I put this on sub stack.
I have about 16,000 followers on sub stack,
and I'm gaining a lot of traction right now
on Rumble as well.
So, just so you know.
Fantastic.
I mean, I haven't posted as much on Rumble as I should.
Twitch ended up being a place to hide,
but it's worked out okay.
Okay, I'm ready.
All right.
Dr. Cooley, welcome to the Medical Truth Podcast.
How are you doing today?
Very fine to meet you.
Thank you very much for having me.
I, like I said in the beginning, I could be worse.
Nice day today, so I'm happy.
Good, good.
So, share with the viewers and listeners
of the Medical Truth Podcast
as to who you are and what you do.
Okay, my name is Jonathan Cooley.
I've been an academic or used to be an academic biologist
for about 22 years.
I was a wannabe doctor for a long time
when I was a teenager and a young adult.
I detoured into high school teaching
while I was trying to get into med school.
And then I actually stumbled into research biology
as a side job, thinking that eventually
I was gonna go to med school,
but I discovered very quickly
that I really enjoyed academic biological research.
And so I did it for a couple of years
using a microscope and doing all kinds of things
that I thought were really fun.
And that led me to being invited to do my PhD
in the Netherlands with somebody who I met
at the University of Chicago
during this little research assistant job.
And so I did my PhD in the Netherlands.
This was after a long time living in Chicago
as an adult, not knowing what I wanted to do.
So I moved to the Netherlands when I was 31 years old
to do my PhD.
And it was there during my PhD in neurobiology,
studying mouse brains that I met my wife.
We moved to Norway where I received more training
in again, neurobiology and mouse brains and rat brains.
And we lived in Norway for four years where we had two sons.
We went back to the Netherlands to try to get tenure,
again, just following my career.
That didn't work out because the Netherlands
is a pretty small country and I'm not Dutch
and I didn't get an ERC grant, that's the way it works.
And so I still had this ace in the hole
where I was an American.
So I brought my whole family back to Pittsburgh in 2016
just in time for Trump to get elected.
And we spent about three years working,
I spent three years working at the University of Pittsburgh
before the pandemic hit.
And at that time, I was just rediscovering my love
for teaching and I had sort of reinvigorated
this love of teaching by starting a YouTube channel
where I was doing Journal Club on my bicycle.
I had about a nine mile commute to the University
of Pittsburgh on an electric assisted bicycle.
And so I started teaching,
I started doing Journal Club on my bike.
And when the pandemic started,
I remembered that my postdoc in the Netherlands
had been at the Erasmus University Medical Center
in Rotterdam where they had enriched avian flu
in 2012 while I was actually still there.
And so I had heard some of these seminars
and I heard people joke about what they're doing
on the 17th floor.
But it never really dawned on me that it didn't really matter.
You know, I was a neurobiologist and I stuck to my thing
and I was, you know, worried about my career.
But then when this happened,
it dawned on me that I'd heard this story before
and I found a couple reasonably good reviews
of coronavirus biology and I read them
and then I read the papers that they cited
and then I just decided to do a bike ride
where I speculated about what might happen
if a coronavirus were to get out of a laboratory
and I did three bike rides on my YouTube channel
where I described the history of coronavirus research,
what we knew and what we didn't.
I made lots of mistakes in the first couple of videos.
But the third video was pretty good
and that got the attention of my faculty
and they actually told me that I shouldn't be speaking
to any newspapers and that virology wasn't
my expertise, okay?
That was how they ended the email, okay?
With a question mark and I don't know,
I just kept questioning things and in October of 2020,
I remember clearly seeing some video of Bill Gates
over a lighted table explaining with little models
how the newest vaccine was gonna work
and I remember getting very angry and saying,
that's not a vaccine, that's just transfection.
That's what I do to my mice.
So I think if you really put me in 2019
or at the beginning of 2020,
what you would find is a biologist
who would give his kids all of his vaccines,
you would find a biologist who respected
the medical field and thought that being a doctor
was the highest calling and had more respect
for doctors than anybody else.
I didn't have any inkling of the kind of corruption
and mythology that modern medicine in America was based on.
And when we moved here, I told you we had two children,
we had our daughter here actually
and on the day of her birth,
when she got the first two shots of vitamin K
and the hepatitis B shot, I was just shocked.
And the only reason why I was shocked
is because we had our first two kids in Norway
where the childhood vaccination schedule
is completely different and more importantly,
they're not really interested in doing it quick.
And in fact, if you give the doctors a plan
of how you're gonna breastfeed your kid until X age,
then any and all vaccinations can be delayed.
And so the way that they went about telling you
how to care for your baby,
the way they went about teaching you to care for your baby
was one of sacredness and of purity
and your baby is already perfect.
And then to have a child in America
and immediately see this huge contrast
where two shots as soon as they came out
and no talk of whether we do it
or when we do it or whatever,
I was my wife and I were in tears
and we still didn't fully get it.
It wasn't until 2022 that I started to really understand
the depth and the breadth of the deception that was going on.
So I don't wanna jump too far ahead.
Yeah.
And I think that's all.
Yeah, I wanted to back up to 2019 and 20.
So we're in a place where all of us are,
at that time I still had the medical practice
of bricks and mortar medical practice that was.
And we hear the announcement of this coronavirus
and I know at that time there was a lot of jokes about it
with on social media,
comparing it to the corona beer and all this other stuff.
And then the media really got a hold of it.
And I heard an interview where you said,
you pretty much says, you start taking out old textbooks
and start reading them and started going through
and saying something's wrong here.
So let's start there.
Sure, so I think the first thing to keep in mind
is that as a research faculty at a medical school,
I was not confident of anything.
I didn't know or think that I knew what I was talking about
at the beginning of the pandemic.
I was as taken aback as everybody else,
but my immediate decision was that I had
an immunology course a few years ago.
Why can't I get that book out and start reading?
Why can't I teach myself this immunology
and see if I can figure out who's lying and who's not?
And that might sound at rather arrogant,
but you must remember, and I'm sure you do,
that at the beginning of this pandemic,
we were told by everyone that it was a novel virus
and so we knew nothing about it.
And that key admission was what made everything incongruent
because in all the previous literature
with the discussion of RNA viruses,
there was much more of a discussion of general mechanisms
by which your immune system rejects foreign genetic material
and the different subtypes of viruses and stuff
didn't matter so much with regard to the general mechanisms
by which your body defends itself from these signals.
And so that was the first clue that my nose
was pointed in the right place
because all of these papers from the 90s
and the early 2000s around the original SARS
stated very clearly that our immune memory
to coronaviruses was broad,
that our immune memory to coronavirus was dampened
because the body seemed to understand
that responding with a strong immune response
to something like a coronavirus was the wrong way to go.
And this also became corroborated
with reading about veterinary vaccines in particular
because veterinary vaccines as you're probably aware
are much easier to throw out into the market.
They're much easier to get out there
and therefore there's a lot more anecdotal evidence
of vaccine candidates just not working out.
Right.
I do have a question for you.
So they did announce it was a novel coronavirus, right?
Because I did the same thing you did.
I pulled out books.
I started reading articles online
that were not quite censored yet.
And I started reading about a little bit of a history
on the coronavirus in that it had been around since 1963.
I read it out of the National Institute of Health's publication
and that some of the vectors and carriers of it are animals,
right?
So it wasn't anything new, right?
The coronavirus wasn't anything new.
And then we personally experienced it in 2003 and 2004
in the fall of those years because that was a flu season.
It was a real bad flu season at that time.
So the public obviously was kind of blindsided
with this announcement by the media.
And then of course, as you know, and I know and everybody,
the media kind of grabbed the narrative
and then you had these news reporters, these media people,
who were trying to control the narrative
along with these other pillars that medical, pharmaceutical
and all this other stuff.
So go ahead, you're back to where you were.
No, so I think that's really the heart of this
is to understand that in order for the entire mythology
of the pandemic to take hold,
the very first thing they had to establish in everybody's mind
was that this was a new thing
that nobody had seen it before
and therefore everybody was equally vulnerable.
And that of course was a terrible exaggeration,
irrespective of how exactly the pathogen was present,
or not present and how fast it was spreading
or where it actually was, the idea,
the biological concept that there is an RNA virus
for which all of us are vulnerable
because we've never seen it before,
only applies to babies that are born right now.
After that, like you're already in the world
and your immune system is already interacting.
And so just the concept of an RNA molecule
that's so novel that our body can't deal with it
is ridiculous.
And that's really one side of this two-sided mythology.
The other side of that mythology, of course,
is the idea that an RNA molecule
can successfully circle the planet all by itself.
And I think that's probably where really
the rubber meets the road for me
because it took me two and a half years,
almost three years to get to the stage
where I was sophisticated enough to ask the right question.
And with regard to 2019 and 2020,
what they did to all of us,
the smartest doctors, the most intrepid investigators,
was convince us to ask the wrong question.
And that wrong question is,
is this a natural virus or is this a lab leak?
And they made it seem like that was the heart of the matter.
That's what we really had to figure out.
And if we figured out that and we figured out who did it,
then we would solve this mystery
and we could set things straight.
And that was a ruse.
That was entirely a ruse.
Yeah, and then if I remember correctly,
it wasn't until like, I think it was March,
well, actually it was April and May going into June,
at least where I was located at the time
I was living in Las Vegas, Nevada.
And they didn't implement mask mandates
until like about May, June, right?
So that was kind of a weird tip off
that something was not gelling correctly.
The other thing too, is they always announced
and parroted that if you contracted the coronavirus,
you had a 98.5% chance of survival.
And I've mentioned this so many times
on so many different podcast episodes.
But I don't want to get too far ahead
because we're still at the mask mandates,
we're still at the announcement of this
and we're still at the narrative,
the media narrative of controlling it,
of controlling the narrative.
And then, you know, the whole thing with the mask
and I even have some video footage of some insanity
where there was a lot of mixed messages.
In fact, I'll just go ahead and go to one of the,
this is back in, I believe 2020 or 2021.
Hey, sir, I know you just exited work,
but per government order,
required to wear a mask when you're out in public.
You got all the perfect, appreciate it.
Thank you, sir.
We made the decision collectively
with the city council, with the city manager
and the public safety director
to step up the game a little bit
and start to enforce the rules and regulations.
And part of it with that enforcement
is going out into the streets and talking to folks,
but utilizing education as the key,
education and persuasion.
Hey, sir, just to inform you, you know,
per government order, you're required
to wear a face mask in the city of West Hollywood.
Thank you, sir.
We just came to inform you per government order.
Once you are in a public setting,
you are required to put on a face mask.
Well, it's good thing, good thing, of course.
Well, we should know that they have to wear a mask.
We don't want to give out citations,
but for people who absolutely refuse to wear a mask,
I can guarantee you they are going to receive a citation.
The first offense is $250,
with a $50 administration administrative fee
for a grand total of $300.
Every time outside in public,
we need to really have more.
We're shooting citations now in West Hollywood
at 300 bucks a pop, so.
Yeah, so that's a spectacular example
of the kind of illusion of consensus
that they created very early.
So they forced people to choose
whether they wanted to conform or not.
And that was very different than the biological impetus
for wearing a mask has to protect yourself
from droplets on other people.
So I think that the thing that has become more apparent
to me in retrospect is that the censorship
and this kind of behavior, which you've just highlighted,
which is that they didn't start with masks right away.
They actually said masks don't work at first.
Then they said they do work.
Then they enforced it over the top.
Right.
That, I think, is part of the ruse.
If they had been prudent about it
and they had been honest about it from the beginning,
that wouldn't have been the pattern.
That wouldn't have been honest and prudent
about the censorship.
The censorship wouldn't have had the pattern that it did.
Well, I've got another in opposite of that of a sheriff
in a town in Ohio.
I'll play that.
Yeah.
I'm here today.
Our phone.
We're getting calls.
We're getting emails.
We're getting texts.
The governor has, I believe he's just completed
the mandatory mask wearing for Butler County,
several of the counties in the state of Ohio.
It's going to be mandatory.
The mask wearing.
And I'm here to, we don't have the orders,
what he's put out yet, but I can tell you this,
that I want to make sure everybody understands.
I am not the mask police.
I am not going to enforce any mask wearing.
That is not my responsibility.
That is not my job.
People should be able to make that choices themselves.
I didn't put this order out.
And it's getting to the point.
People are scared.
People are calling and asking.
Do we have to wear the mask in our house, in our cars?
It's getting kind of ridiculous.
At this point, I believe, as the sheriff in Butler County,
here in Ohio, the economy is starting to try to get back
to where it was.
You can't go to restaurants.
At one time, you were looked down on if you tried to go to church
and the churches were closed and it's totally out of control.
It should be left up to the individual if they want to wear a mask.
If someone's sick, I can understand the mask wearing.
But for all of us to have to have your temperature taken,
to have to wear a mask, where is it going to stop?
I've checked with some people that I know that work in the hospitals,
the hospital staffs.
Most hospitals in Ohio have laid people off because of this.
They've laid people off.
You go to the emergency room.
You have to wait longer.
There's people that are still not working because of it.
And this makes it harder to wear these masks and for everyday citizens
that aren't sick and have no symptoms, to have to wear a mask.
I'm not a scientist, but I want you to know that the police are busy.
Our budgets have been cut, the fire departments.
Everybody has less just in the past few months.
This does not make it better.
What you have is don't call 911 because someone is not wearing a mask.
If the health departments want to control and take care of who's not wearing a mask,
let them put a little yellow light on their car and they can stop people and go in.
They will not like the response.
People are tired, they're wore out.
I think we could have done this in a different way, but make no mistake about it.
I, as the Butler County Sheriff, am not enforcing any mask wearing whatsoever to the public.
And my deputies will not enforce it.
We've got more important things to do.
It's all we can do to keep up with fighting crime, locking people up and making sure they're safe and employees are safe.
And there you go.
There again, you see the same thing.
The idea is to get people to argue about bad thing or bad thing.
Should we put sand in sand park or escape parks?
Should we close down playgrounds and basketball courts?
Should we let kids play hockey on ponds in Canada?
Was also a question that was enforced in a negative sense by the police.
They didn't let kids play hockey on ponds in Canada.
I mean, we created a scenario where we were arguing about ridiculous things so that we didn't argue about the real.
And that's really what they got us to do.
And the most enticing part of that was the lab leak or natural virus.
But it also was lockdowns, masking kids, you know, vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, all of these things are potential red herrings.
Which keep us from looking at the novel virus with scrutiny.
Right.
It created enough division that, in fact, on a massive scale to where it put people in such a quandary that they just couldn't process the relentless news reports from the so-called experts.
You know, I remember listening to an episode of Tucker Carlson and he was interviewing Dr. Scott Atlas.
And Dr. Scott Atlas was hired by Trump, President Trump to pretty much not so much replace Anthony Fauci, but be part of the hearings and when sitting in on the briefings I should say.
And they would just totally just scoff at anything that he had to say or present to Birx and to Fauci.
So there was just so many red flags that were just going up, up, up, up the whole time that I said, and I'm sure you two said something's wrong.
Something's definitely wrong here.
Definitely, but keep in mind, James, they played us really well because they had both sides performing.
And there was one side that made sense to us a little bit.
Right.
And we were drawn to that side that made sense.
And some people were drawn to the side of Tony Fauci, where it's got to be a natural virus.
Those people are crazy.
Some people were drawn to this side.
And it really depended on who you were tuning into, what your biases were, who you trusted, but there was a story for you to latch on to.
Right.
Either one that you latched on to, you were going to lose because they were being led by people who were never going to question the novelty of the virus.
Never going to question the idea that we had to do something because it's an emergency.
It's a national security priority.
They weren't going to question the shot at the time when they could have questioned it.
Right.
And they were never going to question the possibility that a virus could come again because that's how they plan to do this forever.
Yeah.
So we're at 2019 and we're still trying to sort of frame where I was and where we were.
And I think in 2020 in the beginning, it's important to mention that I got sucked into or invited into or participated in a group called drastic on Twitter.
And this group of of Internet researchers was the group that is credited with finding the publications, including a PhD thesis and a master's thesis in Chinese that was done.
On the minors that had originally died in 2012, exposed to the cave where this, the precursors of this virus were supposedly taken and certainly the cave that the WIV in China was most interested in for the most years.
And so this group of people, I think still, I look very, I look very skeptically upon because the group kicked me out of the group as soon as I started to speak about the transfection as being a mistake.
And they insisted that their group was really focused only on the origins of the virus.
And I at that stage had already progressed far enough to say that I don't think that answering the source of the virus is going to solve this problem because I think they might have misled us about the source of the virus and they wouldn't have any of it.
They didn't hear anything about transfection or vaccinations. They only wanted to talk about origins and they're actually still only working on the origins.
Right.
So that group got me quite distracted and kept me focused on fighting this narrative of a super bio weapon and that everybody was going to die and this was a worst case scenario because that was a strategy that was employed.
And I think everybody who's listening to this podcast needs to understand that that in the darkest corners of the Internet and in the secret meetings of the government bureaucracy.
And in the meetings behind the scenes at pharmaceutical companies, the assumption was that this was a leak of a virus that had potential to kill lots of people and irrespective of whether there was any data for that.
Everybody needs to understand that the way this whole theater was kicked off was triggering all of the pre programmed activity actions and and and emergency action plans that have been set forth by all these exercises over the last 20 years so that that everybody's familiar with event
201 but that's the last one in a series of exercises which prepared bureaucracies around the world for when this firearm gets pulled.
Right.
And this firearm got pulled and everybody did their job and I think they did their job so well that actually there was nobody that had the job of verifying whether we should continue to go on with this plan.
Right.
Once the plan was activated it was like now we change the planet forever.
Right.
And so that's what's become quite scary to me and I'm sure to you as well that when this first started.
You would have had a hard time convincing me that we'd be here in 2023 I like no way but I actually think that the people who planned this new we would be here in 2023.
Yeah well it's interesting you say that because the question was asked to me with my sister in 2020 and in February of 2020 she said to me and like I said I still was actively we're still actively seeing patients in our clinic.
Before I gave it up in 2020 in December.
But she said to me she says well how long do you think this is going to last.
And I says well do you want me to tell you the truth or do you want me to lie to you and she says tell me the truth.
I said it's going to last as long as the media wants it to last.
They want it to last a year it'll last a year two years three years.
It's there's not going to be an end to it.
And we can see that now because they even talk about the we got into the variance and again I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves because that came down the pipe was the variance and you know you're a biologist.
The the the variance.
Are are less lethal right.
Well they appear to be I mean the question really becomes.
Are the variants real and that's really where my.
My journey is really.
Really peaked.
One of the.
The sort of finishing stories there is with my history is that after doing my.
YouTube and Twitch for about a year I was lucky enough to get a phone call from Bobby Kennedy asking him asking me to help him write this rule on book that's coming out in November.
And honestly that that was.
When I was challenged to learn the virology at a newer level at a better level than I had up until that point.
Right.
Previously I was.
I was doing it for myself and I was doing it in the context of immunology but.
Now Bobby really wanted me to understand for him what was done in every one of these papers and so I kind of redoubled my effort in terms of.
What they're doing to scrutinize.
What they know and what they don't know what they speculate and what they know.
And it became very clear clear to me that coronavirus biology is.
Coronaviruses are very enigmatic and very difficult for them to study and then suddenly in 2020.
They have this fidelity.
And and and ability to track a coronavirus in a way that they've never claimed before.
Right.
So that's that that to me.
Was kind of when when things got really exciting because that's when my.
My social media context started to act weird.
And it was really when I started teaching infectious clones and how coronavirus biology is actually done in the laboratory.
That people that used to be my allies started to say I was nuts.
People that were saying I was nuts now really said I was nuts and people that weren't paying attention to me before started calling me crazy.
So I kind of knew I was over the target at that point.
Absolutely 100%.
Dr David Martin brought up going back to 2019 event 201 and Mickey Willis and pandemic really laid that out really well.
And what's really interesting is in 2017 when about a year into President Trump's presidency.
He predicted that there was going to be an outbreak.
He said there's going to be a virus.
And it's like these people can predict these things. It's amazing how they can predict certain events. So, like I say, for the person, the non scientist, the person that's listening.
They've got to be at this point, hopefully kind of putting the pieces together of the puzzle of this whole puzzle to see what's going on.
You know, when you start talking about, you know, vaccine passports and digital passports and so on and so forth.
Now you're really getting into a whole host of issues that people get to a point where they're like, you know, I don't even want to hear it anymore, you know, because I did a little research on quantum tattoos.
Right.
And there is a Dr. McHugh, who works out of Rice University, who had been studying and doing research on quantum tattoos and Lucifer ace die.
And I know there was Dr. Carrie Mahaeus and Dr. Sherry 10penny. They, they brought this on early on. I mean, they mentioned this like right around April or May of 2020.
And lo and behold, when I did my research, I'm looking and I'm citing articles that were written in 2012 and 13 and 14 and up to 2019, a year before the coronavirus outbreak that they were going to be used for vaccine passports and children and pediatric patients.
So, like you said, there's this, this plan that's been going on for so long for so many years, right?
I think that's the part that people, I think they did very well in the years up to the pandemic to drive people to think that, for example, agenda 2030 was a conspiracy, or that the UN doesn't really mean anything, or that the who doesn't have any binding powers.
And so they already started with this dichotomy of, you know, you're, you're, you're a global conspiracy theorist, or you're, you know, you watch TV and you believe it, they already started this many, many years before that.
And then for sure, the part of, of, of overplaying this, the technology of digital ID and a vaccination ID and vaccine passports, that overplaying of that was also part of the game.
But to tire people out, as you said, to get them tired of listening to this stuff, oh, they're never going to do that.
The idea is to tell you about it now, so that five years from now, it's kind of an old idea.
Right.
The idea is to not, they don't, they don't want to vaccine passport me.
They want to vaccine my passport, my kids, kids.
This is not a plan even to get my children, probably.
It's to get my grandchildren and your grandchildren.
That's how I think we, we also need to reorganize the way we interpret how we're being governed, because I think a lot of people think we're being governed, you know, on a weekly basis or a monthly basis or even a yearly election cycle basis.
But these people have been governing Western civilization with a 15, 20, 30 year time horizon.
They already know where they want us to go, where they want to get us, because it's moving a civilization of our size is like a cruise ship.
You can't just turn on a dime.
And they've had us pointed in this direction for at least 25 or 30 years, my whole lifetime almost.
And this direction is a direction where they can govern the globe.
You can't govern the globe with a common language.
You can't govern the globe with a common MTV channel.
You can't cover the globe with a common religion.
You govern the globe with a common enemy, a common danger or a common crisis.
And that's why climate change and public health are the two best ways to unite the world under a global governance structure and they've known that for a while.
No.
Yeah.
I don't think they're going to win at this game, though, because there's just too many differences.
There's too much division in terms of how people believe, you know, I mean, you look on a global scale.
You know, I mean, our own government can't even govern itself.
So how are they going to, how are they going to organize to, to, to organize people? How are they going to do that? They can't do it.
Right.
I mean, maybe it's me.
I don't know. I mean, honestly, I think that's, that's the, the crazy part of this is that it does really seem.
That there are very few alternative interpretations of what's happening here.
I mean, if you, if you find the worst recordings from these people, they say the words right out loud, but if you just try to interpret their behavior, it does seem to be.
There is a movement to.
To dilute national sovereignty to the point of meaninglessness.
And in so doing that, what becomes the power structure, the power structure is, is, is weaponized piles of money.
And so if the US government is a pile of debt, then that's not the weaponized pile of money that's governing us.
And so we have to look for these weaponized piles of money, identify them and then take the power away from them.
Right now, because we're chasing around the origin of a, of a, of a, probably a host of previously existing RNA signals rather than a novel virus.
And we're debating about a war in a country and in mid Asia.
We're not thinking about how to escape from their global governance structure. We're just chasing down their, their shiny objects.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, it's interesting is they continue the narrative with the vaccines and the, and, and getting vaccines and they backed away from the mandatory mandated the mandates.
Oh, how, how.
I mean, yes, they backed away from the mandates because the legal, the legal space doesn't permit it. They would, they would lose.
But they haven't backed away from the coercion.
And you could see awarding the Nobel Prize to these two biochemists as being coercion.
You are basically for anybody that's unsophisticated enough to understand the biology and the subtle nuances of what informed consent means in the context of transfection.
If they see a Nobel Prize being awarded to vaccine makers, the average person on the street is not capable of dismissing that, but instead sees a impenetrable illusion of consensus that they save the world.
Right.
And that impenetrable illusion of consensus is not easy for the average person to turn away from.
When everybody on social media agrees, when everybody on TV agrees, it's really hard for average Joe or average Jane to go, well, I don't know if I agree.
I mean, that's, that's like impossible. That's what the ash conformity experiment is all about. And that's only three people in a room next to you.
Right.
It's not people on TV that you respect. It's not influencers that you follow. It's not Hollywood stars you're in love with.
This is just four random people in a room that all say the wrong answer and you have a hard time disagreeing with them.
Yeah, don't you think too, though, that you have enough people out there by now that know, because I see a lot of comments where people say, well, I would never get that shot again. I would never never participate in that again.
Right.
So don't you think that there's enough people out there now that are just are just they're not they're not they're non takers anymore. They're just not going to do it anymore.
I don't know. I want to believe you're right. I don't know, though.
I think there are a lot of people out there that would lie about how many they took.
I think there are a lot of people out there that are ashamed that they followed the order and are still so afraid and shame that if another order came about, they still wouldn't be able to say no.
Yeah.
I'm very pessimistic because I think people have been so confused and terrified.
Right.
Trusting the TV that, you know, the, the, the.
It's almost like you have to be in person with everybody that you want to want to convert. And so the only way, you know, podcasts don't even work. You got to be in person podcast. If you.
If you're open to these ideas, you can find your way out, but most people aren't open. They don't even know they're not open.
Yeah.
But you have enough people, the likes of Edward Dowd who wrote cause unknown. I've interviewed him. You have Robert F Kennedy. Yeah. I think you have enough people out there influencers out there that are getting the work because the word does spread.
My parents don't talk to me because I, I'm a know it all.
My own parents haven't talked to me for three years because I lost my job and they think I lied to them about why I lost my job.
And it's because I'm a know it all. My brother in Texas doesn't talk to me anymore because he wanted me to wear two masks when I came to visit him and I wouldn't.
Jeez.
So these people are spectacularly committed to this lie because if they're not, then their whole worldview will be shaken.
They will have to admit that they believed a spectacular. I mean, it's too much for them. My parents are for going seeing their grandchildren for three years under the stipulation that their son is an idiot.
I mean, they know that I was, I was hired by Robert F Kennedy Jr. and I can only assume that that makes them even more certain that I'm an idiot.
Jeez.
I mean, what is a kind of take?
That's the question I ask almost every day I wake up.
But it is really this serious. And so as hopeful as I am,
I think that we're in for a long ride yet because the people that are committed are still really committed.
Yeah.
So that takes us up to 2022.
And what I want to do is I want to get into the vaccine a little bit. I want to talk to you about that and get into the technology.
The where we're with the future looks like as far as this vaccine program and what's going to happen and what you think is going to happen. Sure.
Maybe I can do a little explanation first of my understanding of the technology and why I think it that way.
Hold your thought. Sure.
I got to turn up the light.
It's getting dark here in Florida. So I had to put up the lights a little bit. Was it like in the dark?
So getting back to the vaccine.
Yeah. So the, the basic gist that everybody should have in, in born in mind is this technology is not new.
Medical science and biological science from the academic perspective. When I say academic science, I mean stuff that's done on a bench at a university under grant money.
All of this research is generally done with animals. So everybody knows that we use mice, we use rats, we use monkeys, we use guinea pigs, whatever.
And in all of these lower mammals, there are a wide variety of ways to genetically alter them temporarily or permanently in order to probe the way that physiological systems work.
In the past 25 years, one of the most powerful techniques that has been used to probe mammalian physiology is the knockout mouse.
And in the knockout mouse, what you do is you take a gene in the genome and you delete it.
And then you grow mice without that gene.
And although it's not a perfect physiological model, although the physiology compensates for the missing of that gene.
Oftentimes, especially with genes that play crucial roles in physiological processes, you can prove their role in that physiological process by removing the gene and show that that process is disrupted.
And this is occasionally useful because as you're probably aware, there are many genetic diseases which essentially are deletions or their enzymes that don't work anymore.
And so that's essentially a deletion of a gene. And so then you get this disease manifesting.
Now, in order to create animal models of disease, that's often what we've done.
And if we associate a gene with schizophrenia, then we make a mouse model with the knockout gene and call that a schizophrenia mouse model where you've knocked out the gene that has a propensity for schizophrenia.
And you look at the mouse's behavior to see if there's any differences and see if that tells you anything about how schizophrenia works.
However, as my thing, well, that's a dumb experiment because if the gene causes schizophrenia and you delete it, then you haven't created anything.
But it was to illustrate the sort of blunt force manipulation that genetic knockouts are.
You can't learn that much because if the mouse lives, then the physiology compensates.
And so the physiology of that knockout mouse is different than what it would have been if it had that gene.
So here's where transfection and transformation come in.
Because to make that probing experiment better, what you want to do is be able to turn the gene off or to turn it on after the animal has fully developed and is a normal mouse.
And that's what transfection and transformation have allowed academic biologists to do for the last 20 years.
Transfection is the use of mRNA in a tissue in an animal to express a protein.
It can also be to knock down the expression of a protein if you use the right mRNA, which interferes with the native mRNA that's expressing the protein of interest.
The trick of this is so cool is that wherever you inject the RNA, that's where the change occurs.
So you can knock out the gene functions in certain neurons, in certain parts of the brain, in the liver, somewhere else.
And so transfection, the use of mRNA to interfere with protein expression or to up regulate it or to induce novel protein expression in order to perturb a system to do an experiment to see how a mouse works has been done for about 20 years.
They used gold particles, electricity, and liposomes, which are essentially lipid nanoparticles with a less complicated name, to put mRNA into small blebs and put them into places to use animals' experiments where we wanted to change the transient expression of a protein.
So you can go on websites all around the world and find biotech companies that are selling transfection and transformation agents.
Now, transformation is the same process, but you use DNA to do it.
And very typically in bench biology, the vector for that is an adenovirus.
So that should bring a bell because they used adenovirus for AstraZeneca and for Johnson & Johnson.
So they used very typical transformation and very typical transfection, a known methodology in academic science for 20 years and started calling it a vaccine.
And every single biologist in the world that's worth their salt should have said, whoa, we can't do that.
That's not vaccination. That's transformation. That's transfection. They should have just said that.
So share with the viewers and listeners the difference between the traditional vaccines that you may have gotten, you know, 30, 40 years ago, or even 15 or 20 years ago.
And this, what I call, they use it, they call it emergency use authorization, I call it experimental use authorization gene bio weapon. What's the difference?
It's really not. I mean, bio weapon just has this, has this, you know, military context to it, but you can also just think of it as like totalitarian governance.
You have no choice. We're going to lie to you in order to achieve this goal.
And we're going to be so spectacularly committed to the lie that even when it doesn't work out like we planned, we're just going to keep lying about it.
The tricky thing with previous, the previous vaccine schedule is that, you know, this was a unscrutinized legal safe haven that all of the pharmaceutical companies, the FDA, the CDC was well aware of.
And an entire sort of alternative legal system exists in order to shift the risk of vaccine adverse events from the manufacturers to the taxpayer.
And interestingly, that system, as bad as it was for the citizenry, was still capable of preventing something like this happening. And it's actually the prep act and a declaration of emergency that allowed emergency use authorization to be granted to everything that we did.
And that's something that maybe people aren't aware of. But even the PCR test is not something that was really clinically evaluated. It was, it was given an emergency use authorized blanket approval.
And it's not really approval, but it's permissions. And then all of the variants of the PCR test were covered under those EU's so at some point, I think we had 220 different products that purported to be PCR based coronavirus tests in America.
And none of those tests exist anymore.
They're all gone. All those little companies, all those little testing, they all disappeared. All the content tracing companies, they're all gone.
Even the inventor of the PCR tests mentioned that it's not full proof. It's not accurate.
No, yeah, and that's really where the virology stuff comes back full circle. I mean, we can go there.
If you went, if you went into the literature before 2020, what you would find is a, a consensus lamentation.
So they were all consensus agreed that it's sad that we can't really find coronavirus is that easy.
And in fact, we should put some money into trying to come up with a pan coronavirus test. One that can just find a coronavirus so that we can find them easier.
And we're talking after SARS one, this was like a major focus. And what became clear in the literature is that the best they could do is look for signals that are shared across all coronaviruses.
And so the original pan coronavirus tests aimed at the end protein and the RNA dependent polymerase. These are two genes of coronaviruses that across hundreds of coronaviruses.
They're very, very little. And for non biologists out there, the way to think about this is on an automobile. Some things are very different across automobiles because they're not crucial to the way the automobile functions.
Some people might be the interior. Some, some automobiles have very cheap vinyl interior and very uncomfortable seats with no headrest and a very crappy scenario. Other cars have leather interior with cedar inlay and, and, you know, whatever other amenities you can imagine.
But if you were to compare the wheels of those two cars, the rubber content would be very similar. The size of the wheels would be very similar. Their durability would be very similar. Their properties, their mechanical requirements are very, very similar because they serve a vital purpose for the car.
If you open the hood, you would find that they both have internal combustion engines, most likely because, again, that's a conserved aspect of automobiles. And in coronaviruses, the most conserved aspects of their genome are the genomes that are the parts of the genome that are most important to their high functioning.
So the RNA, the pen and RNA polymerase is how it copies itself. So that gene is really similar across all of them. And the end protein is the protein around which the genome is wrapped, another protein that's very conserved across coronaviruses.
So interestingly, most are all of the first year of coronavirus PCR tests were aimed at those two genes. And if you looked at previous coronavirus literature, the only conclusion to come to is that there's no way for those two genes to be specific enough to identify a novel coronavirus because they're the perfect genes to find all of them.
Right. So they really did a bait and switch. They did. And you hear a lot of sentiment about the vaccines containing, and I interviewed Dr. Maria Mahalcha, hydrogels, because you did mention the nanoparticle, lit liposome, but also hydrogels, and there's supposedly electromagnetic metals that are in there, and it's supposed to be tied to 5G.
How true is that? I got to be honest with you, James, I think it was also part of the scam. There was too much for knowledge of the potential for these kinds of contaminants from the very beginning.
I would go so far as to say that the first time I heard someone say that coronavirus was going to be activated by 5G was in February of 2020.
And that's just absurd. There's no way that kind of narrative would already be out there, and people would be angry about fighting the 5G conspiracy theory.
The only way that's out there is if that was for real. And there are patents. There are technologies that use graphene as a 5G antenna.
There are people who aren't lying about having magnetic spots on their body. I have no idea what these people are on or what they've done, but they can't all be liars.
And my best guess is, my friend, that they knew that the more of these appearing to be anecdotal stories that seemed crazy that were out there, the more likely the real stories of misery caused by the vaccine could be dismissed.
And so if you're also hearing stories about 5G and graphene oxide and hydras and whatever else being in the shot, then when somebody says, well, you know, people are having clotting reactions to the second shot, it's like, yeah, it's the same.
It's all the same, you know, they took J&J off the market because that one was having problems. They were honest.
And so the whole, I really feel very convinced that the entire script, even the parts that seemed like we're off script were actually on script.
Every leak is on script, every argument about things in front of the Senate on camera was on script.
Every whistleblower basically is on script except for the people who are willing to question the virus and there aren't very many of them.
Yeah.
It's really, it's really a problem because I think there are lots of really good people that were co-opted at the beginning because this was such a.
It was such a clandestine operation. I mean, I don't know if you're aware of this, for example, I have a.
I have a couple really close friends that I've made through the pandemic.
And I also had, you would never know this.
I also had an ex girlfriend who worked in Hollywood and she's dead now.
I believe the reason why she's dead is because she was forced to take the vaccine to get on set.
For her work.
And then she got advanced brain cancer and died within a year.
I know this might be true because another friend of mine who also is circulating in Hollywood.
Told me stories in 2021 that Christmas parties in 2020 were visited by private doctors claiming to have the vaccine.
And they vaccinated people at Hollywood parties and on sets of movies during December of 2020 and January of 21 before they were even given it to old people.
And they also did this on TV sets.
So there are probably newscasters that got the first dose of the vaccine before it was even released.
And so those people are in a really interesting position because there would have to admit that they.
Sort of circumvented the system and cut in line because they were considered national priority people that couldn't get sick because they were on the news or they were on.
They were in Hollywood so we didn't want them to speak out.
Right.
So we got them first.
Dr. Cooley.
I lost eight personally know eight people that died from the vaccination.
Right.
Eight.
Thirty years old.
Eight.
My wife's.
Yeah.
My wife's when she was an exchange student her.
Her.
Guardian parents at the time when she was going to school in the United States.
Their grandson died.
Dropped dead.
I have a friend she died of.
She had gotten turbo cancer.
She had gotten liver cancer within a couple months.
She was healthy.
All these people were healthy.
A couple other friends died suddenly from cardiac arrest.
Well, most of them died from cardiac arrest.
So, I mean, if you ask me how many people do I know died from.
COVID, not zero, none.
Right.
They didn't let people in the hospitals to see relatives because they saw that hospitals are, you know, it's off limits for anybody to visit a hospital.
Does it occur to you?
I'm not a doctor James, but you are.
I'm actually I was the practice manager and owner.
Does it occur to you though that I want to talk to more doctors about this because I really have the feeling that when I was a kid that I knew men who had multiple heart attacks.
Right.
And now I'm hearing stories about people that have heart attacks that can't be revived.
And I didn't know that that happened very often.
I understand that might happen when you're 90, but I knew lots of people growing up men that had heart attacks when they were 50 and they didn't die from it.
Why are our heart attacks becoming more deadly and that would be a signal you would think.
Yeah, that I have a friend. He's a pediatric cardiologist. I interviewed him about three weeks ago. We were talking about the auto immune response with the vaccination amongst pediatric patients.
And we talked, we discussed Kawasaki disease versus multiple systemic inflammatory disease and pediatric patients.
And we're going to actually do a follow up interview as well.
I was under the assumption that those were the same.
But my myocarditis.
No, I thought you said Kawasaki syndrome and then MSC.
Yeah, MSC right.
Oh, they're the same thing though, right? Okay. Yeah.
They're relatively the same. They're a little bit different. They present differently.
But my question to you is with this mRNA technology, because it produces the protein, it mimics the protein.
And it is it.
And this is a question to you.
Is it does it mimic the spike protein? Does it produce this actual spikes, the messenger RNA because it goes from what translation of transcription to produce these proteins, right?
Does it produce the spike protein? Is that my that's my question to you?
Yeah, so I think it's it's transcription and then translation, but it doesn't matter.
But I say transcription to translation.
Yeah, I get them mixed up all the time too. I'm not trying to correct you. That was just me trying to get into the groove. It's.
So there's a couple of things to keep in mind.
First and foremost is the cartoon version of the injection and the cartoon version is what they talk about on TV. The cartoon version is what they sold you.
The cartoon version is the stupid simple version, which is that the lipid nanoparticle is completely inert because you have lipids in your body.
Right.
The mRNA is completely inert because you have mRNA in your body.
And the mRNA doesn't last very long because mRNA doesn't last very long. So it just makes some protein in your body clears the protein and it's fine.
Now there's infinitely many things wrong with that. The first is that when they release the data about the mRNA product and they ran a gel to look at the RNA, they didn't get a single band, but they got a smear.
And to explain that to your listeners, a gel is a kind of gradient of thickness or density.
And if you put proteins in the top of it and then you use electricity to draw the proteins down through the gel, the lighter, smaller proteins will move faster and the heavier proteins will move slower.
And so after about an hour, very heavy proteins will have moved a little bit and the lighter proteins will move farther and you will have separated all of the proteins in your sample by weight.
So the more pure that your RNA would be, the more crystal clear the bands would be. So for example, if you had a heavy RNA and a light RNA and they were both pure and equal quantities,
then after running the gel you would see one line right here and one line right here corresponding to a light and a heavy chain of RNA and they would be at predictable heights based on how long you ran them on the gel because the gel will tell you then how heavy the RNA is based on the distance between.
Now in the mRNA for this shot, what they should have seen is a band at 1,400 bases of weight because the molecular weight would be about 1,400 bases of RNA, a rough number.
But instead they saw a continuous smear meaning that there were protein fragments of all weights and sizes from the size of the spike protein down to very tiny, which means that if they injected that RNA into you only a small portion of it would code for the whole spike and the rest of this smear would code for a wide variety of partial
viral proteins, which in no way shape or form would guarantee a robust immune response meaningful to the pathogen from which that originated.
But my other question too is it seems like, okay, and this is again a question to you, in case the messenger RNA, correct me if I'm wrong, but they encased the messenger RNA inside of a nano lipid particle correct because the messenger RNA would denature and I remember they got rid of a big batch of product that was not under their correct temperature in transport.
So is that because it denatured the messenger RNA that was encapsulated in part? I actually have learned more recently that this might have been more to do with the fact that the way that they get the lipid nanoparticle down to size is actually a proprietary methodology.
And as you can imagine with any fat or oil on top of water, the default is not millions of tiny little droplets, but the default is to form one big droplet.
And in fact, I think the majority of the reason why they needed to keep it cool originally was the mRNA needs to be cold.
But I actually think the secret was that the lipids, the lipid nanoparticles won't be nanoparticles anymore if they're not cold because they'll start to fuse.
And the toxicity of the lipid nanoparticle itself goes up exponentially as they become bigger.
Right. And then it would expose the messenger RNA that's protected by the nanoparticle, correct?
I think so. I mean, but I don't know if it's so much to do with the degradation of the RNA because that's, from my perspective as a biologist, that's been grossly exaggerated.
Yes.
We have RNA, RNAces are everywhere that we have RNAces in our skin oil, all that stuff, and we have to use gloves when we use RNA in a laboratory.
But I think that that aspect of RNA has been exaggerated for the purpose of rolling out this shot because I've done lots of experiments with PCR and use lots of shortcuts and whatever.
And it still works. If your signal is robust, it's fine. It's really when you're when you're trying to do science as best as possible because you're trying to make a new discovery.
Then, of course, you're going to wear gloves and you're going to make sure that no foreign RNA gets into your sample because you don't know what you're doing and you're doing science.
But with regard to this injection, I think that what has been revealed by the scaling up of the manufacturing by the just gross negligence with regard to quality control has been revealed is that actually the RNA is not that unstable.
It's probably not. It's much more likely that they just can't make it. It's much more likely that they just can't purify it.
It's much more likely that the lipid nanoparticle by by congeolating causes more toxicity than the RNA ever could.
It's not to say that I'm not discounting transfection as being bad. I'm still firmly convinced that transfection cannot be used to augment your immune system.
But I'm trying to suggest that like a lot of these other narratives at the beginning of the pandemic, the narrative of keeping it cool or we need to have minus 80 freezers in every pharmacy.
This was all designed to distract and get people to debate about things that really weren't in play because if you're debating about the storage of the vaccine, then you're not debating about whether you should even take it.
I really think we've just been so often shown a shiny object and shown people arguing about it and that's definitely one of them because now they don't care.
Now you can store vaccine in a regular refrigerator and nothing's changed about the formulation.
Right. So that's clearly wasn't bullshit. Excuse my language.
Yeah, that's okay. That's good. But so what you're saying though, it's still encapsulated in a nanoparticle, the messenger RNA, correct?
It is as far as we can tell. Yeah, that's what 10.
So it's more like a time release capsule is what it, what it sounds like. And then because they're saying that.
And I interviewed Dr. William Macus and several other physicians that had mentioned that.
You know, and a lot of people will say professionals will say, well, you know,
just because you didn't get an acute reaction from it, like some people did.
Over time, it's going to affect people and they're saying, well, you know,
according to a timeline, it could be a year, year and a half, two years and even three years after the shot that this can affect you.
Is that true?
It has to be.
I don't think that there's any other way to characterize it simply because unlike all previous vaccines that are basically combinations of inert substances.
They might have put an irritating chemical in combination with a, with a recombinant protein.
They might have put a couple of chemicals in with a couple of recombinant proteins, but those substances were all inert.
And so the challenge was your body to clear those substances without making any mistakes.
And so you can imagine many scenarios where that toxic adjuvant can cause bad reactions.
The toxic adjuvant can activate your immune system and then a secondary exposure to something else like Tylenol could cause damage to your body.
But with transfection, you're actually creating a whole nother scenario because again, let me repeat that.
Old vaccines as, as, as sort of blunt as they are because they are very blunt if you describe them.
You are, you are bypassing the immune system in order to augment it.
They have all inert substances in them.
Now with the transfection, what you are doing is expressing a foreign protein in tissues throughout your body.
Now we were told that it stays in the muscle.
It'll go away in a few days, but we now know that that's not the case.
It definitely doesn't stay in the muscle and it can go anywhere.
And wherever it goes, this RNA will cause the expression of a foreign protein.
That is not, that is not an immune problem that your immune system is organized and has evolved to deal with.
There is no scenario in mother nature where your cells will express a foreign protein inside of your body.
You can't name one.
And even in a viral infection, the cells are being made to manufacture proteins when there is a barrier or at a barrier.
So when you are infected with a virus, there are a very specific set of cells which is infected by a virus.
And it is not your muscle, it's not your ovary, it's not your endothelial cells, it's not your liver.
It's none of these. It is first and foremost a barrier of your gut, your skin, your lungs, your nasal and mucosal.
So the whole idea of injection into the muscle is already from my humble opinion, quite sketchy,
and we're probably going to come to the realization in the next four or five years that that was a ridiculous assumption that we could augment the immune system with a simple injection into the muscle.
But transfection creates a scenario not like that because again, let me say it one more time.
A combination of inert substances put into your muscle is a challenge for your immune system to clear.
A transfection challenges your immune system to clear your own cells without making autoimmunity to them.
So when you get injected with a regular vaccine, your body is being challenged to clear the aluminum, to clear the adjuvant and to clear the recombinant protein.
In a transfection, the foreign proteins are expressed on cells internally, and the only alternative for your immune system is to reject those cells as foreign.
And in so doing, the immune system destroys them and cleans them up.
And in cleaning them up, there is always a chance that it will present a self antigen and create self-recognizing immunity, which is autoimmunity, and that happens every time you force your body to clear a transfection.
Now, let me just catch my breath and say that one of the things that I learned as an academic biologist is that transfection is indeed transient.
So when we use it in mice, one of the things that we like to do that makes the mice experiment so valuable is to sacrifice the mouse afterward and go back into the brain and anatomically chart what neurons we had altered,
what neurons we expressed protein in, what neurons we decreased protein expression in, so that we can evaluate the results of our experiment.
One of the limitations of transfection in this use is that you can't make a mouse permanently change with transfection because the immune system comes in.
So in other words, if we were to, if this, my head is the mouse and we're going to transfect the mouse in the frontal cortex, if we cut the mouse up after six weeks and we make slices of the brain and we stain for the protein that we transfected, we will find it.
And we can identify how much and what neurons were there and make some story about how we changed the brain function and how that was reflected in the behavior.
However, if we were to wait about 12 weeks and cut the same slices, we would find those neurons gone.
The immune system would have destroyed them and they would have died from the overexpression of a foreign protein.
So those two combine to create an intolerable situation that the immune system gets rid of.
And so we're not worried about that because we just breed more mice.
We're not worried about that because that was part of the experimental plan.
But for the four-year-old child with a lifelong lifetime to live, you can't dare the immune system to clear a few of these cells and don't make a mistake or you'll be a handicapped immune system for the rest of your life.
You can't roll those dice with a child. In fact, you can't roll those dice with any healthy mammal that you want to live a long healthy life afterward, not even an elderly person.
Right. So what you're saying too is that this vaccine or whatever you want to call it at this point, it penetrates the blood-brain barrier pretty easy.
I don't think there's anything stopping it. I mean, the only thing that's stopping it is that there are cells in between.
So it is likely that the lipid nanoparticle will deposit in an endothelial cell as it's crossing the blood-brain barrier.
But if it makes it across, then it's all game on.
I mean, as far as we can tell, these lipid nanoparticles can go in and out of cells.
They don't have to go in and then disappear.
They're very, very difficult to understand and where they show up is everywhere.
So that's the tricky part.
And everywhere that they show up, the immune system is going to be challenged in a way that it's never been challenged before, not to make a mistake and accidentally trigger auto-immunity.
Every time you take a shot, you're triggering this.
And then the worst part is that any immune response made to the protein will become more robust.
So let's just think of the best case scenario.
You get transfected in your muscle and all of your muscle gets transfected and your immune system destroys a lot of your deltoid.
It's painful. It takes weeks to heal.
And this would be the best case scenario if it all stayed there.
You'd get a lesion in your deltoid created by the immune system destroying parts of your muscle.
So now you take your second injection and the antibodies that are circulating in your body land on the spike protein where it is transfected.
So now the spike protein goes into your coronary artery and it transfects some of the cells into endothelium.
So now the antibodies that were produced by the injection that only affected your muscle in the fantasy scenario.
Now those antibodies are all in your body circulating around and when the spike protein gets expressed in your heart, now the antibodies deposit there
and your immune system can show up 15 times faster than it did the first time.
And the next time you get a shot, the immune system will show up even quicker.
And this is the problem because if you are transfecting your endothelial cells, you are necessarily interacting with the clotting system.
And at this stage, you know, that all bets are off because once you've activated the seroprevalence in your blood, then at any point in time, those antibodies can trigger inflammation.
They can trigger neutrophil attack. They can trigger cytotoxic T cell responses and they can trigger the complement system.
And all of those things are potentially avalanche type disasters where once the biology starts, you can't stop it anymore.
So what you're saying too, it's over working the immune system, it's a pretty much an autoimmune response.
Does that explain also why oncogenes get triggered for turbo cancers? Is that?
You know, there's a lot of there's a lot of speculation about that because the spike protein itself supposedly has some molecular components that might interact with some of these tumor suppressor genes.
But I'm not sophisticated enough of biologists to know what fidelity the spike protein would need to be expressed in in order for that effect to occur.
Most of the experiments that have covered this have been very in vitro limited experiments, but they show the interaction between the spike protein and some of these tumor suppressors.
My guess is that it's a little less fantastic than them having some specific inserts in the spike protein.
It's probably a more general reason why the immune system becomes dysregulated.
One of those reasons might be something to do with the spike protein though.
If the spike protein, for example, some of the more terrible rumors include that the spike protein has a short MHC2, which is the major histocompatibility complex, is the protein that every cell in your body uses as an ID.
This is just another brief piece of biology for everybody to understand how the immune system works.
There are cells of the immune system patrolling your body all the time for cancerous cells and for foreign material and foreign things.
The way that they do it is they roll along, they're called natural killer cells, they roll along, and they look at what the cells are doing by looking at what protein fragments they're displaying on MHC.
MHC being major histocompatibility complex, and there are two different ones.
The one MHC1 is used by all the cells in your body to use as an ID.
If the immune system approaches your ovaries and your ovaries are busy with homeostasis, on the outside they'll have a few MHC molecules that are displaying self-proteins that are specific for ovary cells.
And if they're cancerous, they will end up displaying fragments of proteins that are not generally displayed by ovary cells, and therefore the immune system can come in and say,
Hey, why are you showing me this protein? You should be showing me an ovary protein, and we can get rid of that cell.
And that's basically how cancer is patrolled in the body, is that normal tissues display the correct proteins and cancerous, invasive, or infected tissues display incorrect proteins.
So this trick is especially well known by people who design vaccines because it is what is displayed on MHC2 in the immune system that is called the epitope that is identified in the virus.
So whatever the immune system chooses to display on MHC2 to teach T cells is the epitope that the immune system is chosen to make memory to.
Now there's a rumor that the spike protein has a MHC, or in humans, it's called HAI.
I'm probably going to confuse everybody now.
It seems to have a small sequence that could be a sort of general match for MHC2, and the implication of that is that a protein that had that sequence on it might be able to more easily activate the immune system because of that sequence.
So in my worst case scenario imagination, I can see a scenario where if they wanted to make a successful mRNA vaccine, they would tell you that this protein that they found on this virus is this protein that has this extra little thing on it that acts as a natural adjuvant.
And so we got lucky. Look, we put this protein in 45 minutes later, we made the RNA, we injected it in the people, and they made a robust immune response.
That doesn't always happen.
And so it becomes more and more sort of difficult to divorce the long history of work that has been done on trying to activate the immune system with small proteins.
And the idea that they would put one of these activating small protein sequences into a coronavirus spike and then say that, look, we found a novel coronavirus and here's the spike and we're going to use the spike for a vaccine.
And lo and behold, we get a robust immune response. It works like a charm. That would have been one of the very easy and quite frankly well known ways that they could have created an immunogenic protein that would work really well as the flagship demonstration that that
transaction is great for immunization because see we produce antibodies. Right. I don't have enough evidence to make that claim as as being true.
But I do have enough evidence to make the claim. I think that that RNA viruses cannot pandemic but they can make enough RNA virus to cause a pandemic.
And that's really the difference. I have a good idea how just have your natural immune system take care of all this. Exactly. It's what I've been saying from the very beginning.
Right. We don't have to worry about that. And when you get a guy like Bill Gates saying, well, we want to depopulate the world and everybody's got to be vaccinated. Well, we'll start with you, Bill.
You go first. You be the first taker on all this, you know, because I think eating properly, you know, rolling the dice with eating properly exercising and laying off processed food is a good start, I think.
I agree. I think that's part of the, again, you know, it's across all aspects of our culture at this stage, but we have, we have, we don't take responsibility for, for understanding anymore as adults.
We all kind of have checked out and said that the experts know better than us.
More than anything in the United States, the way that we eat, the way that we think about our health is just so inverted.
And we all want to pill to fix what ails us when in reality, we just need to put better food in and we'll get better results out. We need to exercise more. I mean, some people.
And you might be one of these people. And I'm not an ex, I'm not a master of this. I'm just not, I'm not as bad as other people.
There are people who have not exercised since high school. They have not even walked a long ways since high school. And then when they can't breathe very well, or they have stomach problems.
The first thing they want is a medicine or a simple solution when in reality, if you don't move regularly, you will be unhealthy. If you don't eat and drink good things, you are going to be unhealthy.
If you inhale auto fumes all day, you're going to be unhealthy. If you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, that is going to contribute to a whole host of ways that you are not optimal.
And there's no juice or supplement or magic, you know, powder packet that you can mix in your water bottle. And that's going to compensate for the 40 years of lack of exercise and nutrients.
Yeah, listen, I go to the gym five days a week consistently for the last 40 years.
Yeah, I don't, I don't want to say I'm a vegetarian, but I'm close to not so much vegetarian. I'm a pescatarian, but I stick primarily to fresh, fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, soups, things like that.
And then twice from Italy, we were just having the conversation. She just moved here four years ago.
And we're, you probably are familiar with this, what I'm about to tell you, but we're discussing the, we were talking about the potato chip aisle and the grocery stores and, and some of the shopping carts that we see, especially during COVID.
You know, the potato chip aisle is like this long aisle that's like, you just goes on forever. And she was telling me in Italy, it's probably like maybe the size of my desk.
And there's just a little section where they sell potato chips in Italy and all the grocery stores. So that just tells you where we're at here in the United States, right? Absolutely, it does. I mean, it's.
A good friend of mine, Greg Glassman once said that if you have to, if you have to open a box or a bag to eat, then you're probably not really eating.
That's right. And that's really where we are in America. Most people are eating out of a box in a bag every day.
Yeah. Yeah. I'm 60 years old, by the way.
Are you really? Yeah. Wow.
Okay. So you and I both have some secret going on because everybody's always surprised. I'm 51.
Yeah, you look great. I thought you were in your 40s, early 40s.
But it's been amazing to have you on the medical truth podcast. I'd like to continue to have you update and come on periodically as well with the release of the book with Robert F Kennedy.
Oh, I would love it. That would be great. I would love it. That would be really fun.
Yeah. Yeah. And I'll see you get, get you a get you on sub stack too as well. I, you know, I know Paul.
Dr. Paul Alexander. In fact, I actually pulled up this particular article.
You gave me a couple of plugs this week. It was.
Yeah, this is what got my little embarrassed actually.
This has got my attention right here.
JJ Kui lives inside Robert Malone's head.
I love it. Kui owns Malone and Malone is not ever will never debate him on a talk or talk with him.
This is a reason for that. I openly challenge him alone here. Put your testicles on the table.
Yeah, it's it's it's he goes over the top a lot, but actually the article is really good and it covers my work and the work of my friend.
Mark Hughes, a tonic Mark Gulak in in Boston, Massachusetts.
And he's been a great friend and he's a really skilled historian who started earlier than I did with regard to to really keeping track of this.
And he's got a really good archive and together him and I have been just trying to run down the stories of these these new heroes and try to figure out which one of them is, you know, really a good guy and which one might not be.
As as open minded as I am, I have to say that I've had so many incongruent interactions with Robert Malone that I have to assume that his he's got ulterior motives.
I have to agree with you on that. You know, and I the first time I saw him was on Tucker Carlson and this was like maybe back in what 21 21 22 early 22.
I think 21 was probably when he was first on Tucker. But yeah, yeah, but you know, my theory on that too is that there's a lot of people that are on the hook.
And I even include President Trump on this as well. He was at fault as well.
The only person, the true person that really stood up to a lot of this was Robert F Kennedy is President Trump kept pushing the vaccine kept pushing the vaccine and to this day still does it.
In fact, I just posted something on sub stack as to why my question was in the article that I wrote was why this Donald President Trump still pushed the vaccine. Right.
You know, and I just don't think any one particular politician or anybody is going to save us in this situation. And I say it.
Time and time again.
That's really the most important thing to say. No one will no one politician is going to save us. And we don't want to live in a country where we need a politician like that to save us.
No, no, and I keep saying this to people.
Listen, we have the God given right not to take this vaccine into do it. It's our decision. It's our body. It's our choice.
And we have to stand up to that. We have to stand up to that. We're the ones where the power is in the people. There's more of us than there are them.
Okay, whoever them are and we all know are starting to know who them are.
And, you know, as time goes on, the dark is going to be overshadowed by the light for sure. It's just a matter of time and it's happening. And there's people like you that are very courageous that are coming forward.
And I really appreciate your work and I'm going to continue to put your work out there for sure. You got a fan now. Thanks very much, James. I'm really happy.
You know, it's been a long lonely place. I'm sure you felt alone too. I mean, it really, even when you have these podcasts, it feels like you're in a wilderness all by yourself. So, yeah, I'm really happy to make another connection like this.
Absolutely. You got you have definitely. So, like I said, I'll have you come on again. Your website is go ahead. You want to share that with you.
It's Giga on biological.com. It's kind of hard to spell, but you'll learn it. And I'm also Giga on biological on Twitch, which is a it's a weird streaming platform for gamers and for weirdos, but it also keeps me nicely hidden.
I also try to post. I'm trying to get into the habit of reposting on rumble, but that hasn't really started yet.
And I actually, in addition to being on your podcast was just recently on a podcast with Ahmed Malik. I think you might also have been aware of him. He's very much like you.
And so, maybe my message is finally catching on. I'm going to be around in more places, but right now, Giga on biological is where I stream on Twitch and I'm doing it every night for about, I don't know, for 35 nights in a row.
So far, I'm going to try and keep it up for a few hundred. So, it's worth checking because I'll be there almost every day. And this includes today. So, yeah, I think it's just steady pressure. So people like you have to keep going.
You have to keep sharing each other's work. And as we keep pushing with steady pressure, I think this thing will keep cracking.
Well, definitely, definitely, definitely. Thank you so much for coming on to the podcast. I really appreciate Dr. Cooey.
You're very welcome. It was nice meeting you, sir.
You too, sir. Thanks.
So, what I like to do, because you're on the right track, and you got to get on sub stack, get yourself set up with sub stack, get yourself an account on sub stack as well.
Because you'll start getting a lot of traction on there. I'm getting people that are signing on every day.
Yeah, it's a great. That's what you're doing. You just post your video there or what?
I post the videos. I started to post memes. I started to post articles. So, I'm becoming very involved with that. And then, you know, because what happens is as you start cross promoting people through sub stack, it's a great, great platform because it's almost like a place where
it's free and it's like where you could post a podcast. I guess the reason why I haven't started with sub stack is because I'm a terribly slow writer.
And so, maybe if I did just post the video with a little caption, that might work already, maybe.
Yeah, you know, Dr. Alexander, I'm not sure how or why he does it, but he really, I don't know if he's, I'm not sure, I probably shouldn't say.
Oh, who or how he's writing, but he writes short memes, but he puts out a lot too almost too much. It's like too too much. It's like he just riddles you with a lot of stuff, you know, and it's all over the place.
It's a politics. It's this. It's that I stick to primarily medical, you know, mostly. I've talked a lot with Paul Alexander. If you want my honest opinion.
I think Paul Alexander, because of the role that he had in the Trump administration has seen the absolute inside of the beast. Right. So, he needs to.
In a way that is so visible that no one can touch him. And I do think he's scared. I do think that he is respectful of the monster in a way that few people are because the few people have seen it like him.
We've talked a number of times where I've had the sense that that he experiences real trepidation as to what to do next. And he is very like you and I very concerned about the future of our countries and our kids future because these people are playing for all the marbles.
And he knows that. Yeah. Yeah. And so I think that's what sometimes why he makes these over the top posts because, you know, once he got to lose at this stage, this is for all the marbles.
If we get somebody's attention, that's what we need. We need to convert every single person we can convert. Right. And I gotta honestly tell you, I think both the Democrats and the Republicans are in on this together.
Absolutely. They are. Are you kidding me? Yeah. I tell people, take the politics out of this. Absolutely.
Take all the politics out of it because both the Democrats and Republicans are in. There's only maybe I could probably count on half of a hand. How many people are really truly legitimate in politics.
I don't know. We lost somebody from Utah today in a plane crash that was just converted to our team. Who's that Utah Senator or representative that was fully on board with mandating the vaccine.
And now had just come out and decided it was ridiculous. And then they, his plane crashed.
I'm telling you, you're coming out at the right time with your message. I've been doing this. It'll be a year in January.
I interviewed Dr. Peter Bragan. I'm sure you're familiar with him. He's a very good man. What I will do is I will try to get you involved with more podcasting. If you don't mind.
I don't mind at all. Please spread the word. Help me. Yeah, I'm going to because there's some really good people out there. The dragons are really good people. They were actually being sued by Malone.
So I think that particular lawsuit's going to be pretty much thrown out of court because the last lawsuit that he had against.
Oh gosh, I can't remember who he had a lawsuit against, but it was very similar to what he was suing the dragons for. He was suing the dragons over this thing with this mask formation psychosis.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I think they're going to throw that out. But you don't go suing an 85 year old man who's a pioneer in psychiatry who pretty much I mean he is telling the truth.
You know, yeah, I mean to be to be devil's advocate, though, just to be a creep.
Just to be a creep. And I'm not saying the dragons are bad, but this book doesn't challenge the narrative at all.
It doesn't does it? No. Tell me about that. And so they think that there was a virus released and that it went around the world and it was a bio weapon and they lied about it.
And so by Robert Malone suing them, he's actually selling this book, which doesn't really work against the narrative. Now, if the Breggans were to progress in their understanding of the pandemic and realize that the protocols were used to create this narrative
and corrected it, I would be, I would be overjoyed. But I'm afraid right now, Malone seeing our Malone's runners, let's say, or controllers or handlers seeing this book as being non threatening realize that a great way to create a controlled opposition would be to sue this, this, these authors right here.
What book is that? This is the Breggans book. We are the prey. Oh, okay, that is the we are the prey. Okay. I just didn't recognize it.
I'm not saying the Breggans did anything wrong by writing that book because when that book came out, that's what I thought too.
But I'm saying that Robert Malone suing them is not promoting anything that he's afraid of promoting. And in fact, it's promoting exactly what he wants promoted, which is the narrative of a bio weapon.
Yeah. Yeah. And so you believe that there was no virus then? No, I don't, I don't say that at all. What I think is, is that there is a conflation of the background signal.
And so it would be like telling everybody that that I've tried to come up with the right, the right analogy here. And the best one I always have is something to do with automobiles.
First, you have to convince everybody that before 2020, there were no cars on the planet. And then once you convince them of that, you can say that a new thing called automobiles is spreading around the world.
And the way, the way that you test for it is you go in your garage, you look for gasoline and you look for round rubber things.
And so everybody went down to their garage that lined up and they said, wow, I've got one too. But I didn't know I had one. Oh yeah, but they're asymptomatic. It doesn't mean that you know you had it.
And as we tested, it turns out that there were automobiles all around the world. Right. And when people came to the hospital, a lot of people came to the hospital in automobiles.
Oh my gosh, everybody that comes to the hospital in an automobile should not be given antibiotics, but instead should be put on a ventilator and given remdesivir.
Now you have a pandemic and it has nothing to do with a virus. It had to do with automobiles. And they did the same thing, but they did it with a PCR test.
And if they had used that PCR test in 2019 and had 25,000 people drive up in their cars to take the test, they would have got the exact same numbers.
And that's your answer. Because they would have used a generic pan coronavirus primer set to look for RNA signals that are everywhere and claimed that was a very specific signal for a new thing.
Yeah, that's how that's the school of thought that Dr. Rastnik is from from as well. He doesn't believe that this was truly circulating because he did a lot of the work back in the 80s.
Exactly. It's the same exact thing. They can put this sequence wherever they want because they can make lots of it. But wherever they put it, it doesn't start flying around the world.
The better example might be, oh, I spilled blue paint on my sidewalk outside. And that's the reason why all the houses in Pittsburgh are turning blue.
Like, no, that's not how paint works. But if I got enough paint and I went around Pittsburgh with a paint sprayer, I could make all the houses in Pittsburgh start to turn blue.
Right. And that's exactly how they could get a coronavirus sequence to show up in New York and Wuhan and Iran and Italy is they just put it there.
Right. Right. Well, I mean, like I said, in 2003, when I had the medical house call practice, we encountered the COVID with SARS sudden acute respiratory syndrome.
And it happened to be the strain that particular flu season. In fact, it ran into three and four, those two years, the falls of those years.
And it was pretty severe. I mean, it was severe, but it wasn't severe where they had it shut down businesses and quarantine people.
But it was a bad flu season because, like I said, I can remember getting that flu and I don't get the flu very often very, very rarely. And if I do, I shake it within a day.
But, you know, again, like you said, they built this narrative around this, this virus and this vaccine for the vaccine. I think they created the narrative for the vaccine. Absolutely.
Instead of the vaccine for the narrative. And that's why I speculate that it could be so bad is that the virus sequence was known in advance to be appropriate to use as a transfection agent to cause antibodies to show up.
Yeah.
I don't have any evidence for it, but it makes a lot of sense. If this was a plan, then they would have definitely made sure that that aspect of the plan was foolproof.
I mean, I don't think it's a bad thing if you got COVID. I said it from the very beginning to family. I said, we're all going to get it at some point. We're all going to contract it and our body's going to fight it off in different ways.
I mean, we've been we've been led to believe, James, as you well know, that that measles is something that we just could never tolerate. And therefore we have to have a vaccine. But in reality, I remembered.
And I found the clip. They had a Brady Bunch episode where they had a had a had a had a chalkboard with all the kids on it and what they'd had.
And the measles was going through the house. And nobody was panicking. They were even joking about the fact that one of them might be faking it.
And and and the thing about that that bothers me the most is that when measles was deadly, we weren't exactly as sophisticated as we are now with our public health and our medicine. I mean, we were significantly less sophisticated.
And so when kids used to go deaf from measles in extreme situations, my guess is is that if we treated it appropriately now that wouldn't happen nearly as often.
And the same goes with deaths. I just don't think that those numbers are realistic.
And their only motivation for selling those numbers is to sell the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Some advice to you. Stay on point with your content because you got phenomenal content. You're coming from a great place with a phenomenal background to be a very impactful influencer.
So just keep yourself kind of, you know, tight.
I love that you say that because we got a little off topic today and I don't like to speculate too much about politics and stuff. I'm really a biologist. That's where my wheel. Well, that's, yeah, we never really mentioned politics at all hardly in our conversation.
It was mostly biology and the virus. And that's what I wanted to do is I was looking for, that's why I was telling you to be wonderful to have you on and Dr. Judy Mike of it's in Dr. Rassnik on it.
I would love them. I would probably mostly be quiet, but I would love that.
No, you could, you could give some good input. I think Judy Judy's kind of, she lost her husband about a year and a half ago, two years ago. So she's kind of pulled the reins back.
She takes more of a faith based approach to her, her semblance of peace with this whole thing, I think.
And I think that's where you got to get to at a point with all this to at some point is, again, it's like, I mixed it up a little I interviewed a physician today a plastic surgeon who believes in ex plants instead of implants.
And we talked about the illnesses that are created by and caused by implants. So he does ex plants. That's his specialty.
So I kind of break it up a little bit.
Yeah, I'm at your service. I just want to get this biology out and continue to teach when I can. So every opportunity, I'll be there.
Get yourself on sub stack. If you can't join tonight and get yourself going and load up, maybe load up some videos, but really stay on point with that because it's a phenomenal, phenomenal platform for you to get a lot of followers and I can see you getting a lot of followers.
Okay, I appreciate the advice. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. You have an awesome evening. Okay, see you. Thanks. All right. Bye.
All right, I don't know if I was supposed to keep that streaming or not, but I did. Thank you very much for listening. I'm sorry I couldn't show you James's video, but that's the way Google works.
If I show it there, then it'll infinitely display it on his stream. So I didn't want to do that.
I feel the same way as you do in the chat. I'm not really down with Judy Mickovitz because I feel like a lot of what she talks about is kind of snake oil.
I'm not sure what really happened with her history.
I'm not sure if she's lying or her boss is lying or they're both lying.
So it would be an interesting conversation that again I would probably be quiet and humble in, but I might be able to get a couple questions in.
And I do think that David Raznik is a much more straight up player in the sense that he's less certain about things and just certain that things are not what they seem, whereas Judy seems to be a little more certain about the truth.
And that makes me a little more skeptical of her. But again, at this stage, I just want to get out there as much as I can and exercise my lungs. And so I'm going to accept every invitation that I get up into a point.
So anyway, thanks for joining me. I hope you didn't feel like it was a complete waste of your time with only me on the screen.
I will not do another stream tonight because it is 801 and I'm tired and I did a couple interviews today and so it's a little unplanned short stream tonight but that's the way it is.
I hope you're not disappointed. I will be on, of course, tomorrow because that's what I do a stream every day. So thanks for joining me.
I won't do anything fancy out here.
Thank you very much guys. I'll see you tomorrow.
See you next time.