Mach bandenburg, next day.
this should be okay I think that's probably
I'm afraid the latest data tells us that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with
essentially a worst case please watch Mark's last video about oxygen induced ARDS
if you haven't seen it also after you watch it please share it I think it's a
really important it's a really important kink in their armor that needs a few
dragon-sized arrows shot at it please pass that scream around truth is good for
kids we're so busy lying we don't even recognize the truth no more than
society we want everybody to feel good that's not that's not the way life is
this episode is sponsored by mink that's moo plus point
this my point is that if if we were able to just like we're trying to get
everybody to take the vaccine if we had put that into getting everybody to take
ivermectin and fluvoxamine for for a month if we and if we could accomplish
that then covid would be wiped out we could do it and actually any
municipality that could regulate its borders could clear the disease if you
could accomplish that I believe but you can tell if someone's lying you know you
can sort of feel it and people and I have lied I'm sure I'll lie again I don't
want to lie you know I don't think I'm a liar I try not to be a liar I don't
want to be a liar I think it's like really important not to be a liar
I think it's really important not to be a liar too
not sure how many people think that maybe national security is worth lying
about or lying for is it worth lying to the entire nation to the entire world
I think it might be I don't know anything for certain
sad little oracle he is indeed but ladies and gentlemen let's prepare for
much more win because that's what's going to happen here
got to keep building this community ladies and gentlemen I'm very optimistic
about the momentum that we have behind the scenes that you're not really able
to see on Twitter or other places I think we're really making progress and I
think we just need steady pressure ladies and gentlemen steady pressure thank you
you
the rules protect yourself at all timesakes keep it clean
cut clothes if you wish let's do it sweaty palms this is so crazy why
This is so crazy, I feel so nervous, like what in the world, man?
All kinds of weird volume discrepancies here today.
I'm not really sure how to sync that in with my skills here, but some ghosts in the machines
still here, but I got, you know, everybody set up is a little bit different.
Every time you make a little change or something updates, you never know what's going to happen.
So there might be some goofiness I need to figure out yet.
I think it's almost smooth. Yesterday I had an echo, I didn't know where it was coming from.
Welcome to the show, everybody.
We are staying focused on the biology.
We don't take debate on social media in general, although sometimes it is very tempting.
And we try to love our neighbor.
It could easily be that my voice is rather low.
I don't know what I'm doing yet, I guess.
This is definitely how it works.
There are a few people who are subscribed.
There's about 140 people subscribed.
There are also some people who make kind of like additional donations or donations that are not subscriptions
that actually amount to quite a significant amount of money that is really for a large part
and been responsible for keeping this afloat.
I mean, with the subscribers alone, we wouldn't float.
And that's what I'm trying to be very forthright about.
It is a running on fumes kind of operation, but oh my gosh, if you have the time and the social media
accounts to use as a way of spreading this word, we might, you know, that might get us over the finish line.
So more than anything, I can't plead with you enough to try and find new ways of sharing it.
If you don't know who Soothe Spider is, maybe hook up with him because he's a guy who's making clips.
You can also hook up with a guy by the name of Jeff from Earth who has an Instagram account
that also is making clips.
And these clips could go wider.
Everybody's always griping at me to make clips.
And anyway, if you want to see what's going on and what we're trying to do,
you can find us at GIGOOMBiological.com or GIGOOM.Bio is where we often have these conversations
about how to produce transcripts and this kind of thing.
You can also, we're trying to put the live stream more and more places
because I'm not very good at archiving in most places.
So we should be live on Rumble now.
We should not be live on YouTube and we should be live on PeerTube.
I don't use YouTube when I'm going to steal content for my show.
And today I plan to play from YouTube and stream to those other places.
This is an independent right web presentation which means that I don't have any sponsors
other than other struggling Americans like you.
There are some foreigners who also support me but all of my major supporters
are definitely Americans.
And that's kind of important to me because the reason why I'm called to doing this
is partly because of my identity as an American.
I don't see myself as hyphenated American.
My wife doesn't see herself as American.
She's from Holland and so my kids have this, you know,
foot in two places kind of thing, multiple passports.
They're like little spies.
And I just, I feel like we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to stop this
ship from being sunk.
Maybe even save it from being permanently shipwrecked.
And I think it's worth fighting for.
And the only way we're going to get there is with non-compliance.
I don't think that you can engage in regular media, regular social media.
Try to use social media the way they want you to and game it in such a way that we
could use it against them.
That's absolutely impossible.
I think somebody like Mark Koolak who has a use tonic ITS can is a great example
of how no matter what kind of consistent high quality output you might make,
no matter how transparent you are in your website, no matter how much information
you put together for free in a Wikipedia type form, linear growth over a very long
time horizon is about all you can expect.
That means that everybody that comes here, everybody that comes here is here
because they found us and stayed.
So I'm grateful for everybody that is subscribed also on sub stack.
Also, I'm grateful for everyone that is working so hard to share it.
I really appreciate that.
I don't know how my voice is low.
I guess I just got some problems over here.
I must have tweaked a couple knobs when fooling around with the echo.
I was able to put the echo back in, but then maybe when I was fooling around
with something, I might have said something different.
Anyway, this is going biological.
It's the safest way to get biology into your head.
It is the 17th of April, 2024.
We are still fighting this same conscious and intelligent manipulation of the
organized habits and opinions of ourselves, of our family, of our communities,
of our unseen little tribes on the Internet.
We're all being manipulated.
This picture made by Bob is perfect.
It is perfect.
And we've essentially been tricked into seeding our conscious thoughts to these
algorithms and to these media producers because they told us to stay home
for a particularly dangerous virus.
I don't think it's to be underestimated how important it is.
I'm just going to drop myself in here.
I don't think it's impossible.
It's I don't think it is possible, excuse me, to underestimate how long this
plan has been going on.
And I think a lot of people might be under the false pretenses that this is
something that maybe just started in 2020 or maybe in 2017 when the
intellectual dark web was put in place or maybe when when gain a function
of virology was first started in really 2008 or 2015 when when Tony
Fauci and Ralph Berwick agreed to in front of cameras and recorded and
available on the Internet still agreed to that it might be interesting to
make coronavirus is a little more dangerous just to see how they work.
All of this is part of an elaborate ruse.
And it's unfortunate that everyone wants to cling to their own little piece
just like I did at the beginning of the pandemic for more than a year and a
half.
I cling to the idea that a lab leak was a significantly different
past set of possibilities than a natural emerging virus from a bat
cave trying to juggle the hypothetical biological parameters of those two
scenarios was something that I thought was extremely important for almost two
years and in being locked up in that very Scooby-Doo myself with the help
of a lot of other people around me in in front of me and behind me and
whispering in my ear all having this creating this illusion of consensus
that I was on to something that I was smart that all of this stuff lined up
and that I was one of the few people who saw it and it was only when I started
to think my own and read my own way out.
These people one by one turn on me and one by one decide that I was no longer
worth their time or that something had come up and they couldn't really
interact with me in the same way that they used to.
It's all these different excuses.
Some of them even outright attacked me and said that I had become something
or obviously was something all alone.
Even though it's very few people in the narrative right now who can claim
to have come to being an outspoken critic of the whole narrative and having
really lost a significant source of income and identity.
Very few people some people have gained a sub stack some people have gained
that extra source of income during retirement.
Some people have have found a way to turn it into products that they can sell
and then have businesses based on it.
But very few people can point to a 20 year career in academic biology that was
thrown out at the beginning of the pandemic without fanfare without a
lot of money.
I'm going to talk a little bit about that.
Interview on Tucker Carlson with everyone ignoring them.
Even though they had spoken out against transfection and spoken out
against the virus and maybe even thought that it might be a lab leak
or a man made virus already back in 2020.
And I think that's a very interesting aspect because this whole narrative was
ceded on purpose and then carefully curated so that it would age just right
to collect the largest number of people that were thinking along with the
mystery as it was slowly revealed the clues slowly dropped out of the back of
the world.
But surely weakening America as a government as a system as a nation as a
union for decades.
And at the pinnacle of this operation sits the human genome project and the
AIDS virus and the AIDS pandemic and the vaccine schedule of America and the
Western world.
Let me say that again.
At the heart of this sits the human genome project, the AIDS virus and the AIDS
epidemic and this whole public health apparatus.
It's all part of the same progression from national sovereignty and personal
sovereignty and the sovereignty of a citizen to what what somebody like
Peter Bregan would just term globalism.
And I don't think he's wrong.
I don't know if you can even you could even dismiss the possibility that the
globalism is almost become a religion along with transhumanist ideals.
If you put those together that it's one human race that we should use our use
ourselves as a resource, we should think multi generationally.
That's what that's what survival of the wisest by Jonas Salk would argue is
that if mankind is really going to use what we have been given, then what we
should do is we should be thinking multi generationally, we should be
breeding with intent.
We should be curating our genome.
And as long as we have so many extra right now, we better not let that resource
go to waste.
And I assure you that these people in these meetings on these yachts or on these
islands have had discussions where those almost exact words are used that we
have an excess number of people right now.
We wouldn't want to just build a great big wood pile.
That would be crazy.
Not when we could slow walk them to death and test.
A broad range of potential transhumanist technologies on them in the
guise of public health in the guise of a vaccine schedule that by now we can
basically just add anything we want to.
Shingle shots for goodness sakes for adults over 50.
Are you kidding me?
Read what it says down here.
It says the plan of action for the US spend spend spend under the guise of
recovery.
Bus the government blame the capitalists for the failure junk the
constitution and declare a dictatorship.
It sounds exactly like the pandemic.
Between warp speed and the cares act and all the money that all these
countries have given these companies for these shots and for these counter
measures and for these track and trace and for the and for the testing.
All the money we gave away to save some businesses or something such.
And now we're going to blame the capitalists blame the people who tried
to make a profit blame Pfizer maybe even Pfizer will get have to pay a
billion dollar fine to somebody.
And then when it's all over the constitution is gone we're going to
open up the constitution because we got to make sure we fix this forever.
And then when we open up the constitution we'll essentially gut it.
And in the meantime we have Americans that are supposed to be
patriots telling us that we need to fight the who Americans who are
supposed to be patriots telling us that it's great that some random
state in the union has decided to make a law about the who.
As if that's a pattern that we want to start where different states have
different laws about different international organizations and so when
an international organization declares a pandemic then it depends on state
borders instead of national borders because that would just be great for
the United States. What kind of patriot would say that?
I think once you see it for what it is you realize why this is almost the only
hat I can wear now.
It's a message that needs to be sent at the beginning of the show all the time
we are in danger. We are in imminent danger from traders who are posing as
patriots on all sides of the table.
And they are fighting over what will soon be the carcass of the United
States. Our forefathers fought to have us inherit.
And yes, I'm a multiracial American.
I have Filipino and Indian roots and not Indian like Native American,
Indian like India.
And then my dad is some white guy from Wisconsin from four generations.
I guess it's French and Norwegian.
And so where are we then?
We are fighting for our forefathers for what they did.
My dad served in the Navy during Vietnam.
He didn't see any action.
But he told me not to serve.
Said it would be a good idea if I wanted to be a pilot.
And then at some point, you know, when I was a teenager, he probably said that,
yeah, my basic training might do you some good and it probably would have,
but not four years in the army and certainly not four years in this army.
And no offense to those people who serve.
But I think all of those people might say that there are good and bad parts of
this and there are lots of people that I know who have had a terrible experience
and therefore you're serving the United States.
I think Pat Tillman would say that he had some reservations about having
served the United States.
So we've got to be very, very careful about how we move forward because of
course there are all kinds of, of rifts inside of the United States system
right now that have been put there on purpose by these traders and these
infill traders.
And we've got to make sure that we don't accidentally for them on purpose
trigger these things, we must rescue our military from this, this distorted sort
of, they're trying to hurt them and trying to make us have a very poor
poor estimation of how patriotic they are, how hard it would be to get the
United States military to work against the civilian population of the United
States and how difficult it would be to do anything on a large scale of that in
that sense.
They probably put people in military uniforms who did it so that people
would think that they were military people when they weren't.
It would be very hard to get military people to go into a hospital and
knowingly kill people in order to create a mass casualty event.
But it would be pretty easy to get people to dress up like that from other
agencies to pretend that they were from the military with pretty mean
looking, mean looking credentials and convince people with an illusion of
consensus that, you know, since we don't have very many ventilators, we
should put people on supplementary options.
We should put people on supplementary oxygen before we can get people on the
vent.
And that one single illusion of consensus early on in the pandemic
seeded several places passed around by word of mouth or by email.
Could have resulted in thousands and thousands of people being given high
flow pure oxygen for longer periods of time than would have ever been
advisable previous to the pandemic.
And those people inevitably had complications from it that could have
easily been misconstrued as the progression of COVID.
And that's why I really need you to see Mark Coolack's latest video on that
because there are also papers.
There are peer reviewed papers about different protocols used in monkeys to
demonstrate that these protocols could in fact be dangerous in an
intensive care unit facility where the patient might not be conscious.
And so therefore, lung damage could be done if these these protocols weren't
paid attention to.
Of course, that's why you do it on monkeys, right?
Because if there's going to be pain and suffering, you better not do it in
people.
Let's see if it does anything bad to monkeys.
Holy crap, it did.
It created ARDS, pneumonia-like symptoms in those monkeys at high
concentrations of oxygen and 80% was about as bad as 100.
And why is it?
Why is it?
Why is it that not one single MD in four years has ever come to this
revelation?
Not one.
Is it because it's a false?
It's a it is like a red herring because it's not true.
At least one MD, when presented with this off the cuff, said it was
definitely a dumb idea.
And that's Thomas Binder on my own interview with him.
Check it out.
I think you're going to see a absolutely dubious silence about this fact,
this idea for the coming weeks and an incredibly dubious silence.
And the reason why it will be a silence is because this is one of the ways
the principal of informed consent.
Maybe the primary way that the principal of informed consent in our
hospitals in 2020 and 2021 was effectively ignored.
Because anybody that came into the hospital with a little pulse ox and
used that as a primary symptoms would have been given supplementary
oxygen.
And if they were given it in a very, let's say protocol,
unwise way, like the policy of the hospital is X and X is not good.
This is malpractice.
If they were given 10 liters of oxygen per hour for two days
straight before they went on the ventilator, that's murder.
And it won't be the ventilator.
It won't be the remdesivir.
It will be that that led to all those other things.
And we are, we are at the point now where if you hear nothing but
crickets, you will know what's going on.
Because the, the read that represents the, the bending of their,
their narrative that read was already very brittle.
And it's now about to break.
Because the list of things that they keep having to ignore in order to
explain this anomaly is so long now it's absurd.
And this agreement of what happened is now becoming ludicrous.
Because that agreement ignores the fact that the PCR test was not just
about cycle count.
It was also about the fundamental principle of using PCR to detect
these, these things.
And whether or not the background in a test like this is as clean as
they are when they, when they just test against another construct.
I don't know if you're aware of that or not, but let's just part
on this for a minute with the detectable by a non specific PCR test.
If you look at the EUAs of PCR tests, which you're going to find
our descriptions of control tests that were done in the control
tests that are done, of course, are on other, other.
Molecules of related coronaviruses.
Let's say, so we're going to look at the spike protein, for example,
and we're going to look at whether or not the PCR fragment that we
chose for the spike protein is going to pick up a fragment from
the spike protein of another coronavirus.
The spike protein is about 1200 base pairs long.
If the PCR fragment that they are amplifying from this RNA in the
patient test is 300 base pairs long, and the one that they choose
from another coronavirus is 300 base pairs long, but it's from
a different part of the spike protein, the amount of homology
will be almost zero.
And so you could essentially create a perfect control proof of
principle where, look, for the target sequence, the PCR
amplifies it like 10 cycles.
And for the same protein in another coronavirus, it doesn't
amplify it 55 cycles.
And so obviously this PCR test is highly specific for SARS-CoV-2.
But of course, that's nonsense because in those two scenarios,
you have distilled water and the prep and distilled water and the
prep, whereas when you get a sample from a human's nose or a
sample from a human's saliva or from a cheek or from whatever
wherever you're taking it from, you're going to have countless
sources of RNA and DNA, which could be countless sources of
false positives that will amplify an amplicon that will give you
a fluorescent signal.
And none of those tests, absolutely none of them were forced
or asked to do a real world, real context test because that's
by definition not how these things were done.
Remember, we watched that EUA video.
They said there would be no sample.
There wouldn't be any controls or any standards to use because
by definition, it's a novel miter.
We don't have any to share with you.
So you're going to have to go from the sequence and hope that it works
and make another synthetic test that will allow you to verify
whether there's any specificity, but you can't do it from a
patient sample.
None of them were supposed to do that.
None of them were forced.
None of them were asked to do it.
In fact, the one that I have been asked to look at in detail,
actually the PCR test, all of its research,
the PCR test, all of its reagents, and the control,
which was a bacteriophage, a bacteriophage,
which expressed a spike protein RNA,
a bacteriophage was sent along with the PCR protocol
as the control reagent.
And they were all ordered from a company in China called BGI.
Now, how in the world would it be that a city on the west coast
would be testing its employees using a test that was approved by our FDA,
but it's a test that was designed and a test that was produced
by one of the largest genetic sequencing companies in China,
and it was using a bacteriophage that was encoding the spike protein of the virus.
There was a company on the west coast that had a bottle of bacteriophage
that encoded the spike protein in March 2020.
And I can only guess that that's not the only company in the United States
or the world that had relationships with the largest Chinese genetic sequencing company
in the world.
Couldn't just be one city on the west coast, could it?
Ladies and gentlemen, we were taken.
And now we are under the influence of what many people call controlled ops,
people that are essentially working for the state to make sure
that our limited spectrum of debate remains focused on the lab leak,
remains focused on regulation of gain of function viruses,
and remains focused on blaming the rushed crisis response,
the ineptitude of Trump, the Warp Speed Act
for the contamination of the shot.
And that is the plan.
Pfizer will take the fall, someone else will take the fall,
and then the next generation of these things will plod forward just like they are right now
with RSV and pneumonia and shingles, et cetera.
They are inverting our basic individual sovereignty
and our national sovereignty to a global permission system.
And unfortunately, a lot of these people are on their team.
I have almost zero doubt that most of these people are on the team of the globalists.
The social media companies are on the team of the globalists.
The globalists are the weaponized piles of money that we have been talking about,
but that's how we should think about them.
They want to dissolve national borders through pain.
And they needed this mythology.
They need this mythology to sit so that they can continue this rating of our wealth
until there's nothing left.
And they all agree that this mystery virus explains a significant amount of the excess deaths,
and they all agreed not to talk about this stuff.
They don't talk about the overuse of pulse oximeters and supplementary oxygen
to get people into the, from the basic entry to the hospital to the protocols.
In fact, they don't want you to know this because this is part of the protocol.
I think Mark and I and others are now starting to think that this might be the heart of the protocol,
the most important part of it.
The most important part of it was to associate the novel virus with something that isn't novel,
something that isn't novel.
If you just said right now, everybody get your pulse oximeter out and measure.
And if it's below 94, you better go to the hospital and we'll give you supplementary oxygen.
And then all those people were given 20 liters of oxygen a minute for about four hours.
You could have the illusion of a spread of a virus.
Done.
And that's the truth you need to understand because of the damage that something like pure high flow oxygen can do to someone.
It makes it very much easier to get to the stage where you have people in the hospital that think they have a disease because they're in pain because the oxygen isn't helping me.
So we could sedate you and put you on a ventilator.
That'll at least relieve the burning pain and the dryness you feel.
And then when they develop pneumonia, you wouldn't give them antibiotics. You'd give them remdesivir.
Maybe you'd give them some adazzle. I mean, definitely wouldn't give them steroids if they got pneumonia.
Of course, coupled that with all of the background tweaks on mortality like the flooding of our streets with opioids.
And the death certificate fraud that went on so that they could get more numbers and more numbers from not so many excess deaths.
The financial incentives that made hospital corporations rich that we don't even talk.
We don't even talk about them. Not even one. Not even one dissident.
Not even one dissident has ever mentioned Kaiser healthcare services or the Catholics such and such or any of these corporations that own these hospitals that did all the damage to these people.
None of the dissidents are interested in calling any of those corporations to account.
Have you ever heard one name? One name of any of these hospital corporations that most certainly have medical databases that they are most certainly offering in behind the scenes to various entities that would love to have it?
Volunteering to be on board with this national security operation.
Do you not understand yet that this whole thing was to fool you into believing that this whole operation was necessary so that they could institute an inversion where they could start to collect the data and have a national security excuse to do it?
They're not. They already are doing it. I have almost no doubt in my gut. They are already doing it. That's, that's what the whole testing thing was about. It's about generating remnants.
If you want to hear something really just disturbing, just go listen to Vincent Rancin yellow and racking yellow on one of his virology talks talk about how foreskin is used for these for these cell cultures that they use and how great it is.
And then now think, are they really circumcising young male babies in the United States in order to make it easier to care for those infants?
Or did they just simply come up with an excuse so that they could take and create medical remnants?
I mean, one of the arguments against Planned Parenthood that that's all Planned Parenthood is is a remnant generating machine.
Because you don't just throw that stuff away. Some of the best experiments that I've ever done in my neuroscience career were experiments that were done with tissue that I was able to arrange to get out of the garbage can of a surgery suite.
Pieces of human neocortex being discarded during a glioma operation would normally go in the garbage can on a napkin.
And instead I put them in artificial cerebral spinal fluid made slices of them like I do with my my mouse neurons and I recorded from what are essentially an hour removed.
And then I put them in the hospital cells from the human neocortex. That's some badass shit.
And we didn't learn that much because it's a pretty bad preparation. And it's not a very, you know, yeah, but but it's neat.
And it would have been garbage. But what you need to see is that there's a much more valuable that that a hospital is a giant factory of remnants.
And that remnant factory was known before the pandemic. They would have known this and there's no way.
There's no conceivable way that all this testing and all these swabs were collected without that in mind.
And so where the swabs went got sent, where the remnants who paid for them, all of these questions need to be answered because people's heads will roll.
When we find out what happened, I'm sure of it.
It's all part of the same scam. And at the very, very top of this has been a desperate four year long attempt to make sure that we never sniffed out the key to the whole puzzle, which is the pulse ox bullshit.
The pulse ox is the main trick.
It is the way they got damaged lungs.
It's the way they got people who came to the hospital just with mild symptoms or a positive test into the ICU and dead, especially Medicare.
Because again, the goal was one of the goals on the chalkboard was to reduce this incoming tsunami of Medicare costs that the boomers represented that for six months of life costs $500,000 each.
And I think that Jessica Hockett and other people who have suggested this are correct. They even actually upped that a little bit at the before the start of the pandemic to make sure that there were some extra old people that could die in 2020 for some extra numbers that they could throw up on a screen.
I don't think you can underestimate the depravity of these people in their meticulous plan here.
That's why they have people like Brett Weinstein who just simply can't figure out to say any of this stuff yet.
None of it.
It can still barely say,
even though he's getting on every podcast on YouTube now,
and able to say that he's standing up and sacrificing everything for something over and over and over again.
I assure you, he's not standing up and sacrificing anything for the justice of the people that were killed by this stuff.
Not at all. He wants the best of his ability. One of his jobs is to make sure that you never think of that.
And so they avoided billions of dollars in Medicaid costs and they're still going to avoid more because they are advising.
They're advising telling doctors that these are good. They are advising old people to take pneumonia shots and RSV shots and and single shots and all these single shots and all this is going to do is kill.
It's all it's going to do is make people more unhealthy and race them to the grave with strokes and heart attacks. I guarantee it.
I'm terrified that my friend at the at the gym isn't going to be there one of these days because of his sink shingles shot.
And the sink shingles shot, of course, belies the obvious, which is that I'm sure he's got all the COVID.
And I'm going to keep repeating this until I can't talk anymore, but strict liability is something that none of these posers will say.
None of them will say it. You can rewind their videos from years ago. They're not saying it. There's something wrong with that.
And they also are not pointing out the Seventh Amendment violation that is encoded in the prep act and encoded in the national vaccines, something, something act.
You can't have a court where you're not allowed to sue. It's just not right. You're allowed to sue for any damages over $20.
It's in the Constitution and the prep act and this other law, they they they seem to bypass that or override that.
And worse yet, those courts pay lawyers that don't win. So all lawyers have have a financial interest in partaking in that.
It's disgusting that nobody points that out.
I mean, you think Aaron Siri makes money by losing cases?
He can't lose money by losing cases because he wins money by losing cases.
So it's in his, it's kind of a conflict of interest for him to say that he doesn't agree with that court while he uses it, while he pushes people through it.
And while he builds it.
And of course, you couldn't really raise a Seventh Amendment violation could you after you've used that court for 10 years.
Oh wait, now your honor. I guess the court that I've made a multi generational wealth from as a lawyer. I guess I've decided that this court represents a Seventh Amendment violation.
And so there you have it.
And so we could talk about all those special things or we could talk about the very simple fact, the very one little piece of the narrative that I put in the beginning of the slides all the time that I'm going to go back to right now before we go to the video.
Always at the end right after Tucker Carlson says liar I put this slide up.
And it was at this conference on the 18th and 19th of November in 2023 in Bucharest Romania that Nick Hudson met.
That Byron Bridal met Denny Rancor.
That Harvey Reich met Denny Rancor.
That Jessica Rose met Harv Denny Rancor.
That Brett Weinstein met Denny Rancor.
That Robert Malone and Jill Glasspool Malone met Denny Rancor.
That Meryl Nast met Denny Rancor.
That Ryan Cole met Denny Rancor.
That Stephen Hatfield met Denny Rancor.
And when they came back.
They did blog posts about meeting Denny Rancor and seeing Denny Rancor's presentation and Jessica Rose.
And, and Robert Malone both got excited about the.
Both got excited. I'm going to see if I can set that to not be automatic. I don't know why that's automatic.
Yeah, that shouldn't be automatic. And then I'll put that back up.
The.
Robert Malone and Jessica Rose both did blog posts the day or two after they got back from Romania about how blown away they were by Denny Rancor's presentation and neither of them said anything about the fact that Denny Rancor's presentation.
Showed no data which indicated the spread of a novel pathogen across any borders.
County or state or national borders.
And it's a part of his publications and it's a part of his publications from the very beginning in 2020 already he was saying that before the shots even came out Denny was already saying hey there's no real evidence of spread here what's going on.
And so it's very curious that they gave him a limited spectrum of exposure that fit right into their already well curated limited spectrum of debate about a novel virus that killed millions of people that could have killed millions more if we didn't save them using
it's probably again a function virus so it will come again soon so we better regulate them.
And so it is very, very important that we understand that the reality is is that there is fifth generation warfare going on and fifth generation warfare is actually controlled operations controlled operators.
Players, actors, people that are playing a role to make sure that we ask the wrong questions at the wrong time that the truth is revealed when it's supposed to be and when and not when it's not supposed to be.
And oftentimes these people will step in front of real patriots step in front of real whistleblowers and take over their narrative.
And I am arguing with the utmost humility that Brett Weinstein and and Robert Malone and a few other people are actually employed to do that by someone or something some weaponized pile of money or two.
The whole is of course to perpetuate the slow control demolition of America that's going on right now being led by both the Democratic and the Republican Party.
Insiders in the deep state as well that are collaborating with global interests that are these weaponized piles of money that do not respect the borders of nations and certainly respect powers that are older than the upstart nation of the United States.
And so we may be near another kind of revolutionary war in the sense of the best case scenario happens.
The citizenry of the United States needs to rise up against whatever this is that the traitorous people in our government and and weed them out somehow.
I think we got to start local I don't know how to do it but I'm assuring you that all the people in this picture are not on our team.
Some of them I hope are but many of them have been co opted have been have been given comfort and a little bit of pseudo fame.
And as a result are very, very unlikely to snap out of it.
They're very, very unlikely to actually realize what I was able to realize which is that wow.
I was fooled by a bunch of people who were happy to agree with me as long as I agreed with them.
And it was an organized thing.
That's what I'm so begging everybody to understand the depth of that it was an organized thing that's why the same people have been hot tubbing for four years.
Already in the beginning some of those people were on the very first movements together recruited added co opted.
And so yes I do dream of things that other people don't but I do think that we're going to have to learn this biology and so I think for me personally I got to do some of this homework anyway I thought I would do this one online with you.
This is the same lady from the Whitehead Institute.
I was going to title it a little bit more morbid but I did not.
So this is Susan Lindquist from Whitehead MIT.
We know all about Whitehead and MIT so that's fun.
Fun times.
And this is going to be a two part thing I'm going to do one part today and one part tomorrow.
I won't give as big an introduction tomorrow as I did today.
And I want to watch these two and then we're going to start on Stanley Stanley's papers on pre on probably on Friday.
So here we go let's see what she's got to say I think I'm going to put it slightly faster.
And then we'll just see where we get.
Hi there I'm Susan Lindquist and I'm a member of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and I work at MIT and the Whitehead Institute.
I'm here to tell you about a variety of different problems in protein folding.
In this particular lecture I'm going to talk to you about protein folding and how it manifests in a wide variety of human diseases.
So let me first set the problem for you.
Proteins come out of the ribosome as long linear strings of amino acids and they have to fold up into these incredibly complicated shapes in order to do their jobs and they do just about everything inside of living systems.
And the problem, the difficulty in getting those folds exactly right and they have to get them exactly right or the protein either won't function which is bad or it'll go off and do renegade bad things interacting with the wrong kinds of proteins and that's even worse.
The problem with reaching their final functional state through these complicated folds is that they have to do it in the insanely crowded environmental living cell.
So this wonderful movie by Adrian Elcock gives you an example of how crowded the cell is and how gentle proteins are and how they're banging to each other all the time.
This is crowding and chaos and energy really is part of life what makes life possible but it also means that all living systems are kind of on a knife edge of vulnerability because it's incredibly kinetic in there.
In fact, that movie in order to be really accurate would have to be sped up by three million fold.
So you can imagine that if any of the perturbations in the system proteins will wind up starting to bump into each other in inappropriate ways and start sticking to each other and making a mess.
And that happens with all sorts of different stresses. It can influence the process of evolution and it very strongly influences every aspect of human disease.
So you have a very visceral feeling for protein aggregation is in your own lives.
This is it. These are proteins and they look perfectly fine. This is what happens when you apply heat to the system.
The proteins aggregate and of course that doesn't happen in your body but just a little bit of that is actually happening all the time.
And if it doesn't get corrected, it can spell absolutely disaster for living systems.
And so cells use a tremendous amount of energy and lots of different proteins to actually try to keep the state of their proteins like this clear, beautiful fluid and to prevent the protein aggregation.
And I first got into this problem when I was working on something called the heat shock response.
The heat shock response is universal just as the protein folding problem is universal and it works like this.
You can see in the East on the far side there, we've taken two alkalts of a culture of yeast that are growing perfectly happily at normal temperatures and we expose them both to high temperatures.
But for one of them, we first gave the cells a mild pretreatment at 39 degrees. They're just half an hour.
And you can see the difference that the pretreatment made in their ability to survive.
Middle there is a similar experiment done with the Revidopsis sequence and this experiment here is one done with tumor cells and it's been done with every organism you can imagine.
It's universal. Pre-treatments allow protection for much more severe stresses.
So what are the cells doing, what's happening in those biological systems to get them prepared for these difficult stressful conditions and making heat shock proteins.
So this is labeling of the proteins that are made by cells that either 25 degrees or 39 degrees and different bands on that gel are just spread out according to the molecular weight of the proteins.
And you can see that there are massively new proteins that are made and just tremendously large amounts.
They're called HSPs for heat shock proteins because they were first found in response to heat.
But we now know that actually they exist and they are induced in made at higher levels in response to just about every stress you can think of.
So higher temperatures, osmotic stress, changes in pH, changes in energy balance in the cell.
And they fix those problems with protein folding.
They either prevent the proteins from folding the misfolding in the first place or they take proteins that have been damaged and have aggregated and started to get into a coddled egg sort of state and get them right back out of it.
And every organism on the planet uses the same response.
This gel that I'm showing you here happens to be a gel of yeast proteins and the yeast heat check response bacteria, plants, mammals, we all do it.
Or just do it, these do it and educate and fleece to it.
So it's very universal and it's very broadly used survival responses.
It's not only response as I mentioned to heat.
It protects organisms not just from heat.
It protects organisms from all those other stresses I've told you about.
And this manifests many different ways in biology and in, as I mentioned, every different aspect of human disease that you can imagine.
And we actually work because we started out working on protein folding a long time ago and had this ramification in different ways.
We actually found ourselves working in all these different areas of biology.
So we got to be very careful here because I think this is one of those elusive, enticing kind of things that gets done in biology a lot of times by people because they're so specialized, they want you to believe that what they do is pivotal to all of biology.
And so simply by staining for the presence of certain heat shock proteins, or they're related genetic signatures, this woman is making the argument that they are somehow pivotal in the presence of, or the generation of these different disease states.
And you could stain for a lot of different proteins and you would get a differential staining between the healthy state and the cancer state.
And so whether it went up or down, you could say that that difference was correlated and then make up a story about how pivotal physiology is governed by that protein because it is present in one state and not the other.
So I'm still not very, as a biologist, I'm not very compelled by this argument so far because there are lots of ways, including, for example, if you took an animal and you, you gave it a foot shock before, and if you have an animal that had a foot shock, an animal that didn't have a foot shock, there will be differences between those that animals brain.
And if you could do that experiment in the same animal, you would find this difference as well. And so I'm not, not this difference in heat shock, but a difference in probably hundreds, if not thousands of proteins, depending on what you look for and where you looked.
And so to jump all the way to everybody does it, all these, these, all of these things do it for the same reasons. It's not just heat. It's everything.
And you don't really understand it if it's everything.
So then these proteins are always produced.
And there are manipulations you can do experimentally to get bumps in their production hit their bumps in no other proteins besides these.
And what animals do they do it in and what what what organisms have they really looked in and how thoroughly have they looked.
She's just hand waved and said it's they've done it in all of them, all of them, all of them they've done it.
And I'm very skeptical of that. I'm very, very skeptical because it is a very, very enticing narrative to say that, you know, we tested it in three different preparations and it seems to be that if it's in yeast and it's in eridopsis and it's in bacteria, then I guess it must be in everything.
Look, even people express these proteins. So they must do the same thing in us as they do in them.
And then she shows you the picture of all those proteins vibrating around, but she doesn't tell you what they're vibrating around in and what that might mean.
Because of course they're vibrating around in a highly crystalline polar solvent called water.
That is absolutely crucial to understanding how proteins fold absolutely crucial to understanding why you would need chaperone proteins for some proteins and not others.
It would have to be fundamentally related to the properties of water and proteins as they move through it and yet somehow or another this lady isn't talking about it the reason why those chaperone proteins are there is specifically because of water, I suspect.
Because of the properties of water in order to create a certain viscosity you need to have these chaperone proteins.
Something like that I'm sure it has something to do with water but the water's not even on the slide anywhere it's not even in her mind anywhere this is just proteins and proteins and more proteins.
And it's extraordinary because she knows that proteins fold with a hydrophilic and hydrophobic bias. She knows that they're that amino acids are different because they're chemically different and therefore polarically different.
And so she knows that protein folding is dependent on that, but for some reason she doesn't even mention the fact that the whole reason why this is cool is because they're floating around in a highly polar solvent water.
The thickness of this is being just thrown out the window the reverence for the complicated system that she's trying to understand is just thrown out the window when you throw out that fundamental fact of the system she's trying to study.
So I'm going to tell you one little bit about how this protein folding problem interfaces with infectious diseases and I'll tell you a little bit more about what we're doing the cancer biology and neurodegenerative diseases.
So this is an example of an organism, a theological organism invading us through the bite of mosquito this is malaria parasite.
And you can see that when the mosquito first bites it of course the organism undergoes a big change in temperature when it comes inside of us.
And so that causes protein folding stress it mounts a heat shock response to help protect it. And then in its life cycle this organism is moving around and going to different parts of the body.
Because it does that our bodies mount recognize that they're having problems with protein folding because of heat stress, and our bodies try to make it even worse for the organism by mounting massive fevers.
And so this is a constant feature of all pathological organisms that invade us and change from one temperature another.
So now she's making the argument that we increase our body temperature in order to make pathogens misfold more proteins.
Wow, so I mean protein misfolding is so central that our pyrogenic response is primarily to make protein folding go wrong for the bad guys.
That's that's that's pretty extraordinary right.
I mean just a wave of her hand the the fever response is because protein folding.
We are only working a little bit on malaria, but we have a major project going on where we're trying to block the ability of fungal organisms, fungal pathogens, and use this heat shock response to protect themselves when they get inside of us.
Unfortunately I want to talk to you about that today, but I do want to talk to you about aspects of protein folding in cancer and neurodegenerative diseases.
With respect to cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, we are actually between a rock and a hard place, because it turns out that cancer cells and infectious organisms, as I just mentioned, are using their survival response to help kill us.
Empower them to get through all kinds of stresses and put on through those stresses and kill us.
And oddly enough, even though our brains during these neurodegenerative diseases are also experiencing misfolded proteins that the massive aggregates of proteins I'll show you in a minute that occur in our brain with these diseases.
Those usually should signal, oh, our proteins are in trouble, let's mount a heat shock response.
And for some reason we don't quite understand, they don't do that, or at least don't do it very well.
So we're kind of in.
I'm of the opinion that what she's trying to imply is that the heat shock proteins, if they were produced, would delay onset of protein misfolding or prevented.
Maybe even reverse it. I don't think there's a lick of evidence to say that, but that's a nice part of the mythology.
It's a nice neat mythology, right? It's very, very similar to the neat mythology that if these people would just produce the right antibodies, everything would be fine.
But for some reason, these people don't produce the right antibodies, and so they get really sick, or the second response is worse than the first.
It's spectacular. You guys, it is absolutely spectacular.
Yeah, wow.
A mess right there. In that balance of cancer and neurodegeneration, one of the major players, and there are more and more of them that are coming out now, but one of the major players that we found that regulates that balance between health and disease.
Think about this cartoon. You said that it would make sense if she had a cartoon. Think about this cartoon. We are a fine balance between cancer and degeneration, and those fine balances are both based on protein folding.
What evidence has she given you in this talk for her to make such a broad statement about how important protein folding is, how huge of a danger it is that it could be represented as a guy in a tightrope.
Diseases at these different ends, health being in the middle, is something called the heat shock factor. It's the master regulator that heat shock response I just showed you is the protein that goes into the nucleus binds to those genes, turns them all on and gets the response going.
It's a pretty powerful mediator of this balance between health and disease.
Our first understanding of how this heat shock response is classic heat shock survival response plays a role in cancer was when we were able to obtain a mouse that actually had a mutation in that heat shock factor. It couldn't mount a heat shock response.
That mouse was actually more susceptible to heat stress and other stresses like that, but it was perfectly fine in terms of living a normal lifetime, and as long as it was in a relatively controlled environment, it was just fine.
Wait, so a mouse that doesn't have the genetic factor that regulates the heat shock protein response, the chaperone protein response that keeps proteins from folding incorrectly a mouse that doesn't have that lives fine.
And Eva Benjamin who made this mouse was kind enough to share it with us. So we looked at how that being unable to mount a heat shock response like that might affect this is a ability to cancer.
And it had a pretty big effect. So this is the first.
Shouldn't have had a very big effect on their ability to protein fold normally.
Because she just got through saying that it turns out that these proteins are there all the time, and they're just upregulated to a wide variety of stress responses almost any stress response, but they're there all the time and they help proteins to fold correctly.
She just got through telling you that that that that that that it seems like in neurodegenerative diseases there should be heat shock protein produced because there are proteins misfolded but they don't get produced.
Now we have a mouse that can't make them and you have to induce cancer in order to get it really.
What we did is we shaved the backs of these mice and we painted them with a mutagen and a tumor promoting agent.
And you can see that the normal mouse is responding to this very classic cancer causing agent by by producing skin tumors.
And these skin tumors that you're seeing in a midway stage of the disease, but they got worse and worse and worse and they eventually filled the mouse.
The mice down here are genetically identical to these mice up here. The only difference is that one heat shock transcription factor has been mutated in the genome and it can't mount the heat shock response.
And you can see that that profoundly protects the mouse from cancer because the cancer cells are actually using that survival response to allow them to grow in an uncontrolled way and to invade other systems and other places in the body where they normally don't belong and where they have found counter stressful environments.
So that's how it played out in the mouse and it turned out that we studied several different causes of cancer.
This particular cancer has a particular pathways perturbed that's a classic pathway in cancer biology, but there are other equally important pathways in cancer biology and we look at several of them.
And in each case we looked at, there was a big difference in the incidence of cancer, not being able to mount the heat shock response meant those tumors didn't develop as much and they were not as invasive.
In fact, there was this difference in the number of tumors translated into an incredible difference in lifespan. These mice appear died, these mice did not, and that happened again and again with these different cancer models and it's been shown by other laboratories now as well.
So that's so what does that mean then does that mean that the high speed growth of cancer cells is is she's arguing is is assisted by the presence of heat shock protein so if you can make a heat shock response, then the cells are able to grow faster.
But cancer cells aren't healthy cells.
So you can't say that they're growing faster or that they're good cells, they just grow more and if they have heat shock protein while they do it, then it doesn't seem to me like heat shock protein is protecting against anything or stopping the misfolding because again a mouse without it still folds proteins fine.
There's something very contradictory about what she's saying here I'm going to have to I'm trying to I'm trying to figure it out but I know what she's trying to say I think that the heat shock proteins and that response is used in cancer cells to make it make them able to divide
her she's implying that that that higher speed of division I think requires more protein to be made successfully and fold correctly.
And so without that response then cancer can't really do it or the mutagen can't really cause cells to become unregulated in that way.
I think all it means is that the heat shock proteins are present and part of the initiation of the cancer response that's all really means whatever that cancer response is I don't even, we don't even know for sure what that is right.
What is the characteristics of those open source.
Is that not an immune response, how do we know that's I mean it's just so extraordinary do we know for sure that that's cell division there.
There's no mutagen on them you know like I don't I don't like this experiment at all I think it's really yucky and I think the conclusions are really you know if we assume that we're right, then this looks like this.
That's how all of these experiments are done.
We screwed up some genetic model using some some screwed up methodology.
If we thought our previous hypothesis then we can explain what we see here by by telling this story, but we don't have time to test that to see if our model of what happened here is true.
We're just going to assume that that's how we have to explain this.
I would have assumed that the normal mouse would would would would get tumors and the one that couldn't make heat shock proteins would get even more tumors or something like that.
And yet she just nonchalantly presents it as though it goes right along with what she said because cancer cells need more protein folding or something.
Now it's done though ladies and gentlemen this is exactly how it's done you do an experiment then you make it fit your pre pre pre preconceived notion of what what the underlying system is and then no matter what your results are you try to fit it
into that preconceived notion of how the system works so if your preconceived notion is that protein misfolding is a very big problem and that heat shock proteins and other chaperones like that are responsible for making sure that that
that cascade of calamity doesn't doesn't spiral out of control.
So when you do this experiment you have to explain it this way that all I guess cancer uses our proteins to make more proteins and that cancer needs them and otherwise they cancer can't go.
Not regular proteins can't fold sorry I guess we were wrong about that but we won't mention that we may or they probably don't even mention in the discussion.
Again with these different cancer models and it's been shown by other laboratories now as well.
So that's mice what about humans well one of the things we did with human to try to see whether this was really relevant to human beings was to take a variety of different cancer cell lines from humans and lines that could be grown in culture and manipulated easily and we knock out their each ability to make a heat shock response and in fact they started to die.
If we did that with a normal cell and kept under fairly normal conditions they were fine but when we did that with cells that were cancerous from all sorts of different cancers from all different sorts of causes they died.
But you've got a problem here now we're looking at mice and we're looking at tissue culture cells in a dish and very abnormal environment.
Can you get any idea, can you get any evidence that this really matters in the human being.
And so what we did one of the pathologists working in my group and another pathologist working in Baba Wainberg's group found in shape and Sandra's only got in my group.
So we looked at whether or not when you took out tumor samples directly from a patient and stained them with an antibody that would react with the heat shock transcription factor that I just told you about.
Would there be a manifestation of the activation of that transcription factor in the human tumors taken directly immediately from the body.
So here you have a slice of human tissue taken from a breast cancer victim and you can see the brown staining is HSF.
The blue is just a generalized protein stain.
And you can say we've caught the border between the normal cells here and the tumor.
And that's a very special place to be because we don't have to worry about the difference in staining being due to a difference in the fixation of the tissue or whether the antibody was able to penetrate the tissue.
We know that the tissue, the normal tissue and the tumor tissue which were right next to each other being treated exactly the same way.
And so here we see that HSF the brown staining is in the cytoplasm and that's because that's a normal cell.
They're perfectly happy and they don't need their heat shock response.
But in the tumor, you can see that the sort of deranged looking cells have much higher level of that brown stain, much higher level of the heat shock factor.
And it's moved from the cytoplasm into the nucleus where it does its business in transcribing whole variety of survival genes.
So that's breast cancer, that's pancreatic cancer, that's colon cancer, and that's lung cancer.
In fact, we've stained dozens and dozens of different types of cancers and we've seen it in every single one of them that we've looked at.
And more over what's interesting about it, and a little bit unusual when it comes to looking at cancer markers, is that along the tumor throughout the tumor, the staining is quite uniform and even, as though the whole tumor is really using that response.
So that looks interesting, this response is being turned on in the cancer cells and not in the normal cells that are right next to them, but does it really make a difference?
Well, of course our experiments with mice and our experiments with tissue culture of cells would suggest that it's making a difference.
Can we get any evidence that it really is?
We can, actually, and we can because of a wonderful group of studies that have been done over the course of many, many years by dedicated clinicians.
And the first study that we looked at was something called the Nurses Health Study. Nurses are a particularly wonderful group of patients because they're very responsible.
They will come back year after year after year for their examinations, so that you can track them and find out what happens to them.
So this is a particularly valuable study, and it's the nurses that enrolled in this study have been examined for many different pathological conditions.
And that study has told us a great deal.
In this particular case, what we did was to get a hold of samples from the nurses that were first enrolled in this study 25 years ago, and we stained their initial samples on their first biopsy.
We stained them for whether or not they had a high level of HSF or low level of HSF, and whether it was in the nucleus or whether it wasn't.
And you can see that, and then the pathologists stained these slides blind.
They had no idea what had happened to those nurses, and they scored them for high and medium or low levels.
And then we decoded the data, because the survival records had been kept for those women 25 years later.
And sure enough, if in the women who had a low level of the He-Chock Response Act within their tumors, they were much less likely to die than the women that had a high level of HSF in their tumors.
So this is kind of an amazing difference in these populations when we realized that women were treated in different ways all over the country, in different clinical settings and clinical centers.
So to see such a large difference in their survival really would suggest strongly that the He-Chock Response had been on an opportunity to begin with.
You might wonder what she would think about what would happen if you transfected someone with a cationic lipid and chemically altered conon-optimized mRNA, if that would cause a stress response that would activate this cascade and make the propensity of cancer go up.
That's an interesting question that I've never heard anyone ask.
Hmm.
Helped those cancer cells to survive and helped to drive from the women's state in a very unfortunate way for them.
Now, was this just one off from breast cancer?
No, we were able to actually do something similar in lung and colon cancer.
And these are the three major causes of cancer in the developed world, the three major killers.
And we think, of course, it's probably not just these diseases.
And not just these cancers, we think it's actually much, much broader.
But certainly in these, we're able at least to get a correlation between the activity of the C-Chock Response and the outcome in terms of malignancy.
And that allows us to ask, well, can we do something about it?
And that's what we're trying to do.
We're wondering if we can use it diagnostically.
In other words, if, in fact, when someone is first diagnosed as having cancer in the clinic,
might stand for the He-Chock Response help clinicians to decide whether or not that patient should be treated aggressively or not aggressively.
It's often a very, very difficult decision to make.
And we think that you might not want to treat patients with an aggressive chemotherapy agent that might wind up inducing a He-Chock Response, inducing the survival response if the tumor in the first place doesn't have it.
Don't know if that's going to work yet or not, but that's the logic of what we're trying to do.
And then, okay, that's diagnostics.
Maybe you think it's promising at least.
But then could we ever learn to control it in human cancers?
Could we surgically block with chemical agents or with antibodies?
We surgically block the activation of that response in tumors where it's already active and try to turn it off?
So that's another thing that we're trying to do.
So how can we use that combined knowledge therapeutically?
It would be a manifest in lots of different ways, but one thing you can imagine is you find out whether or not the patients have that He-Chock Response.
And you really only treat the patients that do have the He-Chock Response with that particular agent because you don't want to treat people unnecessarily.
She did say use antibodies.
I don't know how you get antibodies into the nucleus or cytoplasm.
It was an interesting statement, but she did say use antibodies.
I did hear it.
So those are the ways in which we hope to use that response and use our knowledge of that response.
It's still very early days, but that's how basic science really tries to interface with difficult clinical problems.
So you might think that this powerful, powerful, survival response, the cancer cells are taking advantage of,
that our nerve cells are not taking advantage of.
Maybe if we turn down that survival response, it might be a great therapeutic strategy for all of those different protein folding diseases that could maybe work on all of them.
I don't think so, however, and the reason is because I think turning up that response when it's not normally needed might make the brain more susceptible to development cancer.
So in terms of treating neurodegenerative diseases and trying to find some solution to these horrible diseases, we're going about that protein folding problem a little differently.
We're actually trying to attack the individual pathologies that are caused by individual proteins that misfold in those diseases.
So we can have a much more targeted surgical strike against those diseases.
Now I'll be talking about that in my next lecture.
Meanwhile, I just want to thank you for listening.
Well, that went really quick.
Let me see here.
Maybe we can do the next one already.
It is what time is it to the 30.
Yeah, we could. I'm just going to, I'm going to.
I'm going to blink it out really quick so that the second part starts again.
I'm going to change the title and then I'm going to start the next video with one.
With one slide in the beginning. So if you just give me a second, I think it's a good idea to finish this.
I want it to follow along nicely. So let's do that.
I'm going to click off for just one second and then I will put up the slide and we'll be back on again.
So just I'll see in a second.