[Charles Kovess]: So everybody, welcome to today's.
[Charles Kovess]: meeting of Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
[Charles Kovess]: We're having an urgent announcement for five minutes to start before I introduce Jay Couey, wonderful presenter, wonderful thinker, who's joining us today.
[Charles Kovess]: We're going to have five minutes from Craig Paardekooper, who's presented to us twice before.
[Charles Kovess]: This group was founded over three years ago by Stephen Frost.
[Charles Kovess]: I'm Charles Kovess.
[Charles Kovess]: I'll do a shortened
[Charles Kovess]: I'll do a shortened invitation today.
[Charles Kovess]: We comprise lots of professions here, and we're from all around the world.
[Charles Kovess]: We recognize that we're in World War III, and that we're partway through World War III.
[Charles Kovess]: This is a free speech environment with appropriate moderating.
[Charles Kovess]: We reject the offense industry, and we reject the triggering industry.
[Charles Kovess]: If you're offended by anything, be offended.
[Charles Kovess]: We are lovingly not interested.
[Charles Kovess]: We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
[Charles Kovess]: Fear is the opposite of love.
[Charles Kovess]: Fear squashes you and enslaves you.
[Charles Kovess]: Love, on the other hand, expands you and liberates you.
[Charles Kovess]: So, thank you for being here.
[Charles Kovess]: The meeting is recorded, is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.
[Charles Kovess]: And before I introduce Jay Couey, Craig Paardekooper, the next five minutes is yours.
[Charles Kovess]: We are all ears.
[Charles Kovess]: And Craig, we can see your screen.
[Craig]: Okay.
[Craig]: Can anyone?
[Craig]: Lovely, great.
[Craig]: Okay, so the headline is, and
[Craig]: I'm not sure how you're going to take this, but I'm just going to tell you the facts without trying to interpret them.
[Craig]: A message has been found in the X logo for the X platform, and it is of significant meaning to everyone.
[Craig]: The logo was made public initially in August 2023 on the X platform, when Elon took over from Twitter.
[Craig]: People have noticed that there appears to be a scratch on the logo, which was a bit odd, but no one actually zoomed in and actually saw what was embedded in the message.
[Craig]: So here is the message, here is the actual logo, which has been present on all phones since 2023 August.
[Craig]: When you zoom in, you can see that the scratch isn't a scratch.
[Craig]: It has letters and numbers, which comprise a message.
[Craig]: Initially, I didn't know what language it was in, but it's now been completely deciphered.
[Craig]: The actual line of message points to an image above the X, which I'll show you briefly what that is.
[Craig]: So, the central scratch is not a scratch, it's a message.
[Craig]: It consists of letters and numbers, it's been deciphered.
[Craig]: When I deciphered it, it consisted of two parts, it consisted of a sequence that repeated three times, consisting of three letters each time, and it reads,
[Craig]: Now, this is going to sound corny, but I'm just going to say what the facts are.
[Charles Kovess]: It reads... Hang on, Craig.
[Charles Kovess]: This is... Hang on, Craig.
[Charles Kovess]: We got to, it reads, and then you got stopped.
[Charles Kovess]: Start again.
[Charles Kovess]: It reads... Okay.
[Charles Kovess]: It reads...
[Craig]: 666 in letters, not in numbers.
[Craig]: So you've got S-I-X, S-I-X, and S-I-X.
[Craig]: I've put a full document of this on my website, howbad.info, under the section COVID and Cult.
[Craig]: So people can look at it in detail and get zooming in on high-resolution images to see this.
[Craig]: And in between is an image that I can interpret this in detail in the files that I've provided.
[Craig]: This is the image that I was referring to between the sixes.
[Craig]: This is the only other thing in the message other than the sixes.
[Craig]: It consists of a person in a walking position with wearing shoes.
[Craig]: It's an upright walking position, but it has the head of a beast, a devil.
[Craig]: And it goes by a name beginning with two letters, E-L, followed by two spaces.
[Craig]: So it's a four-letter name beginning with E-L.
[Craig]: Now, concerning the image above the X, which is on everyone's phone, this is it.
[Craig]: And initially, I wasn't sure what it was, but then when we used high resolution, we can see
[Craig]: This is, it's a person, their head is at an angle of 20 degrees to their right, they're holding a sword of some kind in their right hand, and on their left shoulder they have chevrons, which is a military insignia, so this is a commander of some kind.
[Craig]: You can see its eyes here and here, its nose, its mouth,
[Craig]: And there's a symmetry at 20 degrees to the vertical.
[Craig]: And you can see one of its ears here, which looks quite pointed.
[Craig]: Now, as bizarre as all this sounds, like a fairy tale, it's actually what's on everyone's phone.
[Craig]: And the interpretation is, the X, my interpretation now, is this.
[Craig]: The X has always been a symbol for Christ, and when you have a vertical line through the X, that's the Iota Chi, which is the symbol for Jesus Christ.
[Craig]: It's a traditional Christian symbol.
[Craig]: Here instead, it's the line going through it with the message 666 and that strange walking beast.
[Craig]: pointing to what looks like a kind of a devil at the top, to me it looks like the symbol for the Antichrist, because we have, instead of Jesus, it's relevant to what's going to be happening in America over the next few months, which is that they're having an election.
[Craig]: People are taking part in that election, and it's up to people to decide whether they want to take this information into account, that's all.
[Craig]: And this information isn't provided by anyone except the person who is taking part in the election.
[Craig]: So it's not provided by me, it's not provided by an opposition to them, it's provided by them themselves.
[Craig]: They're declaring who they are here.
[Craig]: I'm just saying this is relevant and it's going to affect the history of America and also of the globe in the coming months.
[Craig]: So, I've said that.
[Craig]: That's my newsflash.
[Craig]: At the bottom of the
[Craig]: I've provided links, so here you have, you can find this information under COVID and Cult.
[Craig]: I've created a document that's about 40 pages where I go into detail in analyzing the image.
[Craig]: I have like a video and a document.
[Craig]: So the video's on BitChute and the document is here.
[Craig]: And I'll invite everybody to at least take this into consideration regarding a self-declared identity
[Craig]: of the person who actually created this image.
[Craig]: So people should take it into consideration.
[Craig]: So therefore, whatever they decide, they decide.
[Charles Kovess]: Well done, Craig.
[Charles Kovess]: Thank you for all those links.
[Charles Kovess]: You've put those links into the chat, have you, Craig?
[Craig]: Okay, I'm going to go back to…
[Charles Kovess]: Just copy and paste while Jay starts.
[Charles Kovess]: Just copy and paste that into the chat, Craig.
[Charles Kovess]: Make it easy for people to access.
[Charles Kovess]: And he's frozen.
[Charles Kovess]: Yes, he is.
[Charles Kovess]: All right, so we've got those links.
[Charles Kovess]: I can put them into the chat.
[Charles Kovess]: and we'll get Craig.
[Charles Kovess]: Thank you for that.
[Charles Kovess]: If you can hear us, that is a newsflash and Craig will present more.
[Charles Kovess]: He will discuss with Stephen and I will stop his sharing there and
[Charles Kovess]: Jonathan J. Couey.
[Charles Kovess]: I'm delighted to have you again to talk about the Human Genome Project.
[Charles Kovess]: Jay's bio is on the show notes.
[Charles Kovess]: For those of you who don't know who he is, he is a researcher and
[Charles Kovess]: Wonderful presenter, wonderful investigator.
[Charles Kovess]: And we thank you so much again, Jay, for joining us.
[Charles Kovess]: And thank you again, Stephen Frost, for creating this group and giving us an opportunity to speak the truth to each other.
[Charles Kovess]: Jay, over to you.
[Charles Kovess]: You can share your screen.
[Charles Kovess]: And you're the man.
[J Jay Couey]: Thank you very much again for the opportunity to speak.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm going to put myself over on the other side.
[J Jay Couey]: If you can't see this as one screen, you just have to change your view to speaker view.
[J Jay Couey]: So I want to take a look at this book which is called What is Life, Mind and Matter.
[J Jay Couey]: I put a link in the chat.
[J Jay Couey]: It's a link on my website where if you go to that link you can see these PDFs that are downloadable and one of them is this book.
[J Jay Couey]: You can also find this book on the Internet Archive and if you just search for Erwin Schrodinger and What is Life, there are probably
[J Jay Couey]: many places where you can find the PDF of it some of the PDFs have this cover some of the PDFs have a little chicken on the front There's a Cambridge version.
[J Jay Couey]: There's a there's another as well.
[J Jay Couey]: This one's also a Cambridge version.
[J Jay Couey]: Maybe there's multiple ones anyway, I think that the reason why this book is so interesting is because it
[J Jay Couey]: It has become clear to me in trying to formulate a new Biology 101 for freshman students in college that something is really wrong with Campbell, the book that everybody uses at universities in America, and with the help of my friend Mark Kulacz and other people like Peter Hotez and others,
[J Jay Couey]: It has become very clear to me that there is a long mentor chain of thoughtfulness with regard to answering some very crucial questions about what we can and can't understand about ourselves.
[J Jay Couey]: Sorry, I thought my dog was going to come in here.
[J Jay Couey]: It's become sort of my life now.
[J Jay Couey]: It was COVID, but COVID has kind of passed for me because I understand it in a larger context now, and how, more importantly, after repeating over and over again for you and for many other people,
[J Jay Couey]: that we actually inherited these charlatans from our parents, that I realized that I needed to explore the consequences of that idea.
[J Jay Couey]: And the consequences of that idea, of course, are having to go back to those times and those books and actually read them to see how it is that we got to the point where we are, where people are very
[J Jay Couey]: somehow able to go in front of a stage.
[J Jay Couey]: I think the best example that I have, I'm just going to take a cut right here.
[J Jay Couey]: I have little notes, and I'm just going to grab this note here.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm going to drop this in the chat.
[J Jay Couey]: It is a YouTube video that I would like to assign to you as homework.
[J Jay Couey]: It is Adam Rutherford.
[J Jay Couey]: He is like a kind of used to be an academic scientist, but then became a science communicator.
[J Jay Couey]: And at the start of the pandemic, he was very, very involved in this debate about whether it was a lab leak or whether a lab leak was ridiculous.
[J Jay Couey]: Or or a bridge too far because there was enough nastiness and mother nature to explain everything so the reason why I think that video is important is because in the first 30 minutes of that video you basically have a person teaching the central dogma of biology and teaching all of the
[J Jay Couey]: teaching through all of the major, let's say, greatest hits, little milestones in ideology, the bricks of the ideology, that once you accept those, then you can go on into the university system, or on to PubMed, or on to any of these primary literature sources, and have the right
[J Jay Couey]: foundation of ideas in order to understand what all these people are talking about, and also to understand the context in which all of their terminology and all of their concepts fit.
[J Jay Couey]: And what's extraordinary is that I, as a professional biologist, was in that
[J Jay Couey]: well within this structure of ideas for a very, very long time.
[J Jay Couey]: At some point, I think if I would have been in a bar or in a situation where somebody challenged me on the primacy of the idea of evolution and the primacy of the idea that the brain evolved from
[J Jay Couey]: you know, previous forms or whatever, and to defend that idea, I would have been there all night, and I would have never fallen asleep, and I would have had all kinds of answers for everything, all the time, ultra confident that a few basic principles
[J Jay Couey]: were sufficient for me to model in my mind how it is that a lightning bolt could hit a mud puddle and just the right combination could happen, and then now you have this spontaneous process that billions of years later results in me going to the prom and crying afterward.
[J Jay Couey]: And for me, that's
[J Jay Couey]: that's where the rubber doesn't meet the road anymore.
[J Jay Couey]: For me, as a child and as a biologist, when I was a kid, there was no question in my mind that what I was looking at and appreciating was beyond a simple explanation.
[J Jay Couey]: And yet, as an adult,
[J Jay Couey]: I started to realize that that kid was really not present when I was working at the university.
[J Jay Couey]: That kid was constantly being told to shut up when it came to formulating my grant questions or teaching people what it was that I was trying to address as a concept with my experiments, because reductionist biology necessarily requires you to only pick a few knobs and then
[J Jay Couey]: pretend that okay if I leave these two knobs alone and turn knob number one then I get one result and if I turn knob number one with knob number two I get another result and then that's supposed to be understanding the system because you're ignoring all the other knobs that you know exist and the ones that you haven't even found yet and the art of being a tenured professor is being able to
[J Jay Couey]: at the same time as you justify how important the knobs are that you're turning, also very humbly admit that you don't know what any of the other knobs do and you're sure that they do things important too.
[J Jay Couey]: And so as long as you play that game, you can become an academic biologist without ever questioning the main bricks on which all of this investigation lies and on which all the premise on which your expertise is based.
[J Jay Couey]: And it
[J Jay Couey]: Over these last five years, for me personally, the most humbling thing about it has been to realize how awfully wrong I was about so many things that I thought I understood, and also what's been very
[J Jay Couey]: humbling to me is how easily that can be rearranged once you realize what bricks are there and who put them there and how they got there.
[J Jay Couey]: And you can feel good about it because you realize that it wasn't your fault.
[J Jay Couey]: It wasn't just because a couple people got it wrong in your particular biology class.
[J Jay Couey]: It's because there has been this trend, a wave of knowledge, a wave of
[J Jay Couey]: of what I guess I would call implied knowledge or assumed knowledge, which all traces itself back to this wonderful time when we were into, um, nuclear bombs and radiation and at the cusp of thinking that we were about to make major breakthroughs in our understanding of biology.
[J Jay Couey]: And so that's why this book is so interesting.
[J Jay Couey]: This is the book.
[J Jay Couey]: Um, do I have to scroll up to the top?
[J Jay Couey]: Maybe, uh, let's see.
[J Jay Couey]: So I got this guy here.
[J Jay Couey]: I'll just scroll to the top.
[J Jay Couey]: This is What is Life by Erwin Schrodinger.
[J Jay Couey]: I think this is the one with the chicken on the front, isn't it?
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, this is the one you can download from the archive.
[J Jay Couey]: And so if we go to the first chapter, I just got a few things I want to highlight here because I just want to make some big points, okay?
[J Jay Couey]: And it's a really important book.
[J Jay Couey]: You can find so many people who will highlight it as a seminal book in their reading.
[J Jay Couey]: And before I get started with highlighting a couple of things in the first 20 pages of this book, let me just help you to do a thought exercise to try and put you in the right space of exploration in terms of what might be going on with you and what I think happened to me.
[J Jay Couey]: I want you to imagine a scenario where you grow up and all the teachers and all of the adults that are around you believe that they need to feed the right birds and attract the right birds to the backyard in order for all of the best outcomes to happen at work and for all of the best things to happen in their lives and for people not to get sick.
[J Jay Couey]: And there are people who are experts on birds and can tell you what things you have to put in your backyard to attract which birds and which birds you want to attract when you have a certain sickness, and which birds will come and announce that the sicknesses are coming and all this stuff.
[J Jay Couey]: And you can imagine very easily this elaborate mythology that would be created with weather and with what birds eat and all this other knowledge that could be misconstrued
[J Jay Couey]: as birds being an intimate connection to nature and to our health and to our understanding of our biology.
[J Jay Couey]: And with a crafty set of liars, you could get that to work, you could get that to go, even if at the beginning everything was really well-meant and it seemed to really work, that if you attract cardinals, then generally speaking, families are healthier than people that have crows in their backyard, whatever the anecdotal observations that get misconstrued as understanding are.
[J Jay Couey]: But then understand that at the beginning of this revolution, we were being propelled forward.
[J Jay Couey]: Our greatest thinkers were chemists and physicists.
[J Jay Couey]: And so this guy acknowledges that and sort of, without even really knowing it, exposes the problem that's going on here.
[J Jay Couey]: And one of the terms that comes from this book is aperiodic crystal.
[J Jay Couey]: So he makes the argument that chemists and physicists are always studying periodic crystals, and what occurs in biology is an aperiodic crystal, because it changes over time, and it's a very consistent one-way pattern of change.
[J Jay Couey]: You can expound on that all you want to, but the idea of an aperiodic crystal influenced lots of people afterward, lots of people grabbed onto that, and that's actually maybe where this term gene originates, or thinking about genes originates.
[J Jay Couey]: So if I scroll down a little bit through this thing, one of the first things that comes up here, I'm going to make myself smaller, is that the reason that this book needs to be written, and he's of course a mathematician,
[J Jay Couey]: And so the scary part would be, of course, or the assumption would be that he's going to use math to explain biology.
[J Jay Couey]: But the reason for this was not that he's not going to use math.
[J Jay Couey]: That's what he says here.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not going to be hardly utilized at all.
[J Jay Couey]: And why is that?
[J Jay Couey]: Well, it's because this subject cannot be explained with mathematics.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not fully accessible to mathematics.
[J Jay Couey]: And yet, at the same time in this book,
[J Jay Couey]: The question that they want to answer is, how can the events in space-time, which take place within the spatial boundaries of a living organism, be accounted for by physics and chemistry alone?
[J Jay Couey]: Because that is
[J Jay Couey]: at the heart of it.
[J Jay Couey]: And this is something that needs to be very clear in everybody's head as a starting biologist, or a restarting biologist, or a recovering biologist.
[J Jay Couey]: You have to see that an organism is something that moves through space, it's a pattern integrity that remains integrated to and through time.
[J Jay Couey]: And it's that developmental time course from a child to an adult, to an older adult, to an elderly person, that is a single course
[J Jay Couey]: irreversible, and it is in these people's minds, in these chemists' and physicists' minds that are starting to, let's say, cross over into a biology and apply their understanding of the world to biology
[J Jay Couey]: because they are the curators of the laws of physics and the laws of chemistry.
[J Jay Couey]: So if life is governed by these laws, then who better to convert to biology when biology is ready to accept that determinist outlook?
[J Jay Couey]: And so this is where most of the thinking about genes and the primacy of DNA comes from, because these chemists and physicists were looking for a chemical and physical explanation for the pattern of life.
[J Jay Couey]: And so if we scroll one page after this, this is page four at the top here, this is the assumption.
[J Jay Couey]: So the preliminary answer which this little book will endeavor to expound and establish can be summarized as follows.
[J Jay Couey]: "The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences."
[J Jay Couey]: So just because we don't have the microscopes, just because we don't have the fine instruments, doesn't mean that when we do, we won't be able to just account for everything by physics and chemistry.
[J Jay Couey]: And so it is very important to understand that that premise
[J Jay Couey]: that premise is central to Biology 101 at every university in the Western world, and it is absolutely central to the idea that the Human Genome Project accomplished anything at all.
[J Jay Couey]: Because the concept is very different than what it actually is.
[J Jay Couey]: This is written at a time when they're getting excited about the possibility of identifying this chemistry, and the identification of this chemistry was immediately taken as proof that this was true.
[J Jay Couey]: And so we still can't look inside of a cell and see the actual status of the DNA molecule, which parts of it are exposed, which parts are wrapped up, which ones are being translated or not.
[J Jay Couey]: All of those things are done using physics and chemistry means by which you take something that is very tiny,
[J Jay Couey]: then you attempt to make lots of it so that the presence of lots of it is interpretable at a single size level.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's what's so beautiful about the beginning of this book.
[J Jay Couey]: The beginning of this book explains the rationale upon which this bridge can be made, where you just say, well, if you put the right chemicals,
[J Jay Couey]: in the right little sack and then just let them go, then billions of years later you'll have us.
[J Jay Couey]: And it only requires that you accept that there's no reason for doubting that just because we can't explain it now.
[J Jay Couey]: And so the finding of DNA, and since they found it, it has been physicists and chemists that have been used, or abused, or willingly taken biology into this direction where all of the irreducible complexity, all of what was sacred, all of what was assumed to be creation, can now be assumed to be the consequence of physical and chemical laws that we are just not yet able to quantify or measure.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's an extraordinary place to be, of course, because what's really interesting, and I'm just taking you, this is completely improv.
[J Jay Couey]: I have a list of a couple things that I wanna talk to you about, and the rest I just wanna share things to read.
[J Jay Couey]: Also on that list of Gigaohm Biological slash stuff is this book, which is, I guess you can't see that, maybe I can do this, is The Phenomenon of Man by Teilhard de Chardin.
[J Jay Couey]: He is a Jesuit priest
[J Jay Couey]: who in the 30s, I'm going to get his history wrong, but it doesn't really matter.
[J Jay Couey]: In the 30s, he was actually kind of kicked out of the church or getting the Catholic church got angry at him.
[J Jay Couey]: Why?
[J Jay Couey]: Because he was really, really into that Pithdown Man guy.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't know if you remember this, but there was something in the 20s or the 30s or the 40s.
[J Jay Couey]: You have to just look this up yourself.
[J Jay Couey]: I can just do it right now.
[J Jay Couey]: The Pithdown Man Summary is a fossilized remains that were discovered in 1912, and so he was around then.
[J Jay Couey]: But it was in the 30s that he wrote a lot of these books, including this one, which didn't get published until later with an introduction by Julian Huxley.
[J Jay Couey]: And this priest
[J Jay Couey]: took the Pithdown Man and ran with it, and said that that meant Darwin was right, and that meant that we were descended from animals, and the church didn't like that.
[J Jay Couey]: But this guy was really like, oh, this solves the problem.
[J Jay Couey]: Then the way that we were created was through evolution, and this idea of
[J Jay Couey]: solving the problem of how did God make us by saying that God did evolution is actually something really interesting, because this same guy who did that for the Catholic Church and is cited by no less than Peter Hotez in an article in The Lancet in 2024 as being a seminal thinker in this public health space, this guy right here
[J Jay Couey]: went for evolution fully, and also in this thing said that the shape of the planet being round meant that at some point the phenomenon of man, the species of man, would become one
[J Jay Couey]: cognitive unit, a noosphere, and that would be the way that we would move forward.
[J Jay Couey]: I may have said this before, and if I have I apologize, but Julian Huxley characterized this idea as the equivalent of fish swimming in groups in the water, and men
[J Jay Couey]: swimming in groups of conscious thought, not water, but conscious thought.
[J Jay Couey]: And so the idea was that because the population would eventually come in contact with each other, he couldn't have seen the internet, or maybe he could have, I don't know, but that we would all become sort of one conscious sphere that would be governable and then steerable, and it was in our
[J Jay Couey]: divine duty to take command of this, to take control of this, to steward the stewardship of it.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's very similar to what a lot of eugenicists think, a lot of these biologists think, that we have to take charge of our evolution as a species.
[J Jay Couey]: And of course, that also means, again, because if we go back to this book, if we are just the consequence of physics and chemistry,
[J Jay Couey]: then our free will and our decisions and what individuals do is really not as important as what we do as a species and where we go into the future.
[J Jay Couey]: And so if I use that as a branch, then let me see if I can quickly jump over here.
[J Jay Couey]: So this is the paper that we're all talking about, the initial sequencing and analysis of the genome by the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium.
[J Jay Couey]: And this was published in Nature, I think, in 2001.
[J Jay Couey]: And so I think it's just really telling to read the first part here.
[J Jay Couey]: "The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century..."
[J Jay Couey]: The opening weeks of the 20th century,
[J Jay Couey]: which is actually around the same few years that we were talking about with regard to the Pithdown Man, and with regard to when this guy was starting to get in trouble with the Church because he was saying evolution.
[J Jay Couey]: And so what we're seeing here is a very disingenuous misrepresentation even of what Mendel's Laws mean.
[J Jay Couey]: And one of the many things that I wanted to cover
[J Jay Couey]: I think everybody in this chat would have heard of the Habsburgs, for example.
[J Jay Couey]: The Habsburgs, I think, were a very, very, very rich family in Europe for a very long time, but they were also incredibly inbred.
[J Jay Couey]: And I don't think anybody in the historian sect would say that what resulted there was good.
[J Jay Couey]: There were crazy people, there were sick people, there were sterile people.
[J Jay Couey]: And if you looked at the family tree, that video that I gave you, that family tree is in there, and you can see that there's, like, aunts that are also grandmoms, and then there's also great-grandfathers that are also grandfathers, and it's super bizarre, because there's lots of people that are marrying within the family for a long time, and so that is genetically very bad, but it's interesting in that video, he jokes, because it's really good for geneticists.
[J Jay Couey]: And actually, it's important to understand that this rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity, it's something that when it was taught to me when I was in high school, when it was retaught to me when I was in college, and when I taught students this as a college lab instructor or lab assistant, I taught the same illusion.
[J Jay Couey]: And the illusion of this is that Mendel just got pea plants out and started breeding them together and it was all good.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's an absolute lie.
[J Jay Couey]: Mendel spent a long time breeding pea plants that started to show consistent traits.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not that he just started with pea plants with wrinkles and pea plants without wrinkles and then did these studies and voila, wrote the book.
[J Jay Couey]: That's not how it worked.
[J Jay Couey]: He first had to breed these plants long enough so that the traits were consistent.
[J Jay Couey]: Then, when he bred them together, he could see these sorting ratios.
[J Jay Couey]: Now, if you understand, then, that there are certain phenotypes, there are certain attributes that might, by coincidence,
[J Jay Couey]: be sortable in that way, sort in that mathematically neat way if you create, let's say, clean enough genetic signals.
[J Jay Couey]: And so in the case of the Habsburgs, there were probably several combinations of genes that would stand out as, wow, these are bad.
[J Jay Couey]: And if we looked at other people who have these symptoms, it looks like that's a bad combination of genes.
[J Jay Couey]: But understanding what those genes do in development that led to that, understanding the likelihood of that being a developmental process or a genetically predetermined process was still only correlation even in the greatest and most pure signals of Mendel or the most pure signals in our own genetic, let's say, catalog.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's where the bamboozlement happened here.
[J Jay Couey]: That's what I can speak to personally as a neurobiologist because when I got into neuroscience, everybody, everybody was hoping that they would get a chance to work on a knockout mouse that was interesting.
[J Jay Couey]: And what is a knockout mouse?
[J Jay Couey]: A knockout mouse is a mouse that supposedly has a protein, a gene, at that time a protein was really the gene that you would knock out, or a gene.
[J Jay Couey]: And so you'd knock out a protein and if you got lucky enough and the mouse lived
[J Jay Couey]: and could function, then chances are pretty good that you could go in and look for the physiological defect or the thing that was wrong, and then maybe it would give you some idea of what that protein did in the mice that have it.
[J Jay Couey]: And because you're working on an inbred mouse line, the background noise is very low.
[J Jay Couey]: The signal is very consistent across animals.
[J Jay Couey]: And so if these genes are, these proteins are present or not present, it's very easy to screen for that.
[J Jay Couey]: And that illusion is sustained across laboratories in America and in Europe where they use inbred mouse lines that by definition are very much like the peas of Mendel.
[J Jay Couey]: But it is very clear from the Habsburgs family tree that if we tried to make an inbred strain of human, if we got anywhere near the homogeneity of mice, there would be no living humans anymore.
[J Jay Couey]: And in that same video, Adam Rutherford actually says that humans are actually quite inbred.
[J Jay Couey]: Which I find a really weird statement for him to make, because in this same video, this guy, this former scientist and now science communicator who was sure that it was a natural leak, that guy will tell you that the central dogma that DNA to RNA to protein is essentially how life works, and everything that's alive does that.
[J Jay Couey]: And that cells are the smallest unit of life, and cells come from other cells, except
[J Jay Couey]: at the origin of life.
[J Jay Couey]: After the origin of life, there was always a cell, and then cells beget cells, and that's how we have all the cells that we have.
[J Jay Couey]: And so really, it is no different than the idea that I've said multiple times to you about, in a much shorter timescale, the idea that... Let's see, is that one that one?
[J Jay Couey]: The idea that... How did that work?
[J Jay Couey]: The idea that something that's endemic is impossible to tell from something that was already in the background.
[J Jay Couey]: And so what we have from an evolutionary perspective, from a genetic perspective, a snapshot of all the people on Earth, we don't actually have any data.
[J Jay Couey]: This four-dimensional family tree or whatever that they propose is where we came from.
[J Jay Couey]: We don't have any data from that except for the current hundred years of life that we've been able to catalog both molecularly and macroscopically, you know, whatever, what they look like and whatnot.
[J Jay Couey]: So this implication, I can give you one example.
[J Jay Couey]: This is just, again, endemicity versus background.
[J Jay Couey]: You can't tell the difference because you don't have any data.
[J Jay Couey]: We don't have any data from what animals were on the planet in 1600, and a good survey of them.
[J Jay Couey]: We don't have a good survey from 4000 BC, and yet these biologists are talking about evolution on a much longer time scale with no data
[J Jay Couey]: on any of those timescales.
[J Jay Couey]: You just have to accept it, because they found DNA, and since DNA is the chemical and physical explanation for how life works, the code, then evolution is also real.
[J Jay Couey]: So that video that I put in as homework is really important to listen to, because what that guy does in the first 25 minutes is give you a lecture about the basics
[J Jay Couey]: of the central dogma and how all academic biologists and all thinking academic medical professionals think about the basis of all life on earth, what we share in common.
[J Jay Couey]: And they also believe, for example, in this thing, and I know this is out of date now, but in 2003, there was a paper by the last name of Hillis, and they put together this plot where they put like 2,000 plus species on it, and they tried to make this tree where it starts with the most basic kinds of protists and then splits, and now you get all the rest of life, and here's where the bacteria are over here,
[J Jay Couey]: here are the animals and we're over on this part if you can see my my arrow here and so this is like a PDF you can zoom in and see all the animals that they did and yet all we have is a snapshot.
[J Jay Couey]: Just like with this coronavirus or with this latest, there was a latest Neuroscience paper, not Neuroscience, Nature paper that came out that showed that they went for some used AI to find all the RNA viruses in some sample and they found all kinds of new viruses or potential new viruses using metagenomic sequences.
[J Jay Couey]: It's no different.
[J Jay Couey]: If you just take a huge sample of all the animals on earth and you claim that they have to be arranged in some kind of descending order of complexity or where they came from, then you can make this tree and claim all you want.
[J Jay Couey]: But the bottom line is that none of these animals are anything but contemporaries of the process that they claim they came from.
[J Jay Couey]: And they have no evidence that that's the case.
[J Jay Couey]: And it's extraordinary because, again, remember that all of these assumptions are wholly based, in my humble opinion, on these bricks.
[J Jay Couey]: That these main foundational cornerstone bricks are that the DNA is the code for life,
[J Jay Couey]: and therefore, it's just a matter of time before we are able to understand it, use it, manipulate it, improve it.
[J Jay Couey]: And everything else is an assumption.
[J Jay Couey]: All the spending is an assumption.
[J Jay Couey]: All of the grant calls assume this.
[J Jay Couey]: Everything.
[J Jay Couey]: It's all based on this.
[J Jay Couey]: And I even based my understanding of the brain and my organization of my thoughts on how to pursue a further understanding of the brain based on this idea that I had to think of neurons as expressing
[J Jay Couey]: genes and genes coming on and off and how even though we can't monitor that we assume it's happening and all of this gets fueled by these.
[J Jay Couey]: These wonderful cartoons and and all of these elaborate animations.
[J Jay Couey]: And you...in that same video that I assign you for homework he will at some point
[J Jay Couey]: he will show you a video that somebody made, a computer animation of DNA being copied and proofread, and in that entire model there's no water molecules, there's no other proteins and chaperones around, there's no bases anywhere, it's just, you know, making a nice little thing, but that model doesn't even
[J Jay Couey]: understand or doesn't even attempt to show you what's really happening there, because of course it's happening in an aqueous solution, of course there are other proteins around, so why are we just looking at the DNA molecule coming apart like this and one little ball coming over to it and then it gets wrapped up and it becomes double-stranded again, it's all very beautiful and whatever, but we don't have cameras that can see that.
[J Jay Couey]: We don't have electron microscopy flash by flash pictures of what's going on there.
[J Jay Couey]: That's all imaginary stuff.
[J Jay Couey]: And elaborate cartoons, no different than the cartoons of COVID, no different than even the image of COVID that they use from the very beginning with the red spikes and gray body.
[J Jay Couey]: It's no different than this.
[J Jay Couey]: You can draw this picture, it doesn't make it right.
[J Jay Couey]: And you can publish the human genome and say that you did something, but it doesn't mean that you did.
[J Jay Couey]: And so in this thing, they even admit it, that much work remains to be done to produce a complete finished sequence.
[J Jay Couey]: And of course, now, 24 years later, there are lots of people who tell you that we've done it all, we know it all, we've done it all.
[J Jay Couey]: But I just don't think that it's true.
[J Jay Couey]: And this is the reason why, because I want to go back to
[J Jay Couey]: Schrodinger because on page 21 and again, you got to read the whole book.
[J Jay Couey]: The whole book is just mesmerizing. It's gonna go a little bit farther here.
[J Jay Couey]: So the physical laws rest on atomic statistics and are therefore only approximate is one of the first things you really need to understand.
[J Jay Couey]: And he gives you a couple really good examples of it, where essentially what he's saying is that everything that physicists and chemists think that they understand about molecules,
[J Jay Couey]: is understood from the perspective of, if you have enough of these molecules, then the attributes of them start to become obvious.
[J Jay Couey]: And without enough of them, the noise of the system is too great, you can't say anything about it.
[J Jay Couey]: And so physics requires there to be enough particles around for them to see anything or do anything with them, and the number of
[J Jay Couey]: particles that are involved increases our accuracy in terms of our ability to predict what the system will do.
[J Jay Couey]: This thinking has been applied to the physics and chemistry of life, and these assumptions are how they purport to understand us.
[J Jay Couey]: There's a couple different examples that he uses there.
[J Jay Couey]: Maybe one good one to use would be this one here, where he's talking about how a tube full of oxygen can be, a voltage can be applied, and the way that that reacts to the voltage is different than what you might think, unless you're thinking of it as an average effect.
[J Jay Couey]: There's also this discussion about diffusion and sinking fog, which is also very enlightening.
[J Jay Couey]: But I just want to get past all this stuff, just to make sure that you understand that this whole book is really important to read, because it is a guy who sees the problem.
[J Jay Couey]: And so in the second part, he's talking about the hereditary mechanism
[J Jay Couey]: and what the problem is.
[J Jay Couey]: And he sees a very big problem, but a lot of the people who read this book don't seem to realize that he sees this problem.
[J Jay Couey]: So "the hereditary code script, chromosomes, let me use the word pattern of an organism in the sense in which the biologist calls it the four-dimensional pattern, meaning not only the structure and functioning of that organism in the adult or in any particular stage,
[J Jay Couey]: but the whole of its ontogenetic development from the fertilized egg cell to the stage of maturity when the organism begins to reproduce itself.
[J Jay Couey]: Now, this whole four-dimensional pattern is known to be determined by the structure of that one cell, the fertilized egg."
[J Jay Couey]: Known to be determined.
[J Jay Couey]: If that's the case, we know it is essentially determined by the structure of only a small part of that cell, the nucleus, the DNA.
[J Jay Couey]: That's it.
[J Jay Couey]: Right?
[J Jay Couey]: So what is he going to say down here then?
[J Jay Couey]: And this is the trick.
[J Jay Couey]: "Every complete set of chromosomes contains the full code.
[J Jay Couey]: "So there are, as a rule, two copies of the latter in the fertilized egg cell, which forms the earliest stage of the future individual."
[J Jay Couey]: "And then we go down here and he says, you know, that it can be a black cock or a speckled hen or a fly or a maize plant, a rhododendron, a beetle, a mouse, or a woman, to which we may add that the appearances of the egg cells are often remarkably similar.
[J Jay Couey]: "And so even when they are not, as in the case of the comparatively gigantic eggs of birds and reptiles, the difference is not so much in the relevant structures as in the nutritive material, which in these cases is added for obvious reasons.
[J Jay Couey]: "But the term codescript, of course, is too narrow.
[J Jay Couey]: "The chromosome structures are at the same time instrumental in bringing about the development they foreshadow.
[J Jay Couey]: "They are law, code, and executive power.
[J Jay Couey]: "Or, to use another simile, they are the architect's plan and the builder's craft in one."
[J Jay Couey]: And so my argument will be that up until now, and including the present day, biologists are only able to scratch the surface of the part that encodes proteins.
[J Jay Couey]: That's it.
[J Jay Couey]: All the other stuff is just written away as repeats, or as useless code, or code that isn't needed, or code that isn't read, even though we know from this own physicist's opinion and from lots of other scholars to follow,
[J Jay Couey]: that the main question of how does this all orchestrate together, you don't just make proteins and then because of the nature of their chemistry and physics, they just assemble into the things that they do and go where they're supposed to go and do what they're supposed to do and get replaced when needed.
[J Jay Couey]: That is the builder's craft.
[J Jay Couey]: And if this is going to be contained in this single code, then we're missing a whole large part of it.
[J Jay Couey]: And biologists around the world have known this for a long time.
[J Jay Couey]: And honestly, I feel very humbly I can say that I've known it for a long time, too.
[J Jay Couey]: I've just never did realize that people were already codifying it so eloquently already back when this guy's book was written, because this is not part of Biology 101.
[J Jay Couey]: de Chardin, you don't read Schrodinger, you don't read Jonas Salk's Survival of the Wisest, where they say exactly the same thing.
[J Jay Couey]: The determinist aspect of our biology means that as a species we need to put our big boy pants on and start taking control of our evolution, because we are a phenomenon, we aren't individuals.
[J Jay Couey]: This is the natural evolution of us as thinking individuals.
[J Jay Couey]: That's what all these people want us to believe, and that's why I think it's really important to have a good sense of how to move forward.
[J Jay Couey]: They have told us, for example, that there are diseases that are genetic, and they get them confused with infectious diseases because, again, they are taking and
[J Jay Couey]: twisting our language around so that we can't use it effectively to fight out.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's really important to see, that just like the pea plants with wrinkled or smooth seeds, you can find rare examples or exceptions to the rule where a single gene and its missing or its mutation can result in a phenotypic change that's sufficiently detectable so that you can point to it.
[J Jay Couey]: But the flip side of this is oftentimes in neuroscience, you'll see this happen where a neuropsychiatric condition, actually, when you start to look at what they now call genome-wide association studies, where they take a bunch of people and classify them as all having the same set of symptoms, and then they look across their genomes for signals that they share, it's often a complete disaster and they find nothing.
[J Jay Couey]: And so the idea that these physicists and chemists hoped would occur and manifest because of the discovery of DNA has failed miserably.
[J Jay Couey]: And the start of that failure goes all the way back to the announcement of the completion of the Human Genome Project.
[J Jay Couey]: And it is extraordinary because, again, in that we're going all the way back to 2001 and a Nature paper, and we are now supposed to believe
[J Jay Couey]: that someone from the Whitehead Institute who worked for Eric Lander named Kevin McKernan is one of the guys who's put his life and career on the line to come and save us from the laboratory leak and from the DNA contamination in the transfection.
[J Jay Couey]: And most of the basic
[J Jay Couey]: methodologies that are responsible for all the biologics in the world, all the sequencing technologies, all of this stuff, he was involved in it.
[J Jay Couey]: And if you go down to the discussion here, I want to point out that the idea of this actually started at the Department of Energy.
[J Jay Couey]: And I don't know if anyone's aware that's not in the United States.
[J Jay Couey]: The Department of Energy is the highest level of security.
[J Jay Couey]: And in fact, this is a direct admission
[J Jay Couey]: that it descends from the same funding and the same secrecy that DTRA comes from, that the State Department uses, and that all of the Manhattan Project used.
[J Jay Couey]: And so in order to maintain that secrecy, in order to maintain that funding stream, a lot of those physicists that were involved in the Manhattan Project actually went into the precursor projects of the Human Genome Project.
[J Jay Couey]: And most of those, that's just traceable history that just nobody traces back.
[J Jay Couey]: And so if I just kind of
[J Jay Couey]: humbly submit that I don't know.
[J Jay Couey]: I just know that this has been exaggerated for a long time.
[J Jay Couey]: If I humbly submit that I think we have a lot of work to do to try and extricate our kids from this, we cannot have our kids growing up thinking that most of their biology is determined by genes, and most of the genes have already been identified, and it's just a matter of time and doing the work before all of these problems can be solved by altering those genes, because that is not the truth.
[J Jay Couey]: Yet that is the truth that's presented in Biology 101 and in high school biology, and it traps people.
[J Jay Couey]: I have an article from the same, I guess it's a year later, where they're talking about how every biology, it's an opinion piece in Nature, I apologize for not having it up, where
[J Jay Couey]: they argue that every young person needs to be taught the primacy of genes so that they understand how important it is going forward, and that they go into biology as scientists with the right outlook so that we can make the fastest progress toward the mastery of this.
[J Jay Couey]: And I am sorry, but after
[J Jay Couey]: After being a biologist for 20 years, I just didn't get it.
[J Jay Couey]: I didn't get it, and now I actually think I do.
[J Jay Couey]: In the sense of a lot of what I thought I knew was already well understood to a level of high fidelity was actually a lot of bravado and promises that date back to a time when we didn't have all the molecular
[J Jay Couey]: you know, ideas that we have now, or all the molecular evidence that might be thrown at us now, the ideas were already well formed.
[J Jay Couey]: And we are still working firmly within those ideas, which are rooted in physics thinking, and probability thinking, and big numbers thinking.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's a real dangerous place for our kids to grow up.
[J Jay Couey]: because that's the same place where viruses are outside of us, those enzymes are outside of us, and that RNA in viral form can be as dangerous as a new mosquito or an invasive rodent or worse, worse than a nuclear bomb.
[J Jay Couey]: So I know you might be disappointed, but honestly, I feel as though the most important thing for me to say right here is that you guys have given me too much time.
[J Jay Couey]: This is my, I really believe it's my sixth time speaking.
[J Jay Couey]: So I want to leave it at this.
[J Jay Couey]: Understand that also there was a lot of biology around bacteriophages and a lot of principles of bacteriophages that have remained, assumed that a
[J Jay Couey]: a similar relationship would exist between us and similar particles.
[J Jay Couey]: And that insistence is also a false basis for this viral contagion idea and hiding this basic transfection and transformation.
[J Jay Couey]: So, instead of speaking for an hour, I already probably spoke too long, I want to be able to answer as many questions as anybody wants to throw at me, even from previous talks.
[Charles Kovess]: Wonderful.
[J Jay Couey]: You're going to find a lot of pushback...I would say try to get Kevin McKernan on here. Try to get Kevin McKernan on here again without me here and
[J Jay Couey]: And let me give you a few questions that you can ask him that will reveal exactly what kind of chicanery is going on now.
[J Jay Couey]: And I think that's really where we are.
[J Jay Couey]: They need more data.
[J Jay Couey]: They think that if they have more data and they feed it into more computers that eventually they'll make the progress they thought they were going to make 20 years ago back when these guys were talking about it.
[J Jay Couey]: But I don't think that's the case.
[J Jay Couey]: I very apologize for if it wasn't as organized as you thought it would be, but asking me to explain the Human Genome Project in an hour is pretty tough.
[J Jay Couey]: And the state of the art right now is extraordinary, but it's also still just chemistry, and it hasn't scratched the surface of how we as a pattern integrity are generated, maintained.
[J Jay Couey]: It's just not there yet.
[J Jay Couey]: We're not going to get there probably, and I don't think it's necessary, honestly.
[J Jay Couey]: Anyway.
[Charles Kovess]: Well, Jay, loved it, loved it, not disappointed at all.
[Charles Kovess]: I love the series of questions and I love what...the intent of this group is to stop thinking, yes, I know how life works.
[Charles Kovess]: And so thank you for, we'll call this the confession of JJ.
[Charles Kovess]: The people that I've been around for a long time have said similar things, including Ian Brighthope has told this group about the depth of understanding of the functioning of the human cell is minuscule.
[Charles Kovess]: So the sheer ego of people saying this is how it works, it's lovely to be reminded of that. You know...
[J Jay Couey]: Oh there's lots of them.
[J Jay Couey]: And I just say there's, that in the same list of things to download.
[J Jay Couey]: There's a book by Dennis Noble called Understanding Living Systems.
[J Jay Couey]: He's a guy from the UK who's been around for a long time.
[J Jay Couey]: He's still at it.
[J Jay Couey]: You know, these one of many dudes who...this is me discovering that there were a lot of people out there.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not my idea.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not my idea at all.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm just happy to be a part of the the awakening to it.
[Charles Kovess]: Thanks, Jay.
[Charles Kovess]: So, Stephen, the next 15 minutes is yours.
[Charles Kovess]: We've got lots of hands up.
[Charles Kovess]: Let's go with you, Stephen.
[Stephen Frost]: So, JJ, I sense that this is really important, but I haven't really been thinking about it, I must admit.
[Stephen Frost]: I just was thinking as you were talking,
[Stephen Frost]: What do you think is true?
[Stephen Frost]: So do you believe in evolution, and is evolution inconsistent with a belief in God?
[J Jay Couey]: Evolution in the X-Men sort of way, where there's random mutations, and then everybody just reproduces, and the ones that reproduce are passing their genes along, is not sufficient to explain.
[Stephen Frost]: Well, whether human beings evolved from animals.
[J Jay Couey]: No, I don't know that, no, I don't, I guess.
[J Jay Couey]: I probably did before the pandemic, but I just have come to understand that we only have data from today and any data that we have from yesterday is still not deep enough in time for any justification to think that there has been a dynamic change from mud puddle to monkey to man.
[Stephen Frost]: So essentially the same scenario as we've had in the last five years.
[Stephen Frost]: They were talking about gain-of-function research and how dangerous, you know, putting the idea in people's heads, ordinary people's heads, that, ooh, a lab leak, ooh, and they've got a lab near me too.
[Stephen Frost]: Apparently the labs can appear anywhere.
[Stephen Frost]: So is this human hubris and just kind of gone unchecked, you know, because it's a cult and everybody wants to join the cult so that they're not threatened and don't have to take responsibility?
[Stephen Frost]: Is it just cults gone mad or what?
[Stephen Frost]: And so where does Darwin fit in this?
[Stephen Frost]: Charles Darwin, you know, the origin of the species?
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, Charles Darwin didn't think that his theory explained all the way back to the mud puddle.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, and he knew that.
[J Jay Couey]: A lot of his contemporaries knew that.
[J Jay Couey]: I think, I mean, you know, I was in preparation for this.
[J Jay Couey]: And the reason why I kind of pulled the chute and didn't try to do a really one hour discussion about molecular biology, some kind of crash course or something,
[J Jay Couey]: was because I think it's a really bigger idea than that.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, I found a paper where they tried to describe all the major phylogenies of spiders.
[J Jay Couey]: And then I suddenly realized that you could think in the very short time scale and think, oh yeah, those are different species of spider.
[J Jay Couey]: Or you could think of those as snapshots of a continuum of change and waves of expression of all the same basic
[J Jay Couey]: biological pattern.
[J Jay Couey]: And so, if you look at a long enough timescale in your imagination, spiders don't ever have to have come from anything, but they can still be a constantly changing vibration, and we can be constantly changing vibrations without having to have come from more primitive ones.
[J Jay Couey]: So again, I feel like the lack of data from anywhere but now,
[J Jay Couey]: and also the idea, for example, that everybody that collects dinosaur bones doesn't work for a university, but as a private company, and they only sell models.
[J Jay Couey]: And it just, for me, it's all starting to drive me nuts because I know that the exaggeration is multi-generational.
[J Jay Couey]: So much like if you if anyone is familiar with this, I just had as Ray Kurzweiler is a guy who for many years has been talking about the exponential growth of technology and some kind of point of, you know, you know, where technology and biology is going to come together.
[J Jay Couey]: And he's been projecting for a long time because he's very, very smart.
[J Jay Couey]: And he's, you know, I don't know, I use math or something.
[J Jay Couey]: that it's like 2040 when we're going to be able to upload our consciousness or there will be no more disease or something like this.
[J Jay Couey]: This is the same promise that these people are making in these books that I'm holding up here when they didn't know as much as we know now.
[J Jay Couey]: It's the same
[J Jay Couey]: thing that Elon Musk is saying that in 10 years, we're going to be able to implant something in your brain that will interact with all parts of you.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, it's just absurd.
[J Jay Couey]: These statements are absurd.
[J Jay Couey]: Absolutely.
[J Jay Couey]: The Human Genome Project is part of that.
[J Jay Couey]: The idea that, at best, these people understood that if they were going to extract any meaningful data from us, they were going to need us to think of ourselves in this way.
[Stephen Frost]: I agree with you.
[Stephen Frost]: So we have to examine, think about everything, but we are actually just like them.
[Stephen Frost]: We're human beings too, so we're going to be somewhat limited, but apparently we're told that there are hundreds of billions of stars, suns, in our galaxy, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe.
[Stephen Frost]: And we live on
[Stephen Frost]: one planet in one solar system, and the nearest solar system to ours is four light years away, Sirius, I think it is.
[Stephen Frost]: And that's the nearest solar system, the nearest star, and there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way, and there are hundreds of billions of Milky Ways.
[Stephen Frost]: It's just incredible, isn't it?
[Stephen Frost]: So is that true, do you think?
[Stephen Frost]: I don't know.
[Stephen Frost]: If it is true, allegedly true, how do some people get to say that?
[Stephen Frost]: And at the same time, Elon Musk is talking about
[Stephen Frost]: interplanetary travel, inter-solar system travel as I understand it, and people, as you know, aren't properly educated so they've got no idea of what the numbers mean.
[Stephen Frost]: So four light years is a huge distance if you're traveling by anything that a man made.
[Stephen Frost]: And that's the nearest solar system.
[Stephen Frost]: So quite where Elon Musk is going in his interplanetary travel or intersolar system travel, I don't know.
[Stephen Frost]: And in what machine?
[Stephen Frost]: Or is he talking about being kind of going through time?
[Stephen Frost]: Do you know?
[J Jay Couey]: No, I don't know.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, honestly, I think it's all just
[J Jay Couey]: It's all hamster wheels, unfortunately.
[J Jay Couey]: And I think if we if we wake up to it soon enough, our kids can get out of the trap.
[J Jay Couey]: We're not going to get out of this trap.
[J Jay Couey]: It's like a moving thing.
[Stephen Frost]: So, JJ, what do you think is at the moment, what do you think is true now?
[Stephen Frost]: Everything that you thought was true is coming apart.
[Stephen Frost]: But what do you think is still true now?
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, there are probably an irreducible complexity of small genetic signals in the background in our world.
[J Jay Couey]: And what does that mean to the layman?
[J Jay Couey]: that no matter what small sample you took, you're probably gonna be able to find some genetic material in it.
[J Jay Couey]: And these people have just like, you know, if you put food out in your backyard, you're gonna get birds in the backyard.
[J Jay Couey]: That doesn't mean that those birds have all kinds of significance for your life.
[J Jay Couey]: And I really think that if you look using their tools and their techniques, which essentially are not very good, because again,
[J Jay Couey]: For a human genome, for example, one of the things that it relies on is that they're supposedly the same molecule in every cell.
[J Jay Couey]: So that if they have enough of your cells and they isolate the nuclei, then they have lots of copies of the same molecule.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's one of the only ways that they can get a lot of it.
[J Jay Couey]: If they don't have a lot of it, just like any other
[J Jay Couey]: physical or chemical process.
[J Jay Couey]: If you don't have enough molecules, you don't know what's going on.
[J Jay Couey]: If you don't have enough atoms, you don't have any attributes.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not a gas or a liquid.
[J Jay Couey]: And if you don't have enough of these biomolecules, you can't tell what the sequence is.
[J Jay Couey]: And so with DNA, if you don't have enough of it, you can't sequence it.
[J Jay Couey]: So all of this process of saying what was in the cell is based on making orders of magnitude more
[J Jay Couey]: than what was present in the initial sample and assuming that the signal that you are able to measure when you make enough of it is equivalent to what you would have measured if you only had one in one cell.
[J Jay Couey]: And there's such a giant number of assumptions there that any number of ways that producing the large quantity and then measuring it could have no bearing on what the original small quantity was.
[J Jay Couey]: And we, of course, are taking all of this for granted as being done with high fidelity, perfect objectivity, and high accuracy since the 70s, which I think at this point in time has almost enslaved us.
[Stephen Frost]: So, JJ, you know about the science, or sorry, science, not the science, and you've got a very good handle on biology, and it would be really helpful if you wrote a book in the future, maybe not now, because you're still in a confused state, as far as I can see.
[Stephen Frost]: No, not in a bad way, but you're being honest, and you could write a book entitled
[Stephen Frost]: what we know, you know, and we could agree on what we actually do know and what we don't know.
[Stephen Frost]: So I'm now wondering whether it's 93 million miles to the sun, our sun.
[Stephen Frost]: Are there hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe?
[Stephen Frost]: Don't know.
[Stephen Frost]: But if there are that many, hundreds of billions times hundreds of billions, then that means there are a lot of suns in the universe, aren't there?
[Stephen Frost]: And that's just beyond our comprehension.
[J Jay Couey]: I guess the flip side of this would be that you could study a long time the diversity of the grains of sand on the beaches of Italy and probably find a lot of interesting patterns and possibilities there.
[J Jay Couey]: But if in the end all of those measurements and calculations have no bearing on Jay in Pittsburgh, then I guess I probably want to teach my kids about other things.
[J Jay Couey]: And that to me is maybe
[J Jay Couey]: The worst part of astrophysics is it's fine to look at the stars and it's fine to do that stuff, but how much money have we spent on it and should we?
[J Jay Couey]: There's a lot of this that bothers me now because America is in shambles and our infrastructure is all but withered away.
[J Jay Couey]: And we have accepted all of the reality that they've given us from the pandemic and the stakes going forward.
[J Jay Couey]: And if we can't free our children from this, they're going to grow up with an inordinate amount of fear and uncertainty.
[Stephen Frost]: Well, it seems to me, J.J., they've divided us, and the modus operandi seems to be dividing as much as possible, creating as much confusion as possible, and that depends on people being very sure of their position.
[Stephen Frost]: So how we can help people is to say it's very healthy and very good to say, I don't know, and we don't know.
[Stephen Frost]: But no human beings have to say, oh yeah, we do know.
[Stephen Frost]: No, we don't know.
[Stephen Frost]: We cannot avoid death.
[Stephen Frost]: That tells me nobody can avoid death, as far as I can see, and that is true.
[Stephen Frost]: So that means that we have a limited understanding of the world in which we live, in the universe in which we live, just like the cat, just like the dog.
[J Jay Couey]: Think about this one just for an anecdote.
[J Jay Couey]: One of the guys that they gave the Nobel Prize to this year for actually the folding program, but his whole work was based on small RNAs, micro RNAs or something like that, small regulatory RNAs in C. elegans, the worm that has a known number of cells.
[J Jay Couey]: And so it's very easy for me to imagine that we have been very inaccurate in our division of where
[J Jay Couey]: certain higher properties of life have emerged and oftentimes all of our interesting stories like you know there's a whole book on prions behind me and most of that book is done in yeast and so the idea that people eat brains on some island and they get these these misfolded proteins has been
[J Jay Couey]: all the molecular data that supposedly supports that is done in yeast.
[J Jay Couey]: And so it's just a model of, and then supposedly what happens in humans is a homologous molecular mechanism.
[J Jay Couey]: And so much of our genetic understanding and our viral understanding is actually the assumption
[J Jay Couey]: that what we know about bacteria and bacteriophages has a homologous system in our own.
[J Jay Couey]: And those assumptions are taken advantage of all the time too, where principles that were proven in bacteriophages are just assumed to work for these other RNA signals that these people report to study.
[Stephen Frost]: JJ, do you know anything about a concept known as singularity, which is a
[Stephen Frost]: a very small, infinitely dense entity, as far as I can understand.
[J Jay Couey]: The one that they're talking about now is the singularity between technology and biology, but I think you're just talking about like a black hole center or something.
[Stephen Frost]: I'm talking about the singularity which was the start of everything, and then you've got the Big Bang, and then everything was expanding, and it's still expanding apparently.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah and somewhere in there a lightning bolt hit a mud puddle on a rock that was really the right space away from the star to have liquid water and then it's been there for about a billion years and that's why.
[Stephen Frost]: Exactly.
[Stephen Frost]: Amazing, isn't it?
[Charles Kovess]: All right, let's go to questions.
[Stephen Frost]: Thank you, Charles.
[Stephen Frost]: Yes, very good.
[Charles Kovess]: Well done.
[Stephen Frost]: I was wandering a bit there.
[Charles Kovess]: Dave Raznick, we've got lots of hands up, lots of conversation to be had.
[Charles Kovess]: So Dave, over to you.
[Charles Kovess]: Dave's going to ask you some hard questions now, JJ.
[David Rasnick]: Oh, no.
[David Rasnick]: The first thing I'm going to say is congratulations, man.
[David Rasnick]: That is very, very interesting and entertaining.
[David Rasnick]: You did a great job.
[David Rasnick]: First, can you all hear me?
[David Rasnick]: The screen froze up there.
[David Rasnick]: Yeah, we can all hear you, David.
[David Rasnick]: OK, good.
[David Rasnick]: All right.
[David Rasnick]: Yeah, Jay, I actually came late 90s.
[David Rasnick]: I came pretty much the same conclusion that you did recently, I guess.
[David Rasnick]: But it had to do with when I started working on cancer.
[David Rasnick]: And I'm not going to go into all those details.
[David Rasnick]: I'm writing a book, and it's got a lot of stuff in it about that.
[David Rasnick]: And just a couple of interesting things I want to share with everybody once I realized the unimportance of individual genes and the DNA and all that, much less important in the realm than people think it is.
[David Rasnick]: Some of the specifics that I've learned, I'm not a genetics guy.
[David Rasnick]: I'm a protein guy, basically, but I follow a lot of this stuff.
[David Rasnick]: And when I was looking at the human genome and the other genome projects, I was following it.
[David Rasnick]: And it turns out that humans and mice, and not only humans and mice, but humans and other species too, have virtually identically the same number of genes, something just below 20,000 or so, and not the higher organisms anyway.
[David Rasnick]: And 99% of them are functionally equivalent, all right?
[David Rasnick]: So how do those same genes know to make a mouse or to make a human, for example, or a turtle or something like that?
[David Rasnick]: That's just a facetious question, but I'm pointing this out.
[David Rasnick]: I'm using it as an analogy.
[David Rasnick]: The genes in the genome is basically a dictionary, a biological dictionary.
[David Rasnick]: It just so happens, last I looked, the Oxford English Dictionary has 23 volumes.
[David Rasnick]: And the human dictionary, we have 23 chromosomes.
[David Rasnick]: And the mice have 20 chromosomes, but we have the same 20,000 genes.
[David Rasnick]: So basically, what's going on is that there's a total complete mystery.
[David Rasnick]: This is totally, totally complete.
[David Rasnick]: If I wasn't a scientist, but I could easily sympathize with people, think there's something spiritual going on here.
[David Rasnick]: OK, we've got this dictionary, but we don't have a clue
[David Rasnick]: what turns those words in the biological dictionary into a human, over here, and a mouse over there,
[David Rasnick]: So anyway, I just wanted to share those analogies with people, and I would love to talk with you, Jay, privately about this, because I thought you were going to get really, really technical and talk about the Genome Project.
[David Rasnick]: I thoroughly, much, much more appreciated
[David Rasnick]: the road that you took to come where I am too.
[David Rasnick]: I totally accept.
[David Rasnick]: I feel like I'm a brother with you on this whole thing.
[David Rasnick]: So I'll shut up now.
[David Rasnick]: I said what I wanted to say.
[J Jay Couey]: Good to hear from you, Dave.
[J Jay Couey]: Thank you.
[Charles Kovess]: Nice, David.
[Charles Kovess]: Well done, David.
[Charles Kovess]: It's a good, nice initials you've got here from someone with a PhD, D-R.
[Charles Kovess]: All right.
[Charles Kovess]: John.
[Charles Kovess]: John Lukach.
[John Lukach]: Hey, JJ.
[John Lukach]: I don't want to hog up a whole lot of time here, but three or four things came to mind as I was listening to you.
[John Lukach]: I'd like to hear maybe your take on this, whatever your opinion is.
[John Lukach]: One of them is about DNA in general.
[John Lukach]: I can't quote anybody for this idea.
[John Lukach]: I think I maybe came to it myself, but there's this idea that
[John Lukach]: Once you stretch it out to look at it or splice a piece or cut a piece out, it ceases to be what it once was.
[John Lukach]: You can't really experiment on it.
[John Lukach]: I don't really know if you agree with that, but I'd be interested in knowing what you think of it.
[John Lukach]: The other thing might be just an opinion on Mendel, because the reading that I've done on Mendel is that he was pretty much an unreliable monk that did a whole bunch of experiments on pea plants, as we know, and he gave us things like genes for traits and laws of inheritance and Punnett squares, all of which
[John Lukach]: you know, just terribly unreliable.
[John Lukach]: So, you know, I think Darwin based a lot of his model on Mendel.
[John Lukach]: And, you know, it's just this continuum where, you know, what we're calling genetics now was, you know, previously rebranded from eugenics.
[John Lukach]: And from there, we get bioethics.
[John Lukach]: I mean, it's just a big downward, you know, a hill into the abyss, right?
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, I didn't know when you wanted me to jump in there, but... Well, I'm just trying to not load you up.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, I think we just think very much similarly, and I think the added danger is the perceived role that these have for people that aren't thinking on a very sophisticated biological... I mean, you know, it's hard for me... Let me maybe say it this way.
[J Jay Couey]: It's very easy for me to see how the transgender issue and the arguing about whether sex is determined by chromosomes is a trap, because of course sex is determined by chromosomes, just like when you have an extra one, you get Down syndrome.
[J Jay Couey]: But that doesn't mean that that principle holds true to understand us
[J Jay Couey]: has a pattern integrity.
[J Jay Couey]: It's like an anecdotal story about like if you take the light bulbs out of one side of your car, then only one side will be without light.
[J Jay Couey]: But that it doesn't explain how the whole car works or anything like that.
[J Jay Couey]: And so I feel very strongly that this is a trap that they're
[J Jay Couey]: getting us to say that, you know, genes determine everything, including sex, as if they're smart and they understand biology.
[J Jay Couey]: And of course, it's genes.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's a very dangerous trap.
[J Jay Couey]: And it only dawned on me in the last few weeks that that trap.
[J Jay Couey]: In fact, look, I even have a I even bought something the other day.
[J Jay Couey]: Because this is what actually cued me into thinking that it was a trap, because there's even a thing on X now where they're selling hats that say XX and XY, and it's a real big campaign to get real women in sports and keep the weird men out, but it's also a very seductive
[J Jay Couey]: way to get people to think that this holds true for all traits then.
[J Jay Couey]: Everything is just genes and we understand everything and what we don't understand, we just need more data and then we will understand it.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's the deal.
[John Lukach]: Right.
[John Lukach]: You know, I get asked a lot of questions by a lot of people who are caught up in this whole nanotech fear porn thing, and I've never heard you give an opinion on it.
[John Lukach]: Mine is that it's all crap.
[John Lukach]: I don't know where you fall on that, but I think, you know,
[John Lukach]: not to overly reduce it, but consciousness doesn't reside in the brain.
[John Lukach]: I think most people would agree with that.
[John Lukach]: So nothing they, you know, put in you is gonna really affect your, they're gonna turn anybody into a remote control toy or anything like that.
[John Lukach]: I just think it's a, you know, it's an easy sci-fi concept to get caught up in.
[John Lukach]: And a lot of people are caught up in this and I can't talk them out of it.
[John Lukach]: Most of them, they're just insistent.
[Marv Sarnes]: yeah yep all right uh johnny john uh john you know thank you for that comment john yeah good good thinking good thoughts marv hey uh i just read this last week uh in uh gabor mate's uh the realm of hungry ghosts uh he he
[Marv Sarnes]: your mud puddle organisms have about 100,000 genes, and the human cells today have about 30,000.
[Marv Sarnes]: And Swartzen, what's his name, these
[Marv Sarnes]: The reason that we have fewer genes is the humans or the mammal species has developed this adaptability, and we discard genes and add genes to adapt to the new environment or the new conditions.
[Marv Sarnes]: And this is fairly recent knowledge about the number of genes and this adaptability that human cells have.
[Marv Sarnes]: And this is why we've become so different in the last millennium, in the last couple of hundred years.
[Marv Sarnes]: We have a museum here in Salem, Oregon, where we can visit and look at the artifacts of people who came here in the 1830s, the missionaries.
[Marv Sarnes]: These were tiny people.
[Marv Sarnes]: I mean, if you were 5'5 in 1830, you were a big person.
[Marv Sarnes]: A six-footer was unheard of in the 1830s.
[Marv Sarnes]: Their beds were tiny.
[Marv Sarnes]: Their shoes were tiny.
[Marv Sarnes]: But anyway, I wanted to ask you about the number of genes in the human cell today and its adaptability.
[Marv Sarnes]: And I want to see if you're familiar with this book.
[Marv Sarnes]: The Mind and the Brain, Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force, 2002, Swartz and Sharon Begley.
[Marv Sarnes]: Anyway, it's just, this book is a treasure trove of this information about geneticism.
[Marv Sarnes]: So anyway, I thought maybe you...
[Marv Sarnes]: The main thing is the number of human genes today, and the number of human genes in your mud puddle organisms.
[J Jay Couey]: It's a lot to unpack there, because again, we kind of
[J Jay Couey]: We get into a scenario very quick, and I'm saying this in the most humble, I'm not at all trying to disrespect, so don't hear it that way, even if it might sound like that at first pass.
[J Jay Couey]: When we argue about viruses and virology and clones and what they call a quasi-species and all of this other stuff, a lot of these arguments, because they are
[J Jay Couey]: taking place.
[J Jay Couey]: The other day on my stream I used this analogy that the limited spectrum of debate that we're trapped in is actually a very big steel ball, and inside of it these people that are keeping us there are riding around these motorcycles that make a lot of noise, and the thing goes around like this, and it seems like it's really exciting, and there's a real debate going on, but actually we're not getting anywhere.
[J Jay Couey]: And when we start talking about whether there are 100,000 genes or 30,000 genes, we're actually already inside of that ball riding a motorcycle thinking that we're going to go somewhere when we're just going to go around in circles and the audience is going to see us do it.
[J Jay Couey]: And there's going to be fire, but we're not going to get anywhere.
[J Jay Couey]: And so I think, like I was and still maybe am, by discussing this, you know, those people were smaller.
[J Jay Couey]: Well, did they eat what we eat?
[J Jay Couey]: Did they have access to the food that we do?
[J Jay Couey]: Did they have access to the medicines that we do?
[J Jay Couey]: How many of them, you know, and how does our height look now?
[J Jay Couey]: How does our fat content look now?
[J Jay Couey]: And how is that, is that genes or what people are eating?
[J Jay Couey]: What toxins are in the present in our environment or for your kids that were not present for the people who came over on the Mayflower?
[J Jay Couey]: And so there's lots of
[J Jay Couey]: pluses and minuses.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean I don't know at this stage how much I was exposed to growth hormone or something like that and all the milk I drank when I was in Wisconsin.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean I don't know if drinking milk is something that made me six foot five and if I wasn't drinking milk my whole life I would have only been
[J Jay Couey]: I don't know.
[J Jay Couey]: All I know for sure is that these people who work at the NIH, who descend from these geneticists, physicists, chemists that didn't know enough but knew what they wanted,
[J Jay Couey]: I don't have a good interpretation anymore, but I know that people being smaller in the past doesn't mean that genes mean everything.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, I think it's very possible that if you could go back and grab a bunch of babies from that time and bring them to now, you would find them expressing phenotypes that were closer to the people around them.
[Marv Sarnes]: So you don't accept this adaptability theory of our cells discarding genes?
[Marv Sarnes]: The crocodiles have the same genes.
[J Jay Couey]: I think it's much more likely that what is, is that there is a, as Dave said, there is a library, the vast majority of which might never be used depending on the environmental and developmental conditions that the animal is exposed to.
[J Jay Couey]: And so it may be that there's an adaptability, but it's not an adaptability where you discard genes.
[J Jay Couey]: You just don't read some books sometimes.
[J Jay Couey]: And in other generations, you read those books.
[J Jay Couey]: And that is a kind of flexibility that is not a part of the Human Genome Project model.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not a part of this model where you look for genetic diseases and then apply that thinking to understanding a healthy human.
[J Jay Couey]: That's a completely different way of thinking.
[J Jay Couey]: So what you're onto is in that same general direction that I think we need to go.
[J Jay Couey]: So don't, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to see if I can show you.
[Marv Sarnes]: Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, that's very good.
[Marv Sarnes]: Very good, thank you.
[J Jay Couey]: Yep.
[Charles Kovess]: Thank you, thank you, Marv.
[Charles Kovess]: Albert.
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: AJ, how you doing?
[J Jay Couey]: Could be worse.
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: Hey, I got about three or four questions I'm going to ask real fast.
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: And I'm a simple Christian, so I apologize in advance for some of these questions.
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: But I believe that God made the baby perfect.
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: So with that, I was wondering if you thought autism or cancer was hereditary?
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: What is an immortal gene do you think it is really cancer?
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: And what is aliquoting?
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: And do you believe in conferred immunity?
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: And
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: I asked you this one question a long time ago on this Zoom and you didn't laugh me out of the room, but I said, you know, if there's like good cholesterol and bad cholesterol, is there such thing as a good virus and a bad virus?
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: And you reached out and you pulled out a big book.
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: And I would like to have that name again, because you said it was very expensive.
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: But I don't know if you remember that.
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: But anyways, those were my questions, Jay.
[Albert WelcomeTheEagle]: I really appreciate your brainpower.
[J Jay Couey]: You're very sweet.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm knocking everything down here.
[J Jay Couey]: Let me pull these books over here.
[J Jay Couey]: The book that you're referring to, I'll go backwards, is there's two of them.
[J Jay Couey]: that I think are really cool.
[J Jay Couey]: And this literature always gets assembled in a weird way.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't know why.
[J Jay Couey]: There's a... I can go over here.
[Stephen Frost]: JJ, you used to have a book on a table near where you sit, which was absolutely massive.
[Stephen Frost]: And a few people asked me, what's that big book on JJ's table?
[J Jay Couey]: Oh, it depends.
[J Jay Couey]: If it's the one behind me, I've got a great big cabinet.
[Stephen Frost]: No, it was open.
[J Jay Couey]: It was open.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, it was open, then it was a great big Catholic Bible back there, and then otherwise I have a domestic medical practice book that's almost as big as that.
[J Jay Couey]: That Catholic Bible's from like 1890.
[J Jay Couey]: So underneath here, is that the visible one?
[J Jay Couey]: Can you see that camera?
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah.
[J Jay Couey]: So this book is edited by Gunther Wazany and it's called Biocommunication and Natural Genome Editing.
[J Jay Couey]: A lot of this book is actually viruses and endogenous viruses in different systems.
[J Jay Couey]: And then this one, Viruses Essential Agents of Life, is a huge compilation of studies and essays where people are talking about how viruses may even influence the epigenetic expression of genes and regulation of genes, especially in
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, the easiest examples are in the phytoplankton in the ocean, but there are some examples from fungi and examples from... This is a book I have not barely penetrated.
[J Jay Couey]: It is a book that I just bought on a whim because I thought I had to have it and I haven't penetrated it at all, so don't let me represent that as having done the reading.
[J Jay Couey]: The other guy asked me about nanotech, so if you don't mind me just saying one or two words about that before I go on, Albert.
[J Jay Couey]: Optogenetics is a thing that a lot of people are talking about lately, and there's usually a picture with a blue
[J Jay Couey]: a blue laser going in via optic fiber into the head of a mouse, and then they're suggesting that they are putting this in your brain and they're going to control our mind with optogenetics.
[J Jay Couey]: So let's understand what optogenetics are and understand why this is complete bullshit.
[J Jay Couey]: So optogenetics, as they exist in neuroscience right now, in any form as far as I know -- there might be something in DARPA that somebody will tell you is good, but I don't believe that--
[J Jay Couey]: is an adenovirus-based transformation of an algal protein found in chloroplasts, which is actually a blue light-gated sodium channel.
[J Jay Couey]: How's that for a long list of words that I just pulled out of my head?
[J Jay Couey]: Essentially what it is is that neuroscientists have wanted a non-invasive way to control neuronal behavior,
[J Jay Couey]: Neurons are known to spike, they send signals based on this very quick snap of ion channels of sodium in and potassium out, or maybe it's the other way, I think it's that way.
[J Jay Couey]: It's been a little while since I taught this.
[J Jay Couey]: But sodium comes in, then potassium goes out, and so you see this wave, and it was originally described in the large axon of a squid, but all the neurons in our brain are sending binary signals where they snap,
[J Jay Couey]: and then they send an electrical signal along their axon.
[J Jay Couey]: And at the end of the axon, there's a release of neurotransmitter onto the receiving neuron.
[J Jay Couey]: And if that neuron gets enough neurotransmitter, then it will be depolarized and snap and send a signal down its axons to the next neurons.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's how the brain works.
[J Jay Couey]: It's neurons going through this depolarization.
[J Jay Couey]: So promoting it like gene on, gene off, you know, blue, green.
[J Jay Couey]: So optogenetics is a,
[J Jay Couey]: Transformation—keep in mind I've been trying to teach that for the last five times I've been here—an adenovirus with a DNA in it encoding that algal protein, that sodium channel that opens when you shine blue light on it.
[J Jay Couey]: So they take that gene and they put it in an adenovirus using traditional pharmaceutical manufacturing methods,
[J Jay Couey]: And then they take that adenovirus and they sell it to me and I squirt it into the brain of my mouse and all the neurons that are exposed to that and that get that DNA in them will start to express this protein.
[J Jay Couey]: And this protein will insert itself into the membrane and we can stain it and we can show you that it inserts itself into the membrane.
[J Jay Couey]: And when you shine blue light on the neuron by a hole in the head,
[J Jay Couey]: you can make the neurons go bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
[J Jay Couey]: Or if you shine a little less blue light, you can get them to go bang, bang, bang.
[J Jay Couey]: You shoot a little less blue light, you can get them to go bang.
[J Jay Couey]: And so then you can do a really bright pulse and you can get everybody to go at once.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's it.
[J Jay Couey]: That's what optogenetics is.
[J Jay Couey]: And so we're able to drive that into different neurons based on what genes they might express.
[J Jay Couey]: We might be able to put it in different places, depending on where we squirted the identifiers.
[John Lukach]: Yeah, this is my point.
[John Lukach]: You're trying to conflate that into we can make you think the way we want to.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's absolutely ridiculous.
[J Jay Couey]: Yes, that's right.
[J Jay Couey]: But you'll have whole people do podcasts about how optogenetics were in the shot, and we're all but dead, and we're almost remote control.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's just not at all what's going on.
[J Jay Couey]: So then you asked about immortal genes.
[J Jay Couey]: There's just two anecdotal stories I'd like to bring up here.
[J Jay Couey]: Most of the what are called immortal cell lines still need to be renewed from previous passages.
[J Jay Couey]: So what's the best way to say this?
[J Jay Couey]: if you were growing tomato plants and keeping the seeds, and you didn't keep the seeds rather, but you just grew tomatoes, and then you tried to keep...that, and that's not a good analogy.
[J Jay Couey]: Hold on a second.
[J Jay Couey]: The point is, is that when you grow cells in a laboratory, I guess you probably understand this from the ridiculous theater of the pandemic.
[J Jay Couey]: When you grow cells in a laboratory, you grow them in a dish.
[J Jay Couey]: and at some point they grow so many that there's no room for them anymore, and so what they do is they passage the cells.
[J Jay Couey]: They disconnect them from the agar in a fluid, and then they dilute them into two dishes or four dishes, and then they let them grow until they cover those dishes, and then they split them again, and then they use these immortal cells to study stuff.
[J Jay Couey]: They make
[J Jay Couey]: put some virus on them or whatever the hell they do with them.
[J Jay Couey]: Anyway, the point is, is that that's not an infinite process.
[J Jay Couey]: I've been in those laboratories before.
[J Jay Couey]: I've done a lot of biophysics experiments on potassium channels in cell lines that were immortal.
[J Jay Couey]: But inevitably, those cell lines start to grow shitty, or they don't really grow anymore, or they start to die, and then you gotta go back to the freezer.
[J Jay Couey]: That's the reality.
[J Jay Couey]: And I don't think there are any examples in real laboratories where it's just the stuff from yesterday being recycled and split and recycled and split and recycled and split, and they never go back to a commercial source, or they never go back to a renewed source, or they never go back to a previous passage.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm almost positive that's true, but I'd be happy to be told I'm wrong.
[J Jay Couey]: The other anecdotal story that you should know and you might not know, depending on how ubiquitous it is in Europe, because I don't know how ubiquitous it is in America,
[J Jay Couey]: But I can only tell you the anecdotal story that I told in the beginning of my Ron Johnson repeat that I did for my own platform, where I did basically the same talk that I gave to Sucharit last week, but I did it slower with a little more detail and specifically aimed at Ron Johnson.
[J Jay Couey]: You might not be aware, but one of the most
[J Jay Couey]: used cell lines in pharmaceuticals and biotech and in academia is the fibroblast.
[J Jay Couey]: And fibroblasts are generated exclusively from the never-ending supply of foreskin that comes from American hospitals, as remnant material.
[J Jay Couey]: Now, at first, you might think, oh, that's all right.
[J Jay Couey]: It's religious, I guess, or something like that.
[J Jay Couey]: But it's not.
[J Jay Couey]: Because all through the 70s in America, in order to supply this material, parents were told in different parts of the United States that it was a hygiene thing.
[J Jay Couey]: And so it's a hygiene thing where not just a small portion of it is removed, like in a religious ceremony, but all of it is removed.
[J Jay Couey]: And so being a kid growing up in Wisconsin and showering with everybody in elementary school, for whatever reason, I don't know why, that's the way it was at my school.
[J Jay Couey]: I know for a fact that a large majority of the young males that I grew up with are fully...
[J Jay Couey]: They have nothing.
[J Jay Couey]: And this is a biology discussion, so I'm not trying to get graphic here.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm trying to describe to you how the flip side of this is, is that I had a guy who I went to, did my graduate study with in the Netherlands, who married a Turkish woman, and in so doing, he actually got himself circumcised by an imam and kind of, you know,
[J Jay Couey]: for all practical purposes, converted to Islam so that he could marry this Turkish woman.
[J Jay Couey]: And I assure you that whatever was removed didn't go to a medical remnants sale and get derived into cell culture material.
[J Jay Couey]: Because there is a pipeline of this coming from American hospitals, and it has been for a long time.
[J Jay Couey]: So are there immortal genes?
[J Jay Couey]: Honestly, I don't know, because I do know that most of the cell culture material that's used in America is not immortal.
[J Jay Couey]: even if they tell you it is, you should question this notion.
[J Jay Couey]: And if I'm proven wrong, that only means that all of us will have learned it better.
[J Jay Couey]: But I would be willing to bet it's not.
[J Jay Couey]: Aliquoting is just when you have a sample like sugar,
[J Jay Couey]: and then you decide that you're going to take a really big amount of sugar and you're going to put it into little teaspoon-sized samples so that you can conveniently get a teaspoon whenever you want to.
[J Jay Couey]: And so aliquoting is something that they say they do when they have this dish full of a virus and then they make it into a lot of small samples and send it all around the world.
[J Jay Couey]: Any kind of thing like that would be aliquoting.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not a very special word.
[J Jay Couey]: And then good virus versus bad virus.
[J Jay Couey]: I guess that was the question about the book, so I showed that first.
[J Jay Couey]: I hope that was good.
[J Jay Couey]: Was that what you had?
[David Rasnick]: This is Dave.
[David Rasnick]: I'd like to interject something since you're talking about immortal cells.
[David Rasnick]: I know a lot about them.
[David Rasnick]: Would that be all right?
[J Jay Couey]: That would be great.
[J Jay Couey]: Thank you.
[J Jay Couey]: Yes, please clear this up.
[David Rasnick]: Okay.
[David Rasnick]: The immortal cell lines are all, all of them are aneuploid, meaning they have unbalanced chromosomes.
[David Rasnick]: Not all, not all aneuploid cells live forever, but all immortal cell lines like the HeLa cell line, that was the very first one.
[David Rasnick]: All right.
[David Rasnick]: They're immortal.
[David Rasnick]: I mean, the immortal ones are aneuploid.
[David Rasnick]: The diploid ones, the euploid ones, will always have this Hayflick limit.
[David Rasnick]: They'll divide maybe 50 to 70 fold, and then they'll slow down and stop dividing.
[David Rasnick]: They'll fall apart and everything.
[David Rasnick]: So that's all I wanted to say.
[David Rasnick]: The immortal cell lines have to be aneuploid.
[J Jay Couey]: I see.
[Charles Kovess]: Well, thank you for that.
[Charles Kovess]: Thank you, Dave.
[Charles Kovess]: Thanks, Albert.
[Charles Kovess]: Good job. Lars.
[Stephen Frost]: Charles, can I just ask, David, they have to be what, David?
[Stephen Frost]: What did you say?
[Stephen Frost]: What was that word?
[David Rasnick]: Aneuploid.
[David Rasnick]: What does that mean?
[David Rasnick]: Aneuploid.
[David Rasnick]: Euploid means balanced.
[David Rasnick]: You get one complete set of chromosomes from the mother, another complete set of chromosomes from the father for a balanced set.
[David Rasnick]: Humans would be 23 plus 23 is 46.
[David Rasnick]: Aneuploid would be like Down syndrome, where they got three chromosome 21s.
[David Rasnick]: That's Down syndrome, all right?
[David Rasnick]: So this unbalanced set of chromosomes aneuploid means not a euploid.
[David Rasnick]: It's not euploid, which means it's not balanced.
[David Rasnick]: Did I answer that for you?
[Stephen Frost]: Yeah, so what is the significance of that then?
[David Rasnick]: Well,
[David Rasnick]: You know, I'm a cancer researcher, and I know a lot about this because cancer cells always are aneuploid.
[David Rasnick]: There's no such thing as a diploid cancer cell.
[David Rasnick]: Doesn't exist.
[David Rasnick]: In other words, all cancer cells have unbalanced chromosomes.
[David Rasnick]: And it's like shuffling a deck of cards.
[David Rasnick]: Whereas normal human cells always have the exact same composition of 23 and 23, 23 from the mother, 23 from the father.
[David Rasnick]: Cancer cells never have a balanced set.
[David Rasnick]: And there's no two cancer cells that have the exact same complement of chromosomes.
[David Rasnick]: All of them are different.
[David Rasnick]: They're like snowflakes.
[David Rasnick]: You know them when you see them, but you never see the same one twice.
[Stephen Frost]: Yeah.
[Stephen Frost]: So if the,
[Stephen Frost]: So if these things are aneuploid, which you ended up saying, what does that mean?
[Stephen Frost]: Does that mean that they're disorganized or...?
[Dave Rasnick]: They're unbalanced.
[Stephen Frost]: And what's the significance of that?
[Stephen Frost]: That's what I'm trying to...
[David Rasnick]: Well, usually, if you're talking about higher organisms, like mammals, like we are, those cells typically die.
[David Rasnick]: If they get unbalanced, they might live a little while, but they're damaged cells.
[David Rasnick]: All aneuploid cells are damaged.
[David Rasnick]: None of them are supercells.
[Stephen Frost]: So why would they use damaged cells, David?
[David Rasnick]: The aneuploid cells are very unstable.
[David Rasnick]: Whenever they divide, they rearrange their chromosomes.
[David Rasnick]: And at some point, they evolve to the point where they live in cell culture, for example, like the HeLa cells.
[David Rasnick]: The HeLa cells were first discovered in cell culture.
[David Rasnick]: And they can just grow forever in the laboratory.
[David Rasnick]: And cancer cells, and they can evolve.
[David Rasnick]: Normal cells do not evolve in cell culture.
[David Rasnick]: Aneuploid cells evolve.
[David Rasnick]: They evolve to become drug resistant.
[David Rasnick]: Most of them will die, but some of them will actually become drug resistant.
[David Rasnick]: That's where drug resistance comes from in cancers.
[David Rasnick]: It comes from a certain population of these aneuploid cancer cells
[David Rasnick]: survive chemotherapy, radiation, whatever, and then they come back later when you stop it.
[David Rasnick]: That's where it comes from.
[Stephen Frost]: So David, why would they use aneuploid cells in your opinion?
[David Rasnick]: because you can get them commercially.
[David Rasnick]: It's the euploid cells that are very, very difficult to come by.
[David Rasnick]: I mean, take it the other way around.
[David Rasnick]: The euploid cells can only grow a limited amount of time in the cell culture, where aneuploid cells, you can grow them forever, basically.
[Stephen Frost]: So all the research they're doing then is arguably invalid because the
[Stephen Frost]: That's what I was trying to get out of you, David.
[Stephen Frost]: That's exactly what I was trying to get out of you.
[David Rasnick]: Yeah, 99%, at least 99% of the published data using cell lines, they're aneuploid cell lines, and they have really basically nothing to do with reality.
[Stephen Frost]: So it's fraud then?
[David Rasnick]: Well, no.
[David Rasnick]: Fraud implies that you consciously are trying to mislead.
[Stephen Frost]: Well, maybe they are doing this stuff.
[David Rasnick]: We're going on a little bit too long on this.
[David Rasnick]: I mean, we're taking away from what I know.
[Stephen Frost]: I mean, no, David, I'm just trying to...
[Stephen Frost]: So in the public's mind, I'm just trying to get them to think about it, you know, so all the scientific work on cells is done with these aberrant cells, for lack of a better word, and so maybe all the conclusions that they get from these experiments, which are funded by NIH, I suppose, and they're all invalid and of no interest to humans.
[David Rasnick]: Why don't you guys invite me and I'll give a whole talk about this?
[David Rasnick]: I'd be happy to do it.
[Stephen Frost]: Oh yes, can you remember what the topic is, though?
[David Rasnick]: Aneuploidy.
[Stephen Frost]: You'll have to remind me.
[Stephen Frost]: OK.
[Stephen Frost]: So David, if you email me, that will remind me, OK?
[David Rasnick]: OK.
[Stephen Frost]: Thanks.
[Stephen Frost]: That's great.
[David Rasnick]: Sorry, everybody.
[Stephen Frost]: No, it's OK.
[Stephen Frost]: Otherwise we wouldn't have understood what aneuploid meant.
[Stephen Frost]: Nobody would have understood.
[Stephen Frost]: I thought it was just me.
[Stephen Frost]: Okay, thank you.
[Stephen Frost]: Charles.
[Stephen Frost]: Oh, Charles is gone.
[Stephen Frost]: So Lars, it's your go, as far as I can see.
[J Jay Couey]: Hello, Lars.
[J Jay Couey]: Good to see you.
[Lars Johansson]: Hi, good to see you.
[Lars Johansson]: Your speech at G. Edward Griffin's Red Pill Expo was fantastic.
[Lars Johansson]: And you have only accelerated from there.
[Lars Johansson]: It's fascinating to follow you.
[Lars Johansson]: I thought I would ask a question about...
[Stephen Frost]: Sorry, Lars, whose speech was that? I'm so sorry.
[Lars Johansson]: JJ gave a speech in South Dakota that was very, very good.
[Stephen Frost]: Yeah.
[Lars Johansson]: And he has improved every time since then.
[Lars Johansson]: So yeah.
[Lars Johansson]: Now, I thought I would ask questions about the inability of
[Lars Johansson]: RNA to replicate and pandemic, but this is not the topic of the day.
[Lars Johansson]: So I will ask you another question.
[Lars Johansson]: Are you familiar with Professor Freeman Dyson's criticism of the theory of evolution, where he refers to a Japanese evolutionary biologist called Muto Kimura, who talks about not natural selection, but random genetic drift
[Lars Johansson]: as being the engine of evolutionary change.
[Lars Johansson]: Have you seen that? I'll put one...
[J Jay Couey]: Please put a link in the chat.
[J Jay Couey]: I am not familiar with it.
[Lars Johansson]: Honestly, this is me, you know, just...
[Lars Johansson]: It's actually very, very interesting. I don't understand it, but you will understand it.
[Lars Johansson]: So I'll just put it in the chat.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, I got it.
[Lars Johansson]: That's a popular article, but if you follow Professor Kimura, you will read some very interesting stuff, actually.
[J Jay Couey]: Very good.
[J Jay Couey]: Oh, this is wonderful.
[J Jay Couey]: Thank you.
[J Jay Couey]: Oh, no.
[J Jay Couey]: He's a colleague of Robert Oppenheimer.
[J Jay Couey]: Oh, no!
[J Jay Couey]: It's exactly the same group of men.
[J Jay Couey]: It's fantastic.
[J Jay Couey]: Well done.
[J Jay Couey]: Okay.
[J Jay Couey]: This is going to be a good piece of the puzzle.
[J Jay Couey]: This is awesome.
[Stephen Frost]: Have you got a question for JJ?
[Lars Johansson]: Yeah, well, I would like to find the scientific proof or the suggestions why RNA cannot replicate to become pandemic.
[Lars Johansson]: I just want the scientific papers.
[Lars Johansson]: I can call you tomorrow.
[J Jay Couey]: Well, let me flip it around for you and make sure that the link that I put in the chat with the YouTube video, when you're bored, watch that YouTube video.
[J Jay Couey]: It's a really nice guy.
[J Jay Couey]: He's a very popular dude, Adam Rutherford.
[J Jay Couey]: And the first 25 minutes, you can listen to it even at double speed and really
[J Jay Couey]: When you get to the point where he's explaining what DNA is, he's going to show you a cartoon of DNA replication and he's going to state very clearly that once they discovered the chemical composition and structure of DNA and have now demonstrated how it is copied, it is this incredibly high-fidelity process with a predictable level of error
[J Jay Couey]: that has gotten us from the mud puddle billions of years later to us.
[J Jay Couey]: And that, his reliance on the double-stranded structure and the consequences of the double-stranded existence of it, meaning it can be proofread, and single-stranded RNA by definition lacks that entirely.
[J Jay Couey]: And so the whole foundation of the primacy of genes and DNA and Crick and Watson and all this stuff is based on the remarkable
[J Jay Couey]: double-stranded nature of that molecule.
[J Jay Couey]: And by definition, single-stranded, positive-strand RNA viruses lack this.
[J Jay Couey]: And the only protein that they argue circumvents this huge shortcoming is a protein that only their drug remdesivir interacts with.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not possible.
[J Jay Couey]: It's absolutely not possible.
[J Jay Couey]: But if you look at the consequences of DNA and how much effort has been put into making sure people understand how wonderful this double-stranded nature is, and all the wonderful consequences of it, including that you have no free will,
[J Jay Couey]: RNA doesn't have that.
[J Jay Couey]: So that's the main argument for me.
[J Jay Couey]: But I can help with more specific things, maybe those papers, for example.
[Lars Johansson]: If I call the leading professor at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm in microbiology and suggest what you just said to us, will he agree?
[Lars Johansson]: Will he understand?
[Lars Johansso]: Or will he
[J Jay Couey]: I would be happy if you would get me a Zoom meeting with him and you and me.
[J Jay Couey]: I would love to do that.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, I mean really.
[Stephen Frost]: That would be great.
[Stephen Frost]: In fact, Lars, you could come and speak to us.
[Stephen Frost]: Get JJ, the professor from Karolinska, and you, you can be the moderator.
[Lars Johansson]: And we need to crack through this now.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, we really do need to crash through this.
[Lars Johansson]: You have the answers.
[Lars Johansson]: We just need to break through in reality.
[J Jay Couey]: A lot of people have the answers.
[J Jay Couey]: There's a lot of biologists out there that would come to our rescue immediately and say more or less that I didn't say it as clever as that, but that's definitely what I think.
[J Jay Couey]: And that would be wonderful, right?
[J Jay Couey]: If these kinds of people would carry that flag forward for us, we'd really have something.
[Stephen Frost]: So, Lars, can you set up a discussion like that and moderate it?
[Lars Johansson]: I'll see if he's interested.
[Lars Johansson]: Yeah, he will be.
[Lars Johansson]: It could be that they know the truth and are scared.
[Lars Johansson]: That could be.
[Stephen Frost]: Oh, yes.
[Stephen Frost]: Well, ask him nicely then, Lars.
[Stephen Frost]: Go and see him.
[Lars Johansson]: I tried to be nice.
[Lars Johansson]: Thank you, JJ.
[J Jay Couey]: You're very welcome.
[Charles Kovess]: Very good.
[Charles Kovess]: Thanks, Lars.
[Charles Kovess]: Jenna?
[Jenna]: Yeah, just a couple of comments and a question.
[Jenna]: So one comment goes back to the theory of evolution, and I just wanted to mention that there's a UK doctor, I think he's a GP, called James Le Fanu.
[Jenna]: He wrote a book entitled Why Us in 2009, in which he explains that the survival of the fittest
[Jenna]: evolution theory is only unproven, and he gives examples where there are no intermediate forms that confer a survival advantage.
[Jenna]: So, for example, there is no intermediate stage between quadrupedal and bipedal that confers a survival advantage.
[Jenna]: So that breaks the link, really, between animals and humans.
[J Jay Couey]: Can you say the last name again?
[Jenna]: James Le Fanu, L-E-F-A-N-U, James Le Fanu.
[Jenna]: And he talks about there being no intermediate stages in the development of the eye, which confers a survival advantage as well.
[J Jay Couey]: It's very funny, because yes, there's another guy who made that argument, and actually when I was a freshman in college, on the very first lecture at DePaul University, I can still remember, his name is Beck.
[J Jay Couey]: I can't remember his first name, but he was the dean of the biology department.
[J Jay Couey]: and he was telling us about evolution, and I said, I just want, I'm not asking this, I even framed it perfectly, I said, I'm not asking this as a gotcha moment, I'm asking you to help me have a good answer for this.
[J Jay Couey]: But what about the lack of intermediate, like, usefulness of the eye, and how many times vision has evolved?
[J Jay Couey]: And he stuttered and stammered and
[J Jay Couey]: It was one of the most like, oh, darn, I didn't mean to hurt you.
[J Jay Couey]: Like, I really thought it was I was being the right kind of smart kid, you know, like, hey, I get this question a lot from people and I really want to be able to answer it.
[J Jay Couey]: And he couldn't give it a a very good...
[J Jay Couey]: He was not prepared for that.
[J Jay Couey]: It was really funny.
[J Jay Couey]: So I'm happy that you mentioned I haven't heard the book, but I'll get it.
[Jenna]: Yeah.
[Jenna]: My question is,
[Jenna]: If there aren't enough genes to explain the entire construction of the human body, in other words, how the proteins are actually put together, what is junk DNA?
[Jenna]: Is it still a concept and is its function still a mystery?
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, I absolutely think that's probably the case.
[J Jay Couey]: The other thing to consider is the idea that the code could be somehow unimaginably layered to us.
[J Jay Couey]: Sorry, layered but invisible to us.
[J Jay Couey]: Um, you know, not that dissimilar to how people say that, you know, if you read a book and you only circle the certain number of letters, then you can see another message.
[J Jay Couey]: Or if you, if you use the, if you add up all the numbers across the line and did this, then you can find another message.
[J Jay Couey]: Um, it is not entirely ridiculous.
[J Jay Couey]: And I don't, I don't necessarily disbelieve the idea that, that within the nucleus they were able to identify
[J Jay Couey]: molecules of DNA that seem to correspond to sequences that maybe can be related to proteins, and that central dogma in some way exists.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm not arguing that in some ways that's not true.
[J Jay Couey]: What I am suggesting is that that is wholly insufficient for us to jump from that, those limited observations, and those limited chemical preparations, and those limited
[J Jay Couey]: you know, hyper-pure genetic signals, or whatever system that we're looking in, to use that to generalize that, well, it's just a matter of figuring out where all the other moving parts are, and then basically free will will be eliminated, and there's no need to talk about God or spirituality, because we're just a bunch of spinning wheels and bubbling chemicals.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's the part that I think I was trapped in, a lot of my
[J Jay Couey]: my colleagues are still trapped in because we all took the same lessons from the same people who already were trapped in it.
[J Jay Couey]: None of my biology teachers were aware of these shortcomings, but instead were given just enough understanding so that their imagination would happily fill in all the blanks.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's what's very enticing about it.
[Jenna]: What is junk DNA then?
[J Jay Couey]: If there isn't- Well, I think it's just a bad name for it.
[J Jay Couey]: If you had a Chinese book and you only knew five characters and you said that all the other characters were junk characters, that wouldn't be a very adequate way to describe it, right?
[Jenna]: Okay.
[J Jay Couey]: And I think that's the way to think about it.
[J Jay Couey]: Just because it's repeated, and so repeats to us seem to mean nothing or something like that, doesn't mean that when it's folded on itself and read in a different way, that it wouldn't reveal a third dimensional structure of code
[J Jay Couey]: any other possibilities that we haven't considered that go beyond this list of characters, right?
[Jenna]: Yeah, yeah.
[Jenna]: And just the third thing I wanted to mention, I was pleased that you mentioned the issue of circumcision because I was involved in researching to this quite a few years ago.
[Jenna]: And these babies in America in particular are circumcised shortly after birth without anesthetic.
[Jenna]: And even though they were very tiny, a number of these babies actually, when they grow up, they actually have post-traumatic stress disorder.
[Jenna]: And I did a research project on this.
[Jenna]: And these people who have been circumcised, which is basically the equivalent of a sexual assault in a very undefended human being, can lead to severe psychological damage.
[Jenna]: And there are some
[Jenna]: people within this anti-circumcision movement who are actually suggesting that the psychological damage which is done to babies actually prepares males in America to serve in the military because they are sufficiently disengaged from their
[Jenna]: their own emotions.
[Jenna]: I just wanted to say thank you for mentioning that.
[J Jay Couey]: I would love it if you would send me an email or something.
[J Jay Couey]: I would love to talk to you more about it because it is one of those things that I think, especially as you said in America, there are lots of men
[J Jay Couey]: who could think deeply about their circumstances.
[J Jay Couey]: When that happens, on the other hand, you don't know any different, and so you're not aware, number one, of whatever potential
[J Jay Couey]: sort of psychological effects would be there, but you're also not aware of the context.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's why I brought up that context of my friend in the Netherlands, because the ceremonial removal of some foreskin is very different to what they do to those babies where they remove it all.
[J Jay Couey]: There are a lot of kids that have scars from this, because you're not just...
[J Jay Couey]: Again, I don't want to be too graphic, but they're two very different amounts of tissue that are removed and what parts are left.
[Jenna]: A full circumcision of the foreskin removes 50% of the penile skin and most people would say, oh that's ridiculous, but it is actually true.
[J Jay Couey]: Absolutely true.
[J Jay Couey]: I know for sure it's true simply because I grew up with kids of both conditions.
[J Jay Couey]: And so it's burnt into my head.
[J Jay Couey]: I have years of showering with these kids.
[J Jay Couey]: So I know the difference, definitely.
[Jenna]: And there's a book by a chap called Jim Bigelow called The Joy of Uncircumcising, where men who want to restore their foreskins can do so.
[Jenna]: And it's brought a lot of relief to a lot of men.
[J Jay Couey]: So, oh, I've never heard of that before.
[J Jay Couey]: That's crazy.
[J Jay Couey]: Wow.
[J Jay Couey]: OK.
[J Jay Couey]: Well, again, like I said, this is just something that in terms of especially America, I think there's a huge awakening that could take place because there's nothing other than malevolence that can be attributed to that, especially when you realize that there was a whole industry of medical remnants that has not gone away.
[J Jay Couey]: It's just gotten better and better in America.
[Jenna]: Yeah.
[Jenna]: And what is your email address?
[J Jay Couey]: I'll put it in the chat right now.
[Jenna]: Thank you.
[J Jay Couey]: So JJ, Janet's a British doctor.
[J Jay Couey]: Nice.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm very excited to meet you.
[Jenna]: And likewise.
[J Jay Couey]: There you go.
[J Jay Couey]: I think, whoops, did I do that?
[J Jay Couey]: No, I didn't.
[J Jay Couey]: What the hell just happened there?
[Stephen Frost]: And she helped with David Kelly, but also worked on doctors for Assange as well.
[Stephen Frost]: So she understands.
[Stephen Frost]: Oh, Tom, are you next?
[J Jay Couey]: I think Tom's next, yep.
[Tom]: Yeah, I can go.
[Tom]: Yeah, thanks as usual.
[Tom]: Part of this, I think your teaching is so valuable, and so I'm not directly addressing the, it seems almost philosophical or metaphysical issue of free will and the watch, that we're just some sort of wind-up watch.
[J Jay Couey]: Made by a blind watchmaker.
[Tom]: Oh, okay.
[Tom]: All right.
[Tom]: So, so, uh, yeah, a few things and I'm not really good at doing this, but I want to just kind of shotgun through here.
[Tom]: So, uh, and maybe if you want, if you'd allow me to do a few things, maybe if you want to interrupt and just answer, uh, endocytosis that was introduced recently to me in a meeting, it just seemed like a good term.
[Tom]: Cause we need to like tell stories to people that you know
[Tom]: that are uninformed and I think that's part of transfection and maybe you could hit on that.
[Tom]: The other one is
[Tom]: I heard, now some of this is coming out of the Doctors for COVID Ethics meeting, the process of self-replicating DNA, the Japanese jabs.
[Tom]: And I heard someone in that meeting describing that as a process that only replicates the DNA and does not replicate any proteins.
[Tom]: I don't know if you, so that's something to comment on.
[Tom]: Oh, and then Michael Palmer speculated
[Tom]: about the formation of the casts in the you know the long stringy material they pull out of carotid arteries and so forth and he was simply speculating that it's a process of the that's triggered by the irritation of the endothelial cells.
[Tom]: There was a woman that was doing the presentation and she's a professor and her name is Anna S. Ulreich.
[Tom]: I believe Martina, who's here, also watched this,
[Tom]: and she she agreed that that might be the case that and and this was in the context of discussing um i don't know if i mentioned the name but Anna Mahalsia who believes that there's um blinky lights and nanobots and emf and
[Tom]: intra-body communication between the nanopods and
[J Jay Couey]: oh wow yeah okay that's a good one um yeah...
[Tom]: Well wait let me just oh yeah go ahead loop back and say that professor uh Anna Ulreich said no no this is just uh this is just crystallization and it's well documented and then after this everyone yeah why don't you comment i have maybe two more and that's it.
[J Jay Couey]: Endocytosis is a pretty general word for when two membranes merge and so it oftentimes refers to when a smaller vesicle is taken up by a cell.
[J Jay Couey]: In the use of a lipid nanoparticle in transfection, you're going to have what is endocytosis of the
[J Jay Couey]: of the lipid nanoparticles.
[J Jay Couey]: Also, I think you could describe the uptake of a adenovirus particle as endocytosis, although maybe there are people who would argue with that.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't think it's a very specific term.
[J Jay Couey]: I think it can be broadly applied.
[J Jay Couey]: Self-replicating RNA is... [Tom]: DNA.
[J Jay Couey]: Sorry, but the mRNA is actually what they're doing in Japan.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't think it's...
[Tom]: Oh, okay. All right.
[J Jay Couey]: And so the self-replicating RNA is actually, as far as we can discern, they're using a viral
[J Jay Couey]: RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
[J Jay Couey]: And I can't remember off the top of my head what one it is, but I know that it's in the paper.
[J Jay Couey]: You can see they did just take it from some pathogen that has an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
[J Jay Couey]: And then they're putting that in the same mRNA construct as the antigen RNA.
[J Jay Couey]: And then their argument is that they would have to give you less lipid nanoparticle and less
[J Jay Couey]: chemically altered mRNA because this chemically altered RNA will replicate itself.
[J Jay Couey]: Now, that's an interesting claim and it's an interesting differentiation between the two mechanisms because remember, the reason why we had to make it M1 pseudouridine was to prevent the immune system from reacting to it and the immune system ignores it.
[J Jay Couey]: But if you take a mRNA
[J Jay Couey]: and it's self-replicating, then by definition it's going to self-replicate itself not in the presence of the chemical reaction that would alter it into the M1 pseudouridine RNA, which would mean that then
[J Jay Couey]: you're making a non-protected or non-chemically altered RNA, which won't go through.
[J Jay Couey]: And see, here's the problem that I just see when I think about it, that if they tell you that the first one worked for X, Y, and Z, then this one won't work for that reason, because it can't be chemically altered, because it will be made in your body using your own
[J Jay Couey]: your own nucleotides, which are not going to be chemically altered, whereas the one that they put in the original shot or whatever, supposedly all of the uracils were chemically altered.
[J Jay Couey]: So the self-replicating mRNA presents a whole other set of problems that actually were in the original version of this that Robert Malone said all those years ago didn't really work out for him because the immune response was too strong.
[J Jay Couey]: So the self-replicating RNA thing is quite frustrating to me, because again, people got on the internet saying that, oh, they're releasing this, and now there's going to be a new RNA spreading around, and so you better stay away from those people.
[J Jay Couey]: And I think it's probably a gross over-exaggeration of even the potential
[J Jay Couey]: best-case scenario of joining an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase to another transcript and then thinking that that was going to somehow work out.
[J Jay Couey]: If anything, to me, quite honestly, I would say, Tom, that this almost seems to edify the idea that
[J Jay Couey]: they have known that there are self-replicating RNA signals that have a limited spectrum of coverage in our families or in our conspecific groups or in our classrooms that occasionally manifest in respiratory disease and other, you know, maybe what appear to be contagions, but the fidelity and endurance and ability for these things and signals to sustain themselves over thousands or millions or billions of people is ridiculous.
[J Jay Couey]: And so we're at a stage now where they have always been trying to play with this system.
[J Jay Couey]: And so in playing with this system, they've told us stories like AIDS.
[J Jay Couey]: They've told us stories like chronic fatigue syndrome.
[J Jay Couey]: They've told us stories like Epstein-Barr virus.
[J Jay Couey]: And they've told us stories like coronavirus, the pandemic, all to disguise this almost endless field of packet genetic communication that they know has to do with
[J Jay Couey]: with health and evolution and disease and sickness and conspecific signaling.
[J Jay Couey]: They probably even know it has to do with whether you are attracted to your mate and enjoy kissing her.
[J Jay Couey]: So for me, the issue is that confusion
[J Jay Couey]: and the implication that they have already developed these high-fidelity molecular tools that they can make and use on people.
[J Jay Couey]: And so the more they get people riled up about a self-replicating RNA that's going to spread from Japan if we let airplanes fly, the more that people buy into this idea that these molecular tools work in this high-fidelity way.
[J Jay Couey]: And so I have to believe that this is almost exclusively exaggeration, and that's why
[J Jay Couey]: you know, the details of it and the discussion of it is not really framed in what I feel like is any different than gain-of-function viruses.
[J Jay Couey]: So Michael Palmer's saying it's an irritation of the endothelium.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't think there's anything wrong with that, again, because we don't know really what these lipid nanoparticles are really going to do, especially after their pH changes and they become much more toxic.
[J Jay Couey]: And it's very likely that this is a possibility.
[J Jay Couey]: But again, I don't think there's any reason to
[J Jay Couey]: speculate too much about it simply because what they've told us that it's COVID or that it's the spike protein or whatever, it can't be the case relative to just, you know, a general effect of transfecting the endothelium.
[J Jay Couey]: And transfecting the endothelium will have all kinds of terrible consequences and maybe one of them is a activation of the clotting mechanism.
[J Jay Couey]: Remember that, in case you have forgotten,
[J Jay Couey]: the transfection agents that are listed in all of the papers previous to the pandemic, one of the the
[J Jay Couey]: the overarching themes was that where they went was then where they meant them to go.
[J Jay Couey]: So when lipid nanoparticles first came out and they started using them, they realized that almost all of them went to the liver.
[J Jay Couey]: So the first thing they said was, hey, these are liver targeting lipid nanoparticles, even though it had nothing to do with targeting the liver, it's just where they mostly went.
[J Jay Couey]: And another place that they went that they said that they could be useful for was platelets,
[J Jay Couey]: lipid nanoparticles go to platelets for some reason and many of them do and so that could also be a cell type that's irritated here and of course platelets being irritated would very quickly get you to the clotting mechanism.
[J Jay Couey]: So I think Sucharit Bhakti would be better to talk about that than me and then the nanobot light lady
[J Jay Couey]: drove me bananas in the same way that a guy by the name of Kevin McCairn, who also put a bunch of stuff under a light microscope and then said he found or didn't find things.
[J Jay Couey]: The first and foremost thing to remember about light microscopy is that if you don't know how they did it, the chances of them seeing something that is significant versus something that's random, it's almost always going to be something random.
[J Jay Couey]: Light microscopy can make dust look interesting, it can make dirt look interesting, it can make dirt look alive,
[J Jay Couey]: and it can make dirt look sparkly, especially if the field of view is adjusted in such a way that things are coming in and out of the field of view, and the light source is angled in such a way that things can move in and out of the light source, you can have things look like they're sparkling.
[J Jay Couey]: I was just absolutely livid
[J Jay Couey]: when I heard that lady say on a CHD video that this is blue light sparkling in this sample, but she had a backlight on.
[J Jay Couey]: It's like, if there's blue light being generated here, please turn off all the external illumination and show me it's blue light.
[J Jay Couey]: And this is just the very beginning of it.
[J Jay Couey]: So for me, if they're not using anything but light microscopy, and they haven't been using light microscopy for many, many, many years,
[J Jay Couey]: then it's most likely bullshit.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm sorry, but it is.
[J Jay Couey]: And I think that lady was very much not looking at what she said she was looking at.
[J Jay Couey]: And I don't know anything about the signals.
[J Jay Couey]: Some people are purporting that there's some kind of code that comes out of these things.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't know what they call it anymore, but I don't know.
[Tom]: MAC address.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, MAC address, that's right.
[Tom]: So two more things, well, maybe a couple of statements and you can contradict them if they're wrong.
[Tom]: So in the meeting, Ernst, who's a German scientist, he had done, I think, Raman mass spectroscopy on vials, on the JAB vials, a couple of years ago.
[Tom]: And he chimed in and he suggested that some of the discovery of graphene may be an artifact, that they actually created the graphene in the process of looking at the vials by mistake.
[Tom]: And so he says, no graphene, and so does the professor Ulreich.
[Tom]: And then just test me on this my understanding of the nanolipid particles is that each molecule in the...each molecule is on the order of 2,000 atomic weight, you know, like on the periodic table atomic weight and that these molecules Have dipoles and they get vibrated and then they self assemble into the larger
[Tom]: 50 to nanometer Nanolipid particles and interleaved in there now.
[Tom]: I heard it was in some cases I heard multiple strands of mRNA and other cases.
[Tom]: I just heard one I don't know so there's that and then here's a thought experiment.
[Tom]: Let's say you did let's say it was 2017 and
[Tom]: And you had a lateral flow test that you got from the grocery store.
[Tom]: Would the background interactions in the population generate any positives?
[J Jay Couey]: That's what I think.
[J Jay Couey]: I think that's definitely what would happen.
[J Jay Couey]: Obviously, we can't go back in time and do it.
[J Jay Couey]: But yeah, that's, that would be my premise that, that the, that the PCR test wasn't, and it could have been, again, I really think that you can't underestimate the malevolence here.
[J Jay Couey]: So there could have been a couple of tests that were fairly accurate for some known background signal and then a bunch of tests that were absolutely nonsense.
[J Jay Couey]: Um, but even the lateral flow, the grocery store test, not the PCR.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah.
[J Jay Couey]: The lateral flow test too.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, how do, how do we know, um,
[J Jay Couey]: How do we know that they're not testing for an endogenous protein?
[J Jay Couey]: Because again, when you buy one of those tests, you're trusting everything about it.
[J Jay Couey]: And so the assumption that everything, here's another example.
[J Jay Couey]: So my friend lives in, I don't know,
[J Jay Couey]: in Australia and he just moved house and in moving house he found a whole box full of these lateral flow tests that were being given out by the case to every family in Australia so that students could test for before school.
[J Jay Couey]: And all of these tests were manufactured in China.
[J Jay Couey]: All of them.
[J Jay Couey]: And he sent me a picture and I couldn't believe it.
[J Jay Couey]: There were like six different ones, and they came from two different places in China, and the Australian government was buying hundreds of millions of these tests that were being produced in China.
[J Jay Couey]: And so for me, it becomes almost too easy for this to have been gamed in such a way on a known background, so that any cursory investigation into the molecular fidelity would not reveal anything untoward.
[J Jay Couey]: And now they can easily be having an Abbott test with 17 targets that, again, are part of a background that may or may not be there and definitely doesn't need to correlate with symptomology for it to be something that all hospitals will buy and use as standard.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't have a lot of answers anymore other than I don't know.
[J Jay Couey]: I just know that they're probably lying about this.
[J Jay Couey]: If it's a high-fidelity yes-or-no answer.
[J Jay Couey]: I know that's not very satisfying.
[Tom]: Thanks again.
[Stephen Frost]: Are you happy with that, Tom?
[Tom]: Yeah.
[Stephen Frost]: Very good.
[Stephen Frost]: Well, Craig Paardekooper had his hand up, but I'm not even sure he's on the call now.
[Stephen Frost]: Yeah, so one of the things that was really impressed on us as children at school, JJ, was the discovery by Watson and Crick of the double helix and the structure of DNA
[J Jay Couey]: And now, in the context of what's happened in the last five years, I'm thinking, hmm, I wonder why that assumes such incredible...
[J Jay Couey]: You should really look, if you chase down anything, what you ought to do is chase down the writings of Watson in his later life, because he almost feels like he's trying to admit it, like he regrets it.
[J Jay Couey]: Watson, in particular, I found.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't have anything available.
[J Jay Couey]: It's in a different notebook.
[Stephen Frost]: My question to you is, JJ, was the discovery or the science that they determined the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA,
[Stephen Frost]: If it was a psyop, the whole thing about DNA, the discovery of this, what do you think their intention was in the future?
[Stephen Frost]: Do you think that there were motives for this?
[Stephen Frost]: Why was it so important in our education?
[J Jay Couey]: No, I think it's much more about the fact that at the time they didn't know what they were doing.
[J Jay Couey]: They didn't know how complex it would be.
[J Jay Couey]: And so at the time, given the state of mind that they were in, it was very enticing for that to be the ultimate answer and then to go with it.
[J Jay Couey]: Only 20 or 30 years later would somebody like Watson realize that, wow, that was a mistake, and look at what we've done.
[Stephen Frost]: But why would he think that?
[Stephen Frost]: Just explain to the people watching why Watson might think that this was a mistake and that this was going to be misused, maybe.
[Stephen Frost]: Was that his fear or what?
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, well, I think what it did was that it unfortunately gives credence to the idea that
[J Jay Couey]: maybe we need to be governed this way, that we need to be bred,
[J Jay Couey]: and that it's worthwhile to do that.
[J Jay Couey]: And that I think is what he may have regretted most because if that indeed, that foundation isn't so simple, then that argument doesn't hold water, right?
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, maybe there is a combination of genes that we haven't reached yet and we'll never reach if we don't continue on the path we're on, but instead try to breed the best human that we can come up with.
[Stephen Frost]: So do you think that Watson was trying to do his best to establish the truth?
[J Jay Couey]: I think he was trying to slow that train down.
[J Jay Couey]: I don't think anybody could stop it at that point because it had so much pent-up momentum from the assumption that they would find that piece.
[Stephen Frost]: So I still haven't quite understood, JJ, what you think Watson was upset about.
[Stephen Frost]: What exactly was he afraid of?
[J Jay Couey]: Well, this idea that what I think Schrodinger is also hinting at, that all they had to do was find justification
[J Jay Couey]: to think that life boils down to physics and chemistry, and this was the justification that they needed.
[J Jay Couey]: And Watson doesn't think it's sufficient to make that jump, that now we're just physics and chemistry and there's no free will.
[J Jay Couey]: That's a very terrifying place to be, especially in that time when that was putting
[J Jay Couey]: really on the spot about whether or not faith was real.
[J Jay Couey]: I grew up in a world where it was okay not to care about God and I was weird because I was Catholic.
[Stephen Frosty]: So Watson was upset that his research with Crick was going to lead to some people
[Stephen Frost]: saying that life was just about chemistry and physics and nothing to do with God, is that what you're saying?
[J Jay Couey]: I am saying that, and I'm saying that there were people in the Catholic Church who were waiting to say it, that wanted to say it, that essentially we had not reached the final divine form of humankind and that this was the revelation we needed.
[J Jay Couey]: So why would people in the Catholic Church be saying that?
[J Jay Couey]: Well, I don't know.
[J Jay Couey]: Maybe they're not really Catholics.
[J Jay Couey]: They're Jesuits.
[J Jay Couey]: They're all Jesuits.
[J Jay Couey]: So I guess if you want to go down that path, that's really one of the things to realize, is that all the Catholics that think this are Jesuits, for better or for worse, that's it.
[J Jay Couey]: This is the King Jesuit, this de Chardin guy.
[J Jay Couey]: He's quoted in a lot of books.
[J Jay Couey]: One of them is called The Future of Man.
[J Jay Couey]: Go figure.
[Stephen Frost]: Yeah, so did Watson ever give them
[Stephen Frost]: reason for us to believe that what they found, he didn't believe it himself?
[Stephen Frost]: Or were they misrepresented and they knew that they were misrepresented?
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, I think so.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, that's what I gather.
[J Jay Couey]: There's not very much to find because I don't think people want you to know how skeptical he was.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, again, I agree a lot with Dave.
[J Jay Couey]: There could be a library of proteins in a cell that has no other information in it.
[J Jay Couey]: And that's why, because we share a lot of the proteins, then a lot of the signals that we can detect there, if we amplify it high enough, are shared.
[J Jay Couey]: That's not crazy to me, but it still is only a snapshot of now, and we have no snapshots that would allow us to justify the thinking that we came from a mud puddle.
[J Jay Couey]: None.
[Stephen Frost]: So essentially, Watson was worrying that human beings would, without justification, get more power and believe in their
[Stephen Frost]: in their importance more at the expense of God.
[Stephen Frost]: Is that correct?
[J Jay Couey]: Maybe, or maybe people could be governed that way.
[J Jay Couey]: I think that for sure something happened over the course of the Enlightenment and whatever, where people turned inward and outward in exactly the right way so that
[J Jay Couey]: that we made a lot of progress.
[J Jay Couey]: And that progress has been, I think, significantly hampered and stalled and maybe even misdirected by the trends in biology in the last couple generations.
[Stephen Frost]: So the reason they were emphasizing the importance of the work of Watson and Crick in the United Kingdom when I was a child, that was all about taking people away from
[Stephen Frost]: God, essentially.
[Stephen Frost]: And so leading people to believe that science is fantastic.
[J Jay Couey]: I mean, if you read this book, there is no way to read or hear anything other than the joy that
[J Jay Couey]: God is really hands-off.
[J Jay Couey]: It's a process that God put in motion, and since then has just been watching from the sidelines.
[J Jay Couey]: And so the moment we decide to take the wheel and drive the car, we can.
[J Jay Couey]: That's the argument that this guy has been making since the 30s, that
[J Jay Couey]: then Julian Huxley published and then Julian Huxley went on to write this Man and His Future book like 10 years later with people like Hilary Koprowski and Herman Muller and all the same ideas are in there.
[J Jay Couey]: It's all the same concept of determinist biology that goes right down to the individual molecules and so we just, you know, people are not people.
[Stephen Frost]: And then Aldous Huxley comes along and writes
[Stephen Frost]: Brave New World,
[j Jay Couey]: Which is his brother, right? That's Julian's brother I mean it's crazy.
[Stephen Frost]: Correct.
[Stephen Frost]: And then he also writes Brave New World Revisited, about 30 years after the publication of Brave New World.
[Stephen Frost]: So the question is, did Aldous Huxley write that then, in the 30s I think it was?
[Stephen Frost]: Was it intended in his mind to be a warning, or was it intended to be a playbook?
[J Jay Couey]: No, I think it was a warning, I honestly do.
[J Jay Couey]: I think that maybe if we rise to the challenge, there's nothing wrong with that, right?
[J Jay Couey]: Then I think humanity rising to this challenge and throwing these chains off would also be in the best interest of our species.
[J Jay Couey]: So either way, I think we better keep fighting.
[Stephen Frost]: Yeah, so anybody else who wants to ask any deep questions?
[Stephen Frost]: I am not very good at this, but I'm sure Dave Collum and Lars Johansson have questions they'd like to ask.
[Dave Collum]: I've been listening.
[Dave Collum]: Dave, have you got any thoughts on this?
[Dave Collum]: Well, it's interesting.
[Dave Collum]: I can entertain anything, so it's all interesting to me.
[Dave Collum]: I've had several thoughts as we went along.
[Dave Collum]: a little bit of a tendency to throw away stuff rather than build upon it, I think.
[Dave Collum]: And so this idea that, you know, that the idea that that something is just dead wrong is not quite right in many instances where what it is is it's just too simple.
[Dave Collum]: I think a person JJ might want to talk to is is oddly enough, Brett Weinstein, because he's made some utterances about his view of evolution, how they've changed.
[Dave Collum]: And they've not been clear enough to me to to let me know what he's thinking.
[Dave Collum]: But it could just be a punctuated equilibrium model that he's talking about or something like that.
[Dave Collum]: But he hasn't said enough.
[Dave Collum]: And then
[Dave Collum]: What else was I thinking?
[Dave Collum]: I wasn't going to chime in.
[Dave Collum]: I was just going to sit here and listen.
[Dave Collum]: The junk DNA model makes total sense to me, because I think when you need to, if you think about how evolution works, what you can't do is mutate an essential protein very easily and not have it be fatal.
[Dave Collum]: But one of the things you can do is replicate a big chunk of DNA just randomly, and all of a sudden that gives you blank canvas to work on.
[Dave Collum]: So evolutionarily, if you can improve upon a protein by using, uh, by mutating a duplicate, that's been created as what you might call junk DNA.
[Dave Collum]: And all of a sudden you get one that works better.
[Dave Collum]: Now you haven't enforced a fatality.
[Dave Collum]: What you've done is you you've provided the organism with an even better route.
[Dave Collum]: Um, I'm listening to the evolution of the eye part.
[Dave Collum]: I heard some sort of, how could the eye evolve?
[Dave Collum]: Well,
[Dave Collum]: It's actually, in my mind, kind of simple in that all you need is a molecule in the cell, in the unicellular organism even, that responds to light.
[Dave Collum]: And since light is energy, and that's how information gets transferred, that strikes me as a completely rational thing.
[Dave Collum]: So you can imagine an organism for which there's a selective advantage to being able to detect light for whatever reason.
[Dave Collum]: Maybe it has some mechanism to float towards it, right?
[Dave Collum]: If you duplicate that molecule, now all of a sudden you've got really the very beginnings of stereoscopic vision.
[Dave Collum]: So you've got two molecules that respond to light, but one will get a brighter response
[Dave Collum]: are more frequent hit than the other one.
[Dave Collum]: And so it tells the organism where the light's coming from.
[Dave Collum]: And that becomes the beginning of an eye, basically.
[Dave Collum]: You've just described the first, the very first beginnings of rods and cones and things like that.
[J Jay Couey]: I think the one super absolute, and I mean this with the utmost respect,
[J Jay Couey]: Your imagination is quite limited.
[J Jay Couey]: And the reason why I would argue it's missing one incredibly important variable, and that is that if that model of evolution is true, then that should have happened thousands of times before one got through to the next generation, because it didn't get stepped on, or rained out, or dried out, or eaten.
[J Jay Couey]: And so this thing of a molecule that can detect light is not the evolution of an eye.
[J Jay Couey]: And I think that that whole argument is just not equivalent to what we're talking about, which is trying to explain all of the circuitry and all of the fine tuning and all of the developmental process that goes into defining binocular vision.
[J Jay Couey]: All of these things can't be the process of an incremental improvement that randomly could become extinct.
[J Jay Couey]: Like, oh, I got the best eye ever in humankind, and then I got hit by a car, or I couldn't find a girlfriend.
[J Jay Couey]: That would have to happen millions of times for each good trait in order to explain this as random mutation and selection.
[J Jay Couey]: And I think it's because you've accepted this three-gear model.
[Dave Collum]: You're frozen.
[Dave Collum]: I don't know if it's my computer or yours.
[Dave Collum]: My whole computer's frozen.
[J Jay Couey]: You sound a lot like Brett Weinstein.
[J Jay Couey]: And it's true.
[Dave Collum]: you're all still let me find another room.
J Jay Couey]: Oh, no, he missed.
[Dave Collum]: No, I heard I heard no, I heard I heard basically a response when I was I was a genetics major, which is now a 45 year old antiquated degree.
[Dave Collum]: And I haven't used genetics since so it has not evolved very quickly itself.
[Dave Collum]: I remember one time where I had a guest lecture and the guy said, he said that this idea of how did we evolve to this complex state?
[Dave Collum]: He said, you think of the, I'll say gazillions, because I don't even begin to put an order of magnitude on it, but unbelievable numbers of generations.
[Dave Collum]: And he said, every single one of your ancestors was a winner, every last one.
[Dave Collum]: And so I wonder, for example, like as a chemist, the origin of optical purity.
[Dave Collum]: So the fact that we have a single enantiomeric series in all of nature, right?
[Dave Collum]: So you tend not to get the enantiomerically related mirror image proteins and things like that.
[Dave Collum]: And I've always gone on the basic assumption that it probably was events happening in both mirror images.
[Dave Collum]: And then at one moment, there was just one that really worked and survived.
[Dave Collum]: And then it really took off.
[Dave Collum]: And so I figured that amongst the gazillions of generations, you just needed one that couldn't readily replicate before the other one grabbed the biological niche.
[J Jay Couey]: I think what you're illustrating is that if you start your interpretation of all the sacred biology outside of your window and in the forest around you on this rational,
[J Jay Couey]: on this rationing, on this understanding of how things have come to be, then you will always be trapped in it.
[J Jay Couey]: It's not sufficient.
[Dave Collum]: No, no, that's why I found it an interesting discussion.
[Dave Collum]: What I what I'm reluctant to do is throw it away rather than build upon it.
[J Jay Couey]: No.
[J Jay Couey]: And I think that's very important why I say that this no virus notion is really annoying, because that would mean that there's no genetic packet communication, no knowledge at this level.
[J Jay Couey]: That would be absurd.
[J Jay Couey]: That would mean that all these books and all these observations are bullshit.
[J Jay Couey]: And I think we really need to retool and reinterpret the data that we have and maybe throw some data out.
[J Jay Couey]: But definitely.
[J Jay Couey]: I'm, I'm with you on this.
[Dave Collum]: Right.
[Dave Collum]: And so I happen to work in a field of chemistry that turned out where almost every paper we ever published, I showed someone was wrong, but they were trying to get it right.
[Dave Collum]: And they were not, they were not wrong in the sense that the whole thing had to be reversed.
[Dave Collum]: They were wrong in the sense that they made assumptions about function that just were not correct.
[Dave Collum]: And when you look at it, you say, well, I now see how they made the mistake.
[Dave Collum]: And now it actually looks kind of silly in retrospect, because scientists get in terrible echo chambers, even physical scientists.
[Dave Collum]: And so I'm totally conceding, which is why I stayed with this whole discussion the whole way.
[Dave Collum]: If we evolve another million years, I'm sure, let's say we evolve in a direction that somehow represents intellectual improvement.
[Dave Collum]: I'm not sure that's even remotely possible.
[Dave Collum]: But if we do, we'll look back and say, back a million years ago, these guys could not have fathomed what we now understand.
[Dave Collum]: And so I think there's things
[J Jay Couey]: It's oh darn he shape.
[J Jay Couey]: He froze again.
[Dave Collum]: Um, I want to, Oh, possibly understand right now because we don't, I don't know.
[Dave Collum]: Um, it's, but, but that's sort of my basic thoughts on the whole thing.
[Dave Collum]: Um, I, I just went through all through the, again, that in this group in particular, I saw people throwing away,
[Dave Collum]: things that didn't have to be thrown away to have the discussion, right?
[Dave Collum]: And even cases where, if you want to say, like, I'm totally riveted by this idea that AIDS doesn't come from HIV, right?
[Dave Collum]: And Peter Duesberg and all the stuff that I think is quite possibly true.
[Dave Collum]: What I also know, though, is that if you're getting in a discussion with someone who's not up to speed, if you lead off with that kind of a punch, it's over.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah.
[Dave Collum]: Right.
[Dave Collum]: So you kind of have to wade them into the shallow end of the pool and then say, OK, follow me with a little bit of let's just think about this a little bit.
[Dave Collum]: And so I and that gets back to the don't throw it away, build on.
[Dave Collum]: And by the time you're done.
[Dave Collum]: It might look like a renovation in which you say, I can't detect the original house in this renovation, right?
[Dave Collum]: It could be one of those.
[Dave Collum]: I have nothing deep to say about it besides just that.
[Dave Collum]: So I don't have any problems with the things you guys talked about.
[Dave Collum]: I just, the reluctance to look for nefarious things from the 1930s.
[Dave Collum]: And I don't think they were, you know, the circumcision.
[Dave Collum]: I'd never heard the circumcision story, by the way.
[Dave Collum]: This was completely new to me.
[Dave Collum]: The idea that you use foreskins to advantage doesn't negate the fact that it might actually be biologically, health-wise, an improvement to not have a foreskin.
[Dave Collum]: And so you don't have to turn it into a, oh, those bastards, they're clipping kid's dicks off because they want the foreskin.
[Dave Collum]: It can be that someone said, hey, we could use that.
[Dave Collum]: So don't chuck it.
[Dave Collum]: Right.
[Dave Collum]: That's useful.
[Dave Collum]: There are hygiene issues that are real.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah, there are, but if you just want to be real, real clear about it, I mean, foreskin is this, okay?
[J Jay Couey]: So the idea is that if you want it to be clean, you want the foreskin to be able to come over the glans penis.
[J Jay Couey]: And some people's foreskin doesn't come over very easy.
[J Jay Couey]: and may come over.
[J Jay Couey]: And so the idea would be to cut that open a little wider so that you can roll that skin back and clean underneath it.
[J Jay Couey]: That's the whole point of a baby.
[J Jay Couey]: That would be the only argument to make.
[J Jay Couey]: What I'm telling you is, is that these American babies are like this.
[J Jay Couey]: Okay.
[Dave Collum]: That was, by the way, your, your, your long sleeve shirt, foreskin analog.
[Dave Collum]: That was brilliant.
[Dave Collum]: No, that was, that was spectacular.
[Dave Collum]: I'm in, I'm in the middle of digging into the transgender movement.
[Dave Collum]: I'm in the middle of Abigail Shrier's book.
[J Jay Couey]: Oh, wow.
[Dave Collum]: Exactly.
[Dave Collum]: It's horrifying.
[Dave Collum]: It is horrifying because it is so socially complex.
[J Jay Couey]: Yeah.
[J Jay Couey]: Yep.
[Dave Collum]: And I don't mean socially complex.
[J Jay Couey]: It's really crazy.
[J Jay Couey]: This, this illusion that everybody agrees on, it really sucks people into it.
[Dave Collum]: Oh, and the whole, the whole thing is designed to separate kids from their parents and kids from anyone who will defy them.
[Dave Collum]: And it really is a, I knew it was, um, I knew it was a cultural contagion, but I didn't understand.
[Dave Collum]: I didn't understand the momentum.
[Dave Collum]: and the tools that were being used to do it.
[Dave Collum]: So science does that too, we all agree.
[Stephen Frost]: Did you know that Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the new Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I'm not quite sure whether it's Yvette Cooper or Angela Rayner, but anyway, the other one is the Home Secretary.
[Stephen Frost]: So we've got three
[Stephen Frost]: very prominent positions in the new British government, and those three, the Daily Mail,
[Stephen Frost]: which is a well-known newspaper in the UK,
[Stephen Frost]: they've been aware for quite some time that all three of those people in prominent positions in the UK, I think it's a conflict of interest when you consider that children are being taught what they are being taught, apparently, in British schools.
[Stephen Frost]: All three of them have transgender children.
[Dave Collum]: Yeah, it's a badge of honor amongst certain nutcases.
[Stephen Frost]: But the really interesting thing for me is that the Daily Mail has known about this for some time.
[Stephen Frost]: I don't know exactly how long, but I know that it's true because someone very senior at the Daily Mail told me they haven't told the British public this, so the British public are totally unaware.
[Stephen Frost]: I was totally unaware until I was actually told by
[Stephen Frost]: the head of the Daily Mail.
[Stephen Frost]: Not exactly the head, but very near the top of the Daily Mail.
[Dave Collum]: Well, curiously, Elon Musk got taken down that path a little bit by one of his kids and then realized what was happening.
[Dave Collum]: And one thing's for sure is Elon is not invisible.
[Dave Collum]: You can't when he decides he wants to talk about something that you can't hide it.
[Dave Collum]: And so, yeah, so in any event, so that's a fascinating again, and science, those who are not in science, don't understand the groupthink that kicks in even amongst people who are trying to get it right.
[Dave Collum]: Even I don't think it has to be conspiracies.
[Dave Collum]: And I think there are fields of science where the fraud is much more prevalent than others.
[Dave Collum]: Those happen to be the fields where the stakes for committing the fraud are very high or it's easy,
[Dave Collum]: like in biochem, you can win a Nobel Prize by faking stuff if you are clever enough to do it.
[Dave Collum]: But
[Dave Collum]: But but the climate change guys, that grift is spectacular.
[Dave Collum]: And and it's it's one hundred and fifty trillion dollars of projected spending.
[Dave Collum]: Who's going to who's going to open their mouth on that?
[Dave Collum]: Right.
[Dave Collum]: Every everyone wants a piece of that pie.
[Dave Collum]: And guys who've gone down to the southern border, friends of mine who've gone down there said what's clear is everybody's making money down there.
[Dave Collum]: The whole thing, there's money, every single moving part on that southern border is a for profit machine.
[J Jay Couey]: Wow.
[Dave Collum]: And so, yeah, so that you dig into this stuff and it can make you very dark.
[Dave Collum]: My advice would be don't get don't get too dark on DNA.
[Dave Collum]: It's still an important biomolecule.
[J Jay Couey]: It just it probably is.
[J Jay Couey]: I agree with that.
[J Jay Couey]: Yes.
[Dave Collum]: Yeah.
[J Jay Couey]: Can I be a creep and say I have to go?
[J Jay Couey]: I'm sorry.
[Dave Collum]: I do too, actually.
[Dave Collum]: Thanks, JJ.
[Dave Collum]: See you on Twitter.
[Stephen Frost]: Dave, you know each other, do you?
[J Jay Couey]: A little bit.
[J Jay Couey]: I think we're connected.
[Dave Collum]: We can reach each other when we want to.
[Dave Collum]: How's that?
[J Jay Couey]: I think he's heard me yell at Geert von den Bosch once about T-cells a long time ago.
[J Jay Couey]: That's how we crossed paths first.
[Stephen Frost]: Ah yes.
[Stephen Frost]: So you know he's a professor of chemistry then, Dave?
[Stephen Frost]: I do, yep.
[Stephen Frost]: Yeah, very good.
[Dave Collum]: My Twitter presence is unhealthy levels of presence.
[Dave Collum]: That's too much.
[Mark and Hermian Dyer]: Dave, before you go, I would like to introduce you to the joke on the foreskin.
[Mark and Hermian Dyer]: Okay, which my mother bought her a magazine which had a nude Reynolds in it and she was disappointed because he'd had his leg up so she couldn't see anything and it was in the center fold and she was saying you've got playboy and look at this, this is rubbish.
[Mark and Hermian Dyer]: And on the following page was an article about foreskin.
[Mark and Hermian Dyer]: And the lady said to the doctor, what do you do with the foreskins?
[Mark and Hermian Dyer]: And he said, we make handbags.
[Mark and Hermian Dyer]: You give them a quick rub, and you have a suitcase.
[Dave Collum]: Don't get me started.
[Dave Collum]: I used to be the joke master.
[Dave Collum]: I have 10,000 jokes.
[Dave Collum]: And they're all tasteless.
[Dave Collum]: I got to go.
[Dave Collum]: Thanks.
[J Jay Couey]: Until next time.
[Dave Collum]: Very good.