Testing 1, 2.
Test 1, 2.
This is GigaOM Biological.
Test 1, 2.
Testing 1, 2.
Got it.
Test 1, 2.
There he is.
I finally made it in.
Can you hear me yet?
Oh, I got to move my camera really have to sit over here just to be in the middle.
Just a little to just move it a little.
Maybe you can't hear me yet.
Hello.
Testing one, two.
Now you can hear me.
Okay, great.
Hello.
How are you?
I've been I've been talking to you for like, since you joined in 45 seconds ago, and then just realized you can hear it.
It's all good.
Yeah.
I mean, I can do it like like this, I suppose.
I suppose this would work, then you don't have to move your camera.
Right.
I just do it like this instead of the close up.
I don't know.
Oh, no, I don't mind.
I can I can switch.
Oh, you can move it easily.
I mean, it doesn't matter to me.
I really don't care.
OK.
Yeah.
Are we live on your end?
Yeah, we are.
OK.
You want me to pause it quick?
I can.
It's no problem.
It doesn't really matter.
I mean, nobody's watching me.
I mean, it's only the people that follow me every day.
Otherwise, it's nobody.
I haven't gained a follower in many, many months.
Actually, I probably gained followers since the redacted thing in a way that I've never gained followers in years.
Well, that's awesome.
They even cut a clip of it.
I don't know if you noticed that, but they cut a clip and put it on their own Twitter and stuff.
It's quite remarkable, actually.
Yeah.
They they found, you know, what what I was saying and the clip of you and compelling and as anyone who's an honest actor would and should.
And so I hope there's a lot more of that and we can collaborate and and get your message out there more and start challenging, you know, this elaborate
PSYOP.
Yeah, I wish we had a better name for it.
I think a lot of people always get turned off by these words that the other team also uses.
What, of PSYOP?
Yes, PSYOP and conspiracy theories and fifth generation warfare.
It's frustrating because of course it's kind of like, you know,
You got to choose one of their weapons in order to fight them.
But we've got to sort of in a way invent our own set of descriptive tools.
I've noticed that you do that.
I mean, illusion of consensus, these kinds of things.
And then I noticed, you know, and I know you're I mean, we're not we're not live on my end.
You know, I'm not recording on my end yet, but.
you know, I noticed that got taken.
Isn't that Bhattacharya's podcast name?
Yeah, we take that.
So yeah, no, I can't.
I can only claim that I was using it on slides before him and that he was a friend of mine.
I don't know if he stole it or not.
I mean, you know, I mean, yeah, it's not I can't be the first person to have said those three words together.
Yeah, of course, of course.
No, but I mean, I think, you know, one of the things that I think I've seen you do and I'm trying to do myself at least is provide analogies for people to understand it.
You know, that's I think that's really useful in having.
Memorable ways, you know, whether it's your what it's, you know, some of the analogies that I've seen you use that I thought were really useful.
Well, now my I was just thinking of them now, my brain just
I got it.
It's all good.
I really hate, for example, these kinds of things.
But but anyway, we can talk about that in the, you know, I mean, I think I think, you know, my my like lighter and, you know, my my
they yell yelling fire in a crowded theater, these kinds of things.
So then people I think it really helps people conceptualize it.
What has been done to them and and how it's all worked, because it is it's extremely elaborate and it's it's like a house of mirrors, you know, and and you think you're out of it and turns out, you know, you're still in it and you're oh, man.
So it's it's really it's very challenging.
And I mean, one of the things, you know, that I notice is like
Myself, I got so much wrong at the beginning, and pretty much everybody got stuff wrong at the beginning, even if they were the greatest experts.
And if your analysis hasn't changed over time as you've gotten new information or noticed patterns or figured things out that you were not aware of or were caught up in, if you haven't changed, then I don't believe you, basically.
I mean, I would I would be willing to bet that if you reflected on your own personal, you know, stories that are closest to your heart, like Haiti or Israel, I bet you would find very similar things where actors or people that have been in prominent had a prominent voice in these arenas of debate have surprisingly made surprisingly little progress in their ability either to communicate their position or for it to evolve in any meaningful way.
And that was what I find extraordinary with my own experience in this, what is oftentimes, you know, grossly overgeneralized as a anti-vax movement and now a health freedom movement.
I've had this experience with a lot of people that no matter what,
new evidence or new set of circumstances presents itself, they still seem to be stuck in a sort of, I don't know what the right word is, if it's a paradigm or just a concept that they can't let go of.
And as a result, at some moment you could see it as being bullheaded or stubborn, but after years and years and now it has to be, at some point you come to accept the fact that there's something else happening there.
I mean, there's, yeah, the question, you know, there's definitely witting actors and there are a lot of unwitting actors.
And I think there's some sort of psychological phenomenon that, I mean, I've seen this in different issues that, you know, when it's just like one guy saying that this is all phony or whatever.
people are you know there's a big price to speaking out socially it's like a psycho it's like a social phenomenon um and if you are like you know you have x hundreds of thousands on twitter or this or that and you have your people and your dm groups and like
then do you really like want to upset that?
And, you know, all of a sudden you're going to be out of those DM groups or signal groups, like in your case, you know, with this stuff early on.
But there's but that's not only in this COVID thing.
And so it's if you do that.
you know, as long as it's just like one or two voices that, you know, people can dismiss as crazy.
That's one thing.
But when the hegemony starts to be challenged, then it's, you know, more people will come out and feel safer.
So, I mean, I've seen that in a number of things, and I hope that
You know, we can start to shift the thing here because I mean, you're doing great work for a small audience.
But I want to try to get your message out there and wake people up.
This is I mean, this is one of the things that I'm going to say when we record.
I want to say on record, but it's like the one of the questions like what they asked me on redacted is how did you get in touch with Jake?
And that's and that's, you know, like what led me to reach out to you.
And basically it was a process of being able to ask the right question, because once you have the right question, then that can lead you to the right answer.
So, you know, I when I contacted Danny Rancourt,
who, you know, I know I was I saw your criticism of his work, which I find compelling.
And it's something I think he should be asked about.
But I said, Danny, I really I'm sorry.
I really suspect that there actually wasn't a pandemic.
And, you know, in his position was, well, it doesn't really matter if there's a pandemic because none of it would have been justified if, you know, none of like it doesn't matter if it's possible or not.
It wouldn't have been justified.
And
I don't really agree with that because that's how they that's how they justify it.
You know, you open the debate.
And so anyway, he he connected me.
He suggested I get in touch with you.
So my process is basically I mean, there's a there's a whole bunch of it.
But how did I get to reach out to Jake?
He's a very interesting story.
But I don't want to get into that in like that's something maybe I should
I don't know, I'd rather for this recording that you and I just, I just basically get right to you instead of like a 15 minute, or maybe I'll just try to record something after, like a quick thing and put it up front.
I don't know, but.
I mean, I'm fine with you pushing the button right now, just start recording and, but I, I think the, the goal of getting a first,
let's say, meaty 20 or half 20 minutes or a half hour as best we can, I think is a good idea.
And so I'll try not to say too much about who I am, other than a very short through the corner kind of explanation.
With that book, with that book in mind, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
And exactly.
And then, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I mean, that's basically the question I'm going to ask.
And so like, um, but then we can use that as like a jumping off point.
So anyway, I have, I have a few questions written and then we can just take it anywhere.
Um, so, okay, I'll start recording.
Awesome sauce.
All right, Jay, thanks a lot for doing this interview.
First, so can you first tell me how you became involved in the COVID question and the lab leak theory?
Yeah, very, very short story.
First of all, thanks very much for finally having me on your show.
And I don't mean that in a derogatory way.
I mean, just like, wow, how long we've known each other and how long this whole narrative has been going on.
how long it's taken for, I don't know, for all of these stories to become believable and relevant enough.
I think it's really remarkable.
I have to plead the, I don't know what the right thing to plead is.
I have to plead ignorance in the sense of at the start of the pandemic, I was a academic biologist at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, minding my own business.
I was struggling to get tenure somewhere.
I had been dragging my wife and family around the world based on my career that was eventually going to take off, you know, when I got tenure or got on the tenure track.
And so in the meantime, we had been scraping by as postdocs.
And, you know, I basically understood biology as anyone else understood biology in academia before the pandemic, you know, DNA and the Human Genome Project and all that stuff.
And so when the pandemic started, I accidentally found myself riding my bike to and from work.
And I had been doing journal club on my bike.
So I was talking about neuroscience papers.
That's my
That was my field.
I was a neurobiologist.
And so I was talking about papers that I was sharing with my students on my bike ride and making a YouTube video of it.
That's kind of a story in and of itself, but I had been recording for safety reasons and eventually discovered that I could hear my voice on the camera.
And so I just started putting YouTube videos up and it started to become an excuse for me to edit videos.
I was having fun.
And actually, if you want my honest, absolutely naked opinion or admission on this, one of the reasons why I thought it was so cool was because I thought that, you know, maybe teaching on social media and becoming some kind of noteworthy social media person might make me uniquely appealing to a faculty that wanted to have, you know,
a lecturer that also, you know, did stuff online or something.
I just imagined that, well, who else is doing this?
Nobody was doing it.
So I thought it would be a good idea as a way to make my CV more appealing.
Again, only thinking about achieving tenure, which had been my goal for like, you know, 15 or 16 years.
Um, and so when the pandemic broke out, I did three bike rides very naively, um, about coronavirus and what I could read in a couple of weeks.
Um, because I thought, what the heck, I'm going to read these papers anyway.
Why not do journal clubs about these papers?
Um, you know, Michael Osterholm, for example, had gone on Joe Rogan and started talking all kinds of things about all kinds of papers that I had just read.
So I thought, why can't I talk about these papers?
And so I did that.
And that got the attention of the faculty, it got the attention of a newspaper where I was quoted in the Washington Times.
It's not a high-level newspaper like the New York Times, but it is a newspaper that got the attention of the faculty to which I was warned that
they had seen my YouTube channel and I wasn't a virologist and I shouldn't talk to any more newspapers so at that stage I was already pretty impressed and thought wow I must be on to something here and it was very easy for me to convince myself given the
circumstantial circus at the time that this could be a Lably cover-up.
And so I found myself very quickly arguing with faculty members in the hallway about masks and about transmission, you know, R-naught numbers in the New York Times versus the primary literature.
arguing about who Ralph Baric was and wasn't and all this other thing.
And so I think the best way to describe myself would be an unwitting participant in this incredible drama that was a potential lab leak that was resulting in a
pandemic, the worst case scenario, according to some of the people that were talking to me and streaming with me and inviting me to stream with them, the worst case scenario could have been a billion people dead.
And so lockdown was of paramount importance.
And this debate I got all sucked up into because people had seen my bike rides and said, hey, this is a guy who is speaking out, let's talk to him.
Or
Dan.
That's what I was led to believe.
I was also led to believe that I was involved in some kind of Twitter chat group that was an international group of people that was also solving the mystery of the lab leak.
And this group was called Drastic.
And I reviewed all three papers that
were eventually peer-reviewed and published.
They all have my review on them while I was still a faculty member at the University of Pittsburgh and so some ways you could even see that as this anonymous group of people on what was Twitter at the time kind of recruiting me and a couple other people like Rosanna Segreto from Canada who also had a faculty position to publish
Papers about the lab leak or the sequence that that belied a lab leak at the time I I didn't know what a fear and cleavage site was it was just thrown at me.
It is obviously Evidence and by the time I could read papers about it and understand what it meant and what it didn't mean That was like three years later And so in the meantime, oh, sorry, go ahead
No, no, let me say, I mean, one thing I think it's important to emphasize how this Twitter group that you became part of, Drastic, was hailed in the mainstream media as a group of like sleuths who were going to figure out that this was from a lab, that there was a lab leak.
And, you know, where was Drastic written up?
I mean, it was it was promoted heavily.
Drastic was written up in Vanity Fair and it was also reported by Tucker Carlson while he was still on Fox.
It was completely, it was reported incorrectly, just to make sure that, you know, we go as quickly as possible with the truth here so that nobody needs to doubt it.
Twitter groups, you know, these DM groups are maintained by the person that establishes the group, so there can only be one person who did it.
DRASTIC was a group that was was assembled by an account named Billy Bo Stixson.
Now Billy Bo Stixson as far as I understand is still an anonymous account on X and is still the administrator of one of the two DRASTIC sites because DRASTIC at some point broke into two groups which you know maybe is a different discussion for a different day.
But the point would be that that group put together by that account was incorrectly described in Vanity Fair and by Tucker Carlson in 2021 as having been started by a Frenchman
by the name of Gilles, oh gosh, Demeneaux or something like that.
I could show you that later.
And Jamie Metzl, which is really a funny name to drop in there.
Jamie Metzl being a futurist and a guy involved in a lot of this stuff before the pandemic as well.
A government official and big cold war liberal kind of cold warrior.
Yeah.
Big interventionist.
Yeah.
But yes.
And so that was a very interesting thing that at the time I went bananas.
I was like, how are we going to stand for this?
We can't let Tucker misreport who we are.
And they were all like, no, no, it's cool.
At least our name got out there.
And I'm like, what?
Our name got out there?
They said it was the wrong guy.
And like, they didn't care.
So at some point in time, I started to really doubt the authenticity of this group of people for a number of different reasons.
Again, that could be a whole show.
But anyway, I decided to go off on my own and one of the things that I thought would be a responsible thing to do as a biologist
was to learn this immunology better than I knew it previously.
So of course I had taken immunology before and I knew all the, you know, the standard note cards.
I could tell you what the note cards said.
But I didn't understand the primary literature and I wasn't as mature of a biologist as I was at this time when I had learned immunology.
And so I thought I'd revisit it.
and especially with respect to what was known about the immunology of coronavirus because this is of course what we're talking about.
And there's quite a plethora of literature out there about RNA virology and RNA viruses and you know respiratory disease and all this stuff and so it's a pretty deep hole that you need to dig and there's a lot of dirt to move but
As a neurobiologist, as an academic neurobiologist, I was not unfamiliar with this task.
I think it's important to know that if you're a skilled biologist in the academic setting, your main goal is to find a place in the quest for knowledge that not very many people are currently mining in that is also potentially going to have a couple of gems in.
Inevitably, you need to read into a lot of different niches, a lot of different corners of the cutting edge of knowledge in order to understand whether or not there's space there for you to work.
And so when you're, especially as a budding academic biologist, you train with somebody and you might be lucky enough to train with somebody that is going to hit the Nobel Prize in like a year or just did.
And so they have so much funding and they have so many different ideas that they can work on that you potentially could be given that little space within which to work.
And because you're given it by
I'm trying to think of a good analogy here, but if you are apprenticing with a known basketball star, and this can get you farther in life, like if you can get an apprenticeship with LeBron James, or you get an apprenticeship with some guy who's just a D3 player, then when you apply for your job as a basketball coach, the guy who apprenticed with LeBron James will automatically seem to carry a little bit more weight.
And I think a lot of this kind of thing is occurring when it comes to thinking about these ideas.
I just lost my train of thought because something walked into the room.
Can you remind me what I was just saying there?
Sorry.
Where you were going as an academic biologist, I mean, I guess, well, here's my question.
How did this lead you to working with Robert Kennedy Jr.?
Yeah, so I want to think about what I was just saying there because I had a point and I don't know why I lost it.
Oh, it's annoying.
I'm very sorry.
Well, the point is that I tried to relearn this immunology, and I really wanted to do what I thought was responsible.
And so, given the fact that all these people were talking about worst case scenario being years, and they were already talking about how my kids were not going to go back to in-person school in the fall,
I had plenty of time to do it.
And the more I learned, the more frustrated I became with what was on TV and what they were saying and what was on Saturday Night Live about antibodies.
And it just started to drive me nuts because I started to realize that this same story had been told before.
It had been told before for the swine flu and for the flu vaccine and for all these different things that I didn't understand were out there and were a problem before.
And so I tried as best I could to stay focused on the idea that, OK, I still couldn't rule out a lab leak.
It still made sense to me.
But my question was, could they use the excuse of a lab leak to do all that they're doing, even if they knew that the lab leak was just smoke?
And so I didn't bother to try and tap into the specifics of the biology because I kind of thought that was a red herring.
And the reason why is because as an academic biologist, I used virology on my bench.
So I have been transfecting animals for a decade already or more, where I take a mRNA, or sometimes it's a DNA in an adenovirus,
and I will put it in a place in the brain and it may have some kind of targeting mechanism or it may just do its thing wherever you put it and it will change the expression of a protein locally and then I use that as a tool.
It could be a label, it could be a switch, a control mechanism, it could be an on switch or an off switch.
There's lots of different things that you can now do with that if I just speak in general terms.
And so I'd been doing that for a long time and when this thing, at the end of 2020, they started to go on TV and Bill Gates in particular really pissed me off, went on TV and started to explain what I knew
was transfection as a next generation vaccine or an investigational vaccine, I went bananas.
And that was the first time where I had a confrontation with someone in the hallway where I felt as though
Okay, you're not, you're not, you're really not listening from the very moment that I speak to you because here's the ding.
At the University of Pittsburgh, it didn't matter whether you were working on monkeys or, or, or rats or mice, the chances are you were using some form of transfection.
The vast majority of the tools that are used on the academic bench for transfection are based on adenovirus, but there are also lots of tools that use a lipid nanoparticle.
Now, the point would be that I went to people that I thought would listen carefully.
And I said that, look, they just went on TV and they explained what we use on our bench, what we buy from our suppliers.
They described it as an investigational vaccine, but it's not any different.
In fact, the Johnson and Johnson one is an adenovirus.
And it's one of the adenoviruses that we use in our labs.
It's number 25.
What are we doing here?
Are we really going to not speak out?
And most of them would not say, they would just say, it's not, I don't, I'm, I don't know.
I mean, I'm, I don't, it's my, my expertise.
Some of them would say, go far as to say they, well, they must have, you know, tested it.
They must have, you know,
It must be something different about it.
Otherwise, they have some mechanism in their head where they can dismiss it.
They don't have to investigate further.
After a while, I got really exasperated because they were starting to roll it out in old people.
I'm just like,
Healthy old people are now being transfected.
What exactly are we doing here?
I mean, and they rolled out adenovirus first, and I was trying to argue that adenovirus is the, well, I was confused.
I mean, I didn't know.
Adenovirus was the one we were most familiar with, and in the context that I used it,
there would always result in a lesion.
And we can describe that later.
We can, I guess, maybe now just keep going in this train of thought here.
But when you transfect an animal in the context of the work that I do, there is an inevitable immune response in the brain where those neurons will be attacked and destroyed.
So, in order to accomplish the experimental goal that you would always have in an experiment with a mouse, you also need the anatomy.
So, you sacrifice the animal and you preserve the brain and then you do an anatomical reconstruction of where it was that you expressed those proteins and, you know, maybe how bright they were so you can see how many proteins were expressed.
Again, I'm overgeneralizing here.
Anybody with the technical knowledge would know that.
I'm just trying to explain it for the layperson.
And so the point is, is that if you do these transfection experiments, it was already well known that you can't just transfect a mouse and then have this
manipulation that you do be permanent.
That's not how it works.
Instead, you have this window where the manipulation occurs because the protein is being expressed.
And then you have this window where the immune system responds to that change.
And usually that's a detrimental response, usually a lesion or whatever the animals, the neurons are destroyed.
And so if you wait too long to terminate the experiment and sacrifice the animal, your anatomy
will not have neuronal structures in it and that kind of thing.
It'll just have a blank place where
the genes were expressed.
And so that is a well known downside of using this in monkeys, because monkeys are very expensive.
And so if you transfect a monkey, it's pretty much a terminal experiment in about 12 weeks, or you've now permanently altered this monkey by deleting those or some of those neurons that have overexpressed that protein that you wanted to express.
So in other words,
Even at the academic bench, we were kind of still at the cusp of realizing the
methodological and technical limits of this manipulation.
Because again, it was of limited use in monkeys for the simple fact of what happens after you do this.
You can't, for example, make an optogenetic manipulation in the basal ganglia of a monkey and then have it remain stable for the rest of the monkey's life.
That's not how that would work.
And so any experiments where they've done these kinds of manipulation in monkeys, generally speaking, are sacrificed then again
to demonstrate the anatomical specificity of the targeting, justify the conclusions based on that anatomy, but also to avoid this inevitable immune response.
So, going back to this argument with people, with faculty members, if you present this idea to faculty members and then say, you don't want to transfect your grandma,
They didn't grasp it.
I didn't even grasp the full sense of what I was saying at the time, but I knew I was warning in the right way.
I mean, it's only even years later that I understand how right I was about it.
But this was the point where the University of Pittsburgh said you should go home and turn it mail in your badge and keys.
And so I started working very hard to put it on the internet and to teach people what I thought I knew.
Drastic basically kicked me out because they wanted to investigate the origin of the virus and I didn't and I was pretty destitute in April of 2022 so a year Or so after I had been told to go home and more than a year after my brother and parents stopped talking to me because they They assumed that getting fired at the University of Pittsburgh meant I was obviously the jackass.
They always thought I was and so
Yeah, I was, uh, if it wasn't for the belief that my wife had in me and the faith that my, my, my family had in me, I don't know if I would have made it.
I had a few really important, um, viewers at the time also that were, were basically floating my rent.
Um, and, uh, they have remained good friends ever since.
Um, it's, uh, just serendipity really that we were, we were really in trouble and, uh,
In April 2022, I got a phone call, actually two phone calls on the same day.
One was from a guy's voice who I immediately recognized and I fell to my knees in front of my wife.
We were sitting, at the time we had a beautiful house on a hill that we lost because I lost my job.
And we were sitting on our front lawn overlooking this nice neighborhood we lived in and the kids were playing and the phone rang and I picked it up.
And I didn't normally answer non-phone numbers but it was from California.
I heard this voice and I just couldn't believe it.
And I would do an impression now, but it would be not nice.
But just asking, can I speak to Jonathan Cooley, please?
And those words said in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's voice.
And so I flipped out.
I'm like, yeah, this is him.
Like, oh my gosh, I can't believe you're calling me.
Like, we're going to win.
I was freaking out because I thought at that moment that this was the time that the tide was going to turn.
And about a half an hour later, I got a phone call from Senator Ron Johnson, who basically told me the same thing, that he had just seen my stream and that he really wanted a brief and that this was, you know, this was a big deal.
And of course, we're now here in 2025, almost three years later.
Well, really three years later now.
And nothing has really happened that I imagined would happen.
And I'm about as disappointed as I've ever been.
Not in the sense of I'm suffering and my family's out in the street or something like that, but just that I I'm sure that this truth is not mine I'm sure that this truth was out there before me.
That's what's only reason why I'm I'm still fighting because I finally Figured out that there were people that came before me that the same people that are now Pretending not to know who I am even though they've all at one point in time told me they thought I was great
These people also stood in front of somebody else as well named Brandy Vaughn, who had a lot of the same big biological ideas that I've come to by myself or on my own with a lot of wandering.
She already had nailed down before the pandemic in 2015 and 2016.
And I just wasn't aware of her.
And maybe more importantly, I wasn't made aware of her.
But my viewers made me aware of her earlier this year and since then it's really made me feel a lot better about where I'm going and also a little more nervous because Brandy died in the beginning of or at the end of 2020 and under some questionable circumstances.
And so I'm just resting on the laurels that Brandy Vaughn had almost the same language for a couple of key points for me that I think are going to be
I don't know what the right word is, acidic for the narrative that we're currently under the spell of.
I think it's really going to be able to dissolve a lot of it.
And so anyway, I got to work for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
for about a year and a half.
I guess what I should really say is I worked for Children's Health Defense.
You can see the name right there.
Children's Health Defense publishes their own books with Sky Horse Publishing.
Um, and, uh, so I worked as a, an editor and kind of a guy who helped with the citations of this book.
I'm also quoted in here.
I don't know why he listed me in the cast of characters, but he did.
It's really nice.
Um, and the index even has my name in it.
You can find all the quotes for me in there.
Um,
I did find it a little frustrating, though, working on that book because there are a number of things in this book that are in here under the auspicious of being quotes, even though they remain in there unchallenged.
And so, in other words,
you know, irrespective of whether something might be an exaggeration or maybe a falsification or something that later showed up to be nonsense, what people said and when they said it was kind of the priority of writing this book.
And so even the context of some of the quotes that I've said in here, you know, if I was to be really honest, you know, I don't
they need to be explained better than they're in here.
They're used in a very specific way by the author, where I guess, you know, I aired on the side of, I want to be in the book.
I want my quotes to be able to be in the book.
I want to be able to put some key references in the book.
And I want to make sure that more importantly, certain things about the story are not overrepresented and cannot be exaggerated beyond,
you know, beyond refute.
And so I think I managed to do that.
And I managed to do it in a way that actually ended up with me still being listed on the front page of acknowledgements rather than some obscure place in the book.
And so I think that that's an advantage now, because the biology of RNA pandemics is one that I've come to understand very differently than I knew when I was riding my bike.
Right.
Let me let me let me let me ask you about that, Jay.
So, I mean, I think I'm going to I'm going to pause it for a second, actually, on my side.
Go ahead.
I mean, I think this is the thing is, Jay, I think this is the kind of thing we're going to be able to talk about for hours and hours.
You know what I mean?
It's like we could do several streams and we could do we could like we could talk for six hours right now.
Yeah, but we don't need to because I've got a 10 minute it's a 10 minute elevator pitch from here.
OK, OK.
I mean, I'm just saying.
People are especially going to be I think the hook here is the RFK thing, so.
I would, so I guess what I'll ask you, well.
Okay, go ahead.
No, go ahead.
Okay.
So, so how did you, so in the middle of researching this book, Robert F. Kendi's book, The Wuhan Cover-Up, you came to a radically different opinion that the entire premise of the book
was phony and impossible, biologically impossible.
How did you come to that?
And what did what did he say when you told him?
So all credit to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
First of all, let me be very clear on my streams and in a lot of my other personal work.
I'm very, very vocal about the fact that I think a lot of people go on social media and lie, and they lied in concert.
But in my best evaluation, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
has never lied to me.
At one point in time when I was teaching him this idea, he said that this was not the book for this idea.
In some ways, you know, you could maybe construe that as saying he understands what I taught him.
I don't want to go so far as to say I know what he knows, but I know that I've tried to teach it to him.
So the reason why I say all credit to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is because he's the guy who asked me the question.
And it just so happened that serendipitously I had been
Trying to wrangle this idea or or this idea was stuck in my teeth Let me say it that way for a while and I was trying to understand what it meant and whether or not it was just some fancy Semantic phrase or whether it really meant something and let me give you an example in the lab leak Scooby-Doo mystery that we've been solving there's a villain named Ralph Baric and one of the
you know skills of this villain is that he has this no-see-um technique and the no-see-um technique allows him to stitch molecules together and nobody can see that it was man-made.
Now this is one of those sort of I think kind of magic phrases that makes everybody kind of snap into some enchantment that they not only accept the idea
that there is a need to disguise the stitching of molecules together, otherwise they'll give it away or they'll have fingerprints or something like that.
Not only does that snap you into believing that concept exists, but it also snaps you into believing that there is something that has been solved and that
This Ralph Barrett guy has an exclusive monopoly on this technique.
So it's a very, it's a very deceptive thing that if they wanted to, as a national security state, over many years in meetings and in public shows and on social media, they could seed these ideas in very deceptive ways so that after a decade
The concept of an RNA with special properties that could be somewhere and then everywhere is not unusual that people have been talking about it hypothetically for a long time.
And so there were a lot of there were countless movies about it, about like a about pandemics and outbreaks.
And I mean, there was like there's an entire genre of
a virus escapes from some lab or some horrible accident gone wrong and it, you know, destroys the world.
Yep.
And so this is where Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is writing this book and we're plugging along and usually my day consisted of meeting with some people who wanted me to check this citation or that citation or find a citation for a, you know, this place that needed one.
Quite frankly, I think that there were three people whose only job was to type the word C-I-T-E in parentheses.
That's all they did.
Anyway, he asked me, and honestly, I don't remember if it was in a Zoom meeting or if it was via email, but he asked me to teach him what infectious clones were.
And so I had been working on this because I realized that this was a theme throughout some of Barrick's papers, through a lot of David Baltimore's papers.
And in fact, a lot of the early papers that are talking about gains in methodological understanding in RNA virology and in DNA virology stemmed around the making of manufacturing of clones.
And so the important, this is an important aspect of the story that a lot of people don't really understand because it has been so often misconstrued.
And so it's the perfect segue, I think for, let me see if I can cut this over here and put this up over here.
I'm just gonna switch really quick and try to explain what's going on here.
with infectious clones.
So when you do virology, especially with RNA virology, very typically what you're doing is you have some kind of host, and I apologize I haven't drawn a bat in a while,
you have some kind of host, right, a bat.
I'm going to leave it there because that's good enough bat for me.
And from that bat, you would get this sequence.
And the sequence is a series of, you know, RNA or DNA, it's actually DNA that comes out of this, this read that they find it could be metagenomic sequencing, or it could be something where they use primers for a very conserved region of the
the genome like the RNA dependent RNA polymerase.
Now, as a layperson virologist, it's important to understand that RNA, when it's found in the wild, is never found in a high quantity.
It's not found in a high purity.
It's found in an incredible array of noise, almost inestimable.
Because you're talking about a single molecule that you're looking for.
And whether or not there are 10 copies or 100 copies, there are not millions of copies.
And none of them, by virology's own admission, are identical.
In fact, somehow or another, they wax intellectual about how identical genomes would be a problem for viruses.
They need to mutate all the time.
But these contradictory ideas end up just kind of
They just kind of destroy themselves when you take them to their logical conclusion.
But what happens in any RNA paper is this is the trick.
They find this sequence, and I apologize, my pen is probably out of ink.
They find this sequence in the wild and what they do is that they reconstruct it.
They just make it.
So if they, for example, find a, you look at any of these papers that, and this is where I learned it, how I learned it, is going back to the papers with Barak and Shi, Shengli Shi, and you look what they did, they will find sequences using any technique you want, I don't care, you use primers aimed at conserved regions, or you use metagenomic sequencing that is
pre-set to find coronavirus sequences that you have already pre-determined are what you're looking for.
And they find those sequences and they synthetically make them.
And I draw a circle like this with a little arrow here because that's what these molecular biologists draw as a little plasmid.
They make a DNA plasmid of it
And then using any number of commercial means, they make a lot of that DNA that represents the original RNA that they claim to have found in the wild.
And now, depending on how they want to do the actual virology experiment, they could take this DNA and make it RNA first, and then put that on a cell culture.
and that would be transfecting a cell culture or they could take this DNA and they could package it in an adenovirus or another kind of virus and they could transform because there is slightly different language for using a viral vector and DNA to change a cell culture.
This is transformation.
And using RNA to do the same thing and that's transfection.
So technically speaking, if you wanted to look at the COVID interventions, the adenovirus should have been called a transformation and the RNA would have been called a transfection.
But already going back to Jesse Gelsinger, they haven't used the correct words.
When Jesse Gelsinger died, they called them gene therapies, just like they did.
now in 2020.
So my point would be is that virology itself is based on this false equivalence.
Now why is this a false equivalence?
Because if I use commercial or laboratory recombinant DNA
To make this RNA or to transform these cells with DNA, I am starting with a DNA or an RNA at a pure quantity that does not exist in nature.
I want you to imagine the worst case scenario for how bad this is because it is that bad.
They do not find a single contiguous sequence in the wild.
Not a single one.
What they find are fragments, and then they assume that these fragments represent what they call the whole.
It would be very similar to finding a small scrap of a book outside, and if it fits into the Encyclopedia Britannica somewhere, then you say that the Encyclopedia Britannica was in your backyard.
And if you choose the right kind of book, or you choose the
the right kind of abundant background signal, then making that claim could just be a wholly manufactured lie.
And so one of the possibilities that happened in the pandemic is that there is a loud, incredibly loud background signal up there, and they have represented that as a very high fidelity signal that they can differentiate from a background when they really cannot.
and in fact most of coronavirus biology is based on this concept that they find a broken fragmented signal they assume
the whole signal, which is again based on fragments that were found earlier, I guess.
I mean, if you try to trace this all the way back, there's just really assumption after assumption after assumption.
And if in five years they have added five more genes to the coronavirus genome because they discovered them now, it'll be very dubious just like this has been so far to assemble.
And you can go all the way back.
I mean, I've tried my best.
Some of the books that I've gone back to are books that are just thrown out of libraries that are that are coronavirus meetings from the Netherlands and other places These these phenomenon are real But how they are represented and more importantly how they have been represented in the past say decade or so Is not and so that's very important to understand because as an academic biologist It has been tricky for me to whoops.
Sorry to
to juggle the to juggle the idea that
that all these people can be so wrong.
There has to be a way to reconcile most of the observations that we've made in the past and most of the observations that are being made now with what we really understand in biology.
It can't just be that everything's a mythology and all viruses are fake and all disease is fake and all health is fake.
And there is a tendency, I think, for the
the operation that we are in to tempt us with those kinds of oversimplified.
I like to say you're tempted with two different things.
You either have to accept a stupid, complicated explanation that you're too unsophisticated to critique, or you have to accept a dumb, simple explanation that is just obviously not right.
And either way, you lose.
And in the biological sense, I think this has been a multi-generational
Operation that's what's so frustrating about it for me as an academic biologist.
I mean why just to flip back here really quick Oops, let's see over here and I want to do this and I want to do this You know this this understanding and this is probably for your viewers that that saw your first show without me To kind of address some of those people.
Hold on.
Let me drink I
The foundation of RNA virology, of coronavirus virology, is that coronaviruses somehow or another have figured out a way to use RNA as a genetic material and exist outside of us, evolve independent of us, and are out there to get us.
And this is so beyond preposterous for the simple fact
that no one would be teaching you evolution if it wasn't for DNA.
No one would be talking about genes if it wasn't for DNA.
Nobody would be talking about heredity if it wasn't for DNA.
Nobody would be doing the human genome project if it wasn't for DNA.
And all of the magical things that DNA has, from a chemical perspective, have to do with the fact that it is double-stranded.
The double-stranded nature of it makes it very chemically stable,
It makes it enzymatically resistant.
It makes it easy to proofread and has the potential for proofreading and error repair over longer timescales than any single chain nucleic acid like RNA.
And so all of the magic that is attributed to everything that we understand or think we understand about the magic of life is not present in RNA.
And yet for some reason, we are being compelled to accept
that RNA itself in a mud puddle can be dangerous.
And in fact, can go from being in a mud puddle to being in the background forever, which is what they tell us happens with coronaviruses.
They go endemic.
And so this concept in my...
you know, very humble opinion as a lifelong biologist, I think it's absolutely bunk.
It's not possible.
And they have no, you know, there's five or six papers about how the XON gene can proofread in coronaviruses, but they have no direct evidence to explain what's going on, how it's happening.
And even their evidence that they purport to suggest gives them some
you know, extra functionality here does not overcome this central problem of what DNA brings to their mythology of biology versus what RNA cannot bring by definition.
And yet we allow it to be the foundation of RNA virology.
And so we've got to rein this in, in the sense of
what they are allowed to claim and how much they claim and that includes you know the manufacture of things and and the release of things and and the only thing they can do is make a lot that's that's that's the trick here and that's the most important thing to understand is that
Any protein biologic, this is just something else I've come to understand only in the five years of learning that I've had to do for the pandemic.
It's not something that I could have told you before the pandemic.
It's probably something that Brandy Vaughn, who used to work for Merck, probably could have told you.
But any protein biologic, so a protein biologic, probably the most common example for people that are listening would be an antibody.
The way that these protein biologics are made, and this is before the pandemic, right?
We were making protein biologics before the pandemic.
This is for sure.
Is that you make the DNA, you grow that DNA in a bacterial culture, and then in any number of ways you go from RNA to protein.
And you can do this RNA to protein step using a commercial enzyme.
You could use it as cells.
You could do whatever you want.
I mean, there's lots of ways that they do it.
But the gist of it is you could even use the bacteria to make the protein.
But at some point, when you make the protein biologic, you have to separate all the manufacturing biological material out.
All the bacterial endotoxins, all the bacterial cell walls, all the bacterial enzymes, all the DNA that the bacteria copied for you.
all the RNA that the bacteria used or the cell culture used to make the protein, all that stuff has to be cleaned away so that you just have the protein because RNA and DNA and bacterial endotoxins and cell culture, fetal cell culture residue is not good for the immunogenicity of your protein biologic.
It's so not good that if the
process by which these contaminants are removed fails, then the entire batch is usually thrown away because you can't really run it again.
It won't work like that.
I don't know the full reasons.
Maybe it's just because it's too expensive to run a batch again.
And so protein biologics are very expensive to make.
And what you'll notice here is that in the middle of this, this manufacturing process is RNA.
And so what I'm suggesting to you is that all pharmacological manufacturing plants that were already making any form of protein biologic already had all the infrastructure, all the culture vats, all of the technicians that were necessary to make the RNA for a mRNA shot.
I think actually the infrastructure or the manufacturing infrastructure to make adenovirus was more closely controlled or let's say, held by a handful of people that were willing to build that infrastructure to make adenovirus because that wasn't a protein.
I mean, adenovirus is not something that's used in medicine very often, so it's really only an academic product.
So that's an interesting thing to spin here, too, because big pharmaceutical companies would have had the infrastructure that could have been easily adapted, i.e.
stopped short, to make the RNA, but comparatively few pharmaceutical companies, in my estimation, would have had the infrastructure to make the adenovirus version.
And so that's a curious little thing to add here, but the point being, again, that this is a well-understood
fact that this contamination was going to be there, that this is a problem that is there.
And that's why I find it incredibly dubious that we have so many people in front of us right now that have the career experience to know this.
to know that they would have been expected not to be able to make a perfect RNA, that any manufacturing technique would have produced flawed RNA, any manufacturing technique would have probably produced DNA contamination and endotoxin contamination.
And so this elaborate show and dance over the last five years
basically, you know, not to sound, but I predicted it because this is what we already knew about the shortcomings of this methodology.
And it's not surprising that if you let a pharmaceutical company make the RNA, that it would be the same as the RNA that we would have used on our, on our bench as transfection.
And so we are in a stage where obviously, darn it, I did it again.
We are at a stage where, uh,
I think the populist right in America has been kind of captured in a health freedom movement that's not real.
And it's something that existed before the pandemic.
It's this, what's really crazy is that it really seems like this same play happened in 1999 in the year 2000 in the UK with Andrew Wakefield and a few of these- Can I pause you?
Yeah, sure, go ahead.
I'm going to pause my side again.
I mean, here's the thing.
This is very engaging for me, but my concern is that... Just steer me back.
It's all good.
Yeah, just for my audience, it's like, what I want is more conversational, so people get to know, you know, Jake, you're like, you're teaching calculus when we would need to be teaching, like, you know, what two plus two is.
you know what I mean, basic arithmetic.
You know, maybe a little bit of, maybe we can get into some like algebra, the first day of algebra, you know what I mean?
So I want to get- No, I don't know why we got on transfection, to be honest.
I don't know if it's your fault or my fault.
Well, I mean, what you said about that is really important, and it's something that I want to talk to you about.
I just fear that like, basically, the other thing is, I think that because you're used to streaming by yourself, and not only you're a teacher, you're a professor,
And that's kind of like your nature and you're so used to streaming rather doing I want this to be like much more conversational Where not that I want to talk much but like where were you know what I mean?
Like you're addressing people who have been
caught up and want to understand the political forces.
And probably, honestly, most of the people, like you're casting pearls before swine.
They're not going to be able to really understand a lot of scientific stuff you're putting out.
I mean, a lot of it, when you're talking about this stuff, I don't have the basic literacy to understand a lot of what you're saying scientifically.
I don't know how I got there.
I just go.
it's it's fine just ask another question because i i have not gotten to any slides that tells you why we're not we're not really on i mean i mean we're 47 minutes in i which
Yeah, but you can edit it however you want.
I'm not worried about that.
So if you want to just kind of say that this is where the conversation starts and play this part first, I don't really bother me.
OK, yeah, I mean, we could do that, but I'd probably ask you a little bit of the same questions again, because, like, I mean, it's not that I'm trying to get you to, like, denounce RFK, but that's the hook for people because, OK, now he's HHS, he's, you know, Maha, all this stuff.
But he didn't want to hear what his top advisor had to say, like,
Um
Why?
Oh, yeah.
So that's the only reason why we were there.
The only reason why we were there is because, you know, we were trying to you're trying to understand what clones are.
And the point is, is that that when he asked me about infectious clones, you start to realize that that the only thing that the biosecurity state had, the only thing that that the intellectual property market of the pharmaceutical company is based on is this protein biologics.
And
So if you see that as the limit of the technology, the limit of the technology in the national security state and also the limit of the technology at the academic bench, and then they just kind of started at the beginning of the pandemic and misconstrued it as something new and novel and investigational, and this is a
as disingenuous as claiming that there is a new RNA signal out there and we can study it by making a lot of it.
And so, for me, it was the bridge that got me, was understanding that the molecular biology that I had used on my bench is no different than the molecular biology that these people are using and calling virology.
And at the same time as they're misrepresenting this virology as being very high fidelity, that same technology is now being represented as this new spanking new, you know, innovation that it's not.
And so both sides of the equation are supported by the same basic illusion that they have something more than synthetic DNA, which they don't.
Gotcha, okay, so that's why it's it's hard to do that though, right?
It's really hard to do that and it's very very hard for me to get it out in a way that I can remember You know very succinctly where I'm walking I'm trying to I'm trying to do it But you know, it's it's a lot of times do it in total layman's terms.
Yeah terms is challenging.
It's Yeah, I get what you're what you're saying.
I mean, I'm just trying to think
How would I summarize, you know, if I go on redacted or something again, you know, well, let's take it from a, let's take it from a different spin then.
I mean, if you, if you ask me a different question, like, um, where I was also going with it in that big picture of, of, um.
There had to be a biological explanation.
So not only does there have to be a biological explanation for most of the contents of our biology books, maybe albeit a different interpretation of some of these observations, not all of these scientists are actively creating an illusion and lying about stuff.
They're making observations and putting them in the wrong context or making the wrong assumptions.
And so for me, one of the most important things was realizing, and you mentioned this at the beginning of the program, that what is Denny Rancourt doing?
Well, one of the most amazing interviews that I ever did was with Jason Levine, where I was able to actually ask Denny live, what do you think about the idea that the population pyramid is contributing to this, that there is a known or anticipated rise in all-cause mortality?
How could it not?
I don't know why I didn't think about that.
I mean, I took classes in college where I learned about population pyramids.
Well, the crazy part is that I saw a presentation by a guy by the name of Peter Zahan, who talks all about world global stuff, stuff, whatever.
He's a guy with a beard and mustache, and he's always talking about China dominance.
And that was the guy who
who pointed out population pyramids, but was pointing it out in a completely different context.
And a light bulb went on in my head like, oh my gosh, this is like an eclipse.
If you know that this phenomenon is coming and the rest of the people don't know it's coming, you can tell them whatever you want.
Yeah, it's like my daughter when I, you know, like it's almost like putting something behind my daughter's ear and being like, wow, look what I found.
Yeah, exactly.
It is exactly like that, especially if you knew this was coming for a couple of decades and you positioned people with right with all of the necessary, you know, clout and narrative and infrastructure to execute it.
I mean, and then she thinks it's behind her ear all the time.
Right.
She's she's like programmed to think to think that, you know, so they really believe.
I mean, OK, she figures that a joke.
It's a joke when she gets old enough.
But I mean, I guess I think it's actually relevant and important to explain, you know, the way that you that you came to believe or realize that the lab, the lab leak theory was bunk.
and that therefore the thesis of the Wuhan cover-up was bunk was you know I was I mean I don't want to put words in your mouth I'm just trying to figure out like a way to say that in like a minute and a half or two minutes like imagine if you were on like Tucker or something if he was like J. Cooley come on we got this all wrong like what happened you were like I realize this is bullshit
because I was using those same tools, you know, as an academic biologist, I was transfecting animals all the time.
And I knew that.
And then I realized this can't be because of this and this.
I mean, I can't say it for you, but like I'm just trying to figure out a way.
to avoid it.
And, you know, people can obviously go to your stream and then say, you know, and that's where they can, you know, watch the full kind of get the full treatment where you bust out, you know, the notepad and like explain it in in that level of detail.
But but I think for for our purposes on this, it's going to be people who are just like they're going to, you know, I think they're going to maybe glaze over.
Yeah, sure.
I get it.
You know what I mean?
I just have to, I don't think, like I said, you can edit it how you want.
I don't mind at all.
And if you.
If you want to hate, honestly, I don't care though.
I don't care.
You don't edit it.
I don't care at all.
It's really no, no, no, no.
I understand that.
It's just that I don't I don't want to.
I'm trying to avoid having to edit.
And I don't.
And for a couple of reasons, I don't have time.
I'm working on my documentary.
And so what I'd like to do is is get like sort of you and I calibrated where we can have
like in terms of what the sort of, um, not parameters, but the style of conversation that I think will be most conducive to getting your message out there to a broader audience.
And then those that want to get the full treatment can go watch your stream.
And, but I mean, I, but what I guess then how much do you want to avoid saying that, you know, I don't want to speculate on whether, I mean,
If RFK is the angle, then what's the angle?
Am I saying that he's ignoring me, or he's being kept away from me, or he's being controlled?
I don't have an opinion on that.
I just... Yeah, so you could say that.
I think that's perfectly fine to say.
I don't know why he did.
This is what he said.
You know, but and I can say, well, I think that's a question he should be asked.
You know, you are I mean, and that's what I was saying in my stream and on the redacted thing and that it's a fair question.
And more people should listen to what you have to say.
You know, other like
journalists and streamers and alternative media, whatever, should be hearing out what you have to say.
And it's a fair question.
And like, I don't know.
And then we can talk about, I mean, I don't know.
There's a million ways to take it.
I think speaking in court and sort of brought like with broader painting with broader strokes in a way, well, not not like generalizing, but touching on broader themes than like sort of detailed scientific explanations for this would be more impactful and productive and would drive more to
would get it out there more.
And then, you know, like I said, the people that want to go and listen to the full stream, the streams that you do where, I mean, you don't need me to be able to lay this scientific stuff out.
I'm just sitting here as basically an audience member at this point.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
I mean, I feel like after I say
You know, I don't think RNA virology is real as they as they describe it.
And I don't think that RNA can can support the biology of RNA doesn't support a pandemic.
I don't know how to go past that without explaining to people.
Right.
how much we already know and have known for a very long time about the limitations of RNA.
I mean, if RNA could pandemic, the use of RNA in all of these laboratories and the use of DNA with SV40 in all of these laboratories, which is happening all over the world all the time.
The SV-40 contamination in the Pfizer shot is the first time SV-40 has ever been on earth and made in mass production.
It's used all the time in almost every commercial plasmid that's sold on earth.
So, to find a signal of SV-40 somewhere and blame it exclusively on some product from Pfizer or somebody else is absurd.
It's absurd.
It's like saying, I found a Cubs hat in my room.
Therefore, I know for sure that, you know,
Now I can't come up with anybody's name, you know, but like Ron say was in my house, you know It's like no he wasn't he's like old and gone, right?
Right.
Well, so I think you know that and like when you're I think Like the the cassette tape analogy will be really useful for people because then they can be you know, they can be like, okay this guy Jay Cooley who advised, you know when they're in conversation, they're drinking a beer later.
They're talking to their wife They're like this guy who advised or helped
But that's also why I say that thing about evolution, right?
Because that whole concept of
Inheritable disease and what you get from your mom and dad and Mendel and and evolution and Darwin was proven right when we found DNA is all based on This wonderful, you know mythology if you will a story of how DNA explains it that the double-stranded nature of DNA explains it all because it's chemically stable because it can be proofread because errors can be fixed and
And so it's just this unbelievable solves all the problems that we couldn't explain before.
And RNA fits none of those categories, none of them, zero.
And yet somehow or another, we're supposed to believe that RNA can go from a mud puddle to in the background forever.
That's the story.
That is the idea that if you put a fear and cleavage site, then it'll happen even faster.
In the background forever, meaning can pandemic, can just be.
Because that's what it is.
It's never going to go away.
That's always going to be there.
And so we're supposed to believe that this is a process that's ongoing instead of just a background signal that's being misconstrued as such.
Yeah.
Okay.
It's really hard because, again, remember the point is they have a biological phenomenon, a really loud signal.
All they had to do was sweep a little bit of it together by death certificate manipulation and murder, and now you have points that they can point to as a disease.
This is really not that complicated.
And so when I get into the explanation, I'm really already hearing people saying, yeah, but what proof do you have?
It's really big ideas that they can't argue against.
It's not single papers.
It is a fundamental concept as arguing that you go light speed in a Volvo.
No, you can't do that.
No.
Yeah.
OK.
OK, so that's good.
Hold on.
You know, I'm going to run to the back.
Yeah, sure.
Go ahead.
OK, so then.
Just start with a question again, see if we can get a clip for you.
Or not a clip, but a start again.
I'll just think a little more conversationally and try to stop earlier.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I think that'll help if it's more conversational and less, yeah, more conversational, basically.
I think that'll help.
I mean, I kind of just want to, like, I mean.
Give me 20 minutes and see if you're happy.
OK.
Okay, let me I mean I kind of just almost I don't know I'd have to like see the beginning again But I almost just want to like I don't want to start over because it's you know, yeah, go ahead though It's fine.
See if we get another summary.
You could make it a break after you do your sponsorship or something My I have no sponsorship my wife my there you go I
I mean, the thing is, I don't want to restate the same question I asked before.
How did you get involved in this, you know, question altogether and lab leak?
And how did you become involved with Kennedy?
So.
Well, then just start with.
So the book came out and then what happened?
Because that's that's basically, you know, where where we were at, if you ask, OK, so you wrote this book with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and then what happened?
And I can just.
I mean, I guess, OK, well, what I what I want to ask is, I mean, you know, I think if I restate basically the last question, so you wrote this, you helped write this book.
I just started recording.
So you helped write Robert Kennedy's book, The Wuhan Cover-Up, and in the middle of writing that,
you came to a completely different conclusion than was presented in the book.
Not only the conclusion, the very thesis of the book you realized was not true, was biologically impossible.
So can you explain what changed your mind in the middle of that process?
What happened?
And when you brought it to Kennedy, what did he tell you?
Well, it has to do a lot with being a long-trained biologist.
In the 30,000-foot view, I realize that all of the
the magical properties of DNA aren't present in RNA.
And when Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
asked me to explain virology and what virology meant by infectious clones, it was through that process that I realized that most of virology was really exaggerated in terms of what they found and then what they were able to do in a laboratory, what they were able to recapitulate.
Let me ask you, what are infectious clones and why would he want to know that?
It's a term that's described and referenced in a lot of virology papers where they will claim to have found a virus in a bat and then they will make an infectious clone version of it and that's basically all they say.
They'll say we made an infectious clone of what we found and then they cite whatever, you know, methodological paper that they
that has the details of how they did it.
But what that means, you have to track that down, but when you get back to it, you always find out that what that means is they took that sequence that they found in the wild and they made a synthetic DNA copy of it.
And the reason why that became very significant.
So let me interrupt.
Sure.
You're saying they can take a they can take a bat that they find find in a cave, whatever it may be.
Take some DNA sequence, you said.
It depends on what they claim.
Ultimately, if they're sequencing, it has to be DNA because all sequences are generated from DNA.
There's no.
Well, until very recently, there weren't very many good ways to sequence RNA directly.
So in all of the virology papers that this mythology is based on, they're usually finding an RNA in the wild by first converting all the RNA they find to DNA and then sequencing that DNA.
That's a technical detail.
It doesn't matter.
But yes, ask your question again.
Well, my question is basically, why would RFK want to know what an infectious clone is and what would be the significance of an infectious clone?
What did you realize is the significance?
Well, I mean, it's the basis of all virology.
I think that's what hit him when he's reading.
And I do think that he
He tries to read some of these abstracts in these papers and he sees this coming up in the methodologies a lot, that they made an infectious clone to approximate what they found.
The point being, again, it feels very much like kind of a genuine question that I just looked for a genuine answer.
But the result of that answer was that an infectious clone is not recapitulating, to use the big word, but it's not replicating what happens in nature.
And that was something I've tried to explain a lot of times very simply.
But if you...
It's it's really hard to explain but what they find in in an animal or purport to measure in an animal is is exclusively an incomplete sequence It is a it is a very noisy signal and assumptions need to be made in order to
make a consensus sequence and then that consensus like we'll just agree that this is probably what the book reads so for example i mean this is a terrible but it may be okay if you found 30 pages of this book random 30 pages and then you tried to approximate the rest of it based on what you read on those 30 pages you wouldn't get it right obviously you wouldn't get it right but you'd have a book
And if you wanted to, you could take that book to a printing press and make thousands and thousands of copies of that book.
Now, would it be this book that you say you found in the wild?
Well, of course not, because you only found 40 pages.
But you would have a book.
And if you put that book in a library, people would check it out.
And people might even read it.
And they might have an opinion about it.
But does that make it the book that you think it is, the book that you say it is?
And so with coronavirus biology, they find a fragment
They assemble what they claim is the whole book and then they put that book in a cell culture and study whatever happens and call that virology.
Now, up until very recently, this has been a very innocuous practice.
But now they've started to claim that certain combinations of RNA can do all kinds of things, like kill billions of people, or ruin economies, and this kind of thing, and cause flying AIDS, or cancer, or whatever other things they're talking about.
And this is a mythology.
It can't happen because it's based on RNA, and RNA doesn't have any of these.
Even if DNA did, which I think is a legitimate question to revisit,
to what extent we understand the fidelity of DNA, the central role of DNA in our biology and all biology, that's a legitimate question to revisit.
But the idea that RNA in the special context of coronaviruses can do all this special stuff is just wrong.
It's wrong, wrong, wrong.
And so,
You asked the question, what did he do when you explained it to him?
The first thing he did was allow me to get a quote on page 441 in the book, which says that they wouldn't even need a virus to do it.
He allowed me to have free reign to put all the citations in that I think are important, including a Totora and Bavari paper.
And then he helped me to get hired by Children's Health Defense after the book was published.
And I thought that I was going to go forward as a guy at Children's Health Defense who would teach this biology and it would be all good.
But that didn't work out.
I actually
To summarize it very quickly, I got fired by CHD in January of 2024 because I spoke about Robert Malone on my stream.
And it was Mary Holland who fired me, along with Brian Hooker, and the exact timestamp of my podcast was given to me.
And it's extraordinary, really, in retrospect, because my podcast was what got RFK to trust me and hire me as an advisor.
And so my podcast being ultimately the reason why Mary Holland decided to fire me, I've just had to kind of
move on from there.
And it has become very obvious to me that part of this show, this spell that the populist right in America has been put under, is being orchestrated by this health freedom movement that's never really made any progress.
For Mary Holland, it's been about the adjuvants of the MMR vaccine for about 15 years, and she's never made any progress in understanding, even though
She's had interaction with a lot of people who've come farther than her.
And instead, she's the one who's still in front of us.
And that's what frightens me.
I think that there are some people who
who shouldn't be there because it's obvious they haven't made progress.
And I went from not understanding any of this as being possibly a mythology to where I am now in five years.
And in the meantime, a lot of these people are still where they were in 2020 when I met them, where they're still concerned about mandates and happy that the mandates got taken away and still very concerned about things that they call COVID vaccines.
It's just extraordinary to me that all of these people who are in this health freedom movement didn't start, for example, with the vitamin K shot and the hepatitis B vaccine, which are both given in the first day of birth.
It seems like to me that if you were really fighting this fight for what you're fighting for, number one, you say that intramuscular injection in general is dumb.
But more importantly, you say that giving these immune-augmenting injections on the day of birth is just absurd.
And we should have started there already 10 years ago.
But instead, people like Mary Holland started with an adjuvant of the unknown, unidentified adjuvant of the MMR vaccine and are still there 10 years later.
So it's extraordinary because essentially when you ask the question, what did Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
do?
Kind of nothing.
He just handed me off to CHD and until until they couldn't stop me from progressing further.
That's that's the way that I see it, as as as pessimistic as it sounds.
That wasn't very conversational, but yeah, this is my it's a hard story to tell.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean,
Uh, I'm trying to, I, I'm, I don't know.
I feel like it's, uh, going to be a challenge to figure out how to like stitch this together.
And, um, It's all good.
I mean, I get it, but, um, you can just keep asking questions and I can keep trying to respond or we can try and record it again.
I don't know.
It's up to you.
I get it.
I mean, it might be that you need to give me questions beforehand so that I can kind of figure out.
what what response you're not looking for, but you know what kind of level of response you're looking for.
I'm trying to stay at the 30,000 foot level, but I can.
Right.
No, I could tell.
I could tell.
And it's not it's not easy.
It's it's like you're you know, and I totally get it.
I mean, I completely understand it and I and I respect it.
You know, I know that it's like it's just a different it's a different format.
I'm just trying to think of like how to, you know,
get your message across to a different kind of audience or an audience that's not initiated.
And it's like you're teaching, you know, I mean, I think it's kind of like the audience that you have built
is probably much, you know, is more equipped.
They've been listening to you for years and gone with you kind of on your journey.
Right.
But what if we what if you just get out of the weeds and try to tie it to something that you also worked on?
You know, if there are explanations for all the deaths that don't involve a virus, then why is there a virus?
Right.
I mean, basically, like what I what I want, what I want to use, OK, the RFK thing.
And like, I mean, that's the hook.
And then a jumping off point of like, OK,
What the hell happened and why?
I mean, those are, you know, like million dollar.
Those are like trillion dollar questions.
You know, I mean, we saw the you know, like why did they do this?
What is this elaborate theater actually about?
You know, the FDA stuff you talked about.
I mean, all the
Yeah, I mean, that that would be the the other elevator pitch, right?
I mean, that's like I want I want this.
I want I want it to be as kind of political as possible, actually, because that's I mean, what I see, Jay, is like how I use I use especially like X is it's an ideological battleground like you can go after people.
If we had a really good clip where like I put it, you know, through some A.I.
editor or whatever of you being like explaining
What the hell happened?
And it's literally one minute long that could go viral.
And I'm like, I'm already the same way that the redacted stuff has gotten you some attention and your audience has has grown.
Like I have people deeming me who, you know, are incensed about what you said or writing at me.
And those are the people that
you know, that shows where you're like hitting on something.
And so that's the kind of stuff that like and that's just with the redacted clip, which, you know, was not like very well planned out.
It was I just, you know, I mean, I guess the question becomes what when you say you wanted to be political, so.
I can do it a million ways, right?
The population pyramid is the eclipse.
But what did they use it for?
Well, they used it to continue the illusion of the Human Genome Project.
The Human Genome Project was not completed.
The Human Genome Project is just a technological rollout and a development project to get the sequencing technologies going and the storage of sequence data good enough so that at some point in time they could invert our sovereignty into experimental animal status and collect all that data that they needed.
They needed all of our, they need all of our data.
That's what this is really about.
So if you want a political angle, the political angle is like 20 or 30 or 40 years long.
It's a, they knew this phenomenon was coming.
What are they going to use it for?
Well, they're going to invert our sovereignty into experimental animal status so that they can collect all this data.
And the most important thing here for me is this,
So many people say this is about depopulation, but it's really not.
The depopulation is going to happen anyway.
The population pyramid already tells us that the population is going to crash.
We don't need to kill people.
What we need to do is collect all the data that's available before all these people are gone.
That's what they're doing.
There's not going to be this many children born ever again in human history.
Never.
That's the trick to realize.
Never, as these population pyramids collapse, there will never be this many babies born again.
The next 20 years is the last population bump they're going to have to measure this many genomes.
There will never be this many games of go to collect again.
You can't make babies fake.
And then what does their attempt at completing the Human Genome Project... I'm not recording, by the way, now.
I paused it.
No, it's all good.
It just really doesn't matter.
I'm recording.
This is the argument.
This is the discussion.
Will they get it?
Can they get it?
I don't know.
But incrementally speaking, from the day that Joshua Lederberg said,
that we would use computers to crack the human genome and that the Human Genome Project was assembled to get the methodologies necessary.
They always knew that sequencing your genome would be worthless, just like feeding in a single game of Go to a computer and then telling the computer to solve that game would have been stupid.
Right.
And so then what does what does the human what does completing the Human Genome Project do for them?
They imagine that at some point a non existent computer with a non existent database set to data set that doesn't exist yet will solve the Human Genome Project.
That's what they think.
And what will that give them, a solved human?
I guess the ability to reprogram it, I guess the ability to do something with it, an insight that they don't have right now.
One of the things to recall, or maybe not recall, but to understand better, is that the Human Genome Project suggests that something has been solved, but it hasn't.
Remember, if you can find a bunch of proteins encoded in the DNA, that doesn't tell you anything about the pattern integrity
that those proteins are expressed in.
They can't look at your DNA and tell you when you went into puberty and when your puberty ended.
They can't look at your DNA and explain why you didn't turn out to be this height, but you turned out to be that height.
They can't look at your DNA and even explain why you're the weight that you are right now and the weight you were when you were a teenager.
and when your beard started to grow because those are all things that are encoded across a temporal time course that they haven't found anything in the DNA code that suggests how this developmental time course that for your frontal cortex took 22 years
None of that is understood in the genome.
So they can say that they completed the human genome, but they don't know what it means.
And they certainly can't find all of the information that we already know is necessary to encode Dan Cohen.
As a baby to where you are as an adult, that's all apparently in the DNA, even though none of that information is visible to us.
So the Human Genome Project is imagining that an AI might start to see that.
An AI might be able to look at a billion genomes and then start to extract those signals which we could never extract on our own.
That's what they imagine.
Is that true?
I don't know.
Possibly, but I can assure you that that's what they believe and they've believed it since Joshua Lederberg first able to sort of articulate this goal.
Um, okay.
And so I think that, I think that everybody that's involved in this wittingly or unwittingly is being taken along to slowly change this system over so that the collection of medical data, the collection and cataloging of genetic data is done in such a way so that the data is uniform.
Cause that's one of the problems.
You can't have 40 different formats for this data.
You can't have it stored in 40 different formats in 40 different places.
That's why they announced the.
the Stargate AI thing in the first place.
You got to be able to store it, organize it.
All these people from the moment the Human Genome Project was conceived understood that the data needed to be stored in a way that could be shared across time and space.
And so they had to come up with different agreements on how we should spread the data and how we should encode it.
And that's been going on iteration after iteration for this very purpose.
Absolutely.
That's the same reason why when they did this to Jesse Gelsinger in 2000, and then they had a congressional hearing about it, they were talking about gene therapy and anybody that took part in a gene therapy experiment as risking their lives.
And now we rolled it out as an investigational vaccine and nobody talked about it like that.
I mean, it's just...
It is absolutely a political thing, because this whole mythology is a political thing.
Right, right, right.
Yeah, that's what I mean by a political thing.
Not like a red-blue thing, like, oh, let's get people mad at RFK or whatever.
No, I'm like, what's the real purpose of all of this?
What are we really looking at?
And like, why should people, you know, why should people care?
And and this kind of thing.
This is this is what I'm trying to get at.
So I think being able.
Yeah, if we can like sort of.
I mean.
It's such a big animal and it's and it's a it's a complex thing and it's
So it's it's hard to it's hard to, you know, talk about in a really brief period, but, you know, in a short time.
And I mean, there's so much that, you know, we could spend like hours just talking on the construction of the image of a pandemic, how they did that.
And then, you know, and then eventually, you know, hours later, you could do.
OK, so then why did they do it and what is the I mean, it's like you could do
some crazy documentary series that would just be a mind melter, you know, but.
So that's the challenge, how to take something like that and.
And yeah, I mean, I don't know what to say, I try it every day.
Right, right, right.
But you but your but your strategy is is is good.
I mean, I'm not I'm not criticizing your strategy at all.
It's just it's just different because you're you've got like
your audience that you've cultivated and you do lengthy streams and it's not like conversational where it's like you, you know, talking to some like big personality who doesn't know, like, you know, who's, who's, I'm just saying like, imagine if you, like, imagine if you were on, uh, like some big channel that had, do you know what I mean?
How can we get your message across that way?
And I think what you were just explaining is that but people are going to have to know who is who is Joshua Lederberg and like what and what is the Human Genome Project?
And, you know, I mean, most people they're like, I'll put it this way.
When most people watch any of these like alternative media shows, it's a lot of the kind of same sort of themes over and over about Ukraine, about Gaza.
about, you know, Trump and, you know, Thomas Massey and this, you know what I mean?
It's not like deeper concepts.
So you have to be able to like, I don't know, that's the challenge is finding a way to deliver that.
And so that's, I mean, and that's what I want to, you know, I'm not even saying assist you, but accompany you on that.
I get it.
I mean, it's just, I don't know what to say.
At the center of this are things that people have been killed for saying.
At the center of this are statements like intramuscular injection as medicine are dumb.
I mean, that's where my life's work is going.
RNA cannot pandemic.
I don't know how to say it any easier.
These were always transfections and transformations.
I don't know how to say it any easier.
Well, you can say, you know what you could I mean, and that's one of the things that you do, you can say, Look, these are the five most important things to know.
And like this, and, you know, but you have to, like, in some way, explain what, like, why RNA can not pandemic?
What, what is a transfection?
You know, I mean, and I know you did explain that to me, you gave me a detailed explanation, which I have recorded on this, on this stream.
So it's the challenge of like, how do you communicate that
like in a way that people can sort of understand.
The other way is, you know, that you can, I think, do that is just point out that no one's able to challenge me.
You know, here's my position.
OK, I'm not going to go in detail and explain every aspect of it right now.
But I know there are people who know better and none of them will talk to me.
None of them will challenge me.
None of them will debate me if if my idea is so wrong.
Well, let's just have a a
moderated debate, whatever.
Let's just talk about it.
Why is everyone so afraid of that?
You know, these are the kinds of things that I think it's like.
Getting into that arena, I think, can it's I mean, that's why I say it's like as much as I I hate X and social media, it really is a place that you can get into.
like you can get into ideological struggle and debates and challenge people who like you wouldn't be able to otherwise, because you don't get invited onto the shows and onto the conferences and, you know, onto those debate stages.
So it's harder for them to curate the narrative in the exact same way.
There are ways to to like, you know, beat the algorithm in a way on in places like that.
So, I mean, and that's why I think like, you know, if we can take
your converse, you know, our conversation, whatever, and then actually take it, put it into an AI, uh, whatever program that cuts like one minute shorts.
And that's the complete antithesis of like what intellectual people do is one minute shorts, but it is very effective.
Um, and those can go viral and all of a sudden you got,
20,000 or 30,000 or 100,000 views of like, wait, this guy helped write RFK's book and he basically blew him off.
Like, and I know it's more complicated than that.
It's not that he blew you off, but.
You know, you were sort of like silenced in a way that took you a while to figure out you were being silenced, it was done, right?
That's my point.
So, I mean, we can strategize more.
I'm happy to like even just talking.
You know, I I don't want to like I don't want to waste your time, number one.
And I don't think you feel like I'm wasting your time.
But I'm trying to figure out how to be the most effective.
So like if it's if it's best to like just talk and strategize first, we can do that.
Yeah, I'm just I'm trying to figure out like how exactly to take this.
Does that make sense?
Yep.
I, I, I guess it's just really up to you.
Um, you're kind of the interviewer.
If you, if you, uh, yeah, yeah, definitely.
I mean, if you watch the last charge, if you watch the last stream that I did, then you, you are, um, I get whoops.
Let's see.
I can do that.
Be able to do that.
I watched, I watched, uh, no, I didn't get to watch all of it, but I was like, this is great.
Like, you know, it's perfect.
Um,
So, but it's the kind of thing, it's the kind of thing that it's like, I would send to some people to watch, but like, it's, it would be like, I mean, where, where would you like, how, how, how,
There's a million different angles on it.
For example, I can show you Skyhorse book after Skyhorse book, starting with a book from 2008.
In the epilogue of the book, it says that RFK is going to be vice president.
It's a Skyhorse book.
You know, the same book publisher that published two books in 2010 and 2012 by Andrew Wakefield about the MMR vaccine and the possible, you know, adjuvants.
And the same book company that published the environmental and genetic causes of autism that I think's a bullshit book by a bullshit author.
And then the same book company published all of Robert Malone's books, who I'm sure
is a traitor to our grandkids and the reason why I got fired from CHD and revealed CHD as the operation that it is to me.
I mean, we can talk about sky horse books, we can talk about biology, we can talk about people, we can talk about ideas, but it always comes back to the fact that, I mean,
It's really simple ideas in the end.
These people are just lying.
And the only real debate is whether or not RFK knows or whether RFK is just being bewildered by people around him.
That's the only debate in my head.
And most people are pretty, pretty done with him and accept the fact that he's just part of that crew.
Right.
Exactly.
I mean, yeah, which is, you know, why I brought up the whole thing recently, as you correctly inferred that, you know, when he, when his whole, like,
comment about anti-Semitism, his official statement about anti-Semitism being like a health crisis, and which is, you know, so people were like, what the hell?
So I'm, you know, want to use that as a jumping off point.
I mean, the other thing.
The thing that one of the things I found compelling in what you were saying, and you know, as I was trying to be more conversational, I asked you is, why would he want to know what clones are, unless he suspects that like, well, maybe that could be the explanation of what's happening here.
That's kind of like, you know, if he's
Well, then again, now you're, now you, again, you're, you're asking the right question, but you're going to get the detailed answer because the only way to understand it is detailed and what you need to now hear then just for this conversation between me and you is the reason why I think they asked me to look at infectious clones was because there is a way to spin that.
And you can spin that as if you make an infectious clone of the magic RNA, then you can cause a pandemic.
That's the spin.
And it's wrong.
It's wrong.
But that's the spin they want to put on it.
That if you make an infectious clone, then you're making a very dangerous bioweapon.
What I would suggest to you is you're just making a pure quantity of something that otherwise would never be found.
And that is the trick.
They can lie about the potential of that pure quantity, but what that pure quantity does, and that's what the extraordinary thing, if you look at the contents of this pen, it's like three milliliters, three milliliters of pure DNA of the spike protein would be enough spike protein DNA to put it anywhere on earth, thousands of places, and it could be found with PCR for weeks after you put it there.
And it would just have to be in water, not anything else.
And that would be enough for them to find positivity anywhere in people, in hospitals, on cruise ships, and in laboratories and claim that they found it.
So any biosecurity actor that wanted to create the illusion of finding a sequence or a sequence being found everywhere, it is trivial to do it.
Like it's a joke.
It would cost less than a thousand dollars and most of the cost would be the flight to go around putting it places.
That's it.
And they now have the existence quantities to make liters because that's how they make protein biologics.
So it would be trivial for them to claim what they're finding is spontaneous when it could easily be planted or even easier it could have always been there.
That's the trick.
You know, if you claim that the Bible's spreading everywhere on earth and you're finding it wherever you look, in every library, in every hospital, in every hotel, well guess what?
It's not spreading, it was already there.
Yeah.
Right.
Again, this is, you know, you ask the question and the answer is there.
I've thought of it.
It's just that the answer is detailed enough so that, you know, lots of people glaze over.
They want to understand it, but they don't want to work.
They want to have a very simple, dumb explanation.
Well, the dumb, simple explanation is it is for all the marbles, so yes, they lied to you.
They want to enslave your grandkids so they lied to you.
And they are told that they're being on the winning team if they go along with this lie.
It's pretty simple, I think.
Yeah.
Yeah, this is well, this is the challenge.
What about what about if instead of this interview that you interview me and Mark Kulak?
Because Mark Kulak can probably keep me focused on the bigger picture better than I can keep myself focused.
Well, I need to I mean, it's I mean, I'm I've never spoken to Mark.
I'm happy to talk to him.
I've watched I've watched his stream a little bit.
I haven't watched much because I watch yours more when I'm like going to focus on that issue.
But
I mean, I'm open to that possibility, but really it should be, it's my job as the interviewer to, you know, make sure I'm sort of getting out of you what I want to get out.
You never had a chance.
So you don't know how much of a spout I am, you know, so now you, maybe you understand the geyser you're dealing with and you can craft.
Yeah, yeah, no, which I appreciate.
It's like, no, it's, it's awesome.
It's, you know, it's much better than, uh, than the other, you know, the opposite that like, um, but, uh,
Yeah, I have to.
I have to.
Basically, I'm going to have to.
The thing is, I'm going to have to cut you off sometimes and I don't want to do that, but I'm but I'm going to have to sometimes.
Does that make sense?
You need a you need to have a buzzer and then then you can do it really easy.
All right.
OK, so, I mean, here's the thing I would have to I'll have to interject more.
But if you.
Can.
try to be more concise.
And I'm not saying that means don't talk about anything scientific or whatever.
If it's essential, it's essential.
Like, I get that.
But like, what did RFK, you know, tell you?
And, you know, how did you get involved with him and what was his response?
Or why did you come to think this was not the case?
I mean, give like a two minute explanation, if possible, where
Um, I don't know.
And then, and yeah, I don't know.
It's, I'm asking you to do something that's, that's not exactly your, uh, your speed.
Um, that, you know, is the opposite of what you do.
It's, it's kind of in some way, it's, it's like the same as when I talk to like my rabbi in some way about like Judaism and, you know, stuff about like understanding.
How about, how about just, uh,
I mean, start recording, first of all, because I don't want to say anything smart that you like that it's not recorded.
Well, what I want to do is kind of like reset in a way, because it's going to be at this point, it'll be so hard.
I mean, yeah, but I mean, I get what you want to reset.
I hear it.
I just think of it from the perspective of I'm trying to put myself in your shoes, OK?
It's not hard for you or your viewers to understand that that the that the social media narrative
and that there are actors on social media that are actively following a script, which benefits their handlers, which benefits the piles of money that pay them.
And the theater that is Gaza, which is not just a theater, but it's also real people, I get that, that theater is a very controlled theater.
And you might be one of the few spontaneous, non-controlled voices in that theater, for all I know.
Yeah, I feel that it's very controlled.
The more I, oh man, it drives me crazy.
And it's really the same.
People don't understand that they're participating in a controlled, look at, okay, here's a perfect example.
What's happening right now, okay.
I mean, I could say a lot about this, but it's exactly the same way that you're saying how it's very much controlled.
Most of the people don't realize it.
And the way, like nobody will actually take... I mean, it's a great analogy because essentially nobody believes that RFK's, you know, a position on anti-Semitism is an informed one.
Nobody believes that he's saying that because he goes to his grave believing that he's, you know,
Speaking out on the rights.
It's the same thing with gain-of-function viruses.
If you're told that that's what the story is, then you go along with it if you're going to rise in this hierarchy.
That's simple.
Exactly.
So that's the thing is like, you know what?
What if we actively avoid getting into the science of it?
And because it's like.
And if you're like, look, I can prove that an RNA pandemic is completely fake.
but it is not a real thing.
I can prove it.
You put me up against, to debate anybody, Robert Malone or RFK or any single one of them in a, I'll expose it.
But they don't want, RFK is playing political games and does not wanna talk, like it makes you, you know what I mean?
It's playing political games because
i don't know you know i think you can't say i mean you could be like i can't say rfk uh... uh... lied to me or mistreated me or anything like that it is an essential absolutely important question to anyone who claims to care about public health about the way our country's going about are the future of our country our children our grandchildren and the fact that he
would not do it and basically.
Sent me on my on my way and went ahead and published this book, knowing that it is that it very well may be based on a totally faulty premise that is useful for, you know, some some.
powerful interests really says everything.
And there needs to be a lot more questions asked about that.
And, you know, I mean, this is like what I would say if I were going on redacted again and talking about you or whatever.
And this is what I tried to do the other day, that it's like, why the fuck is nobody talking about.
Jake, who in this whole RFK, you know, I mean, those are the things.
I get that, like, you've been through so much shit that you're like,
You have you have your strengths and your personality and your character of what you do.
You are a teacher.
And like that's and it's not just since covid, you've been a teacher like you were teaching.
Were you teaching before?
No.
Yeah, I taught I taught high school even before I decided to go into my PhD.
No, this this seriously, the thing is, man, the problem the problem is, is that a teacher has a message and I have a priority message.
I ultimately don't want to waste my time
Talking about these people.
I want to talk about the ideas that they consistently ignore and and ultimately the story right now is that that It isn't about a particular shot.
They want to make it about a particular shot.
It's about intramuscular injection in general and this is not a
if if we can't make that into a political message i get it but i don't have a political message about robert f kennedy junior because he's just as bad as merrill nass and maryland and all these other people yeah yeah no i get it i get it it's just a tool it's something much bigger i'm just saying that's a jumping off point and it's like if the fact that i mean is what i said not true the fact if robert f kennedy is willing to publish a book
his top advisor, or the scientist who he credited as the most important, essential in writing this book, says is false and told him so, that is a major, that's a scandal.
That's scandalous, and that is political.
It is, or it just reveals that there is a national security priority to collect the data and to have people think that there's pandemics, right?
Both.
That's what's behind the scandal.
I'm saying it needs to be called a scandal and like okay fine.
That's my job to do it I'm like the journalist who's you know seeing you know what you're doing and kind of and sees that story for what it is, but I just feel like we need to find a way
a formula for this interview that's going to deliver your message, that's going to just get, I mean, your message.
You don't have one, you know, one, like, I understand what, you know, you have, you've kind of boiled it down to like five or six points.
RNA, RNA can't bandemic, intramuscular injection is dumb, etc.
those are the points that you go after but like we need to find a way to pry in to the narrative and I think
the RFK thing.
It's just the jumping off.
It's just the diving board to get.
Do you know what I mean?
Well, I mean, really, you know, that story is is him probably not wanting to do what he's doing right now.
You know, the Mercury, the World Mercury Project was his thing, and that changed its name in 2018 to Children's Health Defense.
So, I mean, the political angle on this is is deep, dude.
I don't know how to
I don't know, if you just want to say that I'm in the book but he doesn't talk to me anymore and why, that's all you can really say.
No, no, there's like more I want to say about that, but there's like, you know, like I said, the question I had before
After that is okay.
So well, I kind of mixed in with that is like how did you come to this conclusion?
which obviously is a scientific question and I mean what you were saying to me about Transfecting monkeys and then you have to kill them soon after that was like chilling for me.
That's fucking terrifying everyone should be like that should that's that's a massive scandal and
I don't think it's a massive scandal at all.
Why is that a massive scandal?
That's how science is done.
That's how it's been done for years and years and years.
No, no, I'm saying that that's what was done.
Isn't that what was done to people then?
No, no, no.
That's the...
I don't think people, the vast majority of people that were transfecting, it did not go in their brain.
It could have, it could have, but these are directly injected to the brain.
So it's a little different, but it's the same concept.
It's the same tool.
Yeah.
Right.
Okay.
Yeah.
So it's all right.
It's not going into the brain.
It could have though.
And it definitely goes into the brain and babies because baby's blood brain barrier is not developed.
Right.
So like if you I mean, when you were explaining that technology, that was like bone chilling.
And that's such an important thing.
I mean, so there there are aspects of it that I think are.
And remember, that's also part of the story, right?
You get recruited into this book and you have this really important message also about the shot.
And that's not in this book either.
When can I tell everybody about that?
Well, when we hire you at CHD and then they hired me at CHD.
And when can I tell everybody about that?
Well, I don't know.
I mean, that's also important.
It's all part of the same, you know, I saw the UFO that nobody else has seen.
And now he's, you know, this, this whole measles thing that he's on, this measles thing was set up by Rolling Stone already in 2016.
I mean, that's extraordinary.
The idea that, you know, Mary Holland hasn't had to change her tune since 2015.
And that we're now talking about the MMR again.
It is.
I, okay.
I'm, I'm with you.
The thing is, I think like, okay.
When I ask you that stuff, when I ask you like what RFK told you and you know, how you, how you came to that conclusion and what RFK told you when you told him that
when you start talking like it has to be a more concise answer because you start talking about Mary Holland and like people are not going to know who Mary Holland is.
You know, people aren't people aren't going to know like the the intricacies of CHD in this kind of thing.
And like,
Yeah, again, it depends on the answer you want.
If you want the biological one or the political one, the political one's been going on for a while.
I mean, it essentially seems like Steve Bannon saw that the anti-vax movement could be used as a very effective populist right tool in the UK, and he recruited the same jackasses and brought them over here to America and did the same thing.
with them.
And at some point, RFK got roped into the same game, and I got roped into the same game.
And once I figured out that these people weren't playing to win, I went on my own.
That's where I am.
And so the hit piece on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is that he had the franchise player, and CHD had a franchise player that could have ended all of this nonsense, and they chose to let me go off on my own and ignore me.
And that is all those people.
And all those people are behind RFK, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and Mary Holland, who was his campaign manager in the first instance.
And Tony Lyons of Skyhorse Publishing is still his main advisor, along with Del Bigtree.
I mean, it's just absurd.
It's absurd.
And the fact of the matter is, is that the right in America has been captured by these posers who are all essentially Democratic operatives as far as their political history goes.
They can't possibly actually really be Republicans.
So it's so weird that, I mean, I have a hard time explaining it, but that's the gist of it.
I thought I got on the right team, and very clearly I got on a team that was already in the business of sabotage a long time ago.
And it's possible that even right now, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is just a
a coattail riding person who, if they could have gotten him into the vice presidency, they definitely would have, but they didn't.
And so now he's here and I don't know what he's doing, but he's not doing what he promised he would do all those years ago when he changed the name of World Mercury Project to CSD.
I think what you're saying is perfect.
Like, I think if I ask you that same question, how did you come to this conclusion and what did
You know what happened when you told him that?
And he's and, you know, he basically.
Gave you, you know, he said, this isn't the book for that, OK?
But, you know, and why then?
You know, I think Robert Kennedy is basically part of a bigger operation that's been going back decades that aims to achieve this.
And we are, you know, there are a variety of characters and actors who have
um, who are in place to basically guide a narrative.
Um, you know, I mean, you put it, you clearly put it better than I do, but, but that kind of thing.
Um, I mean, I think that would, that would be a good way to answer it.
It's just like,
Some of it has to be broad strokes and there are certain things we'll really dive into and certain things we won't.
That are like better just on your stream.
Do you know what I mean?
Yeah.
That's my feeling.
So I think only because of my schedule we're gonna have to try it again.
Oh man.
Stop.
Get out of here.
Um, no, I have to take the boys to basketball soon.
Um, yeah, it's almost two.
Um, okay.
Well, um, are you willing to do this with me again?
I mean, I know it's not start tomorrow morning again, if that's what you want.
I mean, I, I, I think that you, if you can give me your platform or a very, very important opportunity.
So I want, I want you to get the sound bite you want.
I just don't want it to be able to be misconstrued by anybody.
That's all.
Um, other than that.
let's