.
each one of us.
And we will all die.
It's the effect of sin in our lives, we can't escape it.
But I'm also
discouraged.
And there's a little bit of me that's angry.
I was driving to work the other day and I just screamed.
I missed my dad.
And in my opinion, he was murdered by the medical machine.
There was something unique about the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, COVID-19, the crisis,
by which the hospitals, almost exclusively, were the venue of death.
That's a powerful thing for him to say.
When he came on my stream, he wasn't really totally there yet, I don't think.
When he came on our stream, he didn't want to really do that thought experiment
about whether the hospitals could have caused it all
and that the protocols could have caused it all.
Now, there is a little trap there.
And the trap is, is that the story of that particular man and his father
was the hospital in Texas preventing him from getting Ivermectin.
Now, why do I say that's a trap?
I'm not trying to be a shit.
I'm trying to point out that the one thing that never seems to catch on,
that never seems to catch fire, that nobody's ever making a documentary about,
is remdesivir.
Don't we have a lot more documented cases of remdesivir use?
And don't we know that remdesivir helped no one?
I'm still really confused about this, because in my understanding of everything
that I've been able to read, remdesivir, in all the trials that it was used,
for Ebola, for whatever else that it was used for, it never worked.
I've always hurt people.
And so part of what I thought was so annoying about this Brian artist guy,
when he came out and said that remdesivir, and there's venom in the shots or something like that,
he had a great message about remdesivir that was essentially destroyed
because he also said that there was venom and snake venom and something,
and stupidters his show, and then everything else that he said about remdesivir went down the toilet with him.
And since then, nobody's been able to accurately articulate in the dissident movement
how bad remdesivir was in Ebola trials and how ridiculous it would be to use it
and how many people behind the scenes of this apparatus seem to be really keen
on sneaking it in as early as possible before there was anything else effective.
This is extremely curious now that, again, when we have all of this possible cordwood to stack up,
literally anybody that had remdesivir could in theory get in on this,
because all of them are likely going to have a medical chart that says,
well, we gave him remdesivir and then his kidneys filled up and he got pneumonia and then he died,
or those things happened and he escaped anyway, but anybody that was given remdesivir,
in my humble opinion, might should be encouraged to sue the government for being given a poison,
whereas not allowing someone to have Ivermectin in the hospital is a little grayer of an area.
But forcing people, forcing doctors, encouraging doctors, requiring doctors to use a protocol that included a poison
that you could identify as a poison by going into the literature and reading is highly dubious,
and the fact that nobody's making a show of this yet is also highly dubious,
where we have all these people suing about Ivermectin not being allowed in hospitals,
and it's like all these anecdotal cases of I wanted Ivermectin for my mom, but she couldn't get it.
What about all the people who didn't want their kid, their loved one on remdesivir or on a ventilator?
And don't we have the added bonus of the fact that the government told them to do it,
that makes it even more like reason to pursue the justice?
I get that, you know, doctors not, people not being able to get the medicine that they want,
but I'm just telling you, there's a trap here.
There's a trap here, there's a trap here, and there are obvious reasons why it's got to be a trap.
I don't say there's anybody bad here, nobody's bad, but what I'm saying is that the algorithms
and the people that control and use the algorithms to control us just need to elevate the wrong stories
and let those wrong stories catch on because we have so much empathy for everyone that has suffered,
and when these stories catch on then what ends up happening is the Scooby-Doo gets sustained
because this limited spectrum of debate that's not meant to include things like remdesivir or the opioid crisis
is carefully curated by things like this.
If this thing goes viral, it's great and it's awesome that Peter McCullough is saying that it's crazy
how everybody died in a hospital, take it one step further and say everybody died from a hospital protocol
because if you went into the hospital but your doctor could still do whatever they wanted,
it probably wouldn't have mattered, but that's not what happened, they went into a hospital
and then they had a very strict sheet because it's a novel virus for which we have no idea what to do
except for this protocol.
That we don't need to be injected into these darkest issuance.
I would like to.
You would remember or recall a Dr. Birkholt who replicated some of the work of Dr. Kevin McKernan
using his primers and actually also adding a little nanopore sequencing to show that these DNA fragments were indeed in the Pfizer shot
and we stopped that video unfortunately after he was done lecturing and we didn't watch the question and answer
and I regret that now so I'm going to show you one bit of it right here.
It's only two minutes and it will shock you.
Whoops.
That we don't need to be injected into these darkest issuance.
I would like to do that and I will not get it unless I get a batch and find out that it's free of DNA and then I'll take it myself.
But I don't have any way of compelling that to happen.
So it was just basically a way to save money by doing it in such volume that way.
So first he said that if he could show that it had no DNA and he would take it.
So he disagrees with my main slide which is the transfection is not immunization.
So in the best case scenario, perfect RNA, perfect LNP, perfect quality control, that's all that's in there.
I still think that transfection is absolutely a ridiculous idea for medicine.
Never mind an immunization in a healthy animal.
Never mind in a healthy human.
Never mind in a person who wanted to live a long healthy life.
He says that if it doesn't have any DNA and he'd be fine to take it.
I need you to hear that because that is a very large cruise ship size disagreement between me and Dr. Burke Halter.
Or Burke, I think it's Buckhalt, Buckhalt, sorry, Burke Halter, I don't know why I said that.
Where's my play button?
You got to be careful I'm going to advance the slide here, here we go.
I think nobody thought about it.
I think it was reasonable to use the E. coli to blow up the plasma to make the stuff.
And then the pieces of the DNA are of a very uniform and small size.
That's evidence that they took efforts to try to chop it up.
And then they knew about it.
Yeah, they knew it.
And they took efforts to chop it up.
They just didn't get it all out.
But having said that, I guess that they just didn't think about the hazard for genome modification.
Because it's not all that expensive to add another process to get it out.
Well, that's what I'm saying.
I can't get inside their mind.
I don't rush too much, and that's what I'm saying.
We've heard testimony of these subsequent, you know, variant, subsequent boosters, et cetera, et cetera.
Or leading to maybe not scientific yet.
But at least collateral mileage that it apparently, these things are causing death and disability later on.
And also the aging process, which you heard about.
There's a lot of suspicious associations.
But that seems to me that before we can, in South Carolina,
give this new vaccine of whirl around here.
Seems to me that our people ought to be able to look at that, Mr. Chairman,
and see whether or not it's got this DNA.
And if it does, fine, tell everybody it's got the DNA and the problems associated there with.
Then you got informed consent.
Correct.
Okay.
But without that, we didn't have informed consent.
I'm not really happy about that, Mr. Chairman, and do what I can to try to help.
Knowing what I know.
Knowing what I know now about this, I would still have recommended it to my elderly parents.
Okay.
But I probably would not have given it to my daughters.
And I feel like my consent was not as informed as it should have been.
Well, there you go, ladies and gentlemen, that's in in a nutshell right there.
He would have given it to his parents, but maybe not to his daughters.
I'm sorry.
This is not an expert.
This is not a biologist.
This is a gene jockey.
It's somebody who knows how to bake on a laboratory bench.
But as far as understanding biology, as far as really understanding.
What he's talking about.
He doesn't understand what transfection is.
He doesn't understand what transfection challenges your body to do in the best case scenario.
Otherwise, he wouldn't recommend it to his parents or his daughters.
To anyone.
You must hear it.
You must see it.
And that's why he will be elevated if necessary.
I suspect that Kevin McCurnan would say very similar things.
We are not dealing with people who are on our team.
We are dealing with people who are posing as dissidents to control the spectrum of debate
and to participate in what appears to be a fairly, fairly dissident discussion within that spectrum.
They are performers.
On the subject of vaccines, it seems to be a great interest of yours.
I challenge you to make that debate me on it.
I'm going to tell you just what my position is.
My position is not any science.
My position is exactly aligned with the National Academy of Science and the Institute of Medicine.
People don't know my position because people call me an anti-vaxxer, but I'm not.
I'm pro-vaccine.
I had all my children vaccinated.
I believe that vaccines should be tested.
Safety tested.
People don't know.
You cannot sue a company that makes vaccines that injures you.
No matter how egregious the injury is, no matter how negligent that company was, no matter how toxic the ingredient.
Furthermore, they're completely insulated, so there's no incentive for them to make vaccines safe.
Furthermore, they're also exempt.
They're the only medicine that's exempt from safety testing.
So now, one of the 72 vaccines currently given to our children, mandated, has ever been tested against a placebo.
That means nobody knows what the risk profile is, and nobody can say with a scientific certainty,
that vaccine is averting more problems than it causes.
And I don't think that we ought to be mandating medical interventions for unwilling Americans unless we know
precisely that that vaccine is going to end up helping people rather than hurting them.
The Institute of Medicine is the ultimate arbiter of vaccine science, according to Congress and HHS.
And the Institute of Medicine has time and again in 1991, 1994, 2011, 2014, has scolded and rebuked
and screamed at CDC for not doing safety testing on any of these vaccines.
And we've seen vaccine schedule, I had three vaccines when I was a kid.
My children got 72.
It changed into 89, and if you were born prior to 89, you're a chance of having a chronic disease.
Rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, autism, food allergies, is 12%.
If you were born after 89, it is 54%, according to HHS.
And nobody's explaining, where is it all coming from?
Where's all the autism coming from?
If it's not vaccine, I is in my generation, 1 in 2,500 kids in autism, and this generation, 1 in 34.
CDC is supposed to tell us where the diseases are coming from.
I is in my generation, 1 in 4, 100 kids at food allergies, peanut allergies, and 1 in 10 today.
And guess what?
Look at the vaccine inserts.
All the 400 diseases that are now epidemic in our children.
All right.
So, we're...
Okay, so you've heard that before probably, but I like to play it because some people like to play it and say that that means that he's four vaccines and he's not really against it.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Other people will say that while he realizes that when they're tested, they won't be...
They won't test...
Or they won't pass the testing, and so there are no safe vaccines.
Now, as we move forward, this bait on TV is going to get worse and worse and worse.
They're putting out bait now with regard to Israel and Palestine.
Even I have been somewhat tempted to tweet about things that I shouldn't tweet about.
Because it's...
It's loss of focus.
And with regard to what we're doing here, I want to stay focused on the biology as much as I possibly can.
And a person that went on my radar very early in Canada was Byron Brittle.
He was the guy who originally released the Japanese description of the bio-distribution data that they had in their pharmacovigilance study.
And he was the one who first let loose the idea that the lipid nanoparticle wasn't contained in the arm,
but went around the body and went all different places.
And of course, we know that Byron Brittle didn't have to lose his career and they didn't have to burn him.
Because Peter Kullis said it in 2022 while he was accepting or doing his Canadian little Nobel Prize tour.
The Gardener Awards.
And he admitted very specifically that he had burned five postdocs on that project and the fifth postdoc threatened to quit if he didn't let her switch her project.
But Byron Brittle lost his career and faced a lot of public scrutiny in 2020 or early 2021 for revealing the Japanese document.
And it turns out, of course, he was 100% right, the document wasn't a lie.
And they knew that already from a long time ago, the lipid nanoparticle people knew it.
Peter Kullis knew it, but he just assumed it was fine because the Pfizer said it was 95% effective, so he just had a scotch.
So I just want to watch a little bit of this video. It's like an hour and a half long, so we're not going to watch the whole thing.
But I want to watch his introduction. I want to watch, listen to him tell his story and his position on vaccines and what he does.
And I want you to hear the very similar parallels to what Bobby just said and often says about his position on vaccines.
And then we'll wrap it up.
Hello, I am Sherry Strong. I'm the Alberta Provincial Director for Children's Health Defense Canada.
And for those of you who've been following us for the last three years, this is I haven't done an interview for quite a long time for various reasons.
And I'm back into it with a very exciting guest, Dr. Byron Brittle.
And he is an associate professor of virology, viral immunology in the Department of Pathology in the University of Guelph and through the Ontario College as well.
And he, if you, if you search for him, you're going to find two things. You're going to find a fake page that is defamatory.
Don't, don't take it too seriously, but to go.
That's right.
Leave a comment at the end.
That's right.
Send them a message.
He actually had a page, believe it or not, that we think was made by, made by that Rasmussen chick.
And she made a, she made a page of Byron Brittle.
That was defamatory to him that had a header that had a pug.
And because it had a pug dog there, that was the one clue that we had that it might be her.
And she's also moved from Georgetown to somewhere in Canada.
At the start of this pandemic to take residency as a virologist up there at some vaccine thing.
I'm pretty sure it was her.
It's her name is Angela, Angela Rasmussen.
Yeah, she's a real winner.
So I would recommend that.
And also if you type in the words, if you look at the keywords for which he's known oncology, cancer, therapeutics in unit therapy.
Oncolytic, viral therapy, translational oncology and clinical studies.
So is there anything Byron that I've left out in that brief introduction that you think is relevant to our viewers?
Just, no, nothing that you've left out, just two things.
Points of clarification for your viewers.
So some people here that, that I work at the Ontario veterinary college, and this often comes up in court cases where I serve as an expert witness and opposing council.
Tries to make it seem like I'm just a veterinarian and only know about animal health and couldn't know anything about human health.
I actually love it if opposing council in court cases bring that up because it allows me to provide this explanation.
A, I'm not a veterinarian.
B, my research is primarily focused on human health.
So it's centered on that.
So I can tell you, I see in the chat that Albert has dropped in that after the Japanese document, that's when curse said he then called up Weinstein and Malone and did the dark horse podcast.
So that's really curious because I've had the feeling, I've had the feeling from the very beginning that Byron was somebody that needed controlling.
And I actually had the privilege, excuse me, I'm burping, drinking a big bottle of water.
I had the privilege of presenting to a group of people in Canada in which Byron Bridal was sitting.
And at the end of the talk, he actually made a comment that I thought was really, he gave me a compliment about my talk and then he said, you know, I'm really excited that you brought up this replication.
Replication and competent fraction because I'd never thought of it before, but I've made vaccines before.
And when you make an AV vaccine, you know, you set the requirements for the purity of the particles that are produced.
And we had real trouble reaching our desired levels of particle purity because there were so many replication in competent partial genomes packaged in these.
Identivirus particles. It's a real challenge for viral manufacture. It's a great point, Jonathan.
So that was just another, another sort of green check next to Byron Bridal on my, on my whiteboard because, you know, when you're asked to respond to certain things when you're when you're shown new ideas and you react in what is a genuinely
a genuine learning behavior. I don't really want the right way to say it is, but you can tell when people are genuinely thinking along with you or whether they're thinking against you or whether they're trying to obfuscate what idea you're trying to convey.
And in the two times that I've interacted with Byron, I've never gotten that feeling.
I've always gotten the feeling that he's listening, that he's humble, that he just assumes that, you know, probably somebody's got something to say. They probably have something he can learn.
He's a really good guy.
The reason why I'm at the Ontario Veterinary College is because it allows me to do much more advanced translational research than what I could do if I was associated with a medical school.
So I did my postdoctoral training in medical school. And in fact, so what a lot of people wouldn't know because this isn't shared anywhere is I actually had competing offers from two different universities to hire me originally as an assistant professor.
And one of them was the University of Ottawa where they wanted to embed me in their medical school because they need more immunology expertise.
But I specifically decided on the Ontario Veterinary College because this is the thing, this is the interesting thing, almost all biomedical research that we would say is human focused.
It deals with research with rodents, rodent models, mice, and rats.
So I often, jokingly refer to myself as an expert in terminology as well.
And so the whole point is I can do that research at a medical school and where I'm currently located at the Ontario Veterinary College.
So I can do all of that, you know, vermin based human focused research.
But more, and I can get access to human samples, right?
Because we don't usually do research directly with human beings, right?
But I can certainly get samples from hospitals just as if I were associated.
I, that was the one project that was really sad to lose.
I had started a project in Rotterdam where I was getting glioma patient neocortex.
So real human brain material out of a live human brain that I could record under a microscope.
And that was pretty crazy.
That was some pretty crazy stuff.
That was some fun times.
It was a medical school.
But this is the thing.
We have an animal cancer center and we have an animal hospital.
And so this presents a different type of patient, right?
Veterinary patients.
And these veterinary patients are what I would call...
Well, you know, vets are also really highly paid.
If you get to be a vet for a pharmaceutical company or something like that, I mean, you know, Bob's your uncle.
Gee whiz.
We sometimes call highly advanced translational models of disease.
They have spontaneous diseases exactly like we do, right?
They develop spontaneous cancers.
They get infected.
They, you know, get infectious diseases just like we do.
They share our genetic diversity and they even share our very specific environmental influences.
So that's very important to understand.
And so the idea being that if we do, when we do research in these advanced translational models,
we should have greater success translating that success into human clinical trials
and things of benefit to people than if we try and make that giant leap
that usually happens at medical schools going from rodents directly into people.
And then the second thing is you mentioned that website.
So I just want to point out a point of clarification.
Yeah, indeed, it's highly defamatory.
It was developed within 24 hours of me giving sort of an infamous radio interview.
And I, and my understanding is that it's illegal because it's actually a form of impersonation,
which is illegal.
The name was used and the people who run this site pretend to be me.
There's also a defamatory Twitter account that was done at the site made at the same time.
And that's called not Dr. Byron Bridal, but then has, does the Twitter or X handle has,
hashtag Byron Bridal.
So again, impersonation.
And I just want to point out there's a lot of stuff in there.
But if anybody ever wants, like that's the thing you listeners have to understand.
The people that have defamed me that way, the people accused me of providing misinformation
over the past couple of years, not one of them, not one single person, not one human being on this planet,
has ever engaged in a discussion with me and allowed me.
In fact, that entire website was designed after a nine, this is crazy, after a nine minute radio interview
where I was talking to a lay audience.
And yet these people are critiquing the words that I use there still to this day.
They're still critiquing that.
And out of that, I may be talking about seven minutes.
So they're taking seven minutes of me talking to a lay audience
and they're critiquing it like it's hardcore science.
It's absolutely ludicrous.
But the point being that I can rebut, and I have rebutted over time in different public areas,
every single comment, every single smear that is in that website.
And I would contend that if anybody wants to believe what's on the website or anything on the website
or anything that I've said, ask the people that are pushing that messaging
to have a public discussion with me, and it'll become blatantly obvious who the real expert is
and who actually understands what they're talking about.
Well, they don't disclose who they are.
So do you know who they are? Do you know if it's a pharma company, if it's government funded?
I have no idea. Honestly, I have no idea.
That's something, if any of your listeners actually have IT expertise
and are able to figure out who's behind any of this, that would be incredibly helpful
because that website and the people who are behind this and the people behind the Twitter account.
So I have no way to contact, for example, Elon Musk.
But this Twitter account, not Dr. Byron Bridal, if anybody has the ear of Elon Musk
and could figure out what the source is, who's doing this, it'd be fabulous
because the same people are attacking all of my colleagues around the world
who are also sharing hardcore scientific truths backed by the overall weight
of the primary scientific data, right?
These people are attacking and defaming us and destroying our careers.
For me, many other scientists and many physicians across the world.
Yeah.
So let's talk a little bit about your story.
So you, what I've gathered is that you were a believer in vaccines.
And what point did you start to question the COVID vaccine?
Yeah. So just to clarify, yeah, I absolutely was a believer in vaccines
and I'm still a believer in vaccines. This is the thing.
I will defend to the bitter end the, the, the elegant concept of vaccination.
And what I mean by that is, you know, I actually contacted Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
and had a conversation with him because you know what?
When I was teaching voxenology in university, I actually used him as an example
of a classic anti-voxer. And when I came to realize all these concerns
and all these concerns developed over the past few years,
I, I wanted a conversation with him.
First of all, I wanted to apologize to him.
So I did that first with him privately.
And then I publicly announced this apology multiple times.
And here I'm happy to do so yet again, because what people need to realize, you know,
he's been labeled sort of a lifelong anti-voxer.
I'm a voxenologist. I've been labeled remarkably an anti-voxer somehow.
I still am developing novel vaccines.
Like right as we speak, I have a project, research project ongoing right now,
where I'm developing a cancer vaccine right as we speak.
And I've continued to publish on, on vaccine technologies and ways to optimize
vaccines and vaccine safety all throughout these past few years.
But here's the thing.
So my philosophy is exactly like what I, what JFK, Jr.
shared with me in our private discussion, right?
Which is that we're both very much like he's very much pro vaccine.
I've always been pro vaccine, but specifically we're pro safe and effective
vaccines. And now we've heard that mantra ad nauseam.
And this is the thing.
I was prior to 2020, I was living in kind of my own quiet world of research
where I was doing a lot of preclinical research.
So I do work research at the early stages of developing ideas,
literally brand new vaccination strategies, brand new vaccines.
And then if we have early success with that, I try and get people to get excited
and take that then into the translational research pipeline and ultimately
into human clinical trials.
And indeed, one of my vaccine technologies did go into four human clinical trials.
But when I become aware of because everything do with COVID-19 fell right
within my wheelhouse, right?
We're talking about SARS Coronavirus 2, which is a causative agent of COVID-19
and the proposed miracle solution was the vaccines.
And so all the science fell in my wheelhouse.
And I saw early on that we were going way off track with the science.
And I've got many, many, many concerns about these to the point where I even
hesitate to call them vaccines.
I don't fall under the traditional definition of a vaccine in the United States.
In Canada, technically speaking, they do fall under our definition of a vaccine,
but we have a specific definition of an ideal vaccine,
and there is far from being an ideal vaccine as one can possibly get
while still trying to keep them under that umbrella term.
And the reality is from a regulatory perspective,
Ike would contend very strongly that these are not,
you should not have been regulated as vaccines,
but rather as gene therapies.
And in fact, they are much more similar to what we call prodrugs.
And I could explain to your audience if you want what that means later,
but prodrugs, not vaccines.
And so at the end of the day,
I'm a person who follows the science.
Early on, I was so excited as a vaccinologist that vaccines were going to save the world
from this terrible disease.
Now, first of all, it's turned out to not be as terrible as disease
as we originally thought.
Much less so, in fact, much less dangerous than we originally had labeled it.
But nevertheless, I was excited about the vaccines.
And so I monitored the development of these early treatment strategies
where all kinds of physicians were repurposing drugs and using combination strategies,
things like Ivermectin and hydroxylchloroquine,
and all kinds of other supplements, right?
Vitamin D, and vitamin C, and zinc, et cetera.
And it was kind of like his battle.
It was kind of like his 50-50 battle.
There were papers coming out supporting it.
There were papers coming out that were contending that these things weren't helpful.
And I was okay with that because, again, I'm a vaccinologist,
and I thought this is great.
And I had received funding that was very difficult to obtain
from my provincial government and our federal government
to develop COVID-19 vaccines.
And I did make six different COVID-19 vaccines,
but I've abandoned that research because of the concerns that developed.
And this is the thing.
So when doing this, I started looking very critically at the papers
because we couldn't have approved the use of these shots without,
if there were an array of effective treatments available.
And so I started looking at the papers.
And when it came to the drugs of chloroquine,
and especially the hypermectin, I saw that trials were designed.
They had fatal, I would contend, fatal flaws in their design.
Okay, so this is surprisingly on narrative.
Again, he calls, he calls, he's still a fan of vaccines.
He calls RFK Jr.
He has a conversation.
He's working on novel vaccines for cancer.
He's written papers about optimizing vaccines and vaccine safety.
They're both pro-vaccines.
They just want safe and effective vaccines.
Now, the real question is what if there are zero safe vaccines, right?
That's the question we're asking all the time.
And that's why we start with that slide in the beginning that says
there are no safe vaccines.
So these aren't vaccines, he says.
They should have been regulated like gene therapies.
So that kind of implies they're not vaccines because they're not safe.
He's a vaccine fan.
He has in no way shape or form considered the possibility
that previous vaccines also haven't been tested.
Also have been foisted on the population.
Either too early or too often.
And so I'm very, very curious by this.
But staying with his.
My gut feeling is that he's a totally ridiculously honest man.
He just spits the truth.
And that's why it sometimes comes out in the wrong order.
It comes out like almost awkwardly.
And here he says, you know,
I got some of that good old fashioned grant money to develop
COVID vaccines.
And he developed six different ones.
But he abandoned all that research now because of all the problems.
But that's a pretty interesting admission.
It gives him some street cred in terms of, you know, he was fully on board
and now he, he, he, he, he's decided this is crazy.
Which means even more likely that he needed to be controlled.
He needed to be overshadowed.
So instead of having Byron Bridal on every newscast in the United States
and having him go completely viral because of what he was doing in Canada.
We put Steve Kersch and Robert Malone on the, on the Brett Weinstein podcast.
And then Peter Teal and Elon Musk and, and Mark Zuckerberg and,
and his wife made that go viral instead of Byron Bridal.
Problem solved.
Look at the timeline.
Look who went viral and who didn't.
Who started a national and, and global tour, not Byron Bridal.
No, no, no, not Byron.
Robert Malone and Steve Kersch did.
Such that it seemed like they were almost intentionally designed
to show a lack of efficacy for Ivermectin.
And this shocked me when I saw that.
And so when I ruled out the studies that I, that had fatal flaws,
what was left was a very strong support for these things.
That was one of the early indicators to me, sort of yellow flag.
You know, what's going on here?
Why are these shots being pushed so hard?
Because as much as I love vaccines, I recognize what the rules were around this
and why we were fighting so hard against these treatments.
I really believe we could have done much better.
And a lot of lives could have been saved had we implemented them and not,
and not stopped and encouraged preventing their implementation.
And then one final comment, and I'm happy to go into any details in terms of
what exactly my concerns are with the COVID-19 shots.
But what I have done, Sherri, is I've now gone back because a lot of people have
requested me to do so.
And I've started looking at clinical trials with other shots.
And I remember, you know, I know that people like RFK,
the junior, for example, have expressed concerns about these.
I never looked into it in any detail.
And when I started looking in detail at some of these historical clinical studies
for these shots, I was aghast at how many of them had poor designs,
improper control groups implemented, and so on, such that I would contend
that Big Pharma has sort of ruined how clinical vaccinology is practiced.
And it really concerns me.
So I'll defend the theoretical concept of ideal vaccine.
And an ideal vaccine, by the way, our gold standard is to try and simulate
and replicate a naturally acquired immunity against any kind of pathogen, right?
And so if clinical studies are done properly,
if the proper experimental designs and a long enough term assessment of the safety profile,
and there's very transparent revealing of the data,
and a sufficient number of analyses being conducted,
and they all show that a particular vaccine is truly safe
and truly effective such that the risk, there's never zero risk with any medical intervention.
So such that at the end, I'm convinced that the benefits of that particular vaccine
outweigh the potential risks associated with the disease-for-given population,
then I'll support it, no problem.
And it will continue to do so.
But it's clinical, practice clinical vaccinology, it needs to be fixed.
And what a lot of people don't understand, Sherry, even though people have accused me over the past...
Does anyone know if he's always had this tick, this facial tick on the right side of his face?
Just curious.
A few years, as a vaccinologist of being an anti-vaxxer,
my colleagues don't seem to have realized I stood up and expressed my concerns early on
because I was trying to save the field of vaccinology.
I saw that we were headed towards a debacle with these COVID-19 shots,
and if that were the case, a lot of people in the public were going to lose trust
in the process, right?
The process, the regulators, and how these things are approved
and the research that's done to evaluate safety and effectiveness.
And I knew that this would drive vaccine hesitancy
and not only against COVID-19 shots, but against any historical vaccines,
and potentially any future ones as well.
And lo and behold, what do we see happening throughout the world?
We see massive concerns with ever-rising vaccine hesitancy.
And you know what I say to that?
I say anybody who has developed this vaccine hesitancy has had every right to do so
because our regulators and public health officials have shown over the past few years
that they cannot be trusted.
And the onus is now on them to regain trust,
and the only way I see that they can regain trust is by fixing how clinical
vaccinology is practiced.
Right.
Well, in full transparency, I'm one of those people who has zero trust
in the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
I am a proponent of my backgrounds in holistic nutrition.
So I'm a believer that we were made by our creator beautifully
to actually fight disease,
which I've come to believe is mostly poisoning,
environmental toxicity and poisoning of the human, you know, of us,
I will just say.
And so I'm interested in a quick comment with what you just said there.
It's very important.
So you've nailed a very important thing, right?
You've demonstrated far more insight than the vast majority of our public
health officials and health regulators in that I agree with you 100%.
It always seems to me, I always feel silly saying this,
but unbelievably in this day and age,
this is actually a profound statement.
And that is basically what you said, right?
Which is that our immune systems do work.
They work naturally.
And they work without as historical patent law,
which you kind of would often use the term hand of man intervention,
right, can lead to modifications to something that can then make it
worth conferring a patent.
So I like to say that our immune system can't function without the
hand of man manipulation.
And we call it naturally acquired immunity.
And for some reason, everybody threw that concept right out the window
and that is something that I fought very heavily for.
Because I experienced that.
I don't know when because I didn't get particularly sick,
but I got tested and I had evidence of very robust,
broad-based, naturally acquired immunity.
And so I went to my, you know, I wasn't allowed to go to my
university because I didn't get the shots.
And I was aghast.
I'm like, you do understand that the intent behind a vaccine is to
induce an immune response where we attempt, we try to simulate a
naturally acquired immune response.
That's the gold standard.
And we virtually never reach that gold standard.
So I've got that gold standard.
And you do realize, right, I tried saying to these administrators at
my university, when you get, like you have a piece of paper showing
somebody certified, two needles going into your shoulder.
But we know there's such a thing as low responders and non-responders.
So somebody could be carrying around that certificate,
that piece of paper, right?
And for all we know, they could be a non-responder.
So they haven't mounted an immune response whatsoever against SARS
coronavirus, too.
But you or I could be holding up a piece of paper showing are
naturally acquired immunity, for example.
But they were deemed safe and somebody like myself was not.
It's phenomenal.
So you've nailed it.
So I just want to point out that the faith doesn't seem to really
be in danger here.
There is definitely SARS-CoV-2, the virus, and COVID-19,
the disease, and people needed to be safe from it.
And people died from it.
And he doesn't seem to be at all aware of the protocol changes
that were made, especially in the United States, that were,
that allowed the numbers to be conflated.
So he also hasn't touched the PCR yet.
And so again, the faith is not necessarily in danger here.
But if I can cut by some slack, there's no way in hell he was ever
going to be where we are now, given where he was in 2020 and how
he was treated since then.
He's probably faced more pressure than practically anyone else,
except for maybe Peter McCullough, Pierre Corey, maybe few people
had their head that high that early.
You know, Knutwitskowski did, but he disappeared.
Wolfgang Wodock spoke out early.
He disappeared.
Some people got hammered and, and by room got hammered.
So he pretty much just had to find a handhold on the ship and hold
on for dear life where he was going overboard.
So the idea that he would already be up in the crow's nest going,
no, no, Lando, you know, whatever.
I mean, come on.
That's not possible.
So I don't, I'm not critiquing him at all, but he hasn't gotten to the
stage where he's been able to see, he's in Canada though.
So, you know, Denny's up there.
You know, there's hope.
I mean, I think he's obviously a guy who could get there because he's,
he's still on the awakening path is his reality is definitely shaken.
And the other thing is I totally agree.
Nutrition is very important for the immune system.
And I won't go into details, but you know, classic examples,
vitamin D, which remarkably was declared as fake science by our formal
Federal Minister of Health, Patty Hadd.
But it is easy to declare vitamin D a fake science because of the way
that vitamin D metabolism works in your body.
You can't just take extra vitamin D and it all goes in and everything is fine.
You know, like you're missing some oil.
So you just add some to your car, put the dipstick back in and check to make
sure it's good and now you're good.
That's not how vitamin D works in your body.
Even though it is portrayed that way because you can buy vitamin D in a bottle.
And now I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I can tell you all the
pharmacokinetics of vitamin D off of my cuff here.
But I will tell you that it isn't as simple as you're low on vitamin D.
You should take some more.
And here's the pill.
It is a very complex hormone, basically.
And the natural way that you acquire and modulate DNA or DNA vitamin D is
it's important that that system be properly engaged in any way that you try
to bypass that system or to augment it with supplementation does not necessarily
have the guaranteed outcome of just elevation of activated vitamin D.
That's what you should know.
I hope I've said that well enough.
Drew, that is ludicrous.
I can tell you, so I'm doing research in this area right now Sherry.
And I can tell you the average Canadian is well below the ideal circulating
concentrations of vitamin D.
At vitamin D very quickly, it's such a critical cog in how the immune system
works.
I like to use the analogy of a racing car.
So our body.
T cells, T cells basically don't work without vitamin D.
I mean, you could just say that.
It's like a racing car.
The immune system is like the engine.
And if you don't have vitamin D, it's like you have a.
I wonder if you've watched that rumble with false pandemics with Dr.
Meryl Nast and Dr. Wolfgang Lodock because I've watched it.
And I'm.
I would go so far as to say I should almost do a study hall now that you've
dropped it in there because because it is a very, very obvious video when you
watch it with with the right eyes.
What's going on?
Let me just put it in my list.
I have a running list here of of for study hall candidates.
I'll just add it in as long as you dropped it in.
I'm going to add it in right now.
And I will hit save and then I will get back to this.
Sorry.
A cylinder misfiring in that engine, right?
So you don't need to be a genius to know if you take that car to the starting
line of a race and a cylinder is misfiring, it is not going to be performing
optimally.
And so I agree, not only vitamin D, but all the other critical nutritional
components that our immune system relies upon.
If we are at all deficient in those, our immune system is not functionally
optimally.
And if we focused in this country on optimizing the concentration of all
these important metabolites that our immune system.
No one, no one, and I know that I've not mentioned this enough.
But no one.
I mean, no one.
And he should be saying it.
He works at a veterinary college.
But I know for a fact that I've had several different veterinarians,
several different ranchers, several different people insist that
giggle and biological needs to regularly say the word selenium.
Because livestock are supplemented with selenium because they know if they
don't, they'll get sick.
They'll get infections.
Their immune system won't be worth garbage.
And selenium is these trade, one of these trace minerals that's getting
harder to harder to find in your vegetable aisle.
Selenium.
To all of my viewers that have ever sent me a selenium link.
Including Eddie in, in, in Canada and many others.
Thank you for doing it.
I'm sorry.
I haven't mentioned it more.
Vitamin D is really important.
I think a lot of these trace minerals, especially selenium and a couple
others, are also absolutely crucial.
But then you can't just tell people, you know, go ahead and eat, eat
Wendy's and Burger King and box cereal in the morning and then just
supplement your selenium and vitamin D and you'll be fine.
And I really think that that's the temptation here.
Certainly in America.
And I know he's not really saying that, but that's the message that
ends up coming out.
And the first and foremost, the message should be you eat like
garbage and you don't exercise.
You got two big problems you need to fix.
And how you can monitor whether or not your change in diet and
exercise is having a legitimate effect on you as to maybe look to
see if you're getting enough selenium and vitamin D.
But we don't talk like that.
We don't think like that.
We don't coach people like that.
We just tell them to buy that bottle and that bottle and take two of
those and one of those every day and you'll be fine.
That's the how to function properly.
We would generally be a much healthier population.
Our health care costs would go down.
We would suffer less from infectious diseases.
There'd be fewer cancers and fewer chronic diseases.
So I agree with you a hundred percent.
Well, and when I work with clients, the first thing I do is not
work on nutrition.
I work on them to stop poisoning themselves.
So, you know, it's optimal nutrition.
It's just part of how we were actually designed or evolved
whatever your belief system is.
But part of that is we have to stop poisoning ourselves.
So I want to actually kind of transition a bit to
translational oncology, cancer, your study in cancer.
I just want to briefly tell you a story.
When COVID hit.
In May, 2020, a friend reached out to me and she said,
my sister-in-law is a doctor research scientist and on the
board of one of these pharma companies.
Producing what will be a vaccine that she's saying,
we're all going to have to take to return to normal life.
And she said she wouldn't be taking it.
So I checked in a year later in May, 2021.
And she said she's waiting to find out whether she's going to be
fired because she knows that none of them went through proper
phase three trials and she knows as a scientist and doctor that if
she takes any one of them, the shots that are out in the market,
it will bring back her cancer and kill her.
So we, and when I started to share that, I was vilified, you know,
just said that's, you know, BS, all that kind of stuff.
But we're now seeing, you know,
being anecdotal, anecdotal.
I imagine.
So my anecdotal stuff going on.
My wife's sister, Femka, was in complete remission from ovarian
cancer at about 55 years old in the start of the pandemic.
And in 2020, she was vaccinated once and then right at the start
of 2021, she was vaccinated again.
And by the end of 2021, I believe she's had, she had three shots or
four and then was dead.
Now I could have the timeline slightly wrong, but I am absolutely
sure she had four shots.
And on the fourth one, I came back with a vengeance.
She was gone.
I also know for sure that I had a friend who was forced to take it
on the set of Hollywood Star Trek and got advanced brain
cancer probably from this stupid
transfection that she was forced to take to do what she loved to
do.
I know that my mother-in-law was forced to take the vaccine just
to see her husband who was forced to take the vaccine to be in
the hospital.
And then he died of a urinary tract infection.
Because there weren't enough people in the hospital to care for him.
And his wife was not able to go in.
My mother-in-law was not able to go in there.
I guess he's my stepfather-in-law.
The case died in the hospital too because people of the pandemic
were behaving like people of the pandemic.
I don't often share these things because, you know, everybody
lost people during the pandemic.
But basically, my wife lost three because she knew my friend Annie
too.
I mean, these are all just people that did what they were told,
did what they had to do.
In the Netherlands, people are just, they just do it.
They didn't call up and ask, you know, Jay, what should we do?
Because the narrative on television, because the illusion of consensus
on television, other countries, was even worse than here.
In America, they knew they had to break us in half
and get us to fight about this.
Because that's all that works to govern America.
In the Netherlands, they didn't break anybody up.
There was no need to break things up.
They've got 15 different parties over there and they got a nice little
consensus going and almost nobody went against it.
That happened in Norway too.
Most of the neuroscientists that I know in Norway just went along with
it and think that Jay is a nutcase now.
Colleagues of mine for years, who used to respect me.
We are talking about a full global inversion of the way that people think
about the sovereignty they have over their bodies.
A full global inversion of the way that people think about immunology.
Even if they never understood it in the first place, they're sure they understand it now.
And their understanding is based on whole cloth mythology.
I'm going to cut them off here because I don't know really where the best place to end is.
I don't know how many more stories they're going to tell.
They're going to go into the cancer, into the SV40 and all this other stuff.
I don't really think we need to do that right now.
I'll watch it again on my own.
And if it turns out to be something that I think you guys need to see,
then I'll bring it back up.
So that was Byron Bridal, one of the heroes of the pandemic.
Spoke out very early and likely needed to be controlled and it's likely that people were put in front of him
and that people were queued onto the scene specifically to take the spotlight away from this whistleblower,
who had found the document from Japan and started telling everybody the lipid nanoparticle is not going to stay where they said it was.
And that's a big problem.
And so then they decided to bring out Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch and make a big deal about them
and start making them go viral instead of buy room.
And then buy room basically disappeared.
That's how it works.
The show must go on, ladies and gentlemen.
And there is a spectacular commitment to lies that cannot be disrupted.
And that's what these people have been doing from the very beginning.
That's why Byron Bridal's never been on the podcast of Brett Weinstein.
Never been on Joe Rogan, but Robert Malone has.
Even though Byron Bridal's the guy who came out first, Byron Bridal's the whistleblower,
but no, he hasn't been on any of these intellectual dark web shows at all.
Robert Malone's been on the Tommy podcast more times than Byron Bridal's been on any American podcast ever.
That should tell you all you need to know.
And so the narrative that we've been telling and the way that we're explaining this is that the who declared a pandemic of a dangerous novel virus said to be detectable by a non specific PCR test for RNA viruses applied to a low prevalence population.
And intentionally correlated with poor or detrimental health protocols through financial incentives that enable the larger percentage of all cause mortality than normal P and I to be prioritized as a national security threat composed of vaccine preventable deaths.
And then there they could justify rolling out the vaccine with haste and lying about it.
The US was ready with this plan to respond to a coronavirus pandemic and that plan is in motion today.
It is very possible that NIAID funded infectious RNA clone was used to see the pandemic around the world so that the molecular biology would be sound and that there would be a limited spread of an identifiable pathogen that would have an RNA signature that was predictable
that the natural coronavirus swarm cannot sustain that signal. That's the reason why I posit that an infectious clone may have been used to create it.
The reason why they would create a signal like that is to guarantee their justification for it can for inverting our individual sovereignty to basic granted permissions.
So one of the ways that they accomplish this the most important aspect of this is this lie about gain of function viruses in bat caves and in laboratories and on lab benches where they stitch pieces together.
The reason why this consensus is important because it is not only a consensus about the existence of gain of function but it is a consensus about what was the worst case scenario.
If there is a consensus about what the worst case scenario was then there is a consensus that they just did what they thought was right.
They did what they had to do given the consensus worst case scenario.
And that justifies the behavior of people that were wittingly and unwittingly involved in the narrative control and the seeding of the Scooby-Doo.
If you have to lie to these people or this whole worst case scenario could possibly come true.
And again that's why these people are all involved and I have been naive enough not to know that even Huberman is a member of this group and is sponsored by the people they are sponsored by but I just didn't see it.
They created this illusion of consensus and it is illusion of consensus that was also created because they had this graph down here as the one they showed on TV and they did not teach you the all cause mortality which is in the light blue.
They use this graph on PBS NewsHour and they only showed you the red.
And that graph is the graph that corresponds to the faith that there was a novel virus that millions died and were saved gain a function is real and a virus will come again.
And so again on television they told you that the mystery virus was causing all the excess deaths and they told you the excess deaths were the red curve down here.
And in reality you needed to look at this curve and then try to subtract all the things that we knew were odd but not the virus.
And if we had done that accurately from the very beginning we would have subtracted many do not resuscitate orders we would have subtracted many poorly ventilated people.
People that didn't receive antibiotics, people that didn't get steroids when they needed people that were put on remdesivir, people that died of opioid deaths and all the death certificate fraud that took place because of the financial incentives in place.
So this conversion of all cause mortality to a national security priority was done using these bad ideas and then called a mystery virus.
And the way that you avoid this math being done is that you do not talk about PCR fraud you do not talk about lateral flow test frauds and lateral flow test being made in China and shipped all around the world to track the pandemic everywhere but in China.
You don't talk about the variances and the sequences you don't talk about RNA infectious clones you don't talk about the quasi species genetics or incompetent fractions like biorom bridal might.
You don't talk about RNA fidelity limits and you don't talk about homology between coronavirus proteins.
You just talk about the faith that there was a novel virus that millions have died and millions were saved.
Getting a function is real and a virus will come again. That's the only thing you talk about and you don't avoid testing it by not doing the math.
That's it. It's really simple.
It's an illusion of consensus.
So let's just break it out as best we can. I'm going to get rid of that spinning G.
So a transfection in its purest form is wholly inappropriate for healthy humans. That's the first place to start.
Upscaling from nanograms to kilograms was predicted to be a source of huge problems in 2020.
And we even made fun of rants and yellow about it because he was joking about it on one of his Twitter streams.
Sorry, Twib streams where he was talking to all those brilliant retired virologists.
And he thought, wow, isn't it cool how they went from nanograms to kilograms? That's just amazing.
RNA was impure. That means impure antigens are produced. It means shortened antigens are produced, which is a whole bunch of unknown effects.
The RNA was codon optimized, which means that it could go through the ribosome in an unpredictable way, which would result in misfolding.
Misfolding could be amyloid, could be prion. I don't know.
It could also just be a misfolded spike protein that misrepresents epitopes that would be relevant for the virus or for anything,
but they're not relevant for anything if they're misfolded.
The mRNA was chemically altered, meaning that the uracils were replaced with n-methyl-sudo-uridine.
This causes premature stop codons. It can also cause wobble-based substitutions.
The premature stop codons can result in very short RNA sequences, which can be interfering RNA.
They can also interfere with microRNAs, which are still a very poorly understood signal in the cell, but definitely a physiologically relevant one.
Making short RNAs is also not a great thing.
If the chemically altered RNAs are also interacting with endogenous RNAs and causing those to break or interacting with them and causing those to be regulated differently,
that could also be a whole bunch of other things that we don't understand as possible coming from just that one number five.
The protein produced, therefore, because of 3, 4, and 5, is uncharacterized and highly variable with all sorts of unknown consequences,
because it's misfolded, because it could be shortened, because it has all of this, actually from 1 through 5.
The LNP was never tested in humans for long and short-term effects.
It's not that I think the LNP is necessarily going to be a source of extra disaster, but it's definitely possible that it's also poisonous, right?
It's just pretty small dose of LNP. I'm not really worried about LNP as much as I'm worried about the RNA and its expression.
Endotoxins from process 2 are highly immunogenic. Those are particles, anything, proteins, nucleotides, anything from remnants of the bacterial culture that isn't adequately removed by quality control
are going to be immunogenic and are not going to be desired immune responses, very toxic.
And then finally, if there are double-stranded DNA fragments from process 2, these could also be, in theory, a problem.
One caveat here is that if those small DNA fragments go into a cell that's not really dividing and not really growing,
it's not really clear the likelihood of it getting to the nucleus, and if it got to the nucleus, it's not really clear
whether anything would be expressed, and if it integrated, it's not really clear. If it went into a somatic cell that wasn't dividing and didn't plan to divide,
it's not really clear what would happen. And again, remember that this assumes that it gets there
and that it's fine and that there aren't a million different enzymes that just get rid of it
because we are surrounded by RNA and DNA all the time.
So, it's also very tricky to gauge what's going on here if you focus on number 9 and start running around with your hair on fire because of number 9.
And I want it to be very clear that that's the point I'm trying to make here.
There's no reason to run around with your hair on fire. I'm trying to get out of it. That's weird how that works.
There's no reason to run around with your hair on fire just because of number 9. Just remember that.
And so there was a novel virus, millions died, gained a function, and a virus will come again as the illusion of consensus we are trying to break.
And that illusion of consensus extends from 2019 forward about this novel virus that's spread around the world and changed to different variants
and, you know, lockdowns killed some people, but man, oh man, this virus was bad.
This illusion of consensus needs to be broken so that our children are not permanently misled into believing that, you know, we didn't know anything and all this illusion,
this immunomethology is real.
We need them to understand the history of the last three years, to understand that people were coerced, lied to, and bamboozled into behaving this dumb.
Doctors were bamboozled and terrified into behaving this dumb. They were threatened to behave this dumb.
And there were people that, despite all of that, still were able to stand up.
Those are our leaders. Those are the people we should be looking to for guidance in the future.
And so, yes, let's break the illusion of consensus of this laboratory leak by starting to explain to people that it was likely a conflated background signal that this faith is a lie.
We've gotten fooled into spending so much of our mental energy on this question.
When in reality, it could have been an endemic background that they just told us something about as if it was never there to begin with and started testing for it and said the testing was evidence of a pandemic.
The protocols were murder. That's for sure. And transfection is not medicine.
I do think that there is a pretty reasonable chance that an infectious clone was used to seed the pandemic to make sure that there was no doubt when Sohomish County man was sequenced.
There was no doubt that they were going to get the sequence to match the one in Wuhan.
And there was no doubt that if doctors in Iran sequenced some of their severe patients that they would get a culturable virus and it too would sequence positive for the Wuhan strain, that trick, which is a molecular biologically genius trick, could be done with very little cost
and very little magic by using infectious clones.
And once you understand that, then you understand it's not a crazy idea, it's more of an obvious plan.
And you can call it a transfection agent because that's what it is.
They transfected people with an infectious clone so that they express this RNA and when they looked for it, they could find it and that there would be enough there to sequence.
And the only way that would work or they would be almost guaranteed to get the right sequence is a clone because a natural virus would give you a consensus sequence which would almost certainly be different from patient to patient, but not if they were all infected with the same clone.
And that's what this trick was all about. The no-virus people from the very beginning, actually Andy Kaufman had it pretty right, he was talking about exosomes and talking about viruses not having the fidelity that virology claimed they had.
And then at some point it turned all around and it was about isolation and it was about purity and it was about very specific experiments and very specific papers and he didn't want to talk to anybody that wouldn't accept their premises first.
And so they made no friends, they made no connections, they made no network, and instead they isolated themselves under the pretense that they were the ones who had the truth.
And if you didn't want to accept the truth, then they didn't want to talk to you. And that's the game they're still playing today.
The faith is a lie and you can tell these players because they stop talking about the PCR fraud, they've stopped talking about all the variant fraud, all the death certificate fraud, the RNA purity fraud, the protein folding, the
transfection in general, and natural immunity. The no-virus people actually don't talk about natural immunity either because the no-virus people don't think that the immune system responds to pathogens.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are at a time point where human diversity is at its peak for the next 30 years.
And so there is a concerted effort by the people that rule us to invert the way we think about our sovereignty and more importantly, they want to invert the way that your children think about their sovereignty because they don't need ours.
It's too late for us. They need our kids, kids. And I can't stress enough how this is a game of generations and it is a game for all the marbles.
So if you want to win, you got to learn the biology. One of the best ways to learn the biology is try to understand this statement backwards and forwards.
Intermuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection is not immunization, ladies and gentlemen. Please stop all transfections in humans because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary. Thanks for any means.
I'm going to see you guys again tomorrow night. My voice feels pretty good, so I guess I'll see you again tomorrow.
Thank you guys for being here.
Vilma, good to see you. You haven't been here in a while. Pamela, always, always a pleasure.
I'm really happy you're here, Albert. Good to see you.
Diana Dezik, Jeff from Earth. As always, don't forget to follow Jeff from Earth's Instagram.
Pam, good to see you here. Left hand, monkey wrench.
We did miss Moderna tonight, or we did end up showing up. I don't know if he was here tonight or not.
Think all just good to see you, man. Jan and Reno, yo, yo, yo, what up?
I'm glad you appreciate the screen, man. I'm really happy. Please share my work. Thank you very much. There he is.
Moderna is here. All right, guys. Thanks very much. I will see you tomorrow.
Bye.