Buzzer.
Oh, look, JC on the bike was timed out by Risa.
Oh, timeout JC on the bike.
JC on the bike.
It's JC on the bike.
It's JC on the bike, yeah.
Well, I'm wise enough to know when a chump needs banning, and I know just the one.
Look it round, it's JC on the bike.
Who says Vader didn't study music in college?
So what I argued, and I believe I came up with this independently, but I believe Peter McCullough has mentioned something similar, as has Jonathan Cooey.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
So SARS-1 and its descendants have gone endemic.
That's what I was just saying.
The current PCR test is not specific for SARS-CoV-2.
And that is known because it's the German company that originally produced it knows that.
They've chosen a short sequence that they think is relevant.
It is a short sequence that just comes from one of the open reading frame one proteins.
We are being duped by a nonspecific test.
And we would have gotten these numbers or numbers very similar to them with or without this pandemic.
Because we've never looked for SARS viruses as they are spread through our population.
We've just never looked.
Nobody sampled for it until this year.
That's a huge point to make.
Because the SARS virus originally appeared in 2003 and disappeared in 2004.
But it didn't really disappear, it just became not a problem.
descendants of that virus of various virulence and infectivity have circulated in the time since.
They didn't disappear.
And this test is not specific for any one of them.
And no one has ever done a study about how many descendants there are, how many people are infected, how many animals have been infected by it, etc.
So
The next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of America, of the American people, is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us, to ruin maybe America, I don't know, crash the dollar, I don't know, steal the rest of what limited treasury value we have left, I don't know, but I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary and more importantly never be possible.
Follow the rules.
Protect yourself at all times.
Follow my instructions.
Keep it clean.
Touch gloves if you wish.
Let's do it.
sweaty palms this is so crazy like goosebumps this is so crazy i feel so nervous like what in the world man
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
So I am gonna try and mix up the beginning a little bit.
I'm not always gonna do that elaborate beginning with a new song and listen and DJ and stuff like that because
Um, well, I don't, I think we should save that for the shows where I'm trying to make some kind of summary, um, and differentiate from them.
Um, the last couple of times, the one that's titled, uh, pause the program.
I think is one of the better sort of cracks at the fence I've ever taken because it really summarizes how this was an international kind of operation where media messaging across the globe was weaponized primarily against America, but of course, against the rest of the Five Eyes countries in order to turn them against America, make fun of America, belittle America.
blame America.
And so that operation is ongoing.
And I think a lot of the collaborators in that operation are essentially the same people that are now masquerading as the leaders of the dissident movement in America and their followers and those people that they have bamboozled into following them.
even though in reality they are actors on the same stage that Tony Fauci, Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, all of these people are on.
Today, for a study hall, I wanted to watch a video of David Baltimore from only a couple years ago, but in order to process this video correctly, I think it's really important for me to give a good enough introduction to it
First of all, just to mention the CrowdStrike Microsoft blue screen problem.
It turns out that this could be a very big deal for some parts of our infrastructure.
I just happened to need to go to PennDOT, which is Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation for some standard renewal kinds of things.
And unfortunately, they couldn't take credit cards, at least that's what they thought.
And so I went back home to get some checks and then I came back and then there was a sign on the door saying their computer system was blue screened and they weren't going to be able to do anything today.
And when I went in to talk to them, they seemed pretty naive as to what was going on.
They're just, we're all kind of standing around and the whole place was empty.
And so this turns out to be something related to at least a majority of it seems to be related to this CrowdStrike antivirus software.
The crazy part about it is, is because of the
Access that this program has when you use it as an antivirus software.
It's I guess at the kernel level Which means that the update that they pushed?
Pushed something into a place of your Microsoft computer that that Microsoft can't push a fix for as I understand so what it may require is
is for every individual machine that uses this CrowdStrike software to need to be rebooted in safe mode.
And then you have to go and manually delete this SYS file.
If that's the case, then some of these companies and some of these corporations that use this on their encrypted servers and this kind of thing could really be in a load of trouble, at least from the perspective of if that's a,
a five minute, a 10 minute operation on a standard computer, then that's a lot of manual stuff that your typical junior analyst might need a little, you know, reminder on how to do.
So that's an interesting development that happened today that you should be aware of that has resulted in, for example, maybe I'm stupid for saying this, but I can't text my family right now, they're out of the country.
And when I text, there's no message of delivered and I can't call.
And so I've heard that there's airlines disrupted from this.
Those airlines, it's very easy for me to imagine that their infrastructure is far from ideal and that their tech and IT infrastructure is far from ideal.
And so there could be lots of little nodes, for example, that people aren't even aware of that, oh my gosh, how do I access that node and fix that one?
I have no idea.
I'm not an IT guy, but I do have friends who are.
And so I know as going through it this morning, I mean, I was in line at the DMV outside, you know, chatting with people and stuff.
I tried to get there early.
And so when it happened, it already, in retrospect, I could see that the DMV people themselves didn't understand what was going on when they came out and said, we're having some system trouble right now.
So maybe we can't take credit cards, but if you have your checkbook, we can do that.
So as this develops, I guess I would just say pay attention.
I don't know how many retailers are affected by this.
I don't know how that's going to go for airlines and travel and how long that will back things up.
But it's something to at least keep on your radar.
if there was gonna be some kind of Klaus Schwab cyber collapse.
It's at least in the realm of possibility that it's something like this that would, you know, let's say start it.
I'm getting a message from somebody who I know needs to travel in the next couple of days.
He says he's only on, it got a 15 minute delay.
So somebody I know who is flying.
So maybe I'm just being a little crazy here and nevermind that.
So I want to get right away to the first subject of the day on the study hall, which is Li Min Yan.
Now Li Min Yan is somebody that I actually met very early on in the pandemic, not in person, but because she or her handlers contacted me and asked if I would like to interview her.
And then that interview went south really quick because the audio of her was echoey and
I don't know.
I could never figure out if it was my setup, because I had never happened again, or if it was their using some person to stream her to me.
But it very much felt like her handler was this billionaire guy, and it kind of felt like I talked to him, but I don't even remember anymore for sure who I talked to before she came on the line.
But there was some echo.
It wrecked the interview, but it sure made me convinced that I was intimately involved in something very scary.
and very exciting and a lot of cloak and dagger happening.
And so I got sucked in also by Li Min Yan.
And Li Min Yan, of course, you know, appeared many, many times on the Steve Bannon show.
And so I thought it would be interesting to watch that now.
I want to bring in now Dr. Li-Ming Yan, formerly from Hong Kong University.
Dr. Yan, thank you so much for joining us in the War Room, and thank you for all the efforts you've done to expose to the American people, to the Chinese people, and to people throughout the world exactly what went on
in Wuhan and with the Chinese Communist Party overall in their handling of this.
First question we have to ask you, how does it feel now that more and more people are starting to realize this was a lab-enhanced virus that came out of the Wuhan lab and that everything that you've been telling people since you got here is actually true?
How does it feel now that the establishment is having to kowtow to Dr. Yang?
How does it feel, ma'am?
Good morning, sir.
Thank you for having me.
So I want to tell people, yeah, I'm happy to say that things got changed and also more and more facts are verified and people realize it come from the lab, it come from Wuhan, it come from Chinese Communist Party.
Now, she comes from Wuhan, it comes from the Chinese Communist Party.
Everybody's finally realizing, I believe this video is from September 2020.
And I know a friend of mine has been using newspapers.com to try and figure out when she started to appear in the media.
And he's already seen an interesting signal around May or April in Canada, at least, which I think he can better explain than me.
But essentially,
Her appearance is around the time when a lot of these other people started to stream a lot, started to do the rounds.
Even Kevin McKernan started to sort of make his rounds on small and large podcasts in April of 2020.
So Dr. Yan actually says in this video, and I will start it at the beginning again, that she started speaking out in January of 2020.
And so that will be admitted in a second here.
Let me just move it back.
and then started again.
So much for joining us in the War Room and thank you for all the efforts you've done to expose to the American people, to the Chinese people, and to people throughout the world exactly what went on in Wuhan and with the Chinese Communist Party overall in their handling of this.
First question we have to ask you, how does it feel now
Soothspider says that her accent is Mandarin and not Cantonese despite coming from Hong Kong.
I assume that Hong Kong should have a Cantonese accent.
Also remember Soothspider, it might be interesting if you have that kind of insight,
for you to take a look at the phone call video where Paul Cottrell gets a phone call supposedly from, I think it's Taiwan, but it might've been Hong Kong, where Remdesivir is the only thing that's working.
And we never really identified who that whistleblower was.
It would be very interesting if comparing voices, you thought maybe it was Li Min Yan.
Anyway, let me play this again or keep this going.
More and more people are starting to realize this was a lab-enhanced virus that came out of the Wuhan lab, and that everything that you've been telling people since you got here is actually true.
How does it feel now that the establishment is having to kowtow to Dr. Yang?
How does it feel, ma'am?
Good morning sir.
Thank you for having me.
So I want to help you.
Yeah I'm happy to say that things get changed.
And also more and more facts are verified and people realize it comes from the lab.
It comes from Wuhan.
It comes from Chinese Communist Party.
And I know it will happen.
And that is the truth.
That is a fact.
I keep telling people that no lies are perfect.
And this is finally can be verified by independent sources.
That's why I dare to tell it from the last January.
That's why I dare to come to you as tell it in front of
the whole world because I know what they have done and they know what they have done.
And they also know they will get punished one day, but they just try to deny and try to get void of the punishment.
That's interesting because she says that she knew it would happen.
Now, of course, she's not a native English speaker.
I don't know if she really means that she knew it would happen already a long time ago, like throughout her career, like when she was, you know, working before the pandemic.
Or if she means, you know, since the start of the pandemic, she knew that this would eventually happen.
It sounds like she kind of always knew that a lab was eventually going to leak.
Labs aren't perfect, she says.
I know she's very hard to understand, but I can understand her.
So if you need any, you know, I can translate.
Oh, darn.
That's not what I wanted.
But I want to also emphasize that without the great effort and help and support from the heroes like you, sir.
So she's going to say here, without the help of the heroes and people like you, sir,
So that's very hard to hear because the R's don't come out very well, but she's going to now try to compliment all the people on our side who have come to her aid and help her get this message out.
All the media outlets that have helped her.
This is a very interesting part of this video.
also emphasize that without the great effort and help and support from the heroes like you sir, like war room people, but I want to also emphasize that without the great effort and help and support from the heroes like you sir, like war room people, and like the National Pulse, and also like Dr. Navarro, like Tucker Carlson, all these people, I mean
Dr. Navarro and Tucker Carlson.
So that's another couple that he mentioned.
So she was probably on videos with Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro.
Maybe she was on with Peter Navarro.
I don't know.
But it's interesting to mention him because Peter Navarro was in the
the little meetings that happened around remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine and whether or not to give them EUAs and how to give them EUAs that Janet Woodcock, Rick Bright, Jared Kushner, Peter Navarro, Little Circle, it's interesting that now she's mentioning him on Bannon's program.
I cannot name all of them, but without all this kind of help, apart from the heroes like Yuser, like war room people, and like the National Pulse, and also like Dr. Navarro, like Tucker Carlson, all these people, I mean I cannot name all of them, but without all this kind of help,
the truth cannot be exposed so fast, because the Chinese Communist Party is a big regime, and they know how to manipulate people and information.
So the thing is, I'm happy to say that it's in good progress, and I know that we will reach the day to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable very soon.
Dr. Yan, by the way, you're beloved by this audience.
I want all the audience to get to our social media later.
You're beloved by this audience.
They were so glad to see you.
No, that's not what she said.
Get rid of the punishment.
But I want to also emphasize that without the great effort and help and support from the heroes like you, sir, like war room people and like the National Pulse and also like Dr. Navarro, like
It's hard to hear it, but she says the truth cannot be exposed so fast.
Yeah, oh my gosh, I'm not reading the chat.
I'm not not reading the chat.
...regime, and they know how to manipulate people and information.
So the thing is, I'm happy to say that it's in a good progress, and I know that we will, I mean, reach the day to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable very soon.
Dr. Yan, by the way, you're beloved by this audience.
Now, one thing you might notice here, which I find interesting when I look back on that smile, is that this does not appear to be a person who is actively trying to avoid assassination by the Chinese Communist Party.
Now, I come from Pittsburgh, and early on in the pandemic, somebody by the name of Bing Lu was killed, like right down the street or up the street from me.
And I know it sounds crazy.
now that right up the street from me supposedly lived this this shooter um of Donald Trump in in Butler Pennsylvania last weekend like really a walk from my house but we moved houses two and a half years ago from a house that we were trying to buy and actually lost during the pandemic because of my
My job being ended.
And from that house was a very short drive to where this Bing Lu was shot, supposedly by another Chinese national who was dating or cheating or his girlfriend was cheating with or something like that.
It was a lover's quarrel where this guy died, but he happened to be working on a small protein inhibitor of something.
And so it's a very interesting story that goes along with Li Min Yan, because Li Min Yan is supposedly whistleblowing on more or less her own country.
And it was very much hyped that she was being protected and kept in an undisclosed location so that she couldn't be wiped out, you know, couldn't be erased, if you will.
And so it's very interesting.
It doesn't seem like she's under any duress right now.
She's very, very happy.
to social media later you're beloved by this audience they were so but glad to see on tucker carlson again last night so glad sees retractions there's a lot of talk in washington i want to give the audience inside baseball there's a lot of talk in washington you get jim jordan and and senator ran paul hammering fauci but there's a lot of talk in washington that did that actually to try to force to have hearings and have you as one of the major witnesses i just want to make sure
hearings came up on Capitol Hill and they were done in a fair manner.
Would you be open to testifying in front of a committee about the source of this virus and everything you know as a fact witness of what happened in late December of 2019 and in January of 2020?
Would you commit to that?
Oh, I'm very happy to do so.
And actually, I hope they can do it as a live broadcast so people can watch it and they can see how people provide evidence, no matter from my side or from the other side.
And people can see who is lying and who really have some evidence.
We should have done it before, too.
Wow.
So we should have a live broadcast so we can see who has evidence and who doesn't, who's lying and who isn't.
And so it sure seems like to me that solving the mystery of the origin of this virus is paramount.
And in 2020, it sure seems like to me that there were a lot of these people that were very vested in making sure that we were invested in solving that mystery.
Now, it's curious what my friend Mark found with, I don't think a lot of work,
It's not to say that he doesn't know what he's doing, and he doesn't have good places to look, and he isn't a very skilled archiver, but I guess he's going to say the same thing in this video.
Oh yeah, first of all, I want to back up a little bit and point out that one of the things, if you want to see how this machine works,
Pay close attention to the comments under rumble videos and the comments under YouTube videos because there is another place where Scrolling gives them the ability to if they want to to create an illusion of consensus underneath every video They don't need to do it for motorcycles
They don't need to do it for small engine repair.
They don't need to do it for used car reviews.
But if they wanted to do it for public health topics, if they wanted to do it for public health experts or political pundits, they could definitely do it.
Here's an example where the first comment on Rumble, three years old, is she is a lion.
Ooh, she's a lion.
Great.
I don't know.
I have nothing.
I know nothing.
Maybe she's from, maybe she's from Venice then.
So she is an NIH funded universal flu vaccine scientist.
I didn't know that when I was put in contact with her.
I just was told she was a virologist from Hong Kong and a whistleblower.
Her primary and principal investigator, the one that she was working with before the pandemic, is named, last name of Kuhn or Poon.
Poon is his last name.
He was on the Lancet letter.
And her history is never questioned.
It's just, she's a whistleblower.
She's a hero.
She's beloved by this audience, he says.
But we're not making clear that if she was who she says she was, then she should fear for her life from both sides of the Pacific Ocean, right?
She should be afraid of the NIH people that she was just recently presenting with before the pandemic.
and she should be also worried about the Chinese Communist Party wanting to assassinate her when she goes to Starbucks I just wanted to record it just for the purposes of showing people that we are not messing around anymore
The backstory here is Li Mengyang, this Chinese scientist who was so upset about this background signal she saw or whatever, this evidence of coronavirus and leaking out of the laboratory in 2020.
And how, of course, the most likely thing to do is to is to contact the Steve Bannon network, which was happy to.
I also.
I also remember hearing that she left her family behind.
I do remember that very well.
Very good.
Give her a flight to Los Angeles, supposedly in 2020.
And she was able to get on the news and talk about how dangerous it was and cleavage sites and probably all kinds of crap like that.
But anyways, it was considered to be super conspiratorial to give her any airtime.
So, of course, people wanted to watch it.
And I have some questions about her backstory.
And it makes me wonder, does anyone else actually do research about this stuff?
Does anyone?
So what we have is her presenting in 2018, this is while she is listed here anyways, with the University of Hong Kong, combined use of live attenuated and inactivated influenza vaccines to enhance heterosubtypic protection.
And you will be shocked at how this goes.
It's only a 15-minute presentation.
This is her presenting at the end.
So that's definitely, I mean, I'm pretty sure that's definitely her.
Again, the part is on that particular site.
This was recorded during the Keystone Symposium Conference on framing the response to emerging virus infections.
It's amazing that it was an emerging virus that gave her an opportunity to become so popular.
What's truly incredible about this presentation
Don't have any coffee in your mouth, because you'd be shocked.
The best protection against a lethal challenge of heterologous influenza vaccines is a combination of activated and inactivated vaccines.
But we need further research, which will focus on developing alternative vaccine strategies for universal protection.
It's amazing that she also has the foresight that what we need is a universal flu vaccine
above and beyond just recombinant DNA.
It's almost as if she's saying we need an mRNA or a DNA vaccine.
Wow, who would have thunk it?
But I'm not familiar with this event that she's presenting at here, with this virtual Keystone Symposia, which is really just a platform to record these things.
It says that it's October 14th or 18th.
This event, I guess, took place in Hong Kong.
So if I create an account and if I do some searching on here, if I search search 2018, it'll show content sorted.
And let's see, on November 9th, 2018, we see that she's presenting.
This is the combined use of live, attenuated, inactivated influenza vaccines.
Let's see, two events before, actually afterwards, on January 28th, we have preparing for the next pandemic, emerging infectious disease threat.
Unbelievable!
This platform is also giving a place for Mary and Koopmans of the Erasmus Lab.
And One Health.
Now, of course, this is a online platform used for sharing videos.
It does not mean that they were sitting side by side.
Please, I understand that.
But this platform chooses, let's see here, Li Menyang, Marion Koopmans, Scott Weaver.
He's done a lot of work with Robert Malone.
You bet your bottoms he has.
What else we got here?
Oh, Kizmekia Corbett.
isn't
In fact, I think at the same presentation that Lee Min Yang presented at, Kizmekia Corbett of the NIH and NIAID working for Fauci also presented at.
Lee Min Yang, well, she's just some outsider, innocent little student, just was so overwhelmed with concern.
Because if you look at this platform, oh my goodness, who's after that?
Janet Woodcock.
Are you kidding me?
Of course, again, it's a different event.
But this is the people who this platform supports.
Janet Woodcock again.
Oh my goodness, Hugh Rosen of the Scripps Institute.
Oh my goodness, Patrick Soon-Shiong.
The guy who bought the Wimber Laboratory.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
The Wimber Laboratory that has something to do with what George Webb says is what Nazi art in mountains.
Nothing to do with the high-speed link.
Of course, the Internet2 organization was connected with Bob Gallo.
between Walter Reed and Winbur that was set up by Robert Malone and his wife, Jill Glasper Malone, 2000-2001, which would have been really handy if Walter Reed was collecting a whole lot of cancer data or breast cancer data, and it would have been particularly valuable if cancer rates were expected to go up in the U.S.
military because the U.S.
military would have been, I don't know, maybe picked to take an experimental anthrax or smallpox vaccine.
because of an unexpected major biological terrorism event in New York City in the fall of 2001, which I have like a stack of books all predicting.
In other words, Li Menyang is just part of the show, everyone.
Just part of the show.
And the fact that this Chinese billionaire on the run, whatever, is the person that found her.
And you know, I've researched him before, and he's also connected in with that super popular, like the Oprah Winfrey of China.
I've talked about her before, and she also with the Columbia and so on.
I have a whole series of shows on that.
It's all fake.
It's fake, fake, fake, fake, fake.
The narrative is crumbling.
The tree is tipping, and I'm ready to order a stump grinder at this point.
This show is over, everyone.
It was all fake.
And I just can't help but think of how many more people would be alive today if people weren't lying about the gain-of-function virus, lying about it.
causing a drug epidemic to go unresolved.
Lying about the gain-of-function virus so that people continue to take injections they didn't need.
Lying about the virus.
So hospitals were getting away with murder with high-flow oxygen.
Lying.
Because Mechia Corbett, Li Menyang, fall, November 2018.
Now, I'm not sure how to really summarize that any better than to say that there's Grampy.
It really means something important about who these people are and what they've done to us and our families.
It means something very, very important when we say charlatan.
when we realize that likely Steve Bannon and Giuliani, who are in a photograph with her, with that Chinese billionaire in the background in a mirror,
If we see this for what it is, there is a connected group of people behind the scenes that has orchestrated the shepherding of this narrative, the shepherding of these different disparate groups of Americans and made sure that they never came together on the narrative, made sure that
the Scooby-Doo mystery that needed solving would drive a further wedge in between the American public and each other so that these communities would be severed even as they directed our attention to imaginary communities on the internet and imaginary illusions of consensus on the internet that included Steve Bannon and Lee Mignet.
This is an extraordinary finding, great work by Mark.
It's too bad that none of these other people that have suggested that it was China or suggested that it was bad guys that have released something on us, never really did any research to find out that Li Min Yan could have easily been coordinating with Tony Fauci and NIH and whoever else in the U.S.
government wanted this to happen and wanted to blame it on China by coming on American media and blaming it on China.
But none of them were ever able to look into her and find out who she was so that they could show that America is obviously to blame.
And here's another puppet they used.
And yes, I admit that I also wasn't able to do it, but it was the illusion of consensus created by all of these people who didn't ask any questions on their big podcasts, never asks any questions because they had to stay focused on VAERS, never asked any questions because they had to stay focused on the PCR details of the PCR space, never asked any questions about Li Min Yan because he knew already that she worked for them.
It had to be.
How can it be any other way with given Mark's seven minute video there?
And how can we be here now when they were joking about having her give a testimony?
Why wasn't she testifying right here?
Did she risk life and limb for nothing?
Did the Communist Party of China finally catch up to her?
What happened to Li Min Yan?
How come she didn't get a Congressional Medal of Honor or whatever it is they give foreigners when they do stuff for the United States?
What's going on here?
How did we forget about her?
And when we look back to 2020 and find her and realize that, oh my gosh, she's not a whistleblower.
She might even be the voice that called Paul Cuttrell from somewhere to say that Remdesivir was working over there.
just like she might very well be the lady that we saw in the, in the Meadow Biota video.
But if she's not the lady that we saw in the Meadow Biota video, what does it matter?
Because she's the, she's definitely the lady that we just saw in Mark's video.
This is collapsing now, and what I want to keep pushing on the tree in the right direction, I want to first have a little bit of fun here.
I'm not going to put the sound on, but just realize what you're watching right now is me study hauling Joe, study hauling me, study haul myself, which is kind of a
sixth wall or seventh wall kind of thing.
And so we might be witnessing a sort of inception moment here with the crowdsource, CrowdStrike, whatever it's called, blue screening event, along with the fact that I am able to study haul, Joe's study hauling myself, study all myself, which is
something that would never happen if it wasn't for the internet and how it's been weaponized against us.
Shout out to Joe.
He had a really good show that at the very, very end, he listens to a little bit of the review of the Gabe Mason interview.
And so thanks a lot for that shout out, Joe.
And that's the Liberty Perspective on Rumble.
So I want to just start with the idea again and remind you that what these people have done is they have groomed our understanding over these years in a very rapid way with a very rapid application of these techniques.
where groups of fake people are creating a lollapalooza of liars that it doesn't matter what stage you choose to listen to, the lab leak stage or the natural virus stage or the, I don't know, deattenuating
virus stage or the flying aid stage whichever one you listen to in the end the presuppositions of the state are always reinforced by their music.
Now I just want to go back in time a little while so that you can see how far we've come in the last
10 to 15 years because it's way farther than most of us imagine because of the intense trauma that was the COVID panic.
This is a former NIH head by the name of Bernadine Healy talking, I believe, in around 2008.
It might be just a hair bit earlier or a hair bit after 2008.
Oh, darn it.
It's Joe Marshall is his name.
Joe Marshall of the Liberty Perspective on Rumble.
Sorry about that.
Well, I think the 2020 vision is just where we should be going.
I think it's concise, I think it's dramatic, and it'll save a lot of lives and improve quality of life for women and for men.
You know, it really is quite thrilling to see this kind of continuity.
So often in science we tend to look at study, one study and another study, and get confused about the two.
Here, we're seeing an approach which is very integrated.
It doesn't mean there aren't differences of opinions or interpretation, but it does dramatically mean that we have, through this incredible base of science, that it's continued to be based on the issue of men and women.
And men have been brought into it, as inevitably they did the first 20 years, maybe were catch-up.
We had to demonstrate that there were differences between men and women, and there were consequential differences that affect morbidity and mortality.
That has been shown.
We've seen how to save lives because of it.
And now we move into the second phase, taking advantage of
the interdisciplinary work, the multidisciplinary work, and moving out into issues like social determinants, the ecological so-called issues that really have never been addressed in any major clinical trial.
So I think that women's health has led the way, not just for women's health,
but also for all of medicine in terms of taking this holistic approach.
I'll tell you, years ago, I used to use the word holistic, and people wrinkled their nose.
It was kind of a new age.
It was seen as sort of something new age to talk about holistic.
Now I'm actually hearing from basic scientists that we have to look holistically.
We have to integrate what goes on within the cell, what goes on within the organism, what goes on in the public health environment, in the social environment.
And that is truly exciting to see this culture change.
And you have to have a culture change if you're going to affect any lasting change.
Now, why is that interesting to me?
I want some people in the chat to... I don't know why this is continuing.
Oh, it's just there.
I want some people in the chat to hear, and you can rewind it later, to hear if that's actually a different set of enchantments.
It's a different set of spells being cast.
It's a different stage of the enchantment.
And so it almost sounds like she's not really saying anything.
the holistic approach and integrating across fields and interdisciplinary and men and women.
And so the whole enchantment there was completely different.
The spells that were being cast at that time were incredibly different.
And if you can see how different they are, then you can see exactly what they're doing to us.
Because this is not grassroots or spontaneous evolving of our understanding of ourselves.
This is a forced move.
by those people who have control over these conscious and intelligent manipulation of our organized habits and opinions of the masses.
You see?
That's what's happening.
That's why if you look back and you see these people in the past and you listen to them in the past, they're casting different enchantments.
And the enchantment that's being cast right now is extraordinary.
Let's hear one more example of her talking about autism
And I want you to hear how the enchantment that she casts is one about genetics and one about vulnerability and one about the diversity of our genetic backgrounds and our vulnerability to different things and how we definitely need to study the genetic diversity of humans if we're ever going to solve some of these big problems.
Once you see it and hear it for the different
very different enchantment than it is, you're gonna be ready to hear David Baltimore and his current sort of take on this enchantment.
Sorry, I'm sending a message.
There we go.
Yes.
I think it's playing.
Maybe I paused it.
Wait, I don't hear anything.
Okay, I gotta escape for a second.
Escape!
There we go.
I think it just got a little tired there.
Let me see.
Oh, I put the volume down.
Wow, you're terrible at this.
Here we go.
This is the time when we do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children, perhaps genetically, perhaps they have a metabolic issue, mitochondrial disorder, immunological issue, that makes them more susceptible to vaccines, plural, or to one particular vaccine, or to a component of vaccine, like mercury.
The fact that there is concern that you don't want to know that susceptible group is a real disappointment to me.
If you know that susceptible group, you can save those children.
The reason why they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they were afraid that if they found them,
however big or small they were, that that would scare the public away.
It sounds like you don't think the hypothesis of a link between vaccines and autism is completely irrational.
So when I first heard about it, I thought, well, that doesn't make sense to me.
The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that's been done in animals, if you also look at some of these individual cases, and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, what I come away with is the question has not been answered.
So I think it's very interesting what Girl Rocks says in the chat.
I'm sure that Pamela would have been thinking the same thing.
How is it that everyone would not be susceptible to mercury poisoning?
How is it that everyone would not be susceptible to a dysregulation of your immune system?
And so this is really the early stages of trying to, again, get people to ask the wrong questions so that the question that they ask isn't, are intramuscular injections of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system actually dumb?
Is that possible?
That's not a question that she wants to ask.
Instead, the question we assume that they work great, just like Brett Weinstein assumes that they are just the greatest technology since airplane or the wheel, but maybe some people are vulnerable.
Maybe there's a genetic predisposition.
Maybe as Judy Mikovits said, there's a latent virus that gets activated by the vaccine and causes autism.
This enchantment has been developing over many, many years since we were children and this enchantment was being cast in a much more mundane way on our parents.
And so if I can remind you of any stream in particular to watch to try and think about how significant it is that understanding the history of these ideas and understanding who is responsible for crafting our collective understanding of these ideas, we can see why it is so suspicious that Robert Malone and Judy Mikovits are in front of us right now.
And we can see why it's so suspicious that all of them have forgotten about Lee Minyan.
It's suspicious why Pierre Cory was a witness for the George Floyd case.
It's suspicious why Pierre Cory and Peter McCullough had to go all the way to Australia to testify in front of their parliament.
It's suspiciously why Jessica Rose was able to tour the world and surf on three continents for four years for simply pushing a narrative about the spike protein and about VAERS, and has never really usefully questioned the childhood vaccine schedule in America, even though she works on CHD and gets her own show there.
That's why CHD is about health freedom and about freedom of speech and about Merrill Nass' medical license and not about stopping the criminal vaccine schedule in America or returning strict liability to these products.
That's why they never use those words, because they are part of this crafting of our understanding and curating of the narrative and making sure that we don't ask the questions that will immediately get us out of the trap.
I'm David Baltimore.
I'm the Millikan Professor of Biology at the California Institute of Technology.
I was president of this wonderful school for nine years and so also carry the title President Emeritus.
The idea that we might modify inheritance of an animal or human beings is an old idea.
When genes were first discovered, we assumed that there would be methods developed for modifying specific genes, and in particular genes which have mutated away from optimum behavior.
But we didn't know how.
And as time has passed in the modern era, in the last, let's say, 50 years, ideas have popped up for how you might do this.
But they were too sloppy to use in human beings.
OK, so I just want to take you back again and make sure that you hear what I hear.
The two phrases that I want you to hear him say again are, genes were first discovered and mutated away from optimal behavior.
So if I just, I think I have this on, yeah.
These two phrases in particular, genes were first discovered and mutated away from optimal behavior.
The reason why I want you to listen to that is because those are the presuppositions of the narrative that this
public health state would like you to accept, the Human Genome Project wants you to accept.
That there are genes, we can find them, and once we find them, then we have the cause of things, the cause of behavior.
The cause of behavior.
If we change the genes of a mouse, we change the behavior of the mouse.
Now, this is to a certain extent true.
But we do not, we do not, we do not, we do not want to assume that that model is as high fidelity as what he wants you to hear.
And then I'm going to give you a very brief metaphor that's just our analogy that's just come into my mind and hopefully it'll be okay.
But if we found
that when you take a screw out of a grand piano, that a certain note stops playing.
And then we said, see, this screw is where the note is.
And so if we change this screw, we can change the note.
So we change the screw and the note changes.
But did the note really change or did we, when we put the screw back in, we didn't tighten the cord enough?
We didn't tighten the wire enough?
We didn't set it up correctly?
We didn't retune it?
I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but what I want you to understand is that just because we can delete a sequence in ourselves or in our mouse, and then a certain thing, a certain function disappears, that doesn't mean, okay, now we understand that function and we understand the root cause of that function is this gene.
any more than we understand how to build a piano if we unscrew a screw and now the middle C doesn't work and say, see, now we understand it.
I know exactly how to fix this thing.
And now again, please understand that's not an apt analogy to capture the irreducible complexity that is us or even a mouse when he's talking about genes were first discovered and mutated away from optimal behavior.
These are already cartoon versions of what we might be able to make analogies about how genes work if
The instructions on a pattern integrity are contained in the DNA of every one of your cells.
If that's true, and I'm willing to accept it on a grand idea scale, if that's true, the way that that DNA becomes or encodes what it is that we are,
is absolutely positively not understood at all.
Not even in the most rudimentary sense other than, well, if we take all of this genetic material and put it over here and let it grow, it grows into the same thing that this would have grown into over here.
That doesn't mean we understand it at all.
And even if we can take little screws out of the piano and show that certain keys stop working, it still doesn't mean we understand
Beethoven's music and what Beethoven hears when he plays a piano, you see?
Even though we're actually trying to say that because we can make Beethoven unable to play middle C by unscrewing this screw, we now understand how Beethoven writes music.
You see, that's where the irreducible complexity is completely vanishing from this, guys, because that's what reductionist biology does.
It assumes that everything is a machine, everything is a bunch of chemicals, and if you put the right chemicals together, you get a firework, and if you put the right chemicals together, you get a firework that has little spouts like this, and if you put the right organic chemicals together, you get that little pattern integrity over there.
And this is a gross oversimplification and an exaggeration of the fidelity of our understanding.
And that is codified nicely in how he says, when genes were first discovered and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So let's listen to that again, okay?
Because that's really important to try and get your head around as we listen to the rest of this one.
Hope you don't feel like I'm wasting your time.
you demon I must have taken something out there no I got it there something else is there I'm sorry I'm gonna see if I can get this oh I
I'm David Baltimore.
I'm the Millikan Professor of Biology at the California Institute of Technology.
I was president of this wonderful school for nine years and so also carry the title President Emeritus.
The idea that we might modify inheritance of an animal or human beings is an old idea.
When genes were first discovered, we assumed that there would be methods developed for modifying specific genes, and in particular genes which have mutated away from optimum behavior.
But we didn't know how.
So how would we be able to tell, for example, whether a gene had mutated away from optimum behavior or the mechanisms by which that gene results in function has changed?
In other words, how would we know whether the record was printed badly or whether the record player you're using is crap?
The record player is set at the wrong speed.
And so again, by saying that genes were discovered and genes do this, and then they mutate away from optimum behavior, he's still talking like the special cancer virus program.
He's still talking about how nuclear weapons change the world.
And now soon genetics is gonna change the world.
He sounds like he's in the 50s and 60s again.
And he's still talking about the idea that the way that this works is mutation.
which is again a very limited, limited spectrum of debate that does not at all address how poorly that can encompass any of the irreducible complexity that would begin to, you know, better explain our world.
Let's keep going.
Hopefully that won't advance.
As time has passed in the modern era, in the last, let's say 50 years, ideas have popped up for how you might do this.
But they were too sloppy.
It is a DNA helix.
It is.
This is the same room.
And so that was just off the table.
It's even got the same lamp still as the lyre in the video.
About four or five years ago,
People realized that there was in bacteria a kind of immune system.
Bacteria use it to fight off viruses, because they, like us, are plagued by viruses.
But this immune system worked entirely at a molecular level to characterize the genes of the invading virus.
and to basically cut the genes of the invading virus at specific sites that distinguished the invading genes from the resident genes in the bacterium and allowed the bacterium to fight off attack by virus.
But this ability to cut at a specific place was exactly what we needed if we were going to modify the genes of a
say a mouse, because the way that a mouse cell works, in fact most cells work, is that when there's been a cut through their DNA, the genes that control the behavior of the organism,
They work very hard to repair it.
And the cell repairs it actually, whether it can do it precisely or not.
And so it makes little mistakes in the process of repairing it.
And that can inactivate.
the gene that was cut.
And so we have now a very precise way of inactivating a gene.
And it turns out that by another set of tricks, you can not only inactivate a gene, but you can modify the gene one place at a time, one spot at a time.
And that's now what CRISPR-Cas9 is.
So CRISPR is a name for the protective system that bacteria have.
And I don't want to go into what it stands for because... He doesn't want to go into what it stands for.
Why?
And that is, first of all, this is a DNA double helix.
Now, why doesn't he want to explain what CRISPR means?
Say it.
It's meaningless.
Okay, so let's see what CRISPR really means.
CRISPR.
Let's see what CRISPR means.
Wikipedia says, clustered, regularly, interspaced, short palindromic repeats.
clustered regularly, interspaced, short palindromic repeats.
And it delivers the Cas9 nuclease complexed with a synthetic RNA guide into the cell to be cut at a desired location.
So CRISPR in the viruses is supposedly something that helps the virus as an immune system, he said.
But in reality, what CRISPR does is it cuts that specific, clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats, and then moves those sequences from the phage genome to the bacterial genome.
And so what he is describing as fending off attack and the immune system of the bacteria remembering
the phage so that it can fight it off is actually, I think, probably equally well described by saying that phages are a way of sharing genetic information between bacteria.
And the way that the bacteria incorporate that is that there are
clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats that are used interspaced between that useful genetic information that is being shared between bacteria.
And that's why they cut there and then copy the stuff in the middle.
Now they have taken that little machine and they have used it in combination with Cas9 to do RNA-directed cutting.
And it may be that after some modifications and some tweaking, they are able to, to a limited extent, do that.
But what you heard there was a very disingenuous representation of what bacteriophages might be, or are, or should be considered, and a very, very, very succinct description of them as pathogens of bacteria that need to be fought off by a sort of immune system of bacteria called CRISPR-Cas9.
and no different than what Joshua Lederberg and Dr. Wolf were doing in that 1994 article by trying to get us not to think about genetic engineering, but about gene therapy.
Here we have a wonderful, wonderful example of David Baltimore making sure to curate the narrative around viruses and the Baltimore scheme.
so that we never ask useful questions about what CRISPR-Cas9 is or it isn't.
And we make sure that we think of bacteriophages as pathogens rather than a natural signaling mechanism of bacteria.
Essentially part of the pattern integrity that is bacteria in the same way that exosomes might very well be a part of the natural pattern integrity that is ourselves, our immune systems and our healthy and
whatever tissue I mean think about this carefully try to absorb what he's saying here and realize that he is kind of descendant of the same mentor chain that that Bernadine Healy is and yet if we just look back a decade ago the rhetoric and the enchantment is so very different
But it involves an RNA molecule, a genetic molecule, that specifies the precise spot.
And Cas9 is a protein that can cut the DNA.
And so CRISPR directs the system to a specific spot, then it's cut in that specific spot.
prepared there and either modified or inactivated.
The science is advancing very rapidly.
New ways of editing are coming up.
Exponential, of course.
Are cleaner, more effective.
and new ways of using the technology are being invented continually.
So it will just get more and more powerful over time.
we're going to see, I think, some pressure to use that technology in people.
And where the medical need is great, I think we'll find situations in which the benefit-risk ratio is very much in favor of the benefit.
And at that point, I think there's a moral argument to be made that we have to do that.
because we can improve the lives of people.
There are two kinds of challenges.
So that's interesting.
What if we had a transmissible, a self-replicating RNA that could alter lots of people at once and we could, I don't know, aerosolize it and distribute it and it would help people?
I guess we would be under the moral obligation to do it then.
If we thought it would help people, if we had a 99.999% chance that it was going to work just fine to release a gene drive that would change humans' genetics permanently, I guess we should do it then, according to David Baltimore.
Just a lowly virologist, you know, nobody big.
He's not influential.
He doesn't have any, any, any say in this stuff.
He's just an average guy.
in using the technology.
One is an off target that we have to do that because we can improve the lives of people.
There are two kinds of challenges in using the technology.
One is
an off-target effect where you want to modify a gene at a certain position and you inadvertently cause a change somewhere else in the genome, needn't even be at all nearby to where you plan to cause an alteration.
You have to be very careful of that because we're now talking about mutations that will be passed on to later generations.
And so you don't want any adventitious errors created in the genome.
Now there are little errors created all the time in our genomes.
You compare the genomes of two identical twins and they do differ because there are events like this occurring all the time.
So it's an interesting admission if the genomes of identical twins are not the same anymore when they're adults.
and that the manifestation of them is different, even metabolically.
If we can see differences there, then that seems to indicate that genes aren't just genes and that genes don't just determine the behavior until they mutate away from optimum.
That it's a different kind of emergent property or emergent properties or several layers of emergent properties that are horribly, horribly simplified by talking about genes and their discovery.
And yet this guy is fine with that because that's the extent to which they want us to understand their limited, very, very limited grasp of our biology.
I want to increase the frequency of those.
So that's one.
The other problem
is that if the edit is done as the cells are dividing in the embryo, you could have a situation in which the embryo becomes what we call a mosaic.
Some of its cells are edited, some of its cells are not edited.
At that point,
You haven't, you've created a problem and you haven't solved the problem you wanted to solve.
Because there are still cells in there that can pass the mutation on to the next generation.
And there are cells that are, have been edited and are like cells in other people.
So we've got to figure out how to avoid mosaicism.
And that actually is not easy.
And I don't.
And so he's actually talking about methodological problems.
That's the two things that are standing in the way of there being no ethical reason not to modify humans, even if they don't want it.
We'll be under a moral obligation to do it.
What are the problems?
One of the problems is off-target effects.
That we can probably solve.
The other one is mosaicism.
And what did he say?
When you modify a zygote,
and some of the cells change and some of them don't, you could have a mosaic organism with cells that have a different genetic background than other cells.
Some will be altered, some won't.
So the two things we have to solve are how to modify all the cells in a zygote, and number two, how to get rid of off-target effects.
And so there's no discussion of ethics at all, no discussion about our limited understanding of these things, no discussion of the irreducible complexity.
Instead, a very brass tacks discussion about the landmarks we need to get to before Ray Kurzweiler can upload his brain into the ether forever and avoid all future diseases and live for eternity.
We just have to get these off-target effects done and figure out how to adequately transfect or transform a zygote, which in case you don't know what that is, it's a multicellular blob of cells before they become like a real embryo with a shape.
I think it's a problem that has been solved yet.
I think people who work with this technology
As the cells are dividing in the embryo, you could have a situation in which the embryo becomes what we call a mosaic.
Some of its cells are edited, some of its cells are not edited.
At that point,
you haven't, you've created a problem and you haven't solved the problem you wanted to solve.
Because there are still cells in there that can pass the mutation on to the next generation.
And there are cells that are, have been edited and are like cells in other people.
So we've got to figure out how to avoid mosaicism.
And that actually is not easy.
And I don't think it's a problem that has been solved yet.
I think people who work with this technology are reasonably comfortable that off-target effects can be assayed and minimized, brought down to the level of spontaneous alterations.
He's being very careful.
There's real questions about whether we know how to handle the mosaicism.
And if we don't find a way to handle the mosaicism, then we may have to look at a very different kind of technology.
I wonder what that would be.
There are really two classes of problem with germline modification.
One is the mechanics of it.
That's what he just said.
Do we have it working precisely?
Have we solved the problems of mosaicism?
Can we do it with precision and safety?
But then you have to ask the question, do we want to do it at all in human beings?
And that's an almost religious question.
Because if you treat human beings as inviolable, as being given to the Earth by higher forces,
and believe that humans are perfect, then you don't want to modify them.
Even if they're not healthy, or even if their lives could be better, at least from my point of view, there are people who believe that nothing like that should be done.
So those are people who would say there should never be gene modification, gene editing, no matter how good it looks.
And then there are, I think, lots of other people, a majority of people, who believe that if there is a way to make the lives of people better, we should do it.
those people.
And that's really, unfortunately, complete bullshit.
Because if these people wanted to make our lives better, they would start by protecting our environment, stop polluting our environment, stop, stop
raping our waterways.
They would stop polluting us with their processed food.
They would encourage small farmers to grow organically.
They would encourage everyone to have a garden.
They would encourage school lunch programs to go back to the way they were when I was a kid.
They would be doing all kinds of things that are very low-hanging fruit to make our lives better if making our lives better was exactly what they wanted to do.
These lying pieces of shit saying that they want to make our lives better because their genetic technology is, you know, expensive, but we don't want to keep it all for ourselves.
We want even the poor people to have it.
Stop lying!
It is gross.
It is gross!
Now I have to make another distinction with germline modification.
One is the mechanics of it.
Do we have it working precisely?
Have we solved the problems of mosaicism?
Can we do it with precision and safety?
But then you have to ask the question, do we want to do it at all in human beings?
And that's an almost religious question.
Almost.
Because if you treat human beings as inviolable, as being given to the earth by higher forces, and believe that humans are perfect, then you don't want to modify them.
Even if they're... Believing humans is perfect is not what we believe.
We believe biology of animals and plants and bacteria and us are all one continuum for which we have very little real grasp on.
Other than it is a web of pattern integrities that we best not mess with and that there is an enormous amount of irreducible complexity that underpins it.
That is very different than saying we come from somewhere, blah, blah, blah.
And that's the level of sophistication that I think we need to get our high school biology kids at.
Our matriculating freshmen in college need to understand biology in a sophisticated enough way so that when they hear this guy, they think, well, what a bunch of bullshit is that?
I don't just believe it's all fairies and smoke.
I understand that there are just an enormous amount of things that we're not gonna understand about our own biology.
And I understand, and I want all these children to understand that the toxins in our environment, the shitty food that they make us eat, the way that we don't exercise, the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the habits that we form in our children are all far more destructive than the Baltimore scheme of viruses and what we have to face with regards to dangers from them.
And the idea that these people want to misconstrue the public good of genetic modification with the public good of just giving us clean water, fresh air, and good food to eat is ridiculous.
Not healthy.
Or even if their lives could be better, at least from my point of view, there are people who believe that nothing like that should be done.
So those are people who would say there should never be gene modification, gene editing, no matter how good it looks.
And then there are, I think, lots of other people, a majority of people, who believe that if there is a way to make the lives of people better, we should do it.
Those people now have to make another distinction.
That distinction is between a modification that is only in your own body and a modification which is inherited by your offspring.
And that that's a fundamental difference.
not because of the mechanics of it, but because of the moral status of the individual.
And that in some way, by modifying the genes, you've modified the essence of the individual.
Now that's an interesting point for him to make.
In other words, if I want to modify myself as a 53-year-old man to make myself into a superhero X-Man, that's fine.
But if I modify myself in a way that modifies future generations that come after me, that's a very different thing.
Now, that doesn't even acknowledge the fact that we don't really understand the mechanisms of inheritance to the extent to which we can say safely that if we modify somebody and that modification includes their gametes, that that modification will have no ramifications on their offspring or the reproductive process that leads to healthy offspring.
We wouldn't know that until it failed.
We wouldn't know that until it careened out of control, right?
I mean, you wouldn't know if making somebody super smart could also make their...
their wives have like triplets all the time.
You wouldn't know that until you actually went through the replication process and realized that, oh my gosh, now the modification of his math ability has inadvertently led to large litters of miniature children.
How would you know that?
You wouldn't know that.
And you can make all the conjecture you want about how we know it won't happen because we've done it.
We don't know that.
And so it's interesting that he brings up the idea that modifying an adult or modifying an individual is very different than modifying a germline and all the offspring that come down from that.
So he's kind of hinting at gene drives here, which is a cool technology that nobody ever talks about that's far more dangerous and is the real gain of function that we should be afraid of.
Nothing to do with viruses, but just to do with molecular tools being created by people who have no idea what these molecular tools might do to a
you know, a continuum of pattern integrities that has been developing over thousands, if not millions of years.
And we're just going to, you know, mess around with that molecular pattern integrity over millions of years by just tweaking some stuff.
Because, you know, gene drives are cool.
And again, there are people on both sides of that question.
And I think it'll come down
to how well can you do it and what kinds of modifications can be made that would improve the health and well-being of people.
But we're going to debate those questions.
over the next years and decades.
And there are always gonna be people on both sides of the issue.
So we're gonna have to decide to go one way or another.
I think it's pretty clear where I would go, but I don't have any more important status than anybody else in this discussion.
And so it really will come down to what the majority of people think is the right way to behave.
The social problems are not solved by genetic tricks.
They're endemic to the culture of our society.
Endemic?
In fact, the general worry is that if we develop the ability to... What did he describe as endemic?
have any more important status than anybody else in this discussion.
He doesn't have any more important status.
It really will come down the next years and decades.
And there are always going to be people on both sides of the issue.
So we're going to have to decide to go one way or another.
I think it's pretty clear where I would go, but I don't have any more important status than anybody else in this discussion.
And so it really will come down to what the— Except his whole status in this discussion is determined by the fact that he defines virology.
He defines the AIDS virus.
He defines retroviruses.
He defines virology.
Without him around to say, yes, that's the way it is, without TWIV around to say, yes, that's the way it is, we would be more capable of reinvestigating virology and its purported fidelity.
And whether it was an exaggeration or not, that RNA can indeed pandemic if you add the right fear and cleavage sites or HIV inserts.
because that is what he protects.
He might not have any special say in whether we genetically modify our children or not because I'm not a special guy, but he is a special guy because the reason why we are where we are right now, where transfection and transformation are being rolled out in mass as methodologies of medicine,
under the guise of countermeasures that worked but didn't work, but were rushed and will work better next time, that fit the category of new kinds of vaccines that people like Li Min Yan were arguing for in 2018 at conferences where other NIH theater members were presenting.
Understand, ladies and gentlemen, that this illusion is breaking fast like a bubble pops.
Don't get soap in your eyes and miss it.
The majority of people think this is the right way to behave.
The social problems are not solved by genetic tricks.
They're endemic to the culture of our society.
In fact, the general worry is that if we develop the ability to modify the germline, that only wealthy people will be able to take advantage of that.
And so it may exacerbate the difference between the opportunities available to the wealthy and to the impoverished.
And that's something that we're very aware of and really attends all medical advances.
and is not specific to this advancement.
Because this is happening with the light of publicity, it is a problem that people are talking about and that we have to think about.
I believe that it's a good thing for science to be done in a transparent way
that is available to and understood by the general public.
Now, at a certain level, there are very few people who can fully understand the implications of new scientific advances.
But everybody can get an idea of what's going on.
And I think we have to reach out from the scientific community to the general public to
so that there is an increased understanding of what's going on.
So they can exercise informed consent.
The publicity that surrounded this basically irresponsible act has a plus side which is it's introduced
the general community.
He called it an irresponsible act.
To what's actually going on in modern science.
And it takes some very dramatic situation for people to pay attention long enough to understand what's what's happening.
And so this is a teaching moment, and that's good.
That's good.
That will spread the understanding.
It sure is a teaching moment.
Of what's going on, and it makes the lives of scientists a little more difficult, because we now have to answer to a much wider range of people than ordinarily we pay any attention to us.
It takes some very dramatic situation for people to pay attention long enough to understand what's happening.
And so this is a teaching moment.
And that's good.
That's good.
spread the understanding of what's going on in it.
It makes the lives of scientists a little more difficult because we now have to answer to a much wider range of people than ordinarily we pay any attention to us.
But that's not bad.
So the illusion is that from bat caves or from laboratories, a virus could spread around the world and cause a calamity that would require us to advance our methodologies of transfection and transformation as fast as possible in order to counteract the now understood to be laboratory leaked virus.
This New World Order is an illusion, it's a mythology, and it's based on this idea, that the mystery virus has caused all these excess deaths.
And the only way they were able to show this to you was because they didn't show you it in the context of all-cause mortality, they just showed it to you as starting from zero.
These people showed it to you starting from zero, and also these people showed it to you starting from zero.
And they all went along with it, just like Lee Min Yan and Steve Bannon went along with it.
all went along with the same story that the mystery virus is causing these excess deaths and it's not true.
It's not true because fear, uncertainty, doubt, and confusion killed a lot of people.
It's not true because do not resuscitate orders were given very early in the pandemic because you didn't want to spread anything.
Pulse oximeters and supplementary oxygen were used to toxic levels.
that got people to get on ventilators, that got people to not use antibiotics because, you know, antibiotics don't work for a viral pneumonia.
And so once we stopped treating viral or bacterial pneumonia the way we used to treat it, the deaths from pneumonia skyrocketed.
poor use of steroids to navigate these things included what Robert Malone described as dexamethasone as an immune system hammer so that they could get people out of the hospital and send them back to care homes where they would die of secondary pneumonia without really knowing it because again,
dexamethasone is like a hammer for the immune system.
And then we were told stories about midazolam and about euthanasia in the UK and about remdesivir, but we were never told stories about oxygen toxicity leading to ventilation.
We were never told stories about murder in hospitals in America, just euthanasia in the UK.
But those people were gonna die of COVID anyway, right?
The opioid deaths completely ignored, even though they are a giant deal.
Because opioid deaths are not the same as heroin.
Because heroin is made by farmers.
Heroin is made by poor people.
Just like cocaine is made by poor people.
Fentanyl, car fentanyl, are made by pharmaceutical companies.
Death certificate frauds were used to create the illusion of the pandemic.
Financial incentives were used to create the illusion of the pandemic.
Track and trace companies, masks, closures, mandates were used to create the illusion of the pandemic.
PCR fraud, lateral flow testing fraud, and likely sequencing fraud, all combined to create the illusion of something that was just murder and lies.
And those murder and lies are not supported.
I mean, the murder and lies that they told are not, their stories are not supported by epidemiological evidence of spread anywhere in the world.
And conveniently in America, projected Medicare costs in the coming years were greatly avoided.
by the deletion of our old people that were going to be a weight on the system to the tune of $500,000 for every person in their last six months.
This was an ongoing, oncoming crisis that was already projected in the late 90s, early 2000s.
And yet nobody, not CHD, not Aaron Seery, nobody is talking about strict liability for all pharmaceutical products, including vaccines.
Nobody's talking about how the CICP and the VICP and the PrEP Act and all these other laws actually combine to create a Seventh Amendment violation where you can't sue for damages anymore.
You could call that jurisdiction stripping if you wanted to.
And that idea has got a whole history in American legal system that nobody talks about.
No one, none of these hero lawyers at CHD, none of these hero lawyers at ICANN, none of these hero lawyers anywhere.
None of them are talking about using the term strict liability, using the term jurisdiction stripping.
because they are not trying to save us.
They are working against us.
They are part of exactly the same illusion that is now convincing everyone around the world that transfection in healthy humans worked, but it was rushed.
And so some of this contamination may have hurt people.
But free-range RNA can definitely cause a pandemic because that's still going on now.
COVID is still real.
The Olympics and the Tour de France and these swimmers from Australia all wearing masks because it's still going on right now.
And the real truth is, is that it's murder and lies.
The transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent, and they knew that.
That's why they had to lie about it, make it a crisis, use the PrEP Act, declare an emergency because RNA cannot pandemic.
That's the same reason why somebody like Li Min Yan, who was intimately related to these people on a professional level before the pandemic, suddenly was a whistleblower that came and went as fast as the year 2020 that none of these people want to talk about.
Because in 2020, we were fooled into solving a mystery of a novel virus, a mystery of a gain-of-function virus, a mystery of a gain-of-function spike protein that might be damaging our immune system, might be causing cardiac arrest, might be causing clotting, might be damaging our mitochondria, might be causing amyloid, might be causing prion disease, might be doing all of these things because it's got fear and cleavage sites and HIV inserts.
And this is all a lie.
It's all a lie that was told not just by these people, ladies and gentlemen, but also by these people and their people, their clown shows that they put out there that still can't talk about this, can't summarize this at all.
It's just a bioweapon.
It's just an incapacitating agent.
It's just the spike protein.
It's just amyloidosis.
Biology is the way out, ladies and gentlemen.
Pause all childhood vaccinations in the United States of America because the vaccination schedule in America is criminal.
Demand strict liability for all pharmaceutical products and this problem goes away.
Investigate the intentional murder of Americans in 2020 onward to convince the world of a pandemic.
Reclaim sovereignty over your body and that of your children.
and the CDC withdraw from the WHO and the UN entirely.
Ladies and gentlemen, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic.
I think that's the show for the C this afternoon.
There may very well be another show today.
because I'm feeling it and because I found a podcast that I wanted to listen to.
So I may do another stream.
I don't think I have anything after that.
No, I don't.
So I'm going to go back to it.
And you're running slow again, you demon.
Here we go.
Cut.
Thank you very much for joining me, ladies and gentlemen.
This has been GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist and the people that support this stream.
Go to gigaOM.bio if you want to communicate, stream.gigaOM.bio if you want to share this after recording.
and gigahomebiological.com if you want to find a way to support this little stream.
It would be very much appreciated.
If you know anything about the ongoing cyber problem, send me an email, let me know what's up.
Otherwise, I'll either see you later today or definitely tomorrow for a very long study hall on an audio-only podcast.
I'm going to try out a new set of things.
I'm going to try
this thing out.
We'll use this thing to kind of represent the podcast and then we'll take notes and we'll see what happens.
Thank you very much for joining me.
I look forward to seeing you again.
I don't know if it'll be this afternoon.
It's sunny.
I should get to the basketball court again or my sons are going to come back and I'll be way out of shape.
Thanks for coming.
See you soon.
Ah, I can go check the P.O.
box today.
That's a good idea.
I'll go check the P.O.
box now.
That's a fun little ride to take.
Hopefully the P.O.
box works, and it wasn't using CrowdStrike as a... as a, um... as a antivirus, and I won't be able to get that door to open.
That key shouldn't have any... Anyway.
Love you guys.