Senator Ron John, nice work Albert I think he's a very very astute man I think he's really in in it for the real fight so
I'm happy to hear you connected with him he's actually asked me for an update that I still haven't written
He's scheduled for 60 minutes playing the reference your work so it's good that you've already made him I'm really happy to hear that
Japanese television people everywhere are starting to listen to him it's embarrassing
Good evening ladies and gentlemen this is Gigaohm Biological a high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by biologists the 13th of November
2023 we are still fighting to escape this limited spectrum of debate this critical and dissonant views within it that have been falsely amplified to give us this perceived
perceived vision of what is true from these people to mislead the young and yeah I'm I'm really really stoked that we're made so much progress and I'm really happy that you guys are a part of it
But we got to take the power back from these skeletons we do we have to take the power back from these charlatans I have the feeling my voice is a little hot
I see the bricks I hope you guys do
I got to tell you the week and a half off of my voice has done wonders for it it has now progressed quite a bit let me just read these off really quick
There was no spread in New York City infectious clones are the only real threat placebo batches were like distributed in transfection and healthy mammals is dumb
We can go farther and say that the protocols were murder gave a function as a mythology the scooby-doo mystery is real and the players are committed to lies
and the lies are very specifically about this the lies
oh that's not the way I can do that
the novel virus is a fate the fact that millions of people died and millions more were saved that's a fate
the idea that gain of function is a real danger that's a fate and the idea that a virus a pandemic is definitely going to come again
that's a fate that's a fate that's not anything based in reality it's not anything based in biology and that is really where we are
modified mRNA definitely modified are in our RNA destroyed cardio myocytes and any other cell that it expresses itself in
biology we really have to not take the bait on TV and social media if you think this is something now it's nothing compared to what they're going to throw at us
I am going to have the event a episode 2 it is coming don't underestimate it's just a question of everything falling in place but there will be a clone war episode 2 for sure
and I guess here we are
let me see if I can shift over here without too much
hassle
good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the show this is Giga Home Biological a high-resistance low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist
my name is Jonathan Cooley and I'm coming to you from live from the back of my garage in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
I'm happy to be here I took a week off after well more than a week off it was almost two weeks off actually
partly to rest my voice partly because I was traveling and partly because I've been transitioning into this role as a basketball coach
and so I needed to kind of figure out okay how is this going to impact my evenings how is this going to impact my streaming
how is that schedule going to work and more importantly what kind of stress does it put on my partner my wife my best friend in terms of bedtime and everything
so I think we're kind of settling around this this attractor state which is around nine or eight thirty
it's a lot better if I'm around for my sons to get them in bed and get their phones away from them and on the charger
to get the TV off early this kind of thing don't judge me my kids are like your kids they do actually have phones
they don't have a lot of stuff on them but there's enough on them so that you know their phone is a little annoying at times
and so they're not allowed to use it very much they use it for Spotify a lot but you know after dinner when what's on the TV is not what they're interested in watching
or when someone else has control those are when the phone they tend to disappear to their rooms with their phone and so it's a lot easier to do that together as mom and dad
and so I don't think there are going to be very many streams that happen in the weekdays before eight or unless they're before dinner
and then we could we're talking about four in the afternoon or five in the afternoon that's also possible in fact I expect that window to be pretty useful for basketball practice days
but I think I'm officially starting another streak of streams right now which means that we could be looking at you know a few a few in a row
certainly daily and there very few are going to be in the morning most of them are going to be in the afternoon either before dinner or after dinner
in case it's not clear intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb
and transfection healthy humans is criminally negligent you either know how bad it is and you shouldn't recommend it for your patients
or you didn't know how bad it was and then you were criminally negligent this is my new sort of wording I'm trying to adjust this a little bit
so you could adjust it a little more and you could just say that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances
with the intent of augmenting the immune system of healthy humans including transfection and transformation is criminally negligent
there now we've got it I think that's pretty straightforward I don't think you need to have 40 doctors at a conference and spend four days on stage
to try and explain the biological basis for this stance and I think that any biologists worth their salt in any field of academia any branch of academic investigation
I invite you to come on my stream and challenge this notion come on this stream and explain why intramuscular injection is a really bright way of trying to augment the immune system
and how it is that your combination of substances overcomes what is clearly in a broad sense one of the most ridiculous ideas we've ever applied in modern science
I know this seems like a really crazy stance to take but I have been ahead of this for a while and I'm afraid I'm ahead of this one as well
I mean it's all of these excuses being made for when this might be appropriate or what we have to do to make intramuscular injection an appropriate way of augmenting the immune system but there is no way to do it
and there is a precise way of speaking about transfection and I think it's worth speaking about transfection in that precise way
transfection of healthy humans is criminally negligent I think that's a great way to speak but if you want to make one statement not two I think we can also say it this way
there is no useful way of augmenting the immune system via intramuscular injection it's just a dumb idea on its face and we should have known this many many many years ago and in fact I should edit that statement
many people have known this for a very long time are my audio sync out okay well then we're just going to stop and start again if you guys don't mind because I just did this so
I'll start with this slide let me think here
yeah I'll just start with this slide right here I'll be right back see you soon
how are we doing piano fab does this look better
all right great so welcome to the show again this is giggle and biological high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist it's the 13th of November 2023 and we are still fighting
in this same basic battle and battle really focuses on messaging precise messaging right now I think the main job of everybody that's in this theater is to obfuscate the truth
and the truth that we've learned over the last three years is that the public health apparatus of America and around the world has been organized over the last couple decades to produce what is effectively a world wide theater
and a worldwide theater designed to sort of invert the way that we think about our sovereignty and to start to make us think that mother nature presents so many different dangers that the only way that we can really exist as a global community is to submit to this public health apparatus
and the way that we get rid of this idea the way that we fight this idea is to teach our children the biology which underpins these two statements right here there
and the two statements are that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb
and more specifically for the context within which we find ourselves the transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent
and we have to be very precise here because one of the current temptations has to do with criminal negligence but then the circumstances around which the legal establishment of that is being made is a false one
and again this is about trying to make sure that we don't ask the correct questions because the correct questions are the way that we escape
and so as long as we keep chasing down the wrong villains and pull in the masks off of the wrong people then we're never going to solve this mystery
but it is the act of unmasking these people it is the act of having solved the mystery of the lab leak that has bamboozled the entire globe into thinking that we did have a pandemic of a novel virus that millions of people died from it but millions more were saved
and then gain a function is real and probably the source of this pandemic and therefore it's likely to come again that's a faith that we have been bamboozled into believing through the use of bad language and bad theater
intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system of a healthy human
including transfection and transformation is criminally negligent and I say it a little differently here because I guess there is a way where you might want to augment the immune system of a sick human
to try and make that sick humans immune system fight off cancer better that's a pretty limited thing that is not a healthy human it's a human that's going to die anyway
and so there are limited uses for it but if you if you use precise language we can describe exactly that which we object to
and I would argue that a lot of these people in the intellectual dark web although they talk really big with their big words like heterodoxy
they actually speak very imprecisely about the exact things the exact ideas
from which our enchantment is constructed and we are indeed enchanted by these people enchanted by the ideas that they have woven together in a false reality
it is a illusion of consensus that is created by these ideas that they have woven together with the help of social media with the help of mainstream media
and a coordinated effort by themselves not to question the faith in a novel virus that killed millions of people but also millions of people were saved from
and likely came from gain of function and therefore will come again
and so I've been finding out about the intellectual dark web and how coordinated they have been how on message they've been in real time
and in fact two years too late because I thought Brett Weinstein was kind of a hero for a while
I thought he was actually listening to me
I even thought that him casually mentioning my name every once in a while on the stream was somehow him finally giving me attention
little did I know that he's never retweeted anything he's never really promoted a website or a link that would get anybody to me he's never spelled my name
he's never shown a picture and he certainly never had me on his podcast
we're just talking about a lot of liars here ladies and gentlemen I don't know who's lying and who doesn't know better
and I'm not going to make any accusations like that but I'm quite I'm quite certain
the vast majority of people that have been elevated in social media that have risen during the pandemic
even risen through censorship these people have been artificially so and their rise is far from organic
in much the same way that people like Mark Hewson tonic Mark Coolack after four years of producing consistent output on YouTube still has like what six thousand followers
and it's not for a lack of consistency or lack of integrity or anything like that it's for artificially the spread of the information is artificially hampered
dominoes are taken out of the train in random places and it prevents the natural spread of the information by attention and excitement
and I think that actually people imagine that one part of this equation happens but the other part doesn't when in reality both happen
and actually it's more important that those dominoes are taken out of the way so that even when people share your work it doesn't catch
that's much more important level of control in the on the algorithm level than it is to say artificially inflate somebody because if it's garbage
if it's garbage information it's not going to have the it's not going to have the inertia that that truth has
in fact that's why a lot of these people that are involved in the intellectual dark web need to deal in a soup of truth and untruth
half truth and bad questions because they have to walk very carefully around the truth so that it feels genuine from some superficial standpoint
and there are other players and other layers that are responsible for a similar part of the total effect of the worst case scenario team
is the best way that I can describe them everybody in the intellectual dark web everybody in all the corners of the internet
all the people that got little help on social media and most of the people who seem to get tips in the beginning of the pandemic about a fear and cleavage site
or about the effectiveness of remdesivir and they were months ahead of these sort of crucial notions of the worst case scenario being possible
the worst case scenario being a lab leak possible you know ridiculous infectiousness of a virus that had a fear and cleavage site
these cartoon stories and mythologies were seeded very early on in several different places and several different heads and several different corners on the internet
and people were allowed to write books about these ideas in order to amplify them early as one side of a narrative
and you had to figure out by removing the masks of these bad guys by catching them in lies by reading their partially redacted emails
you were supposed to feel like you were solving the puzzle
and yet none of these people in all of their research were ever able to find this article from 2004
where they just say the silent stuff out loud in their introduction nobody nobody in the intellectual dark web
not Sam Harris or Brett Weinstein or Kevin McCann or Charles Ricksey or Andrew Huff or Robert Malone or where were all these people
why aren't they bringing up the fact that the head of the National Cancer Institute and his postdoc wrote a article about
from genome to vaccine where they state the market for vaccines is driven by perception not by actual need
so unlike pharmaceuticals for which present illness drives demand it is the perception of risk of diseases that creates a desire for vaccination
this is written in 2004 this is what they say behind closed doors when they admit that this is a business
when they admit that yeah you know water sanitation washing hands and soap and this kind of stuff yeah it made a big difference
yeah aseptic technique that made a big difference yep antibiotics huge difference yep better medicine better treatments
better food better nutrition all made a big difference yep yep but in front of the camera and in front of the grant committee
they usually say that well you know vaccines are the best thing ever you know it's like the pyramids and vaccines and airplanes
best inventions like just a short list
and so that's how you can tell that these people are full of it that's how you can tell if you look at somebody like Peter McCullough who's come from
you know being full blown allopathic just mainstream doctor to being on podcasts now saying that if he was raising a kid now he wouldn't have any vaccines in that kid
now that's progress that's growth that's realizing the reality in front of you and the consequences of all of the data points that you have in front of you
there's no other conclusion to come to and it's really important to realize that in this Scooby-Doo everybody's going to have to come to their own realization of how bad it is
and when Peter McCullough was on my stream he hadn't yet come that far he might have come that far in private but not in person and everybody I'm predicting everybody is going to have to come that far
and if you don't make it you will be part of the trap you will be part of the reason why humanity is lost
because coming to that realization that realization that is that is really described perfectly by Peter McCullough saying that you know if I was to start all over again and have kids again I don't think I would I would forgo the vaccine schedule
so that's giant and right now the Scooby-Doo and all of the people who have perpetuated the Scooby-Doo on us whatever the right word is enacted it in order to fool our children
those people are in their last place the theater is a visible thing now the bricks are visible some of the lights are out
some of the theater lights have come on and so the the production is being exposed it's really just a question of how stubborn is the majority of the members of the audience and how can we force them to see it to acknowledge it
that we were duped that we were duped by our whole government by that even that performance by Rand Paul and Tony Fauci in 2020 was a duping they did that to us
that wasn't two guys acting like good guys trying to do their best to figure it out and Tony was lying to Rand
that was a performance that was a carefully orchestrated performance and it was designed to do exactly what it did solidify the support for Fauci on all the people who were on his team
and solidify the support against or the opposition to Fauci in this the suspicion of a lab leak cover up on the other side
and make both of those teams convinced that they are right
it was the one of the most beautiful things I had ever seen
and as I watched it live I knew it was baloney
but I couldn't quite understand how the baloney was being used I couldn't understand it as a Scooby-Doo that they were fooling an entire planet
into thinking that they were catching a liar or that a hero was being mistreated and no matter which narrative you chose you lose
because then you have chosen that there is a novel virus it's definitely killing a lot of people we definitely need to do something
it's probably going to function it could come again you accepted it all we including me accepted it all
and we spent two years arguing about that
well a lot of us did I spent about four months arguing about that before I realized that that argument meant nothing
because the biology of coronavirus the biology of RNA viruses doesn't support the idea of a pandemic
it doesn't support the idea of a uniformly spreading RNA signal over multiple years and multiple waves
there's no support for this there's no biological basis for this other than the stories that are told and introductions
and discussions of a few science papers scientific papers around the world that's it
you can't even really find the biology that supports this in a in anything but but an introduction where they are where they are waxing intellectual about things that don't exist
but what we're starting to learn from this pattern and I think it's really important to see this what we're learning from this pattern is that we may have been governed like this for many decades
and they just have lied about other things in the same way that we're starting to wake up to the idea that what if what if other government proceedings have been performances
what if other government scandals have been performances what if other other government controversies have been performances
and that's where this whole narrative starts to fall apart that's where we as Americans need to start to take responsibility for governing our country again
we've got to take responsibility and take back our republic again
because we can't expect them to do it because remember the people that coming to the rescue are also part of the show
until we are rescuing ourselves we are allowing the show to continue
I want you to watch this video again because I want to remind you of the kind of semantic war that they are waging on us
the big problem in vaccines has been that while it's been possible in the past to make vaccines against viruses that cause acute self-limited infections
that's mostly been done by making either an attenuated or killed virus
which induces an immune response that mimics the immune response that you get to the natural infection because the natural infection will give you lifelong or at least long lasting immunity
but now what's left are viruses that cause chronic infections or cancer that causes chronic disease
where the disease itself does not induce an adequate response to get protection
so now the vaccine has to be better than the virus or the cancer itself
so we have to develop new ways again
so it's very important to see how deceptive what he just said is
and it is actually one of the best soundbite examples that I've ever found of this particular point
which is really pervasive across this whole narrative
the idea is that we can augment the immune system to respond to any disease
it's the immune system we have to augment
it can't be and therefore we use the word vaccine to describe the intent to augment the immune system
and so what they have done is essentially cast an enchantment
wherein the use of the word vaccine or the characterization of something as a disease implies a certain rubric of faith
if I call it a disease that means there must be a cure
if I call it a disease that means there might be a vaccine
if I call it a disease you need my medicine
now we I think this is a really important point to make even if I'm beating a dead horse here
but it's really it's a it's a distinction that we are allowing them to blur
where actually vaccine and this is how he said it
traditionally vaccines were made of a weakened or a dead virus
and it mimicked the infection well enough so that the
immunity produced by the vaccine was equivalent to or very close to equivalent to protection from exposure to the disease or infection itself
the immune memory that's generated by infection was very similar to the immune memory generated by the live attenuated vaccine
but we can't make a live attenuated vaccine against cancer
we can't make a live attenuated vaccine against a genetic disorder
we can't make a live attenuated vaccine against diabetes
but if we call diabetes a disease now we can you know all diseases have potentially a vaccine
it's just that this disease doesn't produce an adequate immune response
you see he's he's suggesting something based on an assumption that is not biologically proven
that cancer for example is always caused by viruses so because cancer is a disease caused by a pathogen
and you are the host then you need a vaccine to prevent that pathogen from causing disease in you
but it's a surprisingly small number of cancers which are associated directly with causally to a virus
and when we try to make a vaccine against a cancer we're actually trying to point T cell memory at a protein which is unique for the cancer
it's not a failure of the immune system so much as usually a camouflage of the cancer because the cancer is made of self cells
so the immune system can't really see it
so this is a very deceptive language bait and switch that has been going on for decades that they have been working for decades
and it probably all goes all the way back to as far as Robert Gallo and Murray Gardner
and all of these people like David Baltimore who were involved in the early stages of HIV retroviruses
and cancer causing viruses in this whole theory of what viruses do
and so what I'm suggesting to you is that this mythology was purposefully created over many decades
so that the public health exercise that we've been through for the last three years was possible
and they almost, this almost was derailed, it was almost derailed once on 9-11
and you'll have to watch Usatonic Live and look at his long catalogue of this to understand what I'm suggesting here
but it could be that 9-11 was supposed to be a biological attack and somehow or another it ended up to be just a terrorist attack
and anyway the point is that we have been on a long progression, a long plan to controlled demolish America
and I think David Griffin could also tell us a lot about the financial aspects of this controlled demolition of the American system
and the freedom that it represents, the Constitution itself is going to be under assault
once the financial and societal fabric starts to rip
and if we want to address this problem it's going to have to rip
we're going to have to come together as a country in a different way than we are now
and love our neighbors in a way that we are not doing now
in order for America to make it through on the other side as America in some new form
based on truth and justice and the American way
whatever that used to be
so vaccination is a methodology that will work as a methodology, excuse me, that will work on everything
and that's the argument that he's making now
he's making it with the words that he wants to use in order so that we transfer the value of vaccination to as much disease as possible
in fact he is exercising this enchantment of
if I say disease, you say cure, disease, cure, disease, cure
if I say disease, you say vaccine, vaccine, disease, disease, vaccine
it's an enchantment
and he might only be reciting it because he's under this enchantment
but I think that at a certain moment
you as an academic and academic magician
you become smart enough to know that this sales pitch is that what it is, it's a sales pitch
and if you're making a sales pitch about vaccines it's a little different
than making a sales pitch about your little niche research that you know isn't going to save the world
but it's really important for you to study the pigmentation
and chemical steps in the chloroplast function in a particular diatom
and you know that that's not really important
but you talk it really up in your introduction
and when you're interviewing for a faculty job
but that's your passion, that's your biology
and so you exaggerate a little bit
you know these diatoms are found all around the oceans
and they're important in every ecosystem that has salt water
and they're responsible for converting more than you know gigatons of carbon every year
but nobody cares about diatoms
but you're not selling anything
you're not misleading the young into believing something that's not true
you're not contributing to the governance of an entire society by lies
you're just really enthusiastic about your biology
and you want people to understand how important it is to the collective whole
but when you're a biologist who's saying something like this guy saying
you've got to know that this is a sales pitch of BS
that is doing an end around the traditional idea of how a drug or a pharmaceutical is brought to market safely
and that your intention is to inject anything you want intramuscularly
with the intent of augmenting the immune system with no responsibility for when it goes wrong
and you know that the only way that you can get away with doing this
and have a hope of making something of this genetic technology work
is if you get people to allow you to do it
not everybody in this machine knows exactly how bad it is
but everybody in this machine knows exactly that it's bad
that it's lies
that it's gross exaggerations
that there are thousands and billions and millions and billions of dollars
exchanging hands
based on these exaggerations
these oversimplifications
and so he can look into the camera
and with his fancy pink lanyardon with his sudon
with his NIH job
and talk all this stuff with these words
and be as imprecise as he wants to
knowing full well that what he is doing is casting an enchantment
he is enchanting everyone in the future
as part of this illusion of consensus
that these are diseases and all diseases have cures
and the best cures are vaccines
it's a really simple enchantment
all these things are diseases
diseases have cures and cures the best ones we have are vaccines
so I work on vaccines
chronic infections like HIV or hepatitis C for example
and I think more and more strategies are being developed to target those
very similar to the ones I just talked about for cancer vaccines
and I think hopefully within the next 5 to 10 years
we will have vaccines for those diseases
but of course at this point that's hope
that's not nothing guaranteed, not promised
I think one is
and it's very similar to saying that this diagram means nothing
that we can effectively ignore this diagram
just like we can ignore any possible safety signals in
transfection and healthy children
we can ignore this diagram
and we can also ignore these people
right?
we can ignore these people
I have a lot of people that made graphics
designs for the trailer
from all over Canada and Australia
but it was just about junior
I said no this trailer is not about just junior
I said it's about junior and all the vaccine injured
that we have because there's thousands of it
people look at the trailer and they'll tell me
that's a lot of people I said no it's not
that's not even a little bit
I said there's more
I said I would need 18 wheelers
to put everyone's picture on it
that thing is
I don't want to make the pictures too small
I want people to actually be able to see the faces
of each person that's on here
my whole mission now
you know bring awareness to all the families
because I don't want to get any emails
text messages anymore
I get them from all over the world
I don't need to be proud of it
juniorsguardianvoices.com
and juniorsguardianvoices.com
I walked to that side door
I was sitting up in a
it was like a life-size picture
and I started crying because I could almost
feel like I could hug them
and I was thinking I'd be proud of it
if I don't do what I'm doing
I can hear them telling me
you know you need to practice what you preach
so that's why I have to keep doing this
thanks for putting that link in there
well it's about the first year
I was ready to give up
I didn't think I was accomplishing anything
I didn't think it was getting out there
and for some reason I was going through my file box
and I found a father state card
the last of my last father state card
and now I just started crying
for probably about three or four hours on the couch
I figured that was his way of telling me to
don't give up
to keep up fighting
and that's the same one I have on the back of my motorcycle
I figured well
I found it
I got to put it on my bike
to remind me why I'm doing this
he cried when he talked about his son
because you don't lose his son
and stop crying about it
I can cry about it
I don't have a loss to son
I just have them
you only have to have them to know
that this guy might possibly be feeling
and I show this video
not only because I want you to know about his website
but I really want you to see
that this guy is organized around everybody
he wants all these peoples justice
and I think we need to really
start to think this way
that in order for this to work
we've all got to come together
at juniorsguardianvoice.com
then we've got to come together there
but we've got to find ways
to make sure that everybody
who was injured by this
transfection and transformation
roll out
nowhere to report
their injuries and that they do it
that everyone who lost someone
to transfection and transformation
is
bringing these numbers to account
because there are people who probably
need to reflect again
ok when did grandma die
when did she die
and what did they say she died of
there are a lot of people
who haven't asked that question yet
there are a lot of people
who haven't asked that question yet
that had people die in the hospital
who haven't asked that question yet
that might need to ask the protocol question
we've got a lot of work to do ladies and gentlemen
because this illusion of consensus
is not going away
these players are not going away
they won't leave us alone
they're still here
they've still got millions of followers
they've still got substacks
that earn $50,000 a week
they're still doing podcasts
four or five times a day
sometimes
these people are still traveling
the world
and they are still pushing this
DNA idea
we covered a
really important stream
a few days before I quit
it was a Canadian
children's health defense
chapter interviewing
the hero from Canada
Byron brittle
who had his
career basically destroyed
because he found a document
from the Japanese Pfizer
trials showing
or the Japanese
paperwork submitted
by Pfizer
I'm showing that the
the transfection agent
and if you
transfected luciferase in this case
they could see glow-in-the-dark protein
all around the body
and it didn't stay in the muscle
and he reported this very early
and really really really
suffered for it
and two years later
we have the inventor
of the lipid nanoparticle technology
Peter Kullis
giving a celebratory lecture
regarding the garden near prize
in Canada
a sort of pre-noble prize
where he just casually answers questions
at the end where he says
yeah I ruined the career
or burnt out five postdocs
trying to figure out
how to target these lipids
to particular places in the body
and we never succeeded
or at least 20 years away from figuring that out
but of course the one of the
primary assumptions of
the effectiveness of the vaccine
was that it stayed in the muscle
and that the expression
of the spike protein was
extremely temporary
and limited
but we know from their discussions
and their descriptions of their own work
that they optimized it for
maximum lifetime
and maximum protein production
we really really really
need to understand that it's not
a matter of
what's true that counts anymore
but it's a matter of what is perceived to be true
and that these people have been
actively trying to
not let us understand
what is really true
and about the transfection
it must be understood
I think that somebody like
Sukhid Bhakti and I'm sure that my friend
Mike Eden would also agree with me
when I say the transfection
in its purest form
is wholly inappropriate for
healthy humans
in its purest form
the best case scenario
you know the
the coffee artist
cappuccino the best
whatever you got
it's wholly inappropriate for healthy humans
it didn't get any good form
it's not going to be good form
it's definitely not going to be able to augment their immune system
now upscaling
from this beautiful perfect
purest form
of
transfection to
from nanograms to kilograms
introduced a whole host
of
quality control and production problems
that have never been adequately
explored as being conquered
you know have they really solved
all these problems or do they just go
from making one
good
grandma's apple pie
to 10,000 a day
and just tell us that these pies
are as good as the one that your grandma made
because
when your grandma makes a pie it is
the purest form
of transfection and it's a tasty pie
but you can't call that apple pie
a something that you can live on
it's not a nutritious meal
it's a dessert
and so in its purest form
it is not a nourishing meal
it's an apple pie
and if you take grandma's apple pie
and you decide okay we're going to go from making one
to making 10,000 there are a lot of
a
lot of scaling up problems
that you need to conquer
in order to take grandma's perfect pie
and make 10,000 of a
a day every day consistently
and in fact
you can listen to Elon Musk
on Joe Rogan
not too long ago explaining
that making
a prototype of an electric car
is actually ridiculously easy
and the problem is a thousand
times harder is
to scale up production
of the car
occasionally Elon Musk
says things that make sense and are
actually almost above high school level
intelligence and that's
in that entire interview one of the few
intelligent things that he said
that didn't just make him
sound like a clown
he made comments about the pizza
which was pretty good and he explained
that making a prototype electric car
is relatively easy
relative to figuring out how to
produce it
and this scaling up
from making
transfection in its purest form
to making billions of doses
in a given three-year period
has just been glossed over as
yeah sure we did it
no, no you didn't
there's no possible way you did
and that's what Mike Eden brought
to the table very early on
in this discussion
so the R&A had to be impure
it had to be impure
because even when they made it in its purest form
in the small batch
you know
grandma's pie scenario
the R&A
was still pretty
not pure
and now
that they scaled it up using bacteria
now that they scaled it up using a different process
now that they scaled it up from
nanograms to kilograms
there's all kinds of impurities
related to the R&A and unrelated to the R&A
but related to its production
and
let's stay on the transfection itself
the R&A was codon optimized
which has a number of biological implications
for the protein that's produced
number one it won't be the protein
that's produced is because
although the codon optimization
is changing synonymous codons
synonymous codons are not synonymous
and we know this because many
genetic diseases
seem to be
based on silent mutations
in the gene that they are
correlated to
silent mutations aren't supposed to change
the protein but somehow silent
mutations are linked to an awful lot of genetic diseases
and that is likely because
the silent mutations affect the translation
of the protein
the translation from R&A to protein
requires the ribosome to do stuff
that we don't understand
the ribosome is a mystery machine
the real mystery machine
in this Scooby-Doo is the ribosome
and
conquering figuring out how the ribosome
does what it does
and how the variations in ribosomes
change what it does
and how the sequence of the R&A
even with synonymous codons
changes what the R&A does
in the ribosome
is a mystery
and you might think you know what a ribosome
is it's actually not a protein
it's a protein
R&A molecule hybrid
that functionally forms this
enzyme machine thing called a ribosome
it's a pretty complicated thing
that we don't really understand
that much about
and so when we codon optimize
the R&A we don't know exactly what we did
but we definitely changed how the R&A
will translate through any
given ribosome and any given tissue
because
codon optimizing changed
the amino acid
codons that are present
in the viral R&A
so it's not the same spike protein
in addition
because you know there's no
bell prize technology in this stuff
it was chemically altered
and those chemical
alterations can change the way
that the ribosome interacts with the R&A
and it can redesalt
in premature stops
which would shorten the protein
and it can result
in a wobble-based phenomenon
which basically means that the R&A
is not as specific
or a particular codon as it would be
when it has this pseudo-uridine present
it's like a wild card
and so now
the ribosome can make errors of insertion
or errors of
substitution
and those errors
will necessarily have consequences
for the antigenic properties
of the protein
the folding of the protein
and potentially even the toxicity
of it
the worst part is these premature stops
create very small
R&As which small R&As
can have the potential to interfere
with our own endogenous R&As
so there's all kinds of possibilities that are opened up
by the fact that the R&As impure
the R&A was codon optimized
and chemically altered
it results in all this variability
and all of this
extra R&A
and extra R&As not handy
and it's not something that we can be imprecise about
and yet there's no doubt
because of one and two and three
that we are not precise here
so the protein produced is uncharacterized
and highly variable again because of three, four and five
that means that the immune response
that's being generated by this bouquet of variability
is not very predictable either
it's pretty predictable from the standpoint
of when they tell you to check it this way
yeah sure it works
that's like saying you know
did you use the car last night
to your teenage daughter
and she says no I didn't
well what's your proof?
well you know look in the driver's seat
there's no Chick-fil-A
is that proof?
and in this case what we're talking about here
is them saying something like well
you know the spike protein works
I mean when we use our own assay
to test whether there's any spike protein produced by the M R&A
our assay says it works great
well if your daughter's assay
for whether she used the car or not
is the one that's in the car
if your daughter's assay for whether she used the car or not
is the one that you accept
then she can say yeah there's no Chick-fil-A in the front seat
so obviously I didn't use the car
and then you got to go oh I guess you're right
you didn't use the car
well we used our test
to find that spike protein is produced
when we when we transfect cells in a dish
so obviously it works right
it's the same argument
it's the same level of proof
and so the LNP was never really tested in humans
for long or short-term effects
we just take the word of Peter Cullis
that it works great
but we can't really target it anywhere
endotoxins from process two
those are the bacteria
and the remnants of the bacteria
after they've been lised
you can't clean that up very well
and again it's compounded by the fact
that you're not making small batch
you're making large batch
and in that large batch
it's even harder to get contaminants out
when you're rushing it out
when you're bottling
millions of small vials
there's all kinds of variability
potential there again
these are all compounding problems
and we still haven't really gotten
to the double-stranded fragments
from process one until right now
at number nine
and so my argument is
hopefully I'm not too far from the microphone right now
but the argument is
is that number nine
is one of many many many reasons
to reject
transfection in healthy humans
the first one being
the transfection in its purest form
is wholly inappropriate for healthy humans
and number one
is the reason why they were criminally negligent
not number nine
they are criminally negligent
because they have known that
transfection in its purest form
would be wholly inappropriate for healthy humans
they have known that upscaling
from nanograms to kilograms
was going to be a disaster
they have known that the RNA was impure
they have known that the codon optimizing
would cause variability
they couldn't predict
they have known that chemically
altering this mRNA would cause it to last
much longer than intended
and could even produce small fragments of RNA
that could interfere with our own endogenous transcripts
they have known
that the protein is wholly uncharacterized
as a prodrug and should have definitely been treated as such
they have known that the LNP
was not tested adequately in humans
and so the criminal negligence
that we need to be targeting
is not number nine
and we are being misled
that number nine is our opening
number nine is our big window
or is the spike toxic
maybe that's our big window
maybe we should be angry because they chose the wrong protein
we were being told that for more than a year
we were being told that the spike is toxic
and that we chose the wrong protein
for a year
and the only reason why we are still not being told
that very thing is because of giga ohm biological
that's what I believe
and so this list is important to understand
because this is the argument that I want to make
repeatedly over the next weeks
until Christmas until the new year
and I believe
wittingly or unwittingly
these people are involved in sustaining that
they are involved in sustaining this
imaginary tunnel we're in
where there was a novel virus
that killed millions of people
but thank goodness we saved millions too
and gain a function obviously is real
because these people were lying about it
covering it up by mean man oh man
it's obvious now
and so we've got to be careful because the virus
will definitely come again
and we cannot let our children
grow up in this world
but it is
keeping the narrative alive
the show must go on and it's not a matter of what true
that counts it's a matter of what's perceived to be true
so these people are still working
Paul Offitt is still working
and the Twiv crew is still working
so I wanted to watch a little bit of Twiv tonight
because I think it's fun to watch these guys
and this episode has a number of different papers
that they cover in it
but the paper that I wanted to look at
is an HPV paper
where they look at viral prevalence
and they make some argument about the HPV vaccine
so I will be very honest
I didn't know a lot about the HPV vaccine
until I saw Vaxxed too
and it was actually just in time
for me not to give it to my children
the first time that it was offered to my boys
we were already knew not to say it
not to take it
but it is very disturbing to me
that they are now pushing the HPV vaccine harder than ever
and these kinds of disingenuous arguments are being made
and really ridiculous statements like
HPV vaccines are a great way to prevent cancer
and this is just not true
it's not proven, it's not shown, it's not measured
it's never been observed
and in the cases where it is purported to be observed
great mathematical feats of ridiculousness
are needed in order to create the illusion of a data set
which gives the signal that they purported gives
and that's what this Twiv is about
is about this cell micro paper
where they say that they looked at
many different communities in Finland
a total of 16,000 young people from age 18 to 22
and they measured the prevalence of several HPV virus
serotypes in these individuals
four years and eight years after vaccination
and purport to compare the vaccination schemes
across these communities
and the communities that they say are represented
are an unvaccinated communities
communities where the vaccine was targeted to girls
and communities where the vaccine was targeted to boys and girls
and using a general linear model
and some other mathematical techniques to generate synthetic data
they claim that in the
populations where they have vaccinated both boys and girls
they see an effect on the ecology
of the hepatitis viruses
that they meet in these adults
that they are able to record in these adults
so what we're going to watch is these four
individuals digest this paper in real time
they're supposed to have read it, it's supposed to be a journal club
but in reality when you hear the absolute
it's only can be described as shameful
that all three of these people purport to be
a career academic biologist with decades of experience
none of these people on the screen are claiming less than
less experience than me and most of them I would assume
are claiming more experience than me in virology
and in biology in general
so every one of these people should be my academic
and intellectual elder
and yet you're going to hear how
absolutely elementary
and naive they speak
of these
things that are portrayed as certainties by the CDC
by the FDA, by the WHO, by everyone
by the entire public health apparatus
that is responsible for this illusion of consensus
and they even actually get confused because they realize
that wow there's a lot of
there's a lot of hand waving here
and Vincent tries to pull the
shoot a little bit and keep them on topic
but the guy in the upper right is sure not buying it
and the guy in the lower right really tries to save the day too
but I mean it's just an exposure like none other
so let's check this out
I don't know how long I'm taking here
I'm probably really already
hours and hours on
here we go
so I starting it at
2358 because they read some other paper beforehand
and it's only going to be about 15 minutes
we're not going to listen to the whole thing
I'm just going to listen to this paper
and I'm going to listen at one and a half speed
and then we'll close it out
you know because that's how we're going to do it
we're going to do dailies
we're going to try and just keep
singing the same song
and if you don't like it
well that's tough
because the same song needs singing at this point
we need to keep repeating stuff
until people get it
what is behind me?
there's a wrinkle in my
in my green screen
it's making some annoying
like there we go
alright that's better
oh good mistakes
let's play
yeah there was only two in the ellipsis
it was three dots but only two names
oh I read the main title
with all the authors
yeah okay
one two three four five six seven eight
yeah okay yeah the ellipsis
I didn't read that right
okay human papillomavirus
now these are DNA viruses
oh wait what did I say?
human icosahedral capsid
okay so here you go you can already see
where I'm just not
human papillomavirus is HPV vaccine
I apologize what was I saying
hepatitis like that's crazy
that's the one they give at birth
and they give it other types too
so I apologize already for that ball drop
HPV is human papillomavirus
and those are the viruses
that are blamed for cervical cancer
and uterine cancer
and all kinds of other genital cancers
and so that's what we're talking about here
and it's a niche
for cervical cancer
which is just ridiculous right
for a number of biological reasons
it's imprecise use of language
that's really burning me up lately
but it's it's burning me up
because it's become obvious
that that's not only what drove me nuts
when I was in academic biology
as a neurobiologist
but it's what really drives me nuts
about how we've moved through this pandemic
it's with imprecise language
it is making things stupid complicated
or dumb simple when it's inappropriate
to the point where people
are completely bamboozled
they're misled
and they think they understand something
that has been made dumb
simple or stupid complicated
and they don't
and these people are going to
inadvertently or unwittingly admit
that they don't understand this either
and it's sad
because you can see them struggle
through the mud
like wow I really don't get it
I mean it doesn't make sense
but I guess we've got to accept it
because we're a virologist
and this is a virology paper
brains and they are
there are lots of them
there are many different types
and many of them are associated
with producing warts
and humans
for human papilloma viruses
of course are rabbit papilloma viruses as well
but in humans some of the types
are associated with cancers
such as cervical cancer, anal cancer,
vaginal cancer, vulvar cancer
and also oral pharyngeal cancer
and a number of years ago
vaccines were developed
to specifically prevent these cancers
and they're very good at doing that
they're interesting vaccines
because they're virus-like particles
there's a genome in them
the main capsid protein is produced in
like yeast or insect cells
it assembles into a particle
it's mixed with an adjuvant
and they're very good at preventing cancers
so they've been widely adopted
and of course the best time to give them
is before people become sexually active
so you don't acquire these viruses naturally
which is when they become a problem
so you can prevent disease by vaccinating
so it's weird because he says
that you prevent disease by vaccinating
and it's better to vaccinate people younger
because you acquire these viruses
through sexual activity
so the idea is apparently
that you don't have any of these viruses
until you start sleeping with people
but where do those people get them?
basically already the biology is off the rails
basically he's already telling you
in a minimal mythology story
that has no basis in reality
and you can just dissect it
with common sense
and it's extraordinary really
how accepted
and accepting
the three of these people are
as he says these ridiculous things
that they're really good at preventing cancer
and that giving them early
is the way they work the best
because you get these viruses
through sexual activity
so we have to give the vaccine
before the sexual activity starts
I mean how these things are connected
in his mind is just
it's bewildering to me
that they can even speak these words out loud
and not be disgusted with themselves
because you have to know that these are lies
you have to know that these are gross
oversimplifications of something that we obviously know
is a lot more complicated than this
so there are lots and lots of stereotypes of these
but it's only a few of them
that account for the overwhelming majority
essentially all of the cancers
and that's 16 and 18
HPV 16 and HPV 18
are the targets of the vaccine that they're looking at here
31 and 45, too
31 and 40
oops 31 and 45, too
so I guess I don't know what I'm talking about at all
but I read the paper and I'm really smart
5, too, that's right
and the question I have is with all those types
does this vaccine come?
There's also a
9-valent
vaccine, Gardasil 9
in the paper
so really we're looking at
4 academic scientists
with their own podcast that's already funded
that has a studio
and staff in Manhattan
that's on their thousandth episode
and they still don't have the basic biology
of human papilloma virus
one of the most successful
and successful products
of the Merck company
they have no idea
they have no concept
they don't feel any obligation
and any responsibility to be
informed about it
even as they hope that they get a million views
even as they think
that they are working with Earth's
virology teacher
understand how
despicable this is
no
31 and 45, too
that's right
the question I have is with all those types
does this vaccine cover all them as well?
no
if you get the vaccine
are you susceptible still to the ones
that they didn't include into the vaccine?
yes
and there's not 100 serotypes
there are more than 200 serotypes
of the human papilloma virus
and the best vaccine
Gardasil 9
purports to target
9 of those serotypes
now if you're not aware
about how a niche works
a niche is for a single species
and species compete to occupy a niche
if two species
can occupy the same niche
it's not really a niche anymore
and yet we're going to
argue and discuss
the use of these terms
and whether or not it's appropriate for
something that's actually not even alive
that's actually doesn't have
species but has a quasi-species
swarm
and that can generate new variants
through recombination
and generates new variants
through consistent replication errors
they are
completely off their skis here
and careening
into a ditch
and the only thing that they can do
is do it as gracefully as possible
in hopes that the vast majority
of their viewers
are unsophisticated enough
to see the train wreck
for what it is
the one that really has trouble
with it is Alan Dove
down here in the bottom
he's really having glitch outs
you know like I've got to argue
for the mythology
that I believe in
even though the guy above me here
is really really
hitting home runs
I've got to make fun of this old man
we're going to all collectively make fun of this old man
so that in the end
the illusion of consensus
will be sustained
watch this train wreck
but they've included in the vaccines
the highest risk types right
so you know
as was mentioned actually
included into the vaccine
if you get the vaccine are you susceptible
still to the ones that they didn't include
into the vaccine? Yes
but they've included in the vaccines
the highest risk types right
so you know as was mentioned
actually so there's a nine-valent
HPV vaccine which has the most different types
it covers 611, 16, 18, 33,
45, 52 and 58
right so it's been updated over the years the original was 16 and 18
which are the big really bad ones and then they've
kind of punched down the list
getting more and more and this nine-valent
I guess is the latest iteration that
why is he even talking
five minutes ago he said that this
this vaccine that they're talking about
in this paper targeted two
of the 200 plus
zero-zero types
then
the lady over here corrects him and says
no there's two more
and finally we say well yeah there's also
a nine-valent one
and then he pipes in and says
oh yeah well yeah this is the way it is
because that's how these people have a discussion
that's how they think discussion
goes
is some kind of
agreement festival
oh yes you're right I agree with you and repeat
what they said
that's not discussion
that's not science happening
this isn't a guy who's on his game
this is a guy who's posing
there's no other way to see it
he should be ashamed of himself
that he should have said wow I
didn't realize this because I just started by saying there's only two
targeted
I mean
how is it even possible
that people take this seriously
other than the fact that we have been
misled for decades
it's the only way to explain it
um that takes out
or generates antibodies against a larger panel
so Vincent would you
summarize that what is the goal of this research
so he made another assumption there
he said that this
listen he says that this
and this nine-valent I guess is the latest iteration
that takes out or generates
antibodies against a larger panel
so he's just thinking out loud
that I guess they have this nine-valent
one that makes up
antibodies against a larger panel
now that I just heard
that there is a Gardasil-9
I guess the way that it must work
is that it targets a whole panel of viruses
you know
five minutes ago I thought that there was just
Gardasil-2 but I guess there's
Gardasil-9 so cool wow
it's like learning in real time
I feel really smart now
we're talking about
vaccinating teenage girls
that don't need to be vaccinated
that are
we're talking about injecting
a combination of substances
intramuscularly
to augment the immune system
of healthy young teenage girls
and boys
to protect them from viruses
that have more than
200 seroprevalent type
serotypes
more than 200
serotypes we are attempting
to
augment the immune system
of healthy teenagers
and
the amount of responsibility
that
professor Dove feels
to all those teenagers
is that he was
vaguely aware that there was
a human papillomavirus vaccine
that was dual valent
trivalent is there a quadrivalent
one oh there's a nine valent
one wow that's
that's impressive I guess that one develops immunity
against a whole panel
of human papillomaviruses
boy technology's
amazing isn't it Dr. Dove
Alan Dove
wow I mean I'm just shocked
Vincent would you summarize then
what is the goal of this research?
Oh the goal is a viral ecology
yeah I'm a little confused about
well right so if you vaccinate against
a few serotypes
there are all these other serotypes circulating around
and that happens to the ecology of this virus
now that you've
well if your vaccination is successful
you hope to take those serotypes out of the equation
maybe eradicate them in quotes
at least from local population
and then do the other viruses
change their proportions in the population
but remember what
what we started with right
Vincent said that you give this
this vaccine to kids before
they get the virus
one representation of HPV vaccine
is that you give it to them
so that they don't get these
these dangerous
human papillomaviruses
from their sexual activities
and they don't spread them
so the argument is going to be
that the ones that they do have
after vaccination
obviously are safer
but in this paper they don't look at
cancer
they don't even look at
like warts
or anything
they look for PCR evidence
of different
serotypes
of human papillomavirus
and do they look for all of them
they can't
they don't have that level of fidelity
and they don't have that level of
of data
they don't have that level of vaccination
that coverage of vaccination
and so they need to use
very special
general linear models
and
apply mathematical simulations
in order to create synthetic data
and in that synthetic data
they say that they can find a difference
between populations that have been
unvaccinated versus vaccinated
and girls only versus vaccinated
and boys and girls
do you get more of those other
relatively benign serotypes showing up
or does everybody stay the same?
you just get a total reduction in the amount of HPV
Well I'm not sure a college is the right word
though that's what I'm driving
The reason they call it ecology
is because it's the niche concept
the right word that's what I'm driving
The reason they call
a total reduction in the amount of HPV
Well I'm not sure a college is the right word
It is says Alan Dove
it is
it's the right word
says the guy who says he read the paper
but didn't realize there were three vaccines
being used in the paper
didn't even bother to look
or find out or notice
never mind to think about
what would the difference between the immune response
of somebody who has
immunized with one versus the other
would one be more dangerous or less dangerous
more immunogenic or less
would one provoke a more specific response than the other
does that have any impact on the ecology that he so sure is there?
Listen to the guy in the upper right
continue to not really understand
why these people are being so
imprecise with their language
why they think it's okay to be so imprecise about
their language
He's not happy with it
but he goes along with it because of the illusion of consensus
that gets created by these kinds of discussions
The reason they call it ecology
is because there's the niche concept
there's a specific niche that a virus occupies
and if you take that virus from the niche
something else will come in and occupy
that's an ecological concept
It is but it's
I don't like the use of the term
I don't because you're really looking at the rates of acquisition of these viruses
the rate of acquisition
you see he's going back to the cartoon premise
that was set at the beginning of this discussion
which is already lost
because of the
bumbling
of these people
but he's on it
the guy in the upper right is on it
we could review it right now
let's go back Vincent
what did you say this is? This is a
this is a vaccine
that is supposed to prevent the acquisition
of human papilloma viruses
during sexual activity
and so it makes sense
they're great at preventing cancer
Vincent says
and we should apply them to kids young
before they acquire
the viruses through sexual activity
so as
follows from that very obvious premise
the guy up here in the upper right
is arguing that well
then we're looking at the rate of acquisition
of these viruses
that's the exact words he used
the rate of acquisition
we're starting from zero
and we're acquiring viruses
by being sexually active
that's the cartoon premise
and that is the cartoon premise
under which we are supposedly
vaccinating our teenage children
and so inadvertently
unwittingly this guy is actually
questioning that premise right now
and this guy is responding
in a very typical
skilled tv watcher way
he's laughing at him
he's making fun
you don't like the term
you don't like the term ecology
you don't like the term niche
are we being too imprecise for you
it's wicked these ways
ladies and gentlemen
it is wicked these many ways
that they haven't chanted us
and there are many
unwitting participants like this
Alan Dove character down here
who just loves to hear his own voice
but actually doesn't know very much
as is obvious every time he speaks
he gets really excited
when he thinks he's about to
restate something
that he sure is true
almost like a guy who gets to run
in a touchdown from one yard away
it's really fun
but it's also kind of not
challenging if the line does their
job and so he's always
really excited in these discussions
when they explain something
and then he gets to
explain it again because he
thinks he understands it exactly like
he did with the with the nine
valent vaccine thing oh yeah they have
a nine valent when I guess that means
that it produces an immune response
against a whole panel of viruses
so here now he takes the role
of condescension
and says yeah you don't like the term
well it's definitely the right term
you don't like the term
listen
has this discussion spirals
into full-on skepticism
and Vincent is forced to just
drag it out of the water
you're going to exclude
all of these others with a vaccine
and then do the others there you're not
vaccinating against do they come up as a result
does the rate increase or does it not increase
if we eradicated qlex pippians
would other mosquitoes
come into the niche that it occupies
and you know become more prevalent than they are
see he again
completely admits that he doesn't
understand the biological concept
that he's arguing about
if we get rid of a particular mosquito
will other mosquitoes come in
that's not exactly the same
as sexually acquired human papillomavirus
is it no
and the niche that's occupied
apparently by human papillomavirus
it's not the same
because a mosquito occupying a niche
is a
is an ecosystem
it is a species
it is predators
and prey
it's reproduction
it's weather
it's seasons
it's an ecosystem
according to the cartoon
narrative of human papillomavirus
human papillomavirus is something
that you acquire when you become sexually active
one way to avoid human papillomavirus
would be not to be sexually active
one way to avoid mosquitoes
I guess is to go not go outside
but we are not talking about
apples and apples here
and Alan Dove
doesn't seem to get it yet
and he's super confident
that he's right because he's explaining it
with this checkmate
sort of
if we got rid of one mosquito
would another mosquito come in and do it
please tell me that we get some
comeback on this
no no no I got that part
that's an ecological question right?
it is but I'm just
could have simplified this a little bit by just saying
does the rate of infection with the others go up
in those that haven't been vaccinated
because the ones that have been vaccinated
have kept down the rate of infection
with that particular species
I mean one of the most important things
I'm trying to drive home which I'm not doing a very good job of
is that the biology of
viruses
is to a large extent
a mythology
and it is a mythology
based on the false equivalence
between replicating
reproducing evolving species
like a mosquito
and an RNA signal
an RNA noise
an RNA phantom
an RNA phenomenon
and in this case a DNA phenomenon
a genetic noise
a genetic signal
a genetic something
that is not equivalent to a species
which replicates and evolves
and reproduces
and is subject to selective pressures
and predatory and prey relationships
and the weather etc
that false equivalence
and this transfer of
all of these biological ideas
to the phenomenon
DNA viruses is a false equivalence
which has resulted in
much confusion
about the potential for viruses to evolve
to sustain themselves
to occupy niches
all of these things
are designed to bamboozle you
into believing that many of the biological principles
that we've come to understand our world with
are applicable to these
small phenomenon
of RNA and DNA
and they are not
because we have a whole
other set of biological ideas
which describe
the principles governing
the behavior of RNA
and DNA in the wild
we understand how DNA is exchanged
between bacteria
we understand how DNA is exchanged
using viruses between the roots
of cell roots of plants
and the fungi that grow around them
we understand that
the different layers
of the phytoplankton
in the ocean
communicate and change
metabolically by communicating
with viruses
we understand that most of our tissues
communicate with viruses
that are just exosomes
and we understand
that the replication
of DNA and RNA is limited
by the enzymes that are used
in the context in which it occurs
and these limitations
prevent
RNA and DNA viruses
from reaching the level of biological phenomenon
where terms like niche
and ecosystem are appropriate
that's what we're dealing with here
and here we have
Alan Dove so casually arguing
that all of these things apply
to all of these other things
and they just don't
and that guy up there
at the top right seems to understand
that there is a little bit of a contradiction
and a little bit of
of incongruence when you start
to take these
these macro-biological ideas
and apply them to a very limited system
like RNA or DNA viruses
I would argue with your use of the word
rate I think they're looking at the levels
of the virus
they're not looking at rates of infection
they're looking at levels of the virus
incidence and prevalence
yeah it's right it's not a rate it's just
incidence right in prevalence yeah okay so
okay so incidents in prevalence
and we're not looking at cancer
and we're looking at incidents in prevalence
without the benefit of having the
incidents in prevalence before vaccination
again under this cartoon assumption
that there are no signals
before you have sex
and acquire these signals
and so their entire paper in cell micro
was based on a no data set
at start
at which is vaccination
or no vaccination and then
four years later they take their first
measurement of the ecology
of the human papilloma virus
in those people
they have no baseline
they just assume
like he did in the introduction
to the paper that kids don't have
these viruses
and if we vaccinate them early enough
we can stop their acquisition
of these viruses because that's how vaccines work
this is the illusion
this is the mythology right here
in front of you this is the way
this is all they got
and they want to vaccinate
millions of people
and millions of people
millions of girls
teenage girls
around the world in Africa
India America everywhere
that will take it
based on this flimsy
type of discussion where
four people apparently can read
a paper and barely even get past the
abstract because they're so biased
and so bamboozled
that they just think that
disease means
cure and cure is the best one
is a vaccine
I mean that's the foundation of their understanding
of everything around them
the way they put it here
and if you look in the discussion
they say the rationale
for the study is that the vaccine
reduces the number of susceptible hosts
or the virus is targeted
by the vaccine or
would it favor escape
which is the case for influenza virus
that happens for HPV
the idea of
so escape mutants
for COVID and for flu just slip that in
there you know escape mutants
viruses that are not targeted by the vaccine
or would it favor escape
which is the case for influenza virus
that already is another mythology
right because how would you
and I differentiate
let's look at the HPV example
human papilloma virus has more than
200 serotypes
many of them are rare
many of them haven't really been associated
with cancer that we know of but how
really have we investigated if many of them
are spread all over the place
geographically in space and time
and so we vaccinate against a few of them
we claim that it has some effect on cancer
but we have no data for it
and these people are now having
creating an illusion of consensus that these things
are obviously useful
and that what we envision that we see in
this paper is evidence of their usefulness
but the evidence in this paper is
synthetic data
generating used a combination of
mathematical techniques
derived from the original data set
which doesn't even have a baseline
they did not measure HPV
prevalence and serotypes
in these children
at vaccination
but they tell the story here that they obviously
they didn't have any before they started
having sex that would be crazy
these are sexually transmitted viruses
what a magnificently huge assumption
it's very convenient
for the vaccine maker
very convenient that these guys don't ever
even notice it
like how can they not notice it if
there's no baseline
like what kind of study was this
that happens for HPV
but the idea of reducing the
number of susceptible hosts
may increase the likelihood of type replacement
which is what they call it
the paper before this though
even the use of hosts
susceptible hosts
reducing the number of susceptible hosts
implies parasite
is a virus a parasite
should we think of it as a parasite
or is that a biological term
that's inappropriate to use for
an RNA or DNA phenomena
I would argue that it's part of this
semantic war
that's obfuscating
the limitations
of RNA and DNA
virology
and perpetuating
this mythology that
pandemics are possible
that public health is necessary
that vaccines are essential
and slowly but surely
old guys and young guys
and old ladies and young ladies
are going to have to realize in their own
time and in their own way
that this is
a lie
maybe this guy's learning it
slowly but surely right now
it will die still just confused
I think a lot of people are
going to die just confused
clearly stated that there were some geographic
differences in distribution of the SARS virus
rather geographic distribution
differences with these SARS types
that's a good question
if there's none there to begin with
and you've cut out all of the ones
that you're worried about causing cancer
then nothing is going to come in to replace it
because it's not there
this particular study is in Sweden
so they're not looking at a global
perspective there
but it's an interesting question
do you see a different pattern elsewhere
okay I'm sorry to
I'm sorry
people will allow it for this
I'm not sure I can't
so what are you doing this paper as they look at
community level occurrence of different types
up to eight years after vaccination
either in girls only or gender neutral
so one or the other
right so they actually have three different
communities that they're looking at there
some that didn't have vaccination campaign
some that targeted girls specifically
because it's a very effective way to control the virus
or at least it should be and then others that were
gender neutral boys and girls got vaccinated
and we should say there has been previous evidence that
vaccination is changing the
the prevalence of genotypes
right there these the ones targeted by the vaccines
are going down and
so the question is are the others that are not targeted
going up or are they staying the same?
that's what they're addressing
so none of these
the conclusions that he just listed
were actually reached using the data
and the data in this paper
were unable to say any of those things
but the combination
of a
linear modeling and a
what is it?
graphical something
something network
two different types of
math were used to
synthetically generate
finally to comprehensive
evaluate the community level
HPV type diversity
distribution between the trial arms
we applied
gen modeling
for the observed HPV type prevalence data
and generated a synthetic data set
from each original community
randomized trial arm
first the gen model
was fitted to each
observed trial arm HPV type
distribution over time
from which a synthetic
HPV type prevalence distribution
for 100,000 individuals
was simulated
for each arm and time point
for community level alpha
and beta diversity estimation
synthetic HPV type prevalence
distribution for each trial arm
data with an n equals
100,000 was randomly resampled
a thousand times without replacement
for equal community size
community level HPV type
alpha diversity was estimated using
resampled synthetic communities
for 18 to 22 year olds
a significant increase
in alpha diversity
the Shannon index was observed
from 18 to 22 year olds
in the synthetic and gender
and neutral communities
in contrast a significantly lower
alpha diversity was sustained
in the synthetic girls-only communities
among the 22 year olds
does that sound like data
which leads you to believe
what Vincent just said
or does it sound like they did a
mathematical simulation
that gave them the result that they wanted
and how
disingenuously
is this result
or this result set
being represented by these people
they haven't even mentioned
that general linearized models
and this technique called
a graphical-independent
network model
a graphical-independent
network model
a graphical-independent
network modeling
was used for the observed HPV type
prevalence data
and generated a synthetic dataset
from each original community
randomized trial arm
first the
gin model was fitted
to each observed trial arm
HPV type distribution
over time
from which a synthetic
so they basically used
linear
and
graphical
independence network models
which I don't say that I understand
but I'm just telling you what they're doing
and what they say in their paper
and what they say in their paper to generate
a synthetic dataset
made up of 100,000
synthetic cases
or distributions of the
Hylun papilloma virus
serotypes
and in those
communities which were simulated
they say that they got
a significantly lower
alpha diversity
in the girls-only communities
and the gender-neutral
communities of some kind.
I mean
the way that they are discussing this
it sounds like they just measured a bunch
of people and found a change in the viruses
but they actually didn't
they measured a bunch of people
and then they used a lot of mathematical tricks
and tools to create
a dataset where they say that
they found a difference between these different
communities but they're all synthetic communities
they don't have enough data from the
real data because what?
because the communities they're discussing
have a vaccination rate of between
25 and 50 percent
Did you hear that from Vincent or any of these guys yet?
Not at all
You don't hear
it from them at all
because they don't understand the paper
or they haven't read the paper
or they've read the paper and don't understand it
they're actually all
based on synthetic modeling
and interpretation
based on the limited data set
that they had
that the limited data set that they had
was insufficient to show
any effect at all
is lost on these guys
That's the best way to put it
That's exactly right
So they first look at four years
after vaccination and they compare
HPV types in this community
and they have a
generalized linear model
GLM for looking at this
these are all statistical analyses
of course
No differences in the
between the gender-neutral arm A and girls-only-arm B
at the community or type level
which remained true even after selecting
certain birth cohorts
for the strongest difference in strength
but four years post-vaccination
and epigenicity of vaccine-targeted genotypes
that would be 16, 18, 31
and 45, 45 in both gender-neutral communities
and for girls-only communities
so reduction in the
circulation of those types
if you will
So I have another question related to that then
How long does the vaccine protect?
Well we've looked
when was this first
This group is from 92 at the earliest
as far as I know it's durable
I haven't heard anything about
waning immunity against it
because it's not a molecular
vaccine dependent on the genome
it's a protein vaccine
The eight years post-vaccination they found comparable to portions of these
vaccine-targeted types
16, 18, 31, 45, again
in general-neutral and then they find 16, 18, 31
are reduced in the girls-only communities
so those are
types that are targeted by the vaccine
you can see a reduction which has been reported elsewhere
Now eight years post-vaccination
they found an increase of non-vaccinated
and non-vaccinated types
52 and 66
exclusively among the gender-neutral communities
when you compare them with the control
because we didn't get any vaccine
so 52 and 66 are not in the vaccine
but they're going up
but you don't see that in the girls-only
comparison
I don't know why that is
I got to this part in the paper
I was like wait
how do we make sense of this
and eventually what I kind of
like partly from the data but also just like
how would that even work
is that the unvaccinated boys
may serve as something of a reservoir
for some of the
of the HPV 16, 18 at all
and that is preventing
the
the ingress if you will of
52 and 66
because the niche is not completely unoccupied
there's a segment of the population that still has
these oncogenic viruses
Now that's pretty funny
for him to say because
again it seems like
he hasn't read the paper well enough to know
that the simulated communities
have a coverage of 25 to 50 percent
at best
and he hasn't realized
that they don't have a baseline
so they have no idea
what the distribution of these
viruses and serotypes was
in the background before the
vaccination took place
and he's working under the assumption
that again
the girls are clean and the boys are clean
and then they are vaccinated
and then they mix together sexually
and then the boys
if they're not vaccinated
are the reservoirs
from which these girls are getting the virus
but again we're talking about
vaccination penetration rate
of like less than 50 percent
so all the ideas that they're working with
all the assumptions that they're working with
are cartoon simple
cartoon simple
in the face
of the paper
which admits that the
cartoon simple doesn't work here
because we're not even able to test that
there are hundreds
of serotypes we only test
for a few
for 10
and we look at how these 10 change
even though we vaccinate from between
two and nine
a total number of
serotypes
and it gets worse
the guy up here
is about to drop the bomb
of wait a minute
virology is supposed to be like this
so what does this mean?
and they have no clue because
again this is immunomethology
the high fidelity is a lie
the deep
in depth understanding is a lie
the application of all of these
complicated biological
phenomenon that apply to species
in evolution
in ecosystems and applying it to
virus and virus phenomenon
is a lie
that's the dissonance that you see
this guy dealing with
in real time
as he realizes that a lot of this
mythology
has been proven wrong
a lot of these assumptions
that his career is based
on have been proven wrong
are being proven wrong
in real time
the HPV vaccine
doesn't work like the polio vaccine
did when this guy was a kid
it doesn't work like the measles
vaccine works like this
guy was a kid
it just doesn't
work like the vaccine of a
self-limiting disease
for which natural immunity
can be formed by infection
and if there were ever
any working examples of a
vaccine that was successful
it would be a vaccine made
from an attenuated
virus a chemically weakened
virus
and exposure to it at a
barrier
that intramuscular
injection of it
or that in a combination
of adjuvant substances
no, no, no
an Allen Dove
is not going to realize it
in his lifetime
he is a skilled TV watcher
until the last person around him
comes to this conclusion
he will live in this boat
they're not spreading them to the girls
who got vaccinated
but, you know, that's my theory
that's not really something that the data speak to
but I think that's at least gave me
a little explanation that could work
so that means
the ones that got vaccinated
are they still susceptible to the one
the strains that were not included in the vaccine, right?
did they convert?
do they look at that?
let's see, the analysis is
let's look at the methods, hang on
methods except the document
is this serology or
well, people infected with
any of the HPV's
don't they eventually develop antibodies
but the antibodies aren't protective
because the genome is already inside
holding up like a plasmid in cells
or is that, did I just remember that
Sarah prevalence, yeah, that's how they look here
we're looking at antibodies to the different types
so if you have antibodies to 16
you're not protected against any of the other types
so I wonder
if you actually caught that
well, I didn't realize I was an onscreen
so Alan Dove
basically again just drops the ball
and admits that he doesn't know anything about
what he's talking about
but he's trying to pretend that he's in authority
and this guy up here
is still having problems with the idea that
wait, there are really a lot of
serotypes
and we're only vaccinating against a few of them
so you guys are talking about ecology
you're predicting an outcome
and did they see this outcome?
and the reality is
is that they are still trying to read the paper
in real time to find out exactly
how this outcome was reached
and they still haven't gotten to the paragraph
that I read to you earlier
where they say
that the way that they reach these conclusions
is by creating a synthetic data set
that was at least 10 times larger
than the original data set from which it was derived
I would ask, if they haven't asked
the people who were protected against the cancer
inducing strains of HPV
were still susceptible to the none
cancer-producing HPV?
did they convert or not?
No, they didn't because the ones
in these cohorts that were vaccinated against the cancer-causing types
they saw an increase in
seroconversion against the ones that were not in the vaccine
so they're clearly getting infected because they're making input
Right, so they do, they seroconvert against
the ones that were not in the vaccine against 52 and 66
they don't seroconvert against 16 and 18
that weren't in the vaccine
if they weren't vaccinated
Does that make sense?
You get the vaccine, you're going to have antibodies to those
I'm not sure how they sorted the two out
but obviously there's a way to do it
Let's look
if you want to say 16 and 18
is declining in prevalence
based on serology
that means that
you're getting contracted antibodies
naturally, so that's
even if you've been immunized with 16 and 18
and eventually those antibodies will go down
unless you're re-infected, those antibodies will go down
unless circulation of those types
whereas you see higher levels of antibodies against the non-vaccine
included types than you're saying
those are circulating in the community and they're infecting our subjects
That's right, but they're not
It's really unbelievable, right?
This contradiction and this
this doesn't
compute to any of the people on the screen
and they're still just trying to rationalize it
making sense
Let me reiterate
They use seroprevalence to decide whether or not these people have been infected by these
of HPV
but the vaccine
the only way they can measure
whether or not the vaccine works
is looking for seroprevalence responses
to the vaccine
So the assumption
is that if they vaccinate you against
9 serotypes of HPV
that you will have
9 different antibodies
in circulation responding to
those 9 different serotypes of HPV
but then when they look for seroprevalence for
against all of these viruses
they find a decreased seroprevalence to
the viruses
that you were vaccinated to and an increased
seroprevalence to the
to the viruses which are present
in those people
So they use the signal
for immunity
to also indicate the presence of the virus
which is really quite
extraordinary
They don't have
actually any data according to their read
on the prevalence of
viruses. They have
data on the prevalence of
seroprevalence to
particular serotypes
of human papilloma virus
and they only have
the capability of testing for about
10 of those
conditions
And so they're just kind of casually laughing
about how I wonder how they differentiate
between antibodies from the vaccine
and antibodies from exposure to
the types that they're trying to eliminate
Can they tell the difference between
them? I guess they must have been able to
let's read about it. They must have done it
somewhere and then they never come to a conclusion
and Alan Dubbs fine with that
They're not causing cancer
unless you're re-infected
those antibodies will go down and that will
support your idea that there's less circulation
of those types
and whereas you see higher levels of antibodies
against the non-vaccine included types
than you're saying those are circulating in the community
and they're infecting our subjects
But they're not causing cancer
They're not causing cancer
That's the question
The assumption is
that any data
that they have
on these particular
serotypes
is real
That's the assumption
It's the assumption
that's made on all of these papers
all of the time
is that
the distribution
of the variable in question
obviously must be this
So if we don't find what we expect
then obviously
what we find is a result of
the manipulation that we made
and what none of these biologists and what
so many academic biologists
are trained not to do
is to wonder
too long about what the initial condition really was
To assume
that the initial condition is something
that you could imagine
like the initial condition of these children
well obviously
since these are sexually transmitted viruses
and these are kids
in their early teens
that haven't had sex
obviously they have no HPV
viruses and no HPV
seroprevalence
detectable by our tests
So we don't need to test them
on the day that we vaccinate them
We'll test them four years later
and none of these biologists
are sophisticated enough
except for maybe the guy in the upper right
to understand how ridiculously
inaccurate
and unscientific it would be
to claim that the data that you
collect at four years out
and eight years out
has anything to do with what you did
at time zero
in a small portion
of the total population in which you looked
and yet somehow or another
these guys have made
made a theater
a presentation
about an illusion of consensus
that this is a real
dataset with real
results that are
interpretable as
indicating
that HPV vaccination
in teenagers
depending on whether you do it in girls
or in boys has differential effect
on the ecology
of human papilloma virus
distribution among teenagers
and it's really just a synthetic
generated dataset
based on an incomplete
observation set
and now what you need to understand is
that almost all
biology about
vaccine-targetable disease
about all biology
based on
augmenting the immune system
is done with a similar
level of obfuscation
exaggeration
oversimplification
and over complication
it's these combinations of
enchantments that allow them to make
statements which move
biosecurity states which can
move secret meetings which can
move trillions of dollars
behind the scenes
based on oversimplification
over exaggeration
over complication
and a semantic war
where we take known
and understood biological
phenomenon that exists on the species level
and try to apply it to an
RNA phenomenon
or even a DNA
phenomenon
which is wholly
and equivalent to species
level and ecosystem
level phenomenon as we understand them
in macrobiology
and while
the old man in the upper right is really
feeling the grinding
of the gears here as they have
this very inaccurate, very
imprecise discussion
about a very
pretty crappy paper
trying to laud it
as bonafide
example of
vaccine effectiveness
it's brutal
but this is how the war is waged
this is how it's done
this is the actual battlefield
right here
and this is why Gigoen biological
is going to have years of work to do
this breaking down
needs to happen every day
all the time
constantly
until people start to catch on
and do it with me
until people start to catch on
and do it as well as me
until this starts to catch on
as a thing that people do
until these people stop
doing what they're doing
because this is part of
the apparatus that
misleads doctors
that underpins the assumptions
that the conclusions
that doctors assume are certain
are caused
by these kinds of discussions
these people whose
academic responsibility has been
abdicated
by their own incompetence
by their own lack of curiosity
every one of these gentlemen
should and ladies should be upset
and ashamed of themselves
for having been
in their chair for that long
and having learned so little
on their own.
Let me say that again
every one of these people
in these chairs and almost
all the academic biologists
currently sitting
in a tenure-track position
should be ashamed of themselves
because they have abdicated
their responsibilities
as professional biologists
to understand the biology
of vaccination and to understand
that it has been
oversimplified
it has been grossly exaggerated
ineffectiveness and value
and we have contorted it
into a
a gigantic criminal
enterprise
and it is absolutely
criminally negligent to
intramuscular inject
intramuscularly inject
any combination of substances
in the vaccine system
it is definitely criminally negligent
and it is only because
doctors don't understand the biology
it is only because
the NIAID and the vaccine center
and all these people
have obfuscated the truth
of the biology of the immune system
that they don't understand
you can't
you have to follow these
and suddenly in vaccinated people
we start to see cancer as HPV
that is causing them
Absolutely
I've been trying to figure out
the answer to Dixon's question
which I think is interesting
which is what is the geographic
distribution of the different types
around the world
and while I found various titles
and hits that seemed like they were
going to be informative
I didn't find anything that really addresses
that question
how many types are all together
and I was going to say a hundred
and yet only these two
it's more than 200 so again
the virology professor of the world
has no idea how many serotypes
there are and more importantly
he's going to try to avoid saying
that all the other biological
principles apply to human
papilloma virus but the guy in the upper
right is not going to let him get away
around the world are responsible
for the surgical cancer
and why is this guy down here
Alan Dove at the bottom saying nine
when we started out the discussion
he was sure it was just two
and then surely behind me here
says no it's also 36 and 38
oh yeah that's right
and then later on five to ten
minutes later it's oh yeah there's nine
of them now
and so now he says like yeah
it's nine as if he knew
or he didn't learn it like 20 minutes
ago
this is the kind of arrogance
that we need to fight against
that's not a humble man
that's a guy as I said before
who's just waiting to repeat what he just
heard so that he can sound smart again
and he loves doing it
he loves the one yard rushing
touchdown
with an offensive line
of high schoolers against
Pee Wee football
he loves to be the running back
in that scenario
give me the ball coach
I can happy to repeat the line
but he's not willing to put his
his academic you know
and intellectual mind out on a cliff
and think for himself
but every time he hears a safe spot
or a safe thing to say is correct
or a safe thing that he thinks is certain
he'll repeat it immediately
and here he is saying
yeah it's nine it's nine of them
even though I didn't even know there was
Gardasil nine until ten minutes ago
yeah there's nine of them
don't you know man?
how many types are there altogether?
that's another question
oh there's at least I was going to say a hundred
oh maybe yeah
and yet only these two around the world
are responsible for these
well the nine
I'm at the right
and potentially more than that
I mean there's the high on cryogenic and the low on cryogenic
and even high risk and low risk
and ontogenicity
are based on almost no data
if not zero
it's really the truth
I challenge anybody go find it
if you're a doctor, if you're a skeptic
go find papers that show
real data about HPV
and cancer
and which
serotypes cause it
which of the hundreds of
serotypes known cause cancer
and which don't
which just cause warts
which ones
they're basically justifying
a Merck product
what else are they doing here
but defending a Merck product
with with with Glasgow Smith
Klein intellectual property
what else are they doing?
they're not arguing for the biology of it
they're not even arguing about the biology of it
the whole premise is that it
prevents cancer
this is a story about
seroprevalence to zero types
extended through math
that's what this is about
it's not about anything to do with the actual biology
that this vaccine purports to
encroach on
so it's unclear
how far exactly we've gotten down the risk tree
but with the nine valent
it's pretty clear like
maybe everything maybe there's going to have to be a 10 valent
later when we discover that there are some
rare situations where one of these others can be cancerous
you know so that's possible
but this guy literally learned
this biology and the course of
this discussion he's talking like he
he's the the jeopardy champion
of HPV biology
it's really sad
I mean if I was on this
Twiv thing I would be like hey Alan why don't you
chill out a little bit you didn't even know about
these are the
these are the big concerns
okay so there are over 100 different types of
HPV not all of them cause health problems
some kinds may cause problems like genital warts
some kinds can also cause cancer of the cervix
vagina vulva or anus
most of these problems are caused by type 611 16 or 18
November 1st FDA
oh so
she found a document from the FDA
which clears up
this whole thing about the 200 plus
zero types and whether they cause cancer or not
gee thanks
over 100 okay
and they're classified at the high risk low risk
and no risk no no observe risk
no observe risk right
one two three four five six
seven eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen high risk
so not all the high risk are in the vaccine because
I think that just there's not enough infections
right but maybe that could change right
yeah and it's like well like or a
for angel cancer people now talk about HPV
causing it but
if you go back 30 or 40 years
HPV was not really a big topic of conversation for
oral for angel cancer because the overwhelming majority of it
was caused by smoking right and when smoking rates
came down thanks to you know finally
calling out the tobacco companies to account
the you know that
then revealed oh yeah by the way there are
a lot of cases out there that aren't caused
right so you didn't see those because there
was so much else going on and it's possible with
with these cancer causing HPV's
now that you get the vaccine when that's gotten
wide enough uptake we'll get to a point where we'll say
okay we got most of it and now
there are these remaining ones and as I say that might
be time to add more to the
vaccine but this is certainly proven
a very very successful strategy
it's proven a very very successful strategy
I'm going to give you another example
of how numbers can
be distorted in a very
disingenuous way that is
not unlike what is being done here
if you were a politician in Chicago you might make
the statement that gun deaths in Chicago are on a decline
and over the last 10 years they've been on a great decline
and so a lot of the policing process and the policing
in Chicago has been successful
and that would be ridiculous statement
for one reason and one reason only
the reason why gun deaths have gone down in Chicago
is because the ERs have become better at saving people
from dying from gunshot wounds
they've become better at treating gunshot wounds
than they were 10 years ago
and so the number of gunshot deaths has gone down in Chicago
over the last 20 years
but the number of gunshot wounds has gone skyrocketing
and so in a very
weird limited way
depending on who you measure
and how you simulate it
what math tools you use
you can create a dataset
or a synthetic dataset
which gives the illusion of change
an illusion of change
which logically
when told as a story or a mythology
seems to correlate well with the expectations
of your manipulation of the system
in this case the idea is
is that the serial prevalence
of oncogenic strains of HPV
in our simulation
based on a small subset of real data
seems to indicate
that the serial prevalence
the serial prevalence
not the actual presence
of but the serial prevalence
to some of these strains
changes over time in these communities
when we simulate them
at the four and eight-year mark
that's what they should be saying
that's what it should say in the abstract
and say in the conclusions
and in fact
what is it saying the conclusions
it says previously
we modeled from observed HPV
vaccine trial data
and showed the need
to opt for general neutral
HPV vaccination strategies
to realistically meet
the who targeted eradication
of oncogenic HPV's
hold on a minute
are you kidding me?
this is what I'm reading
previously we modeled
from observed HPV
vaccine trial data and showed
the need to adopt for general
neutral HPV vaccination strategies
to realistically meet
the who targeted eradication
of oncogenic HPV's
that giant sentence says
that we need to vaccinate
both teenage girls
and teenage boys
in order to realistically
meet the world health
organization goal
of eradicating oncogenic
HPV's
now we've just heard the
Twivcast say that we don't know
if these other
possibly 200 or more
serial prevalence
types of HPV are not responsible
for generating cancer
we just know that a few of them
have been associated with
cancer in the studies that we've done
and yet here we are
not talking about the biology
but talking about a world health
organization goal of eradicating
oncogenic HPV's
so to control oncogenic
HPV's and related cancers
we need to understand
the evolutionary dynamic
of these oncoviruses
are they oncoviruses?
we're just calling them
oncoviruses because
that makes
well it makes things simpler
it makes the assumption
an enchantment
we already know this
don't we?
no we don't
but we're going to call them
oncoviruses so that it seems like
we do we made a whole term
for HPV viruses that cause
cancer it's an oncovirus
under long-term vaccine
induced selective pressure
long-term vaccine induced
selective pressure
is a mythology for which
there is no
biological evidence
including in this paper
because
here we
estimate that low to moderate
coverage
HPV vaccination causes
between
5.5 and
36.7 percent change
in the genital HPV-type
distribution
we estimate
that a
low to moderate change
from moderate coverage of HPV
vaccination causes
a 25 to 36 percent
change in the genital HPV-type
distributions
in HPV vaccination communities
the change mostly stems
from a decrease in the occurrence
of high-achogenicity
vaccine-targeted HPV-types
but particularly when
implemented general
neutral also a
12 to 20 percent shift
in low-achogenic
non-vaccine-targeted
HPV-types is observed
while the eradication
of HPV 16-18-31-45 will
eliminate most cervical cancers
these are not the
seroprevalence numbers that were listed by them
in the previous discussion
they actually said
what did they say
618 something something
and that's
right so you didn't see those because there was so much
by smoking
surf risk
rare situation
listen to the numbers she says here
that's possible but these are
okay so there are over 100 different types of
HPV not all of them cause health problems
some kinds may cause problems like
genital wards some kinds can also cause cancer
of the cervix vagina vulva or anus
most of these problems are caused by types
6, 11, 16, or 18
November 1st FDA
6, 11, 16, or 18
in a class of high-risk low risk
no risk
no surf risk so what are they talking about then right
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
what this paper
that they're reading
in the conclusion says that
while eradication of 16, 18,
31, and 45 will eliminate
most cervical cancers
it is tempting to suggest that an increase
of 33, 35, 51, 52, 56, and 66
or the like
with increased virulence might cause
a risk of HPV related cancers in the future
in other words
eradicating some
doesn't guarantee that the others
won't cause cancer
the correlation
of these
does not preclude
the role of these
in those same cancers
it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of times
when 16, 18, 31, 45,
1, 6, whichever one you want to do
is associated with cancer
they don't do a complete screen
to show definitively
that none of these other sero types
are present
in this paper they fall woefully short
of measuring 100, right?
they only do like 10
so the really crazy thing to see here
ladies and gentlemen in this paper
is this number
that they use
because the actual results
of the paper
are extraordinary
where is it?
I'm going to find this one
number
in the results
that will just blow your mind
because I do actually think
that this is what they say
in the paper
in this discussion
where is it?
come on Jay, find it
at least in your time like this
maybe it's right away in the beginning
it's so close to the start
maybe that's why I found it right away
so where is this data here
we need that
we need this
yes here
HPV prevalence
oh no this was a different paper
okay sorry I'm looking for something
that's not in this paper
I'm going to show you that paper tomorrow
I apologize
I don't think it's this paper
no it's not it can't be this paper
it is a paper that they cited
which paper did they cite
that I looked that up in
what paper was it?
it's one of these first here
documenting its health
infectious agent
eight years what is this one?
nineteen
is that the one? no
which one
is it?
okay well anyway
there's a paper that I wanted to look at
that I won't look at now
because it's taken me too long to find it
which basically is one of the papers
that that cell micro paper
has providing proof
that vaccination reduces
cancer
and in that paper
the results of the
let's say significant
result of the vaccine
is a 19%
increase in
cervical cancer
in the unvaccinated group
with a 95%
confidence interval which extends above
and below one
basically means that by their
confidence interval
they're pretty sure with a 95%
possibility they're pretty sure
that either the vaccine
reduces
or increases the prevalence of
cancer in those that receive it
because again one
is equivalence
below one is that
the vaccine causes
more people to get cancer
and above one
means that it reduces their
possibility of having cancer
and their confidence
intervals in their result
of 1.19
is a confidence interval
that extends from one point
something
down to 0.8
which means that
they're about 95% sure
that it either works or it doesn't
and that is the one
paper that is cited
by this cell micro paper
as you know these things
are great at preventing cancer
the same thing that
Vincent started this whole discussion with
that these are great strategy
for
preventing cancer.
We don't even have
people that are old enough
to produce the data
that's supposed to be there.
We're just now getting to the point where
any teenager that was vaccinated
with this horrible idea of a product
is getting into the range
where they might develop it
I'm going to kind of wrap it up here
because I don't think there's any reason
to let these people talk anymore
but they might say a few more interesting things
9, 10, 11, 12, 13 high risk
so not all the high risk are in the vaccine
because I think there's not enough infections
but maybe that could change, right?
Yeah and it's like
we'll talk about HPV causing it
but if you go back 30 or 40 years
HPV was not really a big topic of conversation
for oral for angel cancer because the overwhelming majority
of the vaccine when that's gotten wide enough uptake
will get to a point where we'll say
okay we got most of it and now they're these
remaining ones and as I say that might be time
to add more to the vaccine
but this is certainly proven a very very
successful strategy
and that's one of the issues for looking at
this change in the if you'll allow it
Dixen ecology of the
other the other serotypes
All right so I'm going to
head to the discussion now because I find it easier
to summarize the results from there
so basically just to repeat
so we find depletion of the high oncogene
vaccine targeted type 16, 18, 31, 45
and both gender neutral and girls only
vaccination four years and six years after
vaccination but eight years but at eight years
they only see it in gender neutral but what they say is
our most important finding that increased
oncogenic HPV's diversity from 48 years
post vaccination exclusively in gender neutral
communities even though the high risk
vaccine targeted
viruses have been decreased in those
communities and they write this is the first
recorded sign of ecological niche occupation
by the non-vaccinated HPV post population
level vaccination some of these
sentences are tough yeah I feel like this paper
could have used a good copy edit in some parts
I mean that when the first recorded
sign of ecological niche occupation by the non-vaccinated
HPV post population level vaccination
there's a lot of parts there yeah
if that was the title I would have rejected the paper
the second quote sentence of the introduction
isn't a sentence until you take out the word
albeit yes yes there were sentences
that I read four or five times there were several like that
that I came to oh I see what they mean now
okay but so they can't write a paper
the paper is written in a very very
inaccurate and imprecise way
but they're still sure
that they understand the implications
of the paper even though they haven't
even stated that the data
that's that they're using to make
their conclusions is synthetic
did you
did you I mean
where did I put that paper now here
I suppose I got rid of it right I closed it
did I close that
I guess I closed that window
hold on let me pull this up again
PDF
we're here
so let's see
where was this
paper the
the methodology here right so
that was this one this is where I read it
I mean I'm not
for figure three they had to do a
simulation of community prevalence
distribution by vaccination strategy
so finally to comprehensive
evaluate the community level
HPV type diversity
distribution between the trial arms
they use this
general independent
or graphic independence network
modeling
and they simulated a
data set
simulated a distribution
for a hundred thousand individuals
and then they made their figure three
based on that this figure three is based on that
synthetic community level distribution
it's beta diversity using synthetic data
it's not really an
observation that has much significance
except for when they extended it using
synthetic data
that's the part that's most frustrating
this data from the actual communities was not sufficient
for them to demonstrate the effect that they claim to have observed
that's really important
it's really important because
these these twib people
aren't adequately
describing the limitations of the paper
even as they
they pretend to have this discussion
about what's wrong with it or
they're not very good writers or they should have written it better
it needs a copy editor
it doesn't need a copy editor
it needs somebody to adequately
explain how much
charlatanism and enchant
and is being cast by such a paper
how very little
forward progress is made
by such a paper
how it's vital
that no forward progress
is made in this field in order
for this mythology to be sustained
and that's the role that this clown
show plays
that this handler
is using these people for
is using
fame, perceived
importance, perceived
significance on the internet
you know you're part of
twiv, so you've got an obligation
to get this right
and this is the moderator right here
the guy who is responsible for the first
infectious clone of an RNA virus
ever
with his supervisor
David Baltimore
who I'm convinced is one of the
granddaddy of all the liars
in this group of people
granddaddy of them all
is David Baltimore
if there's anyone who knows
the truth about the lies
of intramuscular injection
and the augmenting of the immune system
using adjuvants and recombinant proteins
hits David Baltimore
and his protégé
Vincent Rancin yellow
racking yellow
excuse me
that's enough of these characters I think
let's just see if they end
why are we looking at this because
if other viruses arise
to feel this niche then this could be a problem
for vaccination and they say this has been
observed with other viruses including hepatitis B virus right?
SARS-CoV-2 we see antigenic variants
arising and replacing others
and so HPV's could have a similar pattern as well
and in a more immediate sense
we need to be aware of this for screening programs
you have to make sure that your screening is specific enough
that you're you know if you're going to say
oh you know you've got evidence of a cancer causing virus
this is the most awful part about it
because essentially
the only real public health data about
who in papilloma virus and cancer
is that like
an incredible number of these cancers
are essentially treated and avoided
in regular screening
and these vaccine pushing
charlatans are saying that this is evidence
for the paper
argues that we might not
need to screen as many people
other people have argued that this means
that we might need to screen people for different viruses
or that we could screen them for viruses
instead of for cancer because it's cheaper
and here's Alan Dove
right away running in for the
one yard touchdown
oh give me the ball
I can push this one through
and by the way
it is absolutely disgusting
make sure you've got the exact stereotype correct
so that you don't have false alarms
because you're going to have
possibly these other these other stereotypes moving in
another question that I would have as an economist
here goes can a single person acquire
several or ten different strains
or whatever you're calling these
variants of the couple of hours at the same time
sure sure they can have
ten different strains at the same time
but we don't know how many they have
and we assume that they only have one
most of the time right Vincent
we're not because the ecological
concept of species
is that no two species
different can occupy the same dish
only one species can occupy that niche
typical co-infection with more than one type
is common especially among young women
common so that means common
well then how in the world do they know
that these oncogenic varieties
are responsible if it's very common
to have many serotypes
on board
these are not species
they're varieties of the same type types
so the use of that word ecological
applies to species I'm sorry but that's a strict definition
really? and that's exactly
what I'm talking about
you can't take these strict definitions
with strict meanings and strict
strict conceptual meaning
and then apply them to something as limited
and lame
as an RNA or DNA virus
for which we know their biology
is greatly limited by their replication
capacity and their lack of
all these other attributes that we
generally associate with
pattern integrity is called life
and here you see
the malfunction of the machine with this
grinning little clown down here
who thinks it's funny that there's
contradictions in the biology that they
discuss and it's funny that it bothers
that old man as much as it
doesn't bother him
because his little mushy brain
is capable of juggling these words like
this these contradictions are normal for
him
not normal for this old guy
maybe this old guy is redeemable
maybe this guy is going to leave
to him in a few weeks because he starts
to become convinced that something's not right
absolutely
why can't we be flexible Dickson?
he was the one who came up with that
Dickson, I like Dickson
I think Dickson is my new favorite guy
on Twiv and then they said
I looked up the reference
31 that they use for their guide
and it's called ecological niche by
a series of authors the Princeton guide to ecology
that's their guide
to say what on issues. I'm sorry
the original concept of Disha was
published by G. Evelyn Hutchinson
and everybody else followed suit
as they agreed with him but viruses don't
occur as species right? No they don't
so the word ecology probably is the wrong word
no why don't we just change the definition of ecology
there it is ladies and gentlemen
there it is
that's the clip for you for all time
why don't we just change the definition
of ecology then
why don't we just change the
correlative immunity then
why don't we just change the definition
why don't we just stop calling it
transfection
if you don't see it for the evil
that it is that what they are saying right now
right here is the home run of
home runs that you need to hear nothing
else you are being lied to
by a series of charlatans
that are misusing the language
of biology to obfuscate their mythology
that's what's happening here and Vincent
Renson Yellow is a striking example of it
in real time right here right now
listen carefully
after Dixon so eloquently explains why
concepts like ecology and species
and niche
do not apply to a phenomenon
like an RNA or DNA virus
for which there are 20 plus
or 100 plus
or 200 plus
serotypes that can all occupy
the same niche at once
hit in a niche
what is Vincent Rask Rask Rask
and Yellow say
let's just change
the definition of the word
guide to say what on issues
I'm sorry
the original concept of dish was established
by Gevlin Hutchinson and everybody else followed suit
yes but they agreed with him but viruses don't occur
no they don't know they don't so the word of
probably is the wrong word no why don't we just change the definition of ecology
I think you can do that but some people would be very upset if you did that
there's another interesting point here though if you can have multiple infection
why would eliminating HPV 1618 L that's a good question to a shift like this
that's right right if they could all get along fine before exactly we wouldn't
necessarily I wouldn't expect to see a shift so Alan Dove now has a
completely different stance on things because his
understanding of biology
is so flexible
I mean
now he suddenly realizes that wait I mean if
they're they can all be there at the same time then why don't they cause pressure
obviously the phenomenon that we saw in this paper is due to
selective in competition pressure because that's the only way we would see a phenomenon like this
is exactly what Alan Dove said about 10 minutes ago
in the video
not 10 minutes ago on my stream but 10 minutes in the video he said
that obviously they must be competing and that's why niche is a perfectly
good use and that's why ecology is the right term and he laughed at Dixon
now 10 minutes after discussing it and after re-ashing it and after discussing
the paper a little more and reminding him about recombination and all this other stuff
he now realizes oh wait maybe there shouldn't be and then why did we see this
phenomenon wow that's very interesting
we're not talking about diatoms and photosynthesis here Alan Dove
we're talking about a multi-billion dollar product being hoisted
on teenagers for no reason for no biology
that's based in reality and you're just realizing it now
live in front of people who are coming to you for informed consent on these things
that's a failure that's a giant failure that's a gigantic failure
ladies and gentlemen that's what that is that is a crash and burn failure of this system
that is controlling us and we are seeing through it in real time
and we are going to break this wheel in real time
the way that we're going to break this wheel is by breaking down this plan that they had
this theater that they had and breaking it down by doing the math that they don't want to do
they want you to believe that there was a gain of function possibility
that this whole thing came from the worst case scenario
that it was a gain of function laboratory bio weapon that was released
and there's this illusion of consensus that that's the reason why you were
here not to blame for having been scared into taking the vaccine
because this was the worst case scenario that they sent it to you
and this illusion of consensus about a novel virus that killed millions of people
that we saved millions of people from that was likely gain of function
and that will come again this illusion of consensus is how they got us
and the way that they sustain this illusion of consensus is by telling you
the lie that everybody that died in excess in the last three years
is a result of the mystery virus and the only way this lie works
is if you don't talk about the do not resuscitate orders
you don't talk about ventilators
you don't talk about the lack of use of antibiotics
you don't talk about the poor use of steroids
you don't talk about remdesivir or medazlin
you don't talk about the extra opioid deaths
you don't talk about death certificate fraud
you don't talk about all of this math
about PCR fraud and lateral flow test fraud in the UK
you don't talk about all of the illusion of virology
you don't talk about all of the illusion of correlates of immunity
and you just talk about a novel virus
you just talk about the millions of people that were killed by the novel virus
you just talk about gain of function and bioterrorism
you just talk about how they're going to do it again
that's how this was done
you don't need a bioweapon to do this
you need a spectacular commitment to this lie
a spectacular commitment by these people to this lie
is the illusion of consensus that has changed the way we think
and trapped us in this illusion
this scooby-doo mystery about trying to figure out whether it was a laboratory leak or a bat cave zoonosis
that's what this faith is
and figuring it out and finding the liars and blaming ego health alliances
is all part of this mystery-solving game
to brainwash yourself into believing this illusion of consensus
and the way to break this illusion of consensus is to realize
that the laboratory leak, the solving of it, was a mystery
the use had to solve
that allowed them to do all these things
under the guise of trying to do their best to solve this novel problem
that was never novel
and the illusion of consensus created by these people
is what brainwashed your family and friends
it brainwashed the people on TV
into believing this illusion of consensus
and it is a faith
a novel virus
that's what it is
call it for what it is
and the way that the faith isn't a lie
and it is very different
than saying that there are no viruses
if you say that there was an endemic background that they conflated
it is very different if you say the protocols are murder.
and a transfection is not medicine
and they conflated a background signal
it is very different if you murder
and a
is in medicine, it's a bioweapon and protocols are murder. But you're not going to survive
and you're not going to escape if you just say that there are no viruses and that they're
lying about everything because they're not. There has to be some truth to the biology
or biologists wouldn't have been fooled. But the truth has to be really, really clever
lies. And that's what it is. It's infectious clones. The faith is a lie. There was a
background signal and there remains a background signal that can be conflated as a pandemic.
And if they had to release something or spray something or induce a signal, then the way
they would have done it will most likely and most easily is with infectious clones or even
transfection of the spike alone. But the faith in the novel virus is being sustained
by all the people that we that we currently call heroes right now. And you can see them
sustaining the faith because they don't address PCR fraud anymore. They don't address the
variant and sequencing fraud anymore. They have never known about the death certificate
fraud. They've never known about the RNA purity and the fact that it can't copy itself
the way that this story goes. They haven't talked about the problems with protein folding
and our inability to understand it in the implications for transfection. They haven't talked about
transfection in general and it's inappropriate, mis and healthy humans. And they're not talking
about natural immunity. They've never talked about immuno 101. They've never tried to
give you a lecture about immuno 101. Giga ohm biological is the only one. Jonathan Cooey
is the only biologist in three years that has attempted to teach immunology relative to this
pandemic and to dispel the myths and the mythology of it using biology. I'm the only one.
You want me to go down the list of people that hasn't done it that could have? It's long.
Brett Weinstein didn't do it. Chris Martinson didn't do it. Heather Hayne didn't do it.
Peter McCullough didn't do it. Brian Cole didn't do it. Peter McCory didn't do it.
Robert Malone didn't do it. Judy Mikovitz hasn't done it.
I mean, how far do we have to go? How many people do you want me to list? Because it's all of them.
None of them have taught the biology of natural immunity. None of them have taught
the extent to which transfection is wholly inappropriate for healthy humans. None of them
have gone so far as to say that the vaccination schedule in America is a crime except for a very
few Tess Laurie, Corey Pierre Corey and Peter McCullough.
It is a very small group of people that is really fighting the fight right now and everybody else
is faking it. Wittingly or unwittingly. And so you need to share my stream. You need to get this
in front of all of them so that they can either wake up and apologize and course correct immediately
or they are put on alert that we actually know who they are.
Because I'm done playing games with my children's future. This is just starting,
ladies and gentlemen. My voice is just coming back.
And I plan to exercise it a lot over the next couple of weeks, three weeks,
four weeks, five weeks, five months, a year. I ain't stopping until this is stopped. I'm not
stopping until the elimination of the control group is stopped. I'm not stopping until everyone
that is capable of understanding these two phrases understands them.
Until these are common knowledge.
Until it's common knowledge for a for a for an elementary school teacher to know this biology
and to teach it. I'm going to be working here again to go biological. As long as CHD will have
me, I'm going to be working for CHD because I think for the most part, although CHD would like
to be a big top tent for health freedom. Health freedom is defined by this biology right here.
That there is no useful way to augment the human immune system through intramuscular injection.
And this, this criminally negligent bad idea and all of those responsible directly or indirectly
for petri perpetuating it for the last 20 plus years are criminally negligent liable
demons. And I'm going to spend the rest of my adult life teaching this biology until it's
I'm blue in the face or dead. So welcome to the show. Welcome to the big show. That's where we are
ladies and gentlemen. I believe it's much more likely if it's a lab lead. Stop lying. Stop lying.
Stop lying. That's where we are ladies and gentlemen. Thanks very much for joining me and I will
see you again tomorrow night. I hope you're aware and realize that I have no no equalizer here.
There's no equalizer on my voice right now. This is just a it's a microphone that's actually
a condenser microphone that's distant right it's supposed to have a direction.
And so it's just a mic and my voice is really back. It feels stronger than ever. I can finally
fill the gym during basketball practice and tell the boys what they're doing even when they're
bouncing the ball. I basically have my old voice back and so I'm really really happy. I'm not
going to be talking about it a lot anymore. But it was definitely worth taking the two weeks off
that I did for the recovery of my voice and also just getting everything reoriented for the basketball
season. And so there's going to be a little flexibility in terms of time but I'm either
going to be basically going at about four forty five or five o'clock or I'm going to be going at
about eight or eight thirty or nine o'clock. Just depending on the schedule at home I'm sorry
but my priority is my family and so I am going to make it a priority to be here on daily but
the give and take of that is that there's got to be a little flexibility in the
schedule so you won't be able to always watch it live. But if you look for me every day you'll
definitely find me. Thanks very much for joining me and I'll see you guys again tomorrow.