.
It was quite a plot, you kids, uncovered.
Who would have suspected masters of dog-knapping his own pet?
He decided to win the dog show by dog-knapping the only three dogs who could beat Big Red.
Then Big Red was to turn up just before the show and win first prize.
You said something about a phantom Indian on horseback.
What about that?
Simple.
He used a movie projector from the back of his truck.
Look, Geronimo! He's back again!
Hoopoo!
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
It's the 13th of September, 2023.
And this is Gico-en-biological.
I think we've come to understand the Scooby-Doo has nothing more than a spectrum of acceptable opinion
in which we have been limited, made to feel like we are solving a mystery.
And yeah, that's where we are right now.
And I think it's actually pretty cool that things have progressed as far as they have.
We've made a lot more progress behind the scenes than you can possibly imagine.
And it is with great optimism that I come to you with a second Mr. Sparkle Show.
I don't think it's necessary to belabor the point too long, so I'm just going to give you a very brief introduction
and get right to Michael on Dr. Drew.
This is only a couple days ago, actually, that this occurred.
And so it's actually fresh a day after a day or so after he was on with Steve Kirsch,
so it's actually kind of relevant to hear an interview afterward.
And whether or not that interviewer or interviewers give Michael the same amount of open mic
and how Michael was able to deal with it.
So I'm curious because it's now two on one in this interview.
So they've changed the way we think, said this many times.
They've changed the way we think about the biology that underpins a phenomenon like a pandemic.
And they've taken advantage of many, many years of being told a very simple narrative about how our immune system works
and what signs in our blood are indication of immunity.
And with regards to the pandemic, this allowed them to change human behavior on a massive scale.
They essentially fooled entire societies into behaving differently than they ever had before to sick people.
And even worse, they behave differently with people who are healthy.
And so we're trying to figure this out.
We're trying to figure out what people were really responsible for seeding the narrative because that's what this was all about.
This was about getting a cruise ship moving in a certain direction with enough momentum so that it couldn't be stopped.
And so this is decades and decades of preparation.
Lots of secret meetings, lots of practice sessions, lots of conferences where they're rehearsing this stuff.
Because the idea, again, is to have the cruise ship set up and moving in the right direction so that when this happened, you can accelerate it and it would have almost momentum that couldn't be stopped.
And I would suggest that a lot of the people that I have colored in here in yellow are actually people who may have been in on it from the very beginning.
And I think that's really how far our governance structure has come.
And I think that people like Robert Malone are being very disingenuous when they talk about fifth generation warfare and this kind of thing.
Because Noam Chomsky told us this years and years ago that by controlling the debate, you could think of it better as controlling all sides of a debate and then having a very vigorous or giving the appearance of a very vigorous debate.
Three people at a table.
This is essentially what they do on the view and on the PBS NewsHour and on Tim Poole and on Joe Rogan.
It's like two or three people talking about something and so you feel like the third or the fourth or the fifth person in the room.
And so if they really want to get you, they put four people in the room and they all agree all the time with a real weak form of disagreement and discussion.
Maybe they even get you in a position where one person is antithetical to the other three and then the other three trounce them.
Make them really look like a fool.
So that's the kind of sort of show that we have been unwittingly controlled by for, you know, a very, very long time longer than me or anyone my parents have been aware of.
I guess there are some people who have been saying it's going on, but the extent to which it has become essentially the rule instead of the, you know, occasionally or a few places or whatever, a few people are controlled, a few voices are controlled.
The whole system is now run this way.
So much so that in 2023, I think you can safely say that most of the people who have risen to prominence in the dissident movement or in the good guy side or on the Fauci side, they've all risen to prominence in exactly the same way by exactly the same mechanisms.
Many of these people were kind of censored in a very public and notable way and their return from censorship or their alternative to censorship was something that was promoted and seen in public.
They weren't really banned.
They weren't really canceled.
When Robert Malone was canceled on LinkedIn, he was able to spread that word all over Facebook and Twitter and everywhere else.
And then when he got banned on Twitter, he was able to get a whole bunch of people to move to GAB because, because Brett Weinstein helped him by moving over there.
And so you can see that in retrospect, we've got to be very careful how we look at our history and how we look at what we've done because again, these people have been wittingly and unwittingly playing a role in what I would now consider to be an elaborate theater, which was designed to get whole
societies to come to the conclusion that China and America collaborated on gain-of-function viruses and somehow some way this collaboration was going on in China and we're not sure if China did it on their own or if America tricked them into doing it, but the virus that got out got out from China because that's where the labs were.
And three years later, the United States seems to have covered it up and China probably just lied about how many people have died.
And most of the world thinks that.
Think about how amazing that is.
Most of the world actually believes that they themselves figured it out.
And that's what Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan and the Weinstein's and Tim Poole, they're all acting out the same revelation over the last three years.
Some of them figured it out at different times. Some of them have never known, but they're all figuring it out.
And it's really neat because none of them have ever ever considered the possibility that their government is lying to them about this is that none of them are smart enough to have that is also an alternative.
And also the possibility that they're lying about this.
None of them, none of them on this screen have ever thought the intellectual dark web has ever thought it even possible.
It's not even on their radar that people are lying.
Is that even make any sense that Robert Malone and Steve Kersch and Brett Weinstein went on a podcast in June of 2021.
And for three hours, not one of them suggested that maybe some people or a lot of people might be lying.
That's extraordinary.
Because the main message of Giga on biological is is that all a pandemic requires is a spectacular commitment to lying.
He got a lie about pandemic potential and caves.
He got to publish a few papers about the pandemic potential that can be accessed through cell culture.
You should publish a couple more papers about maybe the ability to use animal passage to enrich for an aerosolized flu.
And then you can make a few papers where you use recombinant DNA methodologies to stitch a few pieces of different genomes together
and test them in vitro and show that they can neutralize different things or they're not neutralizable anymore.
They bind to this cell type or they make extra zones in that cell type and then call it pandemic potential.
And why would you do that?
Well, you would do that because this lays down a mythology of a natural and human generated gain of function potential for viral pandemics
that has infinite possibility for future consequences.
And since it's becoming easier and easier for people to do this into their garages,
the only reasonable solution is for us to go to a digital ID on the Internet
and for us to have a digital form of currency.
Hey, Howard.
Remember last night we talked about how the illusion of consensus even includes this idea that we are solving the mystery.
And by having different people on the Internet and different people on the television seeming to or maybe really in their own mind
figuring out the Scooby-Doo of the who did it, of the virus and the fact that, wow, we really were making this stuff.
And we really did ship this stuff over to China because Obama banned it.
Wow, that's crazy.
And so as the story goes, we start to laugh all at the same time.
And we start to go, oh, all at the same time.
As everybody mentions the diffuse proposal, everybody goes, oh, yeah, that's right.
I know about that. That was leaked to drastic.
And so when you have thousands of dollars in that store and this just when you have a sitcom.
With the generated consensus in the background, it starts to become pretty funny.
The reason why it becomes funny is because your brain works that way.
It's social.
And so those multiple people laughing actually has a real magic effect on your brain.
It creates a propensity for you to find something funny.
So if there's a hint of humor here, you're going to be triggered.
It was used on Seinfeld. It was used for decades, really, of television.
Sometimes it was a real live audience that was augmented by recorded laughs just to make sure the timing was good.
And that there was sufficient laughter.
The point is, is that when you remove the consensus of the lab leak and you stop listening to all the different people on the view
and all the different people on the television talk about this stuff, it starts to become very different.
Ah!
I'm over here, Sheldon.
That was a close one.
I almost met home with that guy.
Are you doing okay? Do we need to go?
No, I'm fine. I admit all these people did take me by surprise at first, but I've learned that I can accept change.
And you cannot underestimate how Rand Paul and Tony Fauci were a consensus of sorts.
Because they were performing the same dance.
Now, I get that that's a little more complicated than the track laughter, but in reality, it's not.
Because when you went on social media, there were a bunch of people doing the same dance.
Oh no, I'm sure there's no evidence for a lab leak. Give me a break.
It was in the, the market.
And when we did all kinds of analysis, it seems like there was even a cluster over the northwest corner.
Get out of here.
The idea that this debate was occurring all over the place and people were selling books about it from both sides of the,
and documentaries were being made and PBS was doing specials on Fauci.
And Fauci was laughing and calling it an automobile into a motorcycle, an airplane into a motorcycle.
I mean, come on.
And so you start to think that, wow, this must be real because there's a consensus that it's a debate about whether this was a natural virus or whether it was a lab leak.
Oh my gosh, gain of function. Man, oh man, what could they make in there?
And without sufficient biological sophistication, it starts to become a story about whether it's really zombies or, or, or werewolves.
And so they can tell you that a scary virus was released in the beginning of 2020 or late 2019.
And that scary virus spread around the world and then they can have all these different people around talking about it with increasing sophistication and increasing, you know, rhythm and jazz about it.
But the bottom line is that if you analyze what this guy said from June 2020 until now, it's not a consistent story of I need to speak up because I want to save lives.
The only person who's told a consistent story, I want to speak up because I want to save lives is Mr. Sparkle, a.k.a. Mike Eden.
I do think Wolfgang Wodach has done a pretty good job too, but I think he was too, too already hammered and, and, and spread thin by his previous encounter with this Goliath.
And so it was very easy for him to be turned off by the whole fight, knowing how difficult it would be to convince people that this was not right.
And it is still difficult to convince people that what happened didn't really happen.
I'm going to start with this every night from now on until we have it a little better, but I think transfection is not immunization is pretty straightforward.
And I think intramuscular injection is not a valid means of immunization is also a pretty darn good way of saying it.
So Mr. Sparkle on Mr. Dr. Drew.
Here we go.
Thank you for joining me everybody.
Good to see you guys out there. Let me see who's there.
I am still planning to talk to Dr. Sabina Zahn. I just haven't really, those are one of those.
That's one of those people that since I haven't met her yet, you know, when you reach out to him, you kind of want to be committed to, to do in the interview.
I'll be really honest with you. I've been preparing for a long time to do a basic immunology lecture, which I haven't done in a while.
And I want it to be up to par also with the gut.
And in that sense, I'm still a little behind. And so that's part of the reason why I haven't asked her as well.
And I don't know if I see anything else there in the chat right now.
Sorry, just go ahead and put some more back in if you want.
Your speech is off with the camera. How bad is it?
Speech timing is okay. You want me to try and fix it?
It's it's the twitch is doing all kinds of crazy stuff to me. Hopefully that this will be okay.
What do you think speech looks good to me? It's fine for you. I'm going to leave it. Here we go. Let's do this thing.
Welcome back everybody. As I said, Dr. Michael Yaden in the house with us from the United Kingdom.
He is a former VP advisor where he was involved with allergy and respiratory researcher.
There for over a decade and a half and finally went into a biotech on his own.
He has had some concerns about the research around which MR&A vaccines are brought to market.
He also has been had some grave concerns about the whole notion of lockdown, something that we have addressed many, many times on this program.
Please welcome Dr. Michael Yaden.
Great to be with you on your show and fantastic to go to reach your your audience, some of which will be new for me. I hope.
Excellent. So why don't we just get right to it? Well, I've got Kelly victory in here in just a minute.
But what were your concerns about the MR&A vaccine and when you raise them, what happened to you?
Yeah. So I didn't work in vaccines. I think it's important that people know that.
It's very important also to know that the MR&A and all gene based so called vaccines are completely different from any other job you might have had.
And they're right in my in my wheelhouse because I spent over 30 years collaborating with medicinal chemists to do what's called rational drug design.
If you want a drug to do something, you don't describe a handful of atoms from the bench. You think about the structures where you want the drugs to go, what it should do for how long and so on.
So I think I can look at the structure of a molecule and have a good idea of the intent of the designer.
And when I looked at the MR&A vaccine, I looked at the Pfizer one and Moderna one. I was horrified because the mRNA is it's injected into your body.
It's a code. It's a piece of genetic code to tell your body to make something some instructions to manufacture something. Well, when you do that, you don't give a single dose.
You're giving it as it were a course of treatment and it could be some people will make lots of whatever that instruction is, and some people will do that for a long time and other people make very little for a short time.
So you've got a massive variation in the impact of the stuff on people.
If I could stop you there, why is that the case? I presumably were all hitting the same protein manufacturing machinery, the ribosomes and setting up the transcription of the protein.
Why is it so variable person to person? And why did you anticipate that and why wasn't that more anticipated by the drug companies?
Well, I'll come back to the anticipated parts because my contention is that there are multiple deliberate toxicities built into these materials, and I can justify that.
But yes, certainly what we've done here is add an extra few steps. So the drug has got to distribute like other drugs, but then it's got to be actively taken up.
Your body doesn't want from DNA in itself, and we'll fight that. So it's going to be actively taken up, and some people will take up a lot or a little, and sometimes they will copy that efficiently or less efficiently.
And so those two things will produce just a greater range of outcomes, but that's not my biggest concern. That was the first one I thought of.
The next one is, took me a while to get here. I ask your audience to think, how is it that their body plays nice with itself, doesn't attack itself unless you're unfortunate and have an autoimmune disease, but normally your immune system, like they're like military personnel.
They stand there barracks that don't harm you, but when you're infected, or you get a cancer, maybe they go to war, and you know the distinction, how it is that your body does that trick.
It distinguishes itself, all things inside your body that are meant to be there, it doesn't attack anything foreign anything non self, it will attack.
So, when you take me and get one body to make a piece of a foreign organism.
That's not my dog.
When your body is instructed to make a piece of foreign non human protein, every cell that expresses that is now blaring a signal I've been invaded your immune system goes to war and tries to kill it.
The single cell, this material goes into these could never ever be safe for a mass market use I think I can only think of two legitimate uses and we did discuss the one I was advising one is to replace a human protein that you should have, but
the other one would be if you've got a cancer, and you do want to target those cells and kill them using immunosomacology, but if you just give it to mass population, they will attack their own cells and kill them.
That is the reason why you see dozens of different side effects, because it's one mechanism of toxicity, but express anywhere in the body wherever it happens to land.
There are many more concerns but that's that's my first top one.
And you said this was intentional.
I'm just going to cut over here really quick.
I just want to say, after he said rational drug design, and horrified by the design idea itself, he said we're giving a course of treatment with a variable dosage.
And then Dr Drew kind of interrupted him and I just want to kind of clarify that there are, there are a few things at play here.
The first thing at play is the idea that there are variable dosages in the lot numbers, so there were some placebo lots, there might have been some very hot lots, there might have been lots, there were toxic because of other things like the DNA plasmid or other contaminants.
And we just have no idea what kind of quality control variability went out into these billions of arms, just because as Mike said, you can't make hundreds of thousands of anything much less billions of something with high quality control, you know, like a year, that's not possible.
Now the reason why this is important is because, you know, Mark Koolack of his atomic ITS and his atomic life has been working tirelessly to learn this biology and learn biology that a lot of people don't understand.
And mainly because he wants to understand exactly where the cutting edge is, and I hope that when you come here, you feel like that's what we're doing a lot as well.
But I can sometimes take for granted the idea or the appreciation that I have for the complexities that are involved and kind of assume that everybody else is thinking that way.
And I think Mark, more than anyone else that I followed during the pandemic has really come into his own as far as understanding those complexities and being able to express an adequate awe of them.
And when we come to the idea of talking about transfection, it's important to understand that when Bill Gates stands in front of a lighted table with a bunch of props like a half of a DNA molecule or a virus made of styrofoam, it's not coming close to capturing the complexity of the system that they are
purporting to augment by injecting some lipid nanoparticles that may or may not have some RNA in them, which may or may not code for a protein that they say is on a pathogen that was released from Wuhan is spread around the world over the last three years.
And the extraordinary part of this is that even if all those things are correct and that RNA is in there and it is going to go into lipid nanoparticles and those lipid nanoparticles are going to successfully transfect cells in your body.
Depending on what cells are there and your own particular ribosomes, your own particular genetic background, your own particular physiology at the time.
And countless variables that I could never possibly imagine are in symphony figuring out how much and what will be produced from that RNA that was injected in your arm and then seeped out and went all through your body.
It's incredibly variable. It's not just how much spike protein and how long, but different tissues will fold it differently.
It's even possible that different sub tissues of the same organ will fold it differently.
It's even possible that ribosomes within the same cell will fold the protein differently, especially given all the chemical modifications to it.
And that kind of complexity is only really part of your consciousness with biology.
If you've really tried to challenge yourself to listen to people who really know where that cutting edge is and Mark has taken the time to listen to and read some people who have tried to really figure out, for example, how a ribosome works.
And those people can pretty adequately express after winning a Nobel Prize how far away we are from understanding how a ribosome works.
And why it's so difficult to understand how a ribosome works and why it's so fascinating to try.
But those people who are able to approach the edge of biology with sufficient resolution are able to come to an appreciation of how at certain moment the complexity becomes no longer possible to simplify.
No longer possible to almost grasp in a sense become right to the Brownian motion.
Can anybody see that? Are we back online or what?
Is this working? Test one, two, testing. Thank you, Christy, for that checkup.
Man, oh man, is that annoying? I don't really know what to say about that.
I guess I'm just going to start it because I don't really, but I am going to start the video over again.
This is Mr. Sparkle. I'm Dr. Drew.
And this is giga home biological high resistance low noise information stream brought to you by a biologist.
That biologist is Jonathan Cooley. We're starting over again because the last video.
I'm not sure what happened. Something froze up here or something froze up there. I don't know what went wrong.
I'm not going to try and speculate on it. I'm just going to start playing here.
Somebody questioned this earlier before we started about how Dr. Drew isn't censored.
I have a good feeling. I know why.
And this video could very well disappear from YouTube at some point.
But Dr. Drew's stream starts out with at least four minutes of sales pitch for various supplements.
And those supplements include treatment for this spike protein and all this other stuff.
So anyway, I've got a bigger theory about why people are able to stay on the internet.
But remember, there's also this idea that he wouldn't have been able to do this in 2020.
He wouldn't have been able to do that in 2021. And now he is able to do it in 2023.
Not everybody's able to do it. Mark, Mark Coolack can't go on YouTube and do whatever he wants to.
And if Mark Coolack went on YouTube with Michael Eden, my guess is, is that that wouldn't go anywhere.
Because again, they can count on Dr. Drew and Dr. Victory to, even if they let Mike Eden talk their ear off,
you know, the next 50 guests are all going to be pretty much darn well on narrative,
gain a function, lab leak, the whole nine yards.
And you will hear, I think in this video, and I think you should pay very close attention to that.
What parts of the narrative do they challenge?
And the narrative is novel virus.
We had to do something.
mRNA would have worked a lot better if we hadn't rushed it.
Maybe if we hadn't chosen that protein.
And gain a function means that a virus will come again.
And so that narrative, that question is, when Mike challenges that narrative,
will they push back and force Mike back in the rails?
That's really the question. That's what you want to be paying attention to.
That's what I'm going to take notes for.
And I've already talked about it once.
But when he talks about rational drug design and he talks about the variable dosage of the mRNA shot,
make sure you realize that it's a compound problem.
It's not only about the composition of the shot or what lot you got or whether the LNP is okay, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
But it's also about what tissue it goes to and your particular genetic background.
And then the variability of ribosomes themselves, the whole kitten kaboodle,
is one great big black box of complexity on complexity on complexity at a certain moment.
And the idea that we think we can augment this beautiful system that is our body with a transfection
intramuscularly injected and carried by a lipid nanoparticle is absurd.
But remember, I think that the goal of any interview with Mike Eden is either to discredit him
or to try and make it seem like Mike basically supports most of the narrative.
Novel virus had to do something, mRNA was rushed, but otherwise it would have been good if we wouldn't have made those mistakes.
And gain of function means the virus will come again. Here we go.
Dave, vaccines are brought to market. He also has been had some grave concerns about the whole notion of lockdown,
something that we have addressed many, many times on this program. Please welcome Dr. Michael Yaden.
Great to be with you on your show and fantastic to get to reach your audience, some of which will be new for me, I hope.
Excellent. So why don't we just get right to it? Well, I've got Kelly Victory in here in just a minute.
But what were your concerns about the mRNA vaccine and when you raise them, what happened to you?
Yeah. So I didn't work in vaccines. I think it's important that people know that.
It's very important also to know that the mRNA and all gene-based so-called vaccines are completely different from any other job you might have had.
And they're right in my wheelhouse because I spent over 30 years collaborating with medicinal chemists to do what's called rational drug design.
If you want a drug to do something, you don't just grab a handful of atoms from the bench, you think about the structures where you want the drug to go, what it should do for how long and so on.
So I think I can look at the structure of a molecule and have a good idea of the intent of the designer.
And when I looked at the mRNA vaccine, I looked at the Pfizer one and Moderna one, I was horrified because the mRNA is injected into your body.
It's a code. It's a piece of genetic code to tell your body to make something, some instructions to manufacture something.
Well, when you do that, you don't give a single dose, you're giving it as it were a course of treatment, and it could be some people will make lots of whatever that instruction is.
And some people will do that for a long time, and other people will make very little for a short time. So you've got a massive variation.
It's also, it's also possible that certain tissues will make more. It's possible that certain tissues will release more. It's possible that certain tissues will fold the protein in different ways than others will.
And so that's all part of this variability that I think, if you've been following Mark, you will also have started to really begin to appreciate how complex this idea is and how ridiculously simplified the cartoon is of a little fat bubble with an RNA.
And then you just squirt it into the muscle and it makes some protein and then B cells come like the PBS NewsHour told us for a year.
In the impact of the stuff on people.
If I could stop you there, why is that the case? I presumably were all hitting the same protein manufacturing machinery, the ribosomes and setting up the transcription of the protein.
Why is it so variable person to person? And why did you anticipate that and why wasn't that more anticipated by the drug companies?
Well, I'll come back to the anticipated parts because my contention is that there are multiple deliberate toxicities built into these materials, and I can justify that.
But yes, certainly what we've done here is add an extra few steps. So the drug has got to distribute like other drugs, but then it's got to be actively taken up.
Your body doesn't want from DNA in its cells and we'll fight that. So it's going to be actively taken up and some people will take up a lot or a little, and sometimes they will copy that efficiently or less efficiently.
And so those two things will produce just a greater range of outcomes, but that's not my biggest concern. That was the first one I thought of.
The next one is, took me a while to get here.
I ask your audience to think, how is it that their body plays nice with itself, doesn't attack itself unless you're unfortunate and have an autoimmune disease, but normally your immune system, like they're like military personnel.
And they're barracks that don't harm you, but when you're infected, or you get a cancer, maybe they go to war, and you know the distinction, how it is that your body does that trick.
It distinguishes itself, all things inside your body that are meant to be there, it doesn't attack anything foreign anything non self, it will attack.
So, when you take me and get one body to make a piece of a foreign organism.
That's not my dog.
When your body is instructed to make a piece of foreign non human protein, every cell that expresses that is now blaring a signal I've been invaded.
It goes to war and tries to kill it every single cell this material goes into.
These could never ever be safe for a mass market use I think I can only think of two legitimate uses and we did discuss the one I was advising one is to replace a human protein that you should have, but is missing or defective.
And the other one would be if you've got a cancer and you do want to target those cells and kill them using immunosomacology.
But if you just give it to mass population, they will attack themselves and kill them.
That is the reason why you see dozens of different side effects, because it's one mechanism of toxicity, but expressed anywhere in the body wherever it happens to land.
There are many more concerns but that's my first top one.
So let me just piggyback on that and say that when he said multiple deliberate toxicities he hasn't really gotten into that yet.
The two legitimate uses are a little sketch, because replacing a missing protein is what they were trying to do with Jesse Gelsinger using an adenovirus vector to replace a protein that he was missing.
But understand something very clear.
If you are genetically missing a protein, then when you replace it, you're replacing it with a non-self protein.
By definition, it's not a view because you're missing it.
So you can't just put it back in and expect your body to go, oh, this is what we needed, thanks.
Because your body is already compensating in some less than optimal, but it was definitely compensating in some way.
And more importantly, the immune system had matured without that epitope set being part of the self epitope set.
So when you put that protein back in, there's not going to be any, you know, there could potentially be T cells that recognize it.
There could be potentially natural killer cells that are not turned off and instead are activated by that protein or its fragments being presented on MHC1.
So replacing a missing protein sounds like a legitimate use in theory.
And in fact, Robert Malone was going to go into gene therapy and went into retroviruses because he thought within 10 years there would be a geneticist at every hospital fixing childhood diseases
by replacing missing proteins.
And so he missed that boat a little bit because 30 years later, we're still not doing that.
We're not even close to doing that because again, once you appreciate the complexity of this biology, you can realize very quickly how ham-handed we are,
if we are transfecting with the best case scenario, the purest RNA and the most uniform LNP size distribution will still result in all the downsides of transfection that we're talking about here.
Make no mistake about it because that's what this is going to be about.
It's going to be tried to sell you on the idea that there are a whole bunch of mistakes made, but transfection still has a couple of legitimate uses, maybe cancer if you're already going to die, and maybe replacing a missing protein if you're already going to die from it.
But these are still, as far as transfection goes now on a cartoon or on a tablecloth or on a napkin, transfection is not capable of replacing a missing protein, and it's probably more capable of targeting cancer cells than it is from replacing a missing protein.
That's for sure. But transfection, I mean, we've got to be very, very clear about this biology. There's nothing to improve.
It is by definition not the way to address a healthy immune system. It's just not.
And you said this was intentional?
Yes. So, like I said, I spent over three decades working with medicinal chemists on the design of molecules. The procedure is called rational drug design. Nothing in the molecule is there accidentally. What else can I tell you?
So, I've told you about the non-self parts when you make a foreign protein, your body will attack it. There's no doubt that's immunology 101. The next one is the all four companies, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson, Johnson and Pfizer, all chose the same part of this so-called COVID-19 virus.
They all chose the same part. They all chose the bit that sticks out the outside called spike protein. So a couple of things here.
If I was leading a drug discovery team and I did dozens of times, the chances that my peers in the other company will come up with the same solution is remote to tell the truth.
And you would never pick this. Why would you not pick this? We knew from previous work that the spike proteins that stick out from the outside of these microorganisms are biologically active.
They can trigger blood coagulation and they aren't nearly toxic. They should have picked, if you believe the story about viruses and I have significant concerns.
But if we just go with the narrative, you would definitely, definitely not pick the part of the virus that is biologically active.
And the fact that all four drug companies did it, it's a black swan event. That's deliberate.
I've got one other thing to tell you that's so awful you have to hear it. So I do that.
Well, let me just, I'm just going to thinking that I have never really thought about.
We know I've thought about the interest of cytoplasmic mechanism of how the RNA turns into protein. I've never thought about how that protein gets out of the cell and the spike protein that is.
And I'm wondering if by design, the spike protein is supposed to be released as a result of destruction of the cell.
How is that protein exocytosed from a cell by design? That's not built into the protein. What is that mechanism?
Well, some proteins are secreted. I don't know whether this one is. But if it was a secretory protein, then yes, it would be exported.
It has a transmembrane domain installed into it. So the transmembrane domain is supposed to keep the protein bound to a membrane,
whether it's the outer cell membrane or a membrane of an endosome.
But secretion could occur when the cell is destroyed by neutrophils. And then that essentially will release whatever proteins are in the cell,
including any spike protein or fragments that were made as a result of that transfection.
It's a strange question, though. And Mike is making the point that why would they choose this protein? Because we know that these proteins on the outside of viruses tend to be biologically active.
And indeed, we know it from dengue. We know it from feline coronaviruses. We know it from flu. We know it from lots of other viruses that vaccinate to that outside, even AIDS.
We know that vaccinating to that glycoprotein, the fusion protein on the outside doesn't work.
So it's interesting that, again, four companies chose to do it to the same target.
And I think Mike is right in saying that that isn't really rational from a business perspective. It's not rational from any other perspective.
And so it seems very, very strange that all four major companies chose to do it.
If not, I suppose it would build up in a cell until it was killed. That's supposedly the model of a foreign infection. But so here's the, I think, a real.
See now, be careful there because I don't think that model of viral infection is correct.
In the sense that when cells are made to go through the cytotoxic process when they're in culture and you put virus on them.
I don't think that that's akin to X's own production. I think something toxic is happening there.
Because the virus does something to kill those cells. Now, it could be overproduction of a protein is enough to kill those cells.
Remember, transfection, wherever we've ever done it, ends up with overproduction of a protein that's ultimately toxic to that cell.
Either from a pharmacological perspective, just to having too much protein and filling it with.
And I'll give you an example. There are proteins that are used in the brain to label neurons all throughout neuroscience called GFP.
And this is a huge protein that when you shine certain wavelengths of light on it, it will fluoresce, but it's a giant protein.
And when you make enough of it for the small dendrites and stuff of a neuron to be visible, then there's a lot of protein in there.
And very quickly after you get a nice looking neuron with lots of protein and it's all visible all the way out to its little tiny branch ends,
you start to get toxicity because the cell can't have all kinds of this glow-in-the-dark protein there when there's all kinds of other stuff that needs to move around.
And the ribosomes are supposed to be making other proteins in order to maintain the cell.
And so at a certain moment that that transfection of GFP in order to label a neuron ends up leading to toxicity because the neuron is not supposed to have that much of a giant glow-in-the-dark protein in it.
And so even if transfection works as it's designed to, as Bill Gates explained it on the on the lighted table all those years ago,
it's still going to result in the production of a protein that will ultimately result in cell toxicity and an immune response before or after the cell is essentially dysregulated by the overproduction of that protein.
Something that's so shocking.
You may remember that the J&J and AstraZeneca, they were DNA vaccines and they had a so-called attenuated virus, I think it was an adenovirus.
But the mRNA products from Moderna and Pfizer BioNTech, they were encapsulated in a formulation is normal to formulate drugs to give them structure and to allow them to travel around the body and slow release and so on.
What did they pick?
Lipid nanoparticles, LNP.
I found a paper dated 2013, I think it was, essentially 12 or 2013, in which it was discussed in a peer review journal article paper that lipid nanoparticles, the macrocarriers for these molecules are known to have a characteristic that's rather upsetting.
That characteristic is the accumulates in the ovaries, every species tested.
And in the case of the Pfizer products, the Japanese regulators required Pfizer to perform distribution study in rats, which they did.
And we've seen a copy of that report under the Freedom of Information Act and lo and behold, it accumulates in the ovaries of rats.
This formulation was chosen, in my view, in the full knowledge that it would accumulate in the ovaries of girls and women.
That, my afraid ladies and gentlemen, is what's happened to every single female administer this material.
And Naomi Wolfe has been making that case.
And I've heard these arguments.
And what do you say to people that say, well, you know, this was brushed to market because it was an emergency, extraordinary times, extraordinary risks.
These issues have been raised, and yet the long-term effects don't appear at this moment.
Obviously, yesterday we heard some data that was rather disturbing.
But for most people don't appear to be significantly, and by most, I'd say the vast majority, don't seem to have real significant effect.
What do you say to somebody who argues that?
I do think that the majority of people have not so far been harmed by these products.
And it is my sincere hope that they won't be.
I do not have a copy of the script.
I think this is a crime.
I think it's a major global crime.
Okay, so I'm going to just button here and say that I think on that point, Mike Eden is.
I think he's wrong.
I don't think there's any way for him.
I think it's nice that he says it.
I think it's important that we stay optimistic.
But I think if you want to be realistic about this, anybody that's taken three or four of these shots and gotten a hot one, you know, that actually has active material in it, you're not the same anymore.
And I think most people that I know will admit that they're not.
And it doesn't even matter anymore, whether they can connect it in their head temporarily before the COVID debacle.
They were healthier before COVID and the last three years.
They were healthier and unfortunately they're now vaccinated and they're not healthier anymore and they're sicker all the time and they all say it.
And so you can say that you're not damaged, but you're not seeing it.
You're seeing it through glasses where you really don't want to see that there's any change and you know that there is.
And it's not just from not going to the gym anymore, not from it is from that transfection and people that got lucky got lucky because they weren't transfected.
There's no doubt in my mind that anybody that was transfected as directed and as intended is damaged, whether they're symptomatic or not, whether, you know, there's a way I guess to get lucky where the damage is minimal and maybe it won't do anything to you.
But it is very difficult for me to imagine how you get lucky three or four times if most of these shots have active ingredients in them.
And so I like the way Mike is thinking, but you're relying then really on the manufacturing process being so bunk.
And that's a good thing to rely on.
I think that's reasonable.
And it is my sincere hope that the harm that's been experienced, that's it.
But it could be, it could be worse. So I don't think very many. I don't think a large proportion of people who've been injected have died or been seriously injured.
But I've given you as an experienced drug designed or discovery person.
I mean, I would go so far as to say that maybe that's just something, you know, that.
No, I'm not going to say anything. I'm just listening.
Multiple lines of evidence that I can assure you would never have left the meeting room if I had been running that room and all four drug companies.
So, spike, lipid nanoparticles, foreign proteins, and also a novel technology that has never been used before.
And so the thing I missed the phone, what I'm mystified about is I can easily personally, I can go, OK, extraordinary time, extraordinary risk.
We're going to go at it.
Why are we not going back and now doing the careful research that we would otherwise have done?
Were it not an emergency?
What were and this is every country on earth, every regulator on earth.
Why isn't somebody asking for that? Isn't that weird?
Lots of people asking for it. I can assure you.
But the regulators in my country, the MHRA, European Medicines Agency, FDA, it's almost as if they've gone, it's up to under the desk and turned the lights off.
There's no sensible interaction with these people.
But so the reason I was shaking my head about the extraordinary emergency extraordinary times.
So I've got a strong statement to make.
And I'll leave it to your audience to decide.
It is my contention that every single major narrative point that we were told about the virus and countermeasures was untrue.
So I'm sure that's not what the CDC says, but I'm not doing this for entertainment.
Nobody pays me.
I've lost all of my consulting clients and I've accepted no donations.
I paid my taxes and countermeasures was untrue and knowingly untrue.
The virus and get every single major narrative point that we were told about the virus and countermeasures was untrue and knowingly untrue.
So I'm sure that's not what the CDC says, but I'm not doing this for entertainment.
Nobody pays me.
I've lost all of my consulting clients.
I've accepted no donations, either money or in kind.
So I'm doing this because I sincerely believe what I'm telling you.
We were told there was a major health threat.
And yet the record shows.
And you can look at the work of.
I can't remember his name now blanks on his name.
Anyway, so Canadian epidemiologist called Dennis.
Round court.
R.E.N. CEO.
U.R.C. Dennis round court.
We talked about.
Okay.
So I know it's controversial, but the fact is that there were no increase in deaths.
Until WHO declared a pandemic.
Whereupon.
Almost everywhere they adopted what I would regard as really strange precautions.
So.
Do you notice that a lot like the Steve curse video?
This guy up here is making no affirmative.
Notting along or going, yeah, or anything.
It's like a real.
Real.
It's a bad face.
I don't know why there isn't more.
Yeah, I get it.
Okay.
Right.
It's, it's extraordinary to me.
For example, lockdown.
I have read the pandemic preparedness plans of at least 20 nations.
As of 2019.
Not a single one of them.
Dr. True mentions lockdowns.
Right.
I'm aware of this.
This was, this was invented in China.
It was transported by a politician to Italy.
And then the whole world followed suit because of this one politician who wanted to show.
This is well documented in his own book.
That Chinese policies were an important adjunct to political management in Italy that he wanted to prove, prove a point about his sinophilia, essentially.
Not that he wanted to stop a pandemic.
Not that he was doing something medical.
But my question is, what happened to us?
Why do you think that all happened?
Exactly.
So I remember at the time it was March 2020.
And I was watching with increasing horror.
Basically, they were not telling the truth on the TV.
And I won't name names because it might get us into trouble.
But some of the public health advisors in the UK, I've been around so long.
Some of them in my peers is shocking.
The chief scientific advisor is someone I worked with 30 years ago.
And there is this thing that I don't know.
Well, exactly what's happened to you.
He was lying.
He was telling things that I knew were true.
Was he hysterical?
Was he psychotic?
Was he frightened by something?
What was happening?
I mean, I don't know because I wasn't there.
But I think people were given, they were told, given lines to take.
This is your script.
So we knew, for example, that people who are symptomatic.
With a container.
Did you hear what he said?
Can I play it again?
So we knew, for example, that people who were given lines to take.
This is your script.
We knew, for example, that people who were there, but I think people were given, they were told, given lines to take.
This is your script.
We knew, for example, that people who are symptomatic with a contagious disease are much more likely to be able to give it to someone else than people who have no symptoms.
You know that as a physician, that the probability of infecting someone when you have no symptoms at all is really very low.
And that's because you have smaller amounts of the organism.
If you have more, you'd have symptoms.
You can't have big burdens of horrible pathogens and no symptoms.
So I knew this lie about asymptomatic transmission was a dot up thing.
And this is vital.
Lockdown only makes sense if asymptomatic transmission drives the pandemic.
And it doesn't.
It's been tested.
We knew it didn't logically beforehand.
And that's why it had never been used before.
It made no sense.
Also, it's economically appalling, destructive.
But by the summer, there are at least a dozen papers showing that asymptomatic transmission, they couldn't detect it.
Now, if you're ill, you withdraw from society and sit on your sofa or go to bed or even hospital.
You're not walking around the stage and the drugstore.
So why lock down or lock down did, ladies and gentlemen, is removed healthy people from society.
It could never have reduced transmission and it didn't.
So you can see that's just unarguable.
Why did all the countries did it?
Even if China led and the Italian politician pontificated.
No, it looks like, according to Drew, or to Liam there in the chat,
that Dr. Drew has advocated for testing and maybe even thought that one brand was better than another.
And of course, Michael Eden said to stop testing a long time ago,
because none of these products could possibly be as accurate or with high fidelity as they say they are.
And I agree with them all heartedly.
But keep in mind that what Dr. Drew did earlier was he yelled about it being rushed to market and all this other stuff.
And then he said, you know, extraordinary times, extraordinary measures.
And so I think the reason why Dr. Drew isn't censored is because that's where we are in the Scooby-Doo.
We are really at the stage now where we're going to start to reveal that in addition to a dangerous pandemic virus,
there was also a lot of dangerous behavior that made it even worse because they have nothing really to lose by adding that detail.
And so I think we're going to still hear in this video, we're going to go back to manufacturing poorly,
we're going to go back to contaminants, we're going to go back or we haven't really gone there yet,
but I suspect we're going to go further into the idea that the spike protein is toxic.
It made the Germans, the French, the Dutch, the Brits, the Americans all do the same.
And I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe absolutely New Zealand.
I believe this.
That is the strongest evidence of super national organization.
Something above the level of the nation was driving these plans.
And I don't know whether it's the WHO, the UN World Economic Forum,
Uncle Tom Copley and all.
I don't know.
Something above the level of nation.
And that's why they all did the same thing.
They've been told to.
Well, certainly World Health Organization is going forward with a plan to be a super national authority in a setting like this explicitly.
I mean, but I do remember the World Health Organization being one of the earliest,
or at least representative so-called, supposedly, of the North Health Organization saying that lockdowns did nothing but damage at risk individuals, economically distressed individuals.
They said it out loud several times.
And yet, policies did not change.
It was a very bizarre time.
Okay, Dr. Michael Jaden, we are going to bring Dr. Kelly Victory in here right now.
Is there anywhere you'd like to refer people, Dr. Jaden, if they want to find more information from you?
I'm not allowed to have anywhere.
Seriously.
The only place you can find me is Telegram, a place called Telegram.
And I have a joint channel with an Italian architect and a good close friend called Robin Manotti, M-O-N-O double T.I.
And then plus my name.
And I post incessantly.
Anywhere else I am banned.
You know, really badly.
All right.
All right, Dr. Michael Jaden, we'll bring in Dr. Kelly Victory to continue this interview right after this.
It's not a conversation.
Especially since Renee has been asking for.
The wellness company.
A lot of you have been asking for more information about how to counter the adverse effects of the spike protein from COVID infections and the COVID vaccine.
The spike protein is not your friend.
Let's just say that.
So I'm glad we have the wellness company spike support formula as a sponsor.
Especially since renowned internists and cardiologists, Dr. Peter McCullough,
who also chief scientific officer of the wellness company, is one of its champions.
There's some very intriguing research around natto kinase, which might be a way to take on the spike protein.
Listen to this.
So start, if you would, with talking about natto kinase, how you got to that and where you see its application.
So with the viral infection or the vaccines, the spike protein stays within the body and it's found in the heart, the brain, the vital organs and it's causing problems.
The Japanese have been using this for the heart of this, where you see its application.
So with the viral infection or the vaccines, the spike protein stays within the body and it's found.
So with the virus and the vaccine, the spike protein stays within the body is the reason why this video stays on YouTube.
I can guarantee it.
That is 100% bullshit.
And if it is not bullshit, then it is based on the idea that when you get infected with a clone of the original spike with all the right sequences in it.
Or you get transfected with an RNA encoding that protein that you're going to develop some of the symptoms of what they're calling COVID.
And if you inhale it, you might have a pneumonia develop because it might also be able to transfect bacteria.
Now the point here is to remember that once you start equivocating transfection with the virus, because they both have the spike protein and the spike protein stays in your body with both of them, you have to be, this is not right.
And this is the reason why this video is not taken down from YouTube because this is where we are in the narrative.
We are now teaching people that the reason why there are all these horrible adverse events is because there's DNA and other stuff in the shot.
And the spike protein was a terrible choice of antigen.
Why would we ever do that?
And so if they can use Mike to try and send that message and, you know, minimize their reaction to Mike's other messages like everybody's lying and there was no real spread and I don't think that things can do that, then maybe it's okay.
But so far they haven't really let Mike say that and Mike hasn't said it.
And now they're telling you that like the virus and the vaccine, the spike stays in your body.
In the heart, the brain, the vital organs and it's causing problems.
The Japanese have been using this for heart and vascular disease.
Now for 20 years, it's safe. It is a form of a mild blood thinner that it dissolves the spike protein nearly completely.
Spike support formula is the only product on the market containing nano kinase, dandelion root and a host of other antioxidants, all showing promise in helping you protect yourself and your family.
To order this unique, specially formulated supplement, go to Dr. Drew dot com slash twc. That is Dr. Drew dot com slash twc.
Use code drew a checkout for 10% off today.
President Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-a-Lago home quote, our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard, which will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years.
There are three reasons the central banks are dumping the U.S. dollar inflation deficit spending and are insurmountable national debt.
The fact is there is one asset that has bestowed famine wars, political and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times gold.
And you can own it.
Holy crap.
Time to count with the help of birch nutty.
You know why this thing stays on YouTube.
That's right.
Visit us.
Thank you for that.
Now you're spooning for 60.
Do it today for 60% off.
Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversy.
Send that doesn't boil down to a risk benefit calculation.
It is the mandate public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population.
This is uncharted territory.
Welcome, Dr. Kelly.
Victory.
We've heard some challenging propositions here.
Dr. Victory.
Hey, Dr. Yaden.
I am absolutely.
I'm not really sure what to say about shedding because if people are really expressing spike protein for months and there is really active RNA for months, then shedding is possible for sure.
But I just don't know how well that's being quantified and I don't think anybody really is trying to quantify it in an honest way.
So it's tough.
But I can say it's definitely possible.
If the transfection works and you get a good one and you're producing a lot and it lasts for months, then I think yes, it's very possible. Just like, I mean, go ahead and eat garlic.
Eat like four cloves and then go do some jump rope outside.
You know, 12 hours later, I think your sweat will smell something different.
And so, you know, you can put stuff in your stomach that your body will will absorb and that oil will be smellable a day later.
If you inject yourself with something that produces high quantities of a protein because of the chemical alterations of that mRNA, there is a potential for you to sweat it out.
That's the whole reason why sex was not allowed and you weren't supposed to have sexual contact with people in the trial of the mRNA because they just didn't know how it would pass from the body, how it would be excreted.
But sweat glands is definitely high on the radar of how it would be excreted.
And so people who are transfected could even have spike in their sweat coming out of their sebaceous glands. It's very possible, not because the transfection is there, but because the proteins ends up there for some reason or another.
That's how they detected apparently.
But again, I can't stress enough how this idea of shedding protein could just be part of the elaborate narrative to try and get you to believe that the RNA technology works as directed.
It makes spike protein so much that you shed it.
Maybe it'll work and to vaccinate your whole family by just vaccinating one person. So that shedding ideas very seductive from the functional perspective, and that's why I don't like it.
Because it lets a narrative of, wow, it works so well that you make exosomes with spike protein on the outside after some of those cells are destroyed and then you breathe those out, and then your friends get immunity.
And we, although I think it's possible. I think that narrative doesn't feel quite right.
But I'm definitely open to it because it's not asking for any magic to happen.
I'm definitely delighted to have you join us today. I know you're not doing a lot of interviews anymore. And I really appreciate you taking the time to do this one, and to share with our audience your thoughts on this and particularly given the time change.
Thank you.
That would be a very good way to explore it would be to train a dog.
I believe that some people can smell it.
And I will tell you that my wife has had two experiences where her mental cycle was dysregulated in close proximity to an exposure to someone who had been vaccinated so for me, I have two anecdotal stories that I trust from a person that I trust but that still hasn't convinced me that definitely it's happening.
But again, I'm not doubting it. It's just, it's one of those things that if that's there, then that's even worse, you know, that's all I can say.
And for for doing it.
You are one of the first people who I was following actively at the beginning of this debacle.
And I would say there's very little, frankly, between what you have been saying what I've been saying from the very beginning.
I've been very vocal about the fact that this is not mistakes my government made. This was wise my government told me.
And I firmly believe that. And for what it's worth for our audience, we are bringing Tom Ren's back in August on the 17th.
So they're selling Robert Malone's book and they're bringing Tom Ren's back to tell us about the Scooby Doo.
Tom Ren's is actually going to be exposing, I believe, the goods, the irrefutable evidence that not only did they lie, but they they lied well in advance.
This was planned out and everything from masking to lockdowns to social distancing and then the vaccines.
They were fully aware of the dangers that those things posed.
So people should put that on their calendars. I want to start. I want to go back to what you're saying at the very beginning with through some conversation you're having with regard to the vaccines.
I raised huge concerns about these vaccines from way before they were launched as well.
For a little bit different reason than you did.
Interestingly, you know, as somebody who has an extensive history like you do experience in drug development.
One of the things I thought was perplexing if you really wanted to make an effective vaccine was why would you target the spike protein?
Even if you didn't know that the spike protein was toxic, which I didn't know that initially, even if you didn't know that that was the thing that was thrombogenic, for example, that is the area that we absolutely know is the area most likely to mutate.
You know, all viruses mutate coronaviruses are particularly adept at it. They do it more quickly than others in the area that is most likely to mutate would be that spike protein.
So the idea of creating a vaccine predicated on a singular spike protein that's likely to change it about, I don't know, 15 minutes.
And therefore not be, you know, susceptible, if you will, to the antibodies you produced.
I'd just like to remind you here that there is still an unpublished data set from a young scientist named Alina Cham, who looked at how the spike protein changed over the course of the pandemic, and compared it to the rate of change that was reported for SARS-1 back in 2002 and 2003.
And she found that the SARS virus sequences that were reported in the early 2000 break outbreak would sometimes vary by as much as 50 amino acids per sequence that was sampled.
And at the very start of this pandemic for the first six months, the sequences were less than 10 amino acids different.
Can you say infectious clone.
Why would they do that?
I agree with you. That's, there's at least three reasons why you wouldn't pick the spike protein one. We've touched on its biological activity. It's not a nice thing. You do not want it in your body.
The second, as you say, it is definitely reported at the site of the greatest rate of change. And so why would you do that?
And the third one is very important. It's not as different from you and me as you could choose what you would want with an ideal vaccine is something that's very characteristic of the organism and very, very different from you.
And I'm afraid one of the things I spotted early was a weak but important homology between spike protein and a protein vital in pregnancy called syncytia one.
And I just remember thinking, why would hell would you risk putting a protein? So here folks, ladies and gentlemen, the concern I had would be if they did mount an effectively immune response to this foreign protein.
There was a little bit similar to you. Some of your immune response might spill over and attack that thing that's slightly similar in you.
And the prediction would be if that happened, it would impact fertility and chocolate. And all around the world, what is happening? A fall of 10 to 15% in the life birth everywhere you look.
Yes, and I reported on this same thing and I think there's undoubtedly because of that overlap between that normal human protein that is required for the implantation and the development of the placenta critically important so you've listed three things.
One, that they spike protein by itself is toxic. Number two, I'm going to go out there and go crazy right now because I want to make sure that everybody understands that this is possible.
Synchatin is, synchatin is a protein that has homology to many fusion proteins. Okay.
So the idea of this homology is there and it's real, but we have lots of proteins that for one reason or another have homology with viral proteins.
And that's because viruses aren't the pathogens that we say they are there. Also part of this huge bouquet of unknown cell to cell communication, basically unstudy.
And so the trick here to remember is that even this story of the homology with synchatin was not just Michael Eden's story was somebody else's story to I believe it was a guy from Norway who said it as well.
I believe that somebody by the name of Dolores Cahill was on to at least some other symmetries as well.
So I would argue imagine the possibility, imagine the possibility that if this really is a Scooby-Doo, then even the sequence itself is part of the Scooby-Doo.
And so putting these number one, you have to make sure that you realize that synchatin is a protein, which is already homologous to viral fusion proteins, irrespective of this fusion protein.
And so the near homology with that is not really surprising.
So Mike is just saying you wouldn't choose this protein because this protein is related to a protein that's related to fetal development and placental development and etc.
So he's not saying that this sequence is in the spike protein because somebody put it there.
But he's also not specifically saying that we know that synchatin is a protein that is derived from a viral protein because that's just the way this is.
There are proteins which bring membranes together.
Okay, I'm going to leave it there.
It is the area most likely to mutate as the virus goes through its normal mutation process.
And number three, it is not different enough from that which is self to keep your body from being attacked by antibodies that are produced to it.
And number four, and it's fundamental. I didn't think about it initially, but I mentioned earlier today, it's not you. It's non self. If you, if your body may just something that doesn't belong there, your body will think that's what happens in cancer.
And you often produce an aberrant protein and it leaves a marker on the cell, cell surface that's your, your immune system says, hey, that doesn't belong here and killed it. That's, that's calling me.
You're going to this every day. We take it.
Again, I'm spending so much time trying to make sense of things. And if you, if you accept my premise that things were rushed and people did believe it was an emergency, again, that's a hypothesis. I'm not saying it's factually the case.
And I know you have challenged that, but let's just pause at that. If you're really rushing things out in an emergency, wouldn't it already be likely that the, would you pull something off the shelf that you already had well along the road of research?
They must have already been looking at spike proteins. They're already been sort of postulating that they could use something like this.
So when it came time to pull the trigger, they went all the way with it and tested it.
I think you're a thoroughly good man through.
It's a creative solution. Yeah.
The answer is no to that, because here's the problem with that.
Four companies would pass away down the road with the same product.
It's, it's not feasible, is it? They, they made an executive decision.
I don't know when they made it. They definitely made it. But they all alighted on the same piece of the, of this virus or a ledge fire.
I have a problem with viruses that only develops in the last few months.
I can anticipate a little bit of a rebuttal here that somebody will say, yeah, they, they did.
But once they decided to make MRNA, then they're just making MRNA.
And so they needed the needed to make the lipid nanoparticle and they needed to make the RNA.
But those things are all basically the same process.
And so scaling that process up was the challenge, but it's the same challenge for everybody.
And so if it's an emergency and all those, those processes are patented and all the, all the royalties and licensures are governed by the laws that are ready to go for the pandemic, then we can, that's how that happens.
The, the whole infrastructure for how the, the intellectual property will be distributed and used during the course of the pandemic was also decided at the beginning of the pandemic.
And we need to really inspect what happened and how that, those levers were moved and pushed, which allowed all these companies to all choose the same target and all manufacture it.
Without stepping on the intellectual property of one another or with the proper licensure agreements. Do you see?
And so not only is it impossible for companies to have accidentally come upon this, but because of the way intellectual property works and because of the way these processes are often part of that intellectual property, then there's no way in hell
that all of these companies decided to make the same basic therapeutic without already having worked out all the details of what processes belong to who and what patents belong to who and who was paying licensure to who before we go forward.
That had to already be there.
I think
I am going along with an hour.
And it is odd that they didn't go for the nuclear capsid protein, but it's just odd to me.
And nuclear caps would have been a reasonable target seems to me, but yeah.
I think if you also look at the timing of the, of the development and the, and the submission of the patents on these vaccines, it leads you to the conclusion that this was not something that they all of a sudden in the heat of the moment and the fear of the,
the pandemic, the fog of war that they also decided to want this up.
This was calculated and well, well in development.
Wow, that was great.
Well, that's my point.
That's, that's, that's my point that they, they had this sort of underway for whether they were ever going to use it or not.
No, I think.
They had the RNA idea going away.
They are, I had to have already prepared those factories and everything that process and the machinery and the equipment.
And what would be required was already ready to go so that they could just ship it and sell it or tell them where to order it from.
That's for sure.
But Dr. Drew said, just follow me along here.
You know, it was rushed.
It was an emergency.
And so that's the third time he's interjected.
The last time he interjected, he actually said the who said the lockdowns were bad.
The who said lockdowns were bad a lot of times and we just seem to ignore the who.
Drew even said that the who was actually good.
The who said that lockdowns were bad.
And so you can almost see where the who is being set up to be better than the United States or some of these governments that locked down when the who said the lockdowns aren't so bad and use remdesivir when the who said remdesivir doesn't work.
I see it.
I see the Scooby-Doo in this already.
But now I see an even deeper, yuckier Scooby-Doo where the who and what the who said a few times is actually kind of better than what other entities did.
I heard Dr. Drew say it like three times now.
But the most important was when he said that the who actually said the lockdowns were bad and we ignored them.
Listen carefully, ladies and gentlemen, because there's a reason why this video is not off of YouTube.
It's because the defense has played out very well here.
And despite the offensive juggernaut of Mr. Sparkle, the defense is pretty good in this one.
Oh, yeah, and I wanted to spool it back a little bit because Michael Eden said he's going along with the narrative for the sake of the discussion.
Because Dr. Drew said, just, you know, give me this, that there was rush and that there was an emergency and people thought it was an emergency.
And so Mike went along with that because Drew asked him to let's spool it back to make sure you hear that because he's still doing that a little bit.
They all alighted on the same piece of the of this virus or a ledge fire.
As I say, I have a problem with viruses that only develops in the last few months.
So I am going along with the narrative for the common sense.
And it is.
I am going along with the narrative for the common sense.
I am going along with the narrative for the purpose of the conversation.
So make sure you hear that because he's already resigned to the fact that they're going to talk like this, right?
He's already resigned to it.
And so I think that's what's happening here.
I don't know for sure, but I feel like that's what's happening here.
Is odd that they didn't go for the nuclear capsid protein, but this is odd to me.
Nuclear capsid would have been a reasonable target seems to me, but yeah.
I think if you also look at the timing of the development and the.
I don't like the end protein myself because the end protein is even more homologous to other coronavirus entities out there in the record books as recorded by science than the spike protein.
So if there was a viral protein that developing immunity to was necessary, it wouldn't be the end protein because the end protein from other coronaviruses that we most surely run into if the biology of this pandemic is even remotely true for which we will have previous immunity to.
And so that's the last protein I would be worried about.
And again, we're still talking about using a protein to transfect and make antibodies to which raw, which, which Michael Eden knows is baloney anyway.
So again, he seems to more or less be just going along with these people because that's what he's got to do now.
I don't really know.
But that's what I feel is happening because again, you heard him on Steve Kirsch and now you're hearing him here.
And he said, I'm going along with the narrative for the sake of the conversation.
And I think it's now almost like he's giving up, not because he's given up, but because he doesn't work hard.
He's a guy who floats in the stream.
And so if the stream is not a stream that is malleable to his stroke, then he's just going to lay back and float until he gets another chance.
And then he's going to swim again.
And if he gets a chance to swim, he's going to swim like he did with Kirsch.
And in this case, I think these two are kind of ganging up on him and sidetracking him.
And so he's just like, you know, I'm going along with the conversation for this or going along with the narrative for the sake of the conversation.
It's a mission of the patents on these vaccines.
It leads you to the conclusion that this was not something that they all of a sudden in the heat of the moment and the fear of the pandemic, the fog of war that they also decided to want this up.
This was calculated and well, well in development in advance of the announcement.
Well, that's my point though. That's that's that's my point that they had this sort of underway for whether they were ever going to use it or not.
No, I think what's actually is, and I'm saying the same that I don't believe all the pieces all fell together in March 2020 with literally 180 countries.
They had rehearsed this. Did you know, if you don't, it's worth looking at up that there have been tabletop simulations of global pandemics stretching back to 1997 the first one was held at Andrews Air Force Base Washington.
And there have been about another 15 or 20 of them. The most recent was the Bill Gates sponsored events 201 that took place in October 2019.
And guess what folks the scenario was from deep as China emergency novel coronavirus that spreads around the world.
From what?
I mean, that's so honestly, I'm I'm I always like to believe the best of people.
And I remember the first time I heard this, I thought, you've got to be kidding me. This means you were rehearsing the very thing that you allege happened three months later.
And I'm expected to buy the coincidence. Yes.
But I think I think a simple person will conclude that this has been years in the planning. I'm sorry.
Well, but let me let me let me let me twist that a little bit on its ear and say we are aware of this pandemic ink that had been created over the preceding 15 or 20 years.
And there was a there was a many, many thousands of scientific hammers waiting to hammer upon a nail.
In this case was the spike protein, but pandemic ink was well established.
It could that be your theoretical supranational organization that had its way with the elected representatives?
Maybe it was that pandemic ink group who were so ready to pull the trigger on everything.
By the way, they had not contemplated lockdown till their Chinese counterparts.
From that very war game, they were the ones that proposed the lockdown.
But couldn't that be the supranational organization you've been looking for?
Well, again, you're a very nice guy.
That's a very creative solution.
They rehearsed 25 years of rehearsal.
And actually, I mean, I've thought about this a lot and I hadn't previously.
I think I don't think that pandemics of severe respiratory illness are even possible.
And I'll explain why.
And that's if you have, let's maybe go to the idea of a common cold.
A common cold for most miles.
If you have to, you'll stay on your feet through the illness.
And so if we go along with an hour, if you could be infecting people all the way through your illness.
And so it was spread around the world easily.
But if we go to the other end, like a really, really serious flu like they told us this was,
it will disable people within the first day or so.
And they will be forced to withdraw from circulation.
It will automatically self-terminate.
I have to say, if God and nature have not designed us in this way,
we're going to wipe ourselves out a hundred times already.
Do you know who made that case?
I interviewed a smallpox expert.
Yeah.
No, you may have, but also a smallpox expert named Larry Brilliant is his name.
And he early in the pandemic, he said, no, you don't lock down because when smallpox breaks out,
people either keep to themselves, they hide away from the infected people
and the affected people keep to themselves.
It happens naturally, as you're saying.
Which is, which is also, by the way, why viruses mutate the way they do.
As viruses mutate, they don't become more and more lethal.
They become more contagious and less lethal because otherwise they would eliminate themselves quite quickly.
It's a survival mechanism on the part of viruses.
Before, I want to get into something in here though, because Drew, you know, defaults a lot and you're not the only one.
I agree that this idea of it was the fog of war, you know, they weren't a panic and we quote, didn't know.
Yeah, it was so new. It was novel. We didn't know.
And I push back on that with regard to these vaccines, the vaccines, let's recall,
were not launched until we were one full year into the pandemic.
They were launched the end of December of 2020 and became generally available to the public in January of 21.
So we are talking about, we had a year of data proven.
We knew full well that children were at such a de minimis risk from this virus as to be indistinguishable from zero.
We know that young, healthy people without comorbidities like obesity and diabetes were at fundamentally zero serious risk.
Can you hear what's happening here? Of course, she's just reciting the faith.
We know that there's a virus and what do we know about it?
You see, she's reciting the faith. She hasn't listened to anything that Mike Eden said.
He said that it's not possible for a SARS virus to do a pandemic.
He says that.
And so you can keep hearing it over and over again, Dr. Drew does it, then she does it.
They bring him back into the rails and they're good enough at it. They're good enough at it.
They're rehearsed enough at it. They're getting a chat in front of them, which gives them clues as to how to do it.
I don't know, but somehow or another, they have been able and rehearsed enough and coached enough to be able to bring this back to this viral narrative every single time.
And it's a viral narrative where the countermeasures were rushed and that there's room for improvement on all kinds of things.
I mean, goodness sakes, we knew the early treatment word for this virus.
We knew that kids weren't vulnerable to this virus.
They keep saying this virus and Mike keeps saying there isn't a this virus and they act like they don't hear it.
But Mr. Sparkle does not is not daunted by these people. He's not, he's not, he's not going to give up.
The idea that we launched these vaccines on people who we knew were at zero risk defies, in my mind, this argument that this was fog of war.
Dr. Hayden, you agree with that?
Absolutely. Having spent my entire life in biopharmaceuticals, big pharma, and then my own biotech, you would never do the things that we did.
And I remember shouting from the sidelines when they got down to school aged children.
You know, I was ready to campaign outside schools and explain to people your children are not at risk. Please don't expose them. It doesn't matter if this is safe.
You know the long term effects, but the thing that upset me and I was famous for this.
You know this. Everybody knows the word for litter might.
60 years ago, the US made a wise decision not to launch that, that drug.
But in Europe and New Zealand, Australia and Canada, I think lots of people were harmed by the litter mind.
It produced birth defects ever since that moment in the late early 60s. We never ever risk experimental medical procedures on pregnant women.
And it's not only from the advisor to eat top cheese or drink a drink or have a single cigarette and you think it's okay to stop them with a gene based vaccine that's only a few months old, give me a break.
You know, and I tell you what else, they had no reproductive toxicology. This is my field between experiments and human.
The things you must do is what's called reproductive toxicology study rats and rabbits in various phases of pregnancy. You count the number of parts you look at their health.
They have not done these studies. They still have not done these studies.
And they never let's talk. I just want to.
So there you go. That I never let's talk.
Okay, so let's just make sure we mentioned that.
With Mark Koolak, Mark Hugh Sotonic's work.
We have come to realize that around the time of the fluidamide scandal.
It appears that that less Weinstein actually went to Denmark.
And was in Denmark around the time that the fluidamide scandal was brewing there and may or may not have been able to assist with the fluidamide scandal being able to be leveraged as a way of establishing some of the legislative structure upon
which the FDA is based if I'm not mistaken.
And so I don't think that this mention of the lidamide is anything more than an indication of the nexus of legal and intellectual property and and regulatory law that was happening at that time and the lidamide may very well have been the linchpin
that allowed a bunch of pieces on the board of America to move very rapidly during that time.
So there you go. That I knew that was that was criminally dangerous.
Well, that's a perfect segue because I want to go back to talking about those lipid nanoparticles that we've known since way before 2000 with their papers going back into the 1990.
The other reason that I wanted to say and I'd written down here was that Kelly victory challenged the idea that the knife of the virus was novel.
And it she seemed to imply that by the time they released the vaccines that the virus was a novel anymore because we had a whole year to get exposed to it as well.
And so that's again another layer of preserving the faith preserving the Scooby-Doo which is that there is a novel virus.
So every time you hear them talk about this virus, they are saying there was a novel virus there reciting it.
Ineties that talk about the toxicity of lipid nanoparticles themselves drew and I did an entire show on this and where those accumulate and we knew that they accumulated based on the bio distribution study as you reference from Japan
that the 11% of it consolidated in the reproductive organs, specifically the ovaries.
It's my understanding as well that at least two of the lipid nanoparticles that were used in these vaccines are not appropriate or not even approved for use in humans or in animals.
Do you have any, can you give us any insight into that component of it?
Not not more than you've given. I know there are a couple of companies manufacturing them. It is normal. I will say it is normal to formulate drugs.
Often a drug is so potent that the amount that you would take is so small you can hardly see it. And so you dilute it in what are called excipients and binders and formulation agents and coating agents.
So I'm not saying formulation is in any way strange, but to choose these particular novel lipid nanoparticles so they're of a class of molecules that have unfortunately do have this property of dumping the macromolecules in the gonads, you know, certainly over this.
And we knew that it was a well known thing. So it's not a mistake. They chose that knowing what it would do.
You decide what this means.
There are three things that I have summarized, you know, to lay people that I say were the three in my mind, the three biggest lies.
So I think it's important to point out here now that there is another article by Robert Malone.
On his sub stack where he talks about the chemical makeup of the lipid nanoparticles, which is what he did earlier.
If you were recall, we did a we did a brief video about that a few days ago because he had posted a video on his own sub stack kind of explaining it in his own words.
Here is a much better apparently well written where even references Star Trek a few times.
And this long article, I assume, will be the subject because I don't think it's worth it for me to go into this because I think this is a distraction.
Even if the lipid nanoparticles are toxic, it's a distraction from the idea that transfection was rolled out as okay.
And so they want you to think of the lipid nanoparticles as another thing that they could improve to make this technology better.
And I called this already many, many, many, many, many, many months, if not a year or more ago, that's what they were going to do.
First with the spike protein, I called that two years ago already, that they were going to say the spike protein is toxic and that's why transfection wouldn't or didn't work as well as it should have.
Then they said it was because the RNA wasn't translated right.
Then they said it was because of the chemical alterations.
Then they said it was because there's DNA in it.
And now they're saying it's because the lipid nanoparticles are toxic.
And so they keep beating around the bush about saying what Mike Eden has been saying from the very beginning.
And I've been saying ever since I heard him say it, which is that this has to, first and foremost, best case scenario, generate auto immunity.
And so I'm expecting that Charles Ricksy and Christine Grace and Kevin McCann will do a detailed three hour stream about this Robert Malone sub stack because they've been doing three hour streams about lipid nanoparticle chemistry for the last week or so.
And my critique of Christine Grace's presentation at their weekend resulted in a wonderful dedication of a whole weekend to my work.
So I'm really hopeful that they will turn their chemical and biochemical and organic chemical expertise to this essay by Robert Malone and give us an analysis of where Robert Malone gets this wrong since Christine Grace is such an expert in the preparation of lipid nanoparticle preparations.
I'm really hopeful that they're going to take that and make it into a real instructive analysis.
Long list from which to choose.
The number one lie was that we were told that the vaccine would stay in the deltoid muscle where it was injected when they knew clearly from the bio distribution studies that that was a lie and it goes essentially every major organ system within a matter of hours.
We were told that the M RNA would be eliminated quote very quickly from the body. The CDC's own website still says within a matter of days when we know that it lasts in excess of 90 days.
And that's only because those that's as long as they study.
And so we don't know for how long when we'll continue to produce these things.
These have spike proteins as a result of the M RNA. And number three, we were told no way know how could this be incorporated into the DNA. Now there's reverse transcribed.
What's your understanding of the reverse transcription that third component, the idea that this M RNA would in perpetuity or become incorporated within the DNA of the cells.
It is certainly possible. There's nothing about the design of these that would make it impossible and has been demonstrated. I believe in human cells in test tubes.
So, you know, we're out of the way you would say that I would think a caution cautious person would would assume that it's possible rather than the opposite.
And the one thing I want to mention on the theme of how long these materials would persist in your body. I don't know whether ladies and gentlemen audience are aware that this messenger RNA, you know, they make it sound unnatural, but actually,
part of the M RNA is synthetic and non natural one of the four components that make it up has been chemically modified. So it's not normal. And you know what they chemically modified it is to make it last longer.
And so, you know, again, what do you make of that ladies and gentlemen, they chemically modified one of the bases specifically to make it last longer. And what are we seeing now persistent expression of the message over months and it could be permanent.
Some people could constantly make low levels of this material forever. And I believe their immune system will will kill that tissue, wherever it's being produced have to happen.
Yeah, I think it was my understanding that they did that they did this synthetic M RNA because otherwise remember the very beginning, we were told these were to be difficult because they had to be stored at sub sub zero super cold temperatures that made would
made it impossible to then be distributing it in the parking lot at the Walmart, you know, or giving you know these vaccine clinics that were popping up on every street corner.
So that was my understanding they made the synthetic M RNA specifically so it would last longer. It would not break down very quickly. And it was quite purposeful is is how I how I understood it.
I've got another another thing that's it's not entirely in my field but it's one that's directly adjacent to it. So there's a gen.
I can't let her get away with that she's saying that they altered the RNA chemically so that it wouldn't need super cold temperatures for shipping.
I'm sorry but that's that's really wrong.
The synthetic RNA is codon optimized for maximum human expression of protein.
And the RNA has been chemically altered so that uracils are changed to uridine pseudo uradines and this is to avoid the degradation of the RNA and it also seems to reduce the intracellular immune response.
This is a result of the RNA and we're not sure of all the mechanisms why.
But that seems to be the case so it's not for shipping, which is a very bizarre thing to say.
How could you.
Yeah, it's a very bizarre thing to say.
I don't know how to process in manufacturing R&D in the pharmaceutical industry than I have in research. His name is Headley Reese. He's a Welsh guy.
Headley Reese and he's in sub stack. And he points out to me, Mike, you should know that pharmaceuticals are like cars and airplanes. They're manufactured from various starting materials and they go through intermediate forms and then you finally
assemble it on the line. And every single one of those steps is a chemical or biochemical reaction. You have to have target concentrations, purities, impurities and so on.
He said the R&D process to manufacture complex biologicals minimally takes four years, four years. Yeah, if you take this, if you take it, he says, I don't know what the whole isn't these glass bottles, but it's not what they're telling you.
It's not possible to manufacture instantly a complex molecule in that. Yeah, that's so as we're getting as we get to the weeds here. This is stuff that we.
And so I think it's really important to underscore this that one of the things that people like the Twiv episodes and some people like Kevin McKernan and some of these other very bright molecular biologists that are waving their hands claiming that they know everything.
Maybe even Christine Grace or some of these other people that are in the fringes of trying to paint this, you know, million different reasons why the MRNA didn't work in a million different ways when we can approve it.
I think they're also very much circling around this one. Let me just back it up again and make sure I'm on to this the right way.
So the manufacturing process as it stands right now is pretty much akin to how they make an RNA infectious clone of coronaviruses. They're going to make a DNA construct of the spike protein sequence.
They're going to make lots of copies of that DNA construct in a fermentation process, which is growing in bacteria.
Then they're going to convert that DNA after removing it from the bacteria through lysis. They're going to take that DNA and convert it into RNA.
Now that process is imperfect.
That process will require purification after it's converted because the DNA doesn't get destroyed. It's still there.
And this imperfect process is where supposedly the smear of RNA comes from because you don't get the same perfect full translation in that industrial processing of DNA to RNA.
And so this imperfect process can be improved if we were to print every RNA in a printing process, which we also know how to do, but we're limited by the length that we can produce in those processes.
So as we optimize those RNA printing processes, we can greatly increase the purity of the RNA construct that we're throwing into the lipid nanoparticle or throwing into the transfection agent.
And so that's another place for improvement.
And so again, they're trying to show you that this was done just poorly. There's a million different shortfalls here, so we shouldn't write off transfection.
But Mike already told you that if you're expressing a foreign protein in your own cells, your immune system will kill it and that risks autoimmunity.
And that's the best case scenario where the lipid nanoparticle isn't toxic, where the RNA expressing the protein isn't toxic, where it eventually goes away.
And so all of these things, all of these things that they're waving their hands about lipid nanoparticle spike protein, whatever whatever whatever are on top of the incredible downsides of perfectly working transfection,
which is completely inappropriate to augment the healthy immune system of any mammal.
So as we're getting as we get to the weeds here, this is stuff that we've been sort of messing around with Dr. Victor and I for a while, which is that just to just to throw a few things out, there's the issue of plasmids and what they're doing with the RNA particles and the protein particles.
As well as Sashilatapova is concerned about the different lot sizes and purity and now we have a study out of Denmark showing that 4% of the vaccine lost lots were responsible for 60% of the adverse events.
So that was something came out just a couple weeks ago in a verified journal and they had been publishing it.
I was at the scene of the accident, the person who did the work originally as a British light called Craig party Cooper, Craig party Cooper, and Sashilatapova and Mike even saw this and we made a beeline for him and that's how Sashil, Mike and Craig met.
It doesn't make any contribution to the analysis except to say you cannot be tolerable that we have this degree of batch to batch variation.
I remember saying so that's very interesting that Sashilatapova is so interestingly connected to Mike Eden that actually Sasha and Mike contacted Craig party Cooper, who was the guy in the UK who was working on the lot story.
Because Sasha was on my stream a long time ago, right after that happened, Sasha was glad to be on my stream and I think she would be on my stream again.
And what an interesting character Sasha is because she's been around in the United States since the early 90s, she's had a few companies, one of which was doing a way of measuring heart signals
are very important in clinical trials and so this was a way, a company that was devising a device or an algorithm which would discern cautionary or alarming or indicative heart signals in pharmaceutical trials.
And so it was an interesting niche product that was actually purchased by Pfizer as I understand it correctly and Mark could correct me if I'm wrong on that one if he's still in the chat.
So it's an interesting mention here and again remember that Mike Eden was on everyone's radar.
Like what were we going to do about Mike Eden was a serious concern in 2020 more than anyone else on the earth, I think, because Wolfgang Wodach already knew what would happen if he didn't shut up.
But Mike Eden was a new guy on the scene that didn't seem to know when to stop.
Yes, I'm very curious as to whether Craig Particoper and Sasha La Topova.
I'm hoping that they're genuinely good people and that they're mixed up with Mike Eden because they got into that very early but I can imagine where one or more of those people is actually somehow playing
the role of the narrative getting control of Michael getting control of me with this narrative of lots and how lots need to be followed so we chase that down.
And we look for hot lots and not hot lots.
And so then we're not realizing that there was no spread.
And we're not realizing that the PCR doesn't work because we're spending all of our time looking for hot lots and and placebo lots, which may be real.
But arguing about that doesn't get us out of the cage at all. And that's what worries me about that story.
People that one thing pharmaceutical companies do extraordinarily well, if they run their whole process is they make consistent products. So if you get the same tablet in Singapore or Sarasota will be the same material.
And not if you've done it in a few months, not if it takes four years to do the R&D on manufacturing. So that I think is, I think that's a good thing.
And that might be one of the only things that they can get Mike to say, which is reasonable from the perspective of his experience.
And it's somehow at least cursorily contributing to the sustaining of the Scooby-Doo provided these other two actors play their part.
And so again, if it's three on two and the consensus is in this video is that there was a virus and we had to do something, but what we did wasn't very good.
I think the consensus is pretty much there.
I mean, I think that Mike even has different ideas on certain things, but the effect of this video is extraordinarily different than the video with Steve Kirsch.
Because of how we keep bouncing back to the statements where you say things like, I didn't know that the spike protein was toxic back in 2020.
That's an enchantment.
That's an enchantment by saying you didn't know something back in 2020 puts the assumption in that you and I know it now, but I didn't know it back then.
And that's the enchantment.
That kind of language is the enchantment.
I don't know if that qualifies as neurolinguistic programming, but that's how they do it.
Their statements have embedded assumptions in them.
And in order for you to argue or to come back against that assumption, you kind of have to correct their statement, which isn't a very fun way to contribute to a conversation.
It's an awkward way.
If you have to correct your host.
Well, I don't agree with what you just said, but okay.
It's magic to me.
It's not an excuse.
It might be an explanation, but it means they knew the variation occurred.
They have access manufacturers have access to the same VA era status that you and I have.
That means by March 2021, they knew it was all over the place.
They knew it.
I think it's very likely that they did this on purpose because if they knew that this was a toxic thing, then the more variation they could throw out there the better.
I would go so far as to say that putting graphene oxide in a few bottles is also a good idea because as long as there's a whole world of bottles that don't have graphene oxide in them.
It's really easy to debunk that story.
And so again, placebo lots make it so that everybody that came to my CVS was fine.
I didn't hear of anything bad.
No one ever passed out here.
And then you can have another place where every 15th person is passing out.
But all we know because that contributes to the illusion where there's stuff to chase around and mysteries to solve that have nothing to do with you realizing there ain't nothing spread around that a PCR test is accurately tracking.
And that's what that's really all about.
And if that lot's story is true, which I think it probably is the idea that we're going to be able to accurately track it down and that that somehow is going to be the smoking gun that's going to end this is so wrong.
It's wrong.
What did they do?
Nothing.
One of the arguments I've made, Dr. Aiden from the beginning of all this to again to lay people, you know, right now I'm talking to scientists.
Are they both saying Dr. Yaden?
I feel like I keep hearing Dr. Yaden with, you know, the three of us being scientists who have varied experience in this. But when I'm talking to lay people, I said from the beginning, does it occur to you that there are a heck of a lot of viruses out there for which scientists have never been able to create
a safe and effective vaccine viruses like Oh, I don't know herpes, kaksaki virus, norovirus, lot of viruses out there that have been around that we have really tried to crack the code on and haven't been able to vaccinate against what makes you think that they could
do this hairball in a matter of months for something, you know, and say, Oh, here's something and it's not only we're going to use it on everybody and it's totally safe and effective.
Roll up your sleeve. I mean, it was just preposterous.
Nobody had been to the South Pole until someone did it, right? Would you have been really shocked or would you think it was normal if after 100 years of trying to get to the South Pole or climate, the top of the earth is for guys arrived on the same afternoon.
Right. So for companies succeeded in making within a few weeks of each other for companies, notionally independent, all tapped up with their safe and effective show.
I just think it was the whole thing was being to me.
I agree. I do want to go back to something else just before I forget we were talking about the pregnancy issue, which was huge for me the idea that we were we have never in the history of medicine, given a drug or a therapeutic to a group of people on
whom it has not been tested. Never. We don't do that. That's one of the that's a sacrosanct construct in medicine. And if it hasn't been tested on that group, we just that's a red line. Okay.
The talking heads are annoying, but you understand what they are. This is a group of people that you're sitting with and anything that they agree on potentially becomes an ash conformity enchantment on you.
So anything that Dr. Drew and Kelly victory can make it seem like Mike Eden agrees with regard to the novel virus that spread around the world for which we had to do something, which the mRNA might have worked if we had chosen a different protein or not used in LNP.
And that there will be gain of function coming again, which they haven't touched yet.
Every time they can get Mike Eden to seem like he's agreeing with one of those premises.
They get a free pizza or something. I don't know what they get, but they get something that's the design of this.
And we'll throw in some spike protein, you know, supplements, and we'll throw in some bone meal powder and and we'll come back to the spike protein and I didn't know that that was toxic in 2020.
And like I know, it is now a little neuro linguistic programming and then we'll get back to the faith again.
You studies that were done on animals. It is my understanding that the mouse studies that were done that almost 100% of the mice, the fetuses that were aborted from vaccinated mice had skeletal anomalies.
They had rib abnormalities. Is that you? That is so they had skeletal. Go ahead.
No, you're exactly right. Two things. One, you would not administer to pregnant women.
You would need reproductive toxicology complete. And not only that, you would need to have a clean profile.
So it's not just a matter of mechanically living. If no look here, some skeletal malformations, let's those pregnant women. So if you observed in test animals, some points of concern, you would give it a.
I can't remember the letters, but you would say pregnancy, category X, and on certain letters, you never ever administer its pregnant women.
And even women of child-bearing potential, you say, if I could speak to you, I'm going to ask you to use highly effective means of contraception because of this risk.
And that's the cash register that belonged to them.
Yeah, I can tell you, I went to Duke Universe. That's the first time anyone's ever said it that well.
To actually, you'd need a clean record. You don't just have to do animal studies and look at the babies and report the results.
You need to do extensive animal studies where when you look at the babies and they grow up, they're freaking normal.
Clean reproductive studies. Otherwise, you would label it as for pregnancy capital X.
Today for undergrad, a huge medical center there. And it was always very irritating to me that the guys could constantly, they could sign up and make extra cash on the side to be a subject in lots and lots of different drug and therapy experiments.
And I, because I was a female, just because I was of child-bearing age and potential, was not able to sign up for any of them. So they'd get, you know, $1,000 for participating in this drug study or $500 for doing this.
And that's because every female of any age is already carrying her ovaries full of the, the ovum that she is going to eventually ovulate.
And so I mean, I don't know when that's actually true. I mean, it may be not be true at four years old, but when you're an adult woman, you have all the eggs in you that you're going to release over your lifetime.
And so you can potentially ruin those, those eggs that are waiting in your ovaries already. It's not a joke. This is not some kind of game that we're playing here.
And as she described, so many clinical trials are just done on men for this reason alone, because the potential is all there.
And there's no way for us to know that that's not going to happen because it's a purity thing. And it's a, and it's a, it's a complexity thing.
Starting from the smallest portion of the complexity, and then it's going to explode.
And so if you, if you mess it up here, then what it explodes into will be catastrophic.
You know, it might just miscarriage. I mean, that's, that's how that works.
That's no more babies anymore when those ovum are damaged.
And that's what she's talking about here. And this is legit. This is legit. This is a nice discussion. But again, we're interspersed with, with things about the virus and about the spike protein and about infection.
And, and it's, it's annoying. And, and we were interrupted with a, with an advertisement about the spike protein and about how the spike protein from the virus and the spike protein from the shot stays in the body.
And causes problems in this video.
And so you can see again why it's still on YouTube. It's on YouTube because they have paid sufficient homage to the faith.
You know, therapy, because they were young, healthy males in those, but as the females, we were not even allowed to sign up because of the potential that we could be pregnant.
I mean, this is that is how what a red line that is normally and why that was breached here, I think is absolutely unconscionable. It's immoral. It's unethical.
And we need to get to the bottom of it.
I'm watching as the time clock winds down here. One of the things I really want to talk with you about because you have been perhaps more than, more than most others, egregiously censored.
You have been shut down. You just said you can't even give us a social media place to find you because you've been deplatformed.
Talk a little bit just about from your experience with that and what you think it portends for the future of medicine and health care and open discourse.
Yeah, it's science. I wanted to be a scientist since I was a little boy and I had a whole career in science and it's only asked pretty much after I retired.
You know, I was doing a little like consulting that I realized that lots of things are not what I had understood them to be. I feel almost embarrassed that I didn't know these things that degree of corruption, not just in pharmaceuticals but in regulatory
and even in peer reviewed journal articles that basically you can only get published if you if you're what you're saying is in line broadly with that with going with the grain of a particular journal's ethos.
And as soon as you're in this position as all of us are here, you have a position that's critical of the dominant narrative on my word you the door is closed on your fingers so fast you don't even get a chance to have a discussion.
If that continues, ladies and gentlemen, my, my fields and I'm only a, I only use part of it. My field, investigative biological science is dead on its beats. If you can't have people on up with challenging hypotheses, because, look, if I'm wrong, I do not mind being proved
wrong in public. I apologize, but I'm not wrong. I called out the toxicities of these products before any of them had emotions. You saw authorizations myself and a German doctor called Wolfgang Bodag.
We produced writing about three weeks before the first one had had authorization. I saw that. I saw that. And that's the reason why I knew I was right. But I did it because I didn't have the guts to say it really.
My stream and I saw him saying if I write down the panel and I did, I was fired within weeks from every other consultant I had. Mr. Sparkle.
So, but I want, if I may, I, I, so I believe what's happened is that there were 25 years of planning tabletop simulations of pandemics. So that eventually this thing, whatever it actually was, when that occurred, the world,
nice and neatly followed the plan that it rehearsed for 25 years. That's definitely occurred. It's a military, civilian, international group have been doing this for ages. And I don't think it's legitimate. I don't think pandemics are even.
I don't think they are the threat that they say they are, which is why we haven't had very many. And some of the ones we've had have been a little suspect, shall we say. So, on the one hand, you've got that.
Why in the world would you do that? I'm afraid you need to give me two minutes to say why I think this is happening.
Well, this is, this is scary. I think this, this episode starting in 2020 is never going to end unless enough to wake up and say to help with it. You know, we're not, we're not going to comply with this nonsense anymore.
And I think what's happening here is, if we continue, we're going to end up all of us carrying digital ID. You know, you might think digital ID is no big deal. Let me have digital passports.
But no, there's something coming and it's definitely coming. That's different. So first, your passport is 190 different formats in the world. There isn't one format.
What is coming now globally is a single format digital ID. Second, it will be what's called inter-operable. When you, when your ID pings the system, not only can it make a decision as to whether to allow you to enter a door or buy a product.
But it can make a mark on that digital ID and edits it. That's not true of any idea at the moment. That's called inter-operability, global format. And here's the worst part.
It contains all of you, your health data, your unique ID data, your financial data, your driving history, where you live, what you've bought.
Basically, it's a QR code that takes you to a website called might even likely. And that is what, that is what is coming down the pipe for us.
If you don't believe me, then I'm just going to paint a picture as to why it's the last important decision for humans ever going to make.
And I'm going to refuse it, even though it may exclude me from banking, for example. I don't need digital ID. You don't need digital ID evidence for that. My last 63 years of my life.
They need you to have it. The people who have run this pandemic. What else? What are they going to do with this?
The other two things that are coming down the pipe are the gradual erosion of cash. All of you who are listening to me will be able to see that cash is getting harder to obtain and harder to use.
And lots of supermarkets are getting rid of humans, so it's owning a machine. And I promise you, as it's happening in France and the UK where I live, they're abolishing the checkout assistance.
You'll only better pay with a bank card or an app, no cash. And finally, you can check this out. All central banks are toying with what's called central bank digital currencies.
You will want with the central bank in your country. So now let me give you a scenario. You walk up to the shop.
And you're required to keep your digital ID. So because we're moving into what has been described as the zero trust world. These are not my words. These are their words zero trust worlds.
So you need to prove who you are every moment. You wave your ID. If they've decided, because I've said banking from social media, they're not going to admit me to food stores. The door will not open.
This is how bad it is. Let's say they let me in the store. And I've had a stake yesterday, and I go to the butcher's counter and I pick up some meat and I go to the automated check app.
The computer in the sky checks and says, you've already had eight ounces of steak, nothing for you. And when I try and pay for it, the money won't pay for it.
Or if they say, here's something or frighten you, because this has happened in Britain, lockdown, climate lockdown for being mooted. It's absurd, but they are.
If they say to you may not move more than five miles from your wrench and address, and you are six miles from home and go into a store, and you attempt to buy a bottle of water or a sandwich.
Your central bank digital currency and digital ID will prevent that transaction occurring. That's what is coming for us. So when they say, oh, you need a digital ID so you can prove who you are.
Tell them to, you know, insert it somewhere else. You do not need digital ID. They need you to have this. That's the control mechanism. No soup for you.
Digital ID. You should have said no soup for you. And cash, CBDC. That's it. And then finally, I believe this is what's going to happen. I wish it didn't. And I pray to God I'm wrong.
I think that the third dimension of this is the population.
Why? Because there's been lots of things that have happened in the last three and a half years that have actively increased the amount of injuries and deaths.
And that's upsetting for people to hear that, but I am very sure of this and I'm not the only person saying it.
And I pointed out to you as an experienced pharmacy school searcher that the design of these mRNA based vaccines are inherently dangerous.
What I can tell you is the companies and the governments have said they're so happy with the performance of these products.
They are busy building factories to manufacture billions of doses of them around every constant on the world.
So what I think they're going to do is you'll have your digital ID.
If you're unwise enough to sign up for it, no cash and any central bank digital currencies, the WHO will tell you there's a pandemic.
You remember they're looking for these powers right now. They'll say there's a pandemic. That's their job.
Pharmaceutical companies will cook up the mRNA. Inversion comes vaccine appropriate.
And then that's their part. And then the government will tell you you have to have the job to keep your digital ID valid.
And I think most people will turn up and get the job. And I think over a period of years, the people running this can trim the population to any number they like with plausible deniability.
So if I'm wrong, don't take a digital ID because then it can't happen, can it?
So never let them take cash away because then this can't happen, can it?
So those two things, any government that tries to take cash away from you and forces you to identify yourself digitally is a criminal government.
I would advise you to do what Jefferson Dayless said.
You have the right to amend or abolish a government that injures the purposes for which you established to serve.
I read that this morning, and I'm an English guy resonated with me.
Yeah.
Well, I, it's sobering sobering words. I will, I will certainly say, I fear that you are on the right when we look, for example, Nigel Farage, and for those who don't know him, you know, he's, you know, I think of as Mr Brexit.
In the UK, it's my understanding that his bank accounts were shut down.
He was essentially shut down and kicked out of his bank. And if you can't bank, if you have no way to keep, nowhere to keep your, your cash, you are really disenfranchised from society.
And he clearly was as being punished for his viewpoints, which go against the narrative of the government. So I don't think what you're saying is so far fetched.
I have also said from the beginning that I believe that the entire purpose of this pandemic was to make mRNA a household word, to make people believe that it is safe and effective and well trusted and totally well tested and just sort of standard stuff.
Because how, and they were very successful at it, by the way, we have, you know, think about the number of people in this country, certainly in the United States, who wouldn't dream of eating a genetically modified tomato, you know, or giving their kid a non organic carrot.
Yet they were there rolling up their sleeve. Oh, please, you know, I'll have another on something that's barely been tested. It's insanity.
But if they were successful in making people believe that this is tried and true and well tested that and they're now putting it into the food source mRNA is into the food sources we know that they're looking at non injectable ways to get it to you aerosolizing it, taking it orally.
They intend to move this platform forward. Is that your, your thought?
The doctor victory. I have explained as a biologist of almost 40 years since I started training. The things I've told you about the induction of a non self protein in your body and your immune system recognizing that as inappropriate and attacking and killing every cell that expresses that tells you, ladies and gentlemen,
that whatever else you're being told, you should not accept genetic based injections that will make your body manufacture something that doesn't belong there.
It's inherently dangerous. All of them will be inherently dangerous. I promise you.
I want to go back to your warnings. The warnings about the digital health idea, whatever we call it.
There is already a pressure point people can turn to if they want to do something to reduce the risk of all that happening. The World Health Organization is on an active campaign for an international treaty or whatever they're calling it.
And in addition to everything you said, which is in that treaty, they also want to make human life essentially equivalent or of equal value as any other organism on the planet and geology.
And geology itself. So if some geological phenomenon is being challenged, your life may not at least has equal valence to a volcano or something.
They have very very odd stuff in there. But really what they're going for with that is they're going to use it to mandate climate behavior and how they're going to get that sort of under control.
So to speak, but talk to your government officials about this treaty. Do not let them sign this treaty. Do not let the country. You elected your officials. These are not elected officials.
They're granting themselves fiat authority over your duly elected officials that should never ever happen.
Why don't we say let's elect somebody that makes a digital currency or a digital ID illegal?
Why doesn't anyone ever propose the idea that we should have leaders and elect leaders who are against digital ID and against medical records sharing and medical record databases that are not anonymized or whatever.
But let's why don't we organize against it instead of making it a thing. Well, we're just going to opt out. No, I'm not criticizing Mike.
I'm just talking about what he's saying and the talking points he's saying and whether there can be anything improved here because I'm curious as to whether there's a better answer.
Then let's do Chris Martinson style. Everybody get a get a solar powered super farm and we'll just check out for a decade.
I don't think that's a realistic way or proposed way of acting for somebody who lives in the in the city of Chicago or the city of New York or the city of Houston or the city of Dallas city of Seattle.
All of these big cities, even the city of Pittsburgh, there are people that it's not realistic for them to go, you know, get chickens and whatever.
Just check out for a decade. Become self sufficient.
You know, get some silver and gold and start trading like that with a barter system. That's not really realistic.
I guess it's realistic if you have all the money in the world and you could just go buy a three million dollar farm in the middle of West Virginia and then invest in all of the amenities necessary and, you know, maybe generate some electricity from a local creek or something.
I mean, I guess if you have all the resources and you can just choose to check out. Yeah, I guess that would be a great idea.
But I don't think that's a realistic solution from the perspective of going forward, like just don't take a digital ID because they're going to make it necessary here.
You know that real ideas coming to the entire United States in 2024 because that law was already on the book 10 years ago.
And so you're going to have a chip in your driver's license. It looks exactly like the chip in your in your credit card or the one maybe that's in your passport.
And that thing is capable of storing data. And as Mike Eden said, it will just code for a website that's on the government database that is the life of Mike Eden.
That's how they're that's the plan here.
And so we're actually going to have to elect people that understand that's the plan and want to actively go against it. That's the solution in my humble opinion.
No, I think you're absolutely right. I think I've come to the conclusion that that COVID is entirely a fraud supported by propaganda and a very bad clinical diagnostic called PCR, which I know quite a lot about it.
So I won't I won't use up too much time on that. By the way, I've got I've got a test for your audience. You might think this guy is a little crazy.
But here's the here's the point. I think search like a search engine is a kind of generic.
Here he's going to tell about how if you use a search engine, you can see that he's heavily censored and I think that that's correct.
Is it true that is it true that that.
Catherine Austin fits was on Goodman and and Colin. If that's true, I think I need to find that's that show. That sounds interesting.
Not a good sign. Why don't you search after this program and use the word doctor Mike Eden, put it in Safari, put it in Google and just take a little glance at what what comes back.
Then go then go and look at some.
Caleb did that. Oh, yes. I actually I actually have this prepared because it was so egregious whenever you search your name, look at the top results that come up immediately.
Every single result here portrays you as if you are an anti-vax hero and completely skips everything else legitimate that you've done all of these listings.
And in fact, if someone if someone was to click on, let's say that's listed profile over in the corner over here where it says, you know, under your name profiles for Twitter over here.
What that links to is a fake profile that isn't even you. That's just attacking you. It's a profile is this to me is this is ridiculous.
It's never what you say. It's always what everybody says you said. It's never what you say. This is the insanity of the present moment and the press is the most egregious perpetrator.
They're ground zero for this. Social media is trolling and whatever, but it's the press that takes what you said and twist it and then that goes viral.
You are so right. And the point is, I'm not a very important person. I was like an just about early retired guy. What made me unique is that I could see what was happening was wrong.
And I have the courage to stand up and say no. And that may be.
And you're willing to be wrong yourself, by the way, you said repeatedly that you could be wrong, which fine. You could be wrong.
When I was growing up, I'm the, I'm the daughter of an attorney. When I was growing up, the concepts, the legal concepts of libel and slander actually meant something.
Now they are meaning. They are absolutely one of my father. Whirling in his grave. They, they were absolutely meaningless.
I had myself a hit job and absolutely slanderous, libelous, baseless hit job written about me by Quackwatch. I don't know if you're familiar with Quackwatch.
It's run. Oh, yes. It's run by a defrocked 90 year old psychiatrist, but they can post anything and people will continue to.
Once it's posted and in print, it becomes de facto truth. It becomes a de facto evidence that you are this thing. And they will then use that to, you know, character assassinate you or to otherwise disregard anything you have to say.
I want to add something. So thank you very much, team for checking that out. But here's the vital thing. Here's the vital thing. If you search the same doctor might be using minority search engines. I, I don't own any stock in them, but there's one called Yandex, Y-A-N-D-E-X, and another one called Moji, M-O-J-W-E-K. And I picked them up because I asked friends, what are tiny search engines?
And I figured, I figured that the perpetrators, that's why I call the people running this. I don't care where they are. I call them perpetrators. They won't have messed with those.
If you search Dr. M even in those minority ones, you'll find some of the 150 interviews I have given, and you will also find my 50 publications.
You will find a write-up by a former Pfizer board member about me in 2017. Lord in my achievements with Zyarko.
Former, the former board member, John Latina, John Latina was head of R&D when I was there, and he wrote me up in Forbes magazine in 2017.
And because he said, what you've done is remarkable. And yeah, we worked hard and we got lucky.
But he was remarkable. But no one knows that. They think I'm a conspiracy theorist, and they think, worst of all, what upsets me more is they think I'm a lousy scientist.
I was a good scientist. I did all right. And so search me on minority search engines for the real Dr. Mike Eden, and also some of the interviews I've given.
If you like some of what you've heard, however terrifying, and you want to know more, that's the better answer to your questions.
And so what I think they're doing when they change the subject to, sorry, wrong camera, when they change the subject to censorship, what they're doing is basically sending you a subliminal message that other people who were censored are equally credible as Mike Eden.
And so remember that earlier in this stream, Kelly victory actually said the lies that my government told me out loud, even though she wasn't really referring to Robert Malone's book.
And then in the next sentence, she said something about not knowing the spike protein was toxic in 2020.
And here, when they make the statement about about censorship, the argument that they want you to think is that the more censored you are, the more likely it is that you were right.
So Mike Eden is an example of somebody who's very censored. And so he must have been pretty right.
But we've confused that throughout this whole show. And if you made it all the way to one hour and 15 minutes, you might have heard something useful.
But before that, this consensus that was, that was on display here, the consensus was the two out of the three people agree that there's a virus.
Two out of the three people think that the whole thing was rushed. Two out of the three people think that the spike protein is significantly bad choice.
Two out of the three people think that this virus is novel.
And only one of them thinks that pandemics aren't really possible. And so just that lack of consensus is enough for the enchantment not to be broken.
That appearance of consensus between these two is enough for his message to not be effective as it was when he was with with Steve Kirsch.
And I think that's why that video that I did the other day is so important because that video captured Mike Eden without interruption.
And with one steady stream, like a jazz musician, instead of somebody who's trying to trade solos with, with musicians that he's never played before, with before, and trying to change solos with somebody who's really wants to play coal train when Mike Eden is trying to play something completely different.
And so if you see it for what it is, which is I knew what it would be, it is a very different interview than the one with Steve Kirsch.
And how different it is. It is very extraordinary because again, there are people whose job it is to keep it on narrative. That means never questioning the novel virus.
Never question that we had to do something. Never question that what we did was rushed and many mistakes were made.
And never question the idea that this might be a lab leak that we might be responsible for it. Maybe we shifted off to China. Maybe they did it.
But oh my goodness, it sure seems like a bunch of governments are involved.
And maybe even the who tried to do their best.
Extraordinary.
And then I would say, if you find very different hits on what is really a commodity search.
I would say that's 100% proof. Someone is messing with the major search engines. And why? So you don't find out what I really think.
Why would they do that? Because I'm getting the truth.
The military adage. I've used the military adage, Dr. Hayden, many, many times you always take the most flack when you are directly over the target.
They don't go after people who are missing the target. Trust me. So I'm cognizant of the time and how late it is there. So we're going to let you go.
But I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you being here. You have been unbelievably courageous throughout this. Do not lose. Do not lose faith.
There are many of us out there who support you and the brilliant work you've done for the duration of this pandemic and before.
I thought a lot about speaking out or not. And I thought, if I'm right, I'm in as much danger if I don't speak out or more danger if I don't speak out.
So people who think bad things will happen to me if I speak out, ladies and gentlemen, think what will happen if you don't speak out.
Seriously. But all we need to do to stop this is have enough of us say to hell with you. And I don't know what percentage it is 10%. It's not many.
And so I don't think I'm much risk. And in the end, you have to live your life, you know, aligned to the light, telling the truth.
And I'm delighted to say it was nothing to do with my scientific research. But along the way, I have, I've been re touched by face and it's delightful.
You know, because the work on the other side of the fence is so bad that I remember one evening, I came to the conclusion, it was satanic. And I think at the same moment, I realized I had allowed myself to fall out of out of contact with the creator.
And that my life's been a lot less a sense.
Well, there is a there is a distinct and seem to be worshipping, believing animals. And if they don't worship and believe something true and good, they will worship things that are false and bad.
And I think we're in this weird phase right now. We need to take a good look at ourselves. And, you know, the mob, the narcissism, the delusional thinking, it's just like nothing I've ever imagined.
But I guess we've been through periods of history like this before, and we shall God willing emerge again.
Thank you for being here. We appreciate it. We'll let you go to bed now. I know it's like 11 or 10 or 11 o'clock out there. So it's a little late. I apologize.
I'm going to see you tomorrow and three o'clock Pacific. I apologize for keeping you up so late. And I don't know what happened with the video crashing or something struck my computer.
So I might just delete that first video. I'll see you in the morning. What's going on?
But again, thanks for joining me. I don't know how many days this is in a row, but we're just going to keep it going and see how many days in a row we can get.
Let me know in the comments or maybe tomorrow we'll have a contest to see who gets it right. How many days in a row we've got?
But it's going to be a lot more than this. So just hold tight. I'll see you guys tomorrow. I don't know if it'll be a night or in the afternoon. Look quick.
Oh no, I'm going to do one in the afternoon tomorrow. I think I'm scheduled for eight to ten, but I'm going to change that. It'll probably be around four twenty in the afternoon tomorrow.
And it'll be a throwback Thursday. I think we're going to watch the old Malone video. I think I might also watch a German video about all the pre-dynamic planning and gaming that they did over the years, but might save that.
I might be going back. I don't know. Throwback Thursday tomorrow. See you guys. Thanks for joining me.
Thanks for joining me.