know more about what has happened to me over the last 20 or so months and then more all the way back to 2020 and all the coinkydinks with people that have occurred there is a stream a few days ago where I cover this list where we are now.
I do think it's kind of important to think about these things because
We have a situation here where we have, let's say, a number of people that are posing as patriots and as conservative icons that supposedly had principles when we needed principles.
And I kind of beg to differ.
And so in that vein, I'm kind of looking to
I don't know, I'm trying to keep working here.
I know that we were, we are planning to do a regular biology and uncertainty course.
But some of these things, because they're so present and they're so now, they need to be addressed now.
And so I do feel like it's really important to address some of these things today.
And so that's why I'm doing a, oh, I forgot to change that one.
I'm going to change that one right now.
So I hope everybody's doing okay.
I hope you are also still following Mark Kulak, Mark Hucytonic ITS.
He's done some really good stuff over the last few days.
And I think it's, wait, wait, we're not Weinstein, Weinstock.
Make it a little bigger.
And then we'll resume the show.
So yeah, that's the plan.
We're going to look at a video promoting this.
There were a couple, actually.
We could also look at one.
I'm not sure if I have that one in the folder.
Let me just check quick.
Sorry about that.
You can hear the basketball in the background.
Obviously that's not me.
Come on, load it up already.
Let's see if I downloaded that one.
Did I download that one?
There's another one with Robert Kennedy, but I wanted to watch this one because it is... Yeah, I think that's it.
We'll just watch this one.
because it is also Jordan Peterson.
And Jordan Peterson, as you know, had really no special insight into the pandemic.
And he thought that we should, you know, wait, hold off judgment for a number of six months before we, you know, make any rash judgments, because it could have been a heck of a lot worse than it was.
And he's wearing the masks.
And so, you know, we should just take the shot and get it over with.
And I think it's a very significant thing to remember that none of these people had the principles or the insight to make a significant difference in the rollout of transfection, specifically in the oldest population, the one that was probably the most fragile and probably the least healthy candidates for a transfection like this.
And so it's pretty extraordinary that that timing is virtually forgotten now.
And that's what I feel like a lot of my work is really, you know, bent on doing, is trying to bring people back to this idea that if we don't talk about 2021 and 2020, and how these people's role, how these people's principles, how these people's outlook, what the story they were telling at that time was,
and we don't scrutinize it carefully enough, we are going to miss some very big signals that these people were put in place.
That was the name of the show yesterday that some people thought Putin was what I was talking about, but no, these people were put in place and they're put in place because there was already an expected to be an increase in all cause mortality because we have a population pyramid with this little bump of a lot of kids that were born
around the time after World War II.
So that's about a decade or so of increased all-cause mortality that is not a cause for alarm.
It might be a cause to be investing in funeral businesses or in crematoriums or in caskets and plots in cemeteries, but it's not a reason to panic.
It's not a health crisis.
It might be a,
a boon for the old folks healthcare industry, the home healthcare industry, the old folks home healthcare industry, but they knew this was coming.
There are entire buildings full of actuaries whose job it is to see these things coming.
And this was one of the biggest natural phenomenon in the American population to be coming for the last 30 years.
And that's why it's been talked about on news programs and in The Economist for decades already.
That's what this population pyramid data will show you.
And so it is with some urgency that I suggest that people need to work a little bit harder archiving whatever data is available that will most accurately
catalog this expectation, the predictions that were made about this.
That is important.
It is so important that we don't lose that data, because in just a few more years, right, this population pyramid will have moved up, and those people will be gone, and that bump will be gone, and the signal will be lost, and its impact, its significance, and it as an opportunity will be kind of lost to history.
And I don't want that.
I don't want this.
Maybe I should make myself a little smaller.
I don't want this to be missed, that the mismanagement of this bump in the population pyramid could have potentially bankrupt many Western countries.
That's the reason why in the UK, euthanasia was already kind of a thing, why it was being made a thing in the Netherlands and other places in highly advanced Europe.
And so they took advantage of this opportunity to stage the pandemic so that the governing structures around the world could absorb this coming potential healthcare cost tidal wave.
And because of the lack of good health in America and our lack of biological understanding, this tidal wave was potentially disastrous in the American budget, in the American system, uniquely different than in other places like Canada, where although everybody has healthcare, nobody can get it when they need it or when they want it.
And so it all looks great on paper, but I mean, it's not.
And so all of these Western countries have been facing the same problem.
All of these Western countries have the same problem and they were able to solve it in the same way.
It would be really crazy, right?
If you went and looked at the Chinese population pyramid and figured out that they also had the same problem, that would be weird, right?
If that happened, woo, that would be spooky.
So weaponized piles of money have used this.
They want you to participate in the argument that gets you to accept the bad guys.
It gets you to accept their monsters so that when they reveal who the monsters are, when they take their mask off, like in every Scooby-Doo episode, you end up believing wholeheartedly
in the whole story and you think you solved the mystery.
And so you accept Fauci as a bad guy, you accept the diffuse proposal as real, you accept COVID as something that for extra special reasons, it's still going around the world and actually managed to become endemic.
And endemic was actually the way that they characterized the worst case scenario before the pandemic and right afterward.
in movies and in podcasts, which is extraordinary as we move forward to really see how it is that so many of these things are indeed that way.
Let me see if I can figure out what I'm needing there.
That's right.
And then I need, yeah, that's it.
Okay.
Do I have something else that I wanted to see?
That one also?
Oh yeah, that also works.
Okay, good.
So first of all, I just want to kind of remind you of this time frame.
OK, maybe I have to get this off for a second.
I want to remind you of this time frame that I've been trying to account.
That's the homeschooling kid in the garage doing his basketball ball handling drills, if you can hear any of that banging in there.
We have a law professor.
Sorry.
I think this should work.
We have a law professor who's a mother of an infected child who says that the MMR, some components of it are what caused her son's autism and she's sure of it.
And she advocates for, you know, just better testing because there could be a genetic predisposition to this damage or it could be a particular component of the vaccines.
In the same exact program, actually, we had another professor that might not even have any children saying that parents should be liable for the damage done to other people when they don't vaccinate their own children.
That was one of the counterpoints to Mary Holland on this program called Democracy Now in 2015.
Mary Holland of Children's Health Defense.
And so she was very much out in front of this issue, so much so that in 2015, on the same program, they showed a response from Paul Offit.
And at the end of this response, it's curious because the host explains that they didn't want to do this at the same time, but somehow or another, the entire dialogue of
of Paul Offit seems to be responding to Mary's comments and calls Mary Holland and Miss Holland by name several times.
And so although they didn't want to do a back and forth interview, neither one of them did.
They allowed
Paul Offit to be actually responding to the things that Mary Holland said.
And it sounds like he even listened to what they recorded with her or what she said in the studio.
And so he says that Mary Holland is a conspiracy theorist and an anti-vaxxer.
Now, my argument is, is that one possible interpretation of reality that I don't think is that crazy is that what you're seeing here is already the staging
of what is going to be a very carefully titrated debate about the vaccine schedule and contagious disease and chronic disease and allergies and environmental toxins and bad processed foods.
And they're going to roll this up all into one big health debate that over the next
Let's say five years is going to bounce around between vaccines cause autism.
No, they don't.
It's the tripling of vaccines and putting back three things in one vaccine that does it.
We need separate vaccines or it's a genetic predisposition to it.
back to, you know, chronic disease in food or environmental toxins and mercury in the water and yippee-yi-yay.
Like, we're another associate professor that has a vaccine patent on the schedule, says they should be liable, and calls her a conspiracy theorist by name several times.
Vice President Joe Biden is spearheading a series of corporate and government partnerships aimed at speeding up the national fight against cancer.
Imagine a day, perhaps, when my grandchildren had children of their own.
when the threat of cancer is a distant memory.
When their children can be vaccinated for cancers as routinely as we vaccinate for measles and mumps.
And other cancers can be treated and cured, made into chronic conditions.
Biden kicked off the effort with the- I'm sorry, did you hear?
They can be cured and made into chronic conditions?
Is that what he said?
This is in 2016, ladies and gentlemen.
Vice President Joe Biden is spearheading a series of corporate and government partnerships aimed at speeding up the national fight against cancer.
Imagine a day, perhaps when my grandchildren have children of their own, when the threat of cancer is a distant memory, when their children can be vaccinated for cancers as routinely as we vaccinate for measles and mumps.
And other cancers can be treated and cured, made into chronic conditions.
Biden kicked off the effort with the Cancer Moonshot Summit at Howard University on Wednesday.
Over 350 researchers, oncologists, data and technology experts and others were present at the summit.
An additional 6,000 people will join more than 270 events around the country.
The goal, to harness American innovation to identify new ways to prevent, diagnose and treat cancer.
Here are five things to know about the national cancer moonshot.
Number one, the president convened a cancer task force, which he announced during the 2016 State of the Union.
And because he's gone to the mat for all of us on so many issues over the past 40 years, I'm putting Joe in charge of mission control.
For the loved ones we've all lost.
For the families that we can still save, let's make America the country that cures cancer once and for all.
What do you say, Jeff?
The task force is made up of the heads of multiple executive branch departments, agencies, and offices, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation.
Vice President Biden became committed to leading this national fight against cancer following the 2015 death of his son, Beau, who battled brain cancer.
Number two, the White House has set aside $1 billion for the initiative.
We marshaled the full force of the federal government.
And our goal is to make a decade's worth of progress within the next five years.
While the full funding request is still being considered in Congress, the National Institutes of Health received $195 million for new cancer research in fiscal year 2016.
Another $755 million in funds will be awarded to both the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration in the following fiscal year.
Additionally, the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs are increasing their spending on cancer research and will be conducting large studies to help determine risk factors and better treatments.
Risk factors for cancer would be like biomarkers, right?
Like genetic markers, biomarkers, point mutations, like this kind of thing, errors, deletions, in particular genes that can be associated with the physiology of diseases.
That's very interesting because there are other people in this narrative that of course are very interested in biomarkers like anybody associated with the Human Genome Project.
Anybody associated with pathogens or with the immune system or with the WHO or with vaccine technologies is very interested in biomarkers.
So just keep that in mind as we move forward.
Number three, there's a supercomputer taking on cancer.
IBM is donating access to its Watson supercomputer.
Watson famous for beating human.
Now, that's really interesting because that's also a very diverse set of people that thinks that computers combined with genetic technology is how biology is going to move to the next level.
That goes all the way back to somebody like, I don't know, like Joshua Lederberg.
But it comes all the way up to people like
Robert Malone who have a computer background and who have been apparently involved in a AI sort of
fueled, I don't know, drug screening domain program at the beginning of the pandemic that helped us identify so many useful repurposed drugs.
And so again, I need you to see, I hope you can see, this is 2016.
This is just one year after Paul Offit called Mary Holland a conspiracy theorist on Democracy Now.
contestants on Jeopardy can read 40 million documents in 15 seconds.
The New York Genome Center will use Watson to generate new analysis and insights to create the New York Genome Center world's most comprehensive open cancer data repository.
according to a statement from the White House.
Prevention and cancer vaccine development, early cancer detection, cancer immunotherapy and combination therapy, enhanced data sharing,
genomic analysis of tumor and surrounding cells, pediatric cancer, as well as the establishment of the Oncology Center of Excellence under the Federal Drug Administration, which will coordinate the review of all the agency's cancer treatments.
And five, the Moonshot Initiative to fast-track cancer research is named after President John F. Kennedy's 1961 commitment to land a man on the moon.
Cancer will kill an estimated 600,000 Americans in 2016 alone.
Globally, cancer is expected to kill an estimated 8.2 million people this year, according to the World Health Organization.
The number of new cases is expected to rise by about 70% over the next two decades.
And I think I'm in a position to say, without being totally naive, that we're on the cusp of breakthroughs that can get us there.
On the cusp of breakthroughs is what all these futurists say all the time.
That's what they said in this book, The Phenomenon of Man.
That's what they said in this book, Man and His Future.
These are the two books that I'm starting the Biology 101 classes with.
The PDFs are posted in different places that you can find on the internet.
At some point in time I'll also have them somewhere on my own archive because I think it's
Those books are that important for everybody to read so you can really see where we are.
So we just move one year in the future.
And now we have, you know, by now, Robert Malone has been busy for nearly a decade as the private broker of vaccines and vaccine technology, you know, like fill in fit and finish technology.
He associates himself with assisting with Zika and Ebola and SARS and MERS.
as an outbreak specialist in 2020.
And so this guy is not a humble horse farmer and homesteader, but he's a guy who is an insider since the very beginning.
He has fancy black and white newspaper photos where he's already a sort of the most interesting guy in the room with his beard and whatever, and already quite the expert.
So let's go up to 2019 now and see what... Thank you very much, Hop.
Thanks for the invitation.
See where we're talking about at the Chatham House.
Now, remember at the Chatham House, this guy here is from Belgium and he was the flu commissioner in Belgium for 2009.
This guy is one of the biggest virologists in the Netherlands.
And he's actually the guy that we've looked at in a video where his postdoc
And that would be Fauchier, the guy that supposedly enriched avian flu in ferrets in 2011.
That was this guy's postdoc.
He's sitting on stage actually as kind of, I guess, some kind of reinforcement that this guy's really good.
And so this is the guy that we saw hold his cell phone up in the hallway of the Rotterdam Erasmus MC, where I used to work.
and hold his phone up and say, wow, 35 million doses.
Like they bought something after he decided that it was a positive case for the Mexican flu that some kid had brought back from vacation.
And so there you go.
The Dutch government bought 35,000 doses of his vaccine and he was happy.
He went like this.
And so that's that guy right there.
And now they're talking in 2019 in January.
I want you to think about how incredible it is, the kinds of things that he says.
And I don't know how long we're going to go on.
It's 25 minutes long.
I think the most important part is the first part, but the entire presentation is on YouTube and it's about 25 minutes and it is
absolutely spectacular.
It is an admission as to what really happened here.
And if you think about the population pyramid on the background of this, you can also understand why they knew that it would work this time.
And I was asked to tell you about my experiences being the crisis manager, the flu commissioner for Belgium and highlighting the communication aspects there.
These are some of my conflicts of interest over the past
20 years, I guess.
It all started for me at that time, well, actually in 2000.
So what a weird way to start, right?
He's got a conflict of interest of over 20 years.
That's what it means.
Conflicts of interest are not good.
And if he's got a lot of them over 20 years, that's not good.
You know, I don't understand how he gets away with that, but he does.
For Belgium and highlighting the communication aspects there.
These are some of my conflicts of interest over the past 20 years, I guess.
It all started for me at that time, well, actually in 2006 when I was appointed.
This is an unpaid hobby, so it's not a profession or a function, whatever.
It's really a hobby, that flu commissioner thing.
On April 24, 2009, that was when WHO said, OK, there will be a pandemic, and that's when the thing started.
And then you have one opportunity to do it right.
I mean, day one is so important.
In day one, you start your communication with the press, with the people, and you have to do it.
Now, he's talking day one.
Now, this is kind of, again, almost like an outward-facing brochure version of the truth.
just like James Giordano talking about seeding a few cases in a few places and then the rest is the internet, is kind of not quite right because his story doesn't tell you anything about how you control the narrative after that and how you can put all these people in place to create a limited spectrum of debate that everybody will fall into and solve a mystery and convince themselves that they figured it out.
And what he's talking about here is also very disingenuous because he, and if you apply this model to the pandemic, you would ignore the fact that right before the pandemic, about a year before the pandemic, there was a scientific meeting which talked all about a coronavirus, the real event 201, which Mark Kulak has called the real event 201.
And it is a meeting of all of these scientists that are talking about these coronaviruses and these spike proteins and these new RNA vaccine technologies.
And then in October, the year following, right before the pandemic, October of 2019, of course, everybody knows that event 201 happened where all these bureaucrats, like our current director of national intelligence was there at the table talking about how the narrative needed to be controlled from day one, and especially on social media, which this guy will lament that in 2009, they just didn't really have
the social media that you have today.
And he really wishes they did because they could have gotten much better results.
I'll just let it play for a little while longer and then we'll move on.
Right.
I mean, you have to go for one voice, one message.
In Belgium, they chose to appoint a non-politician to do that.
I mean, I have no party affiliations and that makes things a little bit, at that time at least, a little bit easier.
So he claims that they chose to appoint a non-politician and since he doesn't have a party affiliation, it makes it a little easier.
But he just showed you he has 20 years of conflict of interest of all the industries and interests that believe and want us to believe, more importantly, our kids to believe that pandemics are real and that you need corporations and multinational corporations at that, and government-funded multinational corporations to save you from these natural disasters.
because you're not attacked politically.
Majority, minority, that doesn't come into play, and that was a huge advantage.
The second advantage is that you can play in Brussels the complete naive guy and get a lot more done than you would otherwise be able to do.
So one voice, one message, that's the tone that you set on day one, and you have to be very transparent in that.
My name is the Interminister of Commissary for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Planning.
That, of course, is too long.
That became the Flu Commissary and that was a lot easier.
You have to be omnipresent that first day or the first days so that you attract the media attention.
You make an agreement with them that you will tell them all, and if they call, you will pick up the phone.
When you do that, then you can profit from these early days to get complete carpet coverage of the field, and they're not going to search for alternative voices there.
And if you do that, that makes things a lot easier.
And then you convey the message, and you can do that, and you should do it that way, that our country is ready for a pandemic.
That is a gross overestimation for sure, but it is crucial to... It's odd that that's funny to the people in the room.
And then it's odd what would happen.
How many people have to laugh before everybody's laughing and half of them don't know why they're laughing.
Well, to go into that pandemic.
First of all, what's in the name if you talk about the pandemic, it's quite important.
People are talking about the swine flu, the pandemic H1N1.
2009 virus, novel influenza, 2009 AH1N1 flu.
At some point it was called the North American influenza, the novel flu virus.
That was way too difficult, so we called it the Mexican flu.
That got me into huge trouble with the ambassador of Mexico at that time, and she was furious.
Afterwards we became good friends.
I still get invited to their New Year's reception every year.
But people were making fun of it, and OK, that's probably unavoidable.
But the fact to have a clear and recognizable name, which was easy for the lay public to understand and use, was actually quite important.
It also worked.
This is the word of the year of 2009.
Defriending on Facebook became number one.
To my big disappointment, Mexican flu was second.
Defriending on Facebook became number one, and they laughed about it.
and flu commissary was number six.
So the term works and that makes things a lot easier.
These first weeks, that's easy street.
When you have no opposition and everybody needs news and they can come to you for news, you can bring quite a lot of neutral information and it is picked up and it is, well the news is brought the way you bring it.
So you can only do that in the first couple of weeks.
I encourage you to watch that.
If you look for Chatham House and Mark Van Ronst, I'll put it in the chat.
I don't have the link, but if you just do... And Mark Van Ronst.
I think if you just search for those things, I think you can find it on YouTube really easy.
And the point again is to remember that this hasn't been not done before.
This has been done before.
And so control the narrative from day one is what Marc Van Raam said.
And I would suggest to you that Robert Malone was more than available in 2020.
And if you looked where he was in 2020,
It's very likely that he was present to control the narrative in lots of places.
He admits himself that he was at the Biogen conference, which was a super spreader event.
He admits that he got a phone call at the beginning of January from a CIA agent in Wuhan that told him to spin his DITRA team up.
And he did that, and the DITRA team used the domain server, apparently, to screen all FDA pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals for their potential to interact with two proteins in the virus that he had used a computer simulation to create x-ray crystallography models of, which is no small feat.
And he did that in a matter of weeks with a volunteer team.
this vaccine broker later in 2021 would come out on Bret Weinstein's podcast and claim to be kind of a savior, a horse breeder, a homesteader, but also the inventor of all genetic vaccines.
This was his idea.
And he always knew it was going to need nuance.
And later we would find out that he thinks that Peter Cullis kind of lied to him about whether or not that nuance was met.
And we're supposed to believe that this is where we are.
But I would suggest to you that these people have been put in place on purpose because they knew that this bump in the population pyramid was coming for many, many years.
And so they had many, many years to carefully invest in people's reputation and position and make sure that the titration toward the truth, this is a society and a culture.
You have to think of it as a cruise ship
You can't turn the cruise ship very fast.
If you play Dungeons and Dragons, this is like an aerial creature with the maneuverability of E, like a dragon would have a new maneuverability.
You can't turn very fast in such a big thing.
And so if you're going to turn something as big as a cruise ship, then you need to plan ahead.
And in the event of trying to use a known
Phenomenon in a culture and a society and a population of our size and a economy of our size And and you had years to to prepare for it and years to position people for it I assure you because this is for all the marbles.
They definitely did it And this is just one little tiny player in it.
This guy's not that important.
He might not even be that important when the trump administration is elected or or if not
He may only have played a fringe role for the million or so followers that he has because those million followers needed somebody.
to control them, to distract them, to keep them running in a treadmill.
That's why he came out with Steve Kirsch, introduced the world to Steve Kirsch, Brett Weinstein.
And what happened here?
We heard the pronunciation COVID.
We heard about vaccines or ivermectin as being a way of getting to some kind of hybrid herd immunity.
We heard about repurposed drugs and how if you have the right, you know, the right, the right trick with ivermectin, it's like a perfect prophylactic.
There's definitely a virus, but zero COVID was still a very realistic goal.
And on the flip side, Robert Malone said, well, you know, endemic was always the worst case scenario.
Usually these things peter out, but sometimes if you get a really good one, that's got really good pieces in it, it can go endemic.
the same worst case scenario that was actually presented before the pandemic.
That's not by accident, that's by absolute curation of the narrative.
That's why in 2020, there was another person saying COVID, who knew about the fear and cleavage site, who knew that we had to be focused on genetic causes of autism.
and knew before the pandemic that we should look for biomarkers, that we should be looking for biomarkers in the population because there's a certain vulnerable population to vaccines.
And that's how we would make vaccines safe again.
Now, why is that interesting?
Because this is one of the most important people in the movement that came out early, that's promoted by CHD as one of their foremost flag-bearing experts.
And that's no different really because these people all came out about the same thing and agreed about, well, the spike protein is curious.
If you're in Cleveland site is curious.
Well, you know, there is that HIV paper.
The gain of function is real.
I mean, look back to 2015, they were doing it.
Lab viruses are real.
I mean, there were, why would the Chinese delete the database?
And so all of these parties in 2020 accepted that the worst case scenario was really bad, bad.
The only question was whether this was bad, bad, or just bad.
And that is by design.
That's why these people came out then.
That's why Kevin McKernan came out so early and talked about how PCR works and an expert in it on different podcasts, including a guy who used to work for the World Bank named Vance Crow and why he wrote this paper with Claire Craig and some of these other people in late 2020, objecting to the PCR test, but not really objecting to it.
I've got three of those.
videos from the Vance Crowe podcast on my own website because I don't want to lose them because it's obvious.
that that is a person who used to work for the Human Genome Project, whose father was involved in micro-AI technologies, probably working for the same biosecurity state that his sons did and spun off technology from the Human Genome Project.
That's why he's so wealthy.
I mean, I'm not worried about that.
I just think that you can't see him as being a patriot loyal to our grandchildren's freedom.
He is a patriot as it is loyal to the national security state where he cut his teeth at the Human Genome Project.
That's why he says PCR works for detecting SARS-CoV-2, that all those sequences are real and that the phylogenetic trees that we've built are real.
And it's just not as novel as Tony claims because it was probably circulating in the backwoods of China where there is no sequencing before the pandemic.
And that's why he's testing weed for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020.
And that's why these guys were writing a paper together and why Claire Craig, when she finally came out, you find out that she's a clinical pathologist.
She worked on cancer.
She was a geneticist.
She wanted to use genomes to look for biomarkers, to find descriptions for cancer.
On her own Twitter handle, she says she's an AI optimistic skeptic and data lover.
And the PCR, she told us, was a trade-off, kind of like how food is a trade-off with fast food or tasty food.
It's all the same game, ladies and gentlemen.
That's why when Jimmy Dore was coming out on the Joe Rogan podcast, it didn't go fast.
It took many, many years before the rest of these posers were on his show and they started talking about more and more of the things freely.
This is all, each one of these is an example of how we have been titrated to an artificial finish line each time.
And that all of these people, by stepping in front of real patriots, stepping in front of real biologists, stepping in front of real, real resistance,
We haven't gotten as far as we should have.
If Mary Holland was already able to get on Democracy Now in 2015, if Vaxxed was on Good Morning America and discussed on Good Morning America, then when the pandemic happened, those people should have been in positions where they could have completely taken over the narrative, but they weren't.
They didn't even try.
It was about free speech and mandates.
That's why it's important to realize that I don't, I'm doing okay because I have a few tiny supporters that give me enough money to pay rent and it's crazy.
I love you all very much.
I should put you guys back up.
And there are a few that are really responsible for the vast majority of, of the touchdowns that we score here.
But every one of these names matters and the people that are, that are
The people that are going above and beyond know who they are because I'm in contact with them pretty regularly.
But, you know, Steven, Jeff, Greg, Kerry, it's a lot of people that make this happen, you know, and I'm grateful for all of you.
But I got fired by CHD at the end of 2023 specifically because I was talking about Robert Malone.
And this cannot be by accident because it was Mary Holland that fired me.
And so what you have here is a group of people.
You have a group of people that refuses to
refuses to talk about big picture ideas, refuses to talk about simple ways to get lots of people to understand where we should be and the understanding that they are fighting for.
Instead, these people are very happy to use words like rise and resist, people over profits, truth over lies, courage over fear, and rescue the republic and join the resistance.
And we should be pretty alarmed at this lack of specificity after 10 years.
We should be pretty alarmed at this lack of specificity after five years of this performance.
Because it is a signal that they are way off script.
The only thing they can do is ignore these points now.
None of them can be refuted usefully without drawing attention to the fact that there is so much here.
and that they then have been ignoring it for a very long time because people who've been watching for a while know where we've been and how far we've, how long we've been there.
And so that's, what's really interesting about this Weinstock 2024 is because it really seems like these weaponized piles of money have used us and convinced us that these are the people that are going to fight for us.
That's the whole idea.
And Brett Weinstein really thinks that this is going to be the next Woodstock.
And we need to talk about PCR with academic biologists so that they understand how they use it versus how it was used in the 220 plus, 220 plus EUA granted diagnostics that were used in America for the first two years.
How virology can be a lie, but transfection and transformation can be misconstrued as virology.
and also be used to produce biologics.
So there's lots of truths out there that these people all could have and should have known, especially the ones that have been in pharma for a really long time.
And so finally, the other thing that I've not been hammering home enough since I brought it up in 2021, and then kind of left it behind, is how the population pyramid and an expected rise in all cause mortality provided the opportunity for them to tell us this story.
And that's why I think these things are where we need to focus and what we need to teach our children right now.
We need to get them to be able to usefully think about these ideas and usefully represent them to others so that other people are more or less forced to hold these thoughts in their head for a little while and realize, with the help of them perhaps, how contradictory some of their
the people that they follow and the people that they respect have been with regard to these ideas not getting there in 10 years.
And so Weinstock 2024 is something that we all should kind of pay attention to.
My gut feeling tells me that if you're gonna go to DC to be a part of this event, that you should not bring your phone.
One of the easiest ways that any intelligence agency interested in keeping track of who would invest resources to participate in this event, given who's going to be there and what the theme is, the very easy way to keep track of who's there is just keep track of the devices that come.
So, although I'm not going to be there, even if I was going, I wouldn't bring my phone and
Gee, I'd probably, I don't know.
I don't know.
I was tempted, but I don't think I'm going to go.
Anyway, I wanted to take a look at this.
And this is a podcast done with Jordan Peterson on Jordan Peterson's podcast with Heather and Brett there.
And they did like an hour and a half.
And if you want to watch the podcast, I think it's worthwhile to watch the beginning and the end.
And the reason why,
Maybe I'll have to show those clips later.
I don't know but in the beginning Brett Weinstein says that he's pretty sure that this is a spiritual battle which is you know, it's a It's funny that he says that now I don't think I'm sure it's a spiritual battle But it's just odd for him to start that podcast with a clip like that and then at the end of the podcast they're actually talking about how
Useful knowledge is transmitted across generations and The idea that they come upon or the analogy that they come upon or the model that they talk about is essentially They call it a meme so that you use memes to transmit ideas across generations and then somehow or another they say they're debating a third guy and they say that I just find it strange and
that one of the examples that this guy chooses to use to describe a meme that transmits information across generations is singing Happy Birthday instead of the Catholic Church.
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
And so to just, I found that a really strange remark by Brett.
You know, at the beginning, they use a clip where he says he thinks this is a spiritual battle.
And then at the end, he kind of argues for the Catholic Church as being a fairly effective transmitter of information across generations, which is, you know, I don't know, it's at least alarming.
And so anyway, let's watch this clip.
It's only 15 minutes long and then we'll wrap it up.
You have a rally planned in Washington on September 29th.
And so would you walk us through, well, let's start with who's involved in exactly what this is and what its aims are and just tell the whole story.
Sure, and I will say I struggle with the terminology.
This, to me, is post-political, non-ideological.
Yes, it's technically an event, but it's an event, or we are hoping it is an event in the same way that Woodstock was a music festival.
We are hoping, actually, that this is a moment at which we first see a seed change in the way we conduct ourselves and interact with each other.
I think of it actually as hopefully the bookend that closes the era that opened with Woodstock and opens the next era in which we recognize just how much we have in common, just how much we have to lose if our system fails, which it seems to be doing in front of our eyes.
The rally, the event, is called Rescue the Republic.
The idea was originally framed as save or defend the West.
We recognize the crisis is so charged within the U.S.
that we decided to focus on the Republic, rescue the Republic first in order to save the West.
And, well, you asked who is involved.
I'm going to undoubtedly forget important people who have agreed to come speak on our behalf.
Well, where can people find the full list?
Ah, they can find all the information at jointheresistance.org.
Jointheresistance.org.
And they can follow us on Twitter at RescueRepublic.
Okay, so if you do miss anyone, that's where people can go for the additional information, and we'll post that in the description of the video as well.
Yes.
Okay, so fire away with regards to participants.
Okay, and I will also say that there are people who are in the process of agreeing to come who aren't listed yet, so stay tuned, even somebody who's not listed today, maybe tomorrow.
So we have Bobby Kennedy coming to speak.
We have Tulsi Gabbard.
We have Laura Logan.
Heather and I will be speaking.
We have Russell Brand.
We have Matt Taibbi.
We have Jimmy Dore.
Rob Schneider.
We have
Several musicians.
Yeah, we have Skillet coming.
We have Five Times August, who was a tremendous voice during the COVID madness.
We have Tennessee Jet coming, Deepak.
Are any of these people going to play as well as talk to you?
Yeah, we have speakers, we have comedians, and we have musicians.
Great, great, great.
That's a good approach, that multi-modal approach.
And that does make it different than the standard, let's say, political rally.
Right, and I think partly what that does, we did that a bit at this ARC, Alliance for Responsible Citizenship meeting in London.
I was very insistent on the musical and artistic element, and I think it's because the propositional has to be surrounded by the
imagistic and aesthetic.
That's more like the domain of dream, right?
It's like the way that I look at cognitive architecture is that there's a propositional landscape, which we've actually modeled pretty well now, I would say, with large language models.
But outside of that, there's an imagistic, aesthetic and dreamlike landscape.
That's the landscape of the imagination.
And outside of that is the embodied procedural realm.
And a full event covers all three of those domains.
You can't assume that the propositional alone is going to carry it.
And I think it's partly because the propositional is easier.
In some ways it has flaws and it's easier to dement it.
and capture it than it is to capture the imagination and the procedural landscape.
Anyways, if you flesh it out with those additional sources, it's also a much richer experience for the people that are involved.
What I hear here, and I wonder if you hear it here too,
is this discussion of how we can better get everybody to engage in a way where their whole being is a part of it, where they are participating in the most
positive and engaged way and he thinks that music and artists and laughter is a way to do it.
Now what's interesting is in this book that I want you to start reading when you get it from eBay or wherever you find it called The Phenomenon of Man,
In this book, I want you to be aware that in the beginning of the book, don't forget that if you send a self-addressed stamped envelope to my PO box, you can get some stickers for your water bottle and a Velcro-backed patch for all your tactical needs.
Oops, that's not what I wanted.
I want this one I really need you to hear that in the beginning of this book.
You can already hear it in the in the introduction There is something about the idea and I won't find it right now But I just trust me that it's in the book The idea is that fish fish swim in schools in the ocean
And bees make hives.
And humans make this sphere of consciousness.
Where we swim as fish is in thought.
And that is what makes the man unique.
That's the gift that we have.
And so mankind is a phenomenon different from other animals because of this extra layer upon which evolution can act.
and direct.
And that layer is our layer of consciousness.
And more importantly, thinking of it as a school of fish, it is these different schools of fish that are swimming around in this conscious layer, tribes of humans, cultures, societies, civilizations.
And so in the same context, in the same conversation where I'm trying to get my viewers to understand the foundations of the illusion of biology that is being foisted on people in the academic setting, that's based on genes and reductionist thinking and investigations, is based on a very parallel need
to get people to accept this general idea that if we're going to put our big boy pants on as a species, we're going to need to take control of our evolution.
And our evolution is a lot like the evolution of schooling in fish.
If we're going to take that to a new level, we need to understand how the school is formed and control the school.
If we are the fish in the analogy.
That's this book.
That's a Jesuit priest writing in the 30s, not published till the 50s, ranted and raved about by people like Julian Huxley, all the way up until people like Jeffrey Sachs and Peter Hotez.
That's what we're talking about here.
That's what Mark's working on.
That's what I'm working on.
We need to understand that this, the foundation of this fiction that we are being governed by, this mythology that we are being governed by is founded in
logic and reasoning and a sort of insight into the phenomenon of man on earth, in nature, outside of the context of a Creator, but instead as our own Lord of creation.
That's the trick.
Nowhere in this book do we really talk about the Creator, but instead we talk about how man has responsibilities.
because I guess the Creator left those responsibilities to us.
And so it's important for me to read these books with you, to take notes on these books, so that we really understand the foundations of these ideas.
And if we don't do that work, then we're inevitably going to be kind of floating in the middle somewhere.
Instead of building a firm foundation on which we can now move forward and look at the observations that have been made over the last hundred years and reinterpret them in the context of an irreducible complexity, a sacred irreducible complexity in biology that we can appreciate has evidence of a creator rather than some, I don't know, very, very fancy watch that we can tweak and make better.
Never mind the idea that this, we need to take control of the collective consciousness is what is really what they're talking about in that book and what they're advocating for with regard to a universal religion that will take control of a humanity that has become so connected that individual societies and cultures and languages are no longer sufficient to control them.
It used to be that languages could insulate people from one another and make it hard for bad ideas to spread too fast for the ruling elite.
Now they have a new problem, and it's a new problem that was already seen coming for decades.
They've already been preparing for, for decades, just in the same way that they've been preparing for the coming increase in all cause mortality that none of these people, after five or 10 years of thinking about this, have been able to see.
That's it.
It's more engaging, it's more fun, and that's not trivial if the fun isn't, you know, that short-term hedonic immediate gratification that we were describing earlier.
If it's allied with something like upward striving, it's much more profound and impactful occurrence.
and integrated and more human and more holistic, because what you're calling propositional, I might call features of the enlightenment, of the rational, of the logical, of the analytical, whereas we have sort of lateral to that, but no less important narrative and art and creativity.
And by sort of moving between these two spaces, we have the opportunity for discovery that we may not have in either place.
Yeah, definitely.
And also what you're calling the propositional, what I think of as sort of the fruits of the enlightenment, are easily made into reductionist tenets that then become metrics that are quantifiable.
And numbers are necessary and important for us to understand our world, but they are not sufficient.
And they can be made to seem sufficient.
And that's one of the lessons, I think, of COVID.
and frankly, to some degree, of this political moment we're living in too, that you throw enough, these are the numbers, don't worry about it, I'm the expert, just trust me at people.
And many of them kind of go, okay, yeah, I'm just not educated enough to understand that.
You've got the numbers, you're the expert, we'll go with that.
Well, it's also possibly the case that that also accounts for
maybe why the Democratic tradition or the Republican tradition works, you know, is because intellectuals are propositional experts, but that doesn't make them wise.
And wisdom, I suspect, has something to do with the alignment between the propositional and the imaginistic and the procedural.
So it's an embodied quality.
And it's a quality of the imagination.
There's no shortage of people who aren't educated and who aren't very articulate who can still tell the difference between right and wrong.
And they can do it pretty unerringly.
I mean, dogs can do that to some degree, right?
I mean, they're not so bad at sniffing out pathological character, but they can't propositionalize it.
You know, I mean, and dogs are very good at identifying boundaries between different territories and what's a threat and what's not.
Do you see how weird it is as a psychologist that he's not saying that people can sniff out?
Like it's weird, right?
Because you would think that if, if, if this guy, for example, argues that like fish swim in schools in the water, man swims in conscious thought together in groups.
You hear that as fish swim in schools in water, men swim in groups in conscious thought.
That's what we're talking about here.
These are the ideas.
We are being governed.
And it is an illusion of biology, an illusion of global politics, of war, and clashes of civilization by which we are being governed.
Wittingly and unwittingly, these people are participating in it.
I think these people were put in place before the pandemic to be sure that by now it would seem, well, it just so happens that these are the people that we're listening to because, you know, they were there.
And that's a lie.
That's the exact illusion that is created by social media, that you think that everybody on social media that has reach got it because that's the way the algorithm sorted out, you know, like kind of a big Plinko game.
And that's absolutely incorrect.
These people were put in place before the pandemic and artificially elevated at every point during the pandemic.
And this is the kind of censorship you need to be concerned about.
Not whether anybody can find me or someone else or somebody got canceled on one place or another.
No, because how does that affect millions and millions of people around the earth?
It doesn't.
but artificially promoting somebody like Jordan Peterson for five years does, artificially promoting someone as Brett Weinstein for the last five years certainly affects millions of people.
And so his censorship was more spreading of his, his image and his ideas and his suffering as a, as a guy who had apparently principles of some kind and is now one of these leaders of the resistance.
This is, this is no.
Darn it.
So,
My point is there are other forms of intelligence that aren't propositional.
And it's very easy for those who have the advantage in the propositional space to assume that they're superior in terms of their grip on knowledge, even outside their specialized domains, but that they're also wiser and more moral.
And there's no correlation between cognitive ability and conscientiousness, zero.
There's no correlation between
intelligence, intelligence looks like it's orthogonal to all the personality traits.
And so it's a funny thing that there's no relationship between general cognitive ability and wisdom or morality.
So if you're really smart, you can go bad very badly, very, very badly.
Well, I wonder if that's going to hold up, actually.
There are reasons to imagine that you might start seeing a correlation between intelligence, the fly in the ointment being, how good are you at actually measuring that?
We have proxies for measuring your capacity to succeed, but to succeed in an amoral system, maybe it's not such a good proxy for intelligence.
But back to the earlier point,
I want to point to something that Tom Stoppard said about humor.
He said, laughter is the sound of comprehension.
Right, that's good.
My point would be,
that the comedians, this will become less and less true the more they leverage AI to figure out what people will laugh at.
It will become a self-referential.
OK, I think I'm going to hear something here that I'm going to be able to completely invert and teach you something very fundamental about neurobiology, neuroscience, and human energies.
that I think I've learned in my many years as a 52-year-old adult.
I'm really excited about this statement that he makes because if I remember it correctly, it's really absolutely positively an inverted form of the truth.
Land of nonsense.
But for the moment, while AI is decidedly not funny, and it's really terrible at being funny so far,
The comedian is traversing an edge between what we are conscious of and what we are barely conscious of.
And when the comedian delivers a joke that causes the room to erupt in laughter,
The comedian has found something that everybody in the room is aware of, but they are not aware that everybody else is aware of it.
And so the room comes to understand itself as of like mind all at once.
Right?
That's an extremely powerful, very ancient property.
Often of like mind about something forbidden.
I think of that as, that's often the translation of the pursuit.
And so what he's talking about here, I believe,
is what Teilhard de Chardin was talking about and what Julian Huxley are talking about when they say that like fish school in the water, men school in conscious thought, in groups.
What he's talking about here now is schooling behavior within conscious thought that occurs when you're at a good comedy show.
But it also happens when you're at a good rock show.
It also happens when you go to a great and beautiful moving choir.
or when you're at a church service with an especially moving sermon, or at a funeral with a bunch of people who all agree on why the person who just recently died that they're there to honor is so worth honoring.
A collective shared thought, a shared feeling,
results in some kind of experience.
I don't know really how else to explain it.
If you were, for example, and I'll just give you an example that I think might ring a bell with some people.
If you had a band that you really, really liked, that you liked for a very long time, but for whatever reason, you were never able to go to a concert.
It never even was a possibility because you were too much of a kid and you had just recently gotten to college.
And then all of a sudden they came to your town
And your friends got tickets, and you got tickets, and you went to see this band that you've been listening to since you were a freshman in high school, that you listened to on the beach when you were a teenager while you were lifeguarding, that you had playing on a boombox at the playground when you were shooting buckets.
And now suddenly you're standing with 50,000 other people, or
not likely 50,000, but let's say 20,000 people at Alpine Amphitheater in northern Wisconsin, where you're outside and there's a big hill of grass and it's just a sea of people all the way down.
And then everybody in the place agrees that if they play this one song, you're going to freak out.
and it's the second set, and you're three songs in, and they're doing some drum solo, and you went to get drinks, and you come back with like four, and you're barely able to get through the crowd, and then suddenly you hear the first notes of that song that is your favorite song, and you realize, and everybody in the place agrees that, oh my gosh, they're actually gonna play it.
And now anybody that's experienced that is probably listening to this story and already getting goosebumps and substituting their own particular experiences for that, where they heard for the first time the dead play, or the first time a particular song of the dead being played.
It is without a doubt the absolute truth in this book that men swim in groups of conscious thought.
and knowing that fact, then you understand how we are intended to and are successfully governed by creating these schools within which men can swim.
These schools of thought.
Isn't it weird?
These schools of thought.
In all my life, I've been thinking school like S-C-H instead of S-C.
And so it is really important to see where they're going and what they're doing here and what they are saying and what they're not saying.
Because of course, a religion and singing hymns and having a service of any kind, prayer in groups of any kind, is exactly what they're talking about.
It is the generation of a shared thought in real time
And something occurs in groups of people when that happens.
You can't watch a comedian all by yourself and laugh as hard as you would laugh if just your wife or husband or best friend was in the room with you and laughed with you at the same time.
It's impossible.
And that energy, that cognitive energy is not well understood, but is 100% real.
You can count on it.
And sometimes it takes forms that you can almost cut like a knife.
And for the last decades, they have been thinking about how it is that they are going to cope with the idea that all of these disparate schools of thought are going to be somehow starting to intermingle because of the internet, because of connectivity, because of the size of the population and the size of the planet and whatever else forces you want to bring to the table.
The school of thought is about to change across Western world.
And they're using this opportunity of an increase in all-cause mortality for 10 or 12 years to stage that change.
That's an extremely powerful, very ancient property.
Often of like mind about something forbidden.
I think of that as, that's often the translation of the procedural or imaginistic into the explicit, because that's, the comedian gives words, he gives words to something inchoate, it's like it's already
It's it's captured in the relationship between the ideas that already exists, right?
And then the comedian puts his finger on it, just like someone who coins a word does.
You know, all of a sudden words pop up.
And that's part of the reason, for example, why the routine that that George Carlin does, where it's almost exclusively the American dream, is it is just that a dream?
And, you know, you're it's a big club and you're not in it.
It's not really a very funny.
Diatribe.
It's not a very funny diatribe at all, but why is it effective?
It's effective because the language that he chooses is very, very sharp and it is sharp enough
and delivered with enough skill so that the people in the audience are more or less brought to the identical place in the thought line as he walks you down the thought line.
And so when he says it's a big club and you're not in it, everybody knows exactly what he means.
And they have that thought at the same time and they can feel it.
That's why when you watch that rant by yourself, it would not ever be the same as if you were in an audience of people watching that rant, even if it was a recording.
It is the collective feeling that is in a group of people that you cannot be denied and is actually that energy is what they greatly reduced on purpose since the beginning of the pandemic.
The assembly of people, the free assembly of people to share ideas and to agree on things, even if it's as mundane as agreeing that
that it's okay to have a drink in a bar and smoke cigarettes inside while listening to a live band.
The group of people that agreed that that was a good way to spend a Friday or Saturday evening has been greatly reduced on purpose because in those places there is an extraordinary potential for free thought.
And that potential is being mimicked on the internet by putting three people on a screen and having you watch as though you're participating in a conversation.
And maybe even we're starting to only feel that energy when we try to send it out in the presence of these fake conversations.
And we're sending it nowhere.
instead of sending it to our loved ones and to our friends and to the people that we're playing poker with on a given night.
And so while they're going to go and pivot and now give you a real good explanation for what we mean, they're not going to say it's an illusion of consensus that can be created by three people who go on a podcast and agree to lie to you about something.
They're not going to say how this could be weaponized against a population for decades to get them to believe a mythology about their biology.
They wouldn't want to tell you that, right?
You have a rally planned in Washington.
There's no correlation between intelligence.
Intelligence looks like it's orthogonal to all the personality traits.
And so it's a funny thing that there's no relationship between general cognitive ability and wisdom or morality.
So if you're really smart, you can go bad very badly, very, very badly.
Well, I wonder if that's going to hold up, actually.
There are reasons to imagine that you might start seeing a correlation between intelligence, the fly in the ointment being, how good are you at actually measuring that?
We have proxies for measuring your capacity to succeed, but to succeed in an amoral system, maybe it's not such a good proxy for intelligence.
But back to the earlier point.
I want to point to something that Tom Stoppard said about humor.
He said, laughter is the sound of comprehension.
Right, that's good.
My point would be,
that the comedians, this will become less and less true the more they leverage AI to figure out what people will laugh at.
It will become a self-referential land of nonsense.
But for the moment, while AI is decidedly not funny, and it's really terrible at being funny so far,
The comedian is traversing an edge between what we are conscious of and what we are barely conscious of.
And when the comedian delivers a joke that causes the room to erupt in laughter,
comedian has found something that everybody in the room is aware of, but they are not aware that everybody else is aware of it.
And so side note, Brett Weinstein has figured out the psychology of standup comedy, just making sure you're aware of what he's declaring right now.
And.
and not explaining it in any other way, but very certain terms, not broad enough terms where I would say the energy between humans that are thinking the same thought is not really well described, but definitely there and manifests in whole different ways is not the same as what he's saying.
He's actually trying to tell you that he is certain, understands the psychological mechanism by which and what's actually occurring when people get a joke and laugh together.
So the room comes to understand itself as of like mind all at once, right?
That's an extremely powerful, very ancient property.
Often of like mind about something forbidden.
I think of that as, that's often the translation of the procedural or imaginistic into the explicit, because that's, the comedian gives words, he gives words to something inchoate, it's like it's already
I mean, are we casting spells here?
What is he doing?
The ideas that already exists, right?
And then the comedian puts his finger on it, just like someone who coins a word does.
You know how all of a sudden words pop up and we need them.
And they'd spread like mad because they've specified something.
You mean like transfection?
You mean a word like that?
Maybe like transfection?
Stop lying!
that was a gap in our propositionalization and everyone recognizes it.
It's implicit.
And it's funny too, because
And this is a strange thing, is that it isn't obvious at all that that capacity for spontaneous laughter can be gamed, you know?
I mean, you can get... Are there cruel forms of laughter?
There are, but it's such an unconscious response, right?
It's pre... It's... You laugh despite yourself often.
Yeah.
You certainly laugh before you think about whether you should laugh.
And in fact...
More than two years ago, I think is the first time I used the soup Nazi without the laugh track to tell you about how an illusion of consensus or a Feeling that there's an illusion of consensus can be used to make you think a sitcom is funny and I also used a a clip from
Um, the other one with the physicists and the girl with the blonde girl, like, I don't remember what that one's called anymore.
I want to say third rock from the sun, but that's not what it's called.
Um, anyway, the one with the, the, the three geeks that are all physicists that live together.
I looked at a clip like that too, that had no laughter in it to show you that that laugh track creates an illusion of consensus that gets you to think something is funnier and you feel something there.
It actually works.
And so now Brett is going to claim that this is kind of his idea, which I'm absolutely certain.
It's not just like transfection, just like autoimmunity from transfection and the mechanism for understanding it is not something that he arrived at with a lot of study and careful reflection.
If you think about whether you should laugh, then you will commit a humor sin, which is laughing at the wrong moment.
It's interesting that there's a cost to laughing.
A humor sin.
When the punchline hasn't been delivered, or after you know everybody else is laughing and it's like you're trying to cover the fact that you're really not, you're not one of us.
Yeah, that inappropriate laughter has been pointed out as like that's one of the things that comes up as a critique of Kamala Harris consistently.
For better or for worse, she's tarred with the brush of inappropriate laughter.
And you're pointing out that that's the gaming of something that's an evolutionarily designed marker of something like cognitive integrity.
So evolution
And evolving to swim in schools means laughing at the appropriate time.
It means cheering at the appropriate time.
It means getting mad at the appropriate things.
It means wearing the right costume.
Because these are all kind of part and parcel for the cognitive space that we exist in.
How we present ourselves physically to our conspecifics with what we wear, what skin we expose.
These are all part of the conscious space that we exist in.
Some of it is very physical.
Others of it is really more meme-like.
It's more ideas and even groups of ideas, maybe even rituals, music, language.
And so are they going to explain that, that like these places that we find ourselves and groups of people find themselves in are places that can be created?
and especially easily by social media, given that we are now swimming in that instead of the actual groups of people that we used to swim in.
I think you can see where I'm going with this.
I think you can see the point I'm making.
I don't wanna over, I don't wanna beat a dead horse.
Laughter itself has been gained.
And I would say that actually one of the most troubling inventions that human beings have devised.
Troubling inventions that human beings have devised.
Now, remember the studio audience is not, has not always been fake.
This is something that again, Brett's not really saying it accurately enough to portray the danger.
And that's what's really sad about it.
The studio audience used to be a real thing.
It's not anymore.
It is augmented now.
There might be a studio audience, but if they don't laugh when they're supposed to laugh, they'll augment it.
And they even have a guy, I don't know if you've ever seen this before, but there's a guy who very long time had this invention that he had made that was kind of like a big suitcase that you could wheel around.
And it had like recordings in it that were all queued up by buttons.
It was almost like, if you've ever seen Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, Future Man, his drummer, has invented this thing that he calls the Synthax Drumatar.
And it's just basically a MIDI triggered thing that looks kind of like a weird guitar with a bunch of MIDI triggers around it.
And then when he triggers those triggers, they play all kinds of sounds behind him and he can load whatever he wants up into there.
And so this, this kind of device was actually already around in the 70s when they still only had analog loop tapes.
And this guy had made this machine, a custom machine that he could wheel into a sound studio, plug it in directly to the soundboard.
and with you know his own special key you know he knew what all the keys were he could blend together this fake studio audience and make it sound like there was really a spontaneous audience but it wasn't it was hundreds of of clips that he had that he could sample different parts of in real time in some kind of really weird makeshift i don't know swiss family robinson kind of thing
Back before the day any of this, now you could just have something like, I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
Queued up in the form of what?
Laughter.
I mean.
And so he's talking about that, of course, right?
He's talking about that, but we already knew about that, right?
So I just want to play first, just to remind you,
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
I don't know if I've ever pointed it out before, but what she says there, anything with rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, or Canada is saying nine months, is not questioning the efficacy of transfection to treat you against the novel virus that Brett still thinks we can get to zero.
It's not questioning the efficacy at all.
It's just saying that it might be rapidly fading
And therefore, because the efficacy is rapidly fading, that you need another shot within a year, we can't call them vaccines.
Stop lying.
And so even that, and then conceding that, you know, Jonathan Cooey might be right, we should call these transfections, still is lying.
because she didn't give any information, not even really the information that I would have wanted her to give about transfection.
They're not a vaccine because they are not intramuscular injection of a combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system.
They are injection of a transfection, a previously described category of
of applications, of methodologies.
This is not unknown.
They knew it.
And even though they tried to give me credit for it in 2022 out the side of their mouth by saying my name and that transfection is what he insists we should call it,
They said, maybe I'm right because, you know, they do have pretty rapidly fading efficacy.
And if you need another shot in, you know, maybe we shouldn't call them vaccines.
Maybe we should call them something else.
No, we should call them transfections because they are transfections.
You see the problem?
And so just to remind you, I played you this clip almost two and a half years ago for the first time to tell you that the illusion of consensus, an illusion of consensus can be created on even sitcoms.
We ready to go?
Yes, please, please let's go.
We're in the mood for a cheeseburger.
No, we gotta go to the soup place.
What soup place?
There's a soup stand.
Kramer's been going there.
He's always raving.
I finally got a chance to go there the other day and I tell you this, you will be stunned.
Stunned by soup?
You can't eat this soup standing up.
Your knees buckle.
There's only one caveat.
The guy who runs the place is a little temperamental, especially about the ordering procedure.
He's secretly referred to as the Soup Nazi.
Why?
What happens if you don't order right?
He yells and you don't get your soup.
What?
Just follow the ordering procedure and you will be fine.
All right, all right.
Let's go over that again.
All right.
As you walk in the forest, move immediately to your right.
It's pretty funny, right?
Oh boy, I'm really scared.
What I'm suggesting to you is, is that without this illusion of consensus about a novel virus that killed millions of people, that millions more were saved from, that might've come from a laboratory and could definitely come again, without this illusion of consensus, the young college kids in 2020 and 2021 would have not been misled.
And in 2021 and 2022, they would have not transfected themselves.
And in 2022, parents would not have transfected their young kids if this illusion of consensus created by these people that were put in place many years before the pandemic, because they knew that this rise in all-cause mortality was coming, and they knew it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reorganize the thought structure of Western civilization.
That's the reason why a book-selling law professor had a very limited spectrum of understanding of what might have caused it in her son and a limited spectrum of answers that she offered
and why she was put opposite somebody like Paul Offit in 2015 and has not made any progress in sharpening the biological message that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
And so to allow pharmaceutical companies to do that,
under some guise of mandate with zero liability for even making a pure product, this is just absurd.
And there's no way you can tell me that Mary Holland couldn't have adequately explained that at least once in the last 10 years, and she has not.
neither is CHD.
CHD is now really excited.
Let's read.
Dear Jonathan, this is what momentum looks like in case you missed it.
Newsweek just ran an op-ed for everything you and CHD have been demanding for years.
The end of public health agency corruption and the end of childhood chronic disease epidemic.
Is that really what Laura Bono
And that was her founding idea was to sit in front of Bobby's house and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's house with a box full of primary sources.
And her idea was to end the chronic disease epidemic.
Is that what CHD was doing?
I don't think that's it at all.
It was remarkable to see the mainstream media run an article laden with scathing criticism of our public health institutions and their utter failure.
to protect kids.
Is that what public health institutions are supposed to do?
Protect kids?
Even more stunning, I mean, because if public health institutions are supposed to protect kids, maybe they're also supposed to protect kids from their parents.
Right, Mary?
I mean, the language that she uses is very curious.
Even more stunning, the author was none other than the former director of the CDC.
In under 800 words, Robert Redfield highlighted the corruption you and CHD have fought so many years to expose.
He called out the poisoning of our food with pesticides, the royalties NIH scientists collect from big pharma, the cozy relationships between industries and the agencies that are supposed to regulate them.
And so at the end of the letter, she says, we have a real chance at ending agency capture.
So it sounds like she wants to fix the CDC and the FDA and the education department and the NIH.
She wants to fix them.
She wants to fix public health.
Because again, you know, the public health is supposed to protect kids.
Does Ralph Hazlehorst work for CHD anymore?
Ralph Hazlehorst?
I don't know.
Does he work for them anymore?
Somebody should find out.
Because I think they're lying about murder and lies that they expected, you know, this deaths to happen.
And so they swept a few together in New York.
and called it a pandemic around the world.
That's why there are very good explanations for how PCR can be highly accurate and also a complete lie for SARS-CoV-2.
That's how the population pyramid provided that opportunity for them to create this illusion.
They knew this was going to happen.
They only needed to make it a little steeper.
And how useful is that, right?
I mean, we wouldn't want to take care of these people for five more years.
And finally, virology can definitely be a lie, but the reason why Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan, who also had books around the same time that Mary and everybody else was selling books before the pandemic, like James Lyons Wyler was selling a book before the pandemic, the reason why they haven't been able to get that ball across the finish line is because their job is not to do that.
Otherwise, they would have stolen this from me a long time ago and said that transfection and transformation can be done in cell culture and in animals,
And a lot of the sort of experimental measurements that can be done in that context have been misconstrued as virology.
And Jonathan's totally right about that because RNA can out-pandemic.
But of course, we're not going to get there because they are part of this show, part of this really, really awful malevolent show that is covering up murder and lies in America and the Western world and misconstruing what was to be an expected rise in all-cause mortality as an ongoing
public health crisis for which we're eventually going to need digital ID and digital currency and a patrolled internet.
And we need to advocate against that.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you liked what you saw, please go to GigaOMBiological.com, a semi-renewed website.
A little bit, things have changed.
I realized that I actually have a mailing list there, which is really extraordinary.
I sent out the first check email a couple of days ago.
I have gotten a couple, please take me off your list.
You're a crazy person.
But other than that, it seems like everybody's reading me loud and clear.
I think I'm gonna use that email list to announce streams starting next week.
So you'll get some idea maybe on Monday, Tuesday, whenever I'm gonna go on in the morning, I'll already let you know at 6 a.m.
that I'm gonna go on at 10.
or let you know at 10 that I'm going to go on at 1 or something like that.
And that might work better than the instantaneous notifications you get from Twitch.
And we'll see how that goes right now.
If you're not on that list, just go to GiggleAndBiological.com and enter your email in any one of those places, either on the
Contact form or the the email box or whatever.
They all go to the same place I just didn't understand where that place was.
So I apologize for that.
It's a one-man show I don't know what to tell you My wife is starting to help again feel is starting to write emails and stuff like that, but that's gonna take time to ramp up Thanks very much for joining me.
Sorry about that And I will hopefully see you tomorrow if all goes well tomorrow's Friday I love it.
Thank you very much
I mean, it's just impossible.
It is impossible that all these people are now on the same team, that Mary Holland is on the same team as Kevin McKernan, the same team as Robert Malone, the same team as Meryl Nass, the same team as Jessica Rose.
They were all put in place before and during the beginning of the pandemic, and that's why they've all come together at this time to rally in DC.
It's just...
I just worry that maybe Bobby's being misled by these people and thereby potentially Trump and his team will be misled by these people.
I mean, that's the best sort of most optimistic appraisal, right?
I mean, you can be totally negative and say that there's nobody coming to save us and I wouldn't argue with you.
But right now, I think there are still some unwitting participants and that means that there's still hope that
More people will will help break the narrative And if we break the narrative who knows what can happen right because once the cruise ship starts turning And is going somewhere than other than they want it to Then all bets are off and that's that's what I'm hoping for.
That's what I'm praying for Let's turn the cruise ship together ladies and gentlemen.
I'll see you again tomorrow.
I Have no responsibility for the current pandemic