You
Good morning.
Hope everybody's okay.
I do have water.
Yeah, I'm ready to go.
Just run a quick intro to make sure we have something.
Yeah, I wanted to get it in before basketball.
Just in case I need to revisit it.
I found something.
You know, we're going down this path that I think is now a new part of the.
The cave.
We are getting closer to the exit now.
And so as the pace moves forward and the.
You know, the shouting behind us gets louder.
We're going to have to stay focused on moving out of the cave and.
And as we've been staying focused moving out of the cave.
We've started to hear the names.
Stanley Prouzner and Hillary Kaprowski and.
And Stanley Plotkin and.
It's starting to become clear now and Bob Gallo and.
It's just starting to become clear that there.
At the heart of this is a group of people who agrees and we've been saying this for a long time in different ways.
Has a sort of consensus on.
An illusion of consensus rather I apologize.
About what virology is and the rules of it and the.
Our understanding of it and if enough of these people insist.
On this biology and are allowed to insist that this biology exists and at the NIH can.
Basically protect.
The sort of.
Fringe edge of this by, by keeping these gatekeepers in place.
A lot of these illusions have been sustained, I think.
And so we need to tap into this.
We need to tap into.
A lot of the relationships understand what their motivations were where these ideas were born.
And one of the names that has come up.
Number of times on this show is David Baltimore and so today I wanted to do a show.
About the big day.
Big B David Baltimore so.
Let me start the show and then we'll.
We'll get it. I want to practice this opening because I really like it and I want to see if it works out.
So thanks very much for joining me and I'll be back in a minute.
Thank you.
I'm absolutely flatter than anybody has been working like crazy to catch a live show.
So fun times now.
This one's for you, man.
Or woman, depending on who you are, I don't want to assume anything.
But I'm not going to give you a spectrum.
I'm going to choose one or the other.
The latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst case scenario.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst case scenario.
I like that note. Thanks for the note about even if you put a link in the chat.
Is that the one where he talks about that? If so, I would like to see it.
I'm not really worried about that because skepticism in the in the model is OK.
Now we just got to be careful that we don't fall into the slippery slope of others.
Nothing, which is definitely not the case.
That's what we've got to be very wary of.
Might not be infinite.
Might not be what they say it is, but there's not nothing.
I think truth is good for kids.
We're so busy lying.
We don't even recognize the truth no more than society.
We want everybody to feel good.
That's not the way life is.
But you can tell if someone's lying.
You can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied. I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
I don't think I'm a liar. I try not to be a liar. I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's really important not to be a liar.
I'm not sure exactly who he is.
His name is JJ Cooley and I believe he's a consultant for CHD.
And I believe he has a PhD in some sort of scientific discipline from what I understand.
I believe he has a PhD in some sort of scientific discipline.
Here we are again ladies and gentlemen dispelling the enchantment.
We've got some more homework to do today.
It's amazing what a couple search terms will do in terms of trying to find something to study.
Something to help peel back the layers of this truth that we're trying to understand.
And remember we're trying to stay calm here.
I think they've been rushing us.
They've been scaring us and to make us believe we have to chase down certain things or run from certain things.
And so what was perceived to be true isn't true.
But boy they were sure good at controlling what is perceived to be true.
One of the ways that they do it has been just getting us to argue non-usefully.
And that includes attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them.
A lot of people have said that giggle and biologicals got bad motives that Mark Koolack and his atomic life has some bad motives.
I haven't really been able to explain what those bad motives are.
I guess it's paying my rent or something like that.
But anyway ladies and gentlemen we have been fooled for a very long time about fractional reserve banking
and how it's used to control governments around the world.
We have been fooled by the impetus for public health.
And especially in America it's become a twisted perverted version of what those words should mean.
And we can't see it.
All of us can't see it.
The ones who can are obligated to do something for humanity and for the future of our species.
These people think that if they collect enough data they can somehow fix us.
And there are those of us out there who believe our biology is already just sacred enough not to be messed around with.
And I think the key is to understanding our history and how our history has led us to this point.
Because we have given power over to charlatans and they will never give it back unless we take it.
And I think they've bamboozled us about some aspects of biology in a way that as an academic biologist I'm quite ashamed that that's where we are.
And that it took something as absurd as a declaration of a pandemic in 2020 to break my enchantment by it.
But not all these people are bad, not all these people's parents were bad.
So there is still some little spark of hope somewhere.
And I think it's to be found in our fellow Americans.
The spark of hope is to be found in your fellow Canadians.
The spark of hope is to be felt in your fellow citizens that share the government that you are under.
Your fellow, your fellow Natal others.
But Americans can only work together with Americans to fight against this illusion.
And Australians can only work with Australians because I think one of the major messages that I'm trying to impart on everyone on this wave is that they have tried to get us to believe that we can all work together.
It doesn't matter if we're next to each other or if we're on different parts of the wave or if we're on the next wave.
It doesn't matter if the first wave hit us or if the last wave hit us, we're all in this together and that's nonsense.
That's nonsense because Americans were subject to a different illusion than the Australians, than the Japanese, than the Natal others, than the people in the UK because their systems were different.
Their media is different.
Their social media was different.
We need to stay focused on the biology.
We need to not take their bait on social media to try and unite against the who.
And we need to love our neighbours.
We need to work together with our neighbours to make sure that this never happens again.
In my case, in the case of my family, it is to make sure it never happens again in America.
And if the who can declare a pandemic and all other countries in the world and not America, then we did the most that we could.
And that shining light might be enough to save the rest of the world from this next thing.
But in no way, shape, or form can we save ourselves from this if we engage in this false narrative of fighting the who, opposing the who.
Who?
They made it a little.
They made the language a little softer.
And so maybe there's hope.
Maybe we, by speaking out around the world, have influenced the who to change their language.
We scared them.
No, ladies and gentlemen.
No.
That's not what happened here.
So, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for sharing GIGO and biological.
We are supported by viewers like you, and I thank every one of you guys for this.
It's really great.
We are, we are.
We are very, very humbled by the, by the support that we get and it is.
I mean, there are some, there are some hard truths about trying to, to do this full time and what it requires.
And some of those hard truths are that my wife is thinking about getting a job for insurance and for money because this is not floating the boat here and that's fine.
If that's the choice that needs to be made.
You can see this pictures from a very long time ago.
One of the main reasons why GIGO and biological exists because of my best friend and wife.
Beerla there.
I would not be able to do it unless she had never lost any, had any doubt in me whatsoever.
And so every once in a while I need to acknowledge that and I don't know why, but for some reason I'm acknowledging it right now because we just had this conversation about her.
Getting a job and it's not really something that I think is.
Ideal.
But everybody's got to have a job. Everybody's got to have insurance at least. That's what they tell us.
But I think that the information that GIGO and biological is putting out, I think that the work that we are doing is extremely valuable.
And as we move forward and start to put out more of the materials that I think will get out,
we need to make cartoons of our own about this biology.
And I think we're really close to shooting some pretty big artillery over their bow.
I'm starting to feel like it's time. So today we are doing a little study hall that is going to explore the.
The Baltimore classification system of viruses. Hold on a second. What am I doing here? I'm not over here where I'm supposed to be.
Am I there? No.
Good morning. Good evening. Good afternoon. Wherever you guys are in this little tiny planet. Welcome to the show. I'm coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This is GIGO and biological high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
I wanted to do this study hall because I think we're very close to being able to put together a succinct summary of what is the TV biology, the social media biology, the acceptable biology of the narrative.
And from a number of different angles, including preons, including just the basic dogma of DNA RNA, we're talking about a very succinct biology 101 and immunology 101.
And then also having very good insight into where the gray areas of these dogma exist.
And how those gray areas were exploited in order to create the pandemic. And I think we're at a really spectacular place right now because it's starting to become something where the only alternative to to calling us crazy is to ignore us.
And it seems we've shifted to that year now, where everybody has convinced their followers that they are relevant that there is no other relevant voice out there.
We have to continue fighting the who we have to continue speaking out about free speech.
And so even though these things are probably important, they're not central and not, let's say, death blows to the system that we are supposedly trying to oppose.
And I'm arguing, and I think Mark Koolack of Housatonic Live, I think Jessica Hockett on Twitter and sub stack is arguing very differently, are arguing very differently.
We are arguing that a elaborate illusion was created and agreed upon by a number of people that were mostly in place before the start of the pandemic, because again, this is a national security operation that if they lied, they lied about it.
If they murdered, they lied about it. And so right now we are trying to make the argument that it is a crime scene and we need to investigate what happened, especially in New York City.
Because it could be that just like 9-11, New York City was used as a staging place to transition into a new decade of rhetoric and a new decade of voodoo, of mythology.
And so if this was now another pivot, very similar to 9-11 to a new decade or a new multi-decade time where this new mythology is going to be used to govern us, and we can see it that way, then we can really start to understand that we can start to talk about it.
We can start to interact with our friends and family and try to say, you know, hey, come to this part of the cave, come over here where the air is fresher, and maybe follow us in this direction.
And so intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb,
and I think it's going to help us make this argument today.
Because David Baltimore is one of these guys who is very insistent that he doesn't need to be your textbook. If you can remember that video, it is one of these videos where that young guy is interviewing Eleni.
The Greek lady who's explaining why AIDS really wasn't isolated, really wasn't proven the way they said it was proven.
And in that video, he also is interviewing David Baltimore at some point, and he's asking about what's going on.
Eleni, the Greek lady who's explaining why AIDS really wasn't isolated, really wasn't proven the way they said it was proven.
And in that video, he also is interviewing David Baltimore at some point, and he's asking about isolation, and he's asking about purification.
And David Baltimore gets noticeably pissed. He's not really interested in being his textbook or something like, why do I need to explain? He looks at the cameraman.
And so this video is a video that interestingly enough was made two different copies of it. One edit is 19 minutes long, and it's kind of a more simplified version of the Baltimore classification system.
And this one is a slightly longer, 10 minute longer, more detailed version where he also talks about discovering reverse transcriptase.
And there's one thing here, there's one thing here that I want you to realize is extraordinary, okay? Extraordinary, all right?
And I'm going to outline it already right now because it was the reason why I looked for this video was because I wanted to be absolutely sure that I was my gut instinct on this was right.
So I'm going to explain something first, and then we'll watch the video. Sorry, I was looking over here. I'm still early in the morning, and I didn't really have.
Did I have my coffee? I guess I had one small cup, but I'm trying to cut back a little bit for some reason. I feel like I need to drink more water now that I'm playing basketball literally every day.
Sorry for that use of the word literally. Here we go. So the whole point of this thing is, is that David Baltimore,
what did he discover? He discovered reverse transcriptase.
And why is reverse transcriptase so important? Reverse transcriptase is important because it transcribes RNA to DNA, right?
So that's pretty cool, supposedly, because some viruses will need to take their RNA, transcribe it to DNA, and then it needs to integrate into your own DNA before the mRNA for this virus can be made, and it can replicate, and that's actually how HIV does.
Now what's interesting is that the dogma, let me just, this is the Nobel Prize, right? This is the big discovery that he found here, this reverse transcriptase, and I'm not putting it in quotes because he just named it that.
So I'm not putting it in quotes because I don't believe it's there. I probably shouldn't have put it in quotes, whatever.
So the point being that he's very excited because look, there's a DNA goes to RNA, goes to protein, right? That's really cool.
Now, prions are really cool because they are proteins that seem to be able to make other proteins like them, but skip all this stuff. So that's what prions are so cool, right?
Those are a special kind of protein. They don't need RNA or DNA, they just need one, and then they can go into another organism and make more of themselves.
And it's a very curious story that, again, is outside of the dogma of DNA, and I don't know if I'm using the word dogma or not correctly there, but it is the accepted kind of general way that nature works, is that genes are encoded and very stable on the brain.
It's a very stable RNA and copied during reproduction, a very stable copies of RNA because RNA has proofreading because RNA is double stranded, all of this stuff.
Now, RNA is the more intermediate and transitive or transient form of genetic information in the sense of it hits around for a little while, but it's highly regulated.
And degrades very fast, and there are enzymes to degrade it, and it's highly controlled, and it gets modified and changed.
And so the production of RNA is ongoing all the time, and the destruction of RNA is ongoing all the time.
And so, unlike DNA, which is thought to be a very stable thing that's there all the time as a kind of a reference, and then RNA is kind of the ongoing radio signal being produced by the radio, perhaps.
And then from that signals are translated proteins like documents out of a printer.
And sometimes those documents come out and they're able to make other documents like them, but without having to use either a printer or the instructions in the printer, which is kind of cool.
Now, what's very interesting is in the Baltimore classification of viruses.
I hope this is not wasting anybody's time.
There is a coronavirus and other viruses like the flu that have a enzyme that can make copies of RNA.
Now, we have always had DNA polymerase, and that's fine because we've got a copied DNA.
We've always had RNA polymerase because we have to make DNA from RNA to RNA, and that's what this is.
And then we've always had ribosomes.
Ribosomes make protein.
Are you hearing it now?
Ribosomes make that.
Isn't that weird to you?
Ribosomes, why?
Why are they machines?
Well, now you're starting to understand this big picture of if you're using only four bases here, then maybe it's not so much of a machine to make a perfect copy of a double stranded molecule and another perfect copy of a double stranded molecule.
Maybe it's not such a machine.
It's only copying four bases.
It's practically binary.
On the other hand, this also the same thing that happens here.
DNA translates to an RNA.
That's just reading.
That's not a big deal.
That's not really a machine.
But when there's 20 amino acids involved and multiple codons involved, and now we're making protein, now that's a machine.
These are enzymes.
A ribosome is a machine.
And that may or may not be the case.
I just want you to understand the kind of hierarchy and the kinds of things that I think about when I hear these things.
I don't just think DNA and think of double stranded molecule.
I think about what part of this chain of genetic information it is, and more importantly, what part of the sacred biology, the irreducible complexity of nature,
is missing from this extraordinarily simple diagram where there we have enzymes that copy this molecule and we have enzymes that can copy this molecule into this molecule.
And then we have little machines that can take this molecule and create other machines from it.
Because proteins are very complex machines, of course, right?
And the ribosomes are really cool because they're actually RNA and protein together.
They're not just proteins.
They're RNA and proteins to make a machine together.
So they're even even more mysterious.
And so what's really crazy is that all embedded in here is this enzyme called reverse transcriptase, and I'll just do RT here,
that can go the other way here, it can go RNA to DNA.
And this enzyme is the enzyme that he won the Nobel Prize for.
Now, why is that enzyme important?
I think that enzyme is important because it allows you to get from here to here in an experimental setting.
That enzyme is not important because of the natural consequences of reverse transcriptase.
The reason why reverse transcriptase is cool is because it allows them to go from RNA to DNA.
And that's what I find so extraordinary about the posit that viruses, unlike us,
actually have an RNA dependent RNA polymerase that can make RNA go that way without needing DNA.
There's no DNA here, right?
It's just going right away from RNA to more RNA.
We don't have that enzyme, but somehow or another viruses have that enzyme.
And not only do that, they don't even need to carry it.
Some of the viruses just encode it.
And nobody got a Nobel Prize for discovering reverse, I mean, RNA dependent RNA polymerase.
Nobody got an award for that.
Nobody's even very excited about it.
I am willing to bet that in this video, he might not even say the words RNA dependent RNA polymerase.
And what you're going to see here is a very, very reluctant sales pitch,
I think, for the virology model, a very reluctant sales pitch to the model of infection.
And it is going to be very interesting to take notes and try to kind of outline where the gray areas are in this video.
I think it's really going to be instructional.
So let's see, instructive, whatever the right word would be.
And I don't think I might, I might not even speed it up.
It's only a half an hour.
So I'm going to turn a new page here.
Hello, I am David Baltimore.
I am a professor at the California Institute of Technology, Caltech.
And I'm here to talk about viruses.
I've worked on viruses now for 50 plus years.
And I find them fascinating.
And I'll concentrate on HIV because it's the virus most people know.
And of course, it's the scourge of the 20th and 21st century.
So I call viruses a separate kingdom of the living world.
They're not really a kingdom.
But they're so different from any other organism that they should be considered very separate.
Now, already I have a problem because he's calling them organisms.
So this is something that I've said before with respect to like Vincent Rancin yellow.
And in fact, a lot of virology, almost all virologists by rule make this error.
There's nothing about these that would allow you to call them an organism.
They are a genetic signal in a lipoprotein coat.
And he's going to just say that right now.
But so it's already starting with a massive contradiction.
That would exactly a very similar thing would be to say that you have an appreciation for automobiles.
And one really interesting kind of automobile is over here.
This pile of wheels.
Wheels are automobiles and they're really interesting to talk about how they work and how they go around tracks
and how they they they automobiles are great.
Organisms.
And we should be very specific about this.
This is in terms of biology 101.
This is really where the sorry for the same metaphor, but where the rubber meets the road.
We've got to be able to define things in the way that respects the irreducible complexity that does exist
irrespective of what these people have insisted for the last 50 years.
And here is where we can easily emphasize that there is a giant difference between whatever these cartoons are up there
and now look what's interesting you're going to hear this all the time.
That's hiding a phage.
There is a phage right there.
That's another phage.
And so if there are lots and lots of different kinds of phages in the background.
That means that there are lots and lots of DNA and RNA in the background.
And that is a scenario upon which a lot of other purported viruses could easily be drawn out of.
And that's what I think Nathan Wolf reveals in a lot of his presentations.
If you find him on YouTube or you read his book, the viral storm, you will you will find a story that essentially says,
well, there's all this DNA and RNA here, and we don't know what it is, but doesn't acknowledge the fact that there is an almost infinite background of bacterial phages that that we can't possibly hope to characterize.
That's the foundation of the background signal that I'm trying to bring attention to in the sense of PCR.
On a background that's that's a laboratory bench that's been sterilized inside of a appendorf tube that's been sterilized is very different than the background in your house, the background in the air, the background in your lungs, the background in your saliva.
These are all places where the background signal is loud with DNA and RNA from sources that we could never possibly hope to characterize.
And it's on that background that this whole illusion of viruses is created right because they biology doesn't acknowledge that our systems communicate using exosomes are our whole biology of of exosomes inside of our body, whether it's a good signal or a bad signal, whether it's a homeostatic signal or a or a or a pathogenic signal is irrelevant at this stage.
It's another aspect of this background of DNA and RNA that they are claiming they can just tune into and screen out of all this noise and pull these things out.
And the ubiquitous nature of all the things they can find that requires you to ignore all the things that we know are there and minimize the role of bacteriophages because that's what you're going to hear.
That's what you hear from from Vincent Rancin yellow. That's what you hear from all of these flu virology people.
Their assumption is is that the vast majority of the background is silent.
And so when they find a flu virus, it's impossible.
It's absolutely impossible that that signal could come from anywhere else, even though the only signal they have is that there's rubber.
So now it's for sure a Mercedes Benz will wait wait wait wait wait wait like there's lots of different places that rubber could come from no no no.
If there's rubber in that sand on the side of the road that a Mercedes came by here no that's not true.
And yet if you insist that the only things out there to find our Mercedes and BMWs and then you find them using rubber well then then that's what you see.
That's what the world is and if you pretend that viruses are the only things out there and you find them by looking for little fragments of DNA and RNA well then you're going to find a lot of viruses and it's going to be very easy to tell this story.
So are there viruses? Yes, there are bacteriophages at least.
Are there other viruses likely.
But they are likely endogenously produced genetic signals.
And if there are endogenously produced genetic signals from nearly every living being that we are surrounded by for good and bad for for that contribute to evolutionary genetics, for example, then they are distorting that irreducible complexity down to viruses.
And that's where this this whole thing is going from the perspective of what I would like to bring to the table. I feel like I can can tell that story. Okay.
To try and bring people to understand why it is that this is a disingenuous reduction of what is actually an irreducibly complex background of DNA and RNA signals that come from all of nature.
And to distill it down to a small catalog of infinitely variable pathogenic signals is beyond disingenuous and its fact is insulting to creation.
It's insulting to the beautiful immune system that is your your your child. It's insulting to the magnificence of an 85 year old woman who's lived a long and healthy life and is still thriving at 85 think about how magnificent it is that a tortoise can live for 150 years.
And instead we have invested millions if not billions of dollars into assuring that that irreducible complexity is a cartoon and we're scared of it.
And so I'm sure that this is almost exclusively a mythology that covers up what little they actually know and I think in striving to understand it and that's what I meant with this other with this other work on this other piece of paper.
What I'm trying to accentuate here is that in this little story that they're telling here they leave certain pieces out they tell certain stories about certain pieces that they're really excited about because these are the only hand holds they have on this system.
They're the only hand holds because they don't understand DNA they don't understand RNA regulation they don't understand how ribosomes work or how proteins fold but they do know that reverse transcriptase the enzyme can be purified and they do know that it will make DNA from RNA.
I bet I bet they even know that RNA dependent RNA polymerase can make RNA from protein why because this would be a great way to transfect people with a very small amount of RNA.
Do you see what I'm getting out here.
I think that there that if you see it for what it is that they're right there is the irreducible complexity of biology right there is irreducible complexity right there is irreducible complexity right there is irreducible complexity.
That's a little tiny hand hold that they use to make the argument that they understand this this is another hand hold but they don't want you to focus on this hand hold because if you focus on this hand hold you're going to understand a little more about this irreducible complexity.
That includes that this is much easier to copy than that is and high fidelity copies are not a part of this.
It's all part of the irreducible complexity the truth is the truth what little we know we know.
And I do think that David Baltimore and them know that reverse transcriptase can make RNA from DNA that's really cool great that's that's so what.
I think they know that RNA dependent RNA polymerase can be found in the wild.
And I think they have implied lots of mythology about what they understand about it and why it's there in order to study it.
And what they need to do is they need to make sure that you think that they're studying pathogens.
So that you never realize that they're studying our own biology that there is there are there are there studying enzymes that they want to learn how to use against us perhaps.
They want to learn for their own transhuman purposes maybe I don't know.
But this is not a a a forthright presentation about biology this is going to be a bamboozlement I'm sure of it and I'm sorry we haven't even started yet.
But this is I think this is a really nice introduction because it I really love to get practice at trying to bring people to see what I see when when people explain this.
These oversimplified models knowing what we know and more importantly knowing what we don't know and that's what's brilliant about about finally finding a way to use all of the reading that I've done.
All of the work that I've done is I really I see it now very clearly that the best thing that I can do as a biology teacher is is share the questions that I have with you.
Share the questions that I have about these central dogmas with you because those are the questions that that get me up in the morning.
Those are the questions that make me want to do this stream and feel like this is the only thing we can do.
We have to teach our young people our high school kids to understand that this irreducible complexity is there irrespective of whether these people insisted is not.
And once they are able to see that then simple edicts like you should transfect yourself because of this or that will make a lot less sense to them.
And they will have a foundation of understanding that that is based on reverence rather than based on on technocracy or the insistence of a few old men.
All right, here we go.
They're extremely tiny.
They can only duplicate themselves by penetrating into living cells and diverting the cells activities towards the ends that are dictated by the genetics of the virus.
And thus they are obligate cellular parasites.
Viruses can only exist.
Could only exist once cells have evolved.
And so that's very curious.
In other words, they couldn't have been a function of cells.
It couldn't have been could be something natural function of cells like communication before they evolved because you see that's also there was no.
What is he doesn't say that that's an interesting point. I'm going to write that down. He doesn't.
Yeah, it's it's interesting right because he says that viruses could not have evolved until cells evolved.
And so he's suggesting that at some point in time that I guess some of these RNAs that are.
I don't know what are they are they cellular debris got the right combination together and then became infectious particles where there were no infectious particles before.
Given that we have some theory of evolution. It's a very interesting statement to make.
I think it's a very how do you say it. I think it's a very sloppy mistake to make.
I think it's actually a sloppy statement which reveals that this is a mythology.
Because the statement that he just made that that says that viruses could not have evolved.
Until cells evolved.
Is using the language of evolution so he's suggesting then that at some point in time because we had cells viruses just happened.
And what evolutionary forces would have done that what evolutionary forces would have been acted on those first viruses.
How often would this have occurred before this this plethora of beautiful background of assorted pathogens obligate parasites would exist.
And he just makes one hand waving statement one hand waving statement at this irreducible complexity that I don't think evolution adequately accounts for.
But I'm not saying evolution doesn't occur. I'm saying that evolution does not account for all life on earth starting from a mud puddle.
Any more than the story that he's telling us are going to tell us right now accounts for an RNA molecule starting from a mud puddle and now covering the world boom how's that one.
Parasites viruses can only exist once cell could only exist one cells have evolved.
I mean that's a huge statement. That's a giant statement. That's a model of the world.
That's a model of evolution from a very early root cause kind of way where now we're just supposed to say oh yeah that makes sense once cells were evolved now there's viruses.
That's really awful.
They can either RNA or DNA as their genetic material the rest of the biological world uses DNA.
And they can grow in all kinds of cells and animal cells in bacteria and plants.
And the fact that so many of them are RNA viruses suggests that they're left over from an RNA world which was an intermediary in the evolution of the world we know today which is based on both DNA and RNA.
The central dogma molecular biology hasn't changed interesting note that popped in my head just now is that leftover from an RNA world.
The one person who brought up the primordial RNA based world.
Which is a remember that's that's the spontaneous life started in a electrified puddle of amino acids.
The or nucleic acids the RNA world is something that.
That Jolie brought up on my show.
And actually Jolie recounted.
That RNA viruses.
Are leftovers from an RNA world which is interesting it's interesting because that's definitely central dogma now isn't it.
And so just make a note of that leftover from an RNA world is also something that Jolie said and you can go back and check my video and you'll see it I'm sure I'm right.
When bells like that go off in my head they're not wrong.
In since the 1950s when it was first.
Annunciated by Francis Crick and that is the DNA can duplicate itself.
It can be transcribed into RNA and that RNA can in turn be a template for making protein and protein is what makes life work.
And so now there's no mention right there's no mention so far of the fact that there is a viral protein a very special viral protein that can make more copies of RNA from RNA.
Which is RNA dependent polymerase right that's what I was trying to illustrate on the page before that's also a very special.
Aspect handhold that we have on this central dogma and so now the updated dogmas of course going to contain his reverse transcriptase here which is totally fine.
But why isn't this updated dogma updated for RNA dependent RNA polymerase because you could also have the same right you could have the same swirl that you have here for DNA you could also have that on RNA.
And you could then you have this reverse arrow down here for for reverse transcriptase why don't we also put a spiral here for RNA dependent RNA polymerase that's a pretty important enzyme.
It's the foundation for reverse transcriptase PCR reaction it's a very important enzyme why is that not part of the updated dogma.
When was that when was that enzyme discovered.
And why is it only in viruses.
All of ourselves are built out of proteins all of them.
Isn't that a very special question.
Isn't it wouldn't that be like a really good NIH grant like I want to find out where RNA dependent RNA polymerase came from did they really invent that themselves these crafty viruses.
Events of our lives are determined by proteins.
In 1970 I was working on a virus and had the good fortune to make a discovery that changed the central dogma slightly.
If we discovered reverse transcription RNA giving rise to DNA.
And that reverse transcription actually gives rise to a very large amount of the DNA of us and of most higher organisms.
The discovery of reverse transcription filled out our understanding of the logic of how viruses multiply.
And let me describe that logic by focusing on the most important product that's made during a virus infection which is messenger RNA.
And here we go now we're laying down what I think is the actual the duality here the opposite is true.
So the messenger RNA being the end.
And they're all targeting they all want to make mRNA that's that's that's a joke.
And what we're dealing with here is that the reality is is that they understand that the rubber meets the road at ribosomes.
They've always wanted all of these people have always said it ribosomes are the machine we need to understand protein manufacture is the thing we need to understand.
And that's why there are so many Nobel prizes around it.
That's why prions are so interesting because they're on the other side of it they are misfolded proteins we don't want misfolding.
But it's another excuse to study the ribosome and its function without actually saying we're doing it.
And here we go all viruses need to go through the funnel of mRNA.
All viruses need to go through the funnel of mRNA you can think of another thing.
There are six different ways to transfect people.
There are six different ways that a genetic signal can manage to enter a cell and do something and it all comes down to mRNA.
That's a story about irreducible complexity being not that complex.
It's very simple mRNA translated to protein that's how things work.
There's nothing else simple there's nothing else difficult about it.
And that is indeed the illusion that we're going to see here that enzymes that do all these different steps aren't even important to him he doesn't want you to think about them too much.
In codes protein and those proteins now viral proteins can take over a cell can make more virus particles they are the essence of the virus infection process.
So the viral proteins are the essence of the viral infection and they take over the cell and make more copies of the virus and we've already gone over this many times that's not exactly what happens and they know that.
It doesn't really matter what model they use it's not a high fidelity copy process it's a not a high fidelity packaging process.
It's not a very easy packaging process to study and the results of that packaging process seem to be very very very low fidelity.
Production of genetic signals that are no way equivalent to what is usually the starting point which is an infectious clone a pure RNA or DNA version of these signals they say they find in the wild.
And so the nucleic acid the DNA or RNA of the virus is holding the instructions for making those proteins and the question is how do those instructions get to making protein.
And there are really six ways so that I understand the argument he's making now it's actually the viral proteins that need to be made before more viruses can be made.
So the instructions and how the instructions get to proteins is important.
And he is talking about transfection and transformation that's what he's talking about and all the different strategies for doing it are have their own representative viral teams.
Could be true. I'm not a virologist this could be real all of these viruses could be real all of these this high fidelity understanding could be real but I'm guessing it's not.
I'm guessing is is that these are the strategies as far as they can understand of how to probe and understand our own genome and how our own genetics and biology works.
And so yes they need to understand the examples in nature but I don't think that these examples are necessarily all obligate pathogens.
I think a lot of these signals could be endogenous immune signals and endogenous.
I don't know what other kinds of signals they would be but exosomal signaling that occurs maybe even between people in the same family maybe even in between lovers or between.
People on the same team or I don't know.
But I do know that a lot of that biology is just is just absolutely ignored and and the focus at this size scale and at in DNA and RNA is always virology.
I mean just imagine the idea that DNA and RNA are DNA can copy itself RNA can be copied.
And then RNA has regulation by methylation and by whether or not histones are open or closed and there's there's there's transcriptants factors there's enhancers yada yada yada promoters the whole thing.
And RNA has its own level of ridiculousness in terms of three dimensional shapes and regulation by by post translational modification etc etc etc.
And then you have the ribosome and and transfer RNAs and and different stop codons and modifying proteins and subunits and all kinds of other complexity that we can't even possibly get our heads around.
Imagine if all of that stuff is endogenous.
Imagine that just for a second. It's not just that we use DNA to make RNA to make proteins that's how we work.
But imagine if we had DNA and we copied DNA and we also regulated DNA and we also made copies of RNA and we also made copies of RNA from other RNA.
And we also regulated that RNA with different shapes and then we also regulated the way that it was translated into proteins by regulating the exact composition of ribosomes at any given time and we know all of that.
And so the only way to study it would be to break it.
And so instead they have told us this is just an idea.
They've told us that no no humans and mammals are really simple they just use DNA to RNA and then RNA gets translated to proteins and there's some complexity there because there's a few codons that are synonymous.
But other than that it's pretty simple we basically understand it.
And the rest of the irreducible complexity is explained away by the Baltimore classification of viruses.
And so what is our irreducible complexity has now been taken away from us and misrepresented to us as pathogens in nature.
Oh yeah those signals those aren't from you guys those are those are from stuff that we need to protect you from.
You're really easy to understand.
You're just antibodies and antibodies are you know just B cells and then you make RNA from DNA and you make proteins from that from that RNA that's as simple as it is it's pretty easy if you know that's biology.
If you understand that much it's fine.
Because the rest is virology and it's super hard.
But there are plants out there that have really complex genomes and have multiple different life stages and life forms as they or or that's all super complex but but human biology is really simple it's just DNA to RNA to to protein.
I mean you learned that you even had to recite that at your PhD oral exam so obviously that's the truth.
Four years into the pandemic when I listened to this guy in the context of what I now understand in my heart and soul to be the irreducible complexity of life on earth.
What I see is somebody who's trying to take all of that irreducible complexity that almost certainly exists inside of us and attribute it to viruses.
The only beings on earth the only organisms on earth that can make copies of good copies from RNA of other good copies of RNA are viruses.
Only life forms on earth that can use positive and negative strand of RNAs are RNA viruses.
The only things that can use RNA or make RNA or make DNA from RNA are viruses.
All this other stuff is theirs they do all that stuff we just take DNA and we make RNA from it and then we make proteins from it all this other stuff is how viruses.
I'm starting to be very skeptical of that.
A viruses class one viruses.
Those simply make messenger RNA.
It would be a wonderful story to tell children so that we can study infectious disease and we're not studying you.
We're not encroaching on your irreducible complexity.
You're very easy to understand you have immunity to things that you have antibodies to.
Oh my gosh can you see it.
Can you see it it's happening spontaneously to me right now like I knew I was going to watch this video this morning.
I had no idea what would come out of it and here I am.
I think this is the best way to that I've heard yet is the best way to expound on the ridiculousness of virology.
Is that there's all of this biology attributed to things that we can't see and size scales that we can barely measure.
And it's just absent from us it's absent from animals it's absent from bats it's absent from plants it's these are all outside of that nature over there what you see.
All what you see there is despite this.
You see how ridiculous that is.
Once you start to understand the proposition understand the model that they are telling you that there are all these extemporaneous outside of you pathways to get to mRNA which is your simple use you use messenger RNA DNA and then you make messenger RNA and then you make protein
and there are all these very specialized viral mechanisms by which they can make mRNA and then take over.
It's just an apps it's it's really impressive right it's really impressive the the everything that you can see in nature when you walk in a rainforest when you scuba dive or when you go deer hunting all that nature is despite this.
We make messenger RNA in our normal cells because we carry double strand DNA as our hereditary material.
Then there are single strand DNA viruses they have to become double strands those are the class two viruses and then they can make messenger RNA and then they have to make again those single strands to be a genetic material of those viruses.
Then there are RNA viruses.
There are double strand RNA viruses very similar to double strand DNA viruses except they are RNA and they make messenger RNA from their double stranded RNA.
There are and they copy double stranded RNA apparently which is also something that we're not going to talk about here are double stranded RNA might be handy for something.
copying double stranded RNA might be handy for something that means that viruses have yet another enzyme that we don't have isn't that cool.
Two kinds of single strand RNA viruses they can either carry the sense strand which we call the plus strand of genetic material.
That's the strand that can go into the ribosome machine thingy.
In which case they can encode protein by just putting that into the cell or they can in the class five viruses carry the minus strand the complementary strand that's senseless until it's copied into a plus strand.
Oh so there's one that's one interesting one right what's that one is that coronaviruses.
I thought that the coronavirus was a positive strand because it had to make the RNA polymerase the protein first right so I don't think I think negative strand RNA viruses is flu virus and that means they have to have their own RNA polymerase along with them
which is an extra packaging magic right that flu viruses not only do they have a broken up genome so it's it's more difficult to get all of the genomic components into each particle but then each competent particle requires a virus to be packaged
with an enzyme that can make the mRNA the positive stranded mRNA from the negative strand up here.
I'm assuming he's going to say that in a minute.
So it needs to be copied before it can make protein and the virus particle has to carry a polymerase to do that bingo.
And then there's the reverse transcription process in which an RNA is carried by the virus but it's copied into first single strand DNA and double strand DNA and that then is the template.
Let's go back just to make sure it can make protein and the virus particle has to carry a polymerase to do that a polymerase a polymerase so it's not that important that it's an RNA dependent RNA polymerase that in your big scheme from five minutes ago there's
an RNA that goes around like this to indicate that RNA can be copied into more RNA.
There's no arrow there that indicates that double stranded RNA can be copied into more double stranded RNA.
Two processes that have two required enzymes that he's not even going to name as important even though he got a Nobel Prize for finding an enzyme that copies RNA to DNA.
Isn't that weird?
Who found those other enzymes?
Aren't they important?
Don't they do stuff?
Aren't they like central targets for antivirals?
What is going on here?
Do you notice anything in particular?
I notice that they're telling us a story here.
They're not being genuine about the biology here otherwise this story would be very different.
I mean just ask yourself this one question.
What if RNA dependent RNA polymerase is endogenous in humans?
What if for example your immune system were to send exosomes with RNA dependent RNA polymerase encoded in an RNA?
So that when it went to the cell next door to the other T cell that it could cause the transcription of more RNA from RNA that got there.
And so it could activate other immune system cells that are also autonomous.
It could activate them from a long ways away for a very distinct amount of time because it would be an RNA dependent signal so by definition wouldn't change those cells permanently.
What an interesting mechanism by which the body could diversify its function and its homeostatic resilience.
Yet for some reason or another all those enzymes are monopolized by organisms called viruses.
What if they just told you that so that they could study your immune system without you even knowing?
And isn't that a much more interesting biological mythology than you becoming part of the Internet of Things and then putting nanobots inside of you that can react to 5G signals?
Because this to me is much more intriguing.
The idea that a lot of this biology that is attributed to viruses is actually the biology of exosomal communication between tissues and between conspecifics and between species part of our immune system.
And so yeah when you mix stuff from other species you're going to mix in stuff like this and make people sick and there won't be any explanation for it other than you messed with the irreducible complexity of our biology.
And instead you attribute all of these magic enzymes that he doesn't even seem to have that that requires a virus to package a polymerase along with it.
RNA dependent RNA polymerase was such an important polymerase that he got an old bell prize for it.
But these other polymerases that also only exist in viral mother nature are not worth mentioning not even worth mentioning giving a name.
That should be a gigantic, gigantic problem.
And then there's the reverse transcription process in which an RNA is carried by the virus but it's copied into first single strand DNA and double strand DNA and that then is the template to make messenger RNA.
So that gives us six different kinds of viruses. I call them.
It's called the Baltimore classification because we first enunciated it back in 1970.
There is no way in Sam hell that in 1970 they understood something so well that it hasn't changed since then.
There is no way in hell.
I mean it's just not possible the oldest books that we have on coronaviruses they shouldn't even be in this thing as far as I mean it's crazy to me right now where we are.
I think we're actually making a breakthrough here in real time, at least I am.
I just I see it now.
This is what I think they did.
I think they lied to us about our own irreducible complexity so that they would have a wonderful excuse to study it.
And whether or not some or all of these natural signals exist in nature they were misrepresented as something else.
And they've been sticking to it ever since and I think what's very dangerous now is people like David Baltimore are part of an illusion of consensus that when he's gone will not have the people to sustain it.
But I do think that people like Robert Malone should be very suspect because of the fact that they've brushed.
They've brushed so long and so early with people like Bob Gallo and Murray Gardner and David Baltimore and Stanley Prouzner and Hillary Kaprowski and and Mr Plotkin.
This list needs to be repeated over and over and over again because everybody that's had close contact with them is now should be under extreme suspicion.
Because they are all clinging to the same model of very simple biology and humans DNA to RNA to proteins very complex biology out there in Mother Nature's little microscopic cesspools and bat anuses.
Oh my gosh I'm gonna have to go. I'm gonna I'm gonna have to go to basketball before this is over and I don't have to go to basketball until 1230 but
And many textbooks.
I'm feeling this this is a really good one.
Thinking about viruses and but it really isn't a classification.
It's a statement of how.
Keep in mind where we are then right what we're what we're really saying is not that there are no viruses at all we know that there are bacteria phases we know that that science is well understood.
There are probably herpes viruses.
There are probably certain viruses I'm almost certain of it.
Tell a story for since 1970 that ignores exosomal communication ignores retroviral communication even though now we've known for at least six or seven years now that what we thought was an immediate early gene activated by activity in the brain was actually
an endogenous RNA virus being released by neurons so that neighboring neurons could more easily participate in the reorganization of a circuit by enabling there an act and skeleton to be reorganized at the on the other side of a synapse without that that
neuron having participated in the action potential firing it's it's amazing.
And that's just the first endogenous brain virus that we've identified.
And curiously enough that guy has been absorbed into the twin micro TV universe on the this week in neurobiology or neuroscience on purpose.
Because virology needed to control that messaging that what wait what there's a there's an endogenous virus in the in the we we release exosomes in the brain to signal from one neuron to another oh that's weird.
What do you think neurotransmitters are.
It's just very short range communication but it's all the same mechanism neurons release exosomes at a very tiny scale that are that are filled with neurotransmitter that open ion channels on the other side what makes you think that that our biology would be so
famous to not use that signaling in the immune system where supposedly all these cells are just autonomous little amoeba that just go around and do their best.
These people are the same people that tell you that you make antibodies.
Do you see it now.
It's all the same choir singing the same inverted song.
It's beautiful.
Whether or not all of these virus types exist.
The real question now should become what aspects of this irreducible complexity are actually also present in ourselves and they have lied to us about it that I think is a giant question that needs answering.
Their style of handling genetic information into the needs of the central dog central dog my how many viruses are there.
There are an uncountable number of viruses see every animal in the animal kingdom sees its own set of viruses but there's no background signal on which a PCR signal might be confounded there's no background signal on which a sequencing
set of primers might be confounded.
Every bacterium has its own set of viruses.
There are certainly a million viruses that are easily distinguishable one from another and many estimates have been made that are much higher than that because viruses can only grow inside cells they have to get into a cell but once they get in there.
We can very quickly take over the cell.
Some viruses particularly of bacteria have a life cycle of only 20 to 30 minutes.
Yeah so I mean we understand that there are phages right so he just made a reference to a bacteriophage we should make a little we should make a little list or a little check marks here of how many times he makes reference to bacteriophages because I think they're one of the few signals that they're sure are there.
Come on Mr. Penn you don't stay very wet do you.
Okay that's a couple mentions already here we go.
And even mammalian viruses take only a few hours to make enormous numbers of copies of themselves.
Enormous numbers of copies of themselves and again you know that's a lie right we know that the infectious cycle is a very low fidelity process if it's real at all.
And that low fidelity process is belied by the decades of data that shows that when RNA dependent RNA polymerase that enzyme that this guy will not name.
Is working it is making tremendous numbers of errors for combinatorial events and also jumping off of the genome and making sub genomic copies by a vast majority like a real vast several orders of magnitude majority.
They can continue to live only if they're passed on.
So they continue to live you see they grow inside of cells these are all words that are not applicable to a genetic message.
Even if it's a pathogenic genetic message you would never say that it's growing or that they are organisms or or they only live if they're passed on this is not the language is wrong and they know it.
And that's one organism to another because being obligate parasites.
In a way in a way you could see that as desecrating right because it's insulting to the the real life on earth the real pattern integrity because that's that's where this goes back to my friend Buckminster filler is is we are patterned
and viruses are not that's why I say that often RNA cannot pandemic RNA is not a pattern integrity.
A double stranded DNA molecules not a pattern integrity it's not that's not how this works.
And now we're being told that there are viroids you know like RNA that all by itself is a pattern integrity.
I'm not buying it I think that this is this is something of a ruse to try and get people to no longer be able to see and understand the irreducible complexity that is biology and appreciate it for what it is and have reverence for it
instead simplify it to the point where you think that yeah you only need to watch a couple of these kind of videos and you get it and live out in the world on their own.
And so every virus is a story of transmission.
We know that transmission in humans can involve sneezing or touching a surface that a sick person is touched.
But for cats the transmission is different for insects the transmission is different.
And that's part of the evolution of viruses they evolved to become part of the living style of their hosts.
Cat transmission is different is a funny thing to say I think that's why even bring it up unless you're trying to rope in the, the biology of feline infectious something something coronavirus whatever that they know that that they've killed lots of cats trying to
immunize against whatever that signal was.
And it's just a terrible example of how little they understand of this system in this in this biology and so he mentions it but he doesn't really mention it.
And that's supposed to for the average unsophisticated specialist biologist to go oh yeah I know about cat viruses that's right I remember that.
And then it's gone.
And that is the magic that happens here if you're not you know somebody who has spent their lifetime trying to understand biology as beauty then it's very easy to miss these people's misrepresentation of high fidelity understanding as the insult to the sacred
biology that it is but I see it as the insult.
If viruses are very particular to a species like the human species, then we can actually get rid of them because they have no reservoir outside of us.
And so if we can vaccinate the whole population of the world, then we can get rid of that virus.
Oh that's pretty simple isn't it wow there you go that's the model of of public health is that we can vaccinate everybody against that virus then we can eradicate viruses.
Any particular virus from the world he just stated it right there in case you have any doubt what mythology this is and what mythology they want you to believe and pass on to your children.
There it is at a nutshell he just said it vaccination is the way that we get rid of viruses like the human species.
Then we can actually get rid of them because they have no reservoir outside of us.
And so if we can vaccinate the whole population of the world, then we can get rid of that virus because we make ourselves immune to it.
And we've done that with smallpox and we've almost done that with polio.
After Mark's videos about the smallpox vaccine do you think that's what we really did do you think that's what really happened.
Because that's again, just hand waving that's what we did with smallpox I don't know I've I've listened to Mark read a couple documents that don't suggest to me they knew a whole hell of a lot about what they were doing when they did it.
And this is from 2018 in a couple of years polio will be eliminated from the earth.
Now viruses growing inside cells for them to get out of cells they got to do something.
They do one of two things generally either they that bud out from the surface of cells and that's what this picture shows or they grow up to large numbers inside the cell and then they burst the cell open.
So that's also that's also a bullshit story because that story is based on 1940s understanding of what happens in a cell culture.
Look those cells are psychopathic because they're making so much virus they die.
It couldn't be that the protein that was encoded by the RNA is toxic that's not what happens.
It's that the virus is replicating so much that it explodes the cell and dies that's a that is a cartoon joke that has no basis in reality if that was the case then really good electron microscopists could do a time series.
This little model kind of falls apart for these kids because if you're an actual intelligent smart free thinking biologist you can come up with a few experiments that are based on the predictions that their model makes.
So there is a good prediction that their model makes is that a virus that replicates and then causes cells to explode after they've made so many copies of itself.
We should be able to make a time series of that happening. We should be able to apply the virus to a cell culture and then take cell cultures at different times after exposure and freeze fracture them and put them under an electron microscope
and look and see that well at two hours there's no viral particles at four hours.
Well there's quite a few viral particles and at five hours whoa holy crap it's about to explode.
Look at this you can't see anything but viral particles.
Isn't that what should happen.
I'm sure there's a paper that's shown it with one virus right.
Isn't that strange.
Don't you find that strange as an academic former academic biologist a recovering academy edition I find it very strange because this model of an infectious cycle dictates and makes a lot of different predictions about what we should see in different very basic experimental
paradigms and yet surprisingly they haven't studied very many of these they haven't gone down many very many of these avenues.
And that's where this whole thing falls apart.
From the surface you can see the implications of that that means that the cell that's infected has to first express all of the surface proteins of the virus on its own surface and avoid detection of that on the immune system I guess.
Then the virus genome has to go up to the surface of the cell and then push its way out.
And don't forget if it's a flu virus then I guess it should push its way out and bring along a copy of the RNA dependent RNA polymerase along with it.
Both of these models making lots of copies and exploding the cell or budding from the surface both of these models are weak.
And not only are they weak but they make very simple predictions that better have peer reviewed scientific literature to back them up otherwise it's just dumb.
They would be be working with the model that this is how viruses work but never test that model just assume it.
But it appears that's what we do a lot in virology ladies and gentlemen and that's why these no virus people from the very beginning have had a lot of ground to stand on.
And it's on purpose it's all about confusion frustration and doubt.
So that no matter where you think you're okay you're not okay and the only way to be okay is to understand that there's a sacred biology out there and irreducible complexity that these people have worked tirelessly for decades to hide from us.
So that we would eventually turn over our sovereignty over our own bodies and that of our children to them as they attempt in a vain way to understand this.
And that's why I think virology has taken all the most complex parts of genetic signaling out of our own bodies and put them into mother nature's most darkest corners.
And told us that our immune system is just antibodies and then we make proteins for messenger RNA and then messenger RNA comes from DNA it's that simple.
I feel good about this stream.
And that liberates virus particles from the cell interior into wherever it is into the blood system blood stream in the humans for instance.
It only made sense when molecular biology was born as a science because they're so small that the only really important.
We didn't need virology until we had enough tools in molecular biology to start telling their story.
We need to lie about viruses until we were really doing genetics.
Oh my gosh.
We don't really need infectious disease to be based on viruses until transfection is really something we can do in mass.
We don't need.
Can you hear it?
I'm laughing that he just said that's just fantastic.
I got to go back and hear it again.
His into the blood system blood stream in the humans for instance.
Viruses only made sense when molecular biology was born as a science because they're so small that the only really important thing that they have is their genetic instruction.
Interestingly enough, the most complex virus in this picture by their own admission is the bacteriophage is labeled as complex.
The polyhedral, the helical, the enveloped viruses, they're not complex.
This is complex, the bacteriophage.
Isn't that curious?
I think it's very curious because he doesn't care about the complex ones at all.
He just uses them as baseline examples to make sure it's reminding you that there is a signal there.
Cool.
Their DNA or their RNA.
They generally protect that in a coat.
But the coat is largely a nerd except for helping them get into the next infected cell or next cell that they're going to infect.
Some of them have a few other proteins that help initiate the infection.
And then we're now learning about viruses that are very big and complicated.
Polio doesn't cause polio.
Polio causes transverse myelitis exactly.
They're actually of the size of bacteria.
But what distinguishes them is that they require to be inside a cell to multiply whereas bacteria can multiply as free living organisms.
The way we detect viruses is by what's called a plaque assay.
We have a lawn of susceptible cells.
They could be mammalian cells.
They could be bacterial cells.
We put a few virus particles down.
Those virus particles chew up the lawn from a center where they land and they form a plaque.
And if you count the number of plaques, you know how many viruses were there.
That's how they count viruses, ladies and gentlemen.
It's called a plaque assay and you repeatedly dilute your sample until you get individual plaques.
And then each one of those plaques can be sequenced and supposedly will contain only one virus.
It's an extraordinary statement and it's an extraordinary experiment.
I've never done one myself, but it's an impressive thing.
And if you put down twice as many viruses, you get twice as many plaques.
So it's a highly quantitative test.
And bacterial genetics was done using those tasks, those techniques.
Here we go again.
The plaque formation works fine with bacteria.
You see the difference here?
Imagine a scenario where a plaque assay for coronaviruses is not done with the same fidelity,
is never shown the same fidelity that bacteria phage plaque assays have.
But they just say it is anyway.
I mean, why is he using this step?
Plaques could be formed by RNA.
Plaques could be formed by a toxin because the plaques are depth.
I don't really, I'm not really impressed yet by the plaque assay because again, whatever you put there would kill things.
And you would see the same result and it doesn't prove anything about what did it.
And the signal should be much greater now at every one of those plaque assays.
That would be the idea.
And I bet it happens for bacteriophages.
I bet it happens maybe even for some RNA signals.
But I think that they have over-generalized and exaggerated greatly as Peter Thiel would say.
And exaggerated greatly to be sure that you never really understood where the study of us started and the study of them ends.
And in fact, they want you to think they're not studying us at all.
Here we can see tiny plaques made by a kind of bacteria.
But given the fact, I'm just going to keep saying whatever comes to my mind.
Given the fact that we know now and people are relatively able to acknowledge that the gut microbiome is important,
that the microbiome on your skin is important, even the microbiome in your mouth is different than that of your gut.
And it's important that then you have to imagine that bacteriophages are very, very, very real.
And so those microbes are communicating with one another,
interacting with one another, using phages all the time.
And the outside world can interact with those bacteria with bacteriophages all the time.
Bacteriophages could be deployed on you and interact with those and cause sickness and illness that would be from bacterial toxins
or toxins that are produced by the bacteria as the result of a phage.
And none of these mechanisms are ever discussed.
The bacteriophage as a tool, the bacteriophage as a weapon, the bacteriophage as a diagnostic,
the bacteriophage as a deployment tool has never discussed in terms of biological weapons, bioterrorism,
never discussed in terms of your immune system and pathologies.
And that's because I think this is one of the few exogenous outside of your body,
genetic signals that they do have a good idea of how they work, how to use them and what to do with them.
And so they use them as an example that there are viruses and this is the way things work,
and then they do the shell game thing and then they show you because these things exist,
obviously all these signals are as high fidelity and they are not.
And here we are.
35 or 40 years later with the same old men telling us the same stories about the same myths of high fidelity
understanding of stuff outside of our body that has, you know, we exist despite of.
Chariel virus or huge plaques made by poliovirus played it on human cells.
The distinction which I find very important among viruses is the distinction between equilibrium viruses
and non equilibrium viruses.
Equilibrium viruses have our viruses that have been, for a very long time,
parasites of a particular species.
And so they're highly adapted to that species, so the lifestyle of that species,
and what happens is that they evolve to actually be less lethal because they don't want to kill off their homes.
They killed off every member of the species that virus would die itself.
And so they cause enough disease to help their spread, but they don't like causing sneezing or coughing,
but they don't kill most people. The common cold virus is a very good example.
So here we have which one is the common cold virus. Why isn't he being specific about that? Is that rhinovirus? Is that the respiratory
syncytial virus? Is that a coronavirus? Which one is that?
Is that the norovirus? Is that the flu virus? Which one is he talking about?
You see how we fluctuate from highly specific to, oh yeah, common cold?
If there are millions of viruses and that every species has its own viruses,
every bacteria has its own viruses, as he said in the beginning of the, of the,
then if you give him all of that, then the background is so hot that a PCR test made by a bunch of hacks in a room
somewhere is not going to be sufficient to define a pandemic and its fact is certainly a lie.
If we're supposedly sequencing 15 million coronavirus genomes that didn't exist before 2020,
but now do, that's most certainly a lie.
Even if you give him all of the biology that he says is outside of us is parasitic to us.
That has DNA and RNA and positive strands and negative strands and double strands that can all be copied and,
and reverse transcribed, but outside of us, even if you believe all of that,
then the idea of a high fidelity RNA pandemic that started in a mud puddle and is ongoing now
that we have 15 million sequences that characterize it.
And it started at a point relatively recent, very small number of copies,
now millions of copies, if not trillions of copies because that's what would be required in order for it to be in all the places
that they say it's in now is a lie. It has to be.
And all of these biologists that have been put in front of us that say that they're fighting against the lies
or the fighting against the pandemic or the, they all have to understand this.
There's no way you can have four degrees in biology and computational mathematics or whatever other bullshit
that you have degrees in and not understand that this can't be true.
The story that they're telling us and the way that they're telling us it happened, it can't be true. RNA can't do that.
And yet somehow or another, all these people are focused on VAERS or Ivermectin or the fact that there's double stranded DNA
and the transfections that they still can't call transfections, but still call vaccines.
And so many of them don't have any business being in front of us speaking out for so long.
So many of them had no business being in other countries speaking out about the same things for so long.
Not when it's taken us four years to unravel the lies that they insist are still true.
Not when it's taken us four years to find out that, wait, you can't give people pure oxygen for six or seven hours.
That's not good.
I didn't know that because I'm not a frickin' MD.
I don't work in an operating room every day.
I don't work in an ICU every day.
But there are hundreds, if not thousands of people who know that in America,
just like there are thousands of people in America that should have known that transfection is not vaccination and it's bullshit.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think this is some of the best work that we've ever done.
Because essentially it's starting to outline where the questions need to be asked and how we need to pose them.
Because I think our irreducible complexity has been taken away from us and has been misrepresented to us as virology.
To what extent virology is real, I'm totally open to the idea.
But the extent to which it is obligate pathogenic biology that we would be better off without.
I think that is an entire mythology that they've created in order to make sure that we never understand to the extent to which we are the focus of the research.
And that pivot to us being coming the outward publicly admitted focus of the research is the pivot that we are now in over these last years.
That's what I think is happening.
I think it's very extraordinary, but this is the best I've been able to articulate it.
I think it's very important that we have a lot of an equilibrium virus in humans.
Then there are non equilibrium viruses, non equilibrium viruses are viruses that have jumped from one species to another.
I just think this is spellcasting.
I'm going to use big words and combine them in new unique ways and tell you that they mean knowledge.
I'm going to combine large, relatively meaningless words in combination and pretend that this represents formal knowledge.
So equilibrium viruses and non equilibrium viruses are presented in a way that seems to represent formalized knowledge based on lots of study, but it's not.
This is as cartoonish as the transmission and replication cycle of a virus that he just glossed over 10 minutes ago.
They're not yet adapted to that new host.
They've only been with that new host for a while, even decades.
And they can be extremely lethal because this is not a host they care about.
And so they haven't evolved to be non lethal.
This isn't a host they care about.
So equilibrium viruses are viruses that have decided to work together with us.
They're a bit more like symbionts, whereas non equilibrium viruses are just still dicks.
They haven't learned to cooperate.
And so they're just assholes.
That's the explanation here.
And this is supposed to be formalized knowledge.
That hose.
They may in fact spread poorly or they could spread very well.
Have you noticed how virology actually doesn't even need p values.
They just draw cartoons.
It's incredible.
They may be very efficient, very inefficient.
They're enormous variation.
But those are the viruses that cause us the biggest problems because those viruses can be lethal.
So we talk about equilibrium viruses.
We talk about polio.
Polio in its day caused was lethal to a very small fraction of the people who were infected by it.
Most people didn't know they were infected 90% plus.
Few people actually were paralyzed by it.
Does that not sound like the story that they're going to tell our kids about COVID in like 20 years.
The vast majority of people didn't even know that they had it.
And lots of people got long COVID and other people had heart attacks from it.
Some people even had myocarditis from it.
And because a lot of people didn't know that they had it and people resisted the vaccine.
It sounds like the exact same story they're going to tell us in 10 years happened to us now.
It's like he's reading right out of the Spars document from the Rockefeller Foundation.
It's hilarious.
Of the people who were infected by it.
Most people didn't know they were infected 90% plus.
Few people actually were paralyzed by it.
And a few people were actually killed by it.
And that's the nature of an equilibrium virus.
Largely non-lethal although occasionally.
Smallpox actually is a virus that's lethal to a fair number of people.
And you really want to get it when you're young and get over it.
And that was the nature of vaccination against smallpox in the very early days.
Common cold virus.
We mentioned measles virus.
Another one actually causes quite severe infections to a few people.
Most people get over it after being in bed for a couple of days.
The herpes viruses are all around us and are keep infecting people but are generally non-lethal.
Non-equilibrium virus is the most famous one of those is influenza virus.
It's a natural virus of birds.
In birds it's generally not very lethal.
It comes to humans and it's lethal to older people and very young people.
And it's really a serious disease for adults to get.
And that's why we try to vaccinate against it.
Although our vaccines are nowhere near as good as we like them.
HIV is a virus that recently.
I just think that's really funny. Why is it that we can vaccinate against equilibrium viruses but we can't vaccinate against non-equilibrium viruses?
Why is that the case? They don't think that that is any interesting sort here.
I mean it's laughable to me that this guy is pretending that this is a genuine intellectual discussion about biology and about the questions that arise if we interrogate our current model of the world.
Wow, it's just ridiculous.
How can you have this slide up and then say the word vaccines anywhere when this slide is up and not go yeah it's weird right?
These vaccines that we seem to make they suck but these vaccines apparently are great.
Well except for common cold and we don't need to do the smallpox anymore because it's gone.
So like what what kind of nonsense bullshit story is this I guess nothing you would expect you would expect nothing less from the the supervisor of Vincent Rack and Yellow.
Came to us from chimpanzees but in fact it's not even a natural virus of chimpanzees seems to be a natural virus of monkeys and they gave it to chimpanzees which in turn gave it to us.
Wow. So Brett Weinstein was right.
There's a virus probably from bats Ebola is a virus almost certainly from bats.
Honton was rodents those have been very lethal to humans but generally in contained areas because they haven't evolved to be able to spread very effectively.
Now let me turn to HIV because it's a virus that we've heard so much about that nobody's ever isolated that they say that you have if you have antibodies to it it's like the opposite of what they say with coronavirus immunity
to test whether you have AIDS they don't test for the virus they test for antibodies to it which is quite extraordinary.
Let's make sense of making sense of HIV dependent on our discovery of reverse transcriptase you see.
So again one enzyme very emphasized super cool.
All the other enzymes that viruses have to do all those other magic things all cares they're just they're not useful they're not interesting.
That has been such a devastating virus to human beings.
And in the last few decades the spread of the human emitter efficiency virus throughout the world has been a constant source of fear and news.
It came into our midst really in the early 1980s before that it was in human beings but it was in very limited populations mainly in Africa.
Somewhere on the 1980s it started spreading coincident with travel it was taken on airplanes in people from its source in Africa into Europe into the United States.
Spread on airplanes I thought it spread in an epindoor of tube in the pocket of Murray Gardner.
No but we did all seriousness that's a pretty interesting story right it was apparently endemic to Africa it was just circulating and not really hurting anybody and nobody was having any problems even though I guess they were just doing their thing.
Suddenly when it got to the states or when it got to Western civilization then then it exploded in Africa.
Is that what I'm supposed to believe from what he just told me I think that's what I'm supposed to believe because the vast majority of cases of HIV are in Africa they're not in America.
So first he says that it was in the 80s but it was already there in Africa but it wasn't doing anything until it got on a plane and came to the West and then suddenly Africa got sick.
Is that what he's going to tell us.
Really in the early 1980s before that it was in human beings but it was in very limited populations mainly in Africa.
Somewhere around the 1980s it started spreading coincident with.
I thought it came from chimps.
I'm still trying to get my head around what he's saying here because it sounds like absolute bullshit and I don't get it.
Maybe you should have consulted with Fauci first because his previous list was also missing Fauci's favorite 1918 flu.
It was taken on airplanes in people from its source in Africa into Europe into the United States.
Jeff from Earth says that RFK's book claimed that North Americans AIDS was completely different than African AIDS.
I did not know that I need to look into that. Thanks for that tip Jeff.
Making sense of HIV depended on having discovered the reverse transcriptase.
So our work in 1970 actually set the base for finding HIV because HIV.
1980s when plane travel began, yes that's correct.
It uses a reverse transcriptase and it was that.
Viruses are too transient to be transmitted by both.
The enzyme that revealed the nature of that virus.
So let me talk about the discovery of reverse transcription for a minute.
Here it is again.
In 1960 I began working on viruses and I realized that in order to understand this life cycle of viruses the best thing to do was to examine
the enzymes that made viral DNA or RNA.
And so we actually discovered a number of polymerases in viruses all through the 1960s.
And then in 1969 we found the polymerases that allow negative strand viruses to be made.
And they as I mentioned earlier in the virus particle.
And that suggested that if we were going to understand cancer inducing viruses maybe we should look in the virus particle.
So cancer viruses of course are coming from you.
You know that right?
I mean cancer viruses are exosomes.
And if cancer viruses have enzymes like this now we're talking pretty whole Howard Teman.
Where's Marky Mark?
Look whose name just came up?
Holy cow.
We think that this is one of the good guys of virology.
I think that Howard Teman is one of the good guys of virology that probably opposed some of the things that were going on here.
Maybe even in the private meetings was opposed to some of the lies that they agreed to tell.
That's what I think and that's what Mark has led me to sort of think in my head.
Teman and I independently discovered that RNA tumor virus particles contain reverse transcriptase.
You see what that means right?
If a tumor virus can release reverse transcriptase or sorry an RNA tumor virus particles.
I mean that tumor a tumor virus.
A tumor virus is an exosome.
An exosome containing reverse transcriptase means that we have listened carefully.
That means that we have inside of ourselves whether they're cancerous or not.
We have the machinery to send an exosome with reverse transcriptase in it.
That almost certainly means that our immune system could do it that any system could do it in theory.
It doesn't have to be that they're spraying them out all the time.
But it means that potential is there endogenously and we're ignoring it.
Associating it only with cancer.
Don't you see the brilliance of it?
Associating it only with these pathogenic signals but pathogenic cancer doesn't come from the outside.
It signals that are based on our own machinery and our own signaling mechanisms and so holy shit here it is.
He found it.
Howard Teman and David Baltimore found that we can signal with exosomes.
The signal they found was in cancer cells maybe because cancer cells are louder than they're supposed to be.
Maybe because cancer signaling is pathogenic and it's out of control so it's allowed enough signal for us to have detected.
Maybe the natural state, the endogenous state of exosomal signaling is so faint that it's a lot like the signals of the immune system
that we took 25 years to identify like all the cytokines and chemokines.
Ladies and gentlemen we're making a giant progress here today.
A giant leap forward as we understand that there's actual evidence in the scientific literature that we would use exosomes
that are actually genetic signals that are capable of self amplifying in their target.
And if we have that machinery and it's observable in cancer then we have that machinery and it's observable most likely in the healthy state.
And they know it.
It might be more difficult to observe.
But it's there.
And it's a part of the system that they want us to believe is only DNA to RNA to protein one direction.
That's the way it goes and the viruses they mess around with all these other things.
The viruses have all these special enzymes.
The cancer viruses have the special enzyme.
That means we have it.
Don't you see that means we have it.
I love it.
I mean it was there in our head all along we knew all of these facts were real but we hadn't assembled them in such a way that they became this clear picture of the obfuscation of the irreducible complexity of the sacred biology that is
Welcome to the real show ladies and gentlemen welcome to get your own biological we just found our stride today.
Our temin in the 1960s had speculated that RNA that the RNA tumor viruses the viruses that have RNA as their genetic material but cause cancer might actually copy their RNA to DNA.
But nobody could find clear evidence that that was true.
And so in 1970 when we said let's look in the virus article.
We found the enzyme that copies RNA into DNA was actually for me because I was at a background in that kind of experimentation a very simple experiment took a matter of days to discover it.
And so we got to wonder if somebody didn't tip him off if it took a matter of days because it took Temin a lot longer.
It was almost kind of like David Baltimore kind of scooped him.
But not really and so they kind of gave it to both men but really who are we talking to now who did we listen to now who had the influence over the field.
It wasn't Howard Temin.
It's nice that he gives him a hat tip here but I think it's a disingenuous one.
In 1975 Howard Temin and I along with Renata Delbeco who worked on DNA viruses were honored with the Nobel Prize because the work that the three of us had done really set the stage for understanding the genetic nature of cancer.
And that was a big deal scientifically.
It's right there on the screen.
If tumor viruses have reverse transcriptase in them and that means that our exosomes can have it.
I mean that it's right there on the screen.
They have told us that this machinery is not ours when it's ours.
It's that simple.
They have told us this machinery is not ours.
It's pathogenic.
It's obligate pathogens in the wild.
It's not.
It's our bodies.
It's communicating within our bodies and outside of our bodies.
And most likely this is the reason why some people are absolutely delicious to kiss and other people are like you.
It's probably why even being close to some people is kind of you know other people it's like wow I can't get enough.
It's not some eerie it is not some mystical thing.
It's it's biology.
It's an irreducible complexity of our connectivity and how we are connected and how our bodies interact with one another.
And they want you to believe it's just DNA RNA protein and then everything else is outside of you out there in the mud puddles.
It's brilliant.
It's really brilliant.
And I think really more than anybody else.
I have Mark Coolak to thank for this because it was really bouncing ideas off of him for the last four years that has helped me get to the stage where I can articulate it this well.
And I don't know if I'm articulating as well as I think I am, but I really think for me this has started to become super clear that this does not have to be the way they say it is for all of so many of these observations.
These observations to be real observations misconstrued real measurements misconstrued and real experiments used to mislead and that we are very, very close to be right back where we should be with the utmost reverence for what is our biology.
It's fantastic.
It has to be a big deal in our treatment of cancer.
It's nostalgic for me to remember back to the circumstances of doing those experiments because I was thinking about this diagram and realized that the tumor inducing viruses didn't fit into it.
And it's got a hold of a stock of those viruses to test whether they might have a polymerase.
And, as I said, in a few days found what we were looking for.
We found reverse transcriptase in our own cells in human cells and human cancer cells but that's how he found it.
And all you have to think of is that in a cancer cell perhaps the signal is louder.
Perhaps the signal is more uniform.
Imagine a scenario where the average cell is signaling very little and it's signaling with lots of different variable signals.
So you don't isolate one, you can't isolate one, it's all variable.
But when you have a cancer cell now one signal is really hot all the time and so now we can see it.
And in seeing it we found this central player reverse transcriptase but it came from our cells it's not from outside.
So why should we believe that RNA dependent RNA polymerase is only outside of us?
Why should we believe that any of these viral proteins are only outside of us?
I just think this is really great.
I think we're really at the place where we need to be now.
Cryptase is an enzyme now that's understood in great detail.
You can see how the DNA or RNA are threaded through the polymerase from its structure.
So let me say a few words from its structure.
I mean what do we have from its structure?
It's incredible these kind of cartoons and then see we know we understand.
There's the thumb don't you see the RNase H we understand this stuff.
And to a certain extent I think they do but that's all they get.
They're trying to understand the machinery of life.
And so they have taken the machinery of life and put almost all of it outside of your own body outside of your own cells told you it's obligate pathogen.
So we have all the excuse in the world to study it.
Knowing all along they're never going to figure out how DNA works or how the tertiary structure of RNA is expressed in the tertiary structure of a protein.
And the only hope they have is for us to believe that all of this stuff is outside of us and all of this stuff is despite us so that we can study it without excuses you know without the ethical quandary.
Studying ourselves the way that they want to without any moral restrictions they want your children.
That's what this is I think that's what this really is it's 1220 I think is a good place to end and I'll pick it up right here.
If we do another part I think we'll do another part it's only a little bit I'd want to see what's at the end maybe more will come out of it.
I hope you're really seeing where I'm going with this because I really do think it's a real this is one of the best the best reiterations of trying to articulate what I'm what I'm getting at here.
And what I think GIGO and biological is going to be getting at over the coming weeks and months why we have something to offer all of you and a lot more in the months going forward because really
it is required for us to break free and to exercise informed consent for us to exercise non compliance we have to have it we have to understand and we have to exercise the informed consent of saying no.
And if we're going to do that then we need to understand how it is that our our irreducible complexity that is us and mother nature has been simplified to the point of dumbing it down
and making an abomination of it.
Putting a lot of this magical stuff all these polymerases that he does not dare name outside of us so that the endogenous signals that they know are endogenous he just told you the tumor viruses are where they found reverse transcriptase.
The most important of the polymerases according to the Nobel prize committee.
And yet for purposes of transfection for purposes of transhumanist technologies like transformation of course moving sideways and parallel to this canonical DNA to RNA to protein is actually part of the toolbox that they have.
The very limited toolbox that they have that he calls molecular biology is composed of these polymerases.
It's what allows them to move between these very small islands of limited understanding that they do have.
And they have misconstrued this as virology so that they can keep an absolute monopoly on its understanding.
And so that they can weaponize it against us that they can mislead our children and enslave them under this idea.
I think that's why they really hate it every time I say intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection and healthy humans is criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic.
Don't forget actually RNA is not a pattern integrity is also a great way to say it viruses are patterned integrity.
We are now really realizing that that the stories right there is right there and it's been right there all along and it's because people have agreed to lie and agree to work together to confuse us and to mislead us that we haven't come to this
true sooner but the Internet can help us here.
You can spread this stream and share it with people and we can do it again and again and again because that's what needs to happen.
So we're going to keep finding examples.
We're going to keep doing study halls and May is a new month and you should expect new and better things from biological in the month of May because things are getting kind of hairy.
And we need more subscribers and so that means I've got to work harder I guess otherwise this train is going to come to a very screeching halt.
Ladies and gentlemen we do have a hypothesis I think they murdered people and lied about it.
Thanks for joining me and I'll see you again soon.
Thanks for joining me and I'll see you in the next video.
Bye.
Expediting the end is murder.
I'm sorry but it's murder.
Expediting the end is murder.
They did that to my father-in-law.
They did that to my sister-in-law.
Expediting the end is murder.
Especially when you lie about it.
I love you all very much.
Thank you and I'll see you soon.