you
Left-handed monkey wrench is starting to get rich.
They say why.
Why they want to terminate my command.
I was sent on a classified mission, sir.
no longer classified.
Did they tell you?
They told me that you had gone totally insane.
And that your methods were
Unsound.
Are my methods unsound?
I don't see any method.
At all, sir.
I expect...
What did you expect?
Are you an assassin?
I'm a soldier.
You're neither.
You're an errand boy.
Thank you very much for the compliments and thank you very much for sharing.
Thanks to Mark for helping share it.
Yeah, I humbly request that others share it as well.
It is one of the better overall presentations I've ever done.
It's not perfect.
I tried to make clear that yesterday.
There were a couple of things that needed
Correction, but overall on review it isn't that bad and if that's the first time that I've been on stage and in front of that many people Then the next time that I do a similar presentation with a little more tweaks In front of more people it pretty much seems like they're not gonna have they're gonna have to avoid that happening So thanks for sharing it
Um, and thanks for the compliments.
I appreciate it.
I am going to try and put it up on sub stack as a, a text.
Um, and, uh, maybe somebody has already done that.
I don't know.
Um, but, uh, yeah, I, I actually tried to think of it as kind of a Ted talk.
Uh, not that I changed very much about how I normally do things, but, um,
Yeah, it was definitely a little bit different slide deck.
You know, I used the slide deck as a different thing.
I had some advice from a very good friend that in a situation like this, you should always remember that you are the talk, not the slides.
And that changed my attitude quite a bit because, as you know, I like to use my slides on my show.
And so that friend's advice was very, very spot on.
Yeah, maybe I'll get to speak at the Brownstone event on the other side of the street on a table that says, ha ha, Brownstone is a controlled op, prove me wrong, ha ha, I'll probably be sitting with you then, Mark, at the same table.
Anyway, and that's pretty good timing for the little plug here, so don't forget about Mark.
Annie, you're terribly late.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us... I'm going to have to mark it in my book, unfortunately.
I'm afraid... I'm going to have to mark it in my book.
...tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case scenario.
I think truth is good for kids.
We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in society.
We want everybody to feel good.
That's not the way life is.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in 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.
Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest distillation of what the pandemic means to society, to biology, to science, and to democracy, and to the whole kind of idea of empiricism and integrity.
And then each of us, this incredible preeminent panel that we have, each one of you is going to get a chance to comment
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, and it's measles plus.
Okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles because not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end.
When we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality, it's not, it's, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these things.
It'll be a moral emergency because it has to be.
The
I have to admit the the Mister Rogers theme is my favorite part, but I do love that bird too.
Well, the Brownstone organization gives away fellowships, and one of the fellowships they gave away to is Brett Weinstein, like he needs more money.
So it's, you know, it seems to be rich people and rich piles of money giving money to other piles of money.
and redistributing it among these people who don't really seem to be able to score any meaningful goals.
That's how I see it.
I know I'm a little bit over the top with that kind of thing, but it doesn't feel very good.
Otherwise, I'm not really sure how it is that they missed me.
But anyway,
Yeah, it's a matter of what's perceived to be true and a lot of people see Brownstone as being pretty cool.
I heard someone else in the chat type clownstone.
I don't know, we'll see.
I'm gonna do everything I can to make them refund my little invitation or whatever, you know, that I paid for.
And we'll see what happens.
If they do that, then we'll kind of know already.
And then, as I alluded to, I might be across the street at a table that says, uh, Brownstone is a controlled op.
Prove me wrong and make a few videos from there.
These questions still aren't being discussed, answered, or meaningfully chatted about.
And so we've just got to keep pushing because at this stage, I think you can see it's become very clear that they can only attribute bad motives to me and others.
It's not really a...
a real discussion anymore and in fact even both sides of the discussion are basically puppeteer puppeted people many times who have previously been on stage together so it's quite a
It's quite a goofy place we're in, and it's a goofy place compounded by the fact that, you know, they have weaponized piles of money plus the overarching control over wealth and money and power in a way that, quite frankly, I don't think any of us are really fully aware of.
And so even if I could get somebody like David Webb on my show, hint hint, even if I could get somebody like David Webb on my show, hint hint, I don't know that we're still going to get anything meaningfully across the finish line until more and more people see and don't need to be shown every little thing.
It's pretty obvious to me, though, that they've been telling the same kind of story for a pretty long time.
You know, if we just had enough computers, or if the computer chips were just a little bit better, the next generation of technologies combined with the next generation, just over the hill, we're going to be able to solve all these problems that
we previously used to refer to as the sacred biology, or the irreducible complexity, or just stuff we know we're never going to figure out.
And humbly admit it, and still also take pleasure in the fact that there's plenty to learn, there's plenty to understand, and there's plenty of ways that we can optimize our relationship with Mother Nature.
But instead, you know,
We've got a limited time to learn how our history and stories and mythology were used against us.
And so it would be great if you would share the work of Mark Kulak, Housatonic Live, and if you would, you know, get the word out about his website, maybe even start mirroring it or attempting to help
um in any way shape or form get those those big messages out maybe make a a mirror site that rearranges it to tell the story that you think's most importantly captured by his work because quite frankly one of the things that's so cool about mark's work is there's a lot of stuff captured there that doesn't necessarily all weave together in very obvious ways and so there's probably three or four books
the different, you know, endeavorous people could pull out of his work.
And so it's extraordinary how many of these people pretend that he doesn't exist, just like they pretend that I don't exist or that I'm just some, you know, I guess, deep state guy.
I want to make gentle the life of this world, and I want to break the illusion that these people have created.
In part, I'm very
I'm very afraid to say they are even twisting the legacy of some of what should be the greatest examples of Americans in American history.
And that's what I find most disturbing at this stage, that they have gotten us so far that our children are turning on their fathers.
It's terrifying to me.
And that deception and that cooperation in this lie is what is represented here by this artificial wave that's going away from the shallow water and that this boy is learning to surf on.
I'm not saying that we don't need to teach our kids to surf.
We do.
We need to learn to surf on this artificial wave of liars.
And then realize that once we get into the real world, it's not going to get any better because people have always done this.
They've always cooperated.
They've always lied in groups.
But this is just on a scale and with technology and the amount of wealth that it's never been executed with before.
And that's the problem.
That's really the problem.
So we have to stay focused on the biology that we can learn and try to identify the principles that we can agree on.
We have to never take the bait on social media.
In fact, I think social media is starting to become something that may no longer be useful even as a communication thing where you just communicate with people that you know.
You're still giving away your information to the owners of those platforms.
It may be time to go back to email.
It may be time to go back to very basic things where you really love your neighbor by personally interacting with them quote-unquote via email.
So yeah, sharing the work is the way it works right now.
That's what I need the most.
I know that I also need people to sign up, and I need people to donate, and that's all great.
But right now, I think the message is good enough that just sharing the work is enough.
Even some of you people...
you know, some of you people that have given a lot.
I mean, I'm so grateful.
But man, oh man, the little donations are where it's at, right?
I mean, if we're going to be unstoppable, it's not going to be because Greg and Steven and William and a few others
that it's not going to be because of them.
And I want it to be because of thousands of little people so that, you know, maybe I'll have, my family will have enough money to support other people and bring other people on board this independent bright web.
so that we can start dropping hands all around the world, which would be pretty cool.
But again, I got to admit, I'm pretty focused on America right now because I think we're all in our separate traps.
And if we're going to engage in united non-compliance, we've got to understand the individual traps we're in.
And because the laws in Australia are different, the laws in Canada are different,
the laws in the EU are different, the laws in America are different, we are all in our different traps and so engaging in informed non-compliance is going to be specific to those traps and so although I want to cooperate with the big picture around the world, it's important to realize that Americans need to save America.
Let's do this!
so
Boy, I gotta admit, I don't think that's very, whoops, very surprising to me, Soothspider.
Children and parents lying together is the way that lots of crimes are committed in the world.
It's an extraordinarily powerful illusion indeed.
Anyway, it is the 19th of June 2024.
We are still got so much work to do.
As you know, I am a human just like
Just like you, I'm here.
My kids are outside in the 90 plus weather in a pool about this big in the driveway.
And mom is up on the other side in the shade.
And we are enjoying summer vacation, that's for sure.
However, we do have a lot of work to do.
And so I'm gonna try and get some done today.
And then I'm gonna try and give my kids a little bit of time.
And so we are still doing this.
I did this at the Red Pill Expo.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system remains dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic.
There are other ways to say it.
Weaponized piles of money murdered people and convinced people to argue about it being a lab leak.
The old vaccine schedule is injuring and killing thousands every year.
And we do not need to fear free-range RNA molecules.
I'd love to hear other twists on these variables.
And in that sense, this is what we're going to watch in a minute.
But I'm going to try and give just a little bit more of an intro to that.
Let me see if I got this right.
This is this one.
Yeah.
And then I start here, I think.
Slideshow, current slide.
Yeah.
So there are a few things more dishonorable than misleading the young.
A quote from Thomas Sowell.
I do think that in order to understand the trap that we're in, especially in America, we need to understand that social media is aimed at the West.
I understand that the whole world participates in it, but it's really aimed at the West.
It's aimed specifically at America, unfortunately.
And that's why a lot of these people outlined in purple are actually foreigners.
I'm not saying they're all bad.
I'm just saying that, especially on the red t-shirt side, you're going to see an extraordinary number of people that could be accurately described as foreigners that are interlaced with these
these meddlers that I've identified personally.
I've arranged them in a little bit different groups.
I'm going to get rid of the effects for a little bit so you can see this clearly and get my mouse up on the top here.
I've arranged them into the TV group over here.
You know, this is Bedford and Anderson and Liana Nguyen and those two clowns from YouTube and that Dutch
that Dutch lady and Burks and then Fauci at the bottom over here.
And then I've arranged this group of people that I would all, I think it's pretty safe to say to basically group them together.
They've all kind of decided that Bobby is the default best candidate.
They've all come and gone from various circles to do with Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone.
They've all been able to promote him.
They all have some ties to him.
Maybe they've been at one time on stage with him and are now his worst enemy.
But it's a, what is, who's that right there?
I don't know who that is.
Hold on.
I might've buried somebody.
Whoops.
Gotta go back.
I'm just gonna escape for a second and see if I buried somebody back there.
Oh no, that's the other side of Robert Malone's picture.
Okay, so that was good.
I was looking at this little tiny gap right there and thinking that that was another picture, but that's actually just the bottom of this guy's picture.
So I should fix that a little bit really, cause that's annoying.
It should be like that maybe.
There we go.
Okay, so anyway, I think it's really important to see the pattern here.
And I think it's really important to add,
adequately explain what I mean by the rest of this diagram.
I don't know any of these people, okay?
I've never really met any of them.
I actually ran into Andy Kaufman in the airport, and I asked him what he was up to.
He pretended he didn't know my name, but then he realized my name was JJ.
And I asked him what he was up to, and he said he didn't know what I was talking about, so I walked away from him.
But yeah, he was at the same conference that I was.
It didn't seem like that he really wanted to, you know, be there and interact with a lot of people.
He kind of came and went a lot like David Artis did, but I guess Dave, or Brian Artis was having a kid or something, so he had an excuse to come and go.
But there were other people that were there all weekend, and it seemed very genuine, and I thought it was a really wonderful place to be for me personally, just to
just to be able to have enough time to talk to all the people that wanted to talk to me.
At one point in the morning on Sunday, I held a coffee in my hand until it got cold and then I dumped it out and warmed it up again and then held it in my hand until it got cold, just talking to person after person after person.
So it was a really nice conference.
But unlike something like the Red Pill or even a CHD conference, most of these people I have never actually met in person, but a lot of them have been on my stream or in a signal chat or in a private Zoom group called the Steve Kirsch Steering Committee or any one of the other nonsense little groups where these people kind of siphon the controlled narrative away from the people who are driving it and make sure that
There's no real useful progress made until it's useful for this narrative.
And that's why these people are very specific about not talking about 2020 and really 2021.
Because in 2020 and 2021 is when, I can barely say it, when this car really started to go off the rails, where the narrative started to go off the rails.
So they would really like you to just pick up the story around the end of 2021, maybe even the beginning of 2022, and think of that as the time when everybody should have spoken up.
Because before that, we didn't know what to do.
Before that, we were all just bamboozled by the combination of the arguing and whatever, you know, they've all agreed on that.
And that's really what we mean by running out the clock.
Part of the Scooby-Doo Mysteries whole purpose was to extend this time at which they could announce the emergency and announce the various countermeasures.
And so I think Mark Kulak and others, I don't know if there's anybody else actually that's proposed this, has said that warp speed was not really how it was supposed to go because there was supposed to be a longer time before the rollout of the vaccine, presumably to give them more time to use all sorts of different means to increase all cause mortality, including opiates, including supplementary oxygen and any other things like maybe ivermectin
or even ivermectin that's not ivermectin, for example, because one of the things that was going around early in 2020, for example, was that some of the ivermectin pills weren't even any good.
I don't know if you guys can remember that, but man, oh man, I can remember all this stuff.
And so what I'm worried about with the guys up there in the corner are that one or more of them has absorbed the other ones.
For example, I am still not afraid to say that most or all of what is covered in the Farewell to Virology document and how it's covered is pretty darn spot on.
And I tried to bring Mark Bailey and them together with CHD to understand how synthetic DNA and RNA used to transfect cell culture or animals could be the sort of, you know, simple solution behind the magic trick that you think is them cutting an animal in half and, you know, finding the viruses inside.
And so if we have really gotten to the stage where we can really succinctly describe what virology is and what virology isn't, and specifically say that you can't make your cells do something that they don't already do, and that means that this genetic signaling is pretty ubiquitous.
and that it's very easily hijackable, not by special pattern integrities that we have to fight against for millennium, but it's very easily hijackable by synthetic DNA and RNA.
And so I wanted to just point out here very quickly to remind you that if you haven't seen that CHD thing that I play in the beginning there where Bobby's up there and Meryl's over here and Malone's there and Tess Laurie's there and Jessica Rose is over there and I'm in the middle bottom.
You should watch it because there in that video, I made a choice to say something at the end in the summary of my seven minute talk that I almost should have just flipped a coin.
But instead of saying an infectious clone of the entire genome of SARS-CoV-2 could have been planted so that we would get full sequences wherever we wanted to find them and whatever patients we wanted to find them, I said that we could have transfected people with an immunogen.
a spike protein and caused acute respiratory illness, caused PCR positivity to that novel spike protein, made available that sequence of the SARS spike protein, but never let go a self-spreading agent.
It would have been an agent that just was kind of like a toxin, but a transfection.
Now, because of the Russian time there, I didn't really have enough time to say it, but that's a very, very plausible, maybe even more plausible way than the whole genome and putting that DNA anywhere or that RNA anywhere because of the size of the molecule will be much more stable, less stable, excuse me.
And so,
I'm still bouncing around with the most parsimonious explanation, the most likely, the most feasible is what I would say.
And when I came back to the spike protein in that talk was because of the striking impression that the videos that the BBC released
which had Inovios, you know, vats of bacteria in the background that were growing spike protein for various applications, the spike protein DNA, and then later spike protein.
And they showed the spike protein nucleic acid sequence on the screen with that big, tall, blonde lady from Scotland that has giant hands.
Um, I just, it's, it's blowing my mind now that in the end, even arguing about infectious clones may be okay for them because we're never going to get back to the idea that they could have transfected us with a designer immunogen, gotten us to develop antibodies to it, and essentially gotten us to think that something was spreading wherever they wanted to put it and they could still put it anywhere they wanted to put it.
But it would be focused on this, you know, biological toxin.
I don't know.
I just think we all need to understand the implications of what I said on the screen for the last year, that synthetic DNA and RNA can be used to transform and transfect cells for the last 10 or 12 years.
So any application of this technology has now become orders of magnitude cheaper.
Because Kevin McKernan has explained that.
I have him in red because I think he's very special.
Because he's very special, because he's part of these people that really wants us to fear the free-range RNA molecules.
And he was put on the street very, very early to spread these dangerous ideas, or at least to curate them.
And that's what you see happening here right now.
The Scooby-Doo has this exact effect.
This is a person who tweeted today a
graphic produced by Rand Paul, or Rand Paul's staff.
The graphic says, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which we're gonna watch today, why COVID-19 was likely a lab leak.
Top 10 reasons based on available information.
No animal reservoir.
I mean, no animal reservoir.
Lack of genetic diversity.
Is that Alina Chan?
I'm just saying that that's not evidence either.
Lack of preexisting antibodies, wow.
Unusual fear in cleavage site.
The diffuse proposal.
Gain of function research at WIV.
Sick researchers WIV fall of 2019.
History of lab safety issues at WIV.
So what?
Proximity of labs, so what?
You see?
FBI and Department of Energy concluded lab incident.
Department of Energy is where the Human Genome Project originated from, interestingly enough.
So you see the effect, right?
Because he says one clear slide to destroy all Philip Marcolin's tedious, silly infographics.
So Philip Marcolin, what he doesn't realize was, was wittingly or unwittingly there and elevated as a virologist to drive people like him directly into that idea.
Basically pretending that, oh no man, this isn't planned.
I'm letting you get me like this.
And it's extraordinary because like I said, I'm sure it's true because for a long time, these people were playing this game with me.
And as long as you continue to play this game with them, and it's kind of like riding around in a metal sphere on two motorcycles.
As long as you keep chasing that guy around, it doesn't matter what angle you take within this little debate.
It doesn't matter.
You're just going to keep going around and around and around, and you're going to feel like, wow, this is amazing.
This guy won't give up.
And now they think they're finally dunking on him.
But actually what's happening is now the whole thing has just started to rotate like this and the crowd started to cheer.
And so actually both people inside of the wheel feel like they're winning.
So that's it, right?
I mean, that's where we are.
They have pulled a stunt on us to be admired and to be seen with admiration, indeed.
How perfectly this stunt was pulled off.
They put this guy in place 24th of April, 2020, with a story that was kind of mealy-mouthed about whether or not it was novel or not.
And the definition of novel might not be as novel as they say it is, but
You accept that there's something.
You accept there's something worth talking about.
You accept that there's something worth testing for.
And now this guy's going off about how he's so happy to have somebody in the PCR space.
This guy who used to work for Monsanto and the World Bank who decided to start podcasting at the start of the pandemic and two months in a row or three weeks in a row has some guy from the Human Genome Project on who's waxing intellectual about how he's decided to spool up on SARS-CoV-2 testing because he's in marijuana and he's afraid that very soon they might decide that SARS-CoV-2 is spreading via marijuana.
So he needs to test for it.
And so since he's testing for it, he now becomes a default expert in the testing.
Well, I'm testing my weed.
I mean, I'm testing my weed.
I work for the Human Genome Project.
And then of course he had to come back again in December and kind of clarify some things.
And there was no clarification at all.
It was just keeping us right, we're locked in the rails.
Now it wouldn't be that big of deal, except for in the interim time between that and when he was on this
Senate hearing a few months ago, he was on my podcast twice trying to keep me right in those rails until I wouldn't stay in those rails anymore.
And then he blocked me on Twitter and started calling me an idiot.
And then CHD promoted him like he's a genius.
And he's discovered the double-stranded contamination in a product that he could have told you was going to have double-stranded DNA contamination in it on the first podcast that he was on on the 24th of April, 2020.
but they're titrating the narrative.
They're slow rolling us through a controlled demolition of America using this public health crisis as the narrative.
And they are working for the same people that Tony Fauci works for, the same people.
It's all just one big Lollapalooza of liars.
You just didn't know that they were all the same stage company.
And that's why I take no pleasure in saying this, but at the time that this happened, I still thought it was a great honor and that these people were giving me their precious time and I should see it as nothing more than holy crap, finally.
I don't see it that way anymore, ladies and gentlemen.
I don't see it that way anymore because I think they wanted me to help them mislead the young.
I think it's possible that Giordano is a good guy.
I think it's possible that he's saying a lot more than they probably would rather have him say, but because of the way he says it, you know, it's sometimes I wonder.
He says more in this video in 2017 than most of these clowns have said in the last four years that it's worth getting our children out of the trap.
And that's why I keep flashing these people on the screen because they're all part of the same little group
And I should have seen it years ago, but I didn't.
And that's part of the reason why some of my friends and family members are dead.
I didn't have it.
I didn't see it.
I couldn't show anyone because I was trapped by these people.
They were interacting with me, complimenting me, encouraging me in specific directions.
And there are good people.
I'm sure of it.
And then there are people, I don't know if they're good or bad, but I got a hunch.
And then I have had personal interaction with people that makes me believe they are certainly part of this limited spectrum of debate.
And that's all it is.
They don't even have to feel very bad about it.
That's what compartmentalizing these different parts of the narrative does.
It allows these people to feel less bad because they don't have to tell so many lies.
Nobody's got to tell all the lies.
The only one who points out all the lies is somebody who's telling the truth, right?
And that's what this conscious and intelligent manipulation of us is all about.
But in 1924, they already knew that.
So now when we have social media in our pocket, you can rest assured that we are in big trouble.
And the signs of it are this, they're all breaking down now, they're all freaking out, they're all circling their wagons and trying to get one more person, one more mole, one more somebody,
But there's no more.
They're all left.
They've all exposed themselves.
They've made mistakes.
There are actually several people that you're not even aware of yet that we are aware of that are exposed because of what they've done behind the scenes.
That's how bad it is.
That's how close this landslide is to falling right off the table.
Because this explanation about how several people standing at this train pulling the same joke, like Meryl Nass, Robert Malone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland,
a few other people, plus Tony Fauci, plus Trevor Bedford, plus Hans Christian Andersen, whatever the hell his name is, plus Vincent Rancinello, plus David Baltimore, plus Bob Gallo, plus Stanley Plotkin, plus Hilary Kaprowski, all pulling on this thing for two or three decades and handing off to their students to make sure that this gag never, never, don't leave the train alone.
Never leave this train alone.
You always gotta have four or five friends here to stop it.
And before you can get off this train, you're gonna have to teach someone else the truth of it.
That's basically how it works.
I'm convinced of it.
That's the reason why Tony Fauci's been where he's been for so long, because he's been one of the central players in this, but there are others.
There have to always be others, because it is a combination of people lying to you, even the opposition.
Even if it's only opposition in the meeting with all the people with lanyards.
Even if it's only opposition in the top secret discussion.
It's always been this train exercise here with multiple people in on the gag.
That's why elected people can come in and out of office and never find out.
They're never even asked to stand next to the train.
They're only asked, wait, we're gonna stop it and then you get in.
Exactly, now you see it.
Now you see it.
Because that's what they often do.
Let us stop it.
We'll stop the train then, you get in.
That's how they're misleading the young, ladies and gentlemen, and that's how we teach our kids to see it.
One of the ones that I really wanted to point out last week, and I did it, and I want to make sure that you go back and see, that's the virology review discussion that I did in two parts a couple days ago before the Red Pill Conference.
This quote actually comes, this quote, you can believe there was a virus, you can believe that virus killed people, you can believe gain-of-function played a role.
In fact, it's all easier when a virus is spreading to
It's pretty extraordinary when you're reminded of what Henry Kissinger said about true and truth.
And so this person is actually a leader.
She's actually the co-chair of a group called Heart in the UK, where of course they murdered people and lied about it.
And yet somehow or another, here she is kind of talking about testing as if testing is totally great, I guess.
This is in the heart of the pandemic.
Now, testing itself can fail.
Every test involves a compromise.
You have to choose, do I want to find every possible case, or do I only want to find the definite cases?
And at the beginning of an epidemic, when cases are growing, over-diagnosing a few people is acceptable.
But at peak deaths, you have to change strategy.
You change strategy, instead of focusing on the individual, you look at the population.
Instead of trying to diagnose every possible case, you want to find the definite cases, and you have to change your laboratory strategy.
So you may have heard people talk about restaurants and say that there are three things restaurants can do, but they can only do two of them well.
You can have fast food, cheap food, or high quality food.
Well, it's the same with laboratories, but the three things are high volume of tests, high speed of tests, or quality test results.
And you choose two.
We chose volume and speed.
And actually, that's a good thing to choose at the beginning of an epidemic.
But we haven't changed our strategy, and we have compromised throughout on quality, which has resulted in unreliable test results.
Somebody who's infected will release up to 100,000 virus particles every minute into the air.
They're about the size, the aerosols are about the size of smoke particles.
And waving a test swab through that air could be enough to have a positive test result.
smoke particles smoke particles would kind of imply that maybe masks would work that's extraordinary right and so this is what we're up against ladies and gentlemen we're up against her and the people that protect her her and the people that say that you're dividing when you point this out and that's how this works sample that gets tested from a patient
You need 5,000 particles of virus to represent a patient who's capable of infecting another patient.
PCR testing has been set up to detect four virus particles.
So just to make that clear, you will be called positive when you have got 1,000 times fewer particles in that sample than is needed to be an infectious patient.
so the consequence of that is that low levels of bystander virus and immune people will both be called positive tests results and then cases when they have no evidence that they are a risk to others bystander virus she said so um left-handed monkey wrench who won the money that today and yesterday um
He asked a question, so I'm going to go back one slide, not because I didn't read it.
So Claire Clegg is a diagnostic pathologist.
She practiced in the NIH for 15 years, becoming a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists.
In 2016, she became the day-to-day lead for pathology and clinical data in the cancer arm of the 100,000 Genomes Project.
She also worked in AI cancer diagnostics.
From May 2020, Claire Craig has worked full-time, pro bono, on COVID research, distilling the evidence for a lay audience.
I'm going to skip that, of course.
And so that's the problem, because these two guys, of course, came to her defense, and they also have been
They have been represented to me as two people that I should write something about virology with.
And I tried to write something about virology with regard to the infectious clones and tried to respond to Kevin McKernan's tirades, but they never really helped me with that.
They just kind of ignored that review that I was building.
And instead, at some point on May, before May 30th, they presented this little thing to me and asked me if I wanted to read it.
And it's basically the same thing.
It's the same thing as the heart lady said.
It's the same thing as the faith, only worded slightly differently, like a lot more words.
And the frustrating thing is in that stream, of course, I read these messages that I sent to them a couple of weeks before they actually, or a week before they published this article as evidence that I've been teaching them this stuff.
You know, they know that this, the virology in that article is just,
standard virology and so they wrote a virology 101 according to Vincent Ransom Yellow with their own words.
So what?
All they say is that there's no easy explanation.
They don't, they don't offer any, any real insight at all.
In fact, I don't think you get smarter by reading what they wrote.
That's how awful it is.
And yet they wanted my name on it.
They put my name in it in like the 30 second citation or some bullshit.
They don't seem to be clever enough to understand this basic thing that if all living eukaryotes are signaling with RNA and DNA all the time between their tissues and just releasing it spontaneously as a result of how this works, then the background is not some, you know,
recently wiped off chalkboard, and you don't have the special physicist Japanese chalk, and you're about to write something on a pure chalkboard with pure dustless chalk.
This is a background that we have no hope of really quantifying and understanding, and that's why books like this one exist.
Cause this is a book about that bullshit from a decade ago.
They used to try and call them latent viruses as a way of getting us to believe that this, this background was somehow understandable.
So let's do this Senate hearing, you know, because it's got to be done.
They've had another one.
I don't, I don't know if we need to ever stop it and wax very intellectual.
Maybe we can just laugh about it and make, maybe I'll type some stuff in, in the chat or react to the chat as we go, because we know what they're going to say.
This is a, this is a Senate hearing about, it's a Senate hearing about, about the Scooby-Doo.
And so we're not going to hear anything other than, than gut-wrenching
narrative curation here and drama based on the idea that it's definitely not natural.
It's a definite lab leak.
Come on already.
And of course, center to this is going to be the witnesses that will testify to that list of 10 things that I showed you earlier, which I might just pop back up on the screen here to make sure that you remember it.
Recall, oh, you demon.
Hue Demon.
Where is it?
Back here, sorry.
In the beginning.
And so this is from Senator Ryan Paul, I believe, this thing.
Sorry, I got my arrow always in the wrong screen.
why COVID-19 was likely a lab leak.
I suspect we're going to see a big poster of this.
And so we know the unusual fear and cleavage site that has propelled the fame of one Charles Rixey, who just can't seem to drop the fear and cleavage site as the proof, besides the DARPA diffuse proposal, which is just laughable.
We'll listen to what they talk about these things.
I'd like to be done by about 2.30 because I'd like to go and do some things with the family that they're going to do.
And if I keep going after 2.30, then they're going to do it without me.
So I don't know if I can stop this very often, but we'll see.
Let's just do it.
I know it's going to be painful, but we can make it fun if we work together.
The COVID-19 pandemic was one of the worst public health crises that our country has ever faced.
We lost more than 1 million Americans to the virus.
Family members and neighbors, friends and colleagues.
And millions more died around the world.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a once-in-a-generation event that not only threatened our public health, but also created unprecedented challenges to our economic and homeland security, as well as our very way of life.
As Americans navigated the COVID-19 pandemic, they endured challenging healthcare guidance, uncertainty and misinformation about how to best protect themselves and their families from this deadly virus.
Today's hearing is intended to examine the available scientific evidence related to the virus that causes COVID-19 and provides some transparency to Americans who are continuing to have to navigate their exposure to the virus.
So that's a pretty extraordinary commitment to the lie, right?
There is no doubt it's novel.
It's no doubt it's there.
They're still exposed to the risk.
This is the enchantment.
This is the exact enchantment.
He is reading it for you.
It's no different than the State Farm commercial where the person sings the State Farm chant and then,
There comes the state farm agent.
It's the same thing.
They are just casting enchantments.
Sometimes they're making light of casting enchantments, and sometimes they're actually casting them.
Right now, this is an enchantment being cast on you using technology, using social media, using electromagnetic radiation, using all of the things that they use to get this signal into our heads.
It's better than any wizard could do with any amount of spells and magic powders and flashes.
As chairman of this committee, I led an investigation into the federal government's initial pandemic response.
The report was called historically unprepared and included recommendations on how we can ensure that we're better prepared to prevent and respond to future pandemics.
This March, I also launched a bipartisan biosecurity and life science research investigation prepared to prevent initial pandemic response.
The report was called Historically Unprepared and included recommendations on how we can ensure that we're better prepared to prevent and respond to future pandemics.
This March, I also launched a bipartisan biosecurity and life science research investigation with ranking member Paul to look into a wide range of constantly evolving biological risk and threats to better enhance our preparedness for future incidents.
This morning, we're gonna hear from academic experts who can discuss how COVID-19 pandemic may have started and how we can learn from this outbreak to better address future potential infectious disease outbreaks and protect human life.
Better understanding of the possible origins of COVID-19 pandemic is not only important to our public health, it is also a matter of homeland security.
We must learn from the challenges faced during this pandemic to ensure we can better protect Americans from future potential biological incident.
Our government needs the flexibility to determine the origins of naturally occurring outbreaks, as well as potential outbreaks that could arise from mistakes or malicious intent.
All that said, the history has shown us it is seldom simple or straightforward to identify the singular cause of an infectious disease outbreak.
It can take months or years to pinpoint an origin, and in some cases, we may never find the answer.
This is also the case with COVID-19.
There are theories that indicate that COVID-19 began either by entering the human population through an entirely natural means or possibly through a lab incident or accident.
government may never fully disclose all the information they have about the initial COVID-19 outbreak, we must use the scientific information available to better prepare for future potential pandemics.
We must not only examine the scientific information we have about COVID-19, but also the tools and procedures the government has in place to understand such viral outbreaks and how we can prevent them from becoming widespread in the future.
Today's hearing and our panel of expert witnesses will help us understand how the most recent pandemic began so that we can take necessary steps to protect the American people from future biological threats.
Now I'd like to recognize Ranking Member Paul for his opening remarks.
Today we are here to examine one of the most critical and debated questions of our time.
Did COVID-19 originate in a lab?
To answer this question, let's revisit the early days of the pandemic and examine what some of Dr. Anthony Fauci's inner circle said privately about the origins of the virus.
Discussions that were only revealed through FOIA litigation.
Christian Anderson wrote, the lab escape version of this is so friggin' likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.
Ian Lipkin stressed the nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess regarding the possibility of inadvertent release given the scale of bat coronavirus research pursued in Wuhan.
Bob Gary said, I really can't think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to COVID-19, where you insert exactly four amino acids, 12 nucleotides, and all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function.
I just can't figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.
According to Gary, it's not crackpot to suggest this could have happened, given the gain-of-function research we know was happening at Wuhan.
These are all private statements, which you'll discover today differ greatly from their public statements.
Even Ralph Baric, world-famous gain-of-function researcher and collaborator with Wuhan's Dr. Xi admitted, so they, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, have a very large collection of viruses in their laboratory.
And so, as you know, proximity is a problem.
It's a problem.
Federal court orders revealed that even Dr. Fauci himself privately acknowledged concerns about gain-of-function research in Wuhan and mutations in the virus that suggest it might have been engineered just days before he commissioned the proximal origin paper.
Despite these private doubts, publicly, these so-called experts and their allies were dismissing the lab leak theory as a conspiracy.
Within days, Anderson, Lipkin, and Gehry were putting final touches on what would be remembered as one of the most remarkable reversals in modern history.
In their proximal origin paper, these scientists concluded, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.
Privately, they were saying one thing.
Publicly, they were saying another.
Media pundits parroted the narrative, while social media platforms censored discussion about the lab leak, labeling it as misinformation and stifling open discourse about the virus's origins.
The cover-up went beyond public statements.
Federal agencies and key officials withheld and continue to conceal crucial information from both Congress and the public.
For instance, David Morenz, Dr. David Morenz of the NIH, deleted emails that could have contained valuable insights into early discussions.
When he deleted them, he made the comment, I think we're safe now.
He deleted emails, he said, the early emails I've deleted to Peter Dayzak at EcoHealth, I think we're safe now.
The ODNI failed to comply with a law that was passed unanimously.
One of the senators on this committee got it passed.
We were going to declassify all this and revealed it and the administration has refused.
HHS and NIH have not produced documents related to the gain of function research that the chairman and I requested nearly a year ago.
I've been asking for two or three years as an individual member with some other Republican members and have not gotten these records.
I've now asked with the Democrat chairman over a year and they're still resisting.
They say it's not gain-of-function.
Well, let's hear the debate.
Did they debate at NIH whether it was gain-of-function in Wuhan?
If there's a debate, let's hear the scientific arguments on both sides.
They will not give us that information.
This has been a deliberate prolonged effort to deceive the committee about certain gain-of-function research experiments that the agencies have been withholding.
What we have found as we've gone through this is that at every step there's been resistance.
So the hearing today is to try to find out whether or not we can get to the truth.
Do we know for certain it came from the lab?
No, but there's a preponderance of evidence indicating that it may have come from the lab.
Do we know viruses have come from animals in the past?
Yes, they've come from animals in the past.
But this time there's no animal reservoir.
There's no animal handlers with antibiotics.
There's a lot of reasons why
There are indications that this could well have come from the lab.
This is what the discussion we'll have today.
This is a discussion that's long and coming.
It's been over three years that we've been asking for this, but this is great.
This is good.
We'll have scientists on both sides of this issue, and I hope we have a spirited debate.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ricky member Paul.
It is the practice of this committee to swear in witnesses.
So if each of you would please stand and raise your right hands.
Do you swear the testimony that you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth?
Oh my gosh, is those four clowns?
Oh, that's fantastic.
So basically where we are, wow, this is going to be, this is just crazy.
Um, has zoonosis occurred in the past?
is already an interesting question to ask.
What is defined as zoonosis?
Does that mean that an RNA that was in an animal caused illness or is associated with illness in a human or another animal species?
Or does it mean that something that was
in one animal species and shown to be in that animal species and circulate in that animal species has now started to circulate in another animal species.
Because there's an anonymous account on Twitter named Annabelle that said it more succinctly than I've ever said it.
And so it shows you that not all anonymous accounts are bad.
But all a PCR test does, even the presence of a sequence, all that tells you is that there was a proximity.
It's like her analogy that she chose to use was pollen.
That if you can detect pollen, that doesn't necessarily mean that now RNA or DNA from plants is expressing in your lungs.
And in fact, I think that even the presence of RNA or DNA in your lungs doesn't mean that it's expressing and being actively packaged.
And that's a very important point that I haven't even made in four years, but I think it's a very, very good one.
So anyway, I'm just gonna keep going or we're never gonna get done
Our first witness is Dr. Gregory Koblitz.
He is an associate professor and director of the Biodefense Graduate Program at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government.
He serves as editor-in-chief of the Pandora Report, an online newsletter that covers global health security, and as co-director of the Global Biolabs Initiative that tracks high-security labs and bio-risk management policies around the world.
Dr. Koblitz, you are now recognized for your opening statement.
Thank you.
Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Paul, and other members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about the origins of COVID-19 and its implications for U.S.
biodefense and global health security.
I've been conducting research and teaching on biodefense, global health security, and bioresource management for the last 25 years.
So he's been teaching about this mythology for the last 25 years.
His paycheck is dependent on him accepting the worst case scenario of pandemics being a billion people dead.
It just does.
It requires him to be that guy.
Is he a useful idiot and doesn't understand that they can make tons of this DNA if they wanted to and put it anywhere they wanted to and claim they were finding it?
Is he so dumb as to realize that they can make small, not to realize that they can make small biologics or that they can make small RNA transfection vehicles that could easily be used to express toxic proteins in places they're not supposed to be?
and detect them then subsequently using the same sequence knowledge and data?
Like, is it possible that people are that dumb?
It absolutely is because I was.
It absolutely is because almost everyone at every medical school in America and around the world is that dumb.
They don't understand that the brass tacks of this is that at the heart of this
is an exponentially decreasing cost of making DNA cheaply.
And any small toxic protein, the DNA and therefore the RNA encoding it can be very cheaply made nowadays, which means that transformation and transfection of anyone for any reason is ridiculously cheap.
And that means that making, creating,
an illusion about a spreading molecular target, which is what I wrote down molecular data for because again, remember, you know, we're not going to get done with this.
There's no question, but I wrote down molecular data because that's a re they chose that word on purpose.
The molecular data indicates.
And what I'm trying to tell you is the molecular data can be faked for so cheap.
It's ridiculous.
And Kevin McKernan knows it, and that's why Kevin McKernan was intimately involved from the very beginning to make sure that no one would ever reach that really ridiculous conclusion.
It's real.
And that's also what I think some of these no-virus people have wittingly or unwittingly resulted in.
is that people never got to the stage where they could just enunciate.
Not only are these virology experiments dumb, but when they do actually work, they're using synthetic RNA and DNA to transform and transfect these cell cultures or animals.
It's not really virology.
It's just hijacking the already existing communication systems of these animals or these cells and calling it virology.
If you realize where this all goes down to, it really goes down to the fact that virology may serve as a cover for them testing transformation and transfection on us for the last 35 years.
and that every one of these incidences has been a coordinated test of a new agent, a coordinated exploration of a new aspect of this signaling, and misconstrued as a disease that we have to test for, a disease you have to sample, a disease we have to treat, and then lo and behold, it's not the average person that gets hit, it's a minority, it's the poor, it's the inconvenient old,
Or it's the pregnant women that we have been trying to get our hands on as a testing animals for the last 40 years.
I know this is crazy, but that's where the simplest explanation goes all the way down to the entire biosecurity state has been set up because they know the only way they're ever going to be able to dissect this irreducible complexity that is our biology and the biology of all the animals around us is to try and explain to you that our biology is stupid simple.
It's DNA to RNA to ribosome to protein.
But there's all this other crazy stuff out there with retroviruses and DNA viruses and single-stranded viruses and plus and minus strand viruses.
And they all do all this crazy stuff that the only way we can test it is make synthetic copies of them and then grow them in cell culture.
I think this is the gigantic lie that they're covering.
That's what Ebola is.
They just released viral-like particles like Sina Bavari designed.
And then call it Ebola and see how far it goes.
How long can we track it?
What does it really do to people?
How long does it last?
It's not because those people are eating wild monkeys, ladies and gentlemen.
I'll tell you that right now.
I don't think that's happening.
I think we're in trouble.
So let's get on with this.
Sorry, I lost my train of thought there for a second, but it won't happen often.
I've submitted a lengthy written statement to you, which I will not go over today in detail, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have about it during the rest of the hearing.
What I'd like to do is just highlight some key points.
First, let me directly address the main topic of the hearing today, the available evidence on the origins of COVID-19.
More than four years after the start of the pandemic, the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remains a subject of debate.
There are two pandemic pathways that have been widely discussed to explain how SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan in 2019, a natural spillover event from animals to humans, or an actual release of a pathogen from a laboratory.
The possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately developed as a biological weapon has been unanimously rejected by all U.S.
intelligence agencies.
While the intelligence community is divided on the origin of the pandemic, most agencies have determined that the virus was not genetically engineered.
I believe the available evidence points most strongly to a natural zoonotic spillover event as the origin of the pandemic.
However, a research-related accident can't be ruled out at this time.
A key obstacle to more definitive conclusion is the lack of transparency exercised by the Chinese government, which affects assessments of both potential pathways to the pandemic.
Until there's an independent international transparent investigation, it's unlikely we'll be able to come up with a more definitive conclusion that'll satisfy both sides of the debate.
So that doesn't really sound much different than what Kevin McKernan said in 2020 on April 24th on the Vance Crowe podcast when he said, I mean, if this is a lab leak, I'm going to need some pretty impressive evidence.
Well, he just said that, well, you know, he thinks it's natural, but you know, there's some reason why we might not rule it out.
We've made no progress in four years, essentially, from where Kevin McKernan was on the 24th of April, 2020.
That's the truth.
You can go back and watch that video on my show, or on stream.gigaohm.bio, or on my Rumble channel, and you'll see it.
It's exactly the same story he told on April 24th, 2020.
It's the same bullshit as this, with just a little added flavor, little salt, little pepper.
It's not my intention to review this debate today.
Instead of looking backwards, I prefer to look forwards and plan for the future.
The reality is that we're not as well prepared to prevent, detect, respond to, or recover from a biological incident or pandemic as we should be, regardless of its origin.
The growing HIV-N1 outbreak in the United States is a testament to the challenges that we face.
If the government transfected people,
and then said it was evidence of spread.
If the government just planted a genetic signal and said it was evidence of spread.
If the government spent 10 years characterizing the background signal and then used it as evidence of spread.
In any of these scenarios, they murdered people and lied about it.
In any of these scenarios, the biosecurity state is one great big sting where all these people agree to lie about it.
Some of them wittingly, some of them unwittingly.
And that's where we are.
That's the deal.
It's not a big deal.
They can't hear her.
Don't worry.
So it's a, it's an important thing to focus on here with regard to what this guy's saying.
He is just saying the same thing.
Kevin McKernan said 24th of April, 2020, because we currently face the urgency of addressing them.
The difficulty in determining the origin of COVID-19 is not unusual.
Among the outbreaks and pandemics we've already experienced this century, it's taken years to identify the origin of a novel pathogen, sometimes in only general terms.
Rarely is it possible to identify the exact sequence of events that led to the first human infection that sparked a pandemic.
Determining the origin of an outbreak or pandemic can be divided into four stages.
Detection, identification, characterization, and attribution.
Understanding how a specific pathogen entered and spread in a population to cause an outbreak is a multidisciplinary undertaking that requires expertise in epidemiology, human medicine, veterinary medicine, biology, genetics, bioinformatics, ecology, anthropology, and related fields.
We need many priests of many different orders before we can come to a decision.
We need many different priests with many different colored robes before we can come to any decision.
There is not one priest that can tell us the answer.
There is not one adult that can take the responsibility for understanding the depth of this lie.
Because if one adult does, that adult will figure it out.
That's the reality of it.
If you rely on other people for certain parts of the story instead of assembling it yourself, like all of us were fooled into doing with regard to the Scooby-Doo mystery, as we were handed clues to our face and behind our back on social media and on mainstream media, we need to get ourselves out of this in the same way we got ourselves into it.
We need to figure our way out.
And the way you solve the mystery is to see that this is a lollapalooza of liars, and it doesn't matter who you listen to.
They are lying in coordination, opposing each other in coordination, agreeing to disagree so that you don't ask any questions yourself, so that you don't engage in any wheels, like the wheels don't turn.
It's just passive.
Our children need to see this.
Seeking the origin of an outbreak requires collecting and analyzing a large amount of data collected from diverse sources by a range of agencies with a variety of scientific capabilities and disciplinary specializations.
The quality of the data and the rigor of the epidemiological and scientific investigation will affect the level of confidence we have in these determinations.
Determinations of the origin of a pandemic or an outbreak are rarely definitive and need to be carefully qualified to reflect the strength of available evidence as well as gaps and uncertainties.
Determining the origin of an outbreak can improve the effectiveness of response to an ongoing incident, reduce the likelihood or magnitude of future incidents, or even prevent future outbreaks altogether.
Making this information, however, is not always straightforward or successful.
The process of investigating the source of an outbreak is like putting together a puzzle where you don't know what the final picture will look like.
Putting together a puzzle, solving a Scooby-Doo mystery, these people are casting the exact enchantment, the same enchantment that they've all been casting for four years.
The pieces change shape and move around, and pieces are added and moved as you're trying to solve the puzzle.
There are also several factors that can influence the success of an origin investigation, including the passage of time, the biology, epidemiology of the specific pathogen, limited scientific knowledge about novel pathogens, local and national politics, economic considerations.
We saw each of these factors at play in Wuhan in 2019 and 2020.
Indeed, we see similar factors at play in the response to the current H5N1 outbreak in the United States as well.
The key point to determine the origin of an outbreak or a biological incident is scientifically complex, but can also be politically fraught and subject to countervailing pressures by other actors with an interest in obscuring or delaying or halting the outcome of an investigation.
So what should be done to improve our ability to determine the origins of a biological incident?
I recommend that this Congress, working with the Biden administration, invest in strengthening biosurveillance and biorisk management in the United States and internationally.
This will not only enhance our ability to determine the origins of future incidents, but also improve our capabilities to prevent them and respond more successfully to prevent an outbreak from becoming a pandemic.
Biosurveillance in the United States suffers from fragmentation, chronic underinvestment in state and local public health capacity, and the lack of capacity to rapidly develop and deploy diagnostics.
In my written statement, I provide further recommendations about biosurveillance.
In the interest of time, I'll get just to the recommendations on biorisk management.
And this is a field that encompasses field and laboratory biosafety, laboratory biosecurity, and oversight of dual-use research.
Even if the origins of COVID-19 is proven to be the result of a natural zoonotic spillover event, the pandemic raised important questions about the efficacy of our oversight of dual-use research of concern, including with pathogens with enhanced transmissibility or virulence.
The pandemic has also dramatically illustrated the consequences if such a pathogen escapes from a lab and sparks a pandemic.
Regardless of one's views on the origin of the pandemic, we should all be able to agree that we want to minimize the risk that a future pandemic could be caused by laboratory action.
We should all be able to agree that we don't want pandemics from laboratories.
Come on guys, be reasonable here.
Last month, the Biden administration released a new U.S.
government policy to focus on the dual-use research concern, which represents a significant step forward in oversight of high-consequence research.
There are two immediate steps that Congress could take to enhance implementation of this policy.
First, Congress could support the Biden administration's efforts to provide education and training to the wide array of stakeholders who are now going to be affected by this policy.
This policy now covers 95 biological agents and toxins, up from 14, so there's a much wider swath of the biological community that's now going to be subject to oversight, and they need to understand this policy in order to implement it effectively.
Congress also needs to pass legislation to close a loophole in the current policy that allows privately funded research, including that with engineering of pathogens, to continue without any oversight.
And I think it's in the power of Congress to solve that fairly easily.
Over the longer term, Congress needs to modernize the U.S.
bio-risk management system.
I think the most effective way to do that would be creation of an independent federal agency that would be responsible for bio-risk management across both publicly and privately funded enterprises.
In conclusion, we know enough about the two different pathways to a pandemic, both the demonstrated route of natural transmission, the potential for laboratory accident, that we have enough information now that we can take action that will significantly reduce the risk posed by both types of risks.
Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Koblitz.
Our second witness is Dr. Robert Gehry.
He is a professor of microbiology and immunology and an associate dean for biomedical sciences at Tulane School of Medicine.
Dr. Gehry has been a professor of virology for over 40 years and has performed groundbreaking work in diagnostics for emerging pathogens, including the Ebola virus.
Dr. Gehry, welcome to the committee.
You are now recognized for your opening statement.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Paul, distinguished members of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today.
As Chairman Peters says, I'm a professor and associate dean at Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans.
And the reason you may know me is because I'm an author on a peer-reviewed paper that appeared in Nature Medicine entitled The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.
In the possible origins paper, my co-authors and I discussed several different possible origins of SARS-CoV-2.
The three possible origins for the virus that are most relevant to today's discussion are, one, direct spillover from a bat to a human.
Two, spillover from a bat to an intermediate animal and then to a human.
And three, lab origin.
At the time of writing the proximal origin paper in early February to mid-March 2020, we did not rule out any of these three pathways.
Based on the current available evidence, I believe that the most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is spillover from a bat to an intermediate animal and then to a human.
I further believe the available evidence indicates that the spillover happened naturally, likely at the Annan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China.
I do not believe that the available scientific evidence, when considered holistically, supports that the virus was created in a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
However, I am first and foremost a scientist, and I will adhere to the scientific method, so I will continue to evaluate new evidence and reassess the validity of my scientific hypotheses regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
I look forward to continuing the scientific debate and peer-reviewed materials with other scientists, including those here today, regarding our different perspectives and interpretations of the evidence.
That said, I'm heartened by the attention this committee is giving to a very timely and important topic, gain-of-function research.
I welcome this opportunity to engage in an open and constructive conversation about the risk and benefits and appropriate safeguards and restrictions on this research.
As Chairman Peters mentioned again before, I've been a virology professor for over 40 years.
I've seen firsthand the damage that emerging viruses can cause.
I researched HIV before we knew the profound impacts this emerging virus would have on all of society, and while the American public was still fearful of blood transfusions.
I was present in Sierra Leone at the outbreak of Ebola in 2014 and witnessed the death toll and heartbreak, including many close friends and colleagues who succumbed.
I'm currently developing countermeasures to Lassa virus, a deadly hemorrhagic fever virus with up to 70% case fatality.
So I understand, perhaps better than most, the importance of assuring appropriate safeguards for research.
Now, I really, I really think it's important to understand that if Ebola and Lassa fever and these other things are just testing a synthetic
construct of transfection or transformation, maybe even a self-replicating construct, it still wouldn't constitute virology if you start with synthetic DNA or RNA, right?
Even if it's modeled after a signal or signals that they found in the wild, these things are synthetic constructs.
And we have been made to believe that transformation and transfection of animals or cell culture is legitimate virology, and I don't think it is.
But it definitely does stuff.
The cells definitely do things with the DNA and the RNA that you put on them or put in them.
It has effects on the animals that you put it on or in.
That's indisputable.
And because Kevin McKernan and lots of other people have taught us how the price of sequencing and the price of making synthetic DNA up to 2,000 bases at a time has become peanuts.
It seems kind of crazy to ignore that.
Because it's only molecular data on which this whole story is based.
And not only just the story of the pandemic, but the story of RNA virology in general.
Which is why I'm kind of stunned that the no virus people haven't been able to get farther with their message.
which is kind of stunning that they still want to antagonize me and not Robert Malone.
They still want to antagonize me, but not Judy Mikovits.
You'd think Robert Malone and Judy Mikovits would be their two most, most like hammered people on the internet because those are the people with a million followers.
Those are the people with hundreds of thousands of followers that are perpetuating this exact narrative.
where all of these scenarios are possible and more.
Latent viruses are possible that can get activated by other viruses.
And so why do they spend so much time on a guy with 3,000 followers on Twitter?
Why do they spend so much time when I'm the one who was trying to unite CHD and them under this common idea of transfection and transformation being the basis of all virology?
Even if at the time when I wrote that letter, I couldn't say it as succinctly as I just did.
They didn't try to help me out.
They didn't try to help anyone get to them.
And that's what I find very odd about them.
They just haven't managed to use Mark Bailey for who he is.
They haven't managed to spread that message in a useful way that they murdered people to lie about it, to cover that up.
They haven't even mentioned Dave Resnick's name once.
I think that's a huge oversight on their part that can't be seen as just, well, they're in New Zealand.
Add to put oversight offending.
rules and guidelines regarding study design, including the types of viruses that require oversight, and universal standards for the use of appropriate protective gear when handling highly transmissible or pathogenic viruses in the laboratory or in field studies.
But I also know the vital role of responsibly performed research, including on highly transmissible and pathogenic viruses.
It advances public health and national security.
Without gain-of-function research, we'd have no Tamiflu.
Without gain-of-function research, we wouldn't have a vaccine to prevent cancer caused by infection by the human papillomavirus.
And without gain-of-function research, we won't be able to identify how novel viruses infect us.
And if we don't know how they infect us, we cannot develop appropriate treatments and cures for the next potential pandemic-creating virus.
So I also encourage the committee to empower the scientific enterprise to address the certainty of viral threats that emerge from nature in the future.
For example, potential pandemic viruses can infiltrate commercial animal farming industries.
The wildlife trade in China was the only enterprise in the world comparable in size to the United States cattle industry.
multiple spillovers of SARS-CoV, the first SARS, occurred in 2002 through 2004 and they came from the Chinese wildlife trade.
Evidence similarly indicates that this likely happened again with SARS-CoV-2 in 2019.
I hope we treat these incidents as a stark and timely reminder that this can happen anywhere in the world.
In fact, it's happening right in our backyard with the serious threat from bird flu that it poses to our.
Oh, come on.
Come on, man.
Center for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases or Creed Network.
I know that gain of function research can be done responsibly and safely.
The new guidance from the Office of Science Technology Policy shows that research with high risk pathogens
I assume Rixey's sitting on Huff's lap, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see Rixey.
I assume that.
The types of experiments that require review can be clearly defined in a way that does not obstruct low-risk research.
I'm honored to be a part of this important conversation that will help define the future of a vitally important area of virology, and I urge the members of this committee to find a path forward that permits appropriate gain-of-function research to continue to help ensure our public health and national security.
I mean, that's another very easy question, right?
Even if you don't want to throw out all of virology, it could just easily be that SARS, SARS one never went away.
They just told us they're testing for it again.
I mean, even that possibility hasn't really been adequately ruled out by any of these people, except for by molecular data, which can be made for pennies on the dollar now, compared to even 10 years ago, maybe even,
pennies on the hundreds or thousands of dollars now.
So I mean, this is a joke to me.
David Artis gave a real interesting presentation at the Red Pill Conference where he talked about how much venom they're making and how they're making it kinda, but not really.
He could have also told them that all of this technology is based on the really easy manufacture of a lot of pure DNA.
All of it, monoclonal antibodies and the mRNA shots and the adenovirus and making venom.
And it all starts with the DNA, which is the gold standard for PCR testing and sequencing.
So if the cheapest thing to make in the molecular biology molecule chain is the DNA, and the DNA is the most stable, and the DNA works the best for PCR, and the DNA works the best for sequencing, then how in the hell are we bitching about it and pretending that it's the end of this narrative that's the most important to talk about when all of these technologies start with recombinant DNA?
It's extraordinary to me that nobody got here before me.
The only conclusion I can come to is that everybody that's been purporting to try and get here before me is either not very bright or not genuine.
Because only the people that talked about AIDS during the time of AIDS, and only the few people that came out against swine flu, like Wolfgang Wodach, have been able to adequately enunciate this essential fraud that's here, and that they would murder people and lie about it.
Thank you, Dr. Gary.
Our next two witnesses will be introduced by Ranking Member Paul.
Stephen Quay is an MD, PhD.
He's the CEO of Atosa Therapeutics, a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutics for oncology.
Dr. Quay has authored 400 publications in the field of medicine, including 32 on the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
His work has been cited over 12,000 times, placing him in the top 1% of scientists worldwide.
His paper, a Bayesian analysis, concludes beyond a reasonable doubt
that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis, but instead is laboratory derived.
This article has been viewed over 206,000 times.
Dr. Cui holds 238 U.S.
patents and patent applications in 22 areas of medicine, including RNA chemistry, coronavirus therapeutics.
Before his current role, he was a member of the Department of Pathology at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
Dr. Cui, welcome to the committee.
You are now recognized for your opening statement.
Stanford.
Committee Chair, Senator Peters, Ranking Member, Senator Paul, committee members, invited participants, ladies and gentlemen.
I am a physician scientist and have a 50-year career spanning academic medical research, biotechnology, and scientific fraud investigation.
My biography summarizes my career.
I speak today, however, as an independent scientist.
I do not receive any NIH or NIAID funding.
Scientists dependent on NIH or NIAID funding may have pressure to publicly agree with orthodoxies that privately they admit are wrong.
My approach to the COVID pandemic origin that killed 20 million plus people, caused $20 trillion in economic damage, is based on six approaches to the data and the events.
I'll start with something Dr. Gehry said privately, quote, someone should tell nature, meaning the British Journal, that the fish market probably did not start the outbreak, end quote.
I agree with Dr. Gehry.
Unfortunately, one reason we are having these hearings is that the public statements of many virologists have not been congruent with their private conversations.
In any case, I'll describe the six approaches to the question that all support a lab leak as a source and can go deeper into each of those with questions.
First, the virus was spreading in Wuhan and around the world in the fall of 2019, months before the first case in the Hunan seafood market.
This is supported by 14 observations or evidence.
The evidence includes the calculation of the time to the most recent common ancestor, hospital overloads in Wuhan, antibodies in patients from Italy, Spain, and the US, wastewater samples from Brazil, sick athletes at the October Wuhan military games, school closings in Wuhan, and dozens of documented patients.
This dismisses out of hand the market.
All that molecular data could have been created for pennies.
As the origin.
But second, let's look at the market data.
The human infections, the animal samples, and the environmental specimens.
These generate eight observations.
No infected animals in the market or the supply chain were infected.
No infected wildlife vendors had SARS.
All human infections are the non-ancestral lineage B. The environmental specimens with animal DNA have no SARS-2.
One vendor had animals from southern China where SARS-2 came from, but this vendor and his animals are negative for SARS-2.
Now only one of 14 environmental samples with raccoon dog DNA contains SARS reads and that contains one read.
Don't forget we heard raccoon dog because there was a photo that Ed Holmes had taken a few years earlier that was included in that paper.
It's extraordinary.
Out of 210 million
13 of the 14 raccoon dog DNA specimens had no SARS-2.
With SARS-1, literally 100% of the market animals were infected.
I frankly think it is shameful for scientists to mislead journals and the public, saying these data I just described are evidence raccoon dogs were infected with SARS-2.
This is why trust in science is broken.
None of these data are consistent with an infected animal passing SARS-2 to a human at the market.
The 1,500-kilometer distance to the nearest SARS-2-related virus is like the distance from Washington, D.C.
to the Florida Everglades.
Imagine you're at dinner at a restaurant in North Africa.
That's all molecular data, and now he's going to give you an analogy about what this molecular data supposedly showed.
Near the NIAID labs.
You get sick, and you are told that the virus you caught is only found in bats from the Everglades, but it also happens to be under study at the laboratories you see outside the restaurant window.
That's what the market origin people are asking you to believe.
Third, documented events at or related to Wuhan Institute of Virology beginning in March 2019 are consistent with the expected activities when a lab-acquired infection has occurred.
These timelines include unusual attention from the Chinese Communist Party, leading to the PLA physician soldier being put in charge, large tender requests to repair biosafety equipment,
A virus database disappearing in the middle of the night.
Large tender requests for a lab security force to, quote, handle foreign personnel, end quote.
Patents for a device to prevent a lab acquired infection.
Rumors in the virology community of a new SARS virus in the lab.
30 vials of the three most dangerous viruses on the planet being shipped illegally from a lab in Canada to WIV in March.
And then one of those pathogens being found as a major contaminant in a BLSA lab in December.
Now interestingly that story I believe is about a woman that Mark has done a story about who used to work for a guy by the name of Plummer up in Canada that was like the HIV expert up there and also she was developing some three antibody treatment for HIV.
something.
And Mark can tell you more.
And then that lady was disappeared because of some viral, like espionage or some shit.
So that's an interesting thing to drop.
There it is.
Xiangguo Xiao, or whatever her name is.
Nice work, Mark.
And feel free to drop in a link there of that episode or 10 or how many episodes you did on that.
These events taken together are a classic example of closing the barn door after the horse has left.
Fourth, the evidence that is found in a natural zoonosis with respect to the animal host, the virus, and the human are missing with COVID.
96,000 animals were tested and are negative for SARS-2.
43,000 blood samples from blood donors in Wuhan were tested.
A natural spillover like SARS-1 would have produced about 260 positives.
A lab accident would be zero.
And of course, zero is what is found.
Now remember that his Bayesian analysis is based on his priors, right?
And so if his priors are bullshit, and the priors assume bullshit, then it's not going to give you anything.
And that's basically what's happening here.
With respect to the virus, a spillover produces posterior diversity in the virus genome.
A virus does not.
SARS-2 has no posterior diversity.
Natural spillovers, as Dr. Gary indicated this morning, involve multiple markets.
SARS-1 began in southern China at 11 spillovers in 11 different markets in nine different cities.
Christian Anderson, the proximal origin of SARS-2, said SARS-2 was one person being infected with one animal.
I agree.
Fifth, the genome of SARS-2 has eight features found in a synthetic virus that are not found in natural viruses.
The probability that SARS-2 came from nature based on these features is one in a billion.
These features are the backbone, the receptor binding domain, the furin cleavage site, the genetics of the furin cleavage site, the number, location, and pattern of cloning sites in SARS-2 that use the Varric cloning method and the ORF8 gene.
Based on SARS-2 cloning sites, I predicted how SARS-2 could be made in
I'm not sure why the ORF8 gene is interesting.
They found that in another virus.
I know the paper, so I'm curious as to what that meant, but that's all right.
These same features were described in a 2018 DARPA grant by WIV and U.S.
scientists.
With respect to the grant, SARS-2 had the proposed backbone from the proposed region in China, the proposed adaption to human killing, the proposed diversity from SARS-1, the proposed no-CM cleavage site number, location, and pattern, the proposed human cleavage site at the proposed S1, S2 junction.
And so of course they did it.
It is just so absurd.
It's really absurd.
I mean,
We're supposed to believe that this is like a, I don't know if you're familiar with this story, Basic Instinct, but Basic Instinct is a story about an author that writes thrillers and then she writes thrillers that seem to come true.
And then the cop that's trying to figure out whether he's in love with a murderer or he's in love with just some author.
And this is like trying to pretend that, you know,
EcoHealth Alliance is this virology lab that writes down exactly what they're going to do, and then it really happens, and then that's just it.
Like, that's it.
That fits together, and it's not the same thing as a psychopath when the whole story isn't based on whether somebody would lie about being a murderer, but instead the whole story is based on biology that's a lie.
Because that's the difference between a Hollywood thriller about a psychopath and this thriller about psychopaths.
Because the psychopath and their ability to hurt you is dependent on ridiculous biology.
It's dependent on a mythology that these people have been orchestratedly working to instill into these young people for the last couple of decades and certainly ramped it up in the last four and a half years.
Please see it.
Let's close with a thought experiment.
It's 2018.
Do you think a market spillover of coronaviruses could have happened in Wuhan?
Dr. Dasik and Shi have studied coronaviruses for a decade, and they said no.
How do I know that?
Because they used Wuhan residents as control for a study looking for antibodies in coronaviruses in people living near bat caves in southern China.
The rural residents had a 3% rate.
Wuhan residents had zero.
Let's flip that and ask the reverse question.
Do you think a lab-acquired infection could begin in Wuhan, a city with the world's leading laboratory collecting coronavirus from nature, doing synthetic biology on coronaviruses, doing petri dish and animal research on coronavirus with a bat colony for testing, and that had written a blueprint to make a coronavirus that had seven unique features found in SARS-CoV-2?
I'll let you answer that question yourself.
I have a number of specific reforms I believe should be implemented, and I would be happy to discuss them during the questioning.
What happens if we have these hearings and nothing happens?
The Wuhan Institute of Virology right now is testing a Nipah virus in a synthetic clone.
This is a US CDC bioterrorism agent.
It kills three out of four people.
A lab leak with an airborne Nipah virus would quickly, within weeks, disrupt food and energy distribution, fire and police services, medical care.
My analysis of this tipping point event is that it would set back civilization about 250 years.
The work of this committee is critical.
If we now fail to act with the knowledge we have history, if it can still be recorded, we'll judge us poorly.
Thank you for your time.
Holy crap, did he just say what I heard him say?
It can still be set back so quickly that it should be implemented, and I would be happy to discuss them during the questioning.
What happens if we have these hearings and nothing happens?
The Wuhan Institute of Virology right now is testing a Nipah virus in a synthetic clone.
This is a U.S.
CDC bioterrorism agent.
It kills three out of four people.
A lab leak with an airborne Nipah virus would quickly, within weeks, disrupt food and energy distribution, fire and police services, medical care.
My analysis of this tipping point event is that it would set back civilization about 250 years.
The work of this committee is critical.
If we now fail to act with the knowledge we have history.
It would set back humanity 250 years.
And he did say a synthetic clone.
But then realize what that means.
It's not a Nipah virus that grows by itself.
It's not a Nipah virus that they found in whole and then it just, you know, they filled tubes with it.
This is a synthetic molecular construct.
If that synthetic molecular construct is capable of self-replication for a little while in a transformation or transfection setting, then yes, we might have a problem, but we do not have a pandemic.
And we will never have a pandemic unless they make large quantities of these things and then distribute them.
That would be a real pandemic that they could make if they wanted to.
But the idea that they could leak something or release something in one place and find it all over the place in a couple more years, irrespective of what they do with that sequence, that cannot happen.
They are not pattern integrities.
But they can be made in pure quantities.
And we have been building factories around the world that are capable of making these pure quantities of DNA and RNA.
Not just for shots, of course, but for whatever the hell they want to use it for.
Including transfecting us all.
That's not impossible.
It is far more possible than any RNA virus, any RNA molecule in particular, being able to pull off such a stunt because that can't happen.
If it can still be recorded, we'll judge us poorly.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University.
He also serves as the Laboratory Director for the Waxman Institute of Microbiology, a position he has held for 37 years.
Dr. Ebright has authored over 185 peer-reviewed publications and holds more than 45 issued and pending U.S.
patents.
He's the co-founder of Biosafety Now and a member of the advisory board of the Global Biolabs Project and the Institutional Biosafety Committee at Rutgers University.
Previously, he served on the Antimicrobial Resistance Committee for Infectious Disease Society of America, the Controlling Dangerous Pathogens Project, and the Pathogen Security Working Group for the State of New Jersey.
Dr. Ebright, welcome to the committee.
You are now recognized for your opening statement.
Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Paul, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the origins of COVID-19.
I am Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University and Laboratory Director at the Waxman Institute of Microbiology.
In my statement, I will present my assessment of the origin of COVID and will summarize key lines of evidence that support my assessment.
I assess that a large preponderance of evidence indicates SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, entered humans through a research incident.
I base this assessment on information in publicly available documents, press reports, and scientific papers, on my research experience in microbial genomics, microbial genetics, DNA synthesis technology, and recombinant DNA technology, and on my knowledge.
Holy shit, it just dawned on me that this is Richard Ebert.
I feel like I should be getting a movie review in a second.
What in the hell is going on?
That's uncanny.
That is uncanny.
What is going on here?
Somebody at the Red Pill Conference actually told me they thought Robin Williams was the president of Brazil, and I just about dropped.
But this is funny.
He had two thumbs down.
That's fantastic.
I have an experience with biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management for work with pathogens.
Four key facts support my assessment.
First, COVID emerged in Wuhan, a city that is 800 miles from the closest bats harboring SARS-CoV-2-like viruses that could have served as progenitors of SARS-CoV-2.
But that contains lab that prior to the outbreak were conducting the world's largest research program on bat SARS viruses, possessed the world's largest collection of bat SARS viruses, and possessed the virus most closely similar to SARS-CoV-2.
The large distance between Wuhan and bats harboring SARS-CoV-2-like viruses points away from a natural origin of COVID.
And Wuhan's status as the global epicenter of research on bat SARS viruses points toward a research origin of COVID.
Second, in the four years preceding the outbreak, Wuhan labs performed research that placed them on a trajectory to obtain SARS viruses, having high... I think he's speaking on this because he's been a part of the national security state for his 35 years as the head of that microbiology institute.
I think that's what's happening here.
That's what you're starting to realize, right?
They just have to have enough and then the rest can be useful idiots that are taught by these mentors.
So these mentors just teach them in a way that they can never see it.
It's very hard to see through coordinated liars.
pandemic potential.
And in 2018, one year before the outbreak, Wuhan Labs proposed research to obtain SARS viruses having even higher pandemic potential and features that match in detail.
Because these guys said pandemic potential exists for 15 years, pandemic potential exists.
Because these guys have been saying they're trying to make pandemic potential for 15 years, obviously it exists.
Because the diffuse proposal says they did it, obviously they did it.
And all they needed to do was make the sequence, which they can do for pennies on the dollar, and then call it molecular data from the very start till the very end.
And have people like Kevin McKernan available on the internet since April 24th, 2020, talking about the molecular data and being molecular data experts in the PCR space.
I think what you see here is the start of the end of this whole charade.
These people and their coordinated lying is about to end in a very dramatic way.
As one by one people, once you see them and how they're all related to each other, and I mean even the people that you thought were your friends on some of these organizations, they're all on the same team.
Merrill Nass is on his team.
Mary Holland is on his team.
Probably Catherine Austen Fitz is on his team.
They are all part of the governing elite or work for the governing elite that are controlled demolishing the American Republic.
Ruining what was the American culture that I believed in growing up when I was a kid.
That I would have fought for if my dad wouldn't have told me to just go to school.
And that's not saying anything against my dad.
I'm thanking my dad for having protected me from that notion of becoming a pilot or something like that in the Navy or in the Army or wherever I would have maybe done it.
I thought about it for a little while.
Features of SARS-CoV-2.
Wuhan labs performed.
But that it's not just I mean, I'm
Obviously, everybody that goes into the Army is making it or into the service is making a very significant commitment to that American ideal.
And so I'm not belittling it.
And I think there are a lot of people that have served that might not agree with my dad, but my dad served, his dad served.
He told me that if I was going to serve, I should serve in the Air Force because at least you always get a bed.
I don't know if I could tell my sons to go and serve now.
And that's already a very undermining idea to the American system, right?
An undermining idea to the American Republic and probably by design.
It depresses me a lot to see Richard Ebert here doing his thing.
high-risk virus discovery and gain-of-function research on bat SARS viruses.
In their virus discovery research, Wuhan researchers searched for new bat viruses in caves in southern China, brought samples to Wuhan, and sequenced, cultured, and characterized new viruses in Wuhan.
So that's the drastic, you know, the data that drastic got in while I was still part of drastic had to do with this bat cave and three guys getting sick and the army being called in and them sampling them and then also pushing
for more sampling from the same cave.
So all this story was revealed through drastic during the time when I was still being thoroughly brainwashed into accepting the Scooby-Doo narrative and that I was soon gonna be a hero having solved that it was a lab-leak gain-of-function virus.
In their gain-of-function research, Wuhan researchers genetically modified bat SARS viruses, constructing viruses having enhanced ability to infect human cells and having enhanced viral growth and enhanced lethality in mice engineered to possess human receptors for SARS viruses, so-called humanized mice.
Already in 2015, scientists expressed concern that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting research that posed unacceptably high risk.
At a 2015 Royal Society and National Academies meeting on gain-of-function research and its oversight, the research on bat SARS viruses by the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its collaborators was singled out as the research most likely of all research in the world to trigger a pandemic.
In 2017 to 2018, with NIH funding, the Wuhan Institute of Virology constructed genetically modified SARS viruses that combined the spike gene from one bat SARS virus with the rest of the genetic information from another bat SARS virus.
obtaining new viruses that efficiently infected human cells, and obtaining at least one new virus that exhibited 10,000 times enhanced viral growth in lungs, and 1 million times enhanced viral growth in brains, and three times enhanced lethality in humanized mice.
Well, I got to go back.
That's way too good.
Hold on.
At a 2015 Royal Society and National Academies meeting on gain-of-function research and its oversight,
The research on bat SARS viruses by the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its collaborators was singled out as the research most likely of all research in the world to trigger a pandemic.
In 2017 to 2018, with NIH funding, the Wuhan Institute of Virology constructed genetically modified SARS viruses that combined the spike gene from one bat SARS virus with the rest of the genetic information from another bat SARS virus, obtaining new viruses that efficiently infected human cells.
How did they do that?
Through synthetic manufacture.
That's it.
They just made them.
They say they found a sequence, then they made lots of it.
So if they lie about finding it, then they could just be testing bioweapons.
They could just be testing interesting genes that they hypothesize might be useful in a self-replicating transfection or transformation agent.
And they could be telling you they're doing virology right in your face.
They're just testing this shit on us and calling it virology.
And that would be a great reason why the no-virus people would be very focused on no-virus.
Because you don't want to know what it actually is.
I think we're getting close, ladies and gentlemen.
It's starting to feel like that might be actually it.
I had that feeling about a year and a half ago already, very strongly.
And then I kind of let it pass over me.
And now it's coming back again.
and obtaining at least one new virus that exhibited 10,000 times enhanced viral growth in lungs, and 1 million times enhanced viral growth in brains, and three times enhanced lethality in humanized mice.
In 2018, just one year before the outbreak, in an NIH grant proposal, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and collaborators proposed to construct additional genetically modified SARS viruses, proposing to construct viruses having spikes with even higher binding affinities for human SARS receptors, seeking viruses having even higher
pandemic potential.
Also in 2018, just one year before the outbreak, in a DARPA grant proposal, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its collaborators proposed to construct genetically modified SARS viruses having a furin cleavage site, a feature associated with increased viral growth and increased transmissibility.
They proposed to insert the furin cleavage site at the spike gene S1-S2 border and to construct the viruses by synthesizing six nucleic acid building blocks and assembling them using the reagent ESMB1.
Third, Wuhan labs performed this research on SARS viruses using an inadequate biosafety standard, just biosafety level two, and inadequate personal protective equipment, just gloves and a lab coat.
Lab accidents that result in infectional release are common, even at biosafety levels higher than biosafety level two.
For context, the original SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, caused lab-acquired infections
in Singapore at biosafety level 3, in Beijing twice at biosafety level 3, and in Taipei at biosafety level 4.
For further context, SARS-CoV-2 itself caused lab-acquired infections in Beijing in 2020 at biosafety level 3, and in Taipei in 2021 at biosafety level 3.
The Wuhan lab's use of biosafety level 2 for research on bat SARS viruses would have posed a high risk, a very high risk, of infection of lab staff upon encountering a virus having the aerosol transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2.
Fourth, in 2019, a novel SARS virus having a spike with extremely high binding affinity for human SARS receptors, a furin cleavage site inserted at the spike S1, S2 border, and a genome sequence with features enabling assembly from six synthetic nucleic acid building blocks using the reagent BSMB1, a virus having the exact features proposed in the 2018 NIH and DARPA proposals emerged on the doorstep of Wuhan Institute of Virology.
SARS-CoV-2 is the only... Okay, so I guess these guys are laughing about it like they think it's funny or something.
It's all part of the narrative.
It's all part of the elaborate national security exercise that's happening here.
This is on cue.
These are actors.
I'm certain of it.
It feels gross to me.
I wanted to go back a little bit and then I'll play him again.
And then I wanna go to the link that Pamela dropped in the chat.
So it's interesting, Richard Ebright is here featured in an article, it looks like in 2013, where he is detailed as having, oops, this is up here, is detailed as having participated, closely followed the anthrax investigation because they came to his institute
to look for signs of it.
That seems like a very big, that's a very big piece of data there.
And here he is in 2013 saying making a biosafety level 4 laboratory is a disaster for our safety.
So he is, here he is, reinforcing the narrative that gain-of-function virology is terrible and that pandemics are real already a decade ago.
Hat tip to Pamela, like that's it, that's how you see them.
And they would tell him this story for a very long time and that's why he's being queued up now.
He's got a lot of practice.
viruses having spikes with even higher binding affinities for human SARS receptors, seeking viruses having even higher pandemic potential.
Also in 2018, just one year before the outbreak, in a DARPA grant proposal, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and its collaborators proposed to construct genetically modified SARS viruses having a furin cleavage site, a feature associated with increased viral growth and increased transmissibility.
They proposed to insert the furin cleavage site at the spike gene S1-S2 border and to construct the viruses by synthesizing six nucleic acid building blocks.
and assembling them using the reagent BSM-B1.
Third, Wuhan Labs performed this research on SARS viruses using an inadequate biosafety standard, just biosafety level 2, and inadequate personal protective equipment, just gloves and a lab coat.
Lab accidents that result in infection or release are common, even at biosafety levels higher than biosafety level 2.
For context, the original SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1,
caused lab-acquired infections in Singapore at biosafety level 3, in Beijing twice at biosafety level 3, and in Taipei at biosafety level 4.
For further context, SARS-CoV-2 itself caused lab-acquired infections in Beijing in 2020 at biosafety level 3, and in Taipei in 2021 at biosafety level 3.
The Wuhan lab's use of biosafety level 2 for research on bat SARS viruses would have posed a high- No, it's interesting because essentially I go back to this Annabelle
anonymous account on Twitter and remind you that these infections could be exposure.
And if they were transfected by the agent that they were working on at a sufficient level, then they may very well have shown disease.
They may very well have tested positive for the synthetic construct that they were working on, but that didn't indicate a near miss on a pandemic.
And remember that these molecular tools that they use to find these molecular signals, when the molecular signals that they're looking for are present in a pure form and in a high quantity, these PCR and sequencing reactions work like a charm.
That's what I've been trying to tell you.
PCR is hard to do out there.
PCR is hard to do in a patient.
It's really hard to prove that what you found is really there.
And it's not erroneous without extensive controls and extensive investigation and extensive replicates, which they never do.
Because it's most likely the misconstruing of a much broader, more, more misunderstood and hard to quantify background signal of communication between all living beings.
and themselves and their conspecifics than it is exclusively virology from which pathogens emerge.
It's just absurd.
And none of these people are talking about the huge part of that swath of DNA and RNA that's likely exclusively being exchanged by the bacteria around us.
And that's the part of the no virus people's narrative that bothers me a lot as well, because although they won't argue against bacteriophages because they've been identified very well, they won't acknowledge that bacteriophages and their diversity and their almost infinite complexity in the background make it impossible for this not to be a really bad background on which to claim the existence of these things.
It is a huge, huge, it's a huge show.
There's just no other way to explain it.
These people could have saved us four years ago if they wanted to, but they've carefully orchestrated this Lollapalooza of lies.
And that's why we're still not out.
That's why some of the people that are lying to me, you still don't even know who they are because they made such a mistake that I can just make them wait.
But if you pay attention to what's going on and you pay attention to what's not going on, you'll see who they are.
One of them's even American.
And a total, complete traitor.
Oops, I gotta go back.
51 at biosafety level three.
The Wuhan lab's use of biosafety level two for research on bat SARS viruses would have posed a high risk, a very high risk, of infection of lab staff upon encountering a virus having the aerosol transmission properties of SARS-CoV-2.
Fourth, in 2019, a novel SARS virus having a spike with extremely high binding affinity for human SARS receptors, a thuring cleavage site inserted at the spike S1, S2 border, and a genome sequence with features enabling assembly from six synthetic nucleic acid building blocks using the reagent BSMB1,
a virus having the exact features proposed in the 2018 NIH and DARPA proposals emerged on the doorstep of Wuhan Institute of Virology.
SARS-CoV-2 is the only one of more than 800 known SARS viruses that possesses a furin cleavage site.
Mathematically, this observation alone implies that the probability of finding a natural SARS virus possessing a furin cleavage site is less than 1 in 800.
you have to be careful the presence of a spike having an extremely high affinity for human SARS you have to be careful of those those calculations because many times they're talking about random assortments of DNA versus this assortment of DNA um and that's kind of disingenuous because we of course we know there are useful genes and we're not going from a random to an organized we're going from
supposedly descending from other organized signals.
So it kind of creates this illusion that it's really crazy that this happened.
But in reality, if you realize that people can make synthetic DNA and RNA, then none of these things are crazy.
That's the hilarity of it.
Kevin McKernan explains it to us all the time, that we can make these sequences of DNA cheaper and cheaper every year.
It's exponentially decreasing, right, Ray Kurzweiler?
It's exponentially decreasing, these technologies.
It's cheaper and cheaper.
The presence of a furin cleavage site inserted at the spike S1-S2 border, the genome sequence enabling assembly from six synthetic nucleic acid building blocks using the reagent BSM-B1, and the 1-4-1 match between these features and the features proposed in the 2018 NIH and DARPA proposals make an extremely strong case.
A smoking gun for a research origin.
In summary, multiple lines of secure evidence point to a research origin.
By contrast, as I hope I will have the opportunity to review in response to questions, no, zero secure evidence points toward a natural origin.
Thank you.
Thank you, and thank you to each of our witnesses.
Dr. Gary, my first question is going to direct towards you.
Of the evidence that's been presented thus far, it's still not clear to me.
What just happened there?
I thought there were four guys.
Didn't four guys stand up?
Did we skip one?
What happened?
That's weird, I thought there were four guys, but maybe not.
Did we hear from four?
We heard from that dude that says it was natural.
Then we heard from Gary.
Oh yeah, and then Quay and then this guy.
That's right, it was four guys.
How much is concrete documented information?
That shows you how ridiculously similar their stories were.
I couldn't even remember Quay because it's like, yeah, I mean.
How much is speculation?
or perhaps just filling in the gaps with assumptions based on what's out there.
So my question for you, Dr. Gary, is could you elaborate more on the specific hard evidence that supports your claim that the Chinese market in Wuhan was the most likely source of the virus?
Certainly, and thank you for the question.
There is a lot of evidence that this virus emerged from the Henan Seafood Market in Wuhan, but let me just focus on three points.
Epidemiology, molecular forensics, and genetics.
First, the epidemiology.
The early cases from December 2019, before the disease was even described, all centered around, in fact, they painted a bullseye on the Henan Seafood Market.
the molecular forensics.
Environmental samples were collected from the market after it was closed.
The hotspot of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, the RNA, was in the southwest corner of the market.
In those very same samples, RNA and DNA from raccoon dogs and mass palm civets was found in these samples, commingling with the SARS-CoV-2 RNA.
Genetics.
The SARS-CoV-2 spilled over at least twice in the market.
The phylogenetics, the genetics of the virus are very clear about that.
That is not compatible with a lab leak.
Dr. Carey, do we know that the virus that caused COVID-19 existed in the Wuhan lab before the pandemic?
And if not, how could we find that out?
In fact, we don't know.
The intelligence community has looked at that point very intently and has not been able to determine that Wuhan had the virus.
We don't have the evidence from the Chinese.
It's just one of the many things that we're missing that we would like to get from the Chinese government.
Based on the bat coronavirus that we know that researchers in the Wuhan lab are working on, would it have been possible for them to create this virus?
Is it possible?
not from a bat coronavirus.
If you take the time to read my written testimony, I'm going to, in that document, I went through a lot of evidence that this virus did not spill over directly from a bat to a human being.
It had to go through an intermediate animal.
And it's not just the... So it had to go through an intermediate animal.
Again, he's kind of assuming that, you know, we can't just make pure quantities of whatever we want to make.
It's really extraordinary how well they talk around it.
In fact, they talk around it as skillfully as Rixie has done for four years.
They talk around it as skillfully as Kevin McCairn has talked around it for years, and as skillfully as Jessica Rose and Kevin McKernan have talked around it for several years now.
It is very simple to make all of these molecular signals in a lab in quantity and put them wherever you want to find them.
Separately, it is possible to transform and transfect people with any immunogen or protein or toxin you want to, and find that signal with PCR sequencing when you want to, and to misconstrue any combination of these things as a spreading novel pathogen on a background you've already characterized or on a background that's too deep to characterize.
It doesn't matter.
It's a crime.
And all of the people that want you to accept a simple explanation like it's an RNA that's special are at this stage meddlers.
It doesn't matter what handle they have or whether they're anonymous or not or whether they have a blue check or not.
It's not possible to be here four and a half years in and not understand that this is a fundamental lie.
that the biology, the molecular biology that they purport to hijack your cells to make your cells do something that they don't already do is a lie.
And therefore all of this, all of this is just an elaborate hoax that these witting and unwitting participants are trying to fool us into teaching our kids, including some of the people that occasionally show up in our chat.
They're all part of the same thing, whether they know it or not.
It's an awful lot of useful idiots in the world.
the evidence from the non-market.
There's other genetic evidence.
The bat coronaviruses are viruses that are spread by the gastrointestinal route.
For a virus like this to become a respiratory virus is just going to require too many mutations, too many changes for a bat virus to spill directly over to a human being.
That could only really happen in nature with replication through an intermediate animal.
Very good.
Dr. Koblitz, next question's for you.
I'm aware that through FOIA requests, a lot of information from U.S.
agencies and U.S.-based organizations have been obtained by people investigating the COVID-19 origins.
However, it seems as though we've gotten relatively little or nothing from Chinese agencies or the Wuhan Institute of Virology specifically.
So my question for you, sir, is what specific information from China would be most helpful in settling this origin debate?
Thank you, Senator.
There's a range of information that would be useful for furthering our investigation of the origins of the... It's an interesting question, but I don't know, off the top of my head, differentiating between a lung and gut infection should be pretty difficult.
Because that's all part of the same outside in my little diagram, right?
It's all one continuous epithelium there.
So,
It's interesting, but yeah, I think it's something to think about.
It's a good question.
In terms of the one in zoology, there should be records about the research they're conducting.
There should be records about the medical surveillance they're performing on their researchers, records on the maintenance operation of their biocontainment equipment, and all that, those documentations would be, could be reviewed by outside experts to determine if there's any signs that there was any
accidents or any indications that there was the virus was I mean this is just a long lap so there's quite a bit information that that's available this is like a long list of questions that have no relevance to reality that's what it is right if they all agree in the room and the guys up on the stage agree that these are relevant questions because these are relevant experts then we lose that's it that's just the end of the story
But obviously, the Chinese government has chosen to be opaque about what they have and what they know in a way that has frustrated people involved with looking at this in terms of assessing both the natural zoonotic spillover pathway and also looking at the lab accident pathway.
Dr. Yarry, you talked about the virus jumping from an animal into a human, and we've heard the term spillover.
For the benefit of this committee, could you explain spillover?
human diseases have come to us from animals.
When we're talking about a spillover, we're talking about a cross species transmission from one animal species to another.
I mean, it could be another animal, but you know, usually when we talk about spillover, we're talking.
Spillover is a really interesting term to use again, right?
Because that doesn't necessarily imply replication and, and, and, and, uh,
Pattern integrity, right?
It just implies proximity.
It applies in exposure.
And so they're very careful to use these words, I think, because all the time it's exposure.
It's exposure to these bioweapons, which are just essentially transformations and transfections that they've been playing with for a very long time.
That's what I think.
I think it's that simple.
And I think they've been releasing them and testing them and trying to misconstrue these things as evidence of mother nature's activities instead of the biosecurity state's activities.
That's what SARS was.
That's what MERS was.
That's what Ebola is.
Maybe that's what Zika is.
I don't know about that one.
And that's what SARS-CoV-2 is.
That's what Nipah would be.
That's what any of these things would be.
That's my current best guess, even though I'm not committed to knowing, because this is definitely a crime, and it's a crime committed by all these witting and unwitting liars.
You got from an animal to a human.
So animals have their own viruses, just like we do.
The ones that are dangerous in the animals, though, are the ones that have the capacity to infect more than one species.
You can think about a virus like rabies that can infect a wide range of mammalian hosts.
So do we know what animal or animals could have carried this virus and were they at the market?
Explain that more fully, please.
Sure.
We don't know that for sure.
What we do know is that when you look for the virus in the market on environmental surfaces,
various places.
You found it mostly in the southwest corner of the market.
This is where the wildlife was sold, the animals like the raccoon donks or the mass palm civets.
And in fact, there were many of the samples there had SARS-CoV-2 and DNA and RNA from those animals.
Don't forget that Brett Weinstein was selling the bushmeat thing and actually took the opportunity at the beginning of the pandemic to reinforce the narrative that AIDS started from bushmeat.
Don't forget that because that's a very important part of this that a lot of these meddlers don't want to talk about.
That virology has been a lie since AIDS is something that a lot of these people won't say, including some of the craftiest of the meddlers behind the scenes.
And that should reveal everything to you.
Judy Mikovits doesn't say AIDS was fake.
Robert Malone doesn't say AIDS was fake.
Meryl Nass doesn't say AIDS was fake.
Even though that was much worse.
I mean, that was really, really bad.
Before they had the technology to make cheap DNA and RNA and spray it in places or dump it in the sewers and say they found it.
It would have been expensive to do it back then.
Now they can do it for pennies.
These meddlers don't want to talk about that.
These so-called little people on the internet that whisper here and there, they don't talk about anything useful.
They just attribute bad motives to the people who are telling the truth.
That's how you see them.
They're in the same sample.
You could imagine somebody maybe came and sneezed on that sample.
But the most likely explanation is that the animals were, in fact, infected themselves with SARS-CoV-2.
When you look at the drains outside of that one stall that had the most SARS-CoV-2, that drain also had virus.
You know, we don't have the evidence that, you know, there was actually an infected.
David Rasnick is going to come on very soon on the market.
But I think we have the next best thing with this forensic molecular biology.
Thank you.
Thank you, Member Paul.
You're recognized for your questions.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit statements for the record from U.S.
Right to Know, Open the Books, America First Legal, Frontiers of Freedom and Dr. Alina Chan.
Without objection.
So just in the last few minutes, Dr. Gary has told us that this could... So Dr. Alina Chan's little thing that was published in the New York Times is now part of the congressional record.
Alina Chan has been lying since May of 2020 when she published a preprint about the sequences of SARS-CoV-2 compared to the evolution of the sequences of SARS-CoV-1.
And that paper has never been published.
And instead, she was given a permanent position at the Broad Institute.
which is kind of attached to the Whitehead Institute and kind of attached to the same MIT that the Human Genome Project and Mark Lander and Kevin McKernan are from.
It's all the same little bullshit story told by the same bullshitters.
to come from bats.
It had to go through an intermediate host.
That may well be true, but arguing against that is they tested 90,000 some odd animals, and there is no animal host that's been found.
But what he also doesn't tell you is the animal host could be a laboratory animal.
It could be passed serially through that, and that's one way of quickly adapting and pushing natural selection to adaptivirus towards humans.
I mean, Andrew Huff told us that they went through like 150,000 years of evolution in a laboratory experiment like that.
And now here's Rand Paul saying the same stupid shit.
And you can imagine back in the 50s or the 60s, they probably told the same story that with radiation, they could accelerate evolution 50 or 60 years into the future.
Make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen, the same bullshit stories have been circulating with these same bullshitters for quite some time.
and covering up the real truth of the special cancer virus program is a big part of this little game they're playing.
That's why you have certain anonymous space cats that have been around for a long time covering that shit up in the right way possible to make sure that these people never usefully could be questioned with it.
Dr. Alina Chan has written extensively about this, how this virus didn't show up clunky and poorly transmissible.
This virus showed up immediately very transmissible in humans as if it had been pre-adapted in a lab.
Dr. Ebright.
Dr. Gary tells us that he's wedded to the scientific method and that he considered all the different possibilities in proximal origins.
I know you're a professor, and I'm assuming you've been the senior author on many papers.
I assume that you teach your younger researchers what is good scientific method and not good scientific method.
In the abstract of proximal origins, Dr. Gary and his fellow authors state categorically that the virus is not a laboratory construct.
That doesn't sound to me like open-mindedness, and I wonder what you would tell a younger researcher or someone you were instructing in the scientific method about putting categorical statements into a scientific paper.
What's important to emphasize that the paper in question, Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2, published in March 2020, was not a research article.
It was an opinion piece.
It was published as a commentary, which is the section in the journal that holds opinion pieces and editorials.
So it was an opinion piece.
The authors were stating their opinion.
But that opinion was not well-founded.
In March of 2020, there was no basis to state that as a conclusion, as opposed to simply being a hypothesis.
Moreover, we know
we know that compelling evidence has been presented as a result of congressional inquiry in the house that four of the authors of that paper it is really like a combination of richard i mean um of of of ebert the the movie guy and captain kangaroo and janet yellen they could all be the same person that wears different masks i'm not even it's crazy dr anderson dr gary dr holmes and dr rambo
in their private communications show clearly that they knew the conclusion that they stated in that article was invalid.
So in terms of what I would tell a younger scientist, I would be mentoring, I would tell a younger scientist that you do not state a conclusion without evidence, even in an opinion piece in a scientific journal.
And you never, under any circumstances in a scientific journal, state conclusions that you know to be unsound.
That represents scientific misconduct.
And so what if you stated in a scientific paper that pandemic potential is real and that we are accessing it in a lab?
What if you stated in a paper that you are looking for pandemic potential in bat caves and may have found it?
Is that not the same kind of malevolence that he's describing here?
Is that not, that contradiction not obvious to you that he's so willing to lay this accusation down at the altar of gain of function, but not able to lay this accusation down at the whole biosecurity state, creating the illusion of gain of function.
The reason why, because he is part of the national security state that is designed to create the illusion of consensus that this actually exists when it does not.
and scientific misconduct up to and including fraud.
And the paper in question, the proximal origin paper, has been recommended for review of retraction.
Two requests, one in 2023 and one in 2024, were submitted by teams of scientists to the journal in question, to the journal editors, asking them to add an editorial expression of concern and to initiate a review for retraction of the article.
I know of no other example in modern scientific history or publications where a publication has come forward pronouncing with such authority that the lab leak is implausible, it is not a laboratory construct, while privately saying, this is no friggin' conspiracy theory.
It looks like it did.
I'm 90-10.
I'm 50-50.
But no doubt in the paper.
In fact, we know that it went back and forth with Dr. Fauci and with editors who say, we want the statements to be stronger.
We want the conclusions to be stronger.
That was actually coming from nature at the time.
We want you to doctor it up and even be more strong because we're making a political point here.
That's where we should have known we were off track, that these people were politicians and that they were pushing an idea because as Dr. Collins finally admitted in one of the emails, this is about the business of science with China.
This will disturb our relations with China if anybody questions this.
Dr. Cui.
The idea that this came from the fish market I thought had been discredited by virtually all of the scientists.
Now, I'm really surprised it's still being presented here.
I know that the Chinese, the CDC, George Gao over there, basically said that they no longer consider it.
And actually, if you think about it from their perspective, we're not sure if we can trust them.
But at the same time, the Chinese, if they would rather have it come from a lab or the market, I think would choose the market over the lab.
If anything, they would be, if we were going to think they were dishonest, would be dishonest towards saying, hey, we found some animals.
But if you could review stepwise, just a little bit slower, some of the evidence for why it's not there, the amount of animals tested, the animal handlers compared to SARS-1, but also the idea of this genetic diversity that, you know, when SARS-1 came about the first time, I think it tried hundreds of times, because these animal viruses don't infect humans well in the beginning.
It tried hundreds of times, over and over again.
And even in the end, SARS-1 didn't transmit between humans very well.
That's why containment worked, and that's why quarantine worked, because it wasn't very infectious.
And so again, I would highlight the fact that not transmitting very well between humans might have been a failure of the synthetic construct that they made rather than a failure of a zoonosis.
They wished it gone farther.
Maybe they do try to make self-replicating RNA constructs that they transfect and transform us to.
Why not?
They have all the technology.
It's totally cheap to do now.
And that's how virology is done.
So why not?
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take a break and head out with the famdamily if they haven't already left without me.
Please understand that there are few things more dishonorable than misleading the young.
And if you've wittingly or unwittingly been involved in misleading the young and passing on this narrative to our children, then please wake up and wake up quick because RNA cannot pandemic.
If you remember cassette tapes, cassette tapes you can make a little assortment from different albums on a mixtape, but you can't make copies of that mixtape
because they're not a very high fidelity copying medium.
You can't make a nice copy of that one and have the next one sound good.
But CDs solved this problem because they became digital.
And in fact, if you take this analogy to virology, what you find is that
The RNA that they find in nature is often incomplete, it's often not competent, it's often barely able to show up as a signal.
And so that the way they overcome this, number one, they use reverse transcriptase to convert RNA to DNA before they can even look for it.
And secondly, when they find something in there that they say was RNA, they make a DNA copy of it anyway because it won't grow in a cell culture.
And so they make, I'm going to escape out of here because for some reason that's not running very well.
And I'm going to go up here and I'm going to escape out of this one and close it if I can.
What's going on here?
What happened?
Why is it doing this?
Darn it.
Come on now.
What is happening?
Why is this?
Can I pull this down?
No.
Can I quit that?
Yes, I can.
Okay, there we go.
Sorry about that.
My fault.
My bad.
And so we are here.
And so they can't grow them.
They cannot grow viruses or whatever they find.
The RNA signals that they find in the wild do not grow in culture.
And so they take these RNA signals and they convert them to a DNA signal that they can grow in bacteria.
And that means that they can make a very large quantity of this CD version of the RNA that they purport to find in the wild.
But it's that one lie that might be the basis of all of this, if it's all just testing transfection and transformation on populations.
Populations in Africa where these crazy things break out, or populations in South America, or populations in China where they break out.
They could be constructed if they wanted to with very simple molecular means, growing them in giant vats like the vats that Brian Ardis showed at the Red Pill Expo but didn't adequately explain are always starting with DNA constructs of synthetic DNA.
It's strange that he didn't mention that.
I mean, he could have hit this home like a series of grand slams, but instead he just said, venom, venom, venoms everywhere, venom.
And look at how much venom they make without explaining how they make the venom, which is this way.
They make it with recombinant DNA and RNA processes that all of these people have understood the consequences of for decades.
That includes, you can separate proteins from nucleic acids, but you can't separate nucleic acids from nucleic acids.
Are you guys going to go soon?
You're not going to go?
Okay.
And so they can use these things to transform and transfect cell culture.
They can use these things to transform and transfect animals.
And they can use these things and send these transfection and transformation agents to their friends.
And they can all do the same experiments.
They can also make industrial size quantities of the DNA, the RNA, or the proteins.
just can't separate the DNA and the RNA very well.
And that's why the Moderna shots were always known to be contaminated.
They always knew that they would be because they can't use anion exchange chromatography to clean them up like they could any other protein that they would make, like venom.
So it's interesting, for example, that artists didn't take the time to teach you that when they make venom, they're making a protein, which means they can clean the DNA and the RNA away from it.
But they already knew that they couldn't clean the DNA away from an RNA because anion exchange chromatography can't be used to separate those two entities.
What a strange thing to avoid saying for four and a half years while you have this show and tour around the world.
Not really saying that the vaccine schedule in America is criminal, but saying I got unvaccinated kids and they're awesome.
rubbing it in people's faces that made the mistake of vaccinating their kids because they were scared or because their doctor and the nurses in the doctor's office lied to them.
Think about how nasty that is.
And so virology has dropped the term infectious clones and Dr. Quay dropped the term synthetic clones.
But nobody's ever managed to say, not one, no virus person has ever managed to say that it's just synthetic DNA and synthetic RNA and quantity that they transform and transfect these laboratory models with.
And then they call it virology because if they would have gotten there, the whole illusion of the biosecurity state might've fallen apart years ago and our children would no longer be in danger of being enslaved by this mythology.
Ladies and gentlemen,
They've lied to us about the pandemic potential that is codified in these stories in order to take our children and enslave them.
The only thing they've done is transform stuff.
That's it.
They find these signals in the wild.
They, they remake them synthetically and they move from cell culture to cell culture, perhaps by replication, but perhaps by exposure.
But they don't represent pattern integrities, and it doesn't matter what shit you stitch together or where you precisely put a fear and cleavage site.
It won't matter.
They're still not going to become pattern integrities.
And that's the lie that these people are all trying to cover up.
And they want us to teach to our children.
That's what they're hiding.
Ladies and gentlemen, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent, and that's why the word transfection is at the top of Robert Malone's resume for 15 years.
RNA cannot pandemic, ladies and gentlemen.
There are other ways to say it, but you don't have to fear wild RNA molecules.
Please stop all transfection in humans, because they are trying to eliminate the control group.
I will be here again tomorrow, because this is what we do.
If you like what we saw, please share it.
And share stream.gigaohm.bio, because that's the one that we spend money on.
And this one gets rid of our videos.
And if you want to talk to me, this is a good place to do it.
I'm trying to get off Twitter.
And if you have the means and you want to support, please go to gigaohmbiological.com.
and find a way to become a one-time or often supporter.
We need all of you if this is going to become an online high school and freshman in college resource about true biology.
We're going to need more people on the train.
So if you can't afford to help or you're already helping in a financial way, please don't forget that the best way to help is to share the work as often as you can by emailing your family and emailing your friends.
Don't bother doing it on Twitter.
Don't bother doing it anywhere else.
Email a link with a very sweet and short message that says, please just watch this guy for me.
Maybe give them a time signature that you think fits the best and start working hard to get people one at a time to either tell you that that long-haired guy's a nutcase or that holy cow, thanks for introducing me to Jonathan Cui.
That's the risk you need to take at this stage if we're going to get past this threshold of meddlers.
So thank you very much, and I will see you guys again tomorrow.
It's 106 miles to Chicago.
We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
See you later, guys.
See you tomorrow.
That wasn't the best ending.
Sorry about that.
I thought the timing was just a little bit longer on that.
Be well, everyone, and I'll see you tomorrow.
What are they doing out there?
Oh, they must be blowing off the trampoline or something.
Take care, everybody.
Sorry, I still didn't push stop.
Whoops.