So everybody, welcome to today's.
meeting of Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
We're having an urgent announcement for five minutes to start before I introduce Jay Cooey, wonderful presenter, wonderful thinker, who's joining us today.
We're going to have five minutes from Craig Partycooper, who's presented to us twice before.
This group was founded over three years ago by Stephen Frost.
I'm Charles Cobis.
I'll do a shortened
I'll do a shortened invitation today.
We comprise lots of professions here, and we're from all around the world.
We recognize that we're in World War III, and that we're partway through World War III.
This is a free speech environment with appropriate moderating.
We reject the offense industry, and we reject the triggering industry.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are lovingly not interested.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you and enslaves you.
Love, on the other hand, expands you and liberates you.
So, thank you for being here.
The meeting is recorded, is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.
And before I introduce Jay Cooey, Craig Patacoupa, the next five minutes is yours.
We are all ears.
And Craig, we can see your screen.
Okay.
Can anyone?
Lovely, great.
Okay, so the headline is, and
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.
A message has been found in the X logo for the X platform, and it is of significant meaning to everyone.
The logo was made public initially in August 2023 on the X platform, when Elon took over from Twitter.
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.
So here is the message, here is the actual logo, which has been present on all phones since 2023 August.
When you zoom in, you can see that the scratch isn't a scratch.
It has letters and numbers, which comprise a message.
Initially, I didn't know what language it was in, but it's now been completely deciphered.
The actual line of message points to an image above the X, which I'll show you briefly what that is.
So, the central scratch is not a scratch, it's a message.
It consists of letters and numbers, it's been deciphered.
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,
Now, this is going to sound corny, but I'm just going to say what the facts are.
It reads... Hang on, Craig.
This is... Hang on, Craig.
We got to, it reads, and then you got stopped.
Start again.
It reads... Okay.
It reads...
666 in letters, not in numbers.
So you've got S-I-X, S-I-X, and S-I-X.
I've put a full document of this on my website, howbad.info, under the section COVID and Cult.
So people can look at it in detail and get zooming in on high-resolution images to see this.
And in between is an image that I can interpret this in detail in the files that I've provided.
This is the image that I was referring to between the sixes.
This is the only other thing in the message other than the sixes.
It consists of a person in a walking position with wearing shoes.
It's an upright walking position, but it has the head of a beast, a devil.
And it goes by a name beginning with two letters, E-L, followed by two spaces.
So it's a four-letter name beginning with E-L.
Now, concerning the image above the X, which is on everyone's phone, this is it.
And initially, I wasn't sure what it was, but then when we used high resolution, we can see
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.
You can see its eyes here and here, its nose, its mouth,
And there's a symmetry at 20 degrees to the vertical.
And you can see one of its ears here, which looks quite pointed.
Now, as bizarre as all this sounds, like a fairy tale, it's actually what's on everyone's phone.
And the interpretation is, the X, my interpretation now, is this.
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.
It's a traditional Christian symbol.
Here instead, it's the line going through it with the message 666 and that strange walking beast.
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.
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.
And this information isn't provided by anyone except the person who is taking part in the election.
So it's not provided by me, it's not provided by an opposition to them, it's provided by them themselves.
They're declaring who they are here.
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.
So, I've said that.
That's my newsflash.
At the bottom of the
I've provided links, so here you have, you can find this information under COVID and Colt.
I've created a document that's about 40 pages where I go into detail in analyzing the image.
I have like a video and a document.
So the video's on BitChute and the document is here.
And I'll invite everybody to at least take this into consideration regarding a self-declared identity
of the person who actually created this image.
So people should take it into consideration.
So therefore, whatever they decide, they decide.
Well done, Craig.
Thank you for all those links.
You've put those links into the chat, have you, Craig?
Okay, I'm going to go back to…
Just copy and paste while Jay starts.
Just copy and paste that into the chat, Craig.
Make it easy for people to access.
And he's frozen.
Yes, he is.
All right, so we've got those links.
I can put them into the chat.
and we'll get Craig.
Thank you for that.
If you can hear us, that is a newsflash and Craig will present more.
He will discuss with Stephen and I will stop his sharing there and
Jonathan J. Cooey.
I'm delighted to have you again to talk about the Human Genome Project.
Jay's bio is on the show notes.
For those of you who don't know who he is, he is a researcher and
Wonderful presenter, wonderful investigator.
And we thank you so much again, Jay, for joining us.
And thank you again, Stephen Frost, for creating this group and giving us an opportunity to speak the truth to each other.
Jay, over to you.
You can share your screen.
And you're the man.
Thank you very much again for the opportunity to speak.
I'm going to put myself over on the other side.
If you can't see this as one screen, you just have to change your view to speaker view.
So I want to take a look at this book which is called What is Life, Mind and Matter.
I put a link in the chat.
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.
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
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.
There's a there's another well.
This one's also a Cambridge version.
Maybe there's multiple ones anyway, I think that the reason why this book is so interesting is because it
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 Kulak and other people like Peter Hotez and others,
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.
Sorry, I thought my dog was going to come in here.
It's become sort of my life now.
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,
that we actually inherited these charlatans from our parents, that I realized that I needed to explore the consequences of that idea.
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
somehow able to go in front of a stage.
I think the best example that I have, I'm just going to take a cut right here.
I have little notes, and I'm just going to grab this notes here.
I'm going to drop this in the chat.
It is a YouTube video that I would like to assign to you as homework.
It is Adam Rutherford.
He is like a kind of used to be an academic scientist, but then became a science communicator.
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.
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
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
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.
And what's extraordinary is that I, as a professional biologist, was in that
well within this structure of ideas for a very, very long time.
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
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
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.
And for me, that's
That's where the rubber doesn't meet the road anymore.
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.
And yet, as an adult,
I started to realize that that kid was really not present when I was working at the university.
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
ten 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 ten-year professor is being able to
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.
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.
And it
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
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.
And you can feel good about it because you realize that it wasn't your fault.
It wasn't just because a couple people got it wrong in your particular biology class.
It's because there has been this trend, a wave of knowledge, a wave of
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.
And so that's why this book is so interesting.
This is the book.
Um, do I have to scroll up to the top?
Maybe, uh, let's see.
So I got this guy here.
I'll just scroll to the top.
This is What is Life by Erwin Schrodinger.
I think this is the one with the chicken on the front, isn't it?
Yeah, this is the one you can download from the archive.
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?
And it's a really important book.
You can find so many people who will highlight it as a seminal book in their reading.
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.
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.
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.
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.
as birds being an intimate connection to nature and to our health and to our understanding of our biology.
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.
but then understand that at the beginning of this revolution, we were being propelled forward.
Our greatest thinkers were chemists and physicists.
And so this guy acknowledges that and sort of, without even really knowing it, exposes the problem that's going on here.
And one of the terms that comes from this book is aperiodic crystal.
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.
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.
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,
And so the scary part would be, of course, or the assumption would be that he's going to use math to explain biology.
But the reason for this was not that he's not going to use math.
That's what he says here.
It's not going to be hardly utilized at all.
And why is that?
Well, it's because this subject cannot be explained with mathematics.
It's not fully accessible to mathematics.
And yet, at the same time in this book,
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?
Because that is
at the heart of it.
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.
You have to see that an organism is something that moves through space, it's a pattern integrity that remains integrism to and through time.
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
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
because they are the curators of the laws of physics and the laws of chemistry.
So if life is governed by these laws, then who better to convert to biology when biology is ready to accept that determinist outlook?
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.
And so if we scroll one page after this, this is page four at the top here, this is the assumption.
So the preliminary answer which this little book will endeavor to expound and establish can be summarized as follows.
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.
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.
And so it is very important to understand that that premise
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.
because the concept is very different than what it actually is.
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.
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.
All of those things are done using physics and chemistry means by which you take something that is very tiny,
then you attempt to make lots of it so that the presence of lots of it is interpretable at a single size level.
And that's what's so beautiful about the beginning of this book.
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,
in the right little sack and then just let them go, then billions of years later you'll have us.
And it only requires that you accept that there's no reason for doubting that just because we can't explain it now.
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.
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.
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.
Also on that list of GigaOM 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.
He is a Jesuit priest
who in the 30s, I'm going to get his history wrong, but it doesn't really matter.
In the 30s, he was actually kind of kicked out of the church or getting the Catholic church got angry at him.
Why?
Because he was really, really into that pith down man guy.
I don't know if you remember this, but there was something in the 20s or the 30s or the 40s.
You have to just look this up yourself.
I can just do it right now.
The Pithdown Man Summary is a fossilized remains that were discovered in 1912, and so he was around then.
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.
And this priest
took the pith down 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.
But this guy was really like, oh, this solves the problem.
Then the way that we were created was through evolution, and this idea of
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
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
cognitive unit, a no-sphere, and that would be the way that we would move forward.
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
swimming in groups of conscious thought, not water, but conscious thought.
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
divine duty to take command of this, to take control of this, to steward the stewardship of it.
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.
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,
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.
And so if I use that as a branch, then let me see if I can quickly jump over here.
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.
And this was published in Nature, I think, in 2001.
And so I think it's just really telling to read the first part here.
The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century.
The opening weeks of the 20th century.
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.
And so what we're seeing here is a very disingenuous misrepresentation even of what Mendel's Laws mean.
And one of the many things that I wanted to cover
I think everybody in this chat would have heard of the Habsburgs, for example.
The Habsburgs, I think, were a very, very, very rich family in Europe for a very long time, but they were also incredibly inbred.
And I don't think anybody in the historian sect would say that what resulted there was good.
There were crazy people, there were sick people, there were sterile people.
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.
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.
And the illusion of this is that Mendel just got pea plants out and started breeding them together and it was all good.
And that's an absolute lie.
Mendel spent a long time breeding pea plants that started to show consistent traits.
It's not that he just started with pea plants with wrinkles and pea plants without wrinkles and then did these studies and voila, I wrote the book.
that's not how it worked.
He first had to breed these plants long enough so that the traits were consistent.
Then, when he bred them together, he could see these sorting ratios.
Now, if you understand, then, that there are certain phenotypes, there are certain attributes that might, by coincidence,
be sortable in that way, sort in that mathematically neat way if you create, let's say, clean enough genetic signals.
And so in the case of the Habsburgs, there were probably several combinations of genes that would stand out as, wow, these are bad.
And if we looked at other people who have these symptoms, it looks like that's a bad combination of genes.
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.
And that's where the bamboozlement happened here.
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.
And what is a knockout mouse?
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.
And so you'd knock out a protein and if you got lucky enough and the mouse lived
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.
And because you're working on an inbred mouse line, the background noise is very low.
The signal is very consistent across animals.
And so if these genes are, these proteins are present or not present, it's very easy to screen for that.
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.
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.
And in that same video, Adam Rutherford actually says that humans are actually quite inbred.
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.
And that cells are the smallest unit of life, and cells come from other cells, except
at the origin of life.
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.
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?
The idea that... How did that work?
The idea that something that's endemic is impossible to tell from something that was already in the background.
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.
This four-dimensional family tree or whatever that they propose is where we came from.
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.
So this implication, I can give you one example.
This is just, again, endemicity versus background.
You can't tell the difference because you don't have any data.
We don't have any data from what animals were on the planet in 1600, and a good survey of them.
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
on any of those timescales.
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.
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
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.
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,
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
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.
It's no different.
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.
But the bottom line is that none of these animals are anything but contemporaries of the process that they claim they came from.
And they have no evidence that that's the case.
And it's extraordinary because, again, remember that all of these assumptions are wholly based, in my humble opinion, on these bricks.
That these main foundational cornerstone bricks are that the DNA is the code for life,
And therefore, it's just a matter of time before we are able to understand it, use it, manipulate it, improve it.
And everything else is an assumption.
All the spending is an assumption.
All of the grant calls assume this.
Everything.
It's all based on this.
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
Jeans and jeans 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.
These wonderful cartoons and and all of these elaborate animations.
And you in that same video that I assign you for homework he will at some point.
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
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.
We don't have electron microscopy flash by flash pictures of what's going on there.
That's all imaginary stuff.
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.
It's no different than this.
You can draw this picture, it doesn't make it right.
And you can publish the human genome and say that you did something, but it doesn't mean that you did.
And so in this thing, they even admit it, that much work remains to be done to produce a complete finished sequence.
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.
But I just don't think that it's true.
And this is the reason why, because I want to go back to
Schrodinger because on page 21 and again, you got to read the whole book.
The whole book is just mesmerizing It's gonna go a little bit farther here
So the physical laws rest on atomic statistics and are therefore only approximate is one of the first things you really need to understand.
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,
is understood from the perspective of, if you have enough of these molecules, then the attributes of them start to become obvious.
And without enough of them, the noise of the system is too great, you can't say anything about it.
And so physics requires there to be enough particles around for them to see anything or do anything with them, and the number of
particles that are involved increases our accuracy in terms of our ability to predict what the system will do.
This thinking has been applied to the physics and chemistry of life, and these assumptions are how they purport to understand us.
There's a couple different examples that he uses there.
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.
There's also this discussion about diffusion and sinking fog, which is also very enlightening.
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.
And so in the second part, he's talking about the hereditary mechanism.
and what the problem is.
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.
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,
but the whole of its ontogenetic development from the fertilized egg cell to the stage of maturity when the organism begins to reproduce itself.
Now, this whole four-dimensional pattern is known to be determined by the structure of that one cell, the fertilized egg.
Known to be determined.
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.
That's it.
Right?
So what is he going to say down here then?
And this is the trick.
Every complete set of chromosomes contains the full code.
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.
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.
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.
But the term codescript, of course, is too narrow.
The chromosome structures are at the same time instrumental in bringing about the development they foreshadow.
They are law, code, and executive power.
Or, to use another simile, they are the architect's plan and the builder's craft in one.
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.
That's it.
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,
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.
That is the builder's craft.
And if this is going to be contained in this single code, then we're missing a whole large part of it.
And biologists around the world have known this for a long time.
And honestly, I feel very humbly I can say that I've known it for a long time, too.
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.
Desjardins, you don't read Schrodinger, you don't read Jonas Salk's Survival of the Wisest, where they say exactly the same thing.
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.
This is the natural evolution of us as thinking individuals.
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.
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
twisting our language around so that we can't use it effectively to fight out.
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.
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.
And so the idea that these physicists and chemists hoped would occur and manifest because of the discovery of DNA has failed miserably.
And the start of that failure goes all the way back to the announcement of the completion of the Human Genome Project.
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
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.
And most of the basic
methodologies that are responsible for all the biologics in the world, all the sequencing technologies, all of this stuff, he was involved in it.
And if you go down to the discussion here, I want you to point out that the idea of this actually started at the Department of Energy.
And I don't know if anyone's aware that's not in the United States.
The Department of Energy is the highest level of security.
And in fact, this is a direct admission
that it descends from the same funding and the same secrecy that DITRA comes from, that the State Department uses, and that all of the Manhattan Project used.
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.
And most of those, that's just traceable history that just nobody traces back.
And so if I just kind of
humbly submit that I don't know.
I just know that this has been exaggerated for a long time.
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.
Yet that is the truth that's presented in Biology 101 and in high school biology, and it traps people.
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
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.
And I am sorry, but after
After being a biologist for 20 years, I just didn't get it.
I didn't get it, and now I actually think I do.
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
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.
And we are still working firmly within those ideas, which are rooted in physics thinking, and probability thinking, and big numbers thinking.
And that's a real dangerous place for our kids to grow up.
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.
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.
This is my, I really believe it's my sixth time speaking.
So I want to leave it at this.
Understand that also there was a lot of biology around bacteriophages and a lot of principles of bacteriophages that have remained, assumed that a
a similar relationship would exist between us and similar particles.
And that insistence is also a false basis for this viral contagion idea and hiding this basic transfection and transformation.
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.
of a
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.
And I think that's really where we are.
They need more data.
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.
But I don't think that's the case.
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.
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.
It's just not there yet.
We're not going to get there probably, and I don't think it's necessary, honestly.
Anyway.
Well, Jay, loved it, loved it, not disappointed at all.
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.
And so thank you for, we'll call this the confession of JJ.
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.
So the sheer ego of people saying this is how it works, it's lovely to be reminded of that.
You know, there's lots of them.
And I just say there's that in the same list of things to download.
There's a book by Dennis Noble called Understanding Living Systems.
He's a guy from the UK who's been around for a long time.
He's still at it.
You know, these one of many dudes who this is me discovering that there were a lot of people out there.
It's not my idea.
It's not my idea at all.
I'm just happy to be a part of the the awakening to it.
Thanks, Jay.
So, Stephen, the next 15 minutes is yours.
We've got lots of hands up.
Let's go with you, Stephen.
So, JJ, I sense that this is really important, but I haven't really been thinking about it, I must admit.
I just was thinking as you were talking,
What do you think is true?
So do you believe in evolution, and is evolution inconsistent with a belief in God?
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.
Well, whether human beings evolved from animals.
No, I don't know that, no, I don't, I guess.
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.
So essentially the same scenario as we've had in the last five years.
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.
Apparently the labs can appear anywhere.
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?
Is it just cults gone mad or what?
And so where does Darwin fit in this?
Charles Darwin, you know, the origin of the species?
Yeah, Charles Darwin didn't think that his theory explained all the way back to the mud puddle.
I mean, and he knew that.
A lot of his contemporaries knew that.
I think, I mean, you know, I was in preparation for this.
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,
was because I think it's a really bigger idea than that.
I mean, I found a paper where they tried to describe all the major phylogenies of spiders.
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.
Or you could think of those as snapshots of a continuum of change and waves of expression of all the same basic
biological pattern.
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.
So again, I feel like the lack of data from anywhere but now
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.
And it just, for me, it's all starting to drive me nuts because I know that the exaggeration is multi-generational.
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.
And he's been projecting for a long time because he's very, very smart.
And he's, you know, I don't know, I use math or something.
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.
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.
It's the same
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.
I mean, it's just absurd.
These statements are absurd.
Absolutely.
The Human Genome Project is part of that.
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.
I agree with you.
So we have to examine, think about everything, but we are actually just like them.
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.
And we live on
one planet in one solar system, and the nearest solar system to ours is four light years away, Sirius, I think it is.
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.
It's just incredible, isn't it?
So is that true, do you think?
I don't know.
If it is true, allegedly true, how do some people get to say that?
And at the same time, Elon Musk is talking about
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.
So four light years is a huge distance if you're traveling by anything that a man made.
And that's the nearest solar system.
So quite where Elon Musk is going in his interplanetary travel or intersolar system travel, I don't know.
And in what machine?
Or is he talking about being kind of going through time?
Do you know?
No, I don't know.
I mean, honestly, I think it's all just
It's all hamster wheels, unfortunately.
And I think if we if we wake up to it soon enough, our kids can get out of the trap.
We're not going to get out of this trap.
It's like a moving thing.
So, JJ, what do you think is at the moment, what do you think is true now?
Everything that you thought was true is coming apart.
But what do you think is still true now?
I mean, there are probably an irreducible complexity of small genetic signals in the background in our world.
And what does that mean to the layman?
that no matter what small sample you took, you're probably gonna be able to find some genetic material in it.
And these people have just like, you know, if you put food out in your backyard, you're gonna get birds in the backyard.
That doesn't mean that those birds have all kinds of significance for your life.
And I really think that if you look using their tools and their techniques, which essentially are not very good, because again,
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.
So that if they have enough of your cells and they isolate the nuclei, then they have lots of copies of the same molecule.
And that's one of the only ways that they can get a lot of it.
If they don't have a lot of it, just like any other
physical or chemical process.
If you don't have enough molecules, you don't know what's going on.
If you don't have enough atoms, you don't have any attributes.
It's not a gas or a liquid.
And if you don't have enough of these biomolecules, you can't tell what the sequence is.
And so with DNA, if you don't have enough of it, you can't sequence it.
So all of this process of saying what was in the cell is based on making orders of magnitude more
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, not in a bad way, but you're being honest, and you could write a book entitled
what we know, you know, and we could agree on what we actually do know and what we don't know.
So I'm now wondering whether it's 93 million miles to the sun, our sun.
Are there hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe?
Don't know.
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?
And that's just beyond our comprehension.
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.
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.
And that to me is maybe
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?
There's a lot of this that bothers me now because America is in shambles and our infrastructure is all but withered away.
And we have accepted all of the reality that they've given us from the pandemic and the stakes going forward.
And if we can't free our children from this, they're going to grow up with an inordinate amount of fear and uncertainty.
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.
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.
But no human beings have to say, oh yeah, we do know.
No, we don't know.
We cannot avoid death.
That tells me nobody can avoid death, as far as I can see, and that is true.
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.
Think about this one just for an anecdote.
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.
And so it's very easy for me to imagine that we have been very inaccurate in our division of where
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
all the molecular data that supposedly supports that is done in yeast.
And so it's just a model of, and then supposedly what happens in humans is a homologous molecular mechanism.
And so much of our genetic understanding and our viral understanding is actually the assumption
that what we know about bacteria and bacteriophages has a homologous system in our own.
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.
JJ, do you know anything about a concept known as singularity, which is a
a very small, infinitely dense entity, as far as I can understand.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly.
Amazing, isn't it?
All right, let's go to questions.
Thank you, Charles.
Yes, very good.
Well done.
I was wondering a bit there.
Dave Raznick, we've got lots of hands up, lots of conversation to be had.
So Dave, over to you.
Dave's going to ask you some hard questions now, JJ.
Oh, no.
The first thing I'm going to say is congratulations, man.
That is very, very interesting and entertaining.
You did a great job.
First, can you all hear me?
The screen froze up there.
Yeah, we can all hear you, David.
OK, good.
All right.
Yeah, Jay, I actually came late 90s.
I came pretty much the same conclusion that you did recently, I guess.
But it had to do with when I started working on cancer.
And I'm not going to go into all those details.
I'm writing a book, and it's got a lot of stuff in it about that.
And just a couple of interesting things I want to share with everybody once I realize the unimportance of individual genes and the DNA and all that, much less important in the realm that people think it is.
Some of the specifics that I've learned, I'm not a genetics guy.
I'm a protein guy, basically, but I follow a lot of this stuff.
And when I was looking at the human genome and the other genome projects, I was following it.
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.
And 99% of them are functionally equivalent, all right?
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?
That's just a facetious question, but I'm pointing this out.
I'm using it as an analogy.
The genes in the genome is basically a dictionary, a biological dictionary.
It just so happens, last I looked, the Oxford English Dictionary has 23 volumes.
And the human dictionary, we have 23 chromosomes.
And the mice have 20 chromosomes, but we have the same 20,000 genes.
So basically, what's going on is that there's a total complete mystery.
This is totally, totally complete.
If I wasn't a scientist, but I could easily sympathize with people, think there's something spiritual going on here.
OK, we've got this dictionary, but we don't have a clue
what turns those words in the biological dictionary into a human, over here, and a mouse over there,
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.
I thoroughly, much, much more appreciated
the road that you took to come where I am too.
I totally accept.
I feel like I'm a brother with you on this whole thing.
So I'll shut up now.
I said what I wanted to say.
Good to hear from you, Dick.
Thank you.
Nice, David.
Well done, David.
It's a good, nice initials you've got here from someone with a PhD, D-R.
All right.
John.
John Lukacs.
Hey, JJ.
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.
I'd like to hear maybe your take on this, whatever your opinion is.
One of them is about DNA in general.
I can't quote anybody for this idea.
I think I maybe came to it myself, but there's this idea that
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.
You can't really experiment on it.
I don't really know if you agree with that, but I'd be interested in knowing what you think of it.
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
you know, just terribly unreliable.
So, you know, I think Darwin based a lot of his model on Mendel.
And, you know, it's just this continuum where, you know, what we're calling genetics now was, you know, previously rebranded from eugenics.
And from there, we get bioethics.
I mean, it's just a big downward, you know, a hill into the abyss, right?
Yeah, I didn't know when you wanted me to jump in there, but... Well, I'm just trying to not load you up.
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.
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.
But that doesn't mean that that principle holds true to understand us
has a pattern integrity.
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.
But that it doesn't explain how the whole car works or anything like that.
And so I feel very strongly that this is a trap that they're
getting us to say that, you know, genes determine everything, including sex, as if they're smart and they understand biology.
And of course, it's genes.
And that's a very dangerous trap.
And it only dawned on me in the last few weeks that that trap.
In fact, look, I even have a I even bought something the other day.
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
way to get people to think that this holds true for all traits then.
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.
And that's the deal.
Right.
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.
Mine is that it's all crap.
I don't know where you fall on that, but I think, you know,
not to overly reduce it, but consciousness doesn't reside in the brain.
I think most people would agree with that.
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.
I just think it's a, you know, it's an easy sci-fi concept to get caught up in.
And a lot of people are caught up in this and I can't talk them out of it.
Most of them, they're just insistent.
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
your mud puddle organisms have about 100,000 genes, and the human cells today have about 30,000.
And Swartzen, what's his name, these
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.
And this is fairly recent knowledge about the number of genes and this adaptability that human cells have.
And this is why we've become so different in the last millennium, in the last couple of hundred years.
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.
These were tiny people.
I mean, if you were 5'5 in 1830, you were a big person.
A six-footer was unheard of in the 1830s.
Their beds were tiny.
Their shoes were tiny.
But anyway, I wanted to ask you about the number of genes in the human cell today and its adaptability.
And I want to see if you're familiar with this book.
The Mind and the Brain, Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force, 2002, Swartz and Sharon Begley.
Anyway, it's just, this book is a treasure trove of this information about geneticism.
So anyway, I thought maybe you...
The main thing is the number of human genes today, and the number of human genes in your mud puddle organisms.
It's a lot to unpack there, because again, we kind of
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.
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
taking place.
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.
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.
And there's going to be fire, but we're not going to get anywhere.
And so I think, like I was and still maybe am, by discussing this, you know, those people were smaller.
Well, did they eat what we eat?
Did they have access to the food that we do?
Did they have access to the medicines that we do?
How many of them, you know, and how does our height look now?
How does our fat content look now?
And how is that, is that genes or what people are eating?
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?
And so there's lots of
pluses and minuses.
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.
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
I don't know.
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,
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.
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.
So you don't accept this adaptability theory of our cells discarding genes?
The crocodiles have the same genes.
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.
And so it may be that there's an adaptability, but it's not an adaptability where you discard genes.
You just don't read some books sometimes.
And in other generations, you read those books.
And that is a kind of flexibility that is not a part of the Human Genome Project model.
It's not a part of this model where you look for genetic diseases and then apply that thinking to understanding a healthy human.
That's a completely different way of thinking.
So what you're onto is in that same general direction that I think we need to go.
So don't, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to see if I can show you.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, that's very good.
Very good, thank you.
Yep.
Thank you, thank you, Mav.
Albert.
AJ, how you doing?
Could be worse.
Hey, I got about three or four questions I'm going to ask real fast.
And I'm a simple Christian, so I apologize in advance for some of these questions.
But I believe that God made the baby perfect.
So with that, I was wondering if you thought autism or cancer was hereditary?
What is an immortal gene do you think is really cancer?
And what is aliquoting?
And do you believe in conferred immunity?
And
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?
And you reached out and you pulled out a big book.
And I would like to have that name again, because you said it was very expensive.
But I don't know if you remember that.
But anyways, those were my questions, Jay.
I really appreciate your brainpower.
You're very sweet.
I'm knocking everything down here.
Let me pull these books over here.
The book that you're referring to, I'll go backwards, is there's two of them.
that I think are really cool.
And this literature always gets assembled in a weird way.
I don't know why.
There's a... I can go over here.
JJ, you used to have a book on a table near where you sit, which was absolutely massive.
And a few people asked me, what's that big book on JJ's table?
Oh, it depends.
If it's the one behind me, I've got a great big cabinet.
No, it was open.
It was open.
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.
That Catholic Bible's from like 1890.
So underneath here, is that the visible one?
Can you see that camera?
Yeah.
So this book is edited by Gunther Wazany and it's called Biocommunication and Natural Genome Editing.
A lot of this book is actually viruses and endogenous viruses in different systems.
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
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.
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.
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.
Optogenetics is a thing that a lot of people are talking about lately, and there's usually a picture with a blue
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.
So let's understand what optogenetics are and understand why this is complete bullshit.
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.
is an adenovirus-based transformation of an algal protein found in chloroplasts, which is actually a blue light-gated sodium channel.
How's that for a long list of words that I just pulled out of my head?
Essentially what it is is that neuroscientists have wanted a non-invasive way to control neuronal behavior,
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.
It's been a little while since I taught this.
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,
and then they send an electrical signal along their axon.
And at the end of the axon, there's a release of neurotransmitter onto the receiving neuron.
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.
And that's how the brain works.
It's neurons going through this depolarization.
So promoting it like gene on, gene off, you know, blue, green.
So optogenetics is a,
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.
So they take that gene and they put it in an adenovirus using traditional pharmaceutical manufacturing methods,
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.
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.
And when you shine blue light on the neuron by a hole in the head,
you can make the neurons go bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
Or if you shine a little less blue light, you can get them to go bang, bang, bang.
You shoot a little less blue light, you can get them to go bang.
And so then you can do a really bright pulse and you can get everybody to go at once.
And that's it.
That's what optogenetics is.
And so we're able to drive that into different neurons based on what genes they might express.
We might be able to put it in different places, depending on where we squirted the identifiers.
Yeah, this is my point.
You're trying to conflate that into we can make you think the way we want to.
And that's absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, that's right.
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.
And that's just not at all what's going on.
So then you asked about immortal genes.
There's just two anecdotal stories I'd like to bring up here.
Most of the what are called immortal cell lines still need to be renewed from previous passages.
So what's the best way to say this?
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 key hats, and that's not a good analogy.
Hold on a second.
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.
When you grow cells in a laboratory, you grow them in a dish.
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.
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.
They make
put some virus on them or whatever the hell they do with them.
Anyway, the point is, is that that's not an infinite process.
I've been in those laboratories before.
I've done a lot of biophysics experiments on potassium channels in cell lines that were immortal.
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.
That's the reality.
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.
I'm almost positive that's true, but I'd be happy to be told I'm wrong.
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,
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 Sukrit last week, but I did it slower with a little more detail and specifically aimed at Ron Johnson.
You might not be aware, but one of the most
used cell lines in pharmaceuticals and biotech and in academia is the fibroblast.
And fibroblasts are generated exclusively from the never-ending supply of foreskin that comes from American hospitals, has remnant material.
Now, at first, you might think, oh, that's all right.
It's religious, I guess, or something like that.
But it's not.
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.
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.
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.
I know for a fact that a large majority of the young males that I grew up with are fully
They have nothing.
And this is a biology discussion, so I'm not trying to get graphic here.
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,
for all practical purposes, converted to Islam so that he could marry this Turkish woman.
And I assure you that whatever was removed didn't go to a medical remnants sale and get derived into cell culture material.
because there is a pipeline of this coming from American hospitals, and it has been for a long time.
So are there immortal genes?
Honestly, I don't know, because I do know that most of the cell culture material that's used in America is not immortal.
even if they tell you it is, you should question this notion.
And if I'm proven wrong, that only means that all of us will have learned it better.
But I would be willing to bet it's not.
Aliquoting is just when you have a sample like sugar
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.
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.
Any kind of thing like that would be aliquoting.
It's not a very special word.
And then good virus versus bad virus.
I guess that was the question about the book, so I showed that first.
I hope that was good.
Was that what you had?
This is Dave.
I'd like to interject something since you're talking about immortal cells.
I know a lot about them.
Would that be all right?
That would be great.
Thank you.
Yes, please clear this up.
Okay.
The immortal cell lines are all, all of them are aneuploid, meaning they have unbalanced chromosomes.
Not all, not all aneuploid cells live forever, but all immortal cell lines like the HeLa cell line, that was the very first one.
All right.
They're immortal.
I mean, the immortal ones are aneuploid.
The diploid ones, the euploid ones, will always have this Hayflick limit.
They'll divide maybe 50 to 70 fold, and then they'll slow down and stop dividing.
They'll fall apart and everything.
So that's all I wanted to say.
The immortal cell lines have to be aneuploid.
I see.
Well, thank you for that.
Thank you, Dave.
Thanks, Albert.
Good job, Laz.
Charles, can I just ask, David, they have to be what, David?
What did you say?
What was that word?
Aneuploid.
What does that mean?
Aneuploid.
Euploid means balanced.
You get one complete set of chromosomes from the mother, another complete set of chromosomes from the father for a balanced set.
Humans would be 23 plus 23 is 46.
Aneuploid would be like Down syndrome, where they got three chromosome 21s.
That's Down syndrome, all right?
So this unbalanced set of chromosomes aneuploid means not a euploid.
It's not euploid, which means it's not balanced.
Did I answer that for you?
Yeah, so what is the significance of that then?
Well,
You know, I'm a cancer researcher, and I know a lot about this because cancer cells always are aneuploid.
There's no such thing as a diploid cancer cell.
Doesn't exist.
In other words, all cancer cells have unbalanced chromosomes.
And it's like shuffling a deck of cards.
Whereas normal human cells always have the exact same composition of 23 and 23, 23 from the mother, 23 from the father.
Cancer cells never have a balance set.
And there's no two cancer cells that have the exact same complement of chromosomes.
All of them are different.
They're like snowflakes.
You know them when you see them, but you never see the same one twice.
Yeah.
So if the,
So if these things are aneuploid, which you ended up saying, what does that mean?
Does that mean that they're disorganized or...?
They're unbalanced.
And what's the significance of that?
That's what I'm trying to...
Well, usually, if you're talking about higher organisms, like mammals, like we are, those cells typically die.
If they get unbalanced, they might live a little while, but they're damaged cells.
All aneuploid cells are damaged.
None of them are supercells.
So why would they use damaged cells, David?
The aneuploid cells are very unstable.
Whenever they divide, they rearrange their chromosomes.
And at some point, they evolve to the point where they live in cell culture, for example, like the HeLa cells.
The HeLa cells were first discovered in cell culture.
And they can just grow forever in the laboratory.
And cancer cells, and they can evolve.
Normal cells do not evolve in cell culture.
Aneuploid cells evolve.
They evolve to become drug resistant.
Most of them will die, but some of them will actually become drug resistant.
That's where drug resistance comes from in cancers.
It comes from a certain population of these aneuploid cancer cells
survive chemotherapy, radiation, whatever, and then they come back later when you stop it.
That's where it comes from.
So David, why would they use aneuploid cells in your opinion?
because you can get them commercially.
It's the euploid cells that are very, very difficult to come by.
I mean, take it the other way around.
The euploid cells can only grow a limited amount of time in the cell culture, where aneuploid cells, you can grow them forever, basically.
So all the research they're doing then is arguably invalid because the
That's what I was trying to get out of you, David.
That's exactly what I was trying to get out of you.
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.
So it's fraud then?
Well, no.
Fraud implies that you consciously are trying to mislead.
Well, maybe they are doing this stuff.
We're going on a little bit too long on this.
I mean, we're taking away from what I know.
I mean, no, David, I'm just trying to.
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.
Why don't you guys invite me and I'll give a whole talk about this?
I'd be happy to do it.
Oh yes, can you remember what the topic is, though?
Aneuploidy.
You'll have to remind me.
OK.
So David, if you email me, that will remind me, OK?
OK.
Thanks.
That's great.
Sorry, everybody.
No, it's OK.
Otherwise we wouldn't have understood what Annie Broyd meant.
Nobody would have understood.
I thought it was just me.
Okay, thank you.
Charles.
Oh, Charles is gone.
So Lars, it's your go, as far as I can see.
Hello, Lars.
Good to see you.
Hi, good to see you.
Your speech at G. Edward Griffin's Red Pill Expo was fantastic.
And you have only accelerated from there.
It's fascinating to follow you.
I thought I would ask a question about... Sorry, Lars, whose speech was that?
I'm so sorry.
JJ gave a speech in South Dakota that was very, very good.
Yeah.
And he has improved every time since then.
So yeah.
Now, I thought I would ask questions about the inability of
RNA to replicate and pandemic, but this is not the topic of the day.
So I will ask you another question.
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.
as being the engine of evolutionary change.
Have you seen that?
I'll put one... Please put a link in the chat.
I am not familiar with it.
Honestly, this is me, you know, just... It's actually very, very interesting.
I don't understand it, but you will understand it.
So I'll just put it in the chat.
Yeah, I got it.
That's a popular article, but if you follow Professor Kimura, you will read some very interesting stuff, actually.
Very good.
Oh, this is wonderful.
Thank you.
Oh, no.
He's a colleague of Robert Oppenheimer.
Oh, no.
It's exactly the same group of men.
It's fantastic.
Well done.
Okay.
This is going to be a good piece of the puzzle.
This is awesome.
Have you got a question for JJ?
Yeah, well, I would like to find the scientific proof or the suggestions why RNA cannot replicate to become pandemic.
I just want the scientific papers.
I can call you tomorrow.
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.
It's a really nice guy.
He's a very popular dude, Adam Rutherford.
And the first 25 minutes, you can listen to it even at double speed and really
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
that has gotten us from the mud puddle billions of years later to us.
And that, his reliant 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.
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
double-stranded nature of that molecule.
And by definition, single-stranded, positive-strand RNA viruses lack this.
And the only protein that they argue circumvents this huge shortcoming is a protein that only their drug remdesivir interacts with.
It's not possible.
It's absolutely not possible.
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,
RNA doesn't have that.
So that's the main argument for me.
But I can help with more specific things, maybe those papers, for example.
If I call the leading professor at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm in microbiology and suggest what you just said to us, will he agree?
Will he understand?
Or will he
I would be happy if you would get me a Zoom meeting with him and you and me.
I would love to do that.
Yeah, I mean really.
That would be great.
In fact, Lars, you could come and speak to us.
Get JJ, the professor from Karolinska, and you, you can be the moderator.
And we need to crack through this now.
Yeah, we really do need to crash through this.
You have the answers.
We just need to break through in reality.
A lot of people have the answers.
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.
And that would be wonderful, right?
If these kinds of people would carry that flag forward for us, we'd really have something.
So, Lars, can you set up a discussion like that and moderate it?
I'll see if he's interested.
Yeah, he will be.
It could be that they know the truth and are scared.
That could be.
Oh, yes.
Well, ask him nicely then, Lars.
Go and see him.
I tried to be nice.
Thank you, JJ.
You're very welcome.
Very good.
Thanks, Lars.
Jenna?
Yeah, just a couple of comments and a question.
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.
He wrote a book entitled Why Us in 2009, in which he explains that the survival of the fittest
evolution theory is only unproven, and he gives examples where there are no intermediate forms that confer a survival advantage.
So, for example, there is no intermediate stage between quadrupedal and bipedal that confers a survival advantage.
So that breaks the link, really, between animals and humans.
Can you say the last name again?
James Le Fanu, L-E-F-A-N-U, James Le Fanu.
And he talks about there being no intermediate stages in the development of the eye, which confers a survival advantage as well.
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.
I can't remember his first name, but he was the dean of the biology department.
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.
But what about the lack of intermediate, like, usefulness of the eye, and how many times vision has evolved?
And he stuttered and stammered and
It was one of the most like, oh, darn, I didn't mean to hurt you.
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.
And he couldn't give it a very good.
He was not prepared for that.
It was really funny.
So I'm happy that you mentioned I haven't heard the book, but I'll get it.
Yeah.
My question is,
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?
Is it still a concept and is its function still a mystery?
I mean, I absolutely think that's probably the case.
The other thing to consider is the idea that the code could be somehow unimaginably layered to us.
Sorry, layered but invisible to us.
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.
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.
Um, it is not entirely ridiculous.
And I don't, I don't necessarily disbelieve the idea that, that within the nucleus they were able to identify.
molecules of DNA that seem to correspond to sequences that maybe can be related to proteins, and that central dogma in some way exists.
I'm not arguing that in some ways that's not true.
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
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.
And that's the part that I think I was trapped in a lot of my
my colleagues are still trapped in because we all took the same lessons from the same people who already were trapped in it.
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.
And that's what's very enticing about it.
What is junk DNA then?
If there isn't- Well, I think it's just a bad name for it.
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?
Okay.
And I think that's the way to think about it.
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
any other possibilities that we haven't considered that go beyond this list of characters, right?
Yeah, yeah.
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.
And these babies in America in particular are circumcised shortly after birth without anesthetic.
And even though they were very tiny, a number of these babies actually, when they grow up, they actually have post-traumatic stress disorder.
And I did a research project on this.
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.
And there are some
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
their own emotions.
I just wanted to say thank you for mentioning that.
I would love it if you would send me an email or something.
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
who could think deeply about their circumstances.
When that happens, on the other hand, you don't know any different, and so you're not aware, number one, of whatever potential
sort of psychological effects would be there, but you're also not aware of the context.
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.
There are a lot of kids that have scars from this, because you're not just
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.
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.
Absolutely true.
I know for sure it's true simply because I grew up with kids of both conditions.
And so it's burnt into my head.
I have years of showering with these kids.
So I know the difference, definitely.
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.
And it's brought a lot of relief to a lot of men.
So, oh, I've never heard of that before.
That's crazy.
Wow.
OK.
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.
It's just gotten better and better in America.
Yeah.
And what is your email address?
I'll put it in the chat right now.
Thank you.
So JJ, Janet's a British doctor.
Nice.
I'm very excited to meet you.
And likewise.
There you go.
I think, whoops, did I do that?
No, I didn't.
What the hell just happened there?
And she helped with David Kelly, but also worked on doctors for Assange as well.
so she understands.
Oh, Tom, are you next?
I think Tom's next, yep.
Yeah, I can go.
Yeah, thanks as usual.
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.
Made by a blind watchmaker.
Oh, okay.
All right.
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.
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.
Cause we need to like tell stories to people that.
that are uninformed and I think that's part of transfection and maybe you could hit on that.
The other one is
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.
And I heard someone in that meeting describing that as a process that only replicates the DNA and does not replicate any proteins.
I don't know if you, so that's something to comment on.
Oh, and then Michael Palmer speculated
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
There was a woman that was doing the presentation and her name is Anna S. Ulreich.
I believe Martina, who's here, also watched this.
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 um mahalsia who believes that there's um blinky lights and nanobots and emf and
intra-body communication between the nanopods and oh wow yeah okay that's a good one um yeah well wait let me just oh yeah go ahead look back and say that professor uh anna all right 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
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.
In the use of a lipid nanoparticle in transfection, you're going to have what is endocytosis of the
of the lipid nanoparticles.
Also, I think you could describe the uptake of a adenovirus particle as endocytosis, although maybe there are people who would argue with that.
I don't think it's a very specific term.
I think it can be broadly applied.
Self-replicating RNA is... DNA.
Sorry, but the mRNA is actually what they're doing in Japan.
I don't think it's... Oh, okay.
All right.
And so the self-replicating RNA is actually, as far as we can discern, they're using a viral
RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
And I can't remember off the top of my head what one it is, but I know that it's in the paper.
You can see they did just take it from some pathogen that has an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
And then they're putting that in the same mRNA construct as the antigen RNA.
And then their argument is that they would have to give you less lipid nanoparticle and less
chemically altered mRNA because this chemically altered RNA will replicate itself.
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.
But if you take a mRNA
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
you're making a non-protected or non-chemically altered RNA, which won't go through.
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
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.
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.
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.
And I think it's probably a gross over-exaggeration of even the potential
best-case scenario of joining an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase to another transcript and then thinking that that was going to somehow work out.
If anything, to me, quite honestly, I would say, Tom, that this almost seems to edify the idea that
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.
And so we're at a stage now where they have always been trying to play with this system.
And so in playing with this system, they've told us stories like AIDS.
They've told us stories like chronic fatigue syndrome.
They've told us stories like Epstein-Barr virus.
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
with health and evolution and disease and sickness and conspecific signaling.
They probably even know it has to do with whether you are attracted to your mate and enjoy kissing her.
So for me, the issue is that confusion
and the implication that they have already developed these high-fidelity molecular tools that they can make and use on people.
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.
And so I have to believe that this is almost exclusively exaggeration, and that's why
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.
So Michael Palmer's saying it's an irritation of the endothelium.
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.
And it's very likely that this is a possibility.
But again, I don't think there's any reason to
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.
And transfecting the endothelium will have all kinds of terrible consequences and maybe one of them is a activation of the clotting mechanism.
Remember that, in case you have forgotten,
The transfection agents that are listed in all of the papers previous to the pandemic, one of the the.
The overarching themes was that where they went was then where they meant them to go.
So when lipid nanoparticles first came out and they started using them, they realized that almost all of them went to the liver.
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.
And another place that they went that they said that they could be useful for was platelets.
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.
So I think Sukrit Bhakti would be better to talk about that than me and then the nanobot light lady
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.
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.
Light microscopy can make dust look interesting, it can make dirt look interesting, it can make dirt look alive.
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.
I was just absolutely livid
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.
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.
And this is just the very beginning of it.
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,
then it's most likely bullshit.
I'm sorry, but it is.
And I think that lady was very much not looking at what she said she was looking at.
And I don't know anything about the signals.
Some people are purporting that there's some kind of code that comes out of these things.
I don't know what they call it anymore, but I don't know.
MAC address.
Yeah, MAC address, that's right.
So two more things, well, maybe a couple of statements and you can contradict them if they're wrong.
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.
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.
And so he says, no graphene, and so does the professor Ulreich.
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
50 to nanometer Nanolipid particles and interleaved in there now.
I I heard it was in some cases I heard multiple strands of mRNA and other cases.
I just heard one I don't know so there's that and then here's a thought experiment.
Let's say you did let's say it was 2017 and
And you had a lateral flow test that you got from the grocery store.
Would the background interactions in the population generate any positives?
That's what I think.
I think that's definitely what would happen.
Obviously, we can't go back in time and do it.
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.
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.
Um, but even the lateral flow, the grocery store test, not the PCR.
Yeah.
The lateral flow test too.
I mean, how do, how do we know, um,
How do we know that they're not testing for an endogenous protein?
Because again, when you buy one of those tests, you're trusting everything about it.
And so the assumption that everything, here's another example.
So my friend lives in, I don't know,
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.
And all of these tests were manufactured in China.
All of them.
And he sent me a picture and I couldn't believe it.
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.
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.
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.
I don't have a lot of answers anymore other than I don't know.
I just know that they're probably lying about this.
If it's a high-fidelity yes-or-no answer.
I know that's not very satisfying.
Thanks again.
Are you happy with that, Tom?
Yeah.
Very good.
Well, Craig Pardecouper had his hand up, but I'm not even sure he's on the call now.
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
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... 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.
Watson, in particular, I found.
I don't have anything available.
It's in a different notebook.
My question to you is, JJ, was the discovery or the science that they determined the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA,
If it was a psyop, the whole thing about DNA, the discovery of this, what do you think their intention was in the future?
Do you think that there were motives for this?
Why was it so important in our education?
No, I think it's much more about the fact that at the time they didn't know what they were doing.
They didn't know how complex it would be.
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.
Only 20 or 30 years later would somebody like Watson realize that, wow, that was a mistake, and look at what we've done.
But why would he think that?
Just explain to the people watching why Watson might think that this was a mistake and that this was going to be misused, maybe.
Was that his fear or what?
Yeah, well, I think what it did was that it unfortunately gives credence to the idea that
Maybe we need to be governed this way, that we need to be bred.
and that it's worthwhile to do that.
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?
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.
So do you think that Watson was trying to do his best to establish the truth?
I think he was trying to slow that train down.
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.
So I still haven't quite understood, JJ, what you think Watson was upset about.
What exactly was he afraid of?
Well, this idea that what I think Schrodinger is also hinting at, that all they had to do was find justification.
to think that life boils down to physics and chemistry, and this was the justification that they needed.
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.
That's a very terrifying place to be, especially in that time when that was putting
really on the spot about whether or not faith was real.
I grew up in a world where it was okay not to care about God and I was weird because I was Catholic.
So Watson was upset that his research with Prick was going to lead to some people
saying that life was just about chemistry and physics and nothing to do with God, is that what you're saying?
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.
So why would people in the Catholic Church be saying that?
Well, I don't know.
Maybe they're not really Catholics.
They're Jesuits.
They're all Jesuits.
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.
This is the King Jesuit, this Desjardins guy.
He's wrote in a lot of books.
One of them is called The Future of Man.
Go figure.
Yeah, so did Watson ever give them
reason for us to believe that what they found, he didn't believe it himself?
Or were they misrepresented and they knew that they were misrepresented?
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, that's what I gather.
There's not very much to find because I don't think people want you to know how skeptical he was.
I mean, again, I agree a lot with Dave.
There could be a library of proteins in a cell that has no other information in it.
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.
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.
None.
So essentially, Watson was worrying that human beings would, without justification, get more power and believe in their
in their importance more at the expense of God.
Is that correct?
Maybe, or maybe people could be governed that way.
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
that we made a lot of progress.
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.
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
God, essentially.
And so leading people to believe that science is fantastic.
I mean, if you read this book, there is no way to read or hear anything other than the joy that
God is really hands-off.
It's a process that God put in motion, and since then has just been watching from the sidelines.
And so the moment we decide to take the wheel and drive the car, we can.
That's the argument that this guy has been making since the 30s, that
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.
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.
And then Aldous Huxley comes along and writes
Brave New World, which is his brother, right?
That's Julian's brother.
I mean, it's correct.
And then he also writes Brave New World Revisited, about 30 years after the publication of Brave New World.
So the question is, did Aldous Huxley write that then, in the 30s I think it was?
Was it intended in his mind to be a warning, or was it intended to be a playbook?
No, I think it was a warning, I honestly do.
I think that maybe if we rise to the challenge, there's nothing wrong with that, right?
Then I think humanity rising to this challenge and throwing these chains off would also be in the best interest of our species.
So either way, I think we better keep fighting.
Yeah, so anybody else who wants to ask any deep questions?
I am not very good at this, but I'm sure Dave Collum and Lars Johansson have questions they'd like to ask.
I've been listening.
Dave, have you got any thoughts on this?
Well, it's interesting.
I can entertain anything, so it's all interesting to me.
I've had several thoughts as we went along.
a little bit of a tendency to throw away stuff rather than build upon it, I think.
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.
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.
And they've not been clear enough to me to to let me know what he's thinking.
But it could just be a punctuated equilibrium model that he's talking about or something like that.
But he hasn't said enough.
And then
What else was I thinking?
I wasn't going to chime in.
I was just going to sit here and listen.
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.
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.
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.
And all of a sudden you get one that works better.
Now you haven't enforced a fatality.
What you've done is you you've provided the organism with an even better route.
Um, I'm listening to the evolution of the eye part.
I heard some sort of, how could the eye evolve?
Well,
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.
And since light is energy, and that's how information gets transferred, that strikes me as a completely rational thing.
So you can imagine an organism for which there's a selective advantage to being able to detect light for whatever reason.
Maybe it has some mechanism to float towards it, right?
If you duplicate that molecule, now all of a sudden you've got really the very beginnings of stereoscopic vision.
So you've got two molecules that respond to light, but one will get a brighter response
are more frequent hit than the other one.
And so it tells the organism where the light's coming from.
And that becomes the beginning of an eye, basically.
You've just described the first, the very first beginnings of rods and cones and things like that.
I think the one super absolute, and I mean this with the utmost respect,
Your imagination is quite limited.
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.
And so this thing of a molecule that can detect light is not the evolution of an eye.
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.
All of these things can't be the process of an incremental improvement that randomly could become extinct.
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.
That would have to happen millions of times for each good trait in order to explain this as random mutation and selection.
And I think it's because you've accepted this three-gear model.
You're frozen.
I don't know if it's my computer or yours.
My whole computer's frozen.
You sound a lot like Brett Weinstein.
And it's true.
you're all still let me find another room.
Oh, no, he missed.
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.
And I haven't used genetics since so it has not evolved very quickly itself.
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?
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.
And he said, every single one of your ancestors was a winner, every last one.
And so I wonder, for example, like as a chemist, the origin of optical purity.
So the fact that we have a single enantiomeric series in all of nature, right?
So you tend not to get the enantiomerically related mirror image proteins and things like that.
And I've always gone on the basic assumption that it probably was events happening in both mirror images.
And then at one moment, there was just one that really worked and survived.
And then it really took off.
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.
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,
on this rationing, on this understanding of how things have come to be, then you will always be trapped in it.
It's not sufficient.
No, no, that's why I found it an interesting discussion.
What I what I'm reluctant to do is throw it away rather than build upon it.
No.
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.
That would be absurd.
That would mean that all these books and all these observations are bullshit.
And I think we really need to retool and reinterpret the data that we have and maybe throw some data out.
But definitely.
I'm, I'm with you on this.
Right.
And so I happen to work in a field of chemistry that turned out almost every paper we ever published, I showed someone was wrong, but they were trying to get it right.
And they were not, they were not wrong in the sense that the whole thing had to be reversed.
They were wrong in the sense that they made assumptions about function that just were not correct.
And when you look at it, you say, well, I now see how they made the mistake.
And now it actually looks kind of silly in retrospect, because scientists get in terrible echo chambers, even physical scientists.
And so I'm totally conceding, which is why I stayed with this whole discussion the whole way.
If we evolve another million years, I'm sure, let's say we evolve in a direction that somehow represents intellectual improvement.
I'm not sure that's even remotely possible.
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.
And so I think there's things
It's a darny shape.
He's rose again.
Um, I want to, Oh, possibly understand right now because we don't, I don't know.
Um, it's, but, but that's sort of my basic thoughts on the whole thing.
Um, I, I just went through all through the, again, that in this group in particular, I saw people throwing away,
things that didn't have to be thrown away to have the discussion, right?
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?
And Peter Duesberg and all the stuff that I think is quite possibly true.
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.
Yeah.
Right.
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.
And so I and that gets back to the don't throw it away, build on.
And by the time you're done.
It might look like a renovation in which you say, I can't detect the original house in this renovation, right?
It could be one of those.
I have nothing deep to say about it besides just that.
So I don't have any problems with the things you guys talked about.
the reluctance to look for nefarious things from the 1930s.
And I don't think they were, you know, the circumcision.
I'd never heard the circumcision story, by the way.
This was completely new to me.
The idea that you use foreskins to advantage doesn't negate the fact that it might actually be biologically, health-wise, an improvement than not have a foreskin.
And so you don't have to turn it into a, oh, those bastards, they're clipping kid six off because they want the foreskin.
It can be that someone said, hey, we could use that.
So don't chuck it.
Right.
That's useful.
There are hygiene issues that are real.
Yeah, there are, but if you just want to be real, real clear about it, I mean, foreskin is this, okay?
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.
And some people's foreskin doesn't come over very easy.
and may come over.
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.
That's the whole point of a baby.
That would be the only argument to make.
What I'm telling you is, is that these American babies are like this.
Okay.
That was, by the way, your, your, your long sleeve shirt, foreskin analog.
That was brilliant.
No, that was, that was spectacular.
I'm in, I'm in the middle of digging into the transgender movement.
I'm in the middle of Abigail Shrier's book.
Oh, wow.
Exactly.
It's horrifying.
It is horrifying because it is so socially complex.
Yeah.
Yep.
And I don't mean socially complex.
It's really crazy.
This, this illusion that everybody agrees on, it really sucks people into it.
Oh, and the whole, the whole thing is designed to separate kids from their parents and kids from anyone who will defy them.
And it really is a, I knew it was, um, I knew it was a cultural contagion, but I didn't understand.
I didn't understand the momentum.
and the tools that were being used to do it.
So science does that too, we all agree.
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.
So we've got three
very prominent positions in the new British government, and those three, the Daily Mail,
which is a well-known newspaper in the UK.
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.
All three of them have transgender children.
Yeah, it's a badge of honor amongst certain nutcases.
But the really interesting thing for me is that the Daily Mail has known about this for some time.
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.
I was totally unaware until I was actually told by
the head of the Daily Mail.
Not exactly the head, but very near the top of the Daily Mail.
Well, curiously, Elon Musk got taken down that path a little bit by one of his kids and then realized what was happening.
And one thing's for sure is Elon is not invisible.
You can't when he decides he wants to talk about something that you can't hide it.
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.
Even I don't think it has to be conspiracies.
And I think there are fields of science where the fraud is much more prevalent than others.
Those happen to be the fields where the stakes for committing the fraud are very high or it's easy.
Like in biochem, you can win a Nobel Prize by faking stuff if you are clever enough to do it.
But
But but the climate change guys, that grift is spectacular.
And and it's it's one hundred and fifty trillion dollars of projected spending.
Who's going to who's going to open their mouth on that?
Right.
Every everyone wants a piece of that pie.
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.
The whole thing, there's money, every single moving part on that southern border is a for profit machine.
Wow.
And so, yeah, so that you dig into this stuff and it can make you very dark.
My advice would be don't get don't get too dark on DNA.
It's still an important biomolecule.
It just it probably is.
I agree with that.
Yes.
Yeah.
Can anybody creep and say I have to go?
I'm sorry.
I do too, actually.
Thanks, JJ.
See you on Twitter.
Dave, you know each other, do you?
A little bit.
I think we're connected.
We can reach each other when we want to.
How's that?
I think he's heard me yell at Herod von den Bosch once about T-cells a long time ago.
That's how we cross paths first.
I am.
So you know he's a professor of chemistry then, Dave?
I do, yep.
Yeah, very good.
My Twitter presence is unhealthy levels of presence.
That's too much.
Dave, before you go, I would like to introduce you to the joke on the foreskin.
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.
And on the following page was an article about foreskin.
And the lady said to the doctor, what do you do with the foreskins?
And he said, we make handbags.
You give them a quick rub, and you have a suitcase.
Don't get me started.
I used to be the joke master.
I have 10,000 jokes.
And they're all tasteless.
I got to go.
Thanks.
Until next time.
Very good.