You
Schedule for 60 minutes next.
It's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
Scooby-Doo!
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
This is Giga Home Biological and High Resistance.
Hello noise.
Information brief.
Brought to you by a biologist at 27th of October, 2023.
A little bit of a frog in here somewhere, but we'll come off a second.
Don't worry about my voice.
It felt good all day.
There's something in there, but I'll move out of the way in a second.
We are still in the process of trying to stop misleading the young.
That means trying to get them to tune out, tune in, but it's a long slog.
It's going to take us a little while because we have given power to a charlatan.
And so it is going to be difficult to move back in.
Yes, Christine, the young have been very traumatized by this theater.
Very traumatized by this theater.
But if we show them that it's just a theater, it's possible for them to wake up and to free themselves from it.
I really believe that.
But in order to do that, we're going to have to show them the truth.
We're going to have to show them that there was no spread in New York City.
We're going to have to teach them what infectious clones are.
We're going to have to show them that there's a high likelihood that placebo batches were distributed
and what that would do to the perception of effectiveness of these vaccines.
And the transmission in healthy animals is dumped.
I think we also need to convince them that the protocols were murder.
The gain of function is likely a mythology that the Scooby-Doo mystery was actually a real plan
and that these players that were involved in it are spectacularly committed to the lies that sustain it.
What are they sustaining?
They're sustaining this myth right here.
That there was a novel virus that millions died and were saved.
The gain of function was real and that a virus will come again.
That's the mythology that gained a function.
If the name of this stream was gain of function, high-resistance, low-noise information brief,
now that would be pretty fun.
Yeah, that's what Gigo and biological is all about.
We're trying to dispel that mythology.
So welcome to the show.
Yes, welcome to the show.
This is Gigo and biological.
My name is Jonathan Cooley.
I live in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I stream from the back of my garage.
Good morning, good evening, good afternoon, good night, wherever you are on earth.
Thank you for joining me on the 27th of October, 2023.
This is the last week of this daylight savings time thing that we do in Europe.
I think you're actually flipping over this weekend.
Lucky you, I think in America we have one more week.
And so there's this short overlap where everybody's international Zoom calls are going to get screwed up.
So beware, we are still trying to fight this idea of what's true and what isn't true
and trying to fight that on social media.
So I don't know the answers, ladies and gentlemen.
I don't know the answers to the Middle East.
I don't know who's right and who's wrong.
I suspect that we're all being manipulated.
And I suspect that if you choose one of the more attractive truths on television,
you are almost inevitably going to choose something incorrect, something that ends up
keeping you right in the trap.
And just like we've been talking about how Noam Chomsky himself so eloquently described
as a limited spectrum of debate within which a really vigorous,
dissident discussion can occur.
And this is the easiest way to control people.
And I believe that this is the way that we are governed.
And they are planning to govern the globe this way because unlike languages and cultures,
the fear of mother nature and pandemics can be translated into and over archingly govern any culture.
It's better than money.
And so that's why this Scooby-Doo mystery was so important to enact around the world.
That's why it was so important for so many of the American actors to tour the world,
to be transmitted around the globe so that the story that is the Scooby-Doo was accurately
transmitted detail for detail, nuance for nuance so that almost everyone around the globe,
irrespective of what newspapers they read or what languages they speak,
they are vaguely aware, if not reasonably well informed,
about the contentious story that the National Institutes of Health,
the USAID, EcoHealth Alliance, and others were involved in funding the research that ultimately
led to a lab leak of a gain of function virus which may or may not have been manipulated
after it was taken from a laboratory, sorry, a bat cave in Mohang province of China.
I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that we could take an airplane ride to every country in Europe
and sit in a city square and within five minutes we could find somebody who could pretty accurately
explain the Scooby-Doo as I just did.
Many of them might even mention something like the diffuse proposal or mention that there were emails
or complain about, oh, I knew already from the proximal origins paper.
And rather than think this as a collective experience of random chaos,
I want to strongly encourage everybody who's watching this stream for the first time to consider
that that may have been an orchestrated chaos designed to make you feel like you had solved the mystery.
And in so doing, you will have accepted the premises of the faith, which is this novel virus
that we were all vulnerable to that millions died from and could have also been saved,
might have been a bioweapon, and because it was gained a function or could have been,
it definitely could come again. And every one of these books released from 2020 until December of 2023
will tell basically the same story of the Scooby-Doo who done it, that is the Wuhan virus.
And we need to break this, we need to break this mythology or our children will be trapped by it forever.
So I'm trying to break that mythology by not talking about it, by ignoring it for the mythology it is,
and to instead address the biology directly, which is intramuscular injection of any combination of substances
with the intent of augmenting the immune system is very likely dumb.
And it could be just a matter of a few years before this becomes common knowledge around the world
20 or 30 or 40 years, we had been basically doing nothing or maybe even to a large extent damaging our populations
by ever increasing numbers of vaccinations administered earlier and earlier in children's lives, especially in America.
And for the brief moment that is the pandemic, transfection is not immunization is a suitable, let's say,
a correlate of that basic theory.
And so it is not a matter of what is true that counts, but what is perceived to be true.
And I've been arguing along with many other people that the intellectual dark web is a group of people that was put in place around
2018 and 19 in order to establish a another boundary for this limited spectrum of debate
within which we have all been living for the last three years as we tried to figure out the Scooby Doo mystery,
but we're never really allowed to have our own opinions because of the illusion of consensus created by these people
and their presence on social media and even some of them having presence in mainstream media.
Some of them having presence at the highest levels of tenured professorship at Stanford.
Some of them posing as part time teachers at MIT.
I want to call your attention to an article by Annie DeGroat,
DeGroat, which was brought to my attention by my friend Mark Kulak of his atomic life.
It's not that Mark is a biologist or anything like that, but Mark knows how to use websites and Mark can use search engines.
And because we have been interested in Robert Malone's antics over the last 20 years,
and some of his antics have brought him to the, and I say antics because this is a Scooby Doo mystery.
Some of his antics have brought him into a long time business and scientific consulting relationship with a company in Rhode Island called Epivax,
whose chief scientific officer and CEO are Annie DeGroat.
Annie DeGroat and her mentor at the time wrote this article in 2004,
and I just thought it would be interesting to read its abstract to your, its introductory paragraphs to you.
Again, hat tip to Mark Kulak of his atomic life for finding Annie DeGroat and Epivax in their connection with West Coast clinical trials,
the consulting firm of Robert Malone through the early 2000s.
And it's just been an absolute whirlwind of connections with these Canadian and American firms that have been involved in T cell vaccines
and DNA vaccines for almost two decades.
And he's just uncovered, uncovered is not the right word.
Basically what it is, is that I've got a day job.
I've got three kids. I've got a wife and a marriage.
I'm trying to maintain.
I've got hobbies that distract me still.
And Mark Kulak has a newfound granddaughter that he's taking full care of,
and trying to also stream and take care of the house while his wife brings home income and his stream supplements this.
And so neither of us have a lot of time for goofing around.
And I certainly don't have time to do the legwork on a lot of these people that we uncover.
And if you can imagine each one of these people,
if they are a significant scientist,
I mean, I'm an insignificant scientist.
If you look me up on PubMed and tried to read all the papers that I've written,
it would at least take you an afternoon.
If you want to read up and really understand what Kevin McCarran has done with his neuroscience career,
it's going to take you at least an afternoon.
And some of these people, like Annie de Crowe, who's had a career for more than 20 years,
it's going to take you a little more than an afternoon to dig deep
and to find out how long they've been pursuing some of these hypotheses,
how long they've been pursuing some of these avenues of investigation.
And it turns out that Annie de Crowe has been on the trail of universal
or generic T cell epitopes for nearly 20 years.
Arguably, in my limited experience with the immune system,
arguably one of the most important dual-use technologies of all.
It turns out that Annie de Crowe cut her teeth with HIV very early,
has written papers about vaccines and SARS and HIV
and has written this opinion piece, which I think is very insightful
and enlightening from the perspective of the attitude about vaccines,
given who we are about to watch tonight, which is Paul Offit,
one of the high priests of vaccinology who would apparently sacrifice all of his children
on the altar of vaccines in the sense of he would sacrifice his children
if it meant everyone in the world would take vaccines because they're so valuable.
It's like the math is very easy to do.
The market for vaccines is driven by perception, not by actual need.
So unlike pharmaceuticals for which present illnesses drive demand,
it is the perception of risk for disease that creates a desire for vaccination.
When the perceived risk for disease is lower or the disease is less prevalent,
CO2 demand wanes and concern about potential side effects may eventually drive the demand
for a vaccine and its return on investment to zero.
This odd effect that perception has on demand is best illustrated by funding trends
for vaccine development following the events of 9-11-2001.
That Mark Koolack has so eloquently shown us was like a pivot point
that there was this huge build-up happening in the rhetoric about bioterrorism,
bioterrorism, right up until September 10th when Big Joe Biden was on TV
talking about bioterrorism down to a little blonde lady,
bioterrorism, bioterrorism, anthrax, bioterrorism.
Concerns about bioterror have amplified public demand for vaccines against pathogens
for which the natural risk of actual risk of illness and exposure is minute.
Nonetheless, terrorism in several years of sustained increases in government funding
have had a stimulatory effect on vaccine development.
AIDS has also driven vaccine research primarily because of a well-deserved
infusion of funding in that field.
It doesn't exactly sound like vaccines have saved the world.
It doesn't sound like vaccines have solved the miracle invention of all medicine,
like Brett Weinstein said, or like Peter Hotez would say, or Paul Offit.
So the co-author of this, her supervisor is coming up and I thought I had that up next.
So yesterday, let me just check my slide list here to make sure I'm right
because I would like that to be beginning before that.
What did I do here?
Okay, this one should have been the other way.
I'm just going to escape here, put this up here, quick, and then do this.
Sorry.
So we could watch this.
Well, I think, you know, 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 against chronic infections like HIV or hepatitis C.
So this is language that we have heard a couple of three years ago, Tony Fauci used in 2011
when he was talking about making an AIDS vaccine, and he basically said exactly the same thing
when he was explaining this to a BBC reporter that previous vaccines,
because the body already fights those diseases,
then stimulating the response is easy.
But in diseases that the body doesn't fight and can't fight,
then we have to have a vaccine that's better than the natural immunity.
And this, I believe, is a biologically incongruent description of the challenge
that those purported pathogens or pathogenic states require.
And I think this is really at the heart of the immunomethology.
It's the heart of the myth we are trying to break is this kind of thinking.
It's flawed thinking.
It's flawed thinking from the perspective of thinking about how the immune system works,
how the immune system responds, what the immune system is trying to do.
And it's that collective misunderstanding that leads to these people thinking that they know how to augment the immune system.
And the crazy thing is, is the more that Mark pushes me to read these people's work,
or it becomes very clear to me that they have always known that antibodies are an absolutely atrocious approximation
or correlate of immunity.
They're just an absolutely awful readout.
And they've actually understood for that for quite some time, I believe.
And there's a couple of other aces in the hole with regard to antibodies
and their potential functional characteristics that I think they've kept in the wraps.
One or two of which I actually stumbled on last year and tried to confirm with certain people.
And it became very clear that the proposal of these additional functions of antibodies was really annoying to the people that I was trying to confirm it with.
So I'm almost sure that those are also real.
And it would make perfect sense from the perspective of how these molecules are likely working.
But again, what we're talking about is almost like a limited hangout of immunology that produces the immunomethology by which we are being covered.
And so it's a combination of outright lying and then also a giant amount of omission that makes it possible for these people to discuss augmenting the immune system in such simple terms.
But here, I believe that this guy, Berzofsky, or whatever the hell his name is, I got to move this thing back in order to see his name.
Jay Berzofsky, so he's the supervisor of Annie de Croat.
Cancer Research National Cancer Institute.
You can see that at least he's been at a meeting or two where Tony Fauci was present.
So this is Annie de Croat's supervisor.
And here he is talking about the fact that the majority of successful vaccines that have been worked in the past are live attenuated viral vaccines.
The same kind of vaccines that when tested against the subunit vaccines with adjuvants were shown to be actually beneficial in ways besides causing immunity.
Do you remember whose work that is?
That's Christine Stabel Ben's work.
And she has shown that if you look at live attenuated vaccines versus dead subunit vaccines, live attenuated vaccines have an actual benefit on all cause mortality far and different than also protecting the child from the vaccine targeted disease itself.
It also seems to strengthen the immune system through general activation, whereas the application of adjuvanted subunit vaccines has an up to five times increase in all cause mortality in those children and no net benefit.
Although it does seem to, I guess, prevent some of the diseases it's supposed to prevent.
And so here he is saying that that all these vaccines that have worked before are against viruses that we already made a really good immune response to.
And so we could just weaken those viruses and it was all good, but now when we're talking about vaccinating against diseases like AIDS or chronic diseases like cancer.
We're really starting to call all kinds of things disease with meaning different things.
It's a little bit like vehicles versus automobiles, you know.
If you start using the word vehicles, well, you can talk about all kinds of things then.
You can talk about boats and hydroplanes and hovercraft and drones and inflatable dingies and everything is a vehicle then.
And it seems like the pivot back in these days was to try and blur the line almost in biological terms so that disease could mean anything.
Disease could also mean genetic disorders. Disease can mean now pivoting to genetic disorder means that, well, we're pivoting vaccines from diseases that we make an immune response to diseases of the genome.
And we still need vaccines for them.
And so I really think that you can see it's almost like a psychological game that they're playing so that you think that vaccines can target genes now because that just makes sense.
It's a natural progression of the technology and what are they doing?
They're slipping genetic technologies in the back door of vaccine technology so that they can avoid all of the regular regulation of normal pharmaceuticals.
And so they have to bring transfection and transformation in through the vaccine door because otherwise it will face the full regulatory structure of any other pharmaceutical drug.
And so the cool thing to see here is that this has been ongoing as a semantic psychological bait and switch for a couple decades now.
First in the cancer Institute where it's fine these people are all dying anyway we can call it a vaccine it's not going to hurt anybody.
But 10 years later this concept has seeped into everyone's subconscious understanding to the point where people have become unable to to see the lie anymore.
And imagine if it started all the way back in 2000 or in 1990 or in 1980 or maybe even in 1970 or 1960.
Because I'm afraid that it has.
And we need to be conscious of this idea that these concepts are how we win or lose.
Starting to dismantle this in a very surgical way.
Just like we have been trying for almost three years to get people to use the gosh darn word transfection more often.
Everybody's so afraid to use it.
If he had started using transfection on Brett Weinstein's show for real every day insistently for three years now he would have led the charge.
If Bobby would have said transfection a few times in an interview already he would have had to explain what it means.
But he hasn't.
If Robert Malone wanted you to know it was a transfection he could have used the word and he could have explained it and he could have grounded into the dirt on his nine podcasts per day but he never uses the word.
If any of these dissidents that have ever talked to me actually let that thing sink into their head and seed and flower.
They would all be using the word transfection every day.
And it drives people nuts.
Because it is it forces a cognitive switch.
Just like when they say gender reveal party instead of sex reveal party they when they say gender reveal party it sounds it sounds better on your tongue but what it does is it's convincing you the gender is something.
Because remember gender is something you can choose.
And so when you reveal the gender of your baby you're actually going into this little game of theirs.
You don't even really know it but by taking on the gender reveal party you're accepting the term gender which they mean as a fluid definition.
You've got to be really careful ladies and gentlemen because this is how they got us on vaccines too.
This is how they got us with anti-vaxxers too.
It is an enchantment and these enchantments are used to lay down and to to to fortify and to reinforce these these mythologies.
You know the 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 against 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 five to ten years we will have vaccines for those diseases.
But of course that's at this point that's hope that's not nothing guaranteed, not promised.
I think one is that we will use predictive vaccinology to devise new candidates.
Two is we'll have an increasingly personalized approach and three and I think this is really the hallmark of it.
We will begin to understand and develop biosignatures, immune signatures that predict whether you're going to respond to the vaccine or
you're going to ultimately predict whether you're likely to have a side effect to that.
And that will be a very exciting area. I call that vaccinology 2.0.
Vaccinology 2.0.
So you can see they're talking about informatics already way back then.
Collecting all the data and making predictions.
Yesterday or the day before we watched a stream with Kevin McCurnan
talking about the DNA in the shots and I just want to make sure that I'm really clear about that.
We also to be injected into these.
The reason why I watch that is because I want everybody to understand what the concerns are and I want everybody to understand what Kevin and his colleagues claim to have found there.
I want everyone to understand why it's part of a long list of things that are wrong with transfecting and mass.
And I hope that it was very clear that Kevin McCurnan and I have had many interactions throughout the pandemic.
I think he's been on giga home biological twice in our infancy.
And so I've been on at least two or three other streams with Kevin.
Once with I believe with Matt Crawford.
I also had a stream on St. Patrick's Day this year with Jessica Rose, Stephanie Sineff, Kevin McCurnan and myself and John Bodewood.
So we've interacted a lot and it was a pretty big disagreement about the significance of RNA infectious clones that resulted in Kevin McCurnan blocking me on Twitter.
So it's interesting.
I'm not really sure what to make of it because again, this is a guy who sold multiple companies who is consulting with multiple companies.
I can only imagine he has been ridiculously successful financially as far as I can tell.
And it's exceedingly odd that someone of his stature and sort of pedigree is wasting any time at all on Twitter talking to a guy who had less than 10,000 followers at the time and still rents his house.
It's actually quite disheartening to think that somebody who was at the time shaking a can on the Internet for his family and kids and had lost a career in academic biology was being insulted and dunked on quote unquote regularly
on Twitter by a guy who's worth tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars and has been successful since the early 90s on a national scale with regard to molecular biology and the human genome and sequencing and patenting and IP and you know
and entrepreneurism.
I mean, this would be the almost it's the equivalent of of.
Yeah, I don't know what the equivalent of it is, but it's exceedingly odd seeing also as at one point in time he saw me as someone who was worthy of his time enough that he would actually come on to my stream and talk.
And given our long explanation about biology to do with the transfection never actually calling it a transfection but still.
So I've had a long, long history with this gentleman and so when he wanted to communicate with the people that I'm working with now at Children's Health Defense, I definitely wanted them to understand the full breadth and depth of the problems with transfection and why
or at least how the DNA in the DNA signal that he's identified in some of these these vials could potentially be twisted around and used in such a way to make CHD fall on its face.
And so I think it's important that we understand that biology so that we see that this is just a long line of of things and it's not necessarily something his paper their results are not results that are rise to the level of significance that we can now go to the FDA and say look at Kevin's results
because they're their vials out of the trash. They're vials with no chain of custody. They are used without permission.
Their labs are not certified by the FDA in any way. We don't know if any of the equipment they use has been officially certified in any way so none of the results will ever be respected.
And it doesn't matter if Kevin McKernan has been a world-class molecular biologist for the last 30 years. There is in a court in the United States that will listen to that paper given the fact that again he claims to have gotten some of these vials in the mail from an anonymous source who just sent him to him when he asked for polyA RNA controls.
And so to make this an international story where Health Canada and all these other organizations are saying from the rooftops that these findings are real is really setting up almost anybody that gets on this bandwagon for a potential disaster.
Oh my gosh, you're such a dork. And that's what I think is very dangerous when you see somebody like Burke Halter come out and say these things because what did Burke Halter actually or Buck Halter actually say in the question and answer.
I'm going to play this video again because I think it's really important for you to hear that he would take a transfection if he could show that it didn't have any DNA in it.
And B, even if it has DNA and as he's detected, he would still recommend it for his parents just not necessarily for his daughter.
And these two statements, I would submit, are evidence that he's not sophisticated enough in understanding the biology of the immune system or the potential consequences of transfection in order for him to give an opinion because he's apparently just a gene jockey
who's really good at PCR and sequencing because I think there are hundreds if not thousands of doctors immunologists, physiologists, biologists around the world who would agree with me the transfection and healthy mammals and healthy children and healthy adults
and healthy elderly people to a coronavirus protein based on a sequence that was found around the world according to the CDC would be ridiculous.
So let's listen to this video again that we don't need to be injected into these darker stitch ones.
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 without then taking it back out later on.
I think nobody thought about it.
I think it was reasonable to use the E. coli to blow up the plasma.
I see in here that somebody says that Buckholtz had chain of custody. That's not actually true.
I know from talking to people in several conversations over the last few days that chain of custody actually means much more than just you know where it went.
Chain of custody actually means that you have to legally sign it over to the transport agency.
The transport agency has to be certified by the FDA to carry it at temperature and the transport like cooler or whatever has to be certified and calibrated with a readout so that you can see what temperature the product was stored at for the entire time
that it was transported from the pharmacy to his lab and then his lab would need to be certified in such a way so that they could produce a similar time signature temperature thing.
There are some pretty significant hurdles that are in place in order to be sure that official things are official to the point where it's very hard to do things officially unless you're official.
And so he's not official. I mean he's a super smart guy and he made a saliva test and I'm sure he's an expert at doing these things.
But there are only certain labs that qualify as being capable of producing the results that the CDC and the FDA will respect and that's just the way it is.
And so unfortunately whether these guys know it or not, whether Kevin McCurnan or Philip here know it or not, what they're doing is only just the equivalent of a rumor.
The equivalent of hearsay and only with absolute surgical accuracy in terms of who you use, what laboratory you use, how they get the product and what tests they do on it, there's always going to be an out.
And this does not represent the dunk that everybody is trying to portray it as, that Steve Kirsch is trying to sell it as, that Robert Malone wants us to believe it is, that's all absolute nonsense for a list that does not fit on one page.
And listen again, it would be completely different if this guy was saying we shouldn't do it, we should have never done it, this is just crazy and this is the last, a long list of reasons and this is the latest one, but he's not saying that.
He's saying that I love this technology I think it works great I think it's going to work great on cancer I would give it to my parents even with this DNA in it.
That's significant ladies and gentlemen it's super significant please hear this for what it is it is an admission that this guy's not on our side.
He's 100% faithful to the narrative and faithful to the faith.
I mean he made money on a saliva test so he believes that PCR of a saliva test can track this virus so he is 100% a high priest.
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.
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.
That's what I'm saying.
I can't get inside their mind.
I don't rush too much and that's why I'm saying these subsequent you know we've heard testimony of these subsequent you know variant subsequent boosters etc etc are 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 world 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.
Correct.
Okay but without that we have not informed consent.
I'm not really happy about that Mr. Chairman and do what I can to try to help.
Knowing what I know now about this I would still have recommended it to my elderly parents 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.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Representative Morgan.
I almost don't know where to start.
I'm trying not to talk because we're.
So this illusion of consensus I think is the trap.
And the real issue now is to see that this is still an ongoing thing.
It's still an ongoing thing.
I mean it's not for nothing but the bulls of these guys have blocked me on Twitter.
It's not like I tracked Phillip buckles down and started harassing him on the platform or anything like that.
This is just what happens when the word spreads that you doubt them.
That you doubt the narrative.
And this is the way they make sure that none of the people that are following them will ever see that you doubt.
I haven't blocked any of them.
What do I care if they tweet to me.
Look at this backyard that this guy has.
His backyard overlooks a harbor with boats in it.
I don't know if you know or not but a harbor with boats in it.
Generally speaking means that you're living pretty large.
Another thing that means you're living pretty large.
If you have multiple main coon cats that can start at about twenty five hundred dollars and go right up to ten thousand pretty quick.
They're beautiful giant cats.
If you've sold multiple companies and you live on the harbor in Boston.
I don't think you belong trying to mess up the biology classes of a guy with less than three thousand followers who rents his house in Pittsburgh.
I think you're just a dick on wheels if you do that.
And if you if you see it that way and that you see that not only has he done that but he has has actually behind the scenes.
Tried to follow me around and tell people that I've been sabotaging him for the last nine months.
Can you imagine that trying to trying to soil my my professional reputation by calling people that I used to work with and say did you know that this guy is doing this.
I mean what what in the world.
Why in the world would this guy be so motivated to do that to somebody who is already blocked on Twitter and makes probably six figures more than I do every year.
I mean this is just a joke to me.
There's there's no other explanation for this behavior other than pure and simple they're in on it.
What are they in on this game.
This game right here.
The game of it doesn't matter what counts.
That's it doesn't matter what's true that counts it matters what people think is true and that's what they are involved in they are involved in preserving the faith.
They don't want you to know the transfection and its purest form is wholly inappropriate for for mammals for humans especially.
They definitely don't want you to know.
And that upscaling from nanograms to kilograms was predicted to be a source of huge problems already in 2020 and we were making fun of it as were many others including Michael Yeden and others.
The RNA was impure that means it was never making pure spike protein was making all kinds of fragments and those fragments can do any number of unknown things.
The RNA was code on optimized which is going to cause it to misfold and misfolding means you're not creating the epitopes that are created in the original antigen so it was all dumb to begin with.
They were never making a spike protein that would have been relevant and would have presented the relevant epitopes that are present on the regular spike maybe it makes neutralizing antibodies.
But immunologically speaking a code on optimized spike protein is not immunologically equivalent to that of a of that using the viral RNA code.
Whether you believe in viruses or RNA's viruses or not the the canon of how molecular biology works is that a code on optimized RNA will result in a differently fold differentially folded protein than one that uses the original code found in the purported RNA virus.
That is for sure and that misfolding results in the presentation of the formation of different epitopes because epitopes are not they're not just the string of amino acids but they are the amino acids as they are assembled in three dimensional space.
The RNA was chemically altered by inserting n one methyl pseudo uridine.
This chemically altered base causes premature stop codons which can result in fragmented small RNAs which can be interfering and they can interfere with endogenous RNAs they can interfere with micro RNAs they can themselves be micro RNAs.
All of which we have barely barely barely barely even have scratched the surface of understanding but we definitely know that those signals are there that they are regulatory and modulatory signals and they are important.
And so making small RNAs at random is definitely not a good idea and that's one of the things that chemically altering this RNA does.
In addition to causing wobble based substitutions which is that this n-methyl pseudo uridine can pair with almost any other base and that makes it possible for other codons to be read.
The protein produces them therefore uncharacterized because of all of those things above therefore highly variable with countless unknown consequences.
The LNP was never tested for short and long term effects.
The endotoxins from process two are highly immunogenic and if they're present then they're a problem.
This double stranded DNA fragments from process two if they're present they might be a problem.
And finally if the spike toxic is spike toxic itself is a question we have to ask provided that the spike is produced at all in quantities that matter and folding that matters.
Or if the production of the spike because it's codon optimized results in the misfolding that has been blamed on the spike.
It's a pretty complicated mess of crap here.
It's not as simple oh there's double stranded DNA in the shot and we have to call a halt to it.
You can start at number one and call a halt to it like I wanted to do back in January of 2020 or 2021.
You can use number one is enough reason to stop.
And that's the big trick right that's the big trick that we've got to get everybody up to speed about.
We watched this video last night which is Byron Bridal and it was really nice to feature him because again I think that when he came out.
I was pointed out to me by I believe Sana on Twitter that here at funded bush actually also came on to the scene right around the same time that Byron Bridal was becoming famous and going on radio shows.
So Robert Malone comes out of the off the bench and care funded bush comes off the bench in Europe because Byron Bridal put his whole career on the line because he found a document that didn't make sense.
And this guy has been turning over every freaking tenant of vaccinology that he ever believed in for his whole career.
And it looks like he's losing his mind a little bit which is how it should look when you see an alien.
Which is how it should look when you find out that everything you believed in your life is wrong.
You should find yourself in the back of your garage streaming for three years when you find out that everything you believed about public health was wrong.
That's a normal response.
And so what we have been charting here is really it's a it's a it's a protection racket that makes sure that we don't question a novel virus.
We don't question the millions died from it.
We don't question that there were possibilities that people were saved by different things or could have more could have been saved by different choices.
And it doesn't really matter how you understand that as long as you understand that big choices made big big outcomes happen.
And so we need to make big choices in the future.
Gain a function is real and a virus will come again. None of these people question it. None of them.
And please look carefully at the people that I have around this circle.
I'm not friendly. I'm objective.
If you haven't questioned the novel virus or the fact that millions have died or the equate you haven't questioned the gain of function is real.
And you haven't questioned whether a virus will come again. You are on the outside of this circle and you are working against my children's future.
It's not a matter of what's true it counts but what is a matter of perceived to be true tonight we are going to watch this monster.
And I shouldn't call him a monster.
But I do think that he's probably one of the worst actors in this theater because he has been on stage for longer than most.
He has been a lead longer than most. Before this theater ever became important and when it became important because of the movie Vaxxed and when it became important because of the pandemic he's always been one of the lead players.
And so I think it's important to pay attention to what he says because oftentimes he actually can give away a few things.
Did I close this? That's weird.
I kind of thought I had that open. Let's see if I can quickly find where I was.
Hopefully I can.
I just got to do this search. Sorry about that. I thought I had it open already.
Hey, what? What? Where? Yes, here we go.
It is. I swoosh. That was loud. Sorry about that. Here it comes. I'm going to get it over here.
My bad. I really did think I thought I had it set up here.
From Microbe TV, this is Beyond the Noise, episode number 19 recorded on October 3rd, 2023.
I'm Vincent Rackeniello and joining me today is your host, Dr. Paul Offit.
Hi, Vincent.
This is the video version of Paul's column on substack called Beyond the Noise,
Cutting to the Chase on Important Health Topics.
Today I'd like to take a closer look at Paul's most recent column,
Should Scientists Open Lead Debate Vaccine Policies?
And Paul, you begin this column by writing scientists constantly question the validity of scientific studies among themselves.
Yeah, I mean, you and I know this. This is what happens.
But I think often the public doesn't understand that that's part of science. They think we're waffling.
It's how we get better. I mean, as a young scientist,
when I would appear in either national or national meetings and present my data, those data were criticized.
I mean, was I really able to draw the conclusions I drew based on data that I showed?
Did I do the right controls? Was my, was it internally consistent, robust, reproducible?
And that's how you got better. So that's the cauldron in which you and I both were raised.
And so the point of this column is that that kind of questioning doesn't do well in the public health arena.
And you give as an example the bivalent booster story. So why don't you tell us that?
Right. It's a tough lesson. I think last year was a tough lesson and this year has been a tough lesson.
So, so I'm only FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee in June of 2022.
We sat down to discuss what we were going to do about COVID vaccines.
Now, up to that point, the only vaccine that we had used was the original strain, the ancestral strain to Wuhan one strain.
But starting late 2021, early 2022, the Omicron strain came into the United States and it was immune evasive.
So what to do? And so the decision that was made and really was in our decision was decision really made by the FDA and the in concert with the pharmaceutical companies was to instead of just using the Wuhan strain.
Why don't we do a half a dose of the Wuhan one strain and a half of a dose of what was one of the circulating Omicron strains.
Now, the original data that were generated were with the original Omicron strain VA one.
But by the time we sat down VA one was gone to only to be replaced by VA four VA five.
So that was the decision. Let's move forward with this.
Now, the data that were shown us at that time were not terribly convincing.
It didn't look like that when you get when you added that VA one strain, which were the data we were presented with,
that you really got a neutralizing antibody response against VA one much greater than you would have gotten with Wuhan one alone, because that was the goal.
By adding that Omicron strain, you would then increase the amount of neutralizing antibodies.
The data weren't terribly convincing.
Nonetheless, we removed for without it.
You know, it's, you know, I think in fairness, in fairness to the FDA and fairness to pharmaceutical companies, they thought this would be kind of the next step on the way to making better vaccines.
Fair enough. But the good news is you can tell whether or not that was the right move.
So what happened over the next few months is studies that were done by David Ho and Columbia or Dan Baruch and that Harvard looked at people who were inoculated either with the, the, this by valent vaccine is two in one vaccine or just amount of valent vaccine.
Did they make a better neutralizing antibody response against VA four VA five and the answer was no.
And then there have been three studies, clinical studies, two with VA one, a third with VA four VA five all by valent vaccines, all prospective, all controlled using a monovalent vaccine to see as the other vaccine.
And there was no difference. That's okay.
So here he's about to describe how after coming out and saying that the by valent vaccine wasn't necessarily better and he wasn't going to get it right away or that he objected to saying it was better or something like that.
He was blamed for nobody taking the vaccine.
Now I want you to see.
I want you to see how clearly this is that.
How clearly this is a controlled spectrum of debate.
How he formulates a.
A hypothetical situation of.
Of dissent.
And how people don't want to hear dissent.
And then makes the argument that we need to be able to discuss these things if we're going to improve our public health.
And so I.
When trying to discuss these things and bring a dissenting opinion.
Was hammered on and that's not fair.
Just like Brett Weinstein says that he was censored because he put Robert Malone on his stream in June of 2021 and really didn't question or do anything controversial at all.
We are talking about.
The worst kind of liars because they are consistently engaged in telling you a story.
That is based on a national security priority they rationalize it in their head.
Because they feel they are part of a governing structure.
Paul Offit has felt part of this governing structure for 20 years.
Vaccines are not.
Distributed because of need.
According to Andy DeGroat and her supervisor at the National Cancer Institute.
They are distributed by a perceived need.
And Paul Offit's job is to sustain that perceived need for national security reasons.
Brett Weinstein and the intellectual dark web were recruited in 2019 to sustain those ideas as a national security priority.
The worst case scenario of a bio weapon lab leak and a billion people dying.
Was necessary to be seated in order to accomplish what Paul Offit has been part of trying to accomplish for the last 20 years.
To make sure that every child.
That grows up in America to raise children.
Believes that the vaccine schedule is 100% safe.
100% necessary and unquestionably the best medical thing we've got going.
This is nothing short of a game for all the marbles.
And they intend to govern our children with public health.
They intend to govern all of the futures children with public health.
Not with national governments, not with parliaments, with public health.
Local governments, national governments are going to do the things that don't matter anymore.
And they're going to do them increasingly with less efficiency, more waste and less effectiveness.
So that the only good governance we have is public health.
So that our children believe that the only working apparatus is public health.
It's coming.
It's okay not to be right.
Now boosters boosted.
It just wasn't any better.
I think what was hard for me was watching many of the public health arena saying it was better, saying it was much better.
This is going to be much better.
Definitely better.
So you should get it for that reason.
And so I took a contrary point of view.
I did what scientists normally do, which is I submitted a perspective piece to the New England Journal of Medicine, which was published, which is to say in order to get it published, it has to be reviewed.
So I wasn't the only one that had this point of view, obviously, people that read that also had that point of view.
But when I got up, and I think that the sort of the moment for me, the crystallizing moment was I was, because I was on CNN, a fair amount because I was on the FDA vaccine advisory committee.
I was asked by Pamela Brown this question.
First, she showed a clip of a public health official who was the coronavirus response coordinator at the White House saying this is a much better vaccine.
And that's why you need to get it. And so they then shifted to me and said, is he wrong?
Pamela Brown said, is he wrong?
And so you don't want to make it personal.
So I said, well, here are two papers that were just published in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed it doesn't appear to be any better, no worse, but not better.
And I was hammered for that, hammered.
I mean, I got, there were two very prominent bloggers, one a cardiologist, another one an epidemiologist who basically said that what I had done is I had had frightened the American public about this vaccine.
Because of me, the uptake was low last year, only one in five Americans who were asked to get that vaccine, which is everybody over six months of age, actually got it. And that was in part my fault.
I mean, I got, you know, I got, I was in the places like the Daily Mail, Epic Times.
I mean, that's when you know you're losing.
And, you know, they basically said that I said that this vaccine wasn't any good, which isn't what I said.
So I think the minute you weigh in on this, by definition, whenever you weigh in on the media anyway, you could be misinterpreted. But here, because we were so divisive, you're either on one side or another.
When I appeared to be not clearly stating what the public health group.
So what you have to see here is that he's complaining of censorship.
But what actually happened was his message got amplified.
Just like Robert Malone complained about censorship, but there was none.
His message got amplified by the censorship.
Just like Alex Berenson complains about censorship, but actually his message has always been amplified.
It's a lie.
It is the actual spectrum of debate that they want to maintain.
And that's why they amplified.
He thinks that, oh, I was on the Epoch Times, but that's exactly how they do it.
Jonathan, Jonathan Cooey is this cord is starting to drop out one of my ears and that's annoying.
Wow.
Jonathan Cooey is not making it to the Epoch Times because he's being censored.
Jonathan Cooey isn't covered on the Daily Beast because he's being censored.
But Paul Offit gets covered on the Daily Beast.
Paul Offit gets covered on the Blaze.
Paul Offit gets covered on the Epoch Times.
So it's not really censorship.
It's amplification.
And once you start to see that almost all of these people that have complained about censorship have actually been amplified have benefited from their censorship.
Whereas just look at the count.
I still have less than 4,000 subscribers on YouTube.
I still have less than 3,000 subscribers on Twitch.
I still have less than 15,000 followers on Twitter.
While some of these really average mediocre, you know, personalities on Twitter or personalities on YouTube or personalities on Twitch have 10 times as many followers.
And don't put out the kind of consistent quality of information that's found on Giggle.
Not even close.
You can't make this stream go viral.
You can't make this material go viral.
You can't make my Twitter account go viral.
But if you start sharing Paul Offit stuff, your tweets will go bananas.
Because the algorithm wants to amplify the limited spectrum of debate within which we are all trapped.
And Paul Offit is a definer of that debate.
Which groups were stating that I had gone to the other side.
I mean, I got love letters from from anti vaccine activists saying that things like they have been praying for me for years.
And now it's good to see that I have finally come over to their side.
I mean, I was asked to be on Newsmax.
When that happens, by the way, you know that your message isn't getting out there.
And that was that was last year's lesson. So, so what's the answer?
Do you do you say nothing? Because when you say something, you're going to be misinterpreted. When you say something, you are going to be in open in many way, I'm invigorating anti vaccine activists. And when you say something.
Jolie interview was rebroadcast on rents radio in his online show in its entirety or just the part about the string theory.
Because for the first time in the history of my stream, somebody came on my show and had a visual aid and that visual aid ended up turning into a video that was produced by somebody I don't know with titles and with a little headshot of mine.
And they tried to make it go as viral as they possibly could. No one's ever tried to do that before.
No one. Not any. No one. All of the clips that my good friend Jeff from Earth has made. Not one person has ever tried to make one of those clips go viral.
I've never seen any of those people that I saw make that clip of Jolie try to go viral. I've never seen them try to make any other of my shows ever go viral.
I've never seen them make another clip of any of my work ever. Not of Denny's show, not of Michael's show, not of anyone's show ever.
Do you hear that? Do you hear it? That means something. It should mean something to you.
It shouldn't be a good sign. Because the best part of my talk is the any combination of substances injected intramuscularly with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
They've never made a clip of that. One of my most important clips is when I'm teaching infectious clones using the cassette tape and CD analogy.
No one's ever made a clip of that except for Jeff and maybe one of my friends from Germany.
But man did they come out of the woodwork for Jolie.
I'm not making any accusations. I'm not making any statements. I just want you to see what I see.
And I don't see like, oh my goodness, finally somebody's paying attention to me.
What I see is, oh somebody's paying attention to Jolie when he was on my stream.
And they specifically titled it Watch Jolie Teach J.
So were they promoting me or they were promoting Jolie? Were they promoting my ideas and the biology that I teach?
Or were they teaching the biology and promoting the biology that Jolie teaches?
That's what I see.
Call me paranoid, but you know that's how we're going to win.
Because it's so divisive divided. You're going to be seen as just confusing the American public because now it looks like we don't know what we're doing, right?
This person says this, the other person says that, but I don't know.
My feeling on this is just tell the truth as you see it and because there are people who are going to appreciate that.
And I think that's the way to do it, but I could be wrong. What do you think?
Well, what do you think the public health officials should have done?
Instead of saying this vaccine is better, should they have said, for example, we think it's better?
Let's try it. What do you think they should have done?
Yes, this is what we're doing. It's just tell the whole story.
We, Omicron has come into the United States.
Tell the whole story. Omicron has come into the United States.
We need to start getting away from Wuhan. Well, but we don't want to get away from it immediately, which is what they're thinking was.
So there it is. The whole faith right there in a nutshell. Now, make sure that you realize that what I am suggesting to you is where did I put it?
That he's not telling the whole story, right? If he was telling the whole story, oh, you demon.
If he was telling the whole story, he might start maybe somewhere like this with a statement about why vaccines exist.
The market for vaccines is driven by perception, not by actual need.
Maybe you should start with that truth that Annie DeGroat gave us back in 2004.
But he won't, of course, because again, this is a limited spectrum of debate, and it is a limited spectrum of debate that is bordered on all sides by a spectacular commitment to lies.
And so that limited spectrum of debate right now is limited to a novel virus that has pandemicked around the world for the last three years, a whole recent version of which was called Omicron.
That's what this is right here, what you're listening to.
So let's try this measure and see whether or not this is better.
And then as data starts to roll out, they can say, well, I think we've learned a lesson here, a lesson that we will apply to future vaccines, which is what happened.
So in the following year, I this year, we don't, we no longer tether our vaccine to the Wuhan one strain. So what did you learn as you go, such as the nature of science, our eyes are open.
We're going to keep monitoring data. The good news is this boosters do boost this does boost. It looks like it boosts the same degree that the original strain did certainly no worse.
It's important to get this vaccine in these groups for these reasons.
We will keep you posted as we continue to learn as we continue to have our eyes open. We will keep you posted in the most straightforward, honest way we can, knowing that there was a group of people in this country who will just cure you for doing that.
So historically, you, you know, the history of public health and vaccination. Has this always been like this or were so what we always were always this divide between the science and the public health statement or was it better at one point.
It was much, much better at one point. And I, here's the example I would use. There we go. In 1955.
Five companies that were going to make Jonas Salk.
One of them made it particularly badly. So what Jonas Salk did took polio, grew it up in cell culture, purified it, killed it with the inactivating agent formaldehyde.
One company made it badly. They failed to inactivate the virus as a consequence.
The first and second graders in this country were inoculated with live fully virulent polio virus thinking it was the polio vaccine.
40,000 developed a board of polio, meaning short live temporary paralysis.
168 people, mostly children were permanently paralyzed and 10 were killed.
I think it was the worst biological disaster in this country's history.
Now that went to court and the first trial was a trial of a little girl, actually, who's still alive, although suffering named and got stanker got stanker V cutter laboratories.
And what they did was the they presented all the data and what you saw was you saw that it wasn't only cutter that had a problem.
Why also had a problem in activating the virus and also made a vaccine that at least with one lot paralyzed and killed.
And then the other three companies all had trouble in activating the virus. It was a filtration problem. It was a mass production problem.
And I think that the jurors understood that the jurors wanted to find cutter not liable.
They wanted to find them not guilty because they saw it for what it was. They saw it as a process of evolution.
If it was a directed verdict, basically the judge said if you find that this vaccine did cause paralysis, you have to find them guilty.
But if you listen to the voices in those exit interviews, those people, they trusted the government. They trusted the pharmaceutical companies.
They trusted the public health agencies to get it right. And then they saw it for what it was, which was a process of evolution.
And then the polio program was suspended for a couple of months and went back online and people trusted that.
That would never happen today. It's a much more divided time.
And I think what makes it so hard today are two things. I think one is social media, which is just a great place for awful and good information.
And I think also just the political environment of conspiracy theory has sort of risen to the mainstream.
So recently, you have been critical of the.
I think I missed it. So I want to go back a little bit because somewhere in there, he says that the problem with the shots was actually upscaling their manufacturing.
People, mostly children, were permanently paralyzed and 10 were killed. I think it was the worst biological disaster in this country's history.
Now that went to court. And the first trial was a trial of a little girl, actually, who's still alive, although suffering named in Gottsanker.
V cutter laboratories. And what they did was they presented all the data. And what you saw was you saw that it wasn't only cutter that had a problem.
Why also had a problem in activating the virus and also made a vaccine that at least with one lot paralyzed and killed.
And then the other three companies all had trouble in activating the virus. It was a filtration problem. It was a mass production problem.
So a mass production problem that I guess Paul has never really thought about from the perspective of the mass production of the MRNA.
And you can almost see here, and I hope you can, where we might have two threads on both sides of the controlled sphere of debate.
Honing in on this idea that mass production can result in quality control issues.
And so my spidey senses tell me that he might even be trying to lay this narrative down on that side of the field.
That the cutter incident was a case of manufacturing and quality control.
And when they tried to upscale the manufacturer, it was a filtration problem.
It doesn't sound that dissimilar to getting rid of the DNA, how it was described by Phillip Buckholts as being just another step they could have added.
And so if my gut feeling is right here, there is a absolutely malevolent plan to just like the lab leak story to fool both sides of the seesaw into thinking that the worst case scenario was a lab leak and it may have happened.
We now may be trying to fool both sides of the seesaw that well, there were a lot of, there were some side effects.
But the side effects might have been because like the polio vaccine, when it was first scaled up, we had some manufacturing problems and we're just going to have to be honest about it and say that the next generation of these vaccines is going to be better.
That's where they may be going with this and you need to be vigilant as all get out to be sure that they don't do this.
Oh my gosh, do we need to be vigilant that they do not do this?
Because this will fool my parents, this will fool my brother and it'll be the same thing as the masks and the other stuff where they'll say that we just got lucky.
Even Sam Harris will say we got lucky with this virus, the next virus though, he won't get so lucky.
It's coming ladies and gentlemen, it's coming.
Oh, it's coming so rapidly, I can see it.
I think that the jurors understood that.
The jurors wanted to find Qatar not liable.
They wanted to find them not guilty because they saw it for what it was.
They saw it as a process of evolution.
If it was a directed verdict, basically the judge said if you find that this vaccine did cause paralysis, you have to find them guilty.
But if you listen to the voices in those exit interviews, those people, they trusted the government, they trusted the pharmaceutical companies, they trusted the public health agencies to get it right.
And then they saw it for what it was, which was a process of evolution and then the polio program was suspended for a couple of months and went back online and people trusted that.
That would never happen today. It's a much more divided time.
And I think what makes it so hard today are two things.
I think one is social media, which is just a great place for awful and good information.
And I think also just the political environment of conspiracy theory has sort of risen to the mainstream.
More recently, you have been critical of the the CDC recommendation that everyone over what six months of age get this new fall.
COVID vaccine, right, the XBB dot one dot five.
And the same thing has happened. You've been criticized for being critical, right?
Right. And, you know, what's interesting is that, see, this is another to be a loss opportunity.
Because many other countries, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia, three Scandinavian countries, the World Health Organization have taken a different tact.
And that pact has been let's target high risk groups. So, so it wasn't my idea.
I mean, I thought, so the question is, what's the best way to convince those at greatest risk of serious disease to get the vaccine.
And my attitude is, tell people, okay, here's who's getting hospitalized. Here's who's dying. Here's why we need to vaccinate these groups.
And that's the best way to get those groups vaccinated. But I think the public health officials here anyway, think that the best way to do it is to say everybody should get it.
And I don't know who's right. I mean, maybe they're right. Maybe I'm right.
Or maybe all these other countries here doing it that way, right? But again, hammered. That was when I was actually asked to be on Newsmax.
I don't know if you've ever watched Newsmax. It's like a Saturday Night Live spoof of conservative television. I mean, it's just, it's out landishly to one side.
And I think I really disappointed that when I went on there, because they thought I wasn't who they had imagined me to be.
I mean, somehow I got moved into the category of a nay-saying doctor. When I don't think I'm that at all, I think I'm just trying to figure out what the best way is to do this.
But again, if the reason that we're doing this, that we're saying everybody should get it, is because we are worried that by not doing that, that there are going to be certain groups who aren't going to get covered by private insurance, like someone who lives in the home of someone who's at that high risk.
Or someone who works in nursing home. Then say that. Just say it. Be honest with the American public.
Knowing that there's going to be people who will not understand what you're saying, who will be confused by what you're saying. But I think there are many people out there who will appreciate that honesty. I do think that.
But again, I'm an Eagle season ticket holder, so I'm going to ridiculously optimistic person.
Do you think when you question the science, do you think you're really encouraging anti-vaxxers, which is one of the things you've been accused of?
I think it does seem to play out that way. I mean, only in that what you've done is you have not completely agreed with everything that's being said by public health agencies. And so to them, they see that fissure. They see that crack.
And they say, aha, see these public health agencies don't know what they're talking about. And here's someone who's saying that. I mean, I got a letter from a pretty virulent anti-vaccine activist who said that she's been praying for me for years, me and my family for years, and now finally
there's a contral. This is not a good thing. No, it's not good at all. Well, you know, if you look at some of the comments to your post here on beyond the noise, you can see right away people are just distrustful of CDC of FDA.
You know, no matter what you say in your column, they still don't trust them. And so that's something that has to be fixed. And I don't know how to do that.
I don't think it's terribly fixable. I think there's going to be a certain percentage of people who will always feel that way. And I guess, for me, the, I guess, the point, the flex point for that evolution was vaccines cause autism. So a paper was published late 1990s, claiming that, you know, the, the MMR, measles, mumps, rubella vaccine cause autism and to the credit of the public health agency to the credit of
academicians, academicians, pediatricians, many studies were done, causing tens of millions of dollars to almost calls them a catamajicians, which I really think is a word we should all start using.
I was using it on Twitter. I'm going to take credit for having made that up. I made that word up.
I'm a catamajician. So it's like an academic, but I'm a magician, right? It's an academic edition. And I think it's really an adequate way to describe how these people wield science.
They are snake oil salesman disguised as scientists. So they're catamajicians. And the academy has taught them to do it.
I'm one of the few people that has gone all the way under the water of academia and tried my best to swim in that water.
And the people that are in academia will say that the reason why I'm so salty about it is because I couldn't swim in it.
But I will say, yes, I couldn't swim in it. But I think the reason why I couldn't swim in it is because the water of academia teaches you to be an academy magician, which is not a scientist.
It's not a biologist. It's not an experimentalist. It's not someone who tests hypotheses, but it is someone who makes the sausage.
And Paul Offit is somebody who makes the sausage. Paul Offit is somebody who really doesn't want you to know how the sausage is made. It's kind of like the pink slime that's in 70% of all the ground beef in America that the FDA and the USDA don't want you to know is in there.
And the people that maintain that, well, it's there, but we don't talk about it. They're the same kind of people, the lookaway doctrine followed by these people.
It's okay to lie to us because we are being governed by these lies.
Just like it's okay to lie to your kids about Santa Claus, so they're going to be good.
Just like it's okay to lie to your kids about the tooth fairy, just like it's okay to lie and fake it until you make it in America right now. It's okay to lie about vaccines.
It's okay to lie about public health because lies are okay nowadays.
And that's how you know that our civilization is being destroyed from the inside because I'm not a liar. I was never raised to be a liar.
I was raised by liars.
I've grown up in a culture of lying.
And when I was a young man in high school and in college, I swam in that water too.
But my biggest lie was having a fake ID.
These are people who have faked it until they made it.
Some of them are faking an entire field because faking it makes it.
We need to wake up, ladies and gentlemen, because our children are being misled as long as we are not adequately opposing this.
As long as we are not actively teaching our children to see this, they won't see it.
And they won't know that we see it.
We must teach our children this college kids right now are so vulnerable to this kind of nonsense.
And because of social media and how it's fractured our dinner tables, our children are so vulnerable to this.
You have to talk to your children every day about this.
The only way we're going to win is we raise our children to not believe this mythology.
That's the task at hand. It's not to convince your neighbors.
The task at hand is not to necessarily get elected to your local council. That's a good idea too.
The real task that everybody has is to teach our children not to trust these people.
And more importantly, to understand the biology so that that mistrust is placed and objectively based.
We don't want to replace one boogeyman with another one.
We don't want to replace Santa Claus with with Paul Offit.
We want to replace Paul Offit with the sacred biology that is our perfect children.
Born perfect.
That's not part of this man's philosophy.
Answer that question. Are you more likely to get autism if you've gotten that vaccine or not?
And that convinced most people.
I mean, most parents are children with autism. We're convinced by that, but not all.
So there's still a solid 10 to 15% that still hold on to that notion, even though it's clearly been shown not to be true.
And I think that's the group that are the conspiracy theorists.
And conspiracy theorists theory now is just part of the mainstream.
I mean, you hear in theory responsible congressmen using the term deep state all the time.
So it's that's what you're up against. That in social media makes this a very steep hill to climb.
So what are you doing going forward, Paul? If you see another vaccine that doesn't scientifically make sense,
are you going to speak out or is this tending to quiet you down?
No, I think we just did that.
With the maternal RSV vaccine, there are some questions about that vaccine.
And I think although it is now a licensed product, it's not a recommended product.
I think it's fair to say some of the questions and concerns that did come up in discussions both at the FDA vaccine
to vice committee and the ACIP advisory committee.
The
And for understandable reasons, because the minute you really tell all and you show what science is, which is always a process of evolution.
And you never know everything. And you are learning as you go.
That is frightening to people because especially at the beginning of this pandemic, you know, when the virus was killing 2,000 people a day, 3,000 people a day,
you want people to believe you know everything you need to know you don't.
And we didn't. You didn't know about myocarditis as a rare consequence of the mRNA vaccine.
This is evolution.
And you never know everything. And you are learning as you go.
That is frightening to people because especially at the beginning of this pandemic, you know, when the virus was killing 2,000 people a day, 3,000 people a day.
You know everything.
So that was a narrative reinforcing statement there, right? That was a faith testament because there was a novel virus for which we knew nothing that everybody was vulnerable to.
Those are the subverses of that main tenant of the faith that there was a novel virus for which everybody was vulnerable and we knew nothing.
It is so important that you hear that because that's what he's doing.
You need to know when you don't. And we didn't. You didn't know about myocarditis as a rare consequence of the mRNA vaccine.
You didn't know about a severe clotting, including clotting the brain with the J&J Johnson and Johnson vaccine, which ultimately drove that vaccine off the market.
There you go. Another instant layout there where the J&J shot was pulled off the market because ultimately the safety signal was too great.
We had to pull it off. That's another wonderful enchantment because the subconscious message there is that the mRNA saved millions of people.
The mRNA worked great. The clotting was only in the J&J shot people.
It's a magnificent psychological operation that is being done on us every time these two guys speak.
And it's not so much as a scripted thing as it is something that Paul Offit has rehearsed for his entire career.
And he's now just kind of shifted this shtick to fit the current parameters of the narrative that he's now defending with regard to the pandemic.
Oh my goodness is this guy awful. Paul Offit.
We haven't used that vaccine here since May. You learn as you go. It's always true. And I think we just have to make that clear that this is the beauty of science in many ways.
It's open-mindedness. It's willingness to change as we learn as we go. And people just have trouble accepting that.
I mean, Dr. Fauci has probably been the biggest target in all this as, for example, masking recommendations changed or other things changed.
I think he was a victim of that learning as we go problem.
It's always hard to combine science and public health, right? They have slightly different objectives and in a pandemic, it exacerbates the whole situation.
This is not going to change anything soon, anytime soon, unfortunately, because as you said, this country is polarized and it's partly the Internet, partly politics and many other things as well.
And all we can do is, as you have always said, let's look at the data. Let's make sure the data tell us what to do, or at least we follow them. I think that's the key.
And tell the truth, as at least as you see it. I mean, I'm telling you who I see it. I may not be right, but I, you know, because you have to be true to yourself and trust it.
I think in this section of the American public does appreciate seeing it as it is, which is a process of evolution and knowledge.
You've made the perfect point. I think I got a pandemic. And I think I think I need to record a laugh track. I had one, but I was just using like a YouTube video in the background. I think I have to record it, get it on my board here.
Because more than, more than, stop lying. I actually think a laugh track would be more useful. Maybe I should get a couple different ones. I'll see if I can get some from, from some good recordings. I think that's really important.
Because going forward, we need to have more ammunition like that that makes it more fun to do this stuff because it is painful. It is really painful to listen to this nightly, even though I do think it is very necessary.
Ladies and gentlemen, they who declared a pandemic of a dangerous novel virus said to be detectable by a nonspecific PCR test for RNA viruses applied to a low prevalence population and intentionally correlated with poor.
Poor detrimental health protocols through financial incentives that enabled a larger percentage of all cause mortality than pneumonia and influenza to be prioritized as a national security threat composed of a vaccine preventable deaths.
The US was ready with a plan to respond to a coronavirus pandemic and that plan is in motion. The NIAID may have funded an infectious clone that may or may not have been involved in the initial biological incident, but a natural coronavirus swarm cannot pandemic.
Notice that I'm not out of breath. Notice that I'm not running out of breath after four words. And notice that when I suck in, you don't hear.
All I can say is thank you, Lord. Thank you, Lord.
The whole is a total surrender of individual sovereignty and enforcement of a global fundamental inversion from basic human rights to basic granted permissions.
The way that they did this is with an illusion of consensus about pandemic potential in laboratories and bat caves.
And this illusion of consensus included a worst case scenario being laboratory bio weapon.
And so that narrative has been seeded since the very beginning of the pandemic because the worst case scenario is what gets everybody to be afraid. It gets everybody to move and it gets everybody to justify all of the crazy decisions that were made.
It's cover.
And this illusion of consensus can be summarized by this statement. There was a novel virus millions died and were saved gain a function is real and a virus will come again.
When I say millions died and millions were saved, I mean exactly that. You don't need to have a particular explanation for what you mean by that statement as long as you mean that millions died of a virus and millions could have been saved or were saved depending on what you're talking about.
The lockdowns save people, masking save people, closing the school save people, rolling out the mRNA save people.
Ivermectin might have saved people using hydroxychloroquine might have saved more people, telling people to take vitamin D and zinc might have saved more people.
This is the narrative.
And the way that they pulled this off is to make the equivalence between excess deaths and the mystery virus from the very beginning by excluding the all cause mortality here visible in light blue and instead telling us the story with the red graph below.
Never telling us that a huge portion of that red graph was actually composed of pneumonia that had never killed this many people in the history of the world.
As is evidenced by this darker blue graph here year on year, staying way below 10,000 people per year and now skyrocketing during the pandemic to as many as triple.
The reason why they're able to do this is because they don't do the math where they subtract all the mistakes they make like do not resuscitate orders and ventilators.
The lack of antibiotic use, the poor use of steroids, the use of remdesivir all around the United States, opioid deaths not being adequately tallied and death certificate frauds caused by the financial incentives that were driven by the CDC directives.
They also avoid doing this math by simply not talking about the PCR fraud, not talking about lateral flow test fraud, not talking about the variance in the sequences and not talking about all the limitations of coronavirus biology that have just been glossed over and instead replaced with a cartoon representation of the infectious cycle.
And all of this has been done over years in preparation for this moment so that this mythology could be laid down around the world across languages and cultures so that all of the children in the world would come to believe it.
Wow, doesn't that sound like a crazy statement to make? It's not. It's exactly what the plan is for all the children to believe it.
And the illusion of consensus is going to make it happen if we do not fight it.
The illusion of consensus that was laid down by people like Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch and Brett Weinstein and Peter Teal and Eric Weinstein and Carrot Fund and Bosch and Sasha Latipova and nurse Aaron and all these people who still haven't questioned the faith in the white text.
It was laid down in 2019 already by rumors and by people in the background of the internet and on the worst corners of the internet and by people like Paul Catrell and George Webb
and by people like in drastic like Jonathan Cooey in Pittsburgh who rode his bike and talked about a lab leak in February of 2020 and was driven to certainty by the kinds of things that he encountered on the internet and on Twitter in a group called drastic.
And this narrative was perpetuated on TV and in social media on both sides of the equation, laboratory or zoonosis because that mystery solving exercise leads to an illusion of consensus about those pink letters.
And it leads to an illusion of consensus about a Scooby-Doo mystery that needs solving.
And that illusion of consensus misleads all of us into thinking that we don't know what's going on and therefore these mistakes were okay.
These mistakes are understandable. These mistakes are apart. We can accept the apart. We don't even have to worry about these mistakes anymore.
That's a lie because if we don't worry about these mistakes, then we will incorrectly attribute the damage that they caused to a mystery virus.
And that is actually the goal of this illusion of consensus for you to attribute all of the pandemic disaster to a virus instead of to all of the orchestrated poor behavior in humans all around you.
The orchestrated poor behavior that was caused by the illusion of consensus. And we can break it. If we break the faith, the faith is a lie. It was a consensus about a novel background signal that everybody should have done known was a novel background signal.
You can call it an endemic coronavirus background signal. It still doesn't change the fact that the protocols were murder and transfection is not medicine.
I think it's very likely that an infectious clone was released because of the ubiquitous nature of this methodology throughout RNA virology.
It's the only way they did it.
Interestingly, transfection is a word that still hasn't penetrated the mainstream media, even though it is at the root of this entire exercise.
The people that are saying that there are no viruses were a trap. They always were a trap. If they take it personally because I say they're a trap, they just don't want to really think about the implications of what they've done for the last three years.
It was a conflated background signal. The faith is a lie. And you can see it because they don't talk about these things. That's how they preserve the faith.
They want our data. They want our kids data. And they want your kids to give it up gladly as an obligation to society. And we need to teach them that society has an obligation to them.
Ladies and gentlemen, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection is not immunization. So please stop it in humans. They are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
So don't let it happen. Ladies and gentlemen, do not let it happen.
This is the control group here. We are a member of the control group here. That's right. This is the control group. Unbent, Transfect, Organic Free Range Human.
And hopefully many of you are as well.
If you're not an organic free range human, forgive yourself for having given into this and make sure that you get on our team because it's about health freedom in the future for our children.
Our life is already for all practical purposes done. We're now trying to hand off the baton.
And so let's start handing off the baton in the form of knowledge that can't be broken, biological knowledge that can't be squandered.
I love you all very much. I got some bad news for you. It's possible I'm not going to be on all weekend and in preparation for my Halloween show.
I may also show up. I don't know. But I'm not making any promises. This could be the end of the streak. Don't take it like I'm sick.
Just take it like I'm trying to rest my voice a little bit for a four or five hour show on Halloween.
So I want to play it safe and I also need to get that slide deck ready.
I'm going to go on YouTube on Halloween if you haven't heard for a big comeback on YouTube on Halloween.
I hope you will all join me for that. I'm really stoked about it. Like you can't imagine how long it's been waiting.
So thank you very much for joining me. I don't know if I'm going to see you tomorrow or not. I might.
But I don't know and I'm not making any promises. I love you all very much. Thanks for joining me. See you again.
Thanks for joining me.