You
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, that's not the way life is.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, 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, you know.
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 like really important.
Not to be a liar.
I'm not sure exactly who he is.
His name is J.J.
Cooey.
And I believe he's a consultant for CHD.
And I believe he has a PhD in some sort of science.
And I believe he has a PhD in some sort of scientific discipline from what I understand.
Your favorite time of day.
Wow, that almost...
Wow, that works me up, man.
Thanks a lot for saying that.
I guess that means I better be here everyday than...
Holy cow.
Thanks for the compliment, dude.
Well, here we are again.
Ladies and gentlemen, the button has been pushed.
And we're going to push back on the enchantment a little bit more today.
It's everyday that we can online trying to pull one scale off to lift one veil.
To keep looking in our telescope everyday.
And make sure that we tend the garden that is our attention, our conscious minds.
We have to tend them like gardens because otherwise other people will plant their weeds there.
And so this stream is really about tending your mind garden, at least helping me tend
my own mind garden and sharing that with you.
And so welcome to the show, ladies and gentlemen.
This is Giga Home Biological.
And at Giga Home Biological, we don't bother trying to attribute bad motives to those who disagree with us.
We just try to point out that their stories are contradicting.
Their stories don't match up.
Their claims of what they were thinking versus what they were doing don't match up.
And it's especially true for some of these people in 2020 and 2021.
They would really like you to forget about anything really significant happening in 2020.
Never mind that there were nearly nine months.
There were nearly nine months in 2020 that lots of people were speaking out.
Lots of people were saying stop.
Lots of people were saying get off this train.
But ladies and gentlemen, it wasn't Steve Kirsch.
It wasn't Robert Malone.
It wasn't Brett Weinstein.
Wasn't Jordan Peterson.
And the list is very long. It wasn't Alex Berenson. It wasn't Joe Rogan.
Wasn't Pierre Corey.
I'm not even sure it was Peter McCullough because we were all many of us were buying into the idea that something was happening because of an highly orchestrated illusion of consensus.
Way deeper and way more involved than any of us ever imagined in 2020 was possible.
And I think many of us are still unable to imagine it because of whatever reason we are choosing not to see.
And over the next few weeks, I think boy, oh boy, ladies and gentlemen, people have just been tripping over themselves to try and edify the falsehoods
upon which their existence is based, the falsehoods upon which their current status and comfort is based.
And they keep struggling to edify these positions with falsehoods and mythology based around, interestingly enough, what they didn't do in 2020 and what they didn't do in 2021.
What they didn't say in 2020 and what they didn't say in 2021.
But these people will never stop lying. They're never going to do that.
They're never going to stop lying.
They won't.
And so it's not going to be a matter of having everybody confess.
That's not what's going to happen.
We have to stop paying attention to the people who have lied to us. We have to stop paying attention to the people who fumbled the ball and brought us here.
And we have to realize that those people may have fumbled the ball on purpose.
They may have been put there to make it appear as though there was no conclusion to come to in 2020.
There was no conclusion to come to in 2021.
Just like Brett Weinstein, Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone in June of 2021 didn't have definitive answers.
Didn't have a definitive position and hadn't had a definitive track record of acting on behalf of our grandchildren.
Rather, they had a very conflicted interest in terms of making money off of the pandemic.
Brett Weinstein with views and YouTube payouts.
Robert Malone with repurposing drugs and finding patentable combinations and consulting with people about how to maneuver through the emergency use authorization process.
And Steve Kirsch raising money and funding some of these repurposed combinations of drugs.
They weren't working to save our grandchildren until our grandchildren were already kind of lost because our grandparents had already been thrown off the bus.
Adults had already been coerced into accepting it.
And they were not clear in June of 2021 about what it was that we should avoid and what it was that we had made a mistake on and what was the people exaggerated on. In fact, they questioned almost nothing.
And what they did question was so ineffective and gray.
That you could excuse anyone from coming out of that three hour discussion with very little if anything other than maybe if we force drug people for 60 days with silicoxib and ivermectin we could get rid of COVID completely, and that zero COVID was still in attainable goal.
I'm not attributing bad motives to those people who disagree with me. I'm attributing ulterior motives.
I'm saying that they are motivated by something else other than the freedom and sovereignty over our children and grandchildren of our own lives.
These people are playing for one or more weaponized piles of money that is helping to orchestrate the dissolution of the world order that is based around national governments and national sovereignty and organized around the rights of an individual citizen being paramount.
And those weaponized piles of money are now organized under and around after having exercised the power of fractional reserve banking for several generations.
They are prepared to finally dismantle this national sovereignty system, this system of nations and national governments.
And you don't just do that by pulling the plug and spraying clean the parking lot.
This has to be orchestrated over what is going to practically be a generation as we transition into our late 50s. That's me. I'm 52.
And my children become young adults. The transition will be occurring. The transition is already started. Maybe it started in 2000 or 2008.
I don't know. I'm not an economist. I just know for sure that fractional reserve banking where you give a small group of people the power to create money and charge interest on it. You're going to have bad shit happen.
And in the last 10 to 15 years, although I'm not an economist, I do know that now banks are able to loan themselves money and then buy from each other.
And so we have this tremendous cluster of financial instruments that have been purchased and traded by other. And so we're our entire system is standing on what is essentially a card house.
And slowly but surely these people who have put our system in such a way so as to be so vulnerable to collapse are carefully removing all of the.
The fake wealth that they have in using it to buy commodities and real assets for the actual card house collapses. And that's probably what's been going on for the last five or 10 years already.
Since the inversion from the free money times of zero mortgage when I could have bought my house at the beginning of the pandemic, but I couldn't.
And then when I was finally ready to be able to buy the house, the pandemic started. And then I lost my job. And then I got meddled with for four years. And here we are.
And this has happened to thousands, hundreds of thousands of people in America that should by now probably have done enough hard work and saved enough money to own a house but not in this system.
Not in this market.
And before the pandemic.
I don't know what to tell you.
But we didn't see it coming most people didn't see it coming but I assure you ladies and gentlemen and then I'm going to go on with the show.
I assure you ladies and gentlemen that it was possible to see it coming in that other people saw it coming years ago and it's not because they're clever or because they wrote books or because they read books it's because they know people.
Because they were in meetings that you weren't in they got phone calls that you didn't get emails that you didn't get and they have been inside of these circles for decades if not generations.
Inside of the circles where some members of that circle have the ability to create money out of thin air and use it.
And you don't have that power we have to go through all kinds of hoops in order to just get a loan of some money that great deal of interest imagine if you could create money out of thin air and give it to your friends or your connected partners with no interest.
Imagine if you could create that money out of thin air and give it to your partners call a government subsidy.
Imagine that you use college kids for example to give all that free printed government money to universities by having naive kids that were told that that was the way to go forward to carry it in their doors.
All grants and other grants all created by fractional reserve banking written into books created out of thin air and then put on to the backs of the citizens.
It's slavers and slaves.
And until we start to teach our children that we need to get out of slavery that we are still in that we have been in for generations slavery to fractional reserve banking.
It is hard to underestimate the power that one would have if you could write money in a book and then loan it to people in charge interest and have the force of the national government behind you.
But that's the system in which we live.
All of our mortgages were pulled out of thin air we didn't borrow money from somebody who had it.
And what you need to see is that the scientific paradigm the mythology in which we are currently trapped was only possible because of this system of fractional reserve banking where millions of dollars in grant loans can be created.
Grant funds can be created and given to universities and it becomes real money.
It's a tremendous power and influence that we have left run unchecked and it has resulted in our enslavement. That's how you need to see it. That's why I think Ed Griffin's work has been so important and why I'm so pleased that I'm going to get to meet him in June.
Because understanding that very easy could teach it to fourth graders and and the illusion would be broken but they think about how long you went through to college and no one ever taught you about fractional reserve banking.
They taught you all kinds of stuff I'm sure.
But nobody ever just said that you know money's fake.
Right you know that right.
Land isn't fake gold's not fake commodities aren't fake.
You know stuff.
Crops oil trucks buildings.
But money if it can be written in a book by by a certain number of people and then it becomes real then money is not real.
And that's the reality of fractional reserve banking. That's the reality of all this argument about whether the government's going to shut down or not. This is not an illusion.
This is a charade.
And that's where this illusion of consensus comes from. It's it's a charade. The illusion of consensus is a charade.
They've all agreed to play a charade and that's also the reason why and please understand this before we start the main show.
That's also the reason why whistleblowers are extremely hard to come by.
Because the charade hides the fact that none of us have any real well the real well.
These people they don't they don't report it in Forbes. That's not the real well.
That's not the real owners. The real slavers.
And I don't know who all of them are. I don't want to know who all of them are. I don't need to know who all of them are.
I just know that they are in a engaged in a coordinated theater theater of lies.
And that coordinated theater of lies right now has become extremely visible because of the bright lights of a pandemic and the bright lights of a failed aggressive maneuver.
And I will call it a failed aggressive maneuver because we now have several of who they thought were going to be sort of main alternative voices being lambasted.
They're making fools of themselves. I'm just saving videos and cutting clips laughing to myself all evening long now.
And not sure where to begin with regard to documenting the absolute contradictions.
It's like these people have forgotten that they went on video in 2020 and 2021 and 2011 and 2018 and 2019.
And it's like, oh my gosh, how can you, how can you make such a silly statement when there's so much internet record of you people?
And yet they're doing it.
People will make statements like, you know, I've got a consistent record over the last four years.
Oh, sorry. No, you don't.
Actually, your consistent record is only about a year and a half long.
And before that you have a very, very, very, very different record. A lot of these people do.
Ladies and gentlemen, once you realize that we could have been where we are right now in May or June or July of 2020 and that you realize that the same people have been involved in making sure we didn't get here until now.
You will start to really start to see through the illusion.
And there's evidence all over the internet for who was there then and who's there now and what they said then and what they said now and how long it's taken them to get there and who they've been listening to Brett Weinstein, for example, has had me whispering in his ear since 2021.
And he still can't use the word transfection still can't really talk about infectious clones as being the standard methodology used in RNA virology for the last 10 years and actually enables the possibility of a fake pandemic, even though I explained it to him in 2021.
And I suspect it's because of this thing behind me here.
It's because they're all not in service of some, you know, I believe in transhumanism. I believe in in futurism. No, they believe in the system of fractional reserve banking.
And that some of these people I have total control over the world. And so it's better to work for the bosses.
It's a bit like when you decide to work for one of the heads of the drug cartels in Mexico because well they control the government anyway they run the police anyway I guess it's better to work for the bosses.
And cartel is a good word to learn cartel is a good kind of phenomenon to start to understand because that's what we're talking about here.
It's taken me a long time to get to the point where I'm confident enough to say this, but I really believe at this stage that that's the best way to think about it. These people are working for a cartel of weaponized piles of money.
The intellectual dark web is funded by them. Most of what you see on the Internet that rises is funded by them.
And directly or indirectly all of the messages that are seen by most people are funded by them. And it's many, many stages. You have to think of it as many, many stages. It's like Lala Palooza.
If you don't like Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch on the Christian rock stage over here, then you can have Tony Fauci and Peter Hotez on the We Hate God stage over here, or you can have somebody else over here on the University of Austin.
And it's all the same.
It's all asking the wrong questions, pointing the cameras in the wrong directions and thinking about the wrong problems. And never once none of these people will just start out with the fact that one good way to rule people is with coordinated lying.
And it's not just coordinated lying about a pandemic, ladies and gentlemen, it's been going on much longer than that. Nancy Pelosi has probably been lying about her knowledge of fractional reserve banking and how the US government and and foreign governments are controlled by it for most of the last decade.
I don't think she's known it for her whole career, but one way to explain her 30 year career is to explain that she has been part of their ruling cartel, the cartel that really rules the world is part of this monetary system.
And because the monetary system is paramount, then you can think of the COVID sort of pandemic theater as being orchestrated by them as well. It doesn't have to be, you know, the end plan. It's just part of the plan. They've been orchestrating a theater using fractional reserve banking for several generations.
Now, and this is just the, the sort of penultimate manifestation of it. And I say penultimate and I use it in the correct way because there's a next one yet. And the next one is probably the last one.
I hope some people will start seeing soon. I really do. I do.
So let's take the power back from these charlatans. Music is loud to voice. Yes, it is. Sorry.
Let's take the power back from these charlatans and it's one day at a time. It's learning one day at a time and not wasting all 30,000 thoughts that you have available to put some of those toward making gentle the life of the world around you, the life of those you love.
It is worth putting energy into those that you love, tending that garden of people around you. Please do that.
And help them to stay focused on the biology, help them to not take the bait on social media, help them to understand why RNA cannot pandemic and you'll be doing the thing that this guy in the red shorts is doing for those that you love.
Because if you have been with us for a while, you might be here at the top of the wave. And if not, and you're joining us for the first time, I didn't push go on YouTube. Did I damage?
Maybe refresh this and see if it'll let me go live now. It's not working. Excellent connection, but it won't let me go live this mess.
Oh, there it goes. I guess we're going to go live now. Let's see what happens. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Giga Home Biological, a high resistance low noise information green brought to you by a biologist.
You are here if you've been here for a while. And if not, we're going to help you stay focused on the biology. Don't take the bait on social media and love your neighbor. That's the idea.
The way this works, unfortunately, is because a few people have decided to give me money every month.
I am not a serial entrepreneur that invented the optical mouse. I am a humble recovering academy edition.
I was trying to get on the tenure track at a university for about 15 years and stutter stepped my way through the academy until they threw me out at the beginning of the pandemic and now I am recovering.
My recovery from being an academy edition has been greatly accelerated by a guy by the name of Greg Glassman.
And thanks for that YouTube update. Greg Glassman and Emily Kaplan of the Broken Science Initiative.
This month we're going to start working on some of those themes as well.
And we're going to start looking at Matt Briggs and his small collection of tutorials on understanding Bayesian probability, understanding why preparing falsification of null hypotheses is silly.
Illusion is sustained only through your active participation. What that means is you've got to put your phone down, you've got to get off of social media, GAB, Telegram, Twitter, Facebook.
All of this stuff is nonsense. You've got to start choosing people to listen to people that are doing the work that's required and trying to give you something of value in return.
You've got to stop tuning into these things that are funded by coffee and energy drinks and people that are selling square space or this kind of thing.
You just got to get off of all of these. These are fake sources of information. That's what they are.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Giga Home Biological.
Good morning. Good evening, good afternoon, good night, wherever you are.
This is 1044 in the morning in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I'm coming to you live from my garage. This is Giga Home Biological. It's May 6th, 2024.
We have another high resistance low noise information brief for you this morning.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent in thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of academic biologists and doctors around the United States and the world should have known better because they should have known the definition of the word and they should have known enough about the immune system in order to object to using it on healthy humans.
But they didn't and they owe you and all of the young people in the world in apology. You can find my apology at GigaOMbiological.com slash Scooby and RNA cannot pandemic as a way of provoking your supposedly biologically savvy friends and family members to start thinking again
about what really happened and what couldn't have happened. If you haven't joined us before or you haven't been here in a while, our hypothesis hasn't changed in a while.
The who declared a pandemic of a particularly novel virus, but it wasn't novel. We don't even know if there was a circulating pathogen because there isn't really any epidemiological evidence for that.
However, there is a great deal, a mountain of evidence that supports the idea of a series of bad ideas and really bad incentives enforcing those bad ideas was used in a national security sort of way to convince the world that a pandemic did indeed occur.
All of this illusion was of course non specific PCR tests, but also legal and financial incentives that made it very hard for people not to go along with the narrative.
It is possible that an RNA infectious clone was used in order to see the molecular data which has been misconstrued as a pandemic.
Since one or 100 RNA molecules in a mud puddle, no matter what they have as far as fear and cleavage sites or other magic inserts, that sequence could not by itself like a pattern integrity cover the world in a in a matter of months.
Never mind in a matter of several different variants and whatever that they've said has happened up until now.
And the reason why they've told us this elaborate story and, and insist on this illusion of consensus about it is because we are in the midst of a very slow role of our sovereignty and our, our, our, the very very way that we think about
our freedom is being changed and fundamentally we are going to be have our system reorganized from a national sovereignty and citizens oriented thing to a more global collective thing where citizens need permission to exist.
Early, but I want is high morbidity. The way that this was done. So what do I do? I go to Des Moines. Ladies and gentlemen, people on the screen. I have nothing against Des Moines. I live there for four years. I go to Des Moines. I infect a couple of Sentinel cases in Des Moines.
I go to Seattle. I infect a couple of cases there. I go to North Carolina. I go to Wisconsin. What I'm doing is I'm using a dispersion methodology to be able to infect Sentinel cases with a highly morbid condition.
These individuals complain. Again, this is a central nervous system condition. So they're complaining of whatever the bug may do. It'll produce some cascade of neurological and neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms. And then what I do, the real bug that I use is the Internet.
I take attribution for that. Yes, I'm a terrorist group. And I have done this by infecting with a highly little agent and the first signs and symptoms of lethality are X, Y and Z. These people are really sick with this.
But then I say others who are also infected will show subdramal, pre-dramal signs of lethality and what that will be is anxiety, sleeplessness, agitation.
What I've now done is I've got every individual who is diagnostically hypochondriacal.
Now, the thing that I've been trying to explain on the on the on the on the stream for the last couple years now.
And it is a couple years now that I've gotten almost to the finish line on this. And I think over the last three or four months, we've just been rocking.
And over the last few weeks, working on prions and amyloidosis and following up on the very basic biology of what we know and don't know about these phenomenon has revealed something about this big picture, which is really shocking.
And that is that when Dr. G or Donald says, the real bug that I use is the internet. He's not specific enough. But I think over the last couple weeks after circling a lot of these things for a long time.
Epi girl, the phenomenon of epi girl inside of the spars pandemic document is the phenomenon that you see here on the screen.
The idea is when you use the internet, you're not spreading rumors.
You're not sending out emails that other people share with other people. Oh, look, there's a leak. Oh, look, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's much more complicated than that fifth generation warfare is spreading liars.
And so as I said in the beginning, if you don't like the Christian nationalist stage with Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone to longtime Democratic National Committee, you know, Democrats, blue, blue, blue, blue, are pretending now to be red.
You don't like that on that stage. You can go over here and you can watch.
I don't know.
I don't know who else I don't want to make up any names and, and, and.
But you see what I'm saying, you can watch. I can look on there. You can watch no virus people.
And you can find Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan talking about, I don't know what, electromagnetics and, and, and how public health is a sham or something like that. Maybe, maybe they say that, that vaccines are bad. I don't know.
But because that stage of Lollapalooza is asking some really bad questions to, because this stage of Lollapalooza is asking, making some obviously stupid assumptions.
And because those people over there are still basically along with the idea of a novel virus and a virus that can be created in a laboratory and go around the world and the idea that it could be asymptomatic to maybe it's only certain races that it's asymptomatic for.
That's how you can see that actually the people in the middle here, Michael Yeden and Sukhid Bhakti and Nick Hudson and Wolfgang Lodak and myself.
We've been completely silenced because we don't buy into any of these major stage narratives of there is no virus and there is no ion channels.
And there are no, you know, the heart isn't a pump or something like that. I heard somebody said, read somebody said in the chat.
And we don't go along with some of these more worst case scenario type narratives where a billion people could die next time if there's two fear and cleavage sites.
And yet the narrative that's being amplified on YouTube right now, the number of videos that you can find of supposedly censored Robert Malone, it's absurd.
And so the only conclusion I can come to is is that we have progressed far enough now where some of these people are on stage now and they're not pretending not to be on stage.
Now they're angry because people that aren't on stage are saying that they're not part of the show.
That they're not a legitimate part of the show, but they are.
They are a very legitimate part of the show. They have always been a very legitimate part of the show.
That's the point.
When they identify or they say that, Oh, I'm being accused of being a controlled up. No, it's not a controlled operation.
The whole thing is a controlled operation. There are only a few people who are not a part of the controlled operation. I'm not saying that Robert Malone is a controlled up.
I'm saying Robert Malone is part of a controlled up. The same controlled up that Sasha or La Topova is involved in.
And in fact, I think that that's what is going to save our children right now because they are overextending past their skis.
They are tumbling down the hill right now, still claiming to be world class skiers.
And all we need to do is compare their words. They're on stage. There's video of it.
And so if what they're saying now doesn't jive with what they said then what they're claiming they did back then is not what they actually did back then.
They can come to know other conclusion that they're part of this controlled operation.
And I really don't like to be where I am right now where I have to constantly remind everybody that, Hey, don't forget that I've seen these aliens in person, but I have.
The reason why I feel called to do this because not many people have this much evidence from real life to edify their courage.
Some people have been a lot more courageous having had no physical and personal contact with any of these people having not been meddled with over four years like I've been meddled with.
And I'm feeling as now resulted in me having such a conviction about the alignment of these people such a conviction about who they must who must be motivating them that I feel it's okay to put my whole family's future on the line.
I'm not afraid.
Because it is actually as Mark Twain said it's very easy when you only tell the truth you don't have to remember anything and the things that you forget you can just read again.
Or you can rewatch the video.
And that's the advantage we have we don't have to remember what we said in 2020 like Robert Malone does.
We don't have to remember what they wrote in that article about Jesse Gelsinger because Robert Malone does. We can just read it again.
The ones who are standing on stories we're not the ones who have edified our existence based on a mythology that reinforces all these other mythologies we're not part of the Lala Palooza.
We are part of the people that are complaining that we did not this this show is not what we know.
No.
And it's this show this whole show.
I think of it as anything else other than a show and very very few people in this show were actually doing what we thought they were which was I guess fighting for our grandkids no no no no no.
This is an active governance play.
This is the public facing theater group of a weaponized money cartel.
I'm going to watch Nick Hudson on Russell brand in 2024 this was this week.
It's a pretty good interview it's going to allow me to relax a little bit and reorient.
I'm going to take some notes and see what Nick said.
And there's a few things of course that Nick says really well and I hope he gets a right on on Russell's show.
I'm going to it up to the point where he talked about New York and as it mentioned Jessica Hockett.
And I was really pleased with what I heard.
And then I moved on so I hope that this is also useful for you to see.
I think I have it queued up here.
You're going to the wrong screen though you boned.
That's right.
Here.
What's happening?
I think I might have to start that over.
I unplugged a monitor and so it's getting a little mad.
But I think it'll be fine now.
Or not.
What's happening here?
Open.
A little grinding going on.
We'll see what's happening here.
I might have to do a little control while stuff here.
Ask manager.
Don't crash on me man.
Where are you?
What's happening?
Background processes.
What's happening?
Where are you not running?
There it is.
And task.
There we go.
That should probably help me.
Will that work now?
Yes.
Okay.
So I'm going to probably set it up to go a little faster because it's always better that way.
Maybe 1.3.
Thanks very much for joining me guys.
Thank you very much.
Let's go right away to the beginning of this.
This video is going to seem...
And how that in itself was utilized.
The propaganda is an entire planet into terror.
Nick Hudson is such a man.
He has a unique insight into the way that the media, the state and the pharmaceutical industry of course
benefited from presenting information in a particular way.
But I've got so many questions.
Like what about people that were on the ground?
What about the good, honest, key workers and health professionals that were on the ground experiencing the pandemics
and the intensive care units for the people on ventilators in dread?
What about those people that are reporting how various medications and lockdown measures saved their lives?
Well, there's so much to cover and we'll be covering it all.
Of course, we can't cover it on YouTube because I'm curious enough to kind of censorship that became normalized during the pandemic period
and is increasingly being used to shut down dissent on a variety of topics, whether it's war, whether it's pandemic, whether it's climate change.
Oh, you name it.
There's censorship on it.
Indeed, what we are experiencing now is a war against dissent and we have to win that war through dissent.
So even by participating in this conversation right now, you are participating in the revolution, but why not dig a little deeper?
Why not become an awakened one to join our community every single week?
We do an exclusive video.
This week's one is a beautiful dive into fluoride and if he's a conspiracy, very old conspiracy fact, you get to join us live for conversation
and put your content in and I'm going to end the YouTube stream right now just to kind of consolidate everybody,
but I do like putting the YouTube thing up and I'm going to keep doing it.
And so, you know, because we can rope new people in from YouTube.
So if you're at YouTube, there's lots of places you can go.
You can go to rumble.
You can go to peer to where you can go to Twitch.
I'm sorry, but YouTube is, yeah, it's definitely not the place where we want you to spend your time.
So thanks for coming and I'll see you.
Nick, thank you so much for joining us today.
Real pleasure to be here and hello to your community.
Thank you very much.
We have become a community through necessity in adversity and granted the incredible opportunity of this new movement
somewhat as a result of what we learned from the pandemic period from what I understand about your work
and why I understand about the organizations that you participate in and lead.
The pandemic period has been a significant time of awakening for you.
Can you please explain to our audience precisely how your purview of the world altered during the pandemic period
and what were the most sort of notable stations of the cross as it were?
Oh, why would you say that?
I'd say that moment of shock awakening was...
Ah, did you hear that?
What were the stations of the cross?
I don't know if you're not a Catholic.
I don't know if that's even a thing in Protestants or another...
I'm a Catholic, so at least I was raised Catholic.
So I understand the reference as a Catholic reference to the stations of the cross, which is...
It's just a...
I don't think Nick appreciates that either necessarily.
Maybe he's not even a believer or anything like that, so it doesn't bother him.
But I find that just a weird...
I mean, would you say that about someone else make another religious thing like that?
Would you make that about Muhammad?
You know what I mean? You wouldn't do that.
So why would you do it about Christ?
I don't understand that other than I think there's some game being played there by Russell.
That's what bothers me about Russell.
If you want to know, he's done some kind of thing where he says a rosary on Rumble as part of his local thing or something.
I don't know.
I don't know much, but I do know that...
The public display of faith is not something that...
It doesn't seem like, anyway, the stuff that I've read, that that's something that Jesus Christ was big on.
He wanted you to have a personal relationship with God the Father, and I think he wanted you to do it in private.
And so a lot of modern American Christianity, especially in these big mega churches that I have personal experience with,
also feel to me like something gone awry.
And so it is with great trepidation that I ever bring up faith on this show,
because I don't want people to be confused by the fact that...
Well, I don't want people to be confused.
And think about that as a serious issue with regard to talking about the mythology that these pseudobiologists have created over the last 30 years.
And I think as far as rescuing our children goes, the more that we can keep that as objective as possible
so that, again, we don't burn down the Library of Alexandria because there are a few shitty books in it.
And instead, we empower our children to go into that library and clean it out.
And in so doing, I think we have to empower our children with some sense of spirituality
that I don't necessarily think that for all people, and in all situations,
that means we first all have to convert to Christianity, and I don't consider myself that person.
I consider... I feel as though it is my... using my faculties the best if I try to be the tutor,
the biology tutor that gets people to understand that there is a great deal that we don't understand
and that that's the most beautiful part of biology.
And when you start to see that for what it is, it starts to become impossible not to appreciate it as evidence of creation
and evidence of the divine, and it is spiritual energy that almost compels you to have a reverence for something.
That without it, I think humans are unmoored.
I think kids are unmoored if they don't have a reverence for the world that they're in.
And so if you don't show people the beauty that surrounds them and they aren't able to see it,
then they won't be waking up in the morning every day with a reverence for what's around them.
And I, for whatever reason, mostly I think because of my grandmother, I really think that very early on
I was instilled with this idea that when I looked outside, I saw beauty.
I saw fascinating things.
I saw an immense amount of complexity of which I was a integral part of it.
And so I do really think it's important that when that thing happens, especially with Gressel Brand, that I say something,
but I also want to be very clear that this stream is one guy.
And I'm not going to lie about who I am.
I'm not going to try and disguise who I am.
I'm a little kid in a 52 year old man's body with children.
I definitely, that are way better than the amount of time and energy that I put into them
and I'm blessed to have a best friend that has stuck with me from the very beginning.
And occasionally, you're going to hear the Catholic in me, the altar boy in me.
You're going to hear the man that prays in me.
And I hope that that just lends credence to the fact that this is a genuine person and not a sponsored voice,
not a state actor, not a controlled op, but someone who has paid the very heavy price of actually seeing the alien
and actually being lied to and manipulated by the people who I now am trying to point out very clearly
because of my personal experience, because I can say these things and they can't come back after me.
I can tell you what Meryl Nast said to my face and she can't sue me for that.
I can tell you what Robert Malone said to my face and he can't sue me for that.
I can show you what Robert Malone said on a video in 2020 and he can't sue me for that.
And I can show how those videos contradict one another and therefore what he says now in 2024 effectively has to be a lie.
What he said in 2020 was a lie and then that would be that he lied during the worst part of the pandemic.
So either way, it's kind of like, whoa, wait, what?
And so it's just a question of when do we do this? How do we do this? Who's going to do it? When?
Because all the materials there, it's already on my hard drive. It's already in a slide deck.
I just don't know really when is the right time to try and accomplish this because it's a giant thing.
If we now suddenly stand up at Lala Palooza during a break and say all of these bands suck, all of these bands are fake.
All of these bands are just just Juilliard musicians that have decided to play punk rock for the afternoon and they're all getting bank from it.
And they're all lying to you.
And Nick Hudson, I think it's very possible that he is not part of this show.
I think they tried to co-opt him. They invited him or asked him to join them on a cruise off the coast of Turkey in 2022.
And so he spent a week interacting with these people and having a week of personal acting, you know, like people behaving in a way to try and co-opt Nick.
I don't even know if he's even aware of it.
But I'm sure that's what happens at these events because I've been to these events where a lot of these people show up and they have contact with you and they mention the other one
or they whisper about the other one or there's some rumor.
And then it seems like, wow, you're really involved in intrigue and then those people over by the window have put chairs together and they're talking about something serious.
Wow, cool. I wish I was a part of that group.
And so if you invite someone like Nick onto a boat like that and court him with random discussions about wine and interacting with your wife in front of him and telling him personal stories about your kid, then it's very easy at the end of the trip to say, hey, maybe you should join us here and talk about this there and do whatever.
Nick Hudson was at that meeting in Romania.
Nick Hudson was at that meeting with the people in Romania. He's in this picture right here.
Oops, let me just escape and do that again.
Nick Hudson is right there.
But when when Robert Malone and when Meryl Nast and when Jessica Rose and when Harvey Reich and when Brett Weinstein came back from from Romania, they all said, wow, I saw a great presentation.
This Canadian guy and he showed us that maybe 17 million people have been killed by the shots around the world. Wow, impressive.
So you didn't hear the talk by Nick Hudson where he said that there was no pandemic and it's a big lie.
You didn't see the data that Denny Rancor presented that corroborated and edified the conclusions that that Nick Hudson had presented.
Really? Is that possible?
And unfortunately or fortunately I'm in the position to know firsthand that these people have to be liars because I've been talking to them for four years and their stories are weird.
That timeline is weird and only certain members of this story have had very consistent behavior. Mark Coolack has had very consistent behavior.
Actually, if you want to hear crazy, Bobby Kennedy has had pretty consistent behavior with me.
Other people in that circle of CHD have not, but Bobby has.
I'm not saying that I'm going to vote for him for president or I think his stance on anything is necessarily good. I'm just saying that for his interactions with me, I got nothing to say.
He put me very prominently on a list in front of his book and I've been able to use it to some degree, you know, to say, look, I'm somebody, I'm not nobody.
But unfortunately they would like me to be nobody because I'm starting to teach enough biology to people like Nick Hudson where you're going to actually hear it for this whole hour and he's never going to say my name, which is totally fine because he uses my words
and he gets the concepts out there, which is great, but he doesn't say infectious clones are RNA biology because it's not his expertise, but he's very good at saying what he says.
So, wow, I really am still going bananas again here. Sorry, I'm being a dork. Let's start that again.
Right at the beginning.
By qualification, I'm an actually sort of have an easy way around data and was looking for some signs of what this whole COVID story was about and it was very obvious very early on that the risk was being dramatically exaggerated if there was even one at all.
And I could see there was just tons of property and a floating around and those two pieces together with my inability to find many people in my network that I thought was pretty solid, who I could even speak to about this problem.
Those things worked me up to the dawning of a real problem in the world.
And over the next few years, it just went from bad to worse.
Before we continue.
Holy shh.
Do you have trouble sleeping?
My God, that was loud. I'm so sorry, guys.
Oh, man.
I've gone, you know, full the full yard on this whole story.
Our organization doesn't believe that there was a pandemic. The whole thing has been a fake.
That there was a novel pathogen spreading from the point source.
We think that the harms that they were and they were indeed harms were largely caused by the reaction to the reported viral outbreak.
Arms from bad treatment protocols, harms from fear and panic, harms from inappropriate use of medicines, inappropriate testing with PCR, crazy, crazy time.
I mean, I think that Russell Brand is one of these people who has a certain shtick that to the people who like it, it is incredibly attractive and enticing and warm.
I just, I don't have the same feeling and I don't know. I don't want to make comments, you know, that Russell's a good guy or a bad guy.
I just don't, I don't connect with Russell and so a lot of his energy is not coming off the screen for me.
So it's fine, but I do understand why a lot of people do follow him and it's not just because he is artificially elevated on all these platforms,
but it also is because he has an incredible skill as an orator and he's not bad.
I mean, you know, if he was really on our team, he would be a very, very big, a very important ally.
I don't think that he is and I don't think that's a bad thing to say.
I don't think that he's on our team that he just plays for these weaponized piles of money, I'm sure he does.
The minds of approval, et cetera, et cetera.
So we've basically reached the point of the years and years of careful study where we say that the entire pandemic was approved.
That's an extraordinary conclusion to have reached, although when you announced that fear was a component in creating the conditions,
even the legacy media reported, I noted this week, that perhaps one of the reasons there's been a radical increase in cardiac arrest in recent years
might be because of an increase in anger. There are a spate of stories suggesting that might be the cause for extraordinary,
the extraordinary increase in heart conditions that have been observed in the last years.
If I can pick up one of the early points in your last response, the fact that you're an actuary,
I know what that word means, that it means that you have a good understanding of mathematical data.
So what in particular about the mathematical data sets in the early part of the pandemic has led you to what to many people will be the astonishing conclusion
that there was not a pandemic, particularly in the mathematical data?
Well, you know, it was really clear that there was no risk presented to even vaguely healthy people under the age of 70.
So to call a disease that maybe presents a threat to people with many other comorbidities,
and among the elderly people, most of whom are in old age homes or in acid-use hospitals,
to call a disease of that nature a pandemic, that's a fraud, then some months later in 2020.
I mean, be clear, if I was to go on Russell Brand, I would probably, I would have notes at least about the points that I didn't want to forget.
Maybe I wouldn't need notes. I don't know, but I don't think it's bad to have notes.
And if somebody has notes and I'm very good at not having notes, well, then that's just because I've done it every day for so long now that I'm a nutcase.
And maybe Nick has just started.
We began to get the first kind of granular data, so that would be, you know, information at a very detailed geographic location.
And when we looked at that data from the UK, from Italy, from the United States, what we couldn't see was the telltale signs of pathogenic spread.
Those are called cluster and ripple effects.
And we could not detect those in data from anywhere on the planet.
So this whole story that there was a novel daily virus spreading and causing harm amongst the general population that everybody needed to hide under their beds was false.
So interesting then, right to think that this meeting in Romania occurred and that Jessica Rose and Brett Weinstein and Robert Malone and Meryl Nasse and Steven Hatfield and Harvey Reich.
And all these people came back after seeing Denny Rancor's data and Nick Hudson's data, which showed that there's no evidence of spread.
And decided to completely ignore that Nick Hudson was there and to only promote the data from Denny Rancor that showed that there were people killed by the shot, not to promote the data that showed that the death in the United States
was correlated to counties by poverty level and by household income and serious mental illness and obesity had not correlated with spread and whether or not the vaccines were taken up didn't change anything in his analysis.
So all of this data was available to them.
And they, again, remember not only Denny Rancor's data about the potential dangers of the shot and how they've increased all cause mortality, but also how all cause mortality was probably caused by other things other than a spreading novel pathogen.
A lot of these people actually also know who John Bodeman is and John Bodeman also doesn't have evidence from any of the databases that he's looked at to show that there was a novel risk additive spreading pathogen, but none of the people that support John Bodeman seem to be convinced that that's part of a message that needs to get out.
And so at least since November 23, when they finally invited these guys to a meeting, they invited them to a meeting in Bucharest, Romania, and then they didn't invite them as part of a new team.
They invited them as part of a team of people that had already been in Europe several times together.
Jessica Rose, Meryl Nasse, Robert Malone, Brett Weinstein.
And Harvey Reich.
And so the idea that Steve Hatfield is standing in the middle of this picture with that look on his face, that there's Ryan Cole right there. I mean, come on, ladies and gentlemen.
Why do the same four or five Americans show up in all of these foreign countries?
And why is it that those same four or five Americans then step in front of a lot of these people who say that there's no pandemic after they meet them?
And how come we don't see this consistent pattern where the word gets out, but it doesn't really get out? Like, let's invite him.
Let's invite Denny Rancor to Romania instead of Washington, D.C., right? Because Romania is closer or something. What?
Let's invite Nick Hudson to Romania instead of inviting him to the Senate.
And instead, when we go to the Senate, why don't we just have Robert Malone compose the guest list and then we'll bring some people from Romania.
I mean, I'm not some kind of, you know, analyst. I'm a biologist. But I know when people are lying to me.
I know when people are lying to me.
That was that. It's interesting when some of the ideas that emerge, not necessarily contradict each other, but may not complement each other as neatly as I would like.
For example, when people say that, and there's some evidence to suggest that the pan that what was taking place in the Wuhan Institute of Virology was dual purpose research that the EcoHealth Alliance patented a particular pathogen that was likely, at least some evidence to suggest, was related to the outbreak of COVID-19 identifiable by a somewhat unique cleavage site.
When we say that there was not a pan, they're saying, okay, this outbreak of COVID-19 identifiable by a somewhat unique cleavage site.
When we say that there was not a pan.
Did he mention the cleavage site? I mean, imagine that we're still here four years later where today or yesterday on me here.
Hopefully that won't automatically start so that I can just show it.
Darn, it didn't do that. Auto play is off, so if I refresh it, it shouldn't auto play.
Why is it auto playing? But anyway, Emily Kopp was again on Rising, and she's going to talk about how new lab leak details have surfaced, and in 2024, we're still playing Scooby-Doo, and we could have been there already in 2020.
But that wasn't the idea. The idea is to tell a story over many years over which time a series of transitions is going to occur financially and socioeconomically, and you're going to be distracted by these things, this mythology in the background.
It's in the background for them. It's not in the background for us. They put it right in the front, right? That was the idea. But for them, it's in the background. They have other plans that extended far beyond this. This was just an opening party.
Otherwise, how do you explain that we're here in 2024? No one seems to care about what people said and did in 2020 and 2021 anymore.
The only reason why we're there is because people want it that way.
Russell Brand doesn't have someone on or, you know, we don't ever have anybody interview Robert Malone and have him explain what he was doing in 2020 again.
Where were you in 2019, Robert Malone?
What were you doing in 2019 that made it possible for Mike Callahan to call you in 2020 and tell you to spin up your team?
And then you spun up a team of volunteers that got together a computer generated model of an x-ray crystallography measurement of a computer generated model of the x-ray crystallography of a viral protein and then scanned
all known pharmaceuticals in the FDA database for ones that would work.
And you identified Remdesivir, Selococcib, Ivermectin, and Fomotidae with your friend.
I guess David Hone and a few other people. Rick A is one name I guess he worked with. I don't know.
And so there was no stop this. There was no, hey, a long time ago I lost my career because I spoke out about adenovirus as not being a good way of augmenting a sick, genetically deficient human.
And so maybe we shouldn't use adenovirus encoding a viral spike protein on healthy humans in the UK. Did he speak out about that?
But he tells you the story that he lost his whole career based on the idea that he spoke out about Jesse Gelsinger's death three times in a New York Times article making the career of some girl.
But he lost his career and had to start or head up a breast cancer institute in Maryland.
That's the consolation prize for Robert Malone, throwing away his career to speak out about the bioethic, you know, going off protocol of Jesse Gelsinger.
But he didn't have the principles in 2020 or 2020, yes.
To tell people in the UK that maybe it's not such a good idea to use adenovirus with a spike protein that has, you know, we didn't even check if it's got any overlapping sequences or sequences that could be a problem, we just going to do it, that would be nuts.
There was a virologist in Norway who felt it was necessary to speak out like that, but it wasn't Robert Malone.
Robert Malone was working with Ditra to get repurposed drugs out there and combinations of repurposed drugs that could be patentable.
Because that's what he does. He's a consultant on how to make money.
And yet now we're supposed to believe that he's been on a white horse from the very beginning and he just dropped his emu eggs and and and whistled and then and wrote a horse into Washington DC and blew the whistle, but that's not what happened at all.
And that's what's happening now.
Him and Steve Kersch on the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation meetings every Thursday asking for monthly donations.
That's not real.
That's one of the stages in this Lala Palooza.
And even when a guy like like Nick Nick Hudson seems to get on stage in Lala Palooza you will see.
It's not going to go anywhere. It's not going to change the way Russell Brand talks about gated function viruses and talks about lab leaks.
Because no biology will be discussed in this and that's what makes Nick Hudson still kind of a safe guest.
Not a bad guest just a safer guest than me.
And they're saying, OK, this thing was created in a lab. It's a bio weapon.
And you're saying that because there is there was no cluster and ripple effect, which is a sort of a requirement in a pandemic for it to even warrant the use of that term.
Do you see that there's a sort of contradiction there? They're saying it was a man made in a virus.
It's a man made in a lab and you're saying that actually in a sense from the beginning, it should never have been described as a pandemic.
And from the very offset, what we should have been told is there's a path.
There's a pathogen that appears to if you have respiratory conditions or comorbidity.
He's still trying to do it. There's what we should have been told is that there's a pathogen that if you have comorbidities, so he's still defending the virus.
He's still defending the faith, right? That's the same faith. Hear it.
He's may reduce your life expectancy by several months. Do you think that would be a sort of a fair assessment?
That would be a fair assessment if somebody had actually done the homework to check that there was a spreading pathogen.
Certainly the way it was described born, no relationship to reality.
I think it's very good that you're raising a question of what went on in Wuhan because clearly there were people who wanted to do the so-called gain of function research and there were people who wanted to fund them and maybe some money flowed.
Who knows? Maybe they did create new sequences, new biological components.
But at the most what they delivered at the end of their process was really better referred to as claim of function, not gain of function.
Because we can't see any of that function in the real world or to put it another way.
If they did make something that kind of leaked or got out or was released or whatever the case may be, it wasn't a bio weapon.
It was a biopop gun.
I think it is very important to not lose sight of that whole Wuhan story because I think it's part of the presentation to us of an entirely false dichotomy.
The idea that we must choose between the lab leak, bioweapon and the zoonotic event, a bat bumping into a pangolin and a biopop kind of story.
There's no reason for that.
I think it is very important to not lose sight of that whole Wuhan story because I think it's part of the presentation to us of an entirely false dichotomy.
The idea that we must choose between the lab leak, bioweapon and the zoonotic event.
A bat bumping into a pangolin and a biop kind of story.
There's no reason to that we should have to confine ourselves to those two alternatives.
What I believe is more likely is that these PCR tests were dipping into a signal that was already quite widely distributed in the human population.
What was happening was they were finding those cases as the PCR test spread.
That's where the cases spread.
It wasn't the spread of the virus, it was the spread of the test.
But as people began testing positive, they did so in an environment of hysteria and panic and massively reduced status of care in the hospital and nursing home sectors.
Excellent.
It's commonly understood in their circles of this course that you and I presumably.
Now what you see here is that what would be the right follow up question would be, well, what biology would that, how would that work?
And that's where GIGO and biological, I think needs ignoring.
Because we got here already a year ago, we had the explanation maybe even two years ago, but we've been able to really say it very well for about a year now.
Maybe a little longer.
And I think that's why starting the stream every day with the same three statements is really important because he could have just said it right there.
And I think that's why I'm really excited about June in South Dakota.
In habit, although you with more eloquence and understanding than I, that the PCR test itself has been invalidated even by it's going to be an issue.
And I think it's going to be an issue that's going to be an issue that's going to be an issue that's going to be an issue that's going to be an issue that's going to be an issue.
And that's why I'm really excited about June in South Dakota.
In habit, although you with more eloquence and understanding than I, that the PCR test itself has been invalidated even by it's creator.
And who has said it was never designed to be used in the manner that it was deployed during this period and at the rate of, I don't know, amplification, acceleration or magnification rendered its results redundant and ultimately irrelevant.
But beyond the, so you're saying that essentially people started testing for something like if we started testing for freckles tomorrow, we'd say, there's a freckle pandemic people have got freckles everywhere, shut down the shots, put everyone in prison.
I've got a freckle medicine. Take it. Don't you care about your grandmother, your bastards. Take your freckle medicine. You're an enemy of the state.
Are you sure this freckle medicine stops transition? We've not tested it for transmission. Shut up and take your children out of school.
Then you'd get people like me who have asymptomatic freckles, you know, it's perfect.
Yeah, because there are melanoma and stuff and they're probably worth having a good look at.
So, okay, so my point is that, you know, and that's not my point, it's your point. I just started testing for something.
But so you're saying that this, like, and I've heard this idea before, like, you know, when people say that the vaccines were patented ages ago and that people were running test pandemic events, you know, in 2016 or whatever.
There's your conclusion that there was no pandemic aligned with that idea that this is so that the COVID is being in the population for ages, 10 years, 20 years, whatever, and they just started testing for it.
And yeah, and all those other points on me.
Yeah, I mean, if you look at you got to be very sharp here, Nick, the right response here would be that the background is noise.
It's not that there's COVID in the background.
He's Russell Brand is always distracted. He's not really listening to Nick.
So it's a frustrating interview because you can almost tell that he's jumping through a hoop or finishing a job or, or, you know, he had to have Nick on, but he knows that he's not supposed to say, you know, oh, wow, to really anything he's just supposed to let him talk and, and then get it over with.
It's frustrating because Nick should be should be leading him to an awakening a little bit. It should be like Russell, like, wow, you mean I've been fooled this whole time into thinking there was a lab leak.
He just told him something that that should have gone and it did not.
And so I think that's because he already knew what Nick was going to say and he was already prepared with ways to mitigate what he would say.
And prior to 2020, people are very clear that these people who believe in the whole theory of virology, at least, are very clear that they are swarms of these things and they're, they, they curve evolve in a very complex kind of fashion.
So this whole idea that there's a single sequence that raises around the world is false. There's what's called a consensus sequence, which is the perceived average across the whole swarm of these things.
And there's a lot of controversy around whether these things spread in and that's him. That's important. That's not biology that we're really talking about anymore.
And whether or not the swarm was present was something that we almost got sucked into in early 2024 late 2023 because McCurnan was actually trying to get us to take that bait to have a debate about whether or not clones.
Produced the same subgenomic RNA sequences that the natural virus did. And since they do, then essentially clones are no more, no more virology or no special than the stuff that they find in the wild.
And he refused several times over all the times that we've ever talked to really acknowledge that the main argument that I'm making is not that infectious clones can go around the world better than the natural occurring badcave virus.
I'm making the argument that no matter what RNA molecule you choose or what sequence you create an RNA molecule by itself is not a pattern integrity and therefore cannot find itself going from a mud puddle to around the world to include all humans plus zoo populations plus
white tail deer in North America. That's not possible. There's no biology to support even a tiny minutia of that phenomenon because RNA can't do that RNA by itself or an ellipid nanoparticle is not a pattern integrity.
But you can make a lot of it. And that's the part that Kevin McCurnan understands very well because since he was apparently a high school science student, he's been working for the human genome project and selling sequencing techniques and methodologies
to big companies and starting his own companies and selling them. And now he's on to sequencing marijuana for personalized medicine in 10 years.
And so this guy understands that one of the only things that is advanced as far as our ability to manipulate and play with DNA and RNA is our ability to sequence it cheaper and make it cheaper.
And of course making it cheaper means also making more of it and the more of it we can make the more uniform a signal we could fake.
And of course Kevin McCurnan understands that of course Robert Malone understands that they both been working in pharmaceutical companies or parallel industries for decades.
They know how biologics are made.
And so the idea that somebody like Judy Mikovitz doesn't understand that infectious clones are the way RNA virology is done and would be the easiest way to seed the appearance of a pandemic is appearance of an epidemic would be to
expect people or to, as James D. Ordano said, transfect one person in Des Moines and one person in Seattle and the rest you would use are people on the Internet with an illusion of consensus that something was happening and that they knew more than you did about it.
That's what they did. That's what what Nick is trying to get Russell to start to see and Russell ain't going to see it. Russell's definitely not going to see anybody's going to let Nick talk intact and robust way whether they can indeed travel around the world or even outside of your neighborhood.
The thing that's been astonishing for me is just in the face of the great complexity of the human body and its interaction with viral particles.
How many of these virologists are simply prepared to make massive claims without robust evidence?
It's kind of like they have a just so story that they pass down the generations of academics and virology departments.
I'm not sure which one of the versions of those stories is better than the next, but certainly when you look at their own work prior to 2020, they never talk in terms of a single stable variance that suddenly spreads to all corners of the planet.
So yeah, I kind of am very much not at all inclined to go along with any elements of the narrative of spreading pathogen having caused harm in the population from 2020 on.
I love that. I mean, so in a sense, what you're saying is about in a way taxonomies and semantics that even to like with any virus, not just COVID, you would have to say, well, actually, this thing is evolving so rapidly that to refer to it as a sort of a single object.
So he's still clinging to the virus. He still says so with any virus. And so Russell coaching or not wittingly or not is playing the role of a biologist here in defending virology and trying to see.
Okay, so virology's real, but, but virology's real, but, and Nick just got through saying that the fidelity that they are, he didn't say it as well as he could have because he's not a biologist and, and, and, and it hasn't been practicing as long as we have.
But the fidelity of virology is where the, the lie is they pretend that infectious clones represent a, a accurate representation of virology in the real world.
And they've convinced themselves of this. And it's not. It is a, a horrible approximation of whatever it is in the real world because of its purity.
And this signal in nature does not exist at this purity level, not even close. So whatever the signal is in nature that they may or may not have characterized honestly with PCR and, and these other techniques.
These signals cannot be equated to what can be accomplished with pharmaceutical manufacturing techniques producing pure quantities of DNA or RNA and using using bacterial processes or DNA and RNA printing processes to do so it just it's not possible.
And so once they have sort of done the bait and switch with the, with the shell and convinced you that oh no, we virology is infectious clones are virology it's fine.
Then you have missed the trick and virology has been completely co opted in the sense and a lot of the biology of virology I believe is actually found in all of us but they want us to believe it is the exclusive currency
of these obligate parasites that exist as molecules.
And I think this, this is the fundamental lie of virology that was more or less started by and sustained by the work of David Baltimore on this Baltimore scheme of classification.
And everybody who agrees to stick to it is reductive. I understand that that's excellent. But will you help me to understand this like this will be so because you're so ardent and informed in your position it means I can really get into some lovely devil's advocate stuff
and who better to advocate for than Satan. Like I was just wondering like you know like you know magic like when I cost my mind back it's the pandemic.
Really?
Have I ever made that joke?
I mean now if you see that as a data point and there was another data point earlier about the stations of the cross it's just bizarre.
I'm sorry it's just bizarre. Is that the way that Russell Brand undermines himself so that he can say some truthful things but for whatever reason the dissonance in his overall behavior will turn most people you know of a higher level of thinking
off. I don't know. But it's it's wrong. That is so weird. I'm just going to play it again so you in case you missed what I'm talking about.
Arvind and informed in your position it means I can really get into some lovely devil's advocate stuff and who better to advocate for than Satan.
Like I was just wondering like you know like you know magic like when I cost my mind back it's the pandemic period I'm watching the BBC or I'm watching MSNBC but because I'm British they stick with a BBC even though the majority of our audience are American.
I would say like you know I'm watching footage of like you know a sort of a plucky junior doctor and some nurses you know like sort of the earth.
The people that I mean this is called sincerity people that work in industries and areas of our society that should be heralded applauded at door to celebrate it.
I mean there's no word that I won't use to the Garland these individuals and you see them like you know in our intensive care unit it's full up of people on ventilators they're dropping like flies stay in your homes.
No you can't watch your baby born go and watch funerals on YouTube all of that stuff like what would they experiencing Nick what were they experiencing in those hospitals although I will add to this I do remember in my country for example they built something
like I think I said recall they built a Florence Nightingale hospital that was there to treat like thousands of people then it was just never mentioned again they just stopped.
Yeah look I mean if you put a healthy person on a ventilator all on high flow oxygen for a long time they're going to drop like flies right.
So nice.
You can believe that part of the story.
And at the same time the propaganda is driving in the direction of the frontline doctors the brave people who have to ban our pots and pans for even though the data was telling us that any doctor under normal retirement age in vague health able to work is not at risk you know.
So what I mean what we were in essence dealing with I think was there's a lot of signs that the early phenomena that we witnessed in northern Italy New York City and later on in the year in Cape Town in the western Cape of southern Africa.
Outside Africa that those events were staged.
We can't get anybody to tell us where the actual death certificates are and to explain to us how New York City suddenly jumped to 7.5 times its normal rate of mortality when meanwhile that happened nowhere else on the planet you know what was different about New York City.
Well it looks to us and I must you know that my hat in the direction of the researcher Jessica Hockett who's done some amazing work on New York City.
It looks to me like a completely staged phenomenon.
Yeah, Nick.
You can go back and listen to that for again because I think Brand is going to have to deal with that one.
In vague health able to work is not at risk you know.
So what I mean what we were in essence dealing with I think was there's a lot of signs that the early phenomena that we witnessed in northern Italy New York City and later on in the year in Cape Town in the western Cape of southern Africa.
That those events were staged.
We can't get anybody to tell us where the actual death certificates are and to explain to us how New York City suddenly jumped to 7.5 times its normal rate of mortality when meanwhile that happened nowhere else on the planet you know what was different about New York City.
Well it looks to us and I must you know tip my hat in the direction of the researcher Jessica Hockett who's done some amazing work on New York City.
It looks to me.
He looks down.
I'm I'm I sometimes in convinced that these people have like their phone there where there's a chat open or a iPad with a chat window open.
It's something like that.
I have my phone right here.
If I look I'm looking at my phone now and then I'm looking at the chat now and now I'm looking at the video now just so you can see what I'm doing.
Like a completely staged phenomenon.
And it was those events that all the television cameras went in on and which started was so important in driving this narrative that there was an outbreak of a novel daily virus.
Bloody hell Nick.
All right.
So.
So where we are.
Sorry Russell.
I should also say I think a lot of doctors were genuine about this.
They were tricked into believing that there was something new that they had to respond to differently and so they abandoned their normal standards of care in good faith I would say.
They were tricked.
So this is not to call them all conspiracy theories or something like that, you know.
I think they were tricked too but I do think that there were some mistakes that doctors made that allowed them to be tricked and one of the reasons why I think people don't want to talk about high flow nasal oxygen is because that was one of the things that a lot of doctors missed.
I think a lot of doctors and nurses could have known better but maybe weren't ever taught or never found out because they never worked in an ICU.
And the CDC and some other authorities decided to encourage this in places where I guess they didn't have ventilators or whatever.
And so the application of high flow pure oxygen many times I'm willing to bet in situations where the equipment used was insufficient to do it safely.
That people that followed the FLCC protocol for example and went to the hospital if their pulse ox was 94 or below.
You could have had a lot of people into the hospital already just in the James Giordano manner, especially if fueled by something like the FLCC recommendation.
And once they got into the hospital they were given two or three hours of high flow pure oxygen without humidification without a feedback loop for that's reading their pulse ox then it is possible.
And in fact there is scientific literature in the peer reviewed research from pre pandemic even pre 1990 that shows that intensive care unit doctors were already aware of this danger and it already worked on it in monkeys.
To show that it was worth considering the actual content of the air in the moisture of the air and that pure oxygen was something that even 80% oxygen was actually undifferentiable from 100% oxygen in terms of its toxicity to these monkeys.
And I think Mark Gulak as a non biologist has done a really good job of just looking up a few papers and doing a few searches and seeing if any doctors have considered this before and interestingly enough this is not a particularly complicated issue.
And so it's not something that Mark is going over his skis to try and understand the words are really simple.
It's not very good for those monkeys if it's pure oxygen and we I think it's there's a lot of anecdotal evidence out there that we were encouraging doctors to use that as a default first go thing when people had COVID.
That is indeed what has been happening here ladies and gentlemen then that is one of the ways where Nick is right but he's also not right because a lot of these doctors made mistakes that they probably should have known were mistakes.
And one of them is is that high flow oxygen wherever that happened they should have probably known better.
But the other thing is not using antibiotics on somebody that was presenting with what they could have from their professional experience known as bacterial pneumonia.
And so if we can go into case by case by case and we see this pattern then yes these doctors were fooled.
But also at some point someone at each one of these staff is going to have to take something of a fall or make something of an apology the senior resident or the the chief resident or the the head of the department or whatever because anesthesiologists know this shit.
And people that run the ICU's know this stuff and that's why there are all these products out there which do the things that pure oxygen alone can't do.
And yet Mark Koolack has highlighted that we have video from who appears to be Kyle Seidel telling people about really high flow nasal oxygen and running out of oxygen bottles and the comfort ship that pulled into New York City was actually lauded as having an oxygen plant on it.
And video can be seen of people taking oxygen bottles from that boat and loading them to trucks or hurrying to get them to hospitals or whatever.
And so we're not there yet because there are details that we can slam on people when they open the door like Nick has opened the door and we could slam those details in right now.
And Nick probably just isn't sophisticated enough yet at this interview to know that that should have been said in the other order.
It should have been said that high flow pure oxygen was probably used to injure people that were then put on ventilators and that's the step that a lot of people have been tricked into skipping.
And to assume that you know it was just where they ventilated people know they got doctors to ventilate people and the way they got doctors to ventilate people is to watch people deteriorate from pure oxygen not knowing that that's what was doing it.
And then assuming that their deterioration in their own condition the pain that they were feeling in their lungs was actually the progression of COVID.
And so now we better be careful and we better put you on a ventilator and then maybe some of the pain will go away and you'll be able to rest and breathe easier.
And there was a coordinated effort to get doctors to be fooled by this.
And many of them were fooled. So many of them were fooled that actually Mark Koolack and Jessica Hockett are the two people who started scratching their head about it first.
And Mark Koolack is the first guy who went on PubMed and found a paper that was like holy shit.
They already knew this.
And so this is a very important detail to now be repeating all the time and not to be annoyed if you hear Mark and I repeating it all the time because the potential for understanding here for doctors to wake up is increasing.
Because I wonder if ever in human history there has ever been such an extraordinary gambit, such an astonishing coup where reality itself has been warped on an unprecedented scale where we where everyone would say between 2019 and 2022 there was a pandemic period with a lockdown
where Pfizer Moderna et al came up with a vaccine and whilst we initially thought it was effective against transmission and reduced hospitalization the data now is a little harder to read.
But there's no question people say on the legacy media all the time I've had them say to my face that the vaccine saved lives people will say why just look at Pfizer stock prices.
And let's just look at another thing.
For example, where was it?
I might have to just go into my history here hold on one second I'll see if I've got history that I can look at.
Yes, from yesterday no seven days.
Oh no, it would have been on YouTube actually that's where my history would be so let me go there.
It's going to take me a second but I think it's worth it and since we're working here.
I don't think fearless is going to stream this afternoon so I got lots of time to keep shedding.
Let's go to history and I'm going to find this video because I think it's really important.
Where's my history that's over here.
And we're going to go down, down, down, down, down, down, or maybe down.
Oh my goodness sometimes I waste a lot of time on YouTube.
So this video is interesting.
Just as you say there's a big spike in new cases for Delta is not.
So this is a video from.
Why is that not working.
Why not doing that right.
Let me go out of full screen here for a minute out of this one.
And bring up this video so what I I'm interested in pointing out.
Why won't it do it.
Why won't you come over here and let me play.
Up here. There we go.
This video is from 2021.
It's about a month after he came out on the Brett Weinstein podcast.
And of course we one of the things that that I'm interested in is understanding the message that some of these.
Sudo dissidents were pushing in the early part of the pandemic because I am convinced that they were part of a team worst case scenario Lala Palooza operation.
Where a bunch of storytellers were released on the American public to make sure that the idea of a worst case scenario lab leak was the primary focus and that the idea of a circulating pathogen would not be usefully questioned.
At least not in 2020 or 2021.
And I think Robert Malone was very integral in making sure that the existence of a a circulating new pathogen that everybody was vulnerable to was not usefully questioned.
And here in this video, I found a little clip where he actually starts talking about how Delta has become a vaccine and it can infect people who were vaccinated.
And so in this video, he's actually seating a narrative where the virus is evolving and it's evolving away from the vaccination to the original Wuhan spike.
What a magnificent chapter in the Scooby Doo mystery saga that we have endured for the last four years and what an integral part that Robert Malone played in that seating of the narrative and making sure that that worst case scenario.
Worst case scenario was accepted as possible. First, I'm going to give you this video in the chat so that you can watch it for yourself.
And then I'm going to play a little clip of it. I do think I'm already on the clip I want, but it might be that I need to goof around a little bit to find the exact segment where he says Delta and Omicron and or Delta and and vaccine evasion.
And a minimum, not significantly more pathogenic.
Okay, great. So the other thing that he's going to do here is that he's going to say that a slide deck got re got leaked from the CDC.
And so in 2024, this should also be something that immediately makes you chuckle.
Because of course slide decks don't get released from the CDC by by naughty goo doo doo goo they get released by the CDC and given and promoted by people like Robert Malone to sustain a narrative about a novel virus to which millions of people were vulnerable and
died.
And that a botched response was the best that we could do.
So make no mistake about it. I think this is part of the theater. And I think this is one of the performers of it. And it's because they are performing in a national security context that they are very comfortable and very confident in doing so.
But the slide deck, you can read it yourself. And I put links to that in my Twitter account.
Or you can get it from the Washington Post.
So it, it clearly documents that Delta is able to infect people that have been previously vaccinated. So that's a bombshell.
It also documents that Delta is about as infectious as the chickenpox virus.
What that means for those that are technical, you know, epidemiologists and training, which seems like most of us these days, is the are not the reproductive coefficient is about eight.
Stop lying reproductive coefficient for the alpha variant was about two to two and a half.
Stop lying.
The range of, you know, arguably three to four times more infectious.
So that's a pretty convenient narrative, right? That the original virus wasn't even that infectious, even though Charles Rixie says it's the most infectious virus in many, many decades because of its fear and cleavage site and has been convinced of that since the beginning of the pandemic.
And hasn't changed his mind about the role of the fear and cleavage site anymore than Emily cop has.
Or Russell Brand for that matter. We just heard him mention it 10 minutes ago or an hour ago, depending on how long I've been talking.
And so I'm not going to waste any more of your time with Robert Malone. I just want to every day remind everyone that there have been these, these people that have been playing roles in this all the while.
And the role that they have played has changed the story that they have put out has changed because that's part of the slow role to the chaos to come.
It's the slow role to the disorder to come. And the goal is for Lala Palooza to have all these crowds of fans all in the same place.
And then when the concerts over have them all turn around and hate each other and burn the whole thing down.
And so it doesn't matter what stage you're watching as long as you're watching one of their stages, your children are about to be enslaved.
And in fact, your brain is already enslaved by them and the people they work for.
That's what this is all about. Unfortunately, you got to find more people like me and Mark and Jessica.
And once you have a few people like that that are working hard to expand what we understand in our world and what we can teach to our kids with confidence, then you'll be edifying your own grasp on reality and building a network that you can share with people.
And I humbly submit that Mark and I are a really nice little seed of an intellectual, independent dark web that is worth supporting unlike a vaccine safety research foundation nonprofit that pays people to tweet and to do things that don't move any balls forward.
In fact, don't question the public health system as it should be questioned. So anyway, let's keep going.
Something must have happened. Something must be real. But what you're offering us is, in a sense, a kind of a wave of hysteria.
Now, I passed across the planet, engineered by, engineered by a sort of collaborative globalist interests NGOs that I'm assuming that the World Health Organization and its rather unique and unusual funding model are involved, that the media have participated in this.
And even the sort of the, gosh, well-intentioned dupes like at the ground level, people that are participating in medicine, they must now surely have some eerie sense that something wasn't right, but the data doesn't make sense.
I'll tell you something that you probably already know, but it's really extraordinary since I found out about it.
In our country, Britain, they just changed the way they calculate excess deaths because-
Did I say dark web? No, independent bright web. Dog on it. I'm a dork. Sorry about that.
Excess deaths was too high. So they went, oh, we're just changing the way we calculate excess deaths to make the number more manageable.
Now, my next question that I've been sort of leading to for a couple of minutes now is, if indeed something of such extraordinary nature has been undertaken, I would like to know why you think it was done.
Yeah, I think there are diverse motives involved. The desire to control other human beings is a story as old as time, and I think that's a significant portion of this.
I mean, the United Nations of which the World Health Organization is about one arm is pretty accurately described as an organization that seeks to call about a world in which it controls decisions, political decisions on a global basis.
They make no bones about this. They're just sometimes trying to disguise it or soften it. But that is kind of their agenda. I think pharmaceutical firms want to make money.
So if the control agenda around pandemic preparedness and viral surveillance and so on is one that the UN is going to get excited about then.
Well, they'll get excited too because they can make loads of money out of that story.
And then there are ideologically motivated people, centralists, people who are dumb enough to believe that complex systems can be usefully managed from on high.
And one of those people become traveling wayfarers in suit of making many of these measures that we saw undertaken permanent features of our landscape.
But to answer your question about, have we seen anything like this in history?
I think we're living with a couple of them actually. That was an awakening for me. And I think for many people is that there are at least two other major ones underway at the same time.
The one is this whole modern monetary approach to running our monetary systems, which is basically a kind of fit with a fig leaf on it.
And that's having an enormous scale that's really underappreciated.
It would be nice if they, I don't know, is it dumb of me to think that fractional reserve banking is a term that people should say out loud? I mean, why, why not just say it?
I don't know quite why we don't just say it. Maybe I'm just dumb.
And the other one is, of course, the whole net zero carbon paranoia story, which is again just just scientific mumbo chumbo.
You know, this idea that these scientists, these amazing scientists have modeled the entirety of the Earth's climate and they can predict it after the next hundred years.
So it's not the case that we're simply emerging from a little ice age. It's the one atom, the atom to kill them all sort of thing.
Those are all crazy science as well.
Silence. There are an interesting convergence of interests at play.
And as the American comedian, George Carlin said, when interest converged, no conspiracy is necessary.
And from relatively early in this process, though, I was obviously like many people, probably not including yourself due to the skill set that you announced when telling us your credentials, you know, like autodidact that I am.
I was picking through, hold on, that doesn't make sense. That doesn't make sense.
This is weird. And then from out of this cacophony of oddness, it was becoming clear that it granted the ability to regulate.
It granted the ability to profit. It granted the ability to transfer wealth.
It was beneficial to some of the most powerful interests in the world. That became plain.
A lot of people regard it, of course, as a staged event. A lot of people, and I suppose this might play into your skill set in particular as an actuary, that it's becoming understood now that modeling was used and presented as science.
And that's perhaps how there was the bypassing of the kind of patterns that you would usually look for in a pandemic with what you said, clusters and ripples and stuff.
So, do you feel that when people were saying, you know, we're presenting us with graphs, this many people are going to die, this many people are going to die, you know, all of those figures.
And then almost the bizarre inversion, since then, you know, people were being, you know, these people died of COVID when they fell downstairs.
These people died of COVID when they died in a car crash.
You know, like, and since then, people like XSF have been sort of mitigated, but extraordinarily, I'm sure you're familiar with the, like, you know, like the insurance companies are having to change the way they charge premiums.
AstraZeneca in court. I mean, it's unavoidable. The reckoning is unavoidable. So, can you point to some of the sort of major, firstly, some of the major tools for ensuring that we bought into this reality and the major tools that help us to understand that the reality was false.
Just easy examples.
Yeah, sure. I mean, the type of modeling that was used to produce these very inflated predictions at a country level is really not even appropriately used at a country level.
Those models are called SIR models. They make a range of assumptions. One of which is that all the members of that population mix evenly. It's a concept called pan-mixia.
And that's appropriate at the level of something like a herd of cattle, right?
Or maybe you could say children in one school, but it's certainly not an appropriate assumption for the whole country.
So, you know, the very axiomatic underpinnings of these models are invalidated by the nature of the applications.
And now he's going to miss the opportunity, but you know, it's hard on one of these live shows, but he's going to miss the opportunity to say that by orchestrating a few local mass casualty events with the combination of fraud and deadly protocols,
panic and fear, they were able to create the illusion of data that could be then extrapolated with one of these very simple models and projected into the future as evidence of the start of something very dangerous.
And so I'm happy that he wants to say all of the problems with these models and, you know, mixing and whatever else, but it would be much more succinct and understandable for the average TV watcher to just hear.
What he said earlier was is that I think some of these events were staged and that these staged events.
Now in this question, he could refer back to it and say, and those stage events using modeling can be easily misconstrued as the beginning of a very big crisis.
A worst case scenario where a billion people could die, you know, like Kevin McCarran said in March of 2020.
Again, it takes practice. We're going to have to get Nick in front of other people. We need to get other people in front of other people that can say it.
And when the ball is in front of the goal, they can kick it straight in. This is a point where if he doesn't get there to kick it straight in, we have to remember this as a rhetorical or semantic turning point here where when we get into the next conversation and somebody says this,
we have to make sure that we say that remember what we said that there was a mass casualty event in New York City.
Now imagine if the CDC took that and said, and used these simple models to extrapolate that and project danger is that's what the sage group did in the UK.
That's what the CDC did in America. And they showed it on PBS NewsHour that way on purpose with dotted lines going into the future.
And so there was the opportunity not to say that the models suck, but sucky models were used to take the numbers from a mass casualty event and project a crisis.
And so there was a way to samurai sword this, and then there was a way to kind of not, and I don't think he's going to manage to do it, but that's not, it's not a big deal. It's just that we got to get better.
And my experience, I mean, I had to sound arrogant about this, but in general, there's just very low quality intellects manning those models.
They don't even understand what the assumptions are and what they mean and what the limitations of those assumptions would be.
So we took aim at those models very early on, we tossed out that whole class of modeling and used a much simpler approach called empirical modeling, where you're actually looking at what's happening,
and just use those empirical models to predict when those other SIR models would fail.
And we did that very accurately, and it upset those models a lot.
But there was another more insidious way in which the models were used. Remember those dashboards?
Yeah, I kick myself when I think about them, because it didn't strike me at the time.
But how did the world suddenly become capable of tracking every case and death in every single country from a single disease that is very hard to distinguish from a whole lot of other diseases?
I mean, we didn't even have testing for it, right?
And of course, this is one of the things that you can feel very much like John Cullen and Goodman, who John Cullen's claim to fame is that apparently he created the code that was used in that map with red spots.
But then that also means that he would be well aware of that the map with the red spots was just a modeling projection based on no numbers at all, not on numbers.
But that's never been his story.
That's never been part of his story, and now you see why somebody like that is probably attached to George Webb and these other people and going on all of these tangents on purpose, because that's his job.
It's part of this, you know, endless list of promoted control, not controlled.
The right word is scripted.
They know what they can talk about and what they can't.
They know what they got gold stars for talking about and what they didn't.
They just follow the advice of who's ever advising them.
And the only person who's advising me is regular guy and, and my wife.
I don't really have any other advisors.
I guess I would consider Greg Glassman an advisor if he would ever call me, but he only calls me like once a year to just say hi and invite me to his house for a broken science meeting.
He would be a very big influence on me and is indirectly through the people that he's connected me with.
But I've spoken to Jay Bhattacharya more than 10 times I think in the in the past year and I wouldn't consider him an advisor.
I've spoken to Bobby Kennedy 10 times or so in the last 10 years and last two years and I wouldn't consider him an advisor.
I'm I'm I'm closer to a couple of the people that I met at CHD and working with them.
I'm still closer to them than I'm than I am to anybody that I worked with in neuroscience with the exception of my IT guy, a former IT guy from Pitt that that guy I'm still friends with but no biologists.
And and a few people from CHD are still in great contact with me because what happened there wasn't right.
What happened there reflects the the absolute total control that this operation is.
And CHD I think even people inside of CHD are well aware of the fact that that something isn't right that they don't go as far as they could that a lot of money gets wasted and they don't know where it goes and they don't even know how much money they have and and who's spending
it on what and you know because it's a lot of people that are working very very hard to to try and fight despite all of the people who aren't actually pulling on the rope.
Because that's what CHD is. It's like a hundred people in a tug of war and 90 people in that tug of war are pulling as hard as they can and getting blisters on their hands and putting all of their life into it and the other 10 are just kind of holding the rope.
And actually making phone calls with the team on the other side of the rope and letting the other team know when they're pulling really hard and when they're not or when somebody needs a break.
That's what's happening at CHD that's how I got kicked out of that dropped out of that university are that group.
And so you know it's 90 people out of 100 are awesome in that group and Brian Hooker is probably the reason why that whole group even exists is to keep him under wraps.
And to make sure that whatever he does like you know sells a green book with 100% truth in it from beginning to the end they'll sell a bunch of red books too that don't have truth in them from beginning to end and it'll balance out.
Brian Hooker or someone with a severely damaged adult autistic child should be in control of CHD.
And in all of the positions of power in CHD someone who's got real skin in the game should be there but that's not the way it is.
The people with real skin in the game have positions of subordinate power and get told what to do and what to focus on.
That's how that organization works.
And I ran into the people at the top of that organization and that's why I am where I am and why I have the opinion of the organization that I do.
I know that all the people beyond the big chairs are awesome and fantastic and well meaning and we're ahead of the curve and ahead of this story before I ever had my head out before the pandemic.
I know that.
And I humbly submit that those people need a new place to go.
To take over CHD and kick the bad people out the saboteurs need to be removed.
The problem is is that it's a nonprofit so you have this you know executive board of people that raises money and then you have these people and all those people have influence and money and there's no control from the people underneath.
They're just you know they could be dismissed in a in a day like I was if you do the wrong program on Christmas Eve.
It is a very very big show with lots of stages.
When the World Health Organization tracks diseases around the world it takes years for them to put out the reports and yet suddenly we have this ability to pump out the reports on the day.
Well of course we didn't have that ability and of course what was happening is they were using models to drive substantial portions of those dashboards.
So the data that was ticking up on our screens and driving the fear wasn't actually emanating entirely from the real world but also from completely fabricated models.
And in a very funny twist of fate we actually found the GitHub sites where these guys were practicing using models for that purpose for faking real world data.
And they use the same class of models.
Somebody also said that in the chat that they were actually using model data sets to feed their models and it's totally right and that's really where a lot of academic science is now spiraling into complete irrelevance.
It's what we, well how we're going to move forward and why we are definitely not going to be talking about the pandemic five days or seven days a week.
That's not necessary anymore given the fact that in any one of these study halls we can pretty much hit all the bases every time.
Yes our models. So it all gets rather creepy rather fast and when you open your eyes to the depths and breadth of the frauds here it does cause people to glitch.
I mean you asked the question at the beginning of this, you know, your last interview there you said people are saying this whole thing was staged and there was was there a conspiracy.
My day job, when I'm not trying to lead the fight against the globalists, my day job is that of a private equity investor so I spend a lot of time in four rooms.
Now, with no fear of contradiction, conspiracies are a dime a dozen.
Every time a board of directors gets together in a room there's some form of conspiracy going on, you know, that's what that's the nature of the real world.
People are in a competitive space and they're trying to have asymmetric information to steal a march on a competitor or to make a customer believe that their product is better than it really is something of that nature.
So, you know, this idea that a conspiracy is sort of a once in a millennium kind of event is completely false, they're all over the place and there clearly are elements of conspiracy riddled that they absolutely be riddled with coronavirus landscape.
And this whole sort of epithet of conspiracy theorists is actually, you know, that's the people who use that as a slur are very divorced from reality.
So, in a sense, this area of conversation is just one component of a broader purview before we park it if I maybe so bold.
I wonder if you feel that the WHO treaty that's currently being proposed is an attempt to redress and nullify the opponents of the plan that was enacted previously.
In so much as it includes, we want the ability to vaccinate entire populations and bypass national sovereignty, we want the ability to censor, we want the ability to determine what constitutes a pandemic.
Do you agree that that's what this WHO treaty is for? And if it is, what is the nature of this organization, the WHO and how does its power relate to some of the emergent villains of this period, Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, some of the big names that emerged during this period?
So, I do agree with you that that's what is going on with the treaty. The relationships are complex and people tend to oversimplify them.
I've heard people say that Bill Gates funds the World Health Organization, that China funds the World Health Organization, that Germany funds the World Health Organization.
And all of those are true. And there's competition for control and power in that organization.
And so different pressures to abuse the organization too. And it has been for many years.
Wow, Cheetah, are they really going to use the electronic health record to define diseases now? Because that is, that's next level. That's a nice one.
If you got a link for that, I would love that.
In 2009, the World Health Organization was the main actor in an attempt to pull off the fraud sooner to the coronavirus fraud in the case of swine through.
And so he's citing 2009, which we've also studied in the context of a 2017 or 2018 Chatham House presentation by a guy by the name of Mark von Raunce, who played the flu commissar in Belgium for the flu pandemic of 2009.
And in that lecture of an hour long at the Chatham House, he makes all kinds of statements which belie the idea that this is an elaborate operation.
It's an agreed upon narrative that all of these people have been fine tuning in order to increase compliance to a global level.
And that video needs to be revisited. I think I probably should just watch it again on another study hall because I'll have different insight and better and more accurate interpretation of it now a couple years later.
But there is no question that this is an ongoing revised script in which we find ourselves.
And even in the sparse pandemic document on page 50 something, you will find part of the narrative has to do with the injuries due to the countermeasure that was rolled out during the pandemic.
So this is all part of the script. That's why we couldn't get here with Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch and Brett Weinstein pretending to be heroes and pretending to tell us the truth until now.
Even though a lot of what they say is the truth was the narrative that I was running around with my head cut off in 2020 spreading.
So we could have been here in 2020 if they wanted us to.
But that's not how one of these plans works and you can see that very clearly from a document like the sparse pandemic document because it is a document that describes an operation over many years, a narrative over many years.
And we are in the middle of such a narrative.
And I suspect that the chaos to come with regard to the election is also already part of that scripted narrative. We just don't have the script.
And that was, yeah, was repeated with all the same things they wanted to come up with a new vaccine and vaccine mandates and do all of those things but they kind of got caught up there.
They weren't practiced enough at that stage. So this is sort of a repeat attempt.
And this time they were a lot better. They learned their lessons along the way.
Yeah, so I mean, what, what, what are we really talking about? It's an organization hell bent on taking a highly centralized approach to a complex phenomenon.
And it's also fits into a very important pattern. I think it's the most important pattern to understand in the world.
And that is the, the, the simple three part pattern of global crisis presented as only admitting global solutions and under conditions of censorship of dissenting voices.
So the claim of a global crisis, the claim that it only can be addressed by global solutions and that we need to censor everybody who disagrees.
If you've got those three things in place, you're dealing with a scam 100% all of the time.
And those are that is a feature of the coronavirus story quite clearly and of this whole pandemic preparedness story, which is nonsense from beginning to end.
And it's a feature of the whole climate crisis story.
As soon as it's actually a feature also of the equity and sustainability story.
Which maybe is part of the climate thing, but all of these things are portrayed as global problems needing global solutions. And so he's right.
And I think he's one of the first people to enunciate it so eloquently is to say that any time they say that this is a global problem that needs global solutions and that people who are opposed to it can't be allowed to be heard is definitely a scam.
Have those things we are dealing with scam and the perpetrators of those scams are invariably people who believe in their own ability to load it over all of us from the center of the universe in the ability of clever people like them to control complex systems using spreadsheets.
Or they are well aware that we are governed by this mythology that we can do that that we are doing that that's what happens.
And that that's that can also be part of it. I think a lot of the people in the club of Rome are very well aware that that's how we are being governed right now and are all about it because they have objectives in doing so.
And that includes, you know, some peaceful transition to a smaller population and a peaceful transition to global governance and a peaceful transition to an electronic digital currency mechanism.
Do you think it's interesting that.
The war on terror also has that feature well done figures that are let's put it even delicately on the margins of our culture are even precursors to the kind of online pundits that have become more common due to the emergence of an accessibility
of the technology. Maybe you would say like because like David Ike Alex Jones who were like 10 15 years ago saying there will be global events that will be used to to legitimize centralized authoritarianism.
They want us all to they want to implement social credit score like measures. What do we do with that when some of the people that are kind of really derided by what you might call the sort of legacy media rationalists and certainly amidst their output
and I can consider both Ike and Alex Jones to be more like shaman than any in a sense Robert Malone declared that Alex Jones was a guy who could see around corners and was a legendary American hero.
And he said that last week, or maybe it was this week. No, it would have been last week is today's Monday.
Just so you're aware. Alex Jones is considered a hero by Robert Malone and a guy who can see around corners.
I don't know if that undermines Robert Malone's credibility in your mind or not but I know what it does for me.
Our culture has evolved to the point where those kind of voices are by their nature marginalized. There's no room for people that sort of speak, sort of, I don't know, metaphysically, somewhat mystically.
The point I'm trying to make is they were saying that but for some time there would be events of this nature and I was reminded of that fact by the when you said global event shuts down dissent.
Does it apply to escalating geopolitical crises that are unpopular? If they were indeed if they were decentralized councils, subsidiaries, Soviets, syndicates call it what you will federalization that what you is very unlikely that people would vote to continue
was in the Middle East, vote to continue to fund Ukraine, Russia, vote to agitate China.
Indeed, isolationism starts and beyond that, you know, the evolution beyond national isolationism seems like something will be appealing.
I'm talking about, of course, decentralization and do you think that there is a sense that the tendency is towards decentralization and in order to oppose that you have to assert and impose centralization aggressively and legitimize it through crisis?
Yeah, sorry, lots of points to pick up on there. First one, Ike and Alex Jones and so on. I think we got to estimate the extent that we are surrounded by the sort of pogo of the info war because as much as there are people like them who apparently ran the alarm bell and so on,
there are also people who say that they are CIA creations and that their role is to say some true things but to sort them with a bunch of nonsense about lizard people or about the fact events that were actually real and so on.
Or any person, any person, no matter how well informed to actually come to clear conclusions about all of these things. So my sense or my advice against you.
What a wonderful way to say it, Nick, and I love how humble he is about this that, you know, he doesn't know because he understands. He's not saying it like I say it, but you know, if all these people have agreed to lie and then you don't have, you can be as smart as you want.
You're not going to figure it out.
That's the thing I'm trying to teach to my kids. If the people on the news don't know and they just read what they're told to read and the people that are putting the words in front of them are liars.
And if the national security state has been governing us like this for a long time because of the way that our financial system works.
And now you understand why it was so easy for them to convert to complete.
COVID complete pandemic and know that it was going to work.
Because they'd already been doing it. The choir was already singing. They just sang a different song. That's the part that a lot of people still quite aren't quite seeing that choir extended into the Internet in the people like Joe Rogan.
All of these people were in place singing a very different song and then their song changed and it has slowly progressed exactly as the script desired, making sure that people were caught up in the Scooby-Doo and unable to exercise informed consent, which includes saying no.
And here we are in 2024 in May and still nobody is saying transfection.
And nobody is saying that RNA virology is an exaggeration based on infectious clones.
And maybe in a couple years we'll be saying it.
Maybe it was just to preserve a bit of skepticism to listen to not be dismissive of people with crazy ideas because sometimes they're right.
But also not to go too far down each and every rabbit hole, just to understand that we're living in a chaotic and turbulent time where there's a vast chance of utterly false propaganda out there.
So it would just remind me, give me a clear second part of your question you were asking about whether.
Well, to comment on what you just said, it's always helpful when it's verifiable ideas that you can corroborate.
I can see looking at this data that they used modeling to amplify the threat.
I can see now that they claimed that they developed a vaccine in record time.
And so how would they know what the side effects would be over five or ten years?
No, they used a mass casualty event to imply a threat that didn't exist.
So Russell didn't get there yet.
In fact, he repeated the neutered version of what Nick had just said.
So that's important to notice here because he's still not getting it right.
What are your question you were asking about?
Well, to comment on what you just said, it's always helpful when it's verifiable ideas that you can corroborate.
I can see, looking at this data, that they used modeling to amplify the threat.
I can see now that they claimed that they developed a vaccine in record time.
And so how would they know what the side effects would be over five or ten years?
So, yeah.
And then what I said was...
But why would the scenario of there being a delayed admission of vaccine injury actually be in the sparse pandemic scenario?
And why in that public facing brochure of a pandemic scenario called the sparse pandemic,
would there be a character in that chapter called EpiGirl,
which was responsible for ceding the narrative about vaccine injury and amplifying it?
Unless the secret real version of that document included lots of EpiGirls being there and ready
to control the narrative, to be amplified by programming,
so that everybody thought, wow, this person is cool.
Wow, this person is great.
And the people who were really fighting for the truth could just be languishing in the background,
unable to get their message to go anywhere, because it's been programmed not to.
Please, ladies and gentlemen, they told us the plan.
They told it to us, they printed it out, they gave it to us in PDF form,
and none of us were paying attention enough in the early stages to actually see it.
Including me.
I owe the world an apology for what I did at the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021,
where I really wrote a review selling the idea that the transfection could be changing the evolutionary trajectory
of a virus that might have been leaked from a laboratory.
And the people that encouraged me to do that, the people that influenced me and egged me on,
they're all part of this group of people that I now disavow,
and I now claim at the risk of my family's future that they were actually working against us all along.
That's my message. I'm sticking to it.
Generally Nick, do you feel that the reason that centralised authoritarianism is because precisely the opposite is being,
there's in inertia towards it?
Look, that's exactly where the tension is.
I've been talking as many times as I possibly can about the importance of understanding what a problem centralisation is.
Because we're not taught this in schools, it used to be a fairly current idea.
There used to be taught in economics departments and people understood it,
I think a great deal more 50 years ago than they do now.
But the important thing about centralisation is that it is incompatible with progress.
You cannot have an authoritarian system and expect to see the knowledge growth,
which is the only driver of an improvement in living standards and economic growth of what people like to call progress.
And the reason for this is that in the face of complexity,
the only way that we can navigate this is the world.
We can't go and design our solutions from on high using complicated models, et cetera, et cetera.
That's illusory.
The only thing we can do is experiment on the edges.
We can tinker. We can try this, try that.
And that's where you get the idea of a distributed system coming up with solutions that are better than a highly centralised system.
And so there are a couple of things going on here.
You can't centralise without censorship.
You can't centralise without authoritarianism.
Centralisation requires the suppression of dissent and it entails the suppression of knowledge growth and of economic growth and of human flourishing.
Now some people think that's a good idea.
They have, for example, an ethic of wanting to protect the planet and regarding humans as kind of a kind of pathetic scum.
I think you should modify that a little bit, MT, MTM, Fisher, to say that centralised education is authoritarianism,
but decentralised education might be alright, like apprenticeships and things like that, right?
On its otherwise beautiful surface.
I'm not one of those people.
I think the human brain is the most remarkable entity in the universe,
and the human individual enjoys sanity and needs to be protected from authoritarians
and has rights over the planet and the universe and all the inanimate objects.
That's where my belief system is.
But there are people who believe exactly the opposite, and that is the war at the moment.
There are the would-be centralised who want to control, who want to give rise to a kind of malthusian utopia in their minds.
This world where we stop increasing how much we consume and how much energy we utilise and so on,
and where the story is told in terms of degrowth and rationing.
And then there are people like me who believe that there is no end to the powers of curiosity and human ingenuity
and have the best way to see a flourishing world come about
is to drive in the direction of decentralisation and distribution of power.
You might think I seem caffeinated enough.
I ain't caffeinated enough.
I have an arm in the high apple.
I love you.
The 1772 is the go through with the aspect of between mutiny on the bounty and last tango in Paris era,
which is an overlooked aspect of ripening Brando.
We've been sent a few assets from our community that I just wanted to draw your attention to.
I have to ensure that they are legitimate.
One is a Bill Gates post that someone has highlighted.
Let me know in the chat who it was that posted this.
What's next for our foundation?
I'm particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health.
Vaccines, 12, 19, 19.
So what's that? The 19th of December, 29th.
We should be, I'm not sure that's legit, but it's been posted in the chat.
That's right.
That's legit.
That's cool.
That's legit.
And it came just after event 201, which he was centrally involved in.
That's how it looked at event 201.
Yeah.
So I mean, there was, there was four knowledge.
There was planning.
A very interesting thing to study is the timeline of January 2020.
I mean, when you actually lay it all out, what happened in these 30 days, there's supposed
a volume of science that was conducted after an eye doctor spotted an unusual pneumonia
in Wuhan on the 30th of December, 2019.
You know, this is this eye doctor.
He's suddenly diagnosed as an unusual pneumonia.
And one of the things that he's probably not going to mention because, you know,
he's got a lot of things he's trying to mention is that one of the extraordinary things that
happened in January of 2020 in a matter of weeks is that the entire pharmaceutical catalog
of the FDA, all nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals were scanned against a computer generated
model of the S X-ray crystallography of the three CL protease in the virus.
Even though they only had a sequence, Robert Malone's Ditra team was spun up, mostly made
up of volunteers.
And within three weeks, they had identified from this scan.
And then he spent the next year helping people navigate the emergency use authorization
pipeline and seeking patentable combinations of repurposed drugs in the catalog of the
FDA.
And that's how he met Steve Kirsch, who on June 21, 2021 joined him on the
Bret Weinstein podcast to save no one.
From there, there's the steady day, you know, zipline through the world of medical science
that drops out the PC artists, the sequencing of the virus, the characterization of the
illness, this finding that there was data, symptomatic transmission and all of this stuff
suddenly materializes in 30 days.
That didn't happen by accident.
It was premeditated and over the bullshit from start to finish.
So, yeah, don't take any part of what I'm saying as suggesting that there was an absence
of pre-planning or foreknowledge.
It's just that it might not have been as widespread as a lot of people actually think.
Yes.
Thank you.
Accent of by accident.
It was premeditated and over the bullshit from PC artists, the sequencing of the virus,
the characterization of the illness, this finding that there was data, symptomatic transmission
and all of this stuff suddenly materializes in 30 days.
That didn't happen by accident.
It was premeditated and over the bullshit from start to finish.
So, yeah, don't take any part of what I'm saying as suggesting that there was an absence
of pre-planning or foreknowledge.
It's just that it might not have been as widespread as a lot of people actually think.
Yes.
Thank you for explaining that.
Can you pull up that flu thing?
I'm not sure that actually Nick can't see our assets.
I can.
I saw the last one.
Oh, cool.
So, this is an antigen test kit asset.
Oh, can you, is this a legit asset?
Does it make sense, according to your expertise?
Because I'm just pulling these things.
This is content provided by our awake and wonder community.
So, I just want to make sure that, you know, who knows what kind of lunatics.
Flu disappeared.
Yeah.
We're all, we're all.
Just look at those numbers, of course.
Yeah.
And there's this idea that, oh, it's some kind of environmental competition, but we can
abandon that very easily because flu even disappeared from places where there was no COVID.
So, something was going on.
Somebody was gaming the testing system for flu or people simply were stopped testing for it
or something like that.
Or the entire story of influenza is itself riddled with bad science and consciousness.
There you go, Nick.
Yeah.
There you go.
That there you got it at the end.
Flags that is a very suspicious story is, I believe, correct.
I also wonder, you know, there was a moment where they said that, you know, we couldn't
allow vaccines to be manufactured in various African nations because of patent in laws and
also just as they wouldn't behave.
Wrong question.
Wrong question, Russell, but that's all right.
That's your job.
Well, some of them, racistly, they seem to imply that in Africa, where you're obviously
from, they would be able to make the vaccines for one reason or another.
I wonder if there's data available now, presumably there were lower vaccination rates in those
nations.
I wonder if there's any interesting data that has evolved that.
Outlook is good.
There's a lot of interesting data, but it's very hard to get keen data that's honestly
collected and that isn't in some way misrepresented by researchers who are ultimately funded by
pharmaceutical companies.
But I'll just give you a little simple data point here.
In South Africa, there was a very low vaccine taken.
About 30% of the population had either one dose of J&J or two or Pfizer.
But when the booster shot came around, I'm talking about the first booster.
I only started saying this yesterday, so I'm going to say it again just for the cheap sheets.
It's important to acknowledge that on one hand, Robert Malone really wants you to believe
that he put his career on the line and actually lost it to speak out on behalf of J&J.
On behalf of Jesse Gelsinger's death or speak out about Jesse Gelsinger's death.
But at the same time, at the beginning of the pandemic, he didn't have the wherewithal to
say, hey, I threw my career away once to speak out against the use of adenovirus to transform
or transfect healthy humans, and I don't think that using an adenovirus to vaccinate people
is going to work.
I think that just sounds like transformation or transfection, the stuff that I spoke out
about a decade ago with regard to Jesse Gelsinger.
Somehow or another, Robert Malone didn't come out and speak out until after AstraZeneca
and J&J were actually pulled from the market.
And the mRNA was being rolled out.
That's a really weird data point that no one seemed to notice.
But it's pretty significant to me.
I think the uptick rate was like one and a half percent.
So the population voted with their feet.
They realized that something was wrong.
Now, according to the claims of the media and pharmaceutical companies, that should have
led to their being vast mass debt in South Africa because 70% of the population remained
unvaccinated.
But COVID has just stopped.
It's an identity.
Nobody cares.
Let's go on.
So this idea that the vaccines in the UK or whatever stopped the pandemic is false.
We don't hear that very often.
It's a good data point.
I'm glad that we heard it in this one.
There are countries that didn't vaccinate and they're fine too.
So the effectiveness and how many people were saved by it is really a narrative that depends
on where you are because the narrative either can be made to fit or it can't.
The company explained to me what happened then here in my own town of Cape Town.
How did we stop here?
No.
It stopped because everybody stopped going bananas and putting numbers up on screens and treating
people with chest upon account because 70% of the population remained unvaccinated.
So the population voted with their feet.
They realized that something was wrong.
Now, according to the claims of the media and pharmaceutical companies, that should have
led to their being vast mass debt in South Africa because 70% of the population remained
unvaccinated.
But COVID has just stopped.
It's a non-entity.
Nobody cares.
It's gone.
So the side.
I replayed that for you, Jake.
Okay.
Whatever.
Stop the pandemic.
It's false.
You've got to come and explain to me what happened then here in my own town of Cape Town.
Yeah.
How did we stop here?
No.
It stopped because everybody stopped going bananas and putting numbers up on screens and treating
people with chest infections in stupid ways, in deadly ways.
Yeah.
I don't think it's too much more needs to be said.
The whole thing is absurd.
The vaccines were a scientific fraud by the standards of Pfizer's own phase three trials.
The vaccines increased your likelihood of dying, increased your likelihood of hospitalization,
increased your likelihood of serious illness, and increased your likelihood of COVID symptoms.
The only thing they did was for a very small number that was very biased in its selection.
They stopped.
They reduced the likelihood of COVID symptoms in conjunction with a PCI test.
Now, that isn't is of no good to man or beast.
So that's a scientific fraud right there.
This is the whole basis of this 95% efficacy claim.
So I just don't see any person with a modicum of common sense can perpetuate this idea that
the vaccines were at all effective as a therapy.
The real question is simply how dangerous they were.
And there, I think, I'm somewhere in the middle of a spectrum.
They've definitely caused a lot of harm because they were rolled out on such fast scale to
people who really didn't need them for the most part.
And that's the case.
It's caused some harm.
But I don't think it's going to cause the harms on the scale that people like Zalenko and
I have predicted that billions of people with alcohol in it.
I wish you wouldn't have said that Zalenko said that.
Zalenko may have said that a lot of people are going to be injured from the shot and they'll
die from it and they still may.
I still think it's very possible that my friend Nate is not an anomaly, but just somebody
that went earlier than other people will go.
It took my friend Nate about a year to die.
That doesn't mean that maybe his daughters will die of a heart attack in four years from now.
And so at what time scale will the damage from the transfection be seen?
We don't know.
We really don't.
And I think it's a very legitimate scientific position to take that we don't know.
And part of that has to do with the fact that Craig Particoper showed us that there could
be differences in the effective dose that people have received.
And so the effective damage that was done is unknown.
And maybe needed, may need a lot more work to clarify who potentially was damaged and
who wasn't.
Last night on the VSRF replay that I watched of Robert Malone, he goes in for 20 minutes
to try and make sure that, you know, I took the shot and I got hurt from it.
And one of the, the batch that I had was a hot batch.
And so he went out of his way the other day to reiterate that he took the shot, that it
hurt him, that he was misled.
He actually also accused Peter Cullis of lying to him.
That's why I was almost going to do that video today because it's very extraordinary.
He actually says that Peter Cullis lied to him and said to him that they had solved the
localization problem using novel lipids and chemical coatings.
But we have a lecture from 2022 where he laughs because he says we never solved that
problem.
I burnt five postdocs.
I didn't, the last postdoc said she wanted to change her, her project or she was going
to quit.
It's a pretty bold accusation to say that Peter Cullis lied to you and assured you that
everything was okay.
And then now turn around and say that I'm vaccine injured because Peter Cullis lied to me.
And in the same exact conversation with Steve Kirsch, he also says that Peter Cullis should
have gotten a Nobel Prize because he invented the carrier.
I mean, it's hard to hold the level and weight of the cognitive dissonance that is required
in order to listen to these people talk, these liars, these posers, these performers.
And so I'm going to keep using time on Nick Hudson because Nick Hudson is one of these
people who has humbly tried to figure it out without assuming that he knows.
He didn't come on the stage as an expert and is not on the stage as an expert now, even
though he's an actuary and could talk about numbers.
While Robert Malone is introduced by Steve Kirsch on his vaccine research safety council
fraud as the legendary disambiguation wizard, is that what he called himself at some point?
We will break free, ladies and gentlemen, once we see them.
Descent and dissidents emerging from independent media figures like Jay Batcharia, Peter McCulloch,
obviously people that were like Robert Malone that were on Joe Rogan.
Do you think that that intervened, interrupted and disrupted what may have otherwise happened?
Were those voices extracted or otherwise silenced?
Look, those ones you name all came rather too late with the exception I think of
Batcharia and Kudolf and Gupta who objected to the lockdowns.
And I think, I mean, I should just, in use of full disclosure, I get a lot of bad press amongst several
of the names you just mentioned because they're fundamentally, for the most part,
they believe there was this pandemic and you needed only treatments, you know,
and if you didn't do the only treatments, millions of people would die and so on.
I just don't go along with that version of the world, they know it and it puts us to an extent at loggerheads.
I don't need to be, I'm happy with the diversity of opinion and disagreement.
And we saw a spectacular video two or three days ago if you've missed it because we're putting a show out every day
and it's always two hours long and so it's hard to keep up.
We did a really deep dive into a Tom Cowan question and A that he did.
Good question and answer that he did on May 1st of this year, which is really like a week ago.
And he is very eloquent in describing how the early treatment use of Ivermectin has been and used as a trick.
And he explained it very eloquently and then pivoted in the next sentence to say that there are no ion channels,
there are no actual potentials in that the brain, we don't know how the brain works.
Anything about how the brain works, everything that we know about membrane physiology is wrong.
And it was, it was exactly as we could characterize somebody like David Ike or Alex Jones or Tucker Carlson.
They are allowed to say certain things.
They are allowed to put certain pieces of wood on the fire, but other pieces of wood are not allowed to be burned.
Those are for other people.
They're standing at a different part of the train that they're all collectively agreeing to pretend to stop and start.
And early treatment was one of those charades where we had people on both sides or all sides of the train pretending that that was a relevant thing to do and a relevant thing to fight about.
And so it's really was just a wonderful, curious thing to see Tom Cowen be able to so eloquently explain how they would mislead people about early treatment and the effectiveness of Ivermectin,
but he couldn't pivot to say that because the lie of virology is so important, they were willing to murder people in New York City and elsewhere in order to sustain the life.
And they still haven't gotten there in four and a half years of their hamster wheel running.
But one of those people end up doing is blocking me and doing the same sense you should take on plane about.
So I'm not to show that they stopped that we will they stopped anything of significance. Everything came to light. The lockdowns had gone on for years.
The vaccines had gone into billions of people's arms.
I agree about the hot batch being one of those things where I ignored most of it because again, it would be for Craig Particoper would be on my show.
Somebody the name of Sasha Latipova called me and said or emailed me and said she'd be happy to speak.
And so I heard it first from Sasha on my own show.
And I guess I kind of took her seriously for a while, but now I'm well aware of the extent to which she's just a player.
Having been on stage with Robert Malone about a year ago in Stockholm and having a daughter that was promoted by Alex Jones multiple times before the pandemic.
And there can be no question in my mind that she's a retired pharmacy executive turned national security medler.
Very similar to Robert Malone, very similar to some of these other people that we have now dead to rights because they have lied to my face.
And so the things that I talk about are not hearsay, the things that I talk about are not based on speculation or other people's lies.
They are based on personal experience, personal communication between these people and what they said to me in one year versus the next.
That's why I feel very confident in calling some of these people out for what they're doing.
And almost everybody on the planet, sorry, almost everybody in a western country had bought into this false notion that there was a novel that you virus that they needed to be protected from, and that there will be more pandemics in future.
So the victory, I think has been achieved.
The purpose here was to drive home the need for pandemic preparedness for vast budgets of tens of billions of dollars a year used in viral surveillance and stockpiling of crazy medicines and increasing value, macro vaccine manufacturing capacity and all this kind of thing.
But the other thing was to exhaust the economic system. The other thing was to destroy the economic system. That's the other thing that they did.
That's the reason why I started the show the way that I did, because although I'm not an economist, I do understand the big picture, I think, pretty well.
And that is that our financial system has been a house of cards for a very long time, and they have been building the house of cards bigger and bigger all along, knowing that it was going to collapse.
And they are, they are already moving along their plan to take advantage of that collapse and they already have a plan of how they want to reorient human civilization after that collapse.
And so the collapse just can't happen tomorrow.
The collapse has to be a very controlled demolition so that the assumption of what is happening and the acceptance of the solution to what is happening is total.
Otherwise it won't work.
And it will all be manufactured and it will all be complete in utter nonsense, but they've got a population in many countries that's accepted this whole phenomenon.
And that will go with it. So there was no victory here. We didn't stop anything.
And that's important to remember. It doesn't mean we can't stop anything in future.
I think that we've got to win the battle here. So it's the next one that's going to be very interesting.
Absolutely it is. And that's exactly it. The batches were, of course there were batches because they needed test data.
And of course there were probably placebo batches to make it even harder for people to see that they were testing these things, testing out toxicity levels, effective dose, all of this stuff, absolutely, maybe even different character.
Sorry, different carrier lipid combinations. I think it's also a very good possibility for how these batches were varied in order to make sure that the suite of adverse reactions would be variable enough so that they could be dismissed.
And also so that they would get useful data. Absolutely Herbert Hayes. Absolutely.
But man, there are so many big stories, so many big narratives that we have to push back against.
As you say, I like the way you talk about weightings all the time. It's the same way that I use.
I think we're getting more awake people. And it's never been the case in history that 90% of a population woke up to any ruse or mythology.
It's always some substantial minority that figures it out. They're kind of natural thinkers who are always a minority.
And then any other thinkers go along with the story and do the office jobs and how man would be a rocker season song.
That's always how the world is. But the question is, have we awoken a sufficient number of lateral thinkers warrior types?
Have we gotten those people talking to each other, talking to each other so that they can share ideas and increase their own power?
I think the answer to that is yes. There's a wonderful community that's distilled all around the world of critical thinkers with incredible lateral roles.
You see the world clearly and who help each other, kill the scales from their eyes, you know, when it comes to the other narratives that they might have bought into.
So I think it's a particularly exciting time to be alive.
Yeah, I like it. Do you think that the next gambit canard or trick might relate to climate change?
Is that your sense or the food crisis, the attacks on agriculture, the breaking down of the farming industry, the centralization of food production?
Do you think this is what's being...
Chris Martenson was on the PBS News Hour and promoted as a guy on the PBS News Hour in 2008 already as a retired pharmaceutical executive going to live on his own.
Chris Martenson was also in the Signal Chat that Brett Weinstein was in with me in 2021 and also ignored the biology and virology that I established as probably fact while they were still in the Signal Chat with me.
So Chris Martenson, although I don't have any particular bones to pick with him because he's basically stayed out of my way and ignored me, he was in that Signal Chat.
He knows exactly what happened between Brett Weinstein and I. He knows exactly what happened between Alexandros Maranos and I, and he knows exactly when that went south and why it went south.
And so I appreciate that he hasn't bothered to create any friction between me and myself, but I think it's because Chris Martenson has actually been, was also put in place a while ago, wittingly or unwittingly is participating in this now.
And his early COVID coverage on YouTube is not gone and his early COVID coverage is also worst case scenario.
By far and away, it is worst case scenario.
So again, he's probably allowed to tell the truth about peak oil and energy resources and fractional reserve banking as long as he doesn't tell the truth about a dangerous novel virus that millions more, millions people were killed from millions more were saved from and was likely
in a function which is he still believes.
Very much so. And the parallels are stark. I mean, what have you got? You've got these models. What are the models predicted? They predict climate change in the far future based on one parameter, CO2 concentration.
By the way, the RPC and all of the models there, they don't think that those changes are sufficient to produce climate change and climate crisis in the here and now, but that doesn't matter because the media are going to pretend that they do.
And they're going to tell you that every time they're somewhere around a freak storm or whatever, that that's climate crisis.
And yeah, it seems to be very much the case that this is the malthusian tonic of the current moment.
The thing that's being used to stop African countries from expanding their power grids.
So here in South Africa, we've been knocked off the project for decades now of building a nuclear power plant, which is the thing that would unlock the potential of this country.
That is something I'm sure they did not want him to say that energy and development is being controlled around the world.
And some countries are allowed to cut all their forests down and pollute all their water and burn all their trees and burn all their coal and build nuclear and other countries are not.
Other countries should still live the traditional way.
We were not allowed to do it.
We have to go and do borrow two trillion rants, which is enormous amount of money for our economy and invest it in what?
Solar farms and wind farms, which will never solve the problem, never provide baseload.
So this is the kind of the story that it leads to.
Complete deed rose on strains of growth that they become shackles.
And I think it's just horrible to do this to countries that have not yet developed all over the African continent.
These are my favorite places, the places that I visit.
I'm a tree hugger.
I love the wilds.
I get out into the wilds as often as I can.
And I know them well.
I study them in the dirt and up the trees and in the forests all the time.
So I'm really partial to ideas like biodiversity and conservation of habitats and so on.
That's my stuff.
But this, the conflation of that stuff with this whole energy, conservation and net zero and the need to reduce carbon and decarbonize.
No, I'm sorry, they're two totally different subjects.
The one is a legitimate concern.
That has sent any sense of what person should have.
And the other one is the domain of crazy people.
And there are a lot of crazy people that are doing untold economic damage at the moment.
That's brilliant.
Thank you.
Well, it's not brilliant. It's terrifying.
But thank you, Nick Hudson, for articulating it.
So beautifully and including a love of nature, participation in nature, acknowledgement of our integral relationship with nature as part of this conversation.
But to observe too, whenever these arguments are mobilized, it is always to the disadvantage of the majority of people.
It always legitimizes further centralization of authority.
It always legitimizes censorship.
It always legitimizes the condemnation of dissent.
It's astonishing.
I want to thank thought criminal for the assets that we were using there.
Thank you for posting that.
You're a great awakened wonder and contributor.
Thank you for all of you for joining us for this conversation.
And thank you, Nick Hudson, for joining us today on Stay Free with Russell Brown.
I found that enjoyable.
It's not often that I speak with someone.
Oh, yeah, yeah, no, this guy's he's further into the edgelands.
And then I thought I'd be willing to venture.
Thanks for undertaking that journey with me.
Thank you, Russell.
Thank you, Nick Hudson.
You can learn more about Nick Hudson's work by following the links to his organization, Panda, and also by following him on Substack Riz, a link in the description to that right now.
You've got to join us next week for our conversation with Tulsi Gabbard.
It's if you want to be part of that conversation.
Ladies and gentlemen, thanks very much for joining me.
We are still trying to dispel the faith in a novel virus.
We've been in this car for a long time with these people.
And we've got to get out of the car.
We got to get our kids out of the car.
We've got to teach them how the pandemic was created over a couple decades by a consistent pattern of telling us stories.
Those stories can be broken, but we've got to teach biology to our children.
And the hypothesis that we continue to operate under is that they did declare a pandemic, but there wasn't one.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been gig ome biological, a high resistance low noise information brought to you by a biologist.
If you like what you saw, please share it with those people that you love.
And if you like what you saw and you feel motivated to support it, please go to gig omebiological.com and find a way to buy us a coffee or that kind of thing.
Because unlike the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation or Children's Health Defense or any of these other nonprofits that can take tax deductible donations from other foundations and other weaponized piles of money.
This is actually a new stream funded only by peasants like you funding a peasant like me.
I rent my house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
And we live months to month here, so if you can help support this work, it would be really great.
And I will definitely see you tomorrow at 10 10. Thank you very much for being here.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, love you very much to you tomorrow.