I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case scenario.
tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst case scenario.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst case scenario.
Ha ha!
Malone was on Joe Rogan, he's our guy.
yeah yeah um uh call me skeptical about that if you don't mind i'm uh like i say it's just gearing you towards major conflict at this point and you know if
If you're still fixated on 2020, you're not seeing the... What's coming at you right now?
And you've got to be iterating on data all the time.
Where is it going?
What does it look like?
What predictions can we make as data points change in real time?
And, you know, Malone is, um, he says some good things that I've agreed with, but I do think he's just too close to that deep state apparatus.
And I don't think it's hurt him at all to be on leading a thought leader on the dissident side.
And it's the same groups and networks that are aggregating and leading the conversation, et cetera.
There are no independent, very few independent voices out there.
Me.
But you could listen to that more on Curie.
But that just fucking stinks.
Put it on their Wikispeaks page.
Well, I heard about the fella you've been dancing with All over the neighborhood
So why didn't you ask me, baby?
Kristen!
Shake it, shake it, shake it, shake it, baby!
Check it, check it, check it, check it, neighbor.
Twist it.
Check it, check it, check it, check it, neighbor.
Come on, Powerade.
We're trying to pick our favorite player in.
We heard your handles were pretty tight.
Takes a lot of practice.
Practice at breakfast.
Left hand works the drill.
Right hand gets the serve.
Do you practice in the theater?
Shh.
Doesn't this get annoying?
Does what get annoying?
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
Stop lying!
I think truth is good for kids.
We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in society.
We want everybody to feel good.
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.
introduced Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest distillation of what the pandemic means to society, to biology, to science, and to democracy, and to the whole kind of idea of empiricism and integrity.
And then each of us, this incredible, preeminent
panel that we have, each one of you is going to get a chance to comment.
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones, you know, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, you know, and, you know, it's not, it's, you know, measles plus, you know, okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles because, you know, not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end.
But no, when we have this new pandemic that has got 75% mortality, there will be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs.
It will be a moral emergency, because it has to be.
The End
you
Here we are again, playing the same game, trying to dispel the enchantment of these enchanters by focusing on the biology that we can understand and know and see what they've been lying to us.
But we're just being honest, we're just showing people messages, we're just showing people emails.
and letting people decide for themselves what the truth is, because otherwise, you gotta take one angle, or the other angle, or one person's word for it, or another person's word for it.
How about just, here's the truth.
Spin it around.
See what you see when you spin it around because what's perceived to be true is all that matters.
And these liars, they have known that for a long time.
They've known that for a long time.
Your consciousness is the prime real estate they've been competing for.
And it doesn't matter what is true.
It matters what is perceived to be true.
And that's why something like Twitter, where fake people can cooperate in lying against us and lying to us about these things.
It's very frightening because
No evidence of spread is a very, very different set of words than fraud in New York City.
Infectious clones are the only real threat is very different than saying fraud in New York City.
Placebo batches is very different than saying fraud in New York City.
And transfections in healthy animals is always dumb is very different than saying that New York City is fraud.
Saying New York City is fraud actually doesn't say that the protocols were murdered.
Saying that New York City was fraud doesn't say anything about gain of function being a mythology, and in fact does nothing to address the scooby-doo, which is why in the world would they want us to believe that all those people were killed in New York City?
And did they really kill no one then?
And it's the spectacular commitment to lies and lies about what questions are the right questions to ask.
Like, you know, who committed the fraud in New York City?
You're not asking the right questions, really, because you're not talking about HIPAA laws and you're not talking about why the data would be available or not available.
You're not talking about what data would have been available before the pandemic.
And you're kind of misrepresenting what a FOIA could get before the pandemic versus after the pandemic.
And whether that's changed or not hasn't even been brought to the table.
And so instead of discussing the right questions and fine-tuning the questions that we're asking, these people have attributed exclusively bad motives to me and to other people who are trying to ask the right questions.
And I believe it's because they have control over weaponized piles of money and other forms of wealth that allow them to do this.
And so we're just trying to show as many people as we can while the showing is good.
Because it's not going to be good forever.
I mean, the internet will be cleansed.
It will be changed.
It will be deleted.
It will be erased or whatever.
And these people will continue to artificially rise because the goal is to invert the way that we think about ourselves as sovereign beings and start to think of ourselves as part of a collective.
They want us to think of ourselves as part of the board.
instead of being God's creation, perfect as we stood at the day that we were born.
If you wanna learn this, you gotta learn the history before it's erased forever, because nothing contemporary about this story is related to the truth.
Everything that is contemporary to this story is reinforcing the narrative that public health is a foregone conclusion.
And that foregone conclusion also is the basis for these charlatans' power.
The trick is to realize that not all the charlatans are on this screen.
If all the charlatans were on this screen, then the Scooby-Doo would more or less be real, and we could just put these people in jail.
But that's not the case.
The Scooby-Doo involves these people being intimately involved, coordinatedly involved, in misleading the young.
And in order to take the power back from these charlatans, we need to take it back from these charlatans, too.
Not just the last screen, but this screen.
And if we want to make gentle the life of this world as we transition out of the methodology that these people have curated, then we're going to need to be a little bit more clever than assuming this picture is real American history in the making.
This is a coordinated group of liars that has coordinatedly created a wave of consensus that the only way to save your kids from it is just teach them to see it and to surf on top of it.
Teach them to see it and surf on top of it with a wave of truth and spirituality and faith and love of their neighbor and understanding of biology.
Because then you'll be able to see how much of this is a nonsense wave that's just driving you out into the deep water.
It can't be dangerous.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you've been here for a while, you're here at the top of the wave where we stay focused on the biology.
We don't take their bait on television.
We love our neighbors.
And so that's what we got to do in America, ladies and gentlemen.
We got to stay focused on the biology.
We can't take the bait on social media.
We've got to love our neighbors.
Please spread this word.
Please share this stream.
Please share the message.
Share the substack so that lots of people can figure it out.
This is, it's now, they're more visible than ever.
They are scurrying around in a panic, trying to pretend that
something else is happening other than their big game being exposed where this cooperative group of a Lot of anonymous accounts have been supporting a lot of meddlers that are coordinated with a few Americans Or maybe a few liars that pretend they're Americans and this coordinated action between people in five eyes countries and and and people in
in fake organizations in America is the foundation for the Scooby-Doo, the foundation for the pandemic narrative.
And if we can get people to see their coordinated actions, we can get a real paradigm shift to occur, and we can get lots of young people, can give them the opportunity to drop their hands, to...
check out of social media to see it for what it is so that they can engage in informed non-compliance.
Informed non-compliance is the direction we have to go.
Thank you very much.
This is definitely gigaohm biological, definitely.
The End
Good afternoon, everybody.
It is 2.36 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and this is GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
I'm coming to you live from the back of my garage as usual.
I've been taking a lot of heat and getting a lot of a little flack for being too dividing and calling too many people out and
telling the story over and over again.
And I need to go back to the biology and I totally agree.
So today we're going to start out with a little biology.
Whoa, that wasn't quite the right cut.
I needed this cut.
There we go.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic I'm gonna get out of this slide deck and open up the second one and Hopefully we'll be able to make a little bit of progress With regard to that's the current slide.
We don't want that one we want from the beginning.
So we just did this one we've also done this one before weaponized piles of money murdered people and convinced people they agree to agree to
convince people they agree about it being a lab leak.
So we argued about it first.
And then once the argument was over, we've kind of come to agree that it's probably a lab leak.
The old vaccine schedule is injuring and killing thousands of people every year.
And that's something nobody wants to say.
And we do not need to fear free-range RNA molecules.
These are all ways to say the same thing.
I'm going to offer you one more here at the bottom.
RNA virology is just transformation and transfection of cell cultures and animal models.
That's another one that a lot of people are getting upset about.
That one on the bottom there is actually one of the more important ones to start sharing, because what they want to do is say there are no viruses, there's no possible way that any of these sequences exist,
or that any of these signals exist and it's no longer a concern and all this biology can be discounted and they're kind of leading you into the same trap that the PCR cycle count and cycle threshold number argument was also kind of a trap like.
So I want to start with a more basic model
Yesterday I also emphasized that the weaponized piles of money are the people that we really have to worry about because they are the ones who are orchestrating this loosely coordinated group of liars that spans from a no virus coordinated group all the way to Children's Health Defense and Robert Malone and Meryl Nass and Kevin McCairn and Kevin McKernan all the way down
to the people that work for NIH directly.
I mean, these are all a coordinated group of people that is orchestratedly
governing a limited spectrum of debate about the conclusions that the public should come to with regard to what's happened here.
And the main issue is trying to mislead the young about the fact that a pandemic happened.
And so I've been pointing out very recently to the chagrin of many people across the board that the people that don't want to talk about what they were talking about in 2020 and have now risen to the forefront in this dissident movement are actually the worst
traitors of all.
And if they're not, if they're not Americans, then they're the worst meddlers of all.
And more and more it's become obvious to me that it's not a bunch of disparate groups of people that are independently trying to move the ball.
These are a coordinated group of meddlers that has centered their operations on Twitter.
and on the anonymous accounts of Twitter that can be used to create illusions of consensus about what questions are currently the best ones to ask.
And of course, they use direct message groups and chat groups on Twitter, as well as Discord groups and Telegram groups and all these other sort of pseudo social media, which are really just
ways for people to be controlled where you have user privileges and the people that are controlling you have administrative privileges and that's really the end of it and all of these people seem to agree that we need to fear free-range RNA molecules if they have the right fear and cleavage site or HIV inserts and so this is the reason why I am like a human like you and sometimes I make mistakes
It is important for us to push these people hard so that we get to the truth.
And one of the things that's been frustrating me is how would you really know the difference?
Have you really ever considered how would you know the difference between a pretend whistleblower that the national security apparatus wanted you to believe was real and one that was actually real?
Because if a real whistleblower
was not supposed to be heard from?
Do you think they would get to be able to speak in a Senate hearing?
If a real whistleblower had information that was dangerous to the national security state, do you think they would be invited to speak at an international COVID summit somewhere in Belgium?
Would you know the difference between a real consensus and a fake one if more than half of the accounts on Twitter are not real people but run by the people who are attempting to create the illusion of consensus?
Would you know the difference between a real foreign war and a fake one if all of the videos and news reports you had were produced by the state?
Would you know the difference between a real shortage and a fake one?
For example, like toilet paper in February of 2020, would you know the difference?
Would you know the difference between a fake series of videos and a real one?
You know, like the videos of people falling down on the street in Wuhan or the building of hospitals in Wuhan or the cruise ship in New York?
or the comfort hospital ship.
And then the question for the day is, would you know the difference between planted PCR positives and a background signal?
How would you tell the difference if the only way that you can measure these things is with products that are not produced by you?
Products that are many of which were produced in China.
Products that are aimed in using methodologies that you don't understand or can't evaluate because EUAs didn't require it.
How would you know the difference between false PCR positives that were planted and a background signal?
Well, you would just be told that those don't exist.
And so that's what I wanna talk about today and how these people may very well have...
twisted things around so that you actually can't tell the difference between a real whistleblower and a fake one.
You can't tell the difference between a real consensus between these people and one that is part of a national security operation.
You can't tell the difference between a real fake, a real shortage and a fake one.
You can't tell the difference between real videos like real podcasts with real arguments and fake ones.
And you can't tell the difference between planted PCRs, positives and a background signal.
And none of these people on any part of this spectrum from up here all the way down to the other side over there, none of these people have bothered to try and explain PCR adequately enough so that everybody understands why it fooled so many people from university professors all the way down to gas station attendants and TV.
and TV newscasters and teachers and lawyers and school board members, everybody was fooled and actually thought that they learned something about PCR.
They learned who invented it, they learned what he said about it, and they learned how it works.
And this is how we're gonna teach our way out of this.
We're gonna talk about six different things today.
We're gonna talk about all the ways they lied about PCR.
The primers versus amplicons.
Reverse transcriptase PCR versus PCR.
Controls, positive and negative, and nested primers.
And then we're gonna talk about amplicon sequencing and the cycle threshold scooby-doo.
And so by the time we get done with this list, you should have a much better understanding of how little you knew about PCR before today.
Even though there were lots of substacks written and videos were made and people talked about it, you will find that no one, nowhere on the internet will have ever summarized it like I'm about to summarize it right now, including myself.
And why would that be?
Well, because up until the last six or nine months or a year, I didn't understand what was happening.
I still believed many of the liars were doing their best and that the information that I got from them was trustworthy or at least worth respecting.
And now over the last nine months, if I slowly pulled my head out and tried to pull yours out with me, I have discovered a distinctive
smell in the room, which is that none of these people, none of them have ever taken the time to write a sub stack about how PCR works and why we never used it the way that we said we used it.
And so this is going to be almost exclusively without, without citation, because there are so many citations available that I want it to be like a, a choose your own adventure that you can fill in the blanks if you're so interested.
And so, first of all, I'd like you to recall, again, maybe I'll get rid of some of this for now.
I would like you to recall, again, the fundamental idea that I'm trying to get across with these discussions about molecular biology.
All molecular biology and all of the observations that we've made at this size scale, even the ones from the 40s and 50s, should not be discounted as false, but rather as misinterpreted.
And a model of reality which can interpret those data correctly will serve mankind a lot better than a model which requires us to throw out all of those observations and try to make new ones.
And we can interpret those experiments correctly if we understand the limitations of those experiments in the new way that we should understand them.
So you can see this model over here of viral infection, and you can see this model as representing any number of ideas.
For example, the gray viruses could be viruses that aren't very dangerous, and the colored ones could be new variants that are evolving.
You could also see it as what Robert Malone said, that most of the viral particles that are released are non-replication competent.
They don't do anything.
They just float around.
So the gray ones could be that too.
It's a model.
It's a silly cartoon to say that if we just try to think of RNA in the lungs, and we try to think of all the different ways that people have talked about this, and we say that the no virus position was a trap,
then we want to have a more nuanced and a more sophisticated explanation that wholly discounts virology, meaning it's destroyed, but still doesn't throw out all of the biological observations that were made and misconstrued as having some edifying powers over virology.
And so the PCR is part of this lie in virology that I think everybody is again, misconstruing the understanding of so that you don't see its implications for virology and it doesn't help you understand what virology is, which is again, as I said in the beginning, it is the transformation and transfection of cell cultures in animals.
That's it.
and using synthetic DNA to do that or synthetic RNA.
So primers versus amplicons is the first thing I'd like to cover.
And what that means is, just make sure I can see it there on the board.
So primers versus amplicons refers to two different parts of the methodology.
One is the target and one are the tools, right?
So the amplicon is the portion of the, in this case, RNA that you want to amplify, the RNA that you expect to find in an infected person or an exposed person or a person in proximity of these signals.
And the primers will be small,
complementary sequences that span a short section of the RNA target that you plan to amplify.
Now the trick to remember here, of course, is that we're not amplifying any RNA at all.
We're actually amplifying DNA.
So PCR cannot find RNA.
PCR finds DNA.
There is a separate step and a separate enzyme that is required in order to change all the RNA present in a sample into DNA before PCR can be used to find anything.
And that's something that a lot of people don't make very clear.
But when you're using RT-PCR to look for viruses in the nasal cavity, then you need to use reverse transcriptase, the enzyme that none other than David Baltimore discovered and got the Nobel Prize for.
You need to use that enzyme to change RNA into DNA.
And then you can use the PCR, the polymerase chain reaction, and two primers, one, two,
to amplify a DNA amplicon that you expect to be in your sample.
Now, with amplicons, the thing to understand is, is that if you want to make PCR more specific, you just do more amplicons.
Meaning you just look for more RNA that you expect to be present.
Since we know that the genome is 30,000 base pairs and it's approximately 30 proteins,
And each of these proteins needs an RNA.
So we could look for any number of RNAs being present in the nasal cavity of an infected person, because during an infection, the virus is producing many, many, many RNAs, subgenomic RNAs, and hundreds of thousands of them.
And that's why you choose the spike protein or the end protein over some of these other proteins that are produced in less abundance.
And those would be the arguments that they would make for it.
But the bottom line is that almost every PCR test had no multiple amplicons used.
So that's not a very good sentence there, but almost every PCR had no multiple amplicons used.
In other words, you can go online right now and you can look up EUA for PCR test 2020 and maybe put in April or put in May.
and see what you find.
And you'll just pull up documents where the FDA has given an EUA for PCR test.
And what you'll find almost inevitably on every one of these is PCR tests that use a single set of primers targeting a single amplicon of the virus.
Now you could have made it a hundred times more specific if you'd have chosen another amplicon or maybe two more amplicons.
But most or all of the PCR tests are looking at one amplicon, especially the earliest ones.
And secondly, they are looking at amplicons which are often represented in their own test by a positive bacteriophage encoding the same DNA.
So in other words, you can find PCR tests online.
Maybe I should just pull one up here.
Maybe that's the easiest way to do it.
Desktop to... Hold on one second, I got something for you.
Let's see... Where's WNDX?
What?
Here you go.
Okay, so let's look at this one here.
No, I gotta switch sides here.
Auto, there we go.
Let's look at this.
Just look at this one.
Come on.
Okay, so here is an accelerated emergency use authorization summary, molecular assay for Ultimate DX Corp.
You can just find this on the internet by looking for Ultimate DX and EUA.
So we're going to look down here and results are for the detection and amplification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.
If we go down here,
The COVID assays are multiplex.
We're going to look for the ORF1AB conserved region.
Oh, wow.
The ORF1AB is actually a conserved region across many, many, many coronaviruses.
And in fact, many times in the history of the literature, you can go back and see that they will look for this specific region for coronaviruses in general.
It's pretty funny that they chose that.
And then the other one they're looking for is human beta actin.
And we're going to come back to this in a second.
But let's just go down here.
They're going to use Applied Biosystems QuantStudio 12k platform, which is a platform that is capable of full genome sequencing of humans by 96 well plate.
meaning that they could sequence 100 humans in a few hours and get their full genomes, like a whole restriction enzyme map of all the major disease markers in their genome.
And they chose to use that machine, which is worth about $250,000 a pop.
They chose to use that machine instead of a bunch of hot plates and temperature thermometers to cycle the PCR like anybody else would do.
like anyone else would do, just a little tabletop PCR machine that costs maybe $1,000.
Instead, they invested in machines that already had commercially available products that could do full disease genome sequencing on humans by 486 well played, excuse me.
Now it's interesting because this is the test that was actually used to screen all of the municipal employees in a town in California at the beginning of the pandemic.
And this was a test and a company that was set up by a former porn movie producer in April of 2020, because I guess he got a phone call and was told that PCR is the way to go.
And he bought a half a million, almost three quarters of a million dollars worth of core facility level sequencing machines
and then decided to do PCR on two amplicons, one of which is a human control and the other one is a highly conserved region across all beta coronaviruses or alpha coronaviruses or whatever these are, which doesn't even matter.
So far, so good.
Everybody following the incredible lack of specificity and the incredible dubiousness of the choice of equipment to use for such a simple PCR test that would involve how many primers?
Oh, the assay comes from BGI Technology in Wuhan, China.
So Wuhan, China, and the largest sequencing company in China, a former partner and current partner of the Human Genome Project, is going to provide the materials and methods that are going to be used on an applied biosystems 12K platform capable of doing full genome sequencing 400 at a time.
So the controls are going to be a DNA-free water control,
Positive control, uh oh, non-infectious MS2 phage-based pseudovirus.
Phage-based pseudovirus, that's a bacteriophage.
Manufactured, manufactured bacteriophage containing what?
The SARS-CoV-2 RNA target sequence, oh.
So you mean that bacteriophage that's not infectious could be made at 10,000 copies per mil and then we could put it places?
and it would express the positive PCR target sequence of the test that we have running right here.
Are you sure you can understand this?
Because that's again, one of these ways that the positive PCR could be placed anywhere on earth in a bacteriophage that all the no virus people say exists.
There's plenty of proof for bacteriophages.
And here we have an EUA PCR test from 2020 that was used to test municipal employees on a weekly basis in California that was set up in a company run by a former porn star, porn movie producer, excuse me.
I don't think he's ever been in this.
Maybe he was, I don't know.
And they decided to buy $750,000 worth of equipment that was like a race car for Uber Eats
four of them, and they're running a PCR where their positive control is a bacteriophage that expresses the RNA of the target sequence.
I mean, what is going on here?
Okay, I'll zoom in.
I'll zoom in a little bit.
Sorry.
The internal positive control will be human beta-actin.
And so this means that if the human beta-actin shows up at, should show up at a known amount, so that you can scale the signal of the unknown amount to the known amount.
And so what will they tell you here?
They're gonna tell you that they expect no amplification if they do these controls, which of course the controls are clean.
The controls are pure water.
The controls are having nothing else in them.
They're not a nasal swab from a healthy person.
They're not even a nasal swab from the package.
It is a pure sample of nothing.
And then they say, yeah, well, we don't have any application.
Well, no shit.
And of course the positive controls, the negative controls, how should we interpret it?
It says if there's some of these values are not high enough, then the valid, the test is invalid and you should repeat it.
And we have stacks of tests where this actin, this beta actin signal never comes up under 35.
And so if it doesn't come up under 35, then whatever they're doing with this one is also bullshit.
And they don't care.
They don't redo the test.
They don't give a shit.
Do you know why they don't care?
I think it's because these machines up here don't do PCR.
I think it's the machines up here that they do.
These machines that they chose to use are actually machines that are more than capable of actually finely tuned and extremely well suited.
to high throughput full genome sequencing of all the police officers in this town and all of the EMTs in this town and all of the essential workers in this town that were required to submit to saliva testing, saliva testing and nasal testing when this test wasn't even approved for saliva.
Ladies and gentlemen,
then it's in the name, UDX.
DX is the name of so many of these sequencing things, you can't even believe it.
Look it up on the internet.
Look how many of these companies that don't exist anymore that were around in 20 and 2021 that were doing the testing are named something DX.
Do you know what DX means?
I can tell you that I know what DX means.
DX means Long Range Transmission.
Here's my license in Norway.
Here's my license in the United States.
I'm a licensed operator of Ham Radio for a very long time now.
I've got my general license in the United States.
I've got my full license in Norway.
I actually took that test in Norway and Norwegian.
Thank you very much.
And so I can tell you that DX means transmission, means long-range transmission.
And so I have this sneaky conspiracy theory that all of these so-called sequencing firms that used something DX in their name are actually doing full genome sequencing.
And what they were doing
was then trying to match those back up to the Epic databases and the other databases that they have access to.
They can just use the metadata and see how long it takes and how long does the AI have to crunch it.
These were all things that they were doing at the University of Illinois and the University of Ohio and anywhere else where they were requiring college age kids to take tests every week.
It was a weekly genome screen.
There's no question in my mind about it.
And that's why this kind of company would need to have something like the Applied Biosystems QuantStudio 12 platform to run something that you could run with three hot plates and a timer.
That's the truth.
That's how I always used to do a PCR before we got a PCR machine.
You just did it on the table and you had a timer and you move the tubes from hot plate to hot plate or a hot, hot, hot block to hot block.
Old school.
So there is a big deal happening here, I think.
There is an absolutely huge deal happening here and we need to be aware of it or we're not gonna get there.
And so with amplicons and primers, I want you to understand one thing for right now, that the primers, the pair of primers will find an amplicon.
And one of the ways that they could have made this test be much stronger is to have more than one amplicon.
And here is an example of a test that is not using more than one amplicon.
They are using the most conserved region
of all coronaviruses, the ORF1AB, that is the replicase transcriptase, you know, it's the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and its chaperone or assistant proteins.
That whole polyprotein gets translated into the replication transcription complex for the virus, supposedly.
And so it is the most conserved region of an active virus.
That's why they looked for it in all those papers before the pandemic.
That's where all of the Sheng-Shi Li and EcoHealth Alliance papers start, is with a conserved region of ORF1A.
And then when they find it, they use metagenomic sequencing to try and pull up the rest of the sequence.
And so again, I'm suggesting to you that there are hundreds of these documents available that you can start to stack up and keep track of.
How many different amplicons did they look for?
Was it more than one?
Because if it wasn't more than one, then no specificity was even intended.
If they didn't at least look for the S protein and the N protein, there was no specificity intended.
And this one, there was clearly no specificity intended.
And so what were they doing?
Well, they were using these amazing machines.
That's what they were doing.
They were using these amazing machines and all of the commercial products already available for them that are probably produced by this company, BGI.
from Wuhan, China.
Why in the hell would the FDA approve and a protocol that is a ultimate DX SARS-CoV-2 assay produced by a manufacturer in Wuhan, China in a company that was set up by a former porn movie producer.
They couldn't find someone from a university in California with some relevant experience to start this PCR company.
So this is just the first part of how they lied to you about the stuff, okay?
This is just the first lie.
The second lie, primers versus amplicons, is RT-PCR versus PCR.
So when we say RT-PCR versus PCR, what we're talking about is this thing right here.
The only way they could find an RNA virus is to sequence RNA, which means they have to convert.
RNA has to be converted to DNA via reverse transcriptase.
And this only happens once.
And so the entire harvest of the RNA platform, RNA signal is based on a single reaction to convert all of this RNA to DNA.
That's it.
That's all the chance you got.
And then after that, whatever DNA you have here is the proxy signal for whatever RNA you had to start with.
and they have to exclude a lot of RNA in that sample because there's a lot of RNA that is ours.
Our ribosomes and our other RNA that's present in there is a gigantic portion of it.
And none of that filtering of
That filtering of human RNA is a trick that we have to take wholly their word for it, that they're doing it correctly, that they're not leaving anything behind that they would misconstrue as a virus, that they're not leaving anything behind that would be identified as a viral enzyme or a viral signal that's actually our signal because we have to take their word for the fact that they're filtering out the human RNA and only looking at viral RNA because they can't do that, but they say that they do it.
It's another thing that is never gonna be explained to you by Jessica Rose or Robert Malone or Brett Weinstein because they've never ever been able to explain even number one.
that with more amplicons, you get a lot more specificity.
They've never been able to explain number two, that you only get one chance to convert viral RNA to DNA, and then you have to filter out all this ribosomal RNA and all this other RNA that's human RNA, and all we can do is take their word for it that that process is something that we can count on as revealing a potential signal of viral RNA, and that's just.
That's just not something to be word to be taken for.
So now we go to the next one.
And that is controls, positives and negatives.
And so we can go back here again and we can think very carefully about this control here, right?
Because this is the control experiment.
Why isn't that working?
Oh, maybe I have to go back here.
The control experiment for this paper or for this test that we were looking at is a human beta actin.
So it is a protein or an RNA that they expect to be present in the swab or present in the saliva.
That's it.
That is the what?
That is the positive control.
In every sample, because they're sampling you, there should be some human beta-actin RNA.
And so there should be a signal from every test that shows that, oh yeah, it's a human and it's got human beta-actin RNA present.
And then relative to that, there should be a second signal for this conserved region of ORF1AB.
And now the way to apply the test again down here, if you see in their description, is that you have this little chart, and if the negative control, which is beta actin, there's no amplification, then there's a sigmoidal curve of less than
less than 35 of the positive control.
Oh yeah, so the positive control is again, what?
The positive control was this mixture of non-infectious bacteriophage that encoded the target at 10,000 copies per mil.
So this description right here is enough for you to seed the narrative of the pandemic, just this one thing.
If you just had this and you produced it like you produce antibodies or like you produce venom or you produce any of these other things, you could produce this bacteriophage in quantity and then put it wherever you want it and you would find a very hot PCR test positive using this test.
That's it, it's that simple.
And every one of these PCR tests probably contains a control reagent that would qualify as a way to seed a positive PCR signal.
Please understand what I'm trying to teach here, because if you don't, write it down in the chat so I can see it.
This is all part of the thing.
So these controls, positives and negatives, would be used to buttress the idea that you have a real signal.
So you would have, for example, a signal like this.
at let's say 21 cycles or 20 cycles and this would be human actin then you would have another signal down here that would be a lower signal and this one might be at 30 and that would also be a signal that you expect to see but at a lower at a lower place so a higher cycle threshold this is ct count this is uh fluorescence and so the fluorescence goes up
as the signal increases.
And the earlier in the cycle count that this signal goes up and plateaus to bright is an indication of the relative abundance of the amplicon that you're looking for here as the PCR cycles.
And so a very abundant amplicon that's found right here at the beginning and that its primers catch right in the beginning.
might amplify and go exponential at cycle threshold 20, where something that's at a lower concentration here might not go exponential until cycle threshold 25 or 30.
And so if you had two
positive controls that you understood well in humans to be a low threshold and a high threshold barrier, then you could really make a nice PCR test for what you find in the middle.
And anything that you find in the middle could be scaled relative to the low end and the high end of this cycle.
But of course, they didn't do that.
They had, in this test, they have just one
count that has to go either less than 35.
So already in this test, they are already seeding the incorrect narrative that the cycle threshold is all that matters.
And that if the cycle threshold is less than 35, then it's a real signal.
And if it's more than 35, it's not a real signal.
but that's not how these controls are supposed to work because in theory, if you start these cycle thresholds or these cycles together, then these two will amplify relative to one another.
And in several replicates, you would get a very good quantification relative to your positive controls.
But again, they're not attempting to do that.
And so positive and negative controls, if they are present, should be used in a particular way that these people are not using them.
They are using them as a yes or no, rather than a scalar.
They are using them as a go or no-go, instead of using them as sort of bookends to understand where the interesting signal lies relative to signals they understand.
Because they don't really have PCR signals that they understand.
because PCR doesn't provide signals like that.
But they want you to believe it does and that's why these controls over here on the far right are the kinds of controls that they use where they set a threshold and it's a go or no go as opposed to being what it should be, which is some kind of scale or metric that they can use to describe what the experimental or the target sequence is relative to a known signal.
And so again, they've told you, these people have told you that they use positive controls, but they haven't really told you what those positive controls and how they would be used, especially how they would be used in a academic setting.
Because academic biologists understand that if you wanted to make PCR more accurate, you would just use more amplicons.
They understand that if you want to make PCR more accurate, then this selection of the RNA that you choose to be good or bad is actually huge.
And so they assume that it's being done with some degree of integrity.
And they also assume that controls like positives and negative controls are used in the same way that they would use them to bookend a signal to make sure that a signal is valid as opposed to just being erroneous.
And they all understand how controls should be used in PCR and assume that because all of their colleagues have been using PCR like this well for decades, that there's no way at the start of the pandemic that the national security state and its cooperating private firms would use less than optimal or less than gold standard approaches.
But they did.
And academic biologists are left assuming that they didn't.
Assuming that they did everything with the same amount of integrity that they did.
So nested primers, what are they?
Well, for every one of these amplicons, ladies and gentlemen, you can choose how specific your primers are by just doing two reactions.
So remember what I said before, please, that depending on the number of primers that you choose, so if this is the whole
available RNA of SARS-CoV-2, and they only chose a primers that will amplify this amplicon, then they have chosen to be rather aspecific.
Whereas if they said, we're going to use this as amplicon number one, and we're going to have two primers for that.
And then we're going to have amplicon number two, and we're going to have two primers for that.
And then we're going to have amplicon number three, and we're going to have two primers for that.
So that's already three pairs of primers.
And if you could say if two of the three amplify, then we have a positive test.
That's already worlds better than just a single Amplicon number one with two primers, for example.
And so that was the first point that I was trying to make with primers versus amplicons is that number one, you can use primers to find amplicons and you can choose different sets of primers to find different amplicons.
And the more amplicons you look for, the more specific your test would be.
And so since most of these tests only use one amplicon with only one set of primers, they're not trying to be very specific.
The one example that I've shown you actually chose the most conserved region of any coronavirus, and so tried to be as aspecific as possible.
And of course, someone like Claire Craig from Heart Group would tell you that at the beginning of the pandemic, you want to catch all the cases.
But once the pandemic has started, now you want to make this choice between fast food and fine dining or something like that.
And so now nested primers are very special because if you have one, and you have two, and you have three, and these are the three amplicons that we just had up there, and you have primers that look like this,
then the real simple way to increase the specificity of your test would be to include a second set of primers that was inside of this one so that when you amplified the first time, you would get an amplicon for which the second primers were good.
These would be the second primers here.
And so the first PCR reaction would amplify something, and then the second PCR reaction would verify that what you amplified fit a second set of primers.
And so essentially, you're kind of blind sequencing this amplicon when you use nested primers, because if the first reaction amplifies but the second one doesn't, then you amplified something erroneously.
And you don't need to do any more than that.
It kind of saves you the problem of having to sequence what you just found.
And instead, you can use nested primers to avoid that problem.
And you'll only get fluorescence in the second reaction if you have the right signal.
And so imagine you could do that with all of these.
And so three amplicons with nested primers would give you an incredibly accurate, very specific test.
Even if you decided that two out of three here was a positive test, you would still have a specificity that would be several orders of magnitude more specific than some tests like this one where you simply are using two
two amplicons and nothing else.
And in fact, a very conserved amplicon and then an amplicon for humans.
It's not even another amplicon for the specific SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that we're all supposed to be afraid of.
And so what I'm trying to get at here is that there's lots of this PCR test stuff that they didn't really explain to you.
and didn't really get you across the finish line.
And instead, we haven't even gotten to this part of the Scooby-Doo where they actually did try to explain something.
And so instead of very carefully explaining how PCR is so accurate on the academic bench that we believe what we find when we find it, they decided to equate what is done on the academic bench with what they were doing in the field with these tests when they are not the same at all.
They're missing all kinds of parts and all kinds of subset methodologies that are used as standard, gold standard procedure in academic bench work.
nested primers being one of them, but also amplicon sequencing.
So I already kind of hinted at that.
But in this scenario here, where you have these amplicons, the very simple way to see if you amplified what you thought you amplified would be to sequence what you amplify.
And now that sequencing has become so dirt cheap, and nanopore sequencing is so dirt cheap, sequencing the amplicons after a PCR test would be very easy to do.
But they never did it.
I mean, they actually never did it.
And even though, for example, our friend here, our friend here has the equipment, this equipment right here is very capable of doing the amplicon sequencing, and probably has already, you know, pre made commercial products that could be used to do it.
I would suggest to you that they probably were using this machine for something else.
and pretending to do PCR testing on these people at the beginning of the pandemic.
That's what I'm gonna posit.
And I think that's not a crazy thing to posit because of all the stuff that we know and all the things that these people never taught us.
So besides amplicon sequencing, then how do we get all the way back to the cycle threshold Scooby-Doo?
Well, that's what this whole discussion was about, right?
Because if you understand what I've said with regard to primers and amplicons and how we could use more amplicons, and then our test would get more specific.
If you understand that these people were using machines that were really, really, really, really, really overkill,
for what they just needed three different hot plates and some people with timers, or they just needed a PCR machine that cyclers, those are not expensive.
Instead, they bought something like a $250,000 core facility machine.
And you understand that a lot of these companies share this dumb name DX.
And you understand that they have to filter out all of the human RNA before they can start to look for the RNA that they converted to DNA that they claim is from the virus.
And that we have to just take their word for this extraction because there's no way to check it.
It's just commercial products with proprietary methodologies.
And so the extraction of the RNA that gets converted to DNA that then gets called a positive or a negative test is hidden behind multiple layers of commercial products.
And the way that they use the positive and negative controls is not in the way that they would use them in an academic setting, but used as a no-go or go or a yes or no answer to the other signal, which is not how it's supposed to be used.
It's supposed to be used as a scalar or as a bookend to give you an idea
of the relative abundance of these signals and whether or not the reaction that you did can be considered valid given the expectations of these otherwise well understood signals.
So they're not using the controls in the right way.
If you understand why using more than one amplicon on a given target sequence could increase your
your specificity, then you understand what they didn't tell you.
If you understand that nested primers can make the specificity of each of these amplicon reactions much, much higher in fidelity, and that actually sequencing the resultant amplicon could be the ultimate in gold standard, then you realize when they told you
that cycle threshold is, can be just, you can just cycle it farther and get a signal.
You can understand why all the academic biologists in the world were just like, well, that's dumb.
That's not true.
Where all the PCR experts in the world can say, that's not true.
PCR doesn't work like that.
You can't just cycle it longer and get a PCR signal.
That's not how primers work.
That's how not nested primers work.
That's not how multiple amplicons work.
That's not how PCR works on my bench.
But that's not how they did it in the PCR testing here.
It's not how they did it at all.
They just told you that it was about cycle threshold.
And then they had a bunch of people agree that this was what they were doing and they agreed on it.
Then they argued about where the false positives come from and the fact that you need to have the data on prevalence before you can compute false positives of a test.
And so they got us arguing about the principles of testing instead of the principles of high-fidelity PCR.
And when you start to realize who it was that got us arguing about the principles of high-fidelity testing as opposed to the principles of PCR, those people being Jessica Rose and Claire Craig and Kevin McKernan,
all these molecular biology experts that instead of teaching us how PCR can be wielded like a fine surgical knife on the academic bench to identify the presence of an RNA, even in a single neuron,
They decided to distort all of these beautiful tweaks that can be used to make PCR one of the most accurate research tools on Earth.
They distorted it all down to, well, if you push the cycle threshold beyond 35, there's no telling what would be amplified.
And it definitely is the kind of thing that Kevin McKernan, the guy who's an expert in the PCR space on the Vance Crowe podcast in April of 2024, sorry, April 24th, 2020, should have been saying, but he wasn't.
It was just a blank page and the state narrative of, well, it's not novel like they say it's novel, but it's novel.
And so that's, again, coming back to this model of molecular biology and what's really happening here and not getting caught up in the argument about the details, but just making sure that we say that these people are lying.
So they had always lied about this.
They always lied about amplicons and specificity and which one was important.
Is it the spike or the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase or the end protein?
And we're looking for all of them.
And no, you're not.
They didn't really explain why RT-PCR versus PCR makes a very big difference in terms of proprietary methodologies and what we have to take their word for or not.
They didn't tell us how controls are really used on the academic bench to make sure that PCR is highly accurate.
They didn't show us how PCR controls were used in any of these tests, because every test that you look at, including the ones I've looked at, will show you that these positive and negative controls were never used in the way that they should be.
So nested primers are something that none of these people will mention, even though we know for sure that they were never used, especially in Canada, where we talked to the guy on stream live with a stutter who did all the PCR testing in Canada.
They never did any amplicon sequencing to verify these tests, and they weren't required to because the EUAs didn't ask them to.
And so the cycle threshold story is a scooby-doo that we were
We were led to believe we were solving a mystery of how they used the PCR test against us.
And if you believe that, then you don't realize that a background signal could be misconstrued as spread with a few perfectly planted M2 bacteriophages with the SARS-CoV-2 target sequence in it.
just like is described in the control document of this thing right here, where we scroll down and we see that the control of this experiment is a mixture of non-infectious MS2 phage-based pseudovirus containing the SARS-CoV-2 RNA target sequence at 10,000 copies per mil.
So what really happened here, ladies and gentlemen, is that the public learned that false positives are not related to the primer or the target sequences, which is a lie, but that's what they learned.
That's what became common knowledge, that it doesn't matter what primer sequences you use or what the target sequence is, you can just cycle threshold beyond a reasonable amount and get a positive result.
That's wrong if PCR is used correctly.
And that's what I've been trying to argue for more than two years now.
And that's why it's really annoying that these no virus people haven't been able to say this before me.
Academics know these errors can be avoided in any number of ways.
And so these academics assume that many of these ways are used.
Why wouldn't they be?
The information most readily available enforces these two positions.
And then the most malevolent part is that fringe positions like there are no viruses or that FOIAs and over 200 different FOIAs prove that there are no viruses isolated, don't usefully question this limited spectrum of debate where cycle threshold causes false positives.
And so you're trapped.
Because none of these people ever meant to throw a lifeline to you or they could have said this three years ago.
And I haven't been able to say it because of them.
Because I've been confused.
Because I've been lied to.
Because I've been lied to by people who are lying to about people that are lying about.
and sending me voicemails about the people they're lying about, even after I say that I don't think these people are good.
I think they are liars, and they still insist on me writing with the liars.
And so the no virus position is not right, but there are no circulating RNA pathogens like is described in virology.
And that's why the crossover event of Steve Kirsch and Andy Kaufman is so notable because that puts Andy in a different place.
That's why the crossover event with Kevin McCairn, my personal clown show, and the Human Genome Project's high school dropout, Whitehead Institute, Mark Lander, protege,
getting featured in the same LifeSite news article because Kevin McCairn got to speak in front of the Health Something Australia and because Kevin McKernan got to speak in front of the United States Senate.
This is not by accident.
This is an admission that this is all one big show.
It's all one big show, and we've been trapped in the car with these people for four and a half years, where we've defeated epidemics in the past, and vaccines are the greatest thing since buttered bread, and novel coronaviruses can definitely jump because, you know, AIDS jumped from bushmeat, and PCR false positives are rare, and they're caused by overcycling.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case scenario.
And so it's pretty significant that in the last two days, this person, I didn't even bother to update this, has done another four hour stream about me.
So I guess I'm at like 21,000 or 21 hours in the last month or so that this person gets to work and gets paid for harassing me and my family about nothing.
asking the wrong questions in 2020, focused on the wrong biology in 2021, saying it's the worst case scenario in 2023, identifying Malone as sketchy in 2024, and don't talk about 2020, he says.
It's just all one big show, ladies and gentlemen, one big coordinated Lollapalooza of liars.
And they all want you to believe that we need to free fear, free range RNA molecules if they have the right fear and cleavage site or if they're sprayed in the right bat cave.
And it's just as bad that none of these people, we can't just say that someone who worked for the Human Genome Project is probably a liar, but they are.
And that's the reason why these people support the idea of preexisting antibodies being evidence of anything.
They support the idea of an unusual fear and cleavage site being evidence of anything.
They support the idea of the diffuse proposal being evidence of anything.
They support the idea of the proximity of the lab being evidence of anything.
They perpetuate the idea that there's no evidence of an animal reservoir, therefore,
The every single tenement of this... Ten... Tentament.
Tentament.
Every single tenant.
Nay?
Tentent.
Tenant.
Tentament.
Which one is it?
Now I'm an idiot.
Every single point that I have been saying as part of the Scooby-Doo was just promoted in Congress as being valid, as being real, as being the consensus.
And that is the national security operation in a nutshell.
That's why all these foreign meddlers are in cooperation with American traders to spread the same bad ideas.
The Heart Group, Panda, and Robert Malone and Children's Health Defense are all working together to spread the same bad ideas.
And that's why this Human Genome Project employee
was already podcasting in April of 2020, in May of 2020, and it's continuing all the way till now, where he's being promoted by CHD and being promoted by Robert Malone to the highest order of the Senate.
So that everybody sees these people as heroes, even though they are exactly the same part of the exact same shit sandwich that our children are being served.
That's why I was on a podcast with all of these meddlers at once.
Because it's the illusion of consensus that gets created when four liars lie to you about how important your ideas are and then obfuscate them afterward.
It's very important to see that they did the same thing to Byron Bridle and still are doing it today.
It's very important to see that this has the same
A mirror reflection on the other side of the narrative where viruses are believed and worshiped and plush toys of viruses are traded and bow ties of viruses are considered cool fashion.
It's all part of the same wallopalooza of liars.
I want people to complain.
That this guy did not describe well enough for us to understand, but described it just well enough for us to see it.
Just well enough for us to escape it if we choose.
And so please, if you can find an email for this guy, send him an email and tell him that Jonathan Cooley wants to interview him, because I think he's a whistleblower.
I think he was telling us so that we can fight our way out of this, so that we can pull our heads out, and more importantly, the heads of our children out.
Because this is a trap and these people are the trap.
These people and their consensus about free-range RNA molecules is the trap.
They're the trap.
These people are the trap.
These liars.
These coordinated, artificially elevated liars are the trap.
And that's why none of these people have ever taught you about PCR the way that I just did.
None of these people will ever teach you about transfection the way that I've done.
None of these people will ever just say that, well, RNA virology is basically transformation and transfection of cell cultures and animals, and we just call it virology.
No, they're never going to say that because that is the illusion that all these, these, these acolytes of, of Kaprowski and Plotkin and Hohn and Bavari and, and, and,
and all these people are descended from the same teachers, Baltimore and Gallo, and all of these retrovirus people and latent virus people of the AIDS era.
They're all descended from the same people and they're all defending the same dumb ideas by limiting the spectrum of debate and getting us to focus on dumb questions.
because they've been doing it for decades.
Edward Bernays told us in 1924, and Noam Chomsky told us in the 90s, that it's always been a limited spectrum of debate.
And we don't understand it because we believe this illusion of consensus about what is to be asked.
And we also think that it's a legitimate way to argue with people by attributing bad motives to them.
And so that's what they're doing right now.
And they do it very cleverly because they get people to do it together and to argue about it.
Like Zuby and Dan Wilson have become elevated as two authorities from different sides of the aisle.
They are foreign meddlers who are American traitors.
And nothing more.
There's no doubt in my mind that Dan Wilson sold himself out and is too stupid to know how badly.
And there's no doubt in my mind that Zuby is 100% sold out.
Because that's what they do.
They're part of the ruling elite and the ruling elite agree to do what this guy is doing.
They agree to argue about things that don't need to be argued about and pretend that they're being very serious about it.
They do podcasts where they talk and argue very seriously about ideas.
And it's the equivalent of this man's act, where he's pretending to stop and start a train, and that he's some kind of superhero, only they work together to do it.
It's four or five or six people that are coordinatedly acting like they need to stop and start the train, and so it's a much more convincing act than what this guy's doing.
It's a much more convincing act when Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and Meryl Nass say that Robert Malone really is stopping the train, so we better help him.
It's a much more convincing act when Meryl Nass and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and Mary Holland say that Robert Malone is really trying to stop this train, and so we should stop him.
And that's exactly how they are working for the slavers, working to control, demolish America.
They're lying.
That's also why the heart group exposure that happened this week is also really important to see.
The almost rabid defense of someone like Claire Craig, who has a history of being part of the Genome Project, history of part of AI and cancer work, and a co-chair of the heart group with
a known meddler, Jonathan Engler, were to say something so stupid as you can believe there was a virus, you can believe that it killed people, you can believe the gain of function played a role, and it's all easier if a virus is spreading too.
She's not trying to save us.
She's not trying to break the narrative.
And Jonathan Engler coming to her defense in private messages saying that there's lots of different views in heart is just wrong.
And we can see it very clearly in this video that's still on YouTube where she talks about the PCR test that I just talked to you about.
And curiously says nothing at all about how many amplicons or how many pairs of primers or how well they clean up the human RNA or whether or not they're sequencing any of the amplicons.
Now, testing itself can fail.
Every test involves a compromise.
You have to choose, do I want to find every possible case, or do I only want to find the definite cases?
And at the beginning of an epidemic, when cases are growing, over-diagnosing a few people is acceptable.
But at peak deaths, you have to change strategy.
You change strategy.
Instead of focusing on the individual, you look at the population.
Instead of trying to diagnose every possible case, you want to find the definite cases.
And you have to change your laboratory strategy.
So you may have heard people talk about restaurants and say that there are three things restaurants can do.
This is terrible.
And once you see that I was pressured and coerced and encouraged and lied to in order to trust these two gentlemen over there, one of which is the co-chair of HART, and that the person who did that is named Jessica Hockett,
Then it starts to become very strange that these people wrote a virology review that incorporates my ideas, but in the absolute worst way possible.
And then they got mad after I told them a week before they published it, that it isn't a review that I was ever going to write.
They wanted me to write this for three years.
Welcome to where I was in 2020.
I'm sorry.
I'm not going to share it with people because this is the trap that we're in.
They got mad.
Then when I called out Claire Craig, they all came to her defense and then said, why aren't you sharing this claim of function article that we wrote?
We gave you credit.
And then I sent a few direct messages to Jessica Hockett saying that these people and this article are evidence that they are meddlers.
They are liars.
They wrote this article and their citation is bullshit.
These people are liars.
You've got to understand, Jessica, they're liars.
And she said, well, you should give them the benefit of the doubt.
You should definitely give them the benefit of the doubt.
Even though I showed you the messages, I showed you what I said to them and they ignored it.
And they instead defended and they continue to share Claire Craig as if she's helped anybody.
And they continue to pretend that they always meant to help me, but they didn't.
Jessica's now back on Substack, but kind of forgot that she released the Johnson video that I just reviewed a couple days ago.
She kind of forgot that she released that video and then disappeared on Twitter and nobody knew where she was on Substack anymore.
But it was right then that she also sent that really weird message to Mark.
that Mark posted on his substack as an image, and we got no comments, no communication.
She accused me of meddling with her sister, who I didn't even know existed as far as I know, and tried to get Mark to contact her.
When Mark contacted her, according to Mark, she said she was gonna call the cops.
But she called him.
Now, the interesting thing that I posted on Substack recently is another email that is in the exact same time frame where she seems to have tried to get Mark to call her and say, I didn't know that Jay was talking about your sister, and get me to call her and say, hey, we're fellow academics.
We should repair this damage between you and Jonathan and iron anything out.
So she completely ignored the messages where I said I was sure that Jonathan Engler and Martin Neal are liars.
She ignored it.
The idea, I said that they wrote this and they did not help me.
They did not represent my ideas well.
It has to be a bad sign.
They have to be meddlers.
And she ignored that.
She ignored that and she, in fact, released the Johnson video after they published that, and after I got mad about it, and after I went bananas.
And so... I'm gonna keep going with my previous, uh... my previous pattern here.
Don't be surprised if I play a message of yours online if you're a meddler.
And so I'm just going to play a random voicemail from June 9th.
It's a voicemail from June 9th, which means, sorry, it's not June 9th.
It's June 6th, Thursday, June 6th.
I have to correct that.
Sorry, my bad.
Where are we here?
Which one is it?
Oh yeah, I gotta get that.
June 6th, sorry.
And that's important, right, because the... That's important because the mail that I posted on Substack was from... Let's see.
Where was that Substack from?
Sorry, I'm just gonna look it up and look at the recent posts here.
And then I'll see what that email says.
I can't remember what it said anymore.
I got another email.
Can I see the post please?
What's going on?
View post.
So that email's from June 9th.
So this is an email, is rather, this is a voicemail that I got on June 6th.
And I believe that this is a voicemail which corresponds to, it corresponds to, sorry, I'm getting a little screwed up here.
It corresponds to the release of the Johnson video.
I had just told her on Twitter a couple days earlier that I'm sorry, but that virology review that those two guys wrote is bullshit, and they have to be meddlers because they didn't represent my idea as well, and they never wanted to help me with McKernan's article, the article that I told you already, we were writing together, we were supposed to write a rebuttal to Kevin McKernan about infectious clones, and these people didn't do anything, and then suddenly a couple weeks, three months later, I don't know when it was, because I don't pay attention to them,
But for a long time, they were trying to get me to write something that they ignored.
And then I just decided, forget it.
I took away all their permissions from the Google Doc and I brought it all back offline.
And then like four weeks later, they're asking me to read this review.
And Jessica's saying, yeah, you should trust them.
You should read this review for them.
They really like you and they really like your ideas and they're trying to spread them out.
At least they're writing something.
And so at the same time, she's trying to get me to release or help release this Johnson video.
And so I told her, you can do whatever you want with the Johnson video, but I know these guys are liars.
And so this is the voicemail that she sent on Thursday, June 6th.
Okay, so let's just listen to see what she's got to say.
It's like three minutes long.
So for what it's worth, I mean, it's such a chaotic,
seen right now.
It seems like, you know, intentionally, obviously it's only going to get worse with the election coming up.
I still, you know, I don't follow very many people anymore.
I just follow like 22.
If I follow somebody, I trust them, you know, as far as like, I know, as much as it depends on my knowledge and sense of things, you know, that, that it's not that I agree with everything that person says necessarily, but
That person is, they are who they say they are.
They are authentic.
If, you know, I admit that I'm biased because I know that, especially Jonathan Engler, I know him well.
So I have, you know, for a year plus.
So,
If Jonathan Engler turns out to be something that he's not, or some kind of manipulator, I would be devastated.
I would be absolutely devastated and probably quit this whole thing and be like, OK, then I don't know anybody.
Then I can't tell anything.
So that doesn't mean that you have to see it the same way.
Martin's saying, as far as I know,
Martin and Norman Fenton are putting, you know, they put their substacks over the past four years into a book.
I mean, I've read the, I skimmed the book and the chapter, or excuse me, that paper that they, that Jonathan and Martin just wrote, or they included your work, it's going into that book and content that I wrote
Wow.
Martin's in the academic world.
He was finishing marking up papers this week.
And he does play things a little closer to the best, right?
That is the way he is on social media.
But my experiences with him have been very good.
So yeah, if those guys are like playing me or using me or who knows, right?
Again, I don't know what to say.
I can't tell you what to do, but I would continue to give them, I recommend giving them the benefit of the doubt until there's really, really good reason not to.
Catherine Watts, an interesting one for me.
I mean, I replied to her on Sage Hanna's sub stack.
I actually blocked Sage Hanna, but cause he told me he didn't care if I got shot in the head or some kind of crazy nonsense.
I have no idea who runs that sub stack.
I think Catherine's legitimate.
I don't understand the role of Sasha Latapova 100%, but I've been honest about that with people about what I think is going on there.
Again, head down, I'm really trying to focus on what I'm doing and what I do well as much as possible because I believe that that will bring the best result.
And you've been really,
Informative you know for for me, and I think a lot of other people and you've taken the hits not not just with the clone stuff or the possibilities of You know building a biological bridge there with the clone But you've been helpful in helping people see who some of these players really are No, I think that in some ways is probably your best You know biggest contribution, and I've tried to honor that and cite you where and when I can so you know
I only know who I am and I'm legit.
Okay.
Have a good day.
Okay.
So, uh, that's all one message.
Um, and then three days later, uh, something like a, um, something happens where she sends a text message to Mark.
What does that mean?
And then says to Mark in a long paragraph that she's become aware that I've disparaged her sister and so this has resulted in her not trusting me anymore because I also was siding with Jiki or something like this.
And so she wanted to inform Mark that she wasn't gonna talk to me anymore and that I'd lost all trust in her.
or that she'd lost all trust in me.
And then at the same time, she sent me an email that I posted on my substack that says, I copied Jonathan Engler here and it would be great if we could have a meeting and we could work this out.
So somewhere there in there, somebody's not being honest with someone.
because if she lost all trust in me because I was disparaging her sister and was siding with Jiki Leaks according to Mark's message, but according to my message, she's decided to break off contact with Mark, and maybe we should work out something to get the details ironed out with our relationship as academics.
I'm sorry, but that's the worst kind of,
ego-stroking trap that I've ever heard of.
It's just gross.
It's definitely not somebody being honest.
It's somebody maybe being played.
It's a very generous interpretation if you think that she's being so played by these
foreign meddlers, that she trusts these foreign meddlers, that she's only known over Zoom, that she only met in Panda, that she trusts these foreign meddlers after over a year of knowing them online, she trusts them more than somebody like me, who is an American.
I don't know what to tell you, because she did not tell the truth to Mark, or she did not tell the truth to me, or she lied to both of us, while at the same time lying to all of her followers, pretending nothing's going on.
that there's nothing to answer for, that she didn't make any mistakes on the Cori timeline, that she didn't take up too much time in that Senator Ron Johnson meeting, that it isn't sketchy that she got the attention of Ron Johnson's staff, even though I was called by Ron Johnson three years earlier and have been in contact with his staff ever since.
And that this intermediate doctor, the second speaker in the Ron Johnson interview spoke for all of us saying that we think that gain of function leaks are responsible for the increase in deaths over many years.
And that these gain of function viruses have been in the background for many years.
And that guy, I didn't even meet until that meeting.
And yet he's selling biology as a dentist
that in some ways was more sophisticated than, it's crazy.
And so I feel no, I feel no, I have no other choice other than to fully disclose how I've been manipulated so that other people can make a judgment as to whether I'm dumb or not, whether these people are liars or not, or whether I stood any chance or not.
knowing that people from Panda were cooperating with people from other groups to make me feel like Jessica Hockett was a real legitimate person, and that she was getting real legitimate attention without ever mentioning Hippolaz once, and saying that she was doing all the foyas, and I was too dumb to see that she's no different than Christine Massey.
Foyas don't solve any problems.
Foyas don't prove anything.
And the HIPAA laws that existed before the pandemic needed to be suspended at the start of the pandemic so that employers could actually enforce a vaccine mandate.
Otherwise they couldn't, because they wouldn't be able to ask for that information from their employees, don't you see?
And so the fact that she's complaining about the lack of data before the pandemic is a ruse.
The fact that she's complaining about the lack of this data being provided by New York State is a ruse.
The data still is protected.
Even if it was partially suspended for national security reasons, that doesn't mean that it now becomes publicly available.
And yet she's pretending as though it was always publicly available.
And this is just one of her little, little, little scams.
Where focusing on fraud means that there's no murder.
It couldn't be that they murdered 10,000 and lied about 15,000.
That is not even on her radar.
It's just fraud.
And that's what she came back on Twitter and on Substack to say today.
And that's exactly what the founder and head of the Brownstone Institute retweeted today.
That's exactly what Nick Hudson retweeted today.
Their illusion is breaking extremely rapidly because it's really hard to keep track of all the lies, ladies and gentlemen.
And that's why you're going to see something like Jonathan Engler's podcast being unavailable.
on the Doc Malek podcast.
It's just unavailable, even though he was one of his earliest guests.
And that mine remains behind a paywall, and that the other one that I recorded is gone.
And that perhaps the most important speaker of the pandemic is behind a paywall.
But of course, his original podcast, when he came out in May of 2023,
That, that podcast, that podcast is still available.
And the first Sasha Latapova podcast from June of 2023 is available.
The first podcast of Claire Craig in July of 23 is available.
The first podcast of what Martin Neil.
is available from July of 2023.
Interesting all these heart and panda associated meddlers.
And then of course, there's a free Robert Malone podcast.
There's a free second Sasha Latipova podcast because you know, you can never get enough of her.
And then also Peak Prosperity finally showed up.
The retired pharma exec that PBS News promoted in 2008 during the financial crisis and one of the first people on YouTube to be ahead of the ball on the lab leak and not really get censored about it.
You know, Brent Weinstein's best friend, they went to Panama together to see all the invaders.
And that's why they don't want to have a reasonable discussion about how RNA virology is just transfection and transformation of cell culture and animals.
They want to talk about no virus or viruses, gain-of-function virus or no virus.
And that's how they're misleading the young.
They don't want to tell you that RNA is like a mixtape or like a cassette tape.
It doesn't grow well in culture.
You're not going to be able to sustain that because that's not how RNA works.
But you can use DNA to make a much more high fidelity copy of it and much more of that copy.
And then you can transform or transfect cell cultures by either making a lot of that DNA in bacterial culture,
Or you can just, after you make that DNA, you can convert it to RNA, or you can transform and transfect cell cultures, and you get all of the things that you want to happen to happen, and they will happen just fine.
I don't know why this is running so slow.
I might have to just start this over.
Maybe now it'll work.
And so you can go here, you can convert that DNA to RNA, and then you can put it on cell culture, that's transfection or transformation.
You can put it in animals, that's transfection or transformation.
And you can give it to your friends and they can do the same experiments.
And in virology, they call this infectious clones, whether they make a little bit of it or they make a lot of it, they call it infectious clones.
But that's just a lie.
That's just a secret word for synthetic DNA and synthetic RNA and quantity and being used to transfect and transform things.
And they have all kinds of different ways to do it.
They even have patents on virus-like particles that really resemble Ebola and can contain huge RNA molecules.
And those patents are owned by David Hohn and Sina Bavari that we never talk about.
Just like we never talk about how a conflated background signal with a few good PCR positives, you know, with bacteriophage or something like that could be misconstrued as spread.
And then all it was required is a absolute commitment to the faith, a faith in a lie.
And it's not a lie about bat cave viruses or about gain of function in cell culture and animals.
It's not even about lies about stitching things together.
That's not what it's about at all.
It's a lie about how synthetic RNA and DNA can be used to create all of these illusions.
And it's really just boils down to transfection and transformation.
And they can put these signals anywhere they want to.
They can create sickness.
They can create autoimmune reactions.
They can create seroprevalence.
And it's all transfection and transformation.
And it's all possible with the technology that has become exponentially cheaper every year, according to all of these people.
And that's the lie that all of these people are hiding.
that RNA virology is a lie and transfection and transformation are very real and they want you to accept that as the new way forward.
The new personalized medicine, the new vaccine schedule, the new cancer cures, all of them will be the same.
Transformation and transfection that they have bamboozled you into believing is much more.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic.
RNA virology is just transformation and transfection in cell cultures.
This is the one you got to start tweeting because this is the one that hurts them the most.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for joining me.
This has been Gigaohm Biological, the high resistance low
Don't fight in the chat.
Chances are very good that if you're instigating fighting, you're probably a meddler.
So try to build bridges in my chat.
Try to build bridges with the biology so that everybody understands the biology better.
Don't dunk on people and don't insult people for doubting me or doubting any of the biology.
Just help us climb out.
Work together.
Do not fight.
Work together.
And if you want to share this work, this is the way to do it.
These two things.
And if you want to support it, please go to GigaOM Biological and find a way to do it.
Thank you very much for taking the time to be a part of this stream.
And I will see you again tomorrow.
Thanks very much.
You're all very, very welcome.
I do it for you.
I do it for my kids.
I do it for all of us.
Just push this out, baby.
Push it out.
Push this stream as far as it can go.