All right, as soon as we get somebody in the view in the chat, give me a feedback there
on the synchronous of the video chip.
The sink is now good according to Clarkson who said the sink was off before.
Pamela says the sink is perfect now.
Is that true?
A little off is okay.
A lot of people were saying it was off.
Now we're saying it's on.
Okay, we're on.
So anyway, let's see here.
Where is my friend Alexander?
What's happening with him?
I might have to send him a message, dude, dude, dude.
I told him I'm live, so it'll put more pressure on him to join right away.
Here we go.
I'm just going to place one, just one little image here.
I'll fade out and I'll do one quick one.
He's on his way.
Here we go.
Got this figured out now.
Very short introduction and we'll have Paul, Alexander on for a real quick take.
Thanks again, Greg and Rodney and everybody who supports the stream.
Like I said, I could not have gotten here without you guys.
And it is really just a few people who took a risk on me, just a few people who stuck their
neck out that got me this far and every one of you, thanks.
Oh, I heard somebody.
I heard somebody who I was supposed to push out and then here.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, I'm Paul.
Paul here.
I'm Rachel.
All right.
So listen, I'm going to start my recording.
You could do yours.
I have a meeting starting around 12 or 5 or so, 12, 10.
So I just want me to have a casual conversation of what we're trying to say.
And if you don't mind, this time I want you to introduce yourself and a little bit of
your background to my background quickly again.
I want to just do our 50,000 foot few lines.
And then I want us to get into what it is we are trying to see, which is that we want
people to look behind the curtain a little bit and try to begin to think about what it
has happened here, not necessarily why we'll focus on that in the future, but what?
And I will show out to you how about this, each issue, meaning J virus in the beginning
manufactured or natural J lockdowns work for didn't work J and I'll give you my view
and then you give me your view.
Perfect.
How about that?
Perfect.
Good.
So I'm going to start now recording in progress.
Hi, folks.
Once again, this is Dr. Paul Alexander and I have the pleasure of dealing with Jay Kui
again.
Jay, can I refer to you as Dr. Kui?
You can also refer to me as Jay, whatever you feel comfortable with.
You could always call me Paul.
Okay, very good.
We have developed a quick, nice friendship.
I think you've stunned me in the sense of your academic depth and breadth and your grasp
for all of the issues that we've been dealing with for three years, many in the Freedom
Fighter group, many of the scientists and doctors that I work with, do not grasp what
we've dealing with, like how you grasp it.
And that's why I've come towards you because the more I listen to you, the more I read
your work and I unpack it, the more I realize that this guy has studied this, well, you've
brought a lot of years back on to the situation.
So that gives you a very unique insight and I like your personality and your professionalism.
So it is no problem for me to work with you and collaborate.
So we started to talk, right, we did this presentation yesterday, full disclosure, we
dealt with each other before, but we did an official presentation yesterday.
I already put up on sub stack for your listeners, Alexander COVID news.
You put it up on all of your portals.
I put it up on Twitter, GAB, getter, every single channel that people who deal with me
put it up on.
And the response, Jay, is not shocking, but I didn't know that it would have been so well
received that we are challenging people to think in a different way about this.
And again, we are not saying, you are not saying people were wrong and we are not saying
that people were right.
We are saying that we were right and wrong for different reasons too.
And okay, so I'm Dr. Paul Alexander, my background training is in epidemiology, evidence based
medicine, some bioterrorism, et cetera, between Canada, University of Toronto, Oxford
in England, McMaster in Canada.
I did a certificate on the Donald Henderson at Johns Hopkins in bioterrorism.
My work is in infectious disease society of America for about three years, training their
doctors and scientists in how to develop clinical practice guidelines.
I work for WHO, I work for the government of Canada as an epidemiologist, I work for
the government of the United States as a pandemic advisor, and I work for the World Health Organization
as a pandemic consultant advisor.
Jay, can you give us your introduction with a little bit of background for the listeners?
I'm sure I'd be happy to.
So I'm a biologist by training from my bachelor's degree in Chicago.
I was intending on being a doctor, and I applied for medical school after my bachelor's degree
five years in a row, and I was always waitlisted on a couple schools in Chicago but never made
it on to the actual roster.
While I was doing that, I was a high school teacher, and I actually fell in love with
teaching while I was treading water to try and apply for medical school every year.
But the financial aspect of teaching got the best of me, and I actually made a lot more
money as a bartender, if you can imagine.
So I took a few years off as a bartender and was just kind of living a life of a 20-something
year old in Chicago, and I made a few bad choices with regard to my responsibilities
at the bar and the owner of the bar, let me go.
So I was forced to find another job, and I actually applied for a job for somebody that
had microscope experience and good hands at the University of Chicago, and a lifelong
friend of mine, Colin Hoam had taught me patch-clamp physiology as a bartender.
And he took me under his wing.
He taught me a lot of methodology, but also a lot of philosophy about how to get my act
together again and how to show up on time and this kind of thing.
And working as a technician at the University of Chicago with him, I met a Harvard Mansfelder
who after he became a professor in the Netherlands invited me to the Netherlands to do my PhD
with him.
And so in about a month, I had gone from not knowing really what I wanted to do to being
offered this, you know, live in the Netherlands for a few years and learn biology and maybe
become a university professor.
And that led me to meeting my wife in the Netherlands, us moving to Norway and working
with Edward and Mabert Moser, where I continued to develop these techniques in more advanced
ways and then tried to go back to the Netherlands and get tenure where I didn't get enough money
as a foreigner to stay.
So my wife moved with me to Pittsburgh here in 2016, where I became a research assistant
professor at the University of Pittsburgh, and I wasn't really able to scratch my teaching
itch.
I taught one class at Carnegie Mellon that was okay, but because I had to do all my laboratory
stuff anyway, it wasn't really a nice side job.
And so I started doing a YouTube videos on my bike ride because I was riding my bike
from my house to the University of Pittsburgh every day, which was about nine miles.
And this was a journal club where I would talk about a neuroscience paper on my bicycle.
And when the COVID pandemic broke out, I did three bike rides that were basically COVID,
not COVID, but coronavirus review bike rides where I talked about lots of papers and the
technology and the molecular biology behind gain of function because I had worked at the
University of Erasmus in the Netherlands when I was there in the early 2012 through 16.
So long story short, I've been an academic biologist for a long time, and I have been
a well-rounded one, and I've been often interested in transitioning to teaching full-time.
I found creating videos quite fun, and once I started making videos about the coronavirus
pandemic, I started to get into a lot of trouble.
I got an email from the media corporation that's tied to the University of Pittsburgh,
and UPMC, which said that they saw that I had made a comment in the Washington Times,
and that they've seen my YouTube channel, and they reminded me that my expertise was
neurobiology.
So I took that as a pretty interesting email, and about three months later, they asked me
to send my badge and keys in because they didn't think it was safe for me to continue
coming to campus.
So then I just kept teaching on the internet and kept trying to learn the stuff that I
hadn't fully mastered, and that led to me eventually getting the attention of Robert
F. Kennedy Jr. and Children's Health Defense, and so now I have a consulting relationship
with them that allows me to make videos and also help them with figuring this out.
So I'm helping them behind the scenes, and I'm also continuing to try and teach as much
as I can online, and I contacted you to give me 15 minutes, and you gave me a little
more time than that, and now here we are.
Well, well, first of all, G is a fascinating story, and again, full disclosure, we talk
a little bit more, and I'm going to know G a little bit more, too, and you know, sometimes
you get very humble by people, and some people that come across initially as very unassuming
in the sense that you don't really understand the depth and the breadth and where they're
coming from.
But as we have spoken, I realize that you have more to offer the world, not just the
United States, but the world and what we're dealing with here, because our problem right
now is we're trying to understand the what.
We're going to get to why people did certain things, because that's very gossipy and nice
too.
We need to figure out what really happened here, and we have a lot of people in the
freedom movement.
You know, I work with the giants like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Wish, and I even
know Bobby Kennedy well, I didn't several interviews with him.
I think he's one of our advocates out there, and doing a good job in terms of the childhood
vaccines, and I did a nice interview with him a couple months ago that we're still trying
to edit up to put it out there.
The people who published my book also published his book, Sky Horse, so we have a lot of things
in common.
I'm glad that you're getting some support.
I just want to see, because when I'm done, I'm putting this on sub-stack, I'm putting
this on Getter, Gab, Twitter everywhere, that channel, what do you call telegram?
And I would ask all my people, people who follow me, and look, I know this has become
an incestuous thing, and everybody have their own people who follows you.
I'm telling you, I'm telling you, support Jay.
Find a way to support this guy, find his site, Jay, what's the, what's the address?
It's giggleombiological.com, which is I know a pretty lame amount of words, but it's on
the site they're watching now, and you really don't need to worry too much about that right
now.
I think we should focus on getting this message out.
I really appreciate it.
So listen, so from the beginning, Jay, people like myself, again, the people I'm working
with, people like Avery Brinkley, Ramen Oskwe, we've been out there hammering away.
We even have Dr. Naomi Wolf who joined the fall fighting against the ravages, particularly
Dr. James Thorp, the damages of the mRNA vaccine on the developing child in utero, and the
pregnant woman, et cetera.
So we know we had a big problem.
So from the beginning, we've looked at the science and we saw that no lockdown ever worked,
no school closure, no mask mandate, nothing, no business closure, no shielding, every single
COVID policy failed, and actually harmed and killed people.
And then we were faced with this mRNA DNA platform gene injection, whether it be the
hell you want to call it, that has caused more harm.
And from my point of view, even when you look at the data Pfizer, Madonna submitted to the
FDA, it was actually data that they should have never been given an EU based on a 0% absolute
risk reduction.
So no benefit, yet here we are.
And here's what I want to do, because we did a nice tour, it was actually 2015 minutes,
I put it out, but we're going to do something, I believe, this Sunday again.
But I wanted to just be talk, talk, talk with you.
I'm going to say each issue, I'm going to give you quick and a sentence, my view, and
I want you of you, because my role now is there are a lot of people parading out there
who are not doing what you're doing.
I want to help showcase you, because you have a lot, a lot of common sense and a lot
of scientific depth.
The people need to listen, at least as we say, look behind the curtain or below the rock,
so the phone we are thinking, and you've provoking people into very sophisticated thought now.
So question, my view on the virus in the beginning, I knew, I felt from different people I've
spoken to, some we wouldn't name here for now, but I have felt that this always was
some sort of lab manufactured entity, number one.
I did feel that it was disposed and it could not be a point source, dispersion, it had
to be based on what we are seeing, a multiple sort of a release.
I believe multiple labs always felt, and what I also believe is that this is function
in G, I'm going to use the term, many people keep writing me and calling me and say, Paul,
you know, in your session, you should step back from using that term, still use the term
vaccine or geneogen, no, I'm going to say, I believe it is functioning as a bioweapon.
So can you tell us your view as the lab, multiple, multiple release bioweapon?
Tell us what you think.
If I follow the tenant that got me this far, it is that we have to stick to the biology
we can know for sure.
And in that case, the reason why I believe it has to be a laboratory manufactured clone
is because the molecular signal that we are told was found in all these disparate places
in the world could not have been created by a number of infected people landing in these
places as would be expected from a point release.
The best case scenario couldn't produce this, but how it exactly occurred, like how it was
done is going to be a lot harder to show because we can't prove the molecular, the presence
of the molecular signature being the cause of the symptomology that's correlating with
it.
Now, what I'm saying is, again, that these tests aren't capable of doing that, even though
the correlation is very high in Italy and in Washington and New York at the beginning
with the same kind of severe symptoms, we should be very careful not to overextend and
say that, well, it has to be this or it has to be that.
The only thing we really need to say for sure is that a natural virus escaping from
a building or infecting a lab worker or even infecting a hundred lab workers is not capable
of generating a three year pandemic.
The only way that we could get this uniform of a signal in this many people simultaneously
is some application of a synthetic agent.
That's all I can.
That's about as far as I would go.
Synthetic agent.
Exactly.
As in the sense of a purified viral clone, that's what I mean by a synthetic agent.
Yes.
So we're talking about something man made.
Can you in two or three sentences tell the viewer, I understand what the clone is and
what we're talking about here in terms of taking the mRNA to DNA, making multiple copies,
et cetera, extracting the mRNA and can you, because I realize you have a certain expertise
in this area also, tell the viewer what you mean by clone.
In the wild RNA viruses exist as an assortment of closely related but non-identical genomes.
In other words, the story that they've told you about variants is actually a gross oversimplification
of what's happening.
If there is a viral entity which is infecting you, it makes imperfect copies of itself and
as a result, you have to make an approximation of what all that genetic material adds up
to and that's what they call a viral sequence.
In the wild, when they look for coronaviruses in bats or when they look for coronaviruses
in pangolins, that's what they're looking for.
They're looking for a genetic shadow which they can reassemble and once they reassemble
it into this genome, in order for them to study it usefully in the laboratory, they need
to use reverse genetics to convert it to DNA so that they can amplify it into enough copies
so that they can use it in the laboratory as something that will cause plaque assays
or cause an animal to get sick.
The only way that they've been able to make coronaviruses and in fact many other RNA viruses
tractable from a laboratory perspective is to use reverse genetics to convert the RNA
sequence that they can find in the wild into a DNA molecule so that they can make enough
of it.
Correct, so in other words, in other words, when you look at it from that point of view,
I would say then that I want to jump forward because there are a couple of questions I
want us on record.
PCR tests, my own analysis, I remember when I was in the Trump administration, Dr. Atlas
and me, we had collaborated to produce, try to understand what would be cycle thresholds
and the limits in terms of finding infectious, cultural, viable virus.
From my point of view, my definition of that means virus that could infect you and cause
pathology and we found when we looked at the literature that our own 24 to 25 cycles with
the RTPCR test was the limit.
Of that, you are now talking about non-infectious, non-lethal pathogen and that was what was
omitted in the PCR test that we did not know the cycle threshold, we won't do that and
more importantly, the reality about it is that we are not saying that when you get a
positive test, when we use it to enforce positive, I don't necessarily mean that it is wrong,
false positive that you are actually positive, et cetera, but you're not positive when they're
saying you are positive.
What we are saying is it is not that particular coronavirus now or it is not detecting positivity
today, you were infected with the likely coronavirus in the past.
What is your view on the PCR test?
I've been trying to come up with a number of different analogies.
There are multiple ways that the PCR test can result in a bad answer and the question
is did they manipulate the use of it or the application of it to increase the false positives,
which are the ones that would help any pandemic go from controllable to a hypothetical emergency.
From my perspective, there's two ways they can do it.
The first one is the obvious one that everybody understands, which is that they could cycle
it long enough so that the very process itself becomes erroneous, it generates the fluorescence
in some other erroneous way and reading the diagnostic, you get a fluorescence signal so
you say it's positive, but if you were to ever look at that sample, you would find that
the amplicons that were amplified would be the incorrect ones, but they don't have
that built into this system so once the test is glowing, they just say it's a positive
and that's the problem with cycling to 55 cycles or even 45 cycles is way too far.
On the background of that is this implication that PCR is so good and the background is
composed of nothing that could also be amplified and that's an illusion because most coronaviruses
at the end protein and the RNA dependent RNA polymerase have a homologous protein there.
So if you're looking for three amplicons, the spike, the RNA dependent polymerase and
the end protein, most if not all coronaviruses that we would ever study in nature will have
two of those proteins homologous and the high likelihood of testing positive at those
two amplicons just like SARS-CoV-2 is purported to do so.
So on that background it really depends on whether you require the spike or whether you
accept two out of the three as being a positive which is a lot of these products did and in
that case any coronavirus in the background could contribute to the overall appearance
of the spread of this novel pathogen when in reality the test is unable to separate
the novelty from the background except for on one protein, this spike.
Yes, I like that explanation because people like more call on myself we had written and
we had all due day one.
Maybe two to three weeks out of the box early in 2020 that this idea of asymptomatic transmission.
I want to use the word that it was a lie I would say it was a falsehood and we were
looking at papers out of China made well also a good paper in JAMA that showed the term
that the asymptomatic transmission was not a real viable issue and they were using that
to scare the population into lockdown and just paranoia similar to the we were even looking
at recurrent infections pre-omocron era and we were not finding bonafide recurrent infections
now that is pre-omocron we understand that almost a different animal you know with enough
changes on the antigen etc all of those mutations so it's like your immune system is seen something
different but but again that's getting too much into all biochemistry right now we are
still talking about what so so I don't want people to get our interview and our discussions
that oh my god dr. Alexander these guys were working on early treatment these guys are the
gurus of early treatment what are they trying to say when he says nothing worked well from
my point of view if what we are trying to table up is that is that that that the pathology
really was from the initial release the initial exposure particularly vulnerable people to
the clone that that from there what was released behaved as it would as a as a as as a normal
pathogen and stabilize and become milder in the environment and using your analogy a study and
your explanation less purity or less concentration that really and truly this COVID gene injection
from all of those people involved in its development they must have known that this could not have
worked this my point is how I'm looking at it because because this was so benign to begin with
and that and that makes sense when you look at the Pfizer Moderna data that they could only find
an absolute benefit of less than one percent because how could you find a decrease when the
baseline risk in your control group is almost zero you can't find less than zero you will have
to actually sample the entire world that's the issue so so your view on that well I agree and I
think that the I think that the main theater that they knew they were going to play from the very
beginning was that the effectiveness of the drug or the effectiveness of the therapeutic would be
based largely on the appearance of antibodies that's why they stressed it so early there was
even a song on Saturday Night Live where they said i-m-n-u-n-i-t-y that's what I got bodies
anti it was part of a song and they did it all over on late night television so that even when
the numbers came out and people would object and say well the absolute risk was almost minuscule
you're using relative risk reduction just to make it sound better this is lame they could say
well look we've got this beautiful antibody signal I mean it's extraordinary and they sold that
is sold it on that every time to the FDA and and to these these committees that approve their
their EUA so to me again it just kind of all goes along with this idea that there was a waiting
a waiting plan which which was going to do this shift into into focusing on mRNA based
vaccination and they they went hard for a while and RSV and flu they've backed off a lot now and I
think that's because they're kind of off-script if we would have allowed them to we would already be
RSV flu and COVID RNA shots for everybody if we if if people weren't fighting back I'm pretty sure
that we're pretty far off script at this point and that's what makes it so exciting
oh did you lock up
shoot what happened they interfered with us am I still streaming darn it
what happened I think it fools oh there you go there you go you're back now
yeah about the RSV you got to the RSV yeah so I think if we would not have pushed back last year
there were already plans to have an RSV a flu and a pneumonia mRNA vaccine there's an mRNA
vaccine in the works for shingles and I think right now they're they're stalling back a little bit
their original plan was to bowl us over I mean and and and this this pivot was going to be
something that they sold as wow isn't it great how we just stumbled into this new technology and
it was right there ready and waiting for us so that we are really off-script for them I think
right now and so we have to keep this momentum going exactly and that's why people like you I
mean we've been we've been willing and I've realized you were doing serious lifting behind the scenes
and the reality about it is when we look at the mRNA technology itself that was devastating
and the lipid nanoparticle I separated to the mRNA technology that goes into the lipid nanoparticle
both of them to me are when you look at the science are very toxic and together as this complex
it is causing serious you look I just put a paper on substack that showed the term we are finding
two papers one is that the messenger RNA is reversed transcribed they looked at some human
liver cells it's reversed transcribed back into DNA in as quick as six hours that was stunning
that's a serious serious issue if so what do you think of that um kevin mccernan has also shown
though that these shots are at least the bivalent shot is contaminated with the cDNA
plasmid that they use to generate the RNA so they have to make a cDNA clone of the spike protein
in order to generate the mRNA that they put in the shot but they weren't able to separate the cDNA
from the mRNA and so it's about 10 micrograms for every 60 micrograms of mRNA there's 10 micrograms
of the cDNA which includes these are kind of big terms but they include the origin of replication
in bacteria that was used to amplify the cDNA into many copies and they also include a cassette
for um resistance to the antibiotic that the bacteria was used so it may be that that paper is
mistaken that the RNA isn't getting reversed transcribed but this circular DNA is just inserting
directly and they couldn't tell the difference because they didn't realize there was DNA in the
shot when they made that paper so I would suggest that those authors probably have to go back and
look yeah and just for the audience and who the viewers are plasmids are circular DNA
is circular DNA yeah circular DNA yes that's correct correct so listen I want to end this show because
I have another hard interview coming up yes but I wanted because I know me and you and your group
and other people I'm going to get onto that call we are talking on Sunday we're going to pin
long time so I want a lot of people to follow but I wanted to say this that um on the issue of
early treatment I am trying to say based on what we are talking about here is that early treatment
had its role and has its role and is actually critical um but let's see if we could just do a
sentence or two sort of we could try to make those who are listening understand what you're
saying in other words this is my view that the potency of early treatment has more to do with its
role in severe more critical illness more let's say the initial release if you're going with the
multiple release theory the initial release so the more severe pathological clone that caused
more severe illness that is where the early treatment functioned and was ideal in other words
if I'm understanding what we are trying to say on our discussion is that with the mild illness
it is very difficult for these therapeutics to actually have a beneficial effect am I correct
I think that that that to say that they can't have a beneficial effect would be extending it too
far but to say that yes there is much more opportunity for them to have effect on a clone
infection than what I imagine a natural infection would be can I clarify one thing with a picture
here yes please so I'm gonna we are not we are not saying I am look I have right the papers I stand
with people like makala zalenko reach etc I knew the potency of early treatment it does it works
but the question is the question is to extent of how right people were and how wrong
where does it actually in other words what we are saying and I want to see that photo that thing
you're driving what we are saying is what we have done here is early treatment has really shown the
world the importance of using off-label repurpose cheaper effective existing antivirals for respiratory
type illnesses etc and has shown us that we have to move faster away from reliance on farmer
so this is not a matter of right or wrong this is a matter of how we could make this early treatment
the most optimal modality and how we could from the work that you are doing too from what we are
discussing now make sure that it is used the best way it can so can you yes and so I think that
that's a great segue the way that I would describe it best and you might have inspired this in me
is that all of the doctors who have had a cognitive model of what has happened during the pandemic
have had some form of model in their head about a spreading pathogen and how the presence of the
pathogen can be or the the pathology caused by the pathogen can be mitigated with hydroxychloroquine
or ivermectin etc yes what we need to do is now if we if we all agree that maybe we need a new model
yes what happened we do then what we also need to do is step back and think okay so what did we
really change in 2020 was it really only that some people were put on ventilators and had remdesivir
and other people had hydroxychloroquine or was it some people were put on ventilators
were given remdesivir were prevented from having antibiotics and prevented from having steroids
while the people that were being treated by people like heroes like Dr. Peter McCullough were given
hydroxychloroquine azithromycin and I can't say all of what they were given because it's a long list
but we shouldn't discount the fact that we don't know for sure which of those lists
was working for what reason because the source of this danger evolved yes it wasn't one constant
novel pathogen but it evolved because the biology was different than what we were told on television
so we all need to recalculate a little bit and yes and and I think early treatment is one of those
things that worked but maybe not for the mechanistic reasons that we have in our head
that's and I think yes beautiful and I think that's why in our discussion yesterday talks we've
been having is that we want now people like the McCulloughs and the rich and these types to now
because there are these gurus and leaders that transcend now elevate even further and let's help
us and practice properly because we know good was done here where you mentioned two things ventilators
let me make sure i'm on record those two things kill people you know that right yes absolutely
there's still being used i mean remdesivir is still being used to push people to make them
sicker and can often lead to them being at a ventilator because it decreases kidney function
which increases the amount of liquid in the lungs yes yes boy j you should have been with us on
stage on those talks with me and McCullough and rich and all of us you should have been there listen
shortest diagram you have um i just wanted to point out that um if i can switch to this one
and that i'm going to switch to this one now you should be able to see it um it's important to
remember that when the clone was released it had the only unique thing about it was the spike
protein so there's two possibilities the first one is of course that it could be a clone and the
concentration of the clone itself is what matters most and that's what i've been trying to sell to
you in the background that it can take any virus and make it pure enough people would get sick
but there is the added possibility because berry and all the coronavirus people have told us that
if you have a co-infection with two different coronaviruses they can exchange genes so if the
spike protein is a source of pathology by itself and they released a clone it would be expected
that anybody that had other coronaviruses in their system could have a reassortment where
this toxic spike protein could be floating around in the genome of other coronaviruses that got it
taken into their genome during recombination events of the clone and it's important to note
that the clone itself if i put this back up and then turn you on if the clone itself was released
in sufficient quantities it would be expected to recombine with the with the coronaviruses in
the background so that means that it's possible that the way that the clone sort of died away
has a component of it which is the spike protein gene sort of filtering out into the background
so that you would see not only an initial wave of extremely nasty high virus load
high molecular signal wherever you released it but then going away from there there really
would be a signal where people were kind of getting sick and it seemed to be contagious
and it seemed to have some extra qualities that either produced like an allergic reaction in
people and this kind of thing that again it made doctors were not seeing ghosts they were
seeing something but we need to understand why it wasn't a uniform set of symptoms correlating
with a uniform positivity it never had that aspect of a normal what someone would expect
a cartoon pathogen and this i think is the best explanation for it but i just wanted to throw
that extra variable in there because that's also part of the virology we shouldn't ignore
so in simple terms from your schematic we're looking at what the purity or concentration
then yeah that's the key it always is and just a question of then how do we model the decay away
but the decay away will also always be a real exponential because again you're starting from
purity that can't be sustained so so i i think the unique message out of this is that um
what we need is we not again if you go to the early treatment papers i am a senior or a total
second or two behind my collar zalenko is a senior scientist so i have been involved so i am standing
by the early treatment the point though is you are saying that um we need to figure out what
how did this really work which is a patient set that is really work on etc and which components
because antibiotics as an example and i mean you and me discuss this pneumonias are serious
complication especially for severely uh covid patients antibiotics may have played because
remember j we spoke about this yesterday i was talking to you about the antiviral properties
and you reminded me about the anti-inflammatory properties of antibiotics so it didn't just
function as an antibacterial antimicrobial it is both anti-inflammatory and etc so antiviral i mean
antibiotics like doxycycline as a term icing etc so we we need to have an honest discussion and everybody
what dang it this free zoom meeting has ended you shite head why did he use a free zoom meeting
so i want to i want to um i want to i'm gonna i'm gonna why is this not signed in
i'm just he can just use my meeting
i'm gonna do a new meeting and just see if uh see if he shows up
oh he's calling in let's just call in um i'm gonna close zoom come on come on come on
hello sir jim jesica saw because it was supposed to be for 15 minutes but listen
i have to go to another meeting now i'm going to interview karen she's going to interview me
karen king son i want to get you to talk with her but another day bugger son this interview the way
i set it up i wanted to bring you slap dab into the middle of early treatment now the way i asked
you those questions and you responded you are now going to be a central player how we gonna talk
and that was the purpose of this
i'm very i'm very excited so let me just say that we have to talk about long covid and we have to
talk about people who know about extended hospital stays or extended ventilation stays
that have led to chronic fatigue syndrome before the pandemic so that we can really talk about
what to what extent long covid has to do with the virus versus hospitalization and other things
absolutely so everything you want to talk about going for but this interview actually is going
to now set the stage and i love it so we got cut off but i made sure you said what you needed to
say and i knew what i needed you to say because i want to table you and get you palatable to all
the early treatment and you said you write rules about my car on these people they're not going
to be a person and and and we had praise beautiful so i'm gonna talk to you later because i'm going
to not integrate i'm gonna send you i'm gonna send you my uh my zoom link to rumble and whatever
and you put this out massively very good see you soon take what because
we're not messing around ladies and gentlemen nay we ain't playing anymore we ain't playing
anymore fools that's for sure thank you very much for joining me i'm gonna take um
i'm gonna take a break here uh figure out what i'm gonna do with my afternoon
i might take um the afternoon off i was gonna do a throwback thursday so maybe we'll watch the
second half of that i don't know but i gotta i gotta read a line it looks like mosquito says i
gotta read a lot more about hydroxychloroquine that's fine i'm totally done with the fact that
hydroxychloroquine could be useful i just want to make sure that we evaluate everything
with eyes wide open um and give everybody an opportunity to be a part of this so
um just keep sharing it man i i can't tell you how excited i am so thank you very much
i'm gonna use twitter for star trek star trek is coming i swear i'm gonna do it in like no time
um i'm just super nervous now that it's finally gonna happen star trek is ready
this was ready this is what we needed um it's definitely happening garden variety human it's
definitely it's definitely happening i know i'm back on twitter i just haven't tweeted yet
thanks a lot for being here guys
you