Good, good, good, good morning, good afternoon, good evening.
It's 1214 on the 8th of January.
2025.
Welcome to GigaOM Biological.
Good morning, Christy.
Good morning, Tony.
Good morning, Cube.
If you're interested in who produces GigaOM Biological, this information brief is brought to you by a biologist named Jonathan Cui.
The last name is C-O-U-E-Y.
First initials J and J. Good morning, Mark.
Thank you guys for being here.
I'm excited about this one.
Now, Dr. Gallo and Dr. Fauci talked a lot about isolation and purification.
Can you tell me what the difference is between the two?
Isolation, what was it?
Isolation and purification.
Of the virus?
Yes.
Well, you isolate a virus by
finding the virus which causes a disease.
You purify a virus by making a lot of, I mean, just by purifying it so you get a pure virus.
I don't understand what the issue is.
They interchanged the two and I wasn't sure if it was the same thing or if it was two totally different... No, it depends on how they used it.
Okay.
Can you explain the process of HIV isolation?
Well, didn't Dr. Gallo do that?
I mean, he actually isolated it.
So, I mean, why should I do all of this?
This is all textbook stuff you're asking me.
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.
No, when we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality and it's not, it's, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs.
It'll be a moral emergency because it has to be.
just it's literally turning into worst case scenario.
I'm afraid that the latest data 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, 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.
the rules protect yourself at all times follow my instructions keep it clean touch gloves if you wish let's do it sweaty palms this is so crazy like goosebumps this is so crazy i feel so nervous like what in the world man he introduced
Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest kind of 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
I don't care how you get there.
I don't care what you do to get there.
The goal is to win.
you
and and
Help!
Certainly you didn't think I was going to leave it there, did you?
Almost never is the key to that.
Almost never is the key to those words there.
This time could definitely be different.
I think it could be different because we are way, way, way off their script.
And that means that there's lots of kinks in the armor that we can take advantage of.
intramuscular injection being dumb, or transfection being criminal, or RNA being unable to pandemic.
Thank you very much for being here, everybody.
This is GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
It's January 8th, 2025.
We are still fighting this five-year-long narrative, this script that's been enacted on social media covering up a background.
I've got a new project in the works called JC on the hardwood.
Sometimes I'm gonna be busy with that.
Not today, this afternoon maybe.
Covid shots are bad, don't talk about 2020.
Healthy people really don't get sick, that's the truth.
And that's what they need to cover up with this illusion about public health.
Bad biology 101 and evolution because DNA is how they've done it.
They bamboozled your parents with it.
They're bamboozling us with it.
The real six-word way out is intramuscular injection of medicine is dumb.
An intramuscular injection is the single worst way to be exposed to a toxin.
Don't use their vocabulary or you'll be stuck in their slave speak.
The new biology 101 would be life is a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time.
And so that's where we are, right?
There's a background signal.
They misconstrued it as spread.
um and with how they did it was they just released a sequence that had a lot of overlap with that background maybe even had some proprietary secrets in it it doesn't really matter because this the pcr tests weren't specific and i was on to that little nugget in 2020 and that's why i think all these people came to my house for five years and put me on signal chats and i think this mystery can be
You can get a hold of it by starting at the history in 2020 with the Corman-Jorston review and the authors that are on it and the sort of claims that they made and the claims that they didn't make.
That was what we were talking about yesterday on the stream and I think it was a really strong one.
I'm really excited to be here again because I do think it's just a spectacular commitment to lies.
That's all that's required and that's who we are fighting.
These people that are sustaining this mythology about what the genome is.
what it's revealed about us and what, you know, free-range gain-of-function RNAs can do.
And that's why I think it's really important where we are right now.
It's so exciting to be here.
I'm really happy to be here.
It's not what I wanted to have happen there.
I don't know why that happened.
I think I have to do something really quick with this one, maybe?
Yeah.
So that means I have to set this one up different.
Hold on one second.
Let me just... There was some tech not quite ready to go in the background, which I probably need to restore to there.
and then that should be enough and now that would mean that i'm also here yes okay great um yeah so rna cannot pandemic that's the message right there and their biology would would have you believe that not only can rna pandemic but we are in the sixth year of something pandemicking from a bat cave where it was sprayed
or a mud puddle where it was spilled.
And this, of course, is all under the pretense that there was no background, there is no background, and whatever background there is, is very easy to differentiate this new thing from it.
And I think that is a gigantic illusion.
And the illusion they're trying to cover up is that there was another biological phenomenon that needed managing, that was especially acute in Western countries, where
an excess of old people as a result of the big families after World War II was a problem in needing of managing because these unhealthy people in America are going to cost us a lot of money if we're going to try and keep them alive with the state-of-the-art 21st century medicine at $500,000 every six months.
And of course this was compounding in 2003 and 2004.
They could all see it coming.
And so that's why Tony Fauci and these other people were able to say that this was coming.
They knew this was coming because this was a story that they were going to use to disguise the management of this problem and also to take advantage of as an opportunity to usher in a new level of genetic sampling and control of remnants, generation, so that they could slowly convert our children from sovereign individuals that maybe even our parents weren't really.
into full-blown experimental animals with our absolute assent to it.
And I think that, you know, myths perpetuated by traitors are hiding murder with lies.
And that's what this, why no one talks about the population pyramid.
It's not no one talks about it like as in a few people, it's no one as in zero, zero, right?
Just please keep that in mind, zero.
Just like nobody talks about how many people have died of opioid overdose in America.
Nobody gives a shit.
But there are plenty of parents around.
You can find all kinds of parents and you can find all kinds of grandparents that can tell you the story of how opioids have ruined their family.
It's comparatively very difficult to find people who will tell you stories about how pedophilia and kidnapping and eating of children and adrenochrome has ruined their family.
Isn't that kind of striking?
I kind of find it striking.
I mean, I'm not saying that there's no pedophiles or that there's no kidnapping or anything like that.
But given the fact that people write multiple volume books about this as being the primary control mechanism of America and all these other elites, it is quite remarkable, isn't it?
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, you know, negligent.
It was criminal because they knew already it wouldn't work.
And RNA cannot pandemic because viruses are not pattern integrities.
They're not alive.
And if they are anything to be concerned about or to be thought of, they should be thought of as part of ourselves and the way that we are connected to our environment.
And so in that sense, generated by us,
produced by us and therefore we are not understanding anything about this background.
Now I'm saying background, not viruses produced by us.
I'm saying background produced by us that's being misconstrued as a entire field of biology that has all kinds of interesting quirks that we don't take advantage of in terms of the chemical stability of and the usefulness of RNA.
This mythology can be broken, but it can't be broken by simply saying there are no viruses.
It cannot be broken by simply saying there was no COVID.
We have to rise to the occasion, ladies and gentlemen.
We need to rise to the occasion and understand exactly how these myths are constructed so that we can see how precarious the position that these people are in right now.
Essentially what they are is they're standing on a set of monkey bars
and they're not a very well-constructed set of monkey bars.
The joints are not very tight and they're standing on them with just two feet on two bars.
And so at any moment, if this structure were to move or to get tampered with, all of these people are gonna fall crotch first through a monkey bars that might be four or five stories high and is not in any way, shape or form built in a buckyball shape or with triangles.
but is really ready to collapse.
If you just pulled one bar out, the whole thing would fall down.
And these people are standing on top of it, screaming at the top of their lungs, doing cheerleader-like pyramids with each other on social media.
And it's really close to collapse, ladies and gentlemen.
When they were only a couple bars high and it was just a real easy illusion to sustain, it's very different.
But now that they've gone this far for this long, it's starting to become very obvious that, you know what, there was an easy way out.
There are easy questions that remain unanswered from 2020 and 2021, whose answers include murder.
And none of these people are talking about it.
None of them are talking about it.
It's very interesting.
The health freedom movement, MAGA movement that's concerned about processed foods and cereals made by Kellogg's is composed largely of either full-on fakes that have just come on stage recently with a book and a Tucker Carlson interview, or people that before the pandemic had books about vaccines and childhood illness.
genetic and environmental causes of these things.
And then at the start of the pandemic had some kind of weird certainty about a furin cleavage site or some weird certainty about a spike protein that can cause amyloidosis or some weird certainty about this being a gain of function virus before I even knew what that term meant.
People were using the term flying AIDS already in 2020.
And those people have still more prominent social media space than anyone that's been trying to tear it down.
And the more closely you've come to these people, the more likely it is that you are completely ignored.
Because again, you see them, you've seen them, you're ignored now.
You might even see Brooke Jackson as being somebody who largely gets ignored now.
Almost as if maybe she was set up.
I don't know.
I don't know how to determine who's good and who's bad.
But what I can say for sure is that any good components of the health freedom movement will be able to take, and I want to make sure that this is very clear in case Jeff decides to cut a clip of this.
I just want to make it very clear that I think that my stance of being hyper sensitive, hyper critical of almost everyone that I've come in contact with is a largely innocuous stance.
Because if we are indeed fighting for all the marbles, and all the marbles include our children being sovereign individuals, not subject to some global public health state that can sample from them whenever they want to, and can dictate the way that they interact with their neighbors.
then my being hypercritical of people will always be superseded by the first slide that I start with and by what that first slide that I start with should be enabling people to do.
Any doctor that wanted to could take those words and just try to challenge themselves to go into the literature and go into their books and talk to their friends and figure out what's wrong with what I'm saying there and make progress, sharpen the sword.
Iron sharpens iron.
But that will not be done.
It's not being done.
And if anybody does it, you gotta let me know.
Because those are likely small, still good components of the health freedom movement that is being regularly sabotaged and has been regularly sabotaged since before the pandemic.
Otherwise, the people that had the mic in 2015, the people that had book deals in 2016,
The people that made movies in 2016 would have brought those books and those movies up in 2020 and their anti-vaccine stance in 2016.
And they would have brought that up in 2020 and said, hey, we don't want to believe anything that these people say.
That would be crazy.
Do you know what we knew already back in 2016 when we made our movie Vaxxed?
But instead, those people were the people that said furin cleavage site and spike protein and lab leak and repurposed drugs are being covered up.
And so yesterday I went back to Rome, Italy, and the International COVID Summit number one, where Bobby Malone also seems to have talked to a Cardinal that's very close to the Pope, and one of the people that has, on a short list of people that has been openly proposed in the media as a successor to the current Pope, and is the current head of the Pontifical Academy for Science or something like that.
And that was a very, very revealing interview.
And I think my analysis of it yesterday was pretty spot on.
Although every time I watch a video like that, I find new things.
I think my show from yesterday was one of the best shows I've ever done.
I'll be at three hours long.
I'm really, really proud of, of where and how far we've come.
Thanks to all of you guys and the support that you, that you've given my family over these five years.
Today, I want to, I don't know why it's not changing.
What did I do here?
Today, I want to resume our work or keep the pressure on by going back a few months from where we got the video yesterday to a NIH Wednesday lecture titled Fueling the Next Genomic Revolution.
Now, the reason why I'm so curious about this is multiple fold, one of them being, of course, the inspirational work of Mark Kulak,
who I think has brought to my attention the first presenter.
Now, if he's in this, in the chat and watching, then, you know, when the first presenter comes on, he can confirm that he knows who she is.
And I will confess that part of the reason why I'm doing it in this way is because I want other people to find it before me.
But I know if I'm right, then he has a page on her and probably has already done a show on her.
or at least mentioned her in the past, I think she's connected somehow.
And it's very interesting that she's in this particular thing.
Now, think about the title here, Fueling the Next Genomic Revolution.
Think about this title here.
Let me get myself a little tinier.
Fueling the Next Genomic Revolution, Maximizing the Impact of Bacterial, Human, and Human Metagenomic Genome Knowledge.
Human Metagenomic Genome Knowledge.
Now, in my best layman's understanding of what metagenomics is, it is the idea of taking all the genetic noise in the background and then using computer algorithms to try and make some sense of it.
And one of the people that pioneered this is Metabiota, which is a very impressive, highly scientific, well-respected company in American history, right?
And so metagenomic genome knowledge, human metagenomic genome knowledge is a very interesting combination of words to use here.
And I think it's worthwhile to keep that in the back of your mind as we watch this video.
So I'm going to escape here and I think I have it this way, smaller and then
And I think I'm going to also, again, speed it up just a little bit, assuming that these people are going to talk at some reduced academic speed here.
Let me just resize the window.
I apologize.
I've got to get it up on the third screen here.
The third screen in my setup is kind of virtual, so it's a little trickier to get it there.
So you can see here the title.
It's an hour and 39 minutes.
So Claire Frazier to me, I know this is going to sound really dumb, but Claire Frazier to me just reminds me of Outlander because my wife made me watch the first couple seasons of that show.
And I think there's a character named Claire Frazier.
Am I not?
Am I right?
I don't care.
That's who's going to speak first.
Then there's this Charles Rotimi, who's an African man who's talking about sampling genomes in Africa, which is fantastic.
And then Eric Lander, who comes on and he's going to talk about what they're doing now, because I guess they didn't finish everything in 2001 or didn't finish everything in 2015 or whatever they didn't finish.
And so Francis Collins is going to give a little introduction, and I think the first person to speak is going to be Claire Frazier.
I'm Francis Collins, the director of NIH.
I'm happy to welcome you to a Wednesday afternoon lecture and a very special one, if I do say so myself, and I might be just a little biased here.
The title is Fueling the Next Genomic Revolution.
maximizing the impact of bacterial human and human metagenome genomic knowledge and technology.
That's quite a mouthful, but you're going to see what that all means here in the next hour and a half, because we have a very special lineup here of experts to speak to you.
Today, we are indeed celebrating and commemorating some anniversaries.
And it happens that 2021 has a series of those that sort of fall in this year.
And we genome people have been accused of looking for reasons to celebrate almost everything, including the complete sequence of the human genome, which we have celebrated at least five times.
That's pretty funny.
It's like self-deprecating himself.
We celebrate whenever we can with the Human Genome Project.
And so let's just hear what he's got to say.
It's funny.
People have been accused of looking for reasons to celebrate almost everything, including the complete sequence of the human genome, which we have celebrated at least five times.
We're probably not done yet.
But that's particularly for today.
the 25-year anniversary of the first complete bacterial genome, that being Haemophilus influenzae.
And actually, I looked, it was really July of 95, but that's close enough to being at 25 years from now.
It is, in a big way, the 20th anniversary of the publication of the Human Genome from the International Human Genome Project Leadership, and at the same time, a publication from Celera of the Human Genome
These are in nature and science respectively.
And 15 years ago... I think Celera was Vintner's company, right?
And again, this is just me being a fool.
Many people are considering the first human metagenome from Jeff Gordon in science.
Looking back, I can add one more anniversary, and that is the coining of the word genomics.
Many of you who have used that almost in every paragraph in your research efforts may be surprised to know that that word only got put out there in 1986.
Okay, so I just did a little, you know, very, very weak Google.
Nonsense here and I just wanted to show you what I found because there's a couple interesting little quirks that you know Anybody could stumble upon first There's little genomics article here.
You could read about it and listen to again Some of this is just slave speak, right?
Some of this is just the the big words that contain the big concepts which are really big assumptions and some of the history here, of course all the history that is here is probably reasonably accurate and
And so he's talking a little bit about that.
But the one that I found really interesting was this one, which is the Thousand Genomes Project.
Now the Thousand Genome Project takes place from 2008 to 2015 and was an international research effort to establish the most detailed catalog of human genetic variation at the time.
Now what you need to see is that in this one, they talk a little bit about the Human Genome Project.
And where do they say it?
The Genomics Revolution, Genomic Analysis, Historically Shotgun, High-Throughput Sequencing Assembly, Annotation, Functional Genomics.
Hold on, I think I found it down here.
Genomic Medicine, Population.
Okay, somewhere in here I clicked over to the next one.
And where I found it, I guess doesn't really matter.
You can do that for yourself.
But what I think is most important to see is that in one of these articles I read, I don't remember which one it was on, they said that they only sequenced one genome, right?
They made lots of restriction enzyme maps of one genome.
And so it was like a landmark list of one genome.
And so then already now what I'm trying to suggest to you is that this project, the 100,000 Genomes Project was designed to start to get a handle on what little or how much data they actually had after spending all that time sequencing one genome.
And so what's important to see here, and I just want to bring it out because, you know, whatever, I got to just get it out there all the time, is the outline of the project is here.
The Human Genome Project consists of approximately 3 billion DNA base pairs, and is estimated to carry around 20,000 protein encoding genes.
And then the rest, they don't really know what they do.
In designing the study, the consortium needed to address several critical issues regarding the project's metrics, such as technology challenges, data quality standards, and sequence coverage.
So how much, you know, who's more accurate than who?
Who's going to do it?
So who did they do it?
Over the next three years, scientists at the Sanger Institute, BGI, Shengxin, and the National Human Genome Research Institute, which is in Bethesda, Maryland.
So BGI
is the Beijing Genomics Institute.
And what's really interesting is that the materials produced for a lot of the early PCR tests in America, including a PCR test run by a company named Ultimate DX in California, were single amplicon tests aimed at the end protein
with a control that was a bacteriophage expressing the desired amplicon.
And these reagents, these tests, were produced by BGI.
And so what you can see is very, very easily how, wow, I mean, could it possibly be?
Could it possibly be that
these people in America that are working against us are cooperating actively with, or that China's not at all getting in the way of them.
I think you need to start to open your eyes a little bit, ladies and gentlemen, to the possibility that this is very, very dark.
that there aren't very many podcasts that aren't involved in this not in the sense of that they know but they have been used to to propagate these mythologies and these people that's why these people are the same people that have been on so many podcasts you think that's fun and strikingly how many few how few people call me for an interview what is it Jason Levine
Nick Hudson's friend, Germ Warfare, and Lee Merritt.
That's the list.
It's remarkable once you see it, ladies and gentlemen.
I think there's a lot of work to do, of course.
There's a lot of ends to tie up, but the work is all doable by anybody that wants to do it.
It doesn't just have to be me and Mark.
So this is another anniversary, 35th.
for the word.
So we brought together an all-star team of genomic pioneers to help us, Drs.
Claire Frazier, Charles Rigamy, and Eric Lander, and I will introduce them when we get to their presentation.
But I want to- Volume is not okay.
Now is it better?
Are you getting better?
Is that better?
I just hear a little bit of a blow in the background.
I'm sorry.
I'm still playing with this thing, trying to get my ears right.
Take a few moments here just by way of introduction to set the stage.
I was about 1987 when I first heard about the plan to sequence the human genome.
I was an assistant professor at the University of Michigan trying to find genes that cause human disease and finding it was really hard because there was no sequence, there was no map.
Most of the genome was dark matter.
We could barely find our way around.
Just searching for the cystic fibrosis gene took multiple groups over many years until finally finding a just three base pair deletion that was responsible for the most common
causes of cystic fibrosis on chromosome 7.
But it was brutal getting to that answer.
And it was pretty clear that was not going to be replicatable for other diseases that were even less common and maybe less well-behaved genetically.
So when I heard about the Genome Project, I thought, oh, yeah, please, wouldn't it be great to get this done?
Because then this kind of disease gene search could be a lot more efficient.
But it also seemed wildly ambitious.
Fortunately, there were visionaries, and there was Congress who came up with some money, and there was Jim Watson, who was asked to come and lead the effort
at NIH, and it got this off the ground, and a bunch of us got pretty fired up about it, including some of the people you're going to hear about from today.
And then Watson was not there anymore, and I got this call from Bernadine Healy, who was at that time the NIH director, asking if I would consider coming to NIH to pick up the reins in this very early stage of the Genome Project, when most people were skeptical at best and actually opposed in many situations.
And I said, that's really nice, but I don't think that's what I'm supposed to be doing with my life.
And so I said, no, the first time.
By the way, you might wonder, okay, Watson had left and Healy was trying to recruit somebody to come and take the reins.
Who was running the Genome Project at that point?
Ah, this is a good trivia question.
The answer, our own Michael Gottesman, who is of course our deputy director of random neural research, was for a year the acting director of what was then the National Center for Human Genome Research.
Well, ultimately I realized that this was just too amazing an opportunity to pass up.
This was historic, it was gonna change everything.
Yeah, it might fail, but if it succeeded, why would you not want to have the chance?
to try to stand at the helm and lead this enterprise and work with all these amazing people.
And more and more of them got on board.
And yes, milestones started to happen.
Genetic maps, physical maps.
Yes, that bacterial genome, which made us believe, hey, you can actually put one of these together.
Not long after that, the yeast genome, the C. elegans genome, the first human chromosome.
And we had to get to 1,000 base pairs a second if we were really going to do the human genome with its 3 billion base pairs.
But that all kind of came together because of a lot of incredibly gifted, talented, and hardworking people.
A draft announced on June 26th
2000 in the White House, but maybe the scientific milestone was the publication in early 2001 of the first draft of the genome with a lot of analysis that many of us spent many hours poring over in various locations and an experience I shall not forget.
So that was one of the reasons I guess we can say this is a celebration of a particular moment, 20 years from that.
But my gosh, since then, rapid technological advances, transforming our sequencing capacity, increasing the speed, lowering the cost,
to now where a human genome is roughly four or maybe five or $600, where it used to be 400 million.
And lots of other applications beyond DNA and the genome, the ability to be able to sequence nucleic acids, including RNA transcriptomes.
And yes, RNA viruses, I have to say one thing about that.
After all, it was one year ago this past few days, January 10th, where a Chinese scientist placed on the internet the sequence of a virus that seemed to be causing trouble in Wuhan.
Three days later, on January 13th, our own Vaccine Research Center decided on the strategy for the vaccine that has now, with the partnership of a company called Moderna, turned into one of the vaccines that has received FDA emergency use authorization.
And right at this very moment, NIHers are getting immunized with that vaccine in the B1 cafeteria.
And a big shout out then to Fauci and Mascola and Graham and Kosmicki and Corbett who made all of those things happen.
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say there is a direct line from what the genomic approach to understanding life was that the Human Genome Project took off to being able to do something like this at this speed, and now to be able to track all those new variants that are emerging and causing us some concern by sequencing lots and lots of viral genomes for SARS-CoV-2.
Well, okay, I divert myself.
Of the other exciting possibilities, I'm
And so what I'm arguing, hello, hello, I barely hear myself.
Hello, hello, hello, hello.
Does that better?
Testing one, two.
Test one, two.
Can you hear me better now?
I think I can hear myself better now.
Test one, two.
I might have had to put that up a lot higher.
Is it better now?
Testing one, two.
So I almost, I almost, it's a little low still.
Really?
No way.
I can see yellow.
It's gotta be okay.
Test one, two.
Testing one, two.
So what I hear of course is what a lot of people hear in the chat.
It's kind of a,
a rough telling, a clean telling of what happened with lots of, you know, hand waving and this isn't the droids you're looking for kind of thing.
We did that, then we did this, then we did that and, you know, we sequenced these really little tiny things and then we jumped to really big things and it was all just fine because we got to like a thousand basses a second and here comes the details that we bamboozle you with and it seems like everything is great.
And thank goodness Kevin McKernan was there to be the research and development guy that figured it all out without a PhD.
Not that I'm saying a PhD is valuable, but supposedly he dropped out of grad school and just went right into the Human Genome Project, not because his dad is connected, but just because he's super, super, super, super, super, super smart and somebody heard about him.
And that's how he got in there, I guess.
Because there's nobody else in the whole world who could have done it
And well, there's lots and lots of people, but Kevin McKernan just accidentally is the guy who got selected to do it without a degree, even though I guess there were lots of other molecular biologists in America that would have also been interested in being the research and development coordinator of the Human Genome Project at the Whitehead Institute under Mark Lander.
And so again, you know, I'm just saying,
If we listen to what he says very carefully here.
A direct line from what the genomic approach to understanding life was that the human genome project took on to being able to do something like this at this speed.
And now to be able to track all those new variants that are emerging and causing us some concern.
by sequencing lots and lots of viral genomes.
And so he's telling you right now that the virus is real, the variants are real, it is January of 2021, and thank goodness we have all this technology to follow millions of sequences of this genome.
Is that really what they're sequencing with those swabs?
Those swabs that for the first year and a half were not
actually what they were they were sent to Ditra supposedly the sequencing of the virus for the first year and a half all the swabs were sent to Ditra as far as I understand although I could be wrong they definitely weren't just sequenced in different companies and then reported and uploaded to PubMed in a sort of haphazard and random way depending on who got what done when
Do you understand what I'm saying here?
Again, we are talking about an entire health freedom movement who is effectively ignoring all of the evidence, all of the circumstantial evidence, all of the documentary evidence, all of the podcast evidence, all of the video evidence, all of the print evidence that these people
We're engaged in a disingenuous campaign to convince us of a circulating RNA that was differentiable from the background circulating present RNA and DNA in the background of all of our bodies and all of our microbiomes and all of the air and the water we drink.
And in the sewer samples, for the love of goodness.
The sewer samples were a source of data at this time in January of 2021.
And none of these people have usefully articulated how malevolent that campaign could have been to establish, to coerce people into accepting a transfection as a vaccine, especially on the background
where all the people on social media called it a vaccine, and even Robert Malone went to the Vatican to tell everybody that no, no, this qualifies as a vaccine because the virus uses RNA and so does the vaccine.
And we just heard him say it yesterday, September 2021, seven months after this video.
Eight months after this video.
where they basically announced that the Human Genome Project still isn't done.
We got a lot of work to do yet.
We're just getting started, but thank goodness we've got this technology so that we can sequence this virus.
I'm sure that with this technology, that's what they would use it for.
I'm sure they pointed all the cameras and all the printers and all the magnometers, they pointed it all at SARS-CoV-2.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the remnant streams of samples that were being generated at all the universities around America, all the hospitals around America, and are still being generated now by everybody who does a COVID test and sends it back in.
That hasn't stopped.
More importantly, it has been normalized in the minds of young people as something that can be done, is done regularly, and works.
It's also bamboozling our young people into thinking that remnants and their sales and their misuse is not a danger to them.
Even though it was a danger to them already a generation ago,
when periodically all over the United States, there would just be campaigns for C-sections and campaigns for the circumcision of young male babies.
And now in 2025, we have virologists that regularly just teach Virology 101 and just say that, you know, some of the places we get cell culture are from circumcisions in the foreskin of babies.
Not talking about the fact that we're not talking about, you know, a religious circumcision here.
We're talking about the brutal manipulation of tiny, tiny babies through the malevolent coercion of their parents.
Like, what is your argument when you say to a parent that, and offer them that as a possibility?
You might want to check this box.
Cause if you don't check this box, we're going to take the foreskin of your kid.
If you don't check this box, we're going to take all of your placenta.
Is that the informed consent that happens during the course of a baby being born in a hospital?
Absolutely not.
And that's nothing that Children's Health Defense is ever gonna have a website about or a news program about or nothing.
Nothing will be said about that.
We're gonna focus exclusively on Planned Parenthood because they're selling fetuses, which is probably true.
But we're not gonna focus on the corporate hospitals that are selling placentas and selling foreskin and selling remnants from anything that gets there regularly that a pharmaceutical company or a research company or the US government would want.
Maybe even BGI from Beijing wants and will be willing to pay for.
Have you ever thought about that?
That these traders would be willing to sell our medical remnants to China to the highest bidder.
And while the health freedom movement has you running around about censorship and chasing Elon Musk's coattails and voting for Donald Trump, remnant sales in America have expanded into a business that's probably pretty hard to underestimate.
and especially in 2020 and 2021 when these tests were running wild and most of them were only EUA granted products that had never been evaluated by a independent evaluator and are now off the market.
And all the money that changed hands on all those companies, they're all gone.
And there were hundreds of them because they were specific for cities.
because cities gave contracts to those new companies in order to screen their municipal employees.
We're talking about millions, if not billions of dollars.
Track and trace companies that just called people after there was a report of a positive test and encouraged people and facilitated people to get testing.
My next door neighbor on my old house in Meyer Lane was paid $40 an hour as a coordinator of people who did that.
She got paid for a year and a half with that job.
40 bucks an hour after not having a job and she could do that from home.
That company's gone, long gone in 2021.
And that's just one company on the north side of Pittsburgh.
What happened in your city, what happened in your state,
The times run out on all those things, I guess.
When they sampled all the municipal employees every week for a year.
Using tests that were EUA approved and sourced in China.
Many of them sourced from BGI.
It's all one big show, ladies and gentlemen.
It's all one big show and we are not, we are the slaves.
We are speaking slave speak as long as we argue with these people using their words and assume that most of these people are on our team, they are not.
They may not be aware of the malevolence on their side, but they are aware that sometimes you need to tell a noble lie.
Sometimes you need to, you know, make something black and white when it's not, when it comes to leading a country.
And I guarantee you a lot of these people understand that.
And the longer that they've been there, the more likely they are to understand that.
That may be the best explanation for why Tony Fauci has been there for as long as he's been.
Because he may not know the details, but he definitely knows that it's a theater.
And controlling that theater is how we are governed.
He knows that.
And in fact, it may be his job to optimize that theater.
And he may be have been successful in making that the primary theater.
And what was the primary theater before that?
I don't know.
Was it just physical war?
Like really kinetic warfare?
And now the manipulation is primarily not real killing in that sense, but it's like, you know, culling and it's mythologies about who we are as a people.
and what our biology is that they're controlling.
I don't really know, but I have a feeling that the component of biology and the mythology of biology that they've created, that component is becoming very, very important to their ability to govern us.
And that's why it's very, very dangerous that Mark is uncovering the history of that biology.
The history of these ideas is revealing their sort of vapidness and the cage that we are in is starting to become visible.
the opening of the cave is right there.
We can feel the fresh air.
It's because we're finally hearing through their slave speak.
We're finally understanding how it is that if you argue with the word vaccine, using the word vaccine.
So SARS-CoV-2.
Well, okay, I divert myself.
Of the other exciting possibilities, I'm sure we'll hear about many of them.
I will tell you the basic science of understanding life has just been transformed by the availability of genomics
single cell omics, both looking at transcripts and looking at chromatin structure has just phenomenally changed our view of what's going on in all sorts of human tissues and other organisms as well.
The whole metagenomic approach, which we're going to hear more about, become possible because sequencing is so fast and so cheap.
Applications, of course, cancer has to be at the top of that list.
Almost anyone who now develops a malignancy, you will want to know exactly how that set of cancer cells has
acquired mutations in DNA that may be driving the malignancy so that you can choose appropriately what the intervention should be.
Newborns now with questionable circumstances, not sure what the diagnosis is.
Sequencing the genome has almost become standard of care, because you can often make a diagnosis that way more quickly than otherwise would be possible.
And in many instances, that may lead to an important intervention, a therapy you wouldn't have thought of otherwise.
And of course, we've now brought this forward into much larger.
And so he says right there, he said it right there, that sequencing the whole genome of a baby has pretty much become standard of care.
And so I know there are some people in the chat who don't even think that they can do that.
To some extent, I do agree with you.
I think it's very possible that they only sequence the part of the genome that they consider significant, which is a very small percentage of the genome.
They may only do certain kinds of mapping techniques, certain kinds of targeted sequencing, which is really all they can ever do.
And so one of the reasons why it would be interesting to know, for example, what equipment was used at all of these PCR testing companies that are now out of business,
One of the interesting things to know there would be whether they had the
the mechanistic and methodological capabilities or the physical infrastructure to do full genome screens or not.
And the point I'm trying to make there is, again, about these two years of testing that I think is being revealed here in his cryptic language as actually being a creation of a remnant stream that would allow them to mass genome and mass genetically screen the entire population of America that participated.
Shoot, I just lost my train of thought because I saw that Time magazine.
I wish I could rewind it.
Darn it, what happened there?
I was a little glitch in the matrix there in my brain.
I'll come up with it in a second.
Let me just rewind him and see if I get cued up.
Circumstances, not sure what the diagnosis is.
Sequencing the genome has almost become standard of care because you can often make a diagnosis that way more quickly.
that otherwise would be possible.
And in many instances, that may lead to an important intervention or therapy that you wouldn't have thought of otherwise.
And of course, we've now brought this forward into much larger scale in terms of the ability to look at millions of genomes.
And so, yes, that's what I was trying to say is that the ability to look at millions of genomes is a recently acquired computer ability.
And what he is again trying to do, in my humble opinion, is make sure that everybody that's listening to him believes that it's very standard that they sequence a whole genome and not just make a restriction enzyme map of it in the places that they're interested in or screen for the easiest low-hanging fruit of diseases as an excuse to collect the genome of a baby.
And again, I don't want you to misconstrue what I'm saying.
I'm sure there are lots of good doctors and I'm sure there's lots of good investigators.
But exactly what he's describing here is exactly what Claire Craig was involved in before the pandemic, the 1000 Genomes Project, or rather it was called the 100,000 Genomes Project.
Now, what I just showed you on the Wikipedia page was a project called the 1000 Genomes Project.
And Claire Craig was actually involved at the start of the pandemic when it hit in 2019.
She was actively involved in a project called the 100,000 Genomes Project, which was also using genomes and sequencing to find genetic markers for disease and using AI to do it.
Those two authors are conspicuously found on the Corman-Jorston report that I think is central to understanding how this team had intended to control the narrative.
They weren't going to question the virus.
They weren't going to question the methodology in principle of using PCR to find it and to track it and to sequence it.
But instead, they were going to be put in place to be people that would be authorities on what we're doing wrong and what we're doing right.
And they would fuel this narrative of skepticism that was focused exclusively on how many cycles they used.
And if you do the homework, you can see that for over a year and a half, that's what Jessica Rose and Matt Crawford and Kevin McKernan were all saying was the primary thing.
You know, you can overcycle and cycling can give you, you know, viral counts, but it's not really viral count.
And there's live dead technology they could be using, but they're not.
And curiously enough, they still say that same crap now.
The last time that Kevin McKernan was on Brett Weinstein, which was earlier this year, he said exactly that.
Not that there's a background that they never made any effort to differentiate from.
Not that these PCR tests are not appropriate diagnostics in general.
Not that RNA cannot pandemic, but you know, the WHO did it wrong, or Jorstan did it too fast, or the peer review was too short, or there are primer dimers, or they're overcycling.
And that already started and seeded a narrative that no one would ever be able to usefully question the idea of PCR testing, and therefore no one would ever question what they're doing with those swabs after they test them.
Certainly, a particular million genome that we're looking forward to seeing is the All of Us program, which will be following a million very diverse individuals in the United States in the largest cohort study that NIH has ever announced.
The All of Us program, I have a, I'm pretty sure I have a card of that thing somewhere on my desk.
And that is a program that the NIH put together.
And as he said, it was designed to
I gotta see where it is.
Is it here?
No.
Here?
Where is it?
I have one.
Somewhere I have it.
Let me plug back in.
I'm sorry, my room is really, really a mess right now and I should be able to find it.
I don't think, I guess it's not on the green desk.
And so yeah, we are, I think this is really wonderful to see, because again, remember, let's put this in the right timeframe.
It is January of 2021.
He just got through announcing these new vaccines are just coming out.
They just got EUA approval.
And he said, down in cafeteria B, NIH employees are getting it right now from the Moderna shot.
That's what he said.
And so that's where we are in time.
He's not scared.
The pandemic doesn't make him scared at all.
He's very excited because we are on the verge of a new genomic revolution.
Just focused on genomics.
This is not just another genome project, but genomics is in there along with a lot of study of human behavior and environments and diet and exercise and socioeconomic status, everything that fits into health and illness, but made possible in terms of the omics part of it by all of these advances.
Wow, did you hear that?
Because of the advances in the omics, the genomics, the proteomics, the metagenomics, they are studying all kinds of socioeconomic things, all kinds of human behavioral things.
They are using it as an excuse.
Just like I have said with regard to Biology 101 being bad Biology 101 when you teach your kids that you are a product of your genes and those people over there with different genes than you are the reason why you can't succeed.
That is a terribly, terribly bad place for us to bring our kids up in, but that's how we were brought up.
And the only reason why I never bought into it is because I couldn't be hyphenated.
I have a tall white guy dad from Wisconsin.
So I can't be Filipino American.
And my mom is Indian and Filipino.
So I would be an Indian American or a Filipino American.
And then my dad's a tall white guy from Wisconsin.
So what do I say when I'm six foot five and kind of white, but not really with dark hair and dark eyes and a completely, you know, Wisconsin accent where I say, sorry.
My identity in college was no one, nobody.
I couldn't be in any group.
And so I never bought into the multiculturalism thing.
It never made any sense to me.
I just answered everybody.
I don't know what to say to those questions.
I'm just an American at this point.
And it turns out to be one of the main antidotes that I've always had in my brain that never, never allowed me to get sucked into this nonsense.
And it also allows me to hear how cryptically these people are talking now and how absolutely, I don't know what the right word is, but it's kind of like, you know, it pulls you in without you really even knowing it.
If you're an academic biologist and trying to learn how to write grants, trying to learn how everybody thinks that the idea of genes being primal
is very enticing because it allows your brain to explain so many things away.
It allows your brain to snap into place explanations that seem to make perfect sense but actually are woefully short of explaining anything.
It's a beautiful magic trick that they play on us.
And I think this, you know, a little enchantment that he did for the last three minutes is all part of it.
Being able to succinctly and entertainingly, and maybe even over a strumming guitar, tell a story is very, very good as an advanced, you know, immunomythologist or whatever you want to call this guy.
Ooh, this is beautiful to see.
Yeah, of course.
We're getting closer and closer to the point where our ability to look at the genome also leads us to therapeutic options.
the availability of gene editing, which is a relatively new event on the scene, beginning to cause us to dream about in vivo applications of gene editing for almost any genetic disease for which we know the specific mutation.
My own lab just last week in Nature published a paper with David Lu of the Broad Institute and Jonathan Brown of Vanderbilt
basically in an animal model of progeria, a dramatic form of premature aging, able to show that a single intravenous infusion of a gene editing apparatus targeted specifically to a single letter in the genome, a T that needs to be reverted back to its wild type sequence of a C,
resulted in life extension of that animal, which is a pretty good model of a human disease, by almost threefold, and the most significantly dramatic result I've ever seen of a gene therapy intervention, and obviously much hopes, therefore, that that could be extrapolated to humans as well.
Now, the interesting thing about it is that in all the models of genetic organisms or genetic manipulation that they use in order to extrapolate to humans, you can, on a macro scale, see that the stability of their pattern integrity is not maintained or as fragile as ours is.
And I'm going to give you a very brief, but I think a very poignant example.
You cannot make
It is very difficult to make genetically pure inbred strains of any animal higher than say a mouse or maybe a rat and even them rats are not as inbred as mice can be.
In the same sort of anecdotal way it is comparatively easier to make a genetic
knockout mouse than it is to make a genetic knockout monkey.
Another anecdotal example would be inbreeding.
If you were to take dogs and inbreed one generation of dogs into another generation of dogs into another generation of dogs from the original parents
that you started with on your farm, I think you can imagine very quickly how the beautiful traits of the father and the beautiful traits of the mom would not be, you know, what you would primarily see in the offspring, you know, five generations later.
And I don't know what that would look like, but it wouldn't be more better dogs.
Most likely it would be dogs that weren't as smart and maybe even dogs that weren't as healthy.
And I think you all are very aware of the times in history where this has occurred in human genealogy.
And again, you have a scenario where, generally speaking, that family isn't very healthy.
And certainly, if this was done on any scale, then you would be left with very genetically inferior human stock.
On the other hand, I think anybody that's owned lots of dogs knows that a mixed breed dog, like a husky, like a Alaskan sled dog, like a Leonberger, or like a mutt, oftentimes these are extremely healthy dogs and extremely smart.
The remarkable example of that in recent dog breeding are these doodles because a lot of times doodles aren't very smart and they're certainly not as smart as poodles are in general and they're definitely usually not as smart.
Well, they might be as smart as the Labrador part but then the Labrador is already a very, very, very
unstable mentality, let's say, and very focused.
And so if you add some degree of curiousness or thoughtlessness or thoughtfulness from a poodle, you just get a maniac dog.
And what am I really talking about here?
What I'm trying to say is that what he just expounded on and the ability to edit a single T and the result is like three times as long a life and it's a pretty good experimental model of the disease in humans is a absolute, it's false.
It's not, that's not at all where we're at.
And the reason why is because our pattern integrity is different.
And we have spent an inordinate amount of time ignoring the differences and trying to identify all the mechanisms that we share in common with the simplest examples of pattern integrities on earth.
And so one just kind of tiny little idea here that will kind of hopefully help you a little bit understand what I'm saying without me saying too much.
is that if this is all the biology and all the complications of bacteria and these are all the facts and figures and stuff about let's say yeast and inside of our biology there is a let's say a significant portion of which we share with yeast
and another significant portion that we stare with bacteria.
And then this is like human and so we share maybe some of this with other mammals.
We share some of this with other vertebrates.
My point would be here that Bad Biology 101, because we start with everything has DNA and therefore evolution,
Working on bad biology 101 must work from the pretense that we want to understand how our DNA works by looking at simpler examples of how DNA works.
And my argument in new biology 101 would be that if we want to understand the human pattern integrity,
then it's actually the most important part are the parts that we don't share with them.
And our entire infrastructure of science, all of the minds of science for a couple generations have been bent on trying to figure out what parts that we share with bacteria and what parts of our molecular homeostasis we share with yeast.
and what few disorders we can explain using these biological mechanisms and maybe even the proteins or the enzymes that are shared historically or let's say that are shared between these, I don't know if it's historically or not, but let's say that there are common mechanisms and moleculars
molecular reactions that we share in common and enzymatic assistance that we share in common.
The difference between us and them is what makes us human.
And by definition, the way that we approach our biology through bad biology, we ignore that part.
And in fact, we ignore that part in when we try to appreciate
any other lower animal.
We use that lower animal as a way of bridging between the molecular understanding of the simplest forms of life on Earth and arguably the most complicated forms of life on Earth.
And we ignore all the forms of life on Earth that might be in a very similar evolutionary position than we might be even as we talk about evolution as real.
In other words, Bret Weinstein pretends that evolution is real so much so that actually that is the superior science and if you don't think evolutionarily then really you can't really be doing science and evolution impinges on everyone's understanding of everything and so that's what makes him so valuable and so smart.
But if that's the case, then you're going to have to evaluate the brain
of a manatee, the brain of a killer whale, the brain of a dolphin, the brain of a large baleen whale, and think very carefully, okay, so what's going on here?
What are we missing?
What have we done?
But those convenient questions are completely ignored because, again, the point is to try and bridge the gap between these very simple pattern integrities and our own by ignoring everything that makes our own pattern integrity unique and focus on things that's shared across the pattern integrities on Earth.
That's like trying to say you want to really appreciate what makes a Formula 1 car a Formula 1 car, and then you're looking at, you know, ball bearings.
I don't know what to say, ladies and gentlemen, but I do think that the Bad Biology 101, the DNA, therefore evolution, is breakable.
and it is replaceable.
That's the most important thing that I've ever learned from Buckminster Fuller is that you can't break something without having something to replace it.
And in fact, sometimes the offering of the replacement is what facilitates the breaking of the old.
It is the actual replacement that is the breaking.
And so I think that's where my work is centered right now is trying to articulate that way of replacing bad biology with a new biology 101 with ideas like this.
Well, we have to continue to work to make sure these technologies advance and that they're accessible.
And I hope we'll also keep our eyes focused on the importance of applying this across the world.
And I'm sure Charles will talk about that.
but not just the people we study, but the people doing the study also need to be of the most diverse sorts, since we're talking about our shared inheritance of the human genome.
So with that little bit of introduction, and I should not go on longer, because I will take away the time from the people that you really came to hear, let me stop at this point and introduce our first real speaker, which is Dr. Claire Bray.
Claire got her PhD at State University of New York at Buffalo.
She was then on the faculty at Roswell Park Cancer Institute,
And then was at NIH from 1985 to 1992 at NINDS and then NIAAA, became a section chief and then moved over to the Institute for Genomic Research, TIGER, where she was and became president and director from 98 to 2007.
Since then, she has been at the University of Maryland, where she is the Dean's Endowed Professor and Director for the Institute of Genome Sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
She is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine.
She has, I guess, just about finished her term as president of AAAS and chair of the board of directors, which she's about to become.
She's a wonderful friend to many of us.
She has been a wonderful person in terms of willingness to help NIH with all kinds of advice and review processes that we depend on experts for.
And it is a personal delight to be able to introduce her to you here as part of this special genomics symposium.
Dr. Frazier, please proceed.
Thank you so much, Francis.
I am absolutely delighted to be here.
Just want to confirm that you can see my slides before I launch in.
Yes?
There's one thing from Outlander that I always remember and my wife are always laughing about.
There's that one guy that I don't remember his name, but he was one of the good Scottish characters.
And he said something like, I'd like to grind your corn.
That was the worst Scottish accent ever, I won't do it again, but that's the one thing that I still laugh about every once in a while, it's very funny.
Hey, Housatonic Link, thank you very much, Osen.
Yes.
Okay, great, thank you.
Well, I really have the pleasure today of representing two of the domains of life, the bacteria and the archaea, and we'll have the opportunity to speak about how genomics has absolutely transformed our understanding of microbial life on Earth.
put my comments in a bit of a historical perspective.
I think that- Oh my gosh.
Is that really what, is that really what Housatonic, that's the story.
I knew it was something like that.
So it's, it's Mark Venter's wife, Ventner's wife, and she's the one who identified a Marathrax as being from Bruce Ivan's jars.
This is the lady.
Oh, wow.
Interesting.
Holy cow.
Perfect.
Thank you very much for that tip, Pete.
It's important because for, um,
students and postdocs who are maybe new to the genomics field, I always think it's important to remind them how far we have come.
And I think this historical perspective, which I assure you will be brief, will also showcase how much has been accomplished in the past 25 years in the field of microbial genomics.
For me and a number of colleagues, this is where it all began at the Institute for Genomic Research in 1993 in warehouse space in Gaithersburg.
At the time, we were one of the largest DNA sequencing facilities in the world.
with 20 Applied Biosystems 373 sequencers.
Most of the effort was focused on human cDNA sequencing.
And in our first full year of operation- CDNA means that they were growing the DNA to sequencable quantities using bacterial cultures.
Tiger completed the sequencing.
The effort was focused on human cDNA sequencing.
And in our first full year of operation, Tiger completed the sequencing of just over 101,000 samples
which represented a heroic effort.
But we really shifted gears in 1994.
I'm not sure that that means they sequenced 100,000 genomes, but it could.
I don't know.
in large part due to a serendipitous meeting between Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith at an ethics meeting in Spain.
Ham Smith, who was at Hopkins at the time.
No, what it means is that she blamed Bruce Ivins, who we don't think is the guy who released the anthrax.
And then Bruce Ivins committed suicide, which is also something that's not very likely that Bruce Ivins did.
So that's why it's suspicious.
Sorry.
And had been working on haemophilus influenza his entire career.
put forward the idea that perhaps we could deploy the Tiger sequencing and analysis pipeline to see if we could I wish I wish Mark was here because I actually also think that means that she's connected because I thought that the person who they used as Who suggested that it might be Bruce Ivins?
Also said that there was some kind of you know She felt uncomfortable around Bruce or something when they were in a grad grad student lab together or something and that might be this lady, too
actually sequence an entire bacterial chromosome using whole genome shotgun sequencing.
The idea here was not to do any mapping, but just to fragment the genome into pieces of known size, sequence both ends of each of these plasmid and cosmic clones, and then hope that you had an assembly algorithm that would put it all back together again.
So we started this somewhat as really a flyer.
Nobody was convinced this was going to work.
But as Dr. Collins said in his introduction, the first complete sequence of a bacterial species, a freely living organism, was published in Science in July of 1985.
This was a project led by Rob Fleischman.
It's really remarkable to me to look back at what this entailed.
It cost about $750,000 for one bacterial genome sequence, took about 13 months.
and the effort of about 40 people, our assembly represents... Holy shit.
Okay, so now I know you know that this is true, right?
But you can read it, right?
It's Haemophilus influenzae.
Now, if you read the small text here, which I can read but you probably can't, natural host is human 6H influenzae serotype strains.
Serotype strains, serotype being antibody response to, there are 6 different antibody specific strains have been identified on the basis of immunologically distinct capillary
polysaccharide antigens.
So, what their bacterial coat is made of has apparently six different potential interesting unique epitopes, maybe damage associated molecular patterns.
Non-typeable strains also exist and are distinguished by their lack of detectable capular polysaccharide.
They are commensal residents of the upper respiratory mucosa of children and adults and cause otitis media and respiratory tract infections, mostly in children.
More serious invasive infection is caused almost exclusively by type B strains.
with meningitis producing neurological sequelae in up to 50% of affected children.
A vaccine based on type B capillary antigen is now available and has dramatically reduced the incidence of disease in Europe and in North America.
The Hib-Titer vaccine was one of the most toxic vaccines ever to be recorded in the record books in America and actually Brian Hooker is doing some good work on that.
That vaccine is no longer on the market anymore and it's interesting because that vaccine was actually constructed of a small antigen taken from this bacteria and a large protein taken from the diphtheria toxin.
That's correct.
You heard me right.
A comparatively tiny portion of the Haemophilus influenzae capillary protein polysaccharide was conjugated to the diphtheria toxin.
And then that was the contents of the intramuscular injection called the Hib-Titer vaccine.
It's now off the market.
That was actually a product of a Pfizer subsidiary as I understand it.
Are we talking here about the actual cause of flu?
It is a commensural resident of all respiratory tracts, children and adults, and it causes respiratory disease.
There are six strains of it.
Six serotypes.
I guess since it's a bacteria, it has bacteriophages.
I think you see where I'm going with this.
It had just over 24,000 DNA fragments,
After enormous efforts in finishing and closure, we did end up with a single circular chromosome, just over 1.8 million base pairs in size.
Predicted number of open reading frames, just under 1800.
But I think for all of us, one of the biggest surprises, besides the fact that we were able to accomplish this project, was that 32% of the predicted open... What I'm saying is, is that influenza is based on a virus, but there's a bacteria with the name influenza, and it causes respiratory disease, and it's present in all lungs on earth.
in the mucosa of the upper respiratory tract, where supposedly SARS-CoV-2 replicates.
But if there's a bacteria that's there in everybody, then that means there are also phages that infect that bacteria in everybody, which means there's a background signal of that bacteria and its DNA and its RNA and its bacteriophages.
And that's just one component of our upper respiratory tract mucosal microbiome.
And it just happens to be the first full genome targeted bacteria that they chose to target.
in 1995.
What does non-spreadable mean, though?
What does that mean?
I mean, in the current context of our lack of understanding of what spreadability means, I don't know what that means.
I don't know how to think about that anymore, because I don't have a good idea of how things spread and what things spread and don't spread.
And I think I've been very much misled by how things are spreading through my whole life.
And so I don't want to pretend like I now know how it works, because I don't think I do.
And that's the point.
Breeding frames represented proteins of unknown function.
This was not at all what we were expecting.
But we took a step back and said, well, this is by no means a minimal organism.
So maybe we shouldn't have expected that we would be able to place every gene into a known biochemical pathway.
So the next project that we undertook in the microbial genomics space with funding from the Department of Energy was the sequence of mycoplasma genitalium, truly a minimal bacterial species.
It had been estimated based on pulse field gel work that the gene size and the number of genes was probably on the order of about 400.
Mycoplasma is something that a lot of people in our space talk about a lot of times as being very important.
Toxoplasmosis also.
I'm not incredibly familiar with these kinds of things.
I just know that they exist.
70 genes, and those estimates were remarkably accurate.
This was accomplished much more quickly.
We had everything in place that we needed, and this work was published late in October, later in 1995.
And it's also very, again, this is a lot of the same kind of spellcasting.
How do we understand that they estimated that there might be 470 genes?
And then as she says, they were remarkably accurate in their estimation.
I mean, do they open the box and then find 17 genes on the bottom and then open another side and though there's the other 463 or 53 genes?
Is that how they do it?
Like, I don't understand what she's talking about, but again, it's the same kind of hand-waving that all of these people do.
They tell you this really abbreviated history and assumption after assumption and assumption after assumption.
And our assumptions were pretty good.
And again, to our complete and utter surprise, about 30% of the predicted open reading frames in Mycoplasma were novel.
And I think that
At that point, we all decided that we had to accept that this was a fact and that there was a lot of biology that we didn't understand, in this case, even of a minimal organism.
And I think we all have seen that this has been a recurring theme in all of the genome projects for the past 25 years.
Well, wait, so when we sequence things, we find out that we understand very little about them after we sequence them, then how in the world are we using intramuscular injection of a combination of substances to augment the immune system of healthy kids?
Nevermind, how are we now using transfection to do the same thing?
That statement was absolutely concurrent with the rollout of mRNA and adenovirus-based vaccines around the world right now at this time, January 2021.
She says that.
With the two successes in the literature, all of the major funding agencies in the United States quickly jumped on the microbial genomics sequencing analysis bandwagon.
The Department of Energy started out with a microbial genomics initiative, and that has, over a number of iterations, morphed into the JGI out in Walnut Creek, California.
The NIH, particularly NIAID, initially funded multiple individual pathogen genome projects, and they have now, for almost 20 years, funded genome centers or genome sequencing centers for infectious diseases.
So she did say it, right?
NIAID.
That's Fauci's particular part of NIH that has funded the majority of this.
NSF and USDA.
also got heavily involved and focused on pathogens of interest and relevant to each of their missions.
And I think this really speaks to the fact.
The USDA is interesting to mention here because the USDA could be considered a national security priority and therefore there's probably a lot of military money going in there somehow.
The fact that bacteria are everywhere.
and they impact life in lots of different ways.
Bacteria are everywhere, but they played absolutely no role in respiratory disease.
Respiratory disease is almost exclusively viruses.
Don't you see it now?
Viruses that replicate in your upper respiratory tract or deep in your respiratory tract, depending on who you talk to and what virus it is.
Bacteria play no role in human disease.
No meaningful role in human disease at all.
It's all viruses.
Even though we have flora living on us that are composed of organisms that are interesting enough to be the first targeted sequencing in the world's history.
Sure.
I think if you asked any of us, even the most optimistic back in 1995, where this would go, never would we have imagined where we are today.
This is information that I pulled recently from the Genomes Online database at JGI.
This tries to keep track of all of the projects that are underway, looking at genomes, metagenomes, metatranscriptomes, numbers of organisms that have been targeted with genome sequencing.
That number is well over 400,000 now.
And this is really a big deal because initially,
there was ever been targeted, tries to keep track of all of the projects that are underway, looking at genomes, metagenomes, metatranscriptomes, numbers of organisms.
Now she has not explained what a metagenome is or a metatranscriptome is.
And so in theory, they could be creating 100% false knowledge here.
It could be really like turning on a ham radio to a wide band sample and just recording it and then saying, wow, we got so much data today.
We got to feed that into the algorithm and analyze it.
We're going to collect just as much data tomorrow.
And I think to a large extent, that's what we're dealing with here.
It is a lot of implied fidelity and implied understanding that is absolutely and positively false.
have been targeted with genome sequencing.
That number is well over 400,000 now.
And this is really a big deal because initially there was effort underway not to duplicate sequencing effort on any, on strains of the same organism.
And this was- Now I'm not saying that they, it is possible that a lot of the technology invented in the Human Genome Project has enabled the sequencing of genomes.
Just like it's possible that if you could invent a photocopier that would allow you to photocopy handwritten Chinese books from ancient times and make lots of copies of them for everybody.
But it wouldn't help you translate them.
And so it is possible that, you know, after a lot of study of the Chinese books by making lots of copies of them that we found some phrases and some combinations of characters that seem to be repeated.
But again, to imply that that means we're starting to understand the Chinese language and all its nuances is absolutely ridiculous.
And to a certain extent, I think we may now be at the stage where the fake it till you make it script is at where the collection of the data has begun.
They're gonna collect it, and hopefully they'll be able to link up enough Nvidia cards in the next 20 years so that that data can then be fed in.
And in the meantime, they're just going to keep faking it until you make it.
They're going to keep having people like Ray Kurzweil or say, it's just 10 years from now.
It's just 10 years from now.
Because cost in the early days was such a prohibitive factor, but it's been extraordinarily gratifying to see where this has gone as someone who was there at the beginning.
One of the things that we have clearly seen is that comparative genomics has been a very powerful tool in giving us insights about microbial diversity and evolution, processes like genome reduction, rearrangement, gene duplication are critically important, but I think one of the biggest surprises, again, that came out of comparative approach was the
finding that lateral gene transfer, transfer of genes or sets of genes or operons, not only within the bacterial domain, but between the bacterial and archaeal domain.
Now, my suggestion to you is what you need to hear is how you are being bombarded by vocabulary that you would have to look up, and so would I. Lateral gene transfer shaping microbial genomes is not something the average adult can understand, but instead is sort of bamboozled by in a slave-speak sort of way.
You almost find yourself saying, yes, Masa, I understand everything you're saying.
Masa, I know.
You're so smart, Masa.
That's what I feel like when somebody talks like this to me.
When they try to drop names and obscure terms that you've never heard of, like live dead technology.
Genome arrangement, gene duplication, acquisition of new genes, bilateral gene transfer.
Sure makes it sound like DNA, therefore evolution, doesn't it?
And it's the certainty with which these words are tossed out.
and combined that makes the enchantment so mesmerizing.
And then all the people that are listening just have to feel good because I know what that word means.
I know what that word means.
I looked that one up before.
I remember what that means because I heard someone else say it.
And so they feel like that in this thing, you know, it's like playing guitar hero on the Sega or whatever machine that's on.
And you just feel like, yeah, I'm rocking it.
I'm rocking it.
I know what that means.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm cool.
It's rewarding to listen to this.
If you think you know what she's talking about and that she's just smarter than you and you're keeping up.
And that's how academics get their reward at all of these seminars.
That's how they, they get to the point where they almost fall asleep in the seminar because the seminar never gets past what they've already, you know, rehearsed a million times themselves.
So life was probably an important driving force in generating microbial diversity.
I think another really important concept that came out of these comparative studies, particularly when we were looking at multiple isolates of the same species, was what became known as the pan-genome concept.
There were a number of early studies which demonstrated extensive genetic diversity in isolates of the same species.
In some cases, this first example was with E. coli.
Depending upon what strain you were working with, 20 to 35 percent of the genes in a given E. coli strain appeared to be unique to that strain.
The idea that emerged was that dispensable and strain-specific genes probably were involved in facilitating adaptations to various niches.
I think a really important concept was that the number of dispensable and strain-specific genes for any given species may greatly outnumber the size of the core genome.
And it became clear that it would never be possible to describe a particular species with a single genome sequence.
Wow!
Listen to that!
And that's just about the simple stuff.
Dispensable and strain-specific genes likely facilitate niche adaptations.
If these kinds of processes are kind of accepted to happen at the level of bacteria and archaeobacteria and yeast, then what are we really talking about here with regard to trying to understand our own
pattern integrity.
Well, we're talking about this problem right here, right?
This is the problem we're talking about.
That they have us focused on the mechanisms that we share in common rather than the mechanisms that make us unique.
That might make us the gain-of-function organism of all gain-of-function organisms or something like that.
If they believe in evolution, then they should believe that we are probably the ultimate product of evolution, and all the current animals on Earth are the ultimate products of evolution, and all the unique mechanisms that are present in us should be expected to be unique across each individual species that is a separate pattern integrity manifest after evolution.
And yet somehow or another, they only are focused on the molecular mechanisms, the details of things that we share in common with these very simple background pattern integrities that may be artifacts or may be necessary substrate upon which we exist.
It may not be possible to have as beautiful and complicated a pattern integrity as ourselves without all of the more simple pattern integrities around us that serve, again, as a sort of substrate for us.
And that's a very different way of understanding ourselves and our environment and our role in it.
It's a very different way of understanding the irreducible complexity of sacred creation if you start thinking about it that way, instead of the way these people want you to think about it, where you're as simple as DNA, RNA, and protein, and everything else is outside of you.
Think about this.
She is just marveling at the complexity of these tiny genomes and our inability to understand them by single genome sequencing.
But the Human Genome Project was announced complete in 2001 after a single genome wasn't even sequenced, but just restriction enzyme mapped.
Size of the core genome.
And it became clear that it would never be possible to describe a particular species with a single genome sequence.
One of the other, I think, really important concepts that emerged from the pan-genome notion was the idea that you could use this kind of information, looking at genes that are shared versus genes that are unique in the field of reverse vaccinology.
This was something that was coined by Reno Rapuli and his colleagues at Chiron Vaccines, a group at Tiger, still has a very longstanding collaboration with Reno and his colleagues.
And the idea here is really very simple.
You don't have to start by growing an organism in culture.
You can start with a genome sequence, look to identify potential vaccine candidates here in panel B. These would presumably be candidates that might be secreted or be found in the outer membrane or the periplasmic space or the inner membrane.
You could then take each of these candidates individually, purify them, immunize,
animals in preclinical studies do serological analysis.
Please keep in mind that in this diagram, it's right there to bacterial surface associated proteins.
We are not talking about reverse vaccinology for viruses.
Identify the most robust vaccine candidates and then look to see what the sequence conservation might be with the idea being that you want to try and find potential
vaccine candidates that are highly conserved, which would increase the range for a given vaccine.
We put this idea to a test with this first project on Neisseria meningitidis, your Group B, again, a Tiger-Chiron collaboration.
And about four years after completing the genome sequence of MenB, vaccine candidates entered clinical trials.
And a number of years later, after various iterating, the objective increased the range for a given vaccine.
We put this idea to a test with this first project on Neisseria meningitidis, serogroup B, again, a Tiger-Chiron collaboration.
And about four years after completing the genome sequence of MenB, vaccine candidates entered clinical trials.
I did not see, I didn't hear that.
I'm going to go back a little farther.
I didn't hear that name.
It could have been.
Coined by Rino Rapuli and his colleagues at Chiron Vaccines.
a group at Tiger, still has a very longstanding collaboration with Reno and his colleagues.
And the idea here is really very simple.
He did say Reno.
She said Reno and colleagues.
You don't have to start by growing an organism in culture.
You can start with a genome sequence, look to identify potential vaccine candidates here in panel B. These would presumably be candidates that might be secreted or be found in the outer membrane or the periplasmic space or the inner membrane.
You could then take each of these candidates individually,
purify them, immunize animals in preclinical studies, do serological analysis to identify the most robust vaccine candidates, and then look to see what the sequence conservation might be, with the idea being that you want to try and find potential
Here she says that in that figure, right?
It's bactericidal activity here.
So she's talking about vaccines for bacteria, just like she's talking about sequencing bacteria.
And I find that extraordinary because, of course, Frances Collins just got through introducing her and lauding the fact that this technology was allowing them to make millions of sequences of the various important variants of concern of the novel circulating coronavirus.
Stop lying!
vaccine candidates that are highly conserved, which would increase the range for a given vaccine.
We put this idea to a test with this first project on Neisseria meningitidis group B, again, a Tiger-Chiron collaboration.
And about four years after completing the genome sequence of MenB, vaccine candidates entered clinical trials.
And a number of years later, after various iterations and improvements in a cocktail of MenB antigens
this vaccine, Bexsero, made it to market from GSK, and this is the first vaccine that was developed solely using the reverse vaccinology approach, another accomplishment that we are very proud of.
Microbial genomics has played a key role in helping to develop the field of microbial forensics.
Jacques Ravel, Dave Rasko, and I at TIGER spent seven years working with
the FBI on the Amerithrax investigation.
And what we were able to ultimately do is to use complete genome analysis to demonstrate that there were mutations in these various morphotypes of Bacillus anthracis that had been recovered from the material sent through the mail.
These genome differences allowed for the development of PCR-based assays that were used to screen over 1,100 anthrax stocks from labs around the world.
and provided some very robust evidence, I think, that pointed to a potential source of the material that was material for this anthrax mailing.
Microbial genomics has also played important roles in surveillance and outbreak tracking.
By no means is this meant to be a complete list, but this has really become the way in which outbreaks are tracked because it gives now quick information and information with exquisite sensitivity.
I think for me, one of the most exciting developments in the entire field was when we moved from looking at single isolates that you had to grow in culture into metagenomics beyond the single genome here.
In a key paper published in 2004, Joe Handelsman made a very compelling point that if we really want to understand microbes, we need to be looking at them in their natural environments because that's where they live.
They don't live in isolation.
We could think about this now in 2004 because DNA sequencing.
Of course, Sabine Hazan is also big on metagenomic sequencing of the whole metabiome.
And she's also come on the scene as a important dissident because she sequenced the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the gut, which is, it's just all very extraordinary.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to stop here at one hour and 41.
I might watch the rest of this tomorrow, but
The Mark Lander presentation in this is also really good.
And I think I saw somebody dropped it in.
This is from an NIH videocast.
So if you want to look for it, you got to look for the title and then look for the NIH videocast.
And it's on an NIH website that I downloaded it from.
I am going to leave it there because I do want to still get to the gym and get something usefully done.
This has been a giga-ohm biological presentation.
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture, you just have to get people to stop reading them, and I think that's what they've done.
I'm pretty sure that they've created an illusion of consensus about this biology that ranges from very unwieldy skepticism that there's no viruses at all and that molecular biology is a complete lie to the need to fear gain-of-function RNA molecules or natural viruses.
And this spectrum of debate was maintained by these same people who are now really weirdly transitioning to a almost common sense list of things we should have changed 15 or 20 years ago and ignoring the elephants in the room that include murder and lies using PCR and a population pyramid in need of managing.
And I do think that it's very easy to see who's responsible.
I think there are a lot of unwitting participants, but I think there are a couple key people in the pseudo-populist movement that is now the Health Freedom Maha movement.
They are very obviously part of this because
They haven't made any useful progress in all the time that they've been on stage.
I think that's how you can see them.
And I think that thinking about them the way that Noam Chomsky or Edward Bernays wants us to think about them, I think is the most effective way.
This is our way out, understanding that they've done this to us.
Thank you very much for being here.
I'll see you again tomorrow.
For sure, for sure, for sure tomorrow.
you