and and and and
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
And on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, I need a caretaker.
So God made a farmer.
God said, I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, eat supper, then go to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school board.
So God made a farmer.
I need somebody with arms strong enough to wrestle a calf and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild.
Somebody to call hogs, tame cantankerous machinery, come home hungry, have to wait lunch until his wife's done feeding visiting ladies, then tell the ladies to be sure and come back real soon and mean it.
So God made a farmer.
God said I need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt and watch it die and dry his eyes and say maybe next year.
I need somebody who can shape an axe handle from a persimmon sprout, shoe a horse with a hunk of car tire, who can make harness out of hay wire, feed sacks, and shoe scraps, who planting time and harvest season will finish his 40-hour week by Tuesday noon and then pain in from tractor back put in another 72 hours."
So God made a farmer.
God had to have somebody willing to ride the ruts at double speed to get the hay in ahead of the rain clouds and yet stop in midfield and race to help when he sees the first smoke from a neighbor's place.
So God made a farmer.
God said, I need somebody strong enough to clear trees and heave bales, yet gentle enough to yeen lambs and wean pigs and tend the pink-combed pullets who will stop his mower for an hour to splint the broken leg of a meadow lark.
It had to be somebody who'd plow deep and straight and not cut corners.
Somebody to seed, weed, feed, breed, and rake, and disc, and plow, and plant, and tie the fleece, and strain the milk, and replenish the self-feeder, and finish a hard week's work with a five-mile drive to church.
Somebody who'd bail a family together with a soft, strong bonds of sharing, who would laugh, and then sigh, and then reply with smiling eyes when his son says,
that he wants to spend his life doing what dad does.
So God made a farmer.
I'm
you
And here we reside now in the midst of the first evolutionary church on earth.
Recognizing that the structure of win-lose democracy
through voting, great as it was for its time, cannot coordinate us toward a planetary sense of connectivity, wholeness, oneness, and liberate the creativity of ourselves when we join.
We've hit a structural impasse because the wind
I'm just taking this mark for right now as an announcement that the evolutionary church is a seedbed for evolutionary democracy.
The seedbed is a church.
that is growing in the consciousness of the people founding this church.
We are the first church to announce the origin and fulfillment and dedication to synergistic democracy.
Amen.
What is synergistic democracy being announced by the First Evolutionary Church, whose text is the sacred story of evolution, allurement quark to quark to quark all the way on up to
to single cells, to multi-cells, to animals, to humans, to humanity, to us in this sacred church.
So let everybody feel for the moment the awesome generation of capacity that we have.
Democracy as it functions today is not working.
We need an evolution of democracy.
We need to include and transcend into the next stage.
The evolution of democracy is the evolution of love, which is the evolution of God.
If democracy is a thought form in the mind of God, and the mind of God is the infinite creativity and value that animates reality, then the evolution of that mind form is the evolution of democracy.
The next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of the of America of the American people Is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us to ruin Maybe America.
I don't know crash the dollar.
I don't know steal the rest of our our what limited Treasury value We have left.
I don't know But I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary and more importantly never be possible.
you
Washington.
Lincoln.
Jackson.
Susan B. Anthony.
Underneath the dim lights in a dirty hall A woman stands her back against the wall Back at home, her kids to feed So she lives off someone's greed People will do anything, anything
Some people build and dine and dance Then trade last, given half a chance Empires built on someone's gold Don't think twice while they count the gold People will do anything, anything
Politicians have a way to get paid Make a stand if a profit can't be made Everyone, it's time to pass a plate Hurry up, don't be late The people will do anything, anything
Don't forget we're having a live event on November 3rd here in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania.
Send me an email, figure out how to get in contact with me, drop something in the chat.
It's a pretty fly-by-night kind of thing.
No tickets are being sold, so you can't have any expectations for there to be carnival rides or a famous band there.
But I will be there, Mark will be there, Scott will be there, Joe will be there, and a few other people, including somebody from Switzerland.
So, I don't know, if you can drive there, man, I highly recommend it.
This may be the first meeting of the roundtable, so to speak.
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
Hello from Pennsylvania.
Hello to Michigan.
Unfortunately, Uggs0001, you've already bought your ticket to come to Pittsburgh, so you no longer have any leverage as far as a bouncy house goes.
Had you waited, maybe we would have had to have organized a bouncy house.
But yeah, that's not going to happen now.
Your consciousness is still the prime real estate that these people are competing for.
And now that you've become aware of it, I hope you're taking control back.
And that includes staying off of this thing called X as much as possible, except when you go there to throw things.
And make sure that you are working hard to
all the time enunciate this to your family and friends about how these charlatans are a group of people that we've inherited from our parents.
It's really important to understand that although there are lots of people involved,
You know, all of the people that are involved understand one or two things really well.
And one or two of those things are definitely found on this screen right here.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminal.
And RNA cannot pandemic because viruses aren't pattern integrities.
That's just the way it is.
It's fun because now that we can say it so succinctly, you can see how they're left with no alternative but to ignore us because these ideas are firmly outside of the little spinning motorcycle inside of the flaming wheel that's being tilted on the mechanical arm.
We're way outside of their very lively debate within that limited spectrum.
We're way outside of it with those basic statements.
And so breaking this trap that was described by people like Edward Bernays and after him, Noam Chomsky, it's just a matter of trying to find language and ideas which are firmly outside of the trap.
So that no matter how you address them, the only way to talk about them is to acknowledge that they're outside of the trap.
And that's what I think this previous page really is here.
I think that's what this list is.
It is a combination of ideas that is so outside of the trap of the Scooby-Doo, the trap of climate change, the trap of the red and the blue pill, that we're really just now unaddressable.
People can't even talk about it.
And that's a sign that this limited spectrum of debate is now
visible once you get outside of it you can see it and so no matter how malevolent the way that they got us into the trap was no matter how malevolent this car ride has been for the last four and a half years where people have been trying to convince us that well I had something strange everybody had something strange that I know of so something had to happen
This is all something that we've been managing to shake because we started at the foundation of the narrative, the idea that there was a mystery virus that can explain the excess deaths that we're having.
And actually, we've come up with a whole list of better explanations for the increase in all-cause mortality that was observed.
and even a better explanation for the patterns in that all-cause mortality that was observed.
And although we agree that there's no epidemiological evidence of spread, I think there are better ways to explain it than how some people who have risen
to prominence are explaining it.
And with regard to the legal arguments, these are the words that you should be using if you're going to usefully tweet back against any of these people.
You should ask them to define the rational basis test and where it is used in laws that matter for this.
You should ask them what strict scrutiny is.
That's not the same as strict liability.
Make sure you know the difference.
You should ask them why the Seventh Amendment might be an interesting way to attack this narrative, and you should ask them what jurisdiction stripping might have to do with this.
Because if they're not talking about these things, then they're not talking about what the Federalist Society would talk about.
They're not talking about what, you know,
fed a very, very, very conservative law school like maybe, I don't know, is Northwestern a conservative law school?
Is probably University of Chicago is a conservative law school?
That one, you know, think about, think about these concepts and how the, how the Federalist Society would define them.
and the kinds of legal arguments that they have played a role in, especially jurisdiction stripping, especially strict scrutiny versus the rational basis test.
If you understand those things, and you understand that essentially many of these lawyers are not evoking
they are not evoking the requirement for strict scrutiny under certain circumstances, not screaming and yelling about the only requirement being the rational basis test, then they're not really fighting against the things they purport to fight against.
And it doesn't matter who gets on and says, we should fight against the PrEP Act.
Make sure you hear this.
Oh, I got to focus that in.
Hold on one second.
You're going to see the back of my chair first, because that's how I focus it in when I'm not able to sit behind it.
So here comes the back of my chair.
Let me see if that's working.
Wait, that's not working.
Hold on a second.
Big head in the way.
There we go.
Focus on chair.
Make sure that's in focus.
That's it.
See, it's real chain mail.
Gotta have armor when you're doing this work.
So, yes, what did I wanna say?
Oh yeah, so these words up here really actually mean something in the American legal system.
And so right now is just a time to draw a line in the sand.
And it doesn't matter what law you wanna talk about.
It's okay, there are lots of laws.
Mark has some laws.
Catherine Watt has some laws.
All of these laws need to be
evaluated under this general rubric of whether or not fundamental rights are being suspended or fundamental rights are being effectively turned off, if you will.
If fundamental rights are being suspended for some reason or another, emergency or exception, then we need to decide whether or not it's okay for the government to do that.
We need to understand that very much similar to how someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, there are certain situations where the government should be presumed to be right.
because we elected those people, and we thought they were good people when we elected them, so we should assume that they have good intentions for what they're doing, even if what's on its face seems like, well, this is inconvenient.
An example might be zoning laws.
If they suddenly decided to change some of the streets nearby you to zoning differently so that some business could move in there, you wouldn't hold them to what is called strict scrutiny.
under those cases, you would assume, and the courts would say that they only need to have a rational reason for what they're doing, a hypothetical reason even, like, we think that this area in the future would be a great place for businesses, so we want to seed that activity now, would be enough.
They don't need to say and have a long-term study and all kinds of other things to justify the rezoning of something.
Because you can also elect new people next year and they can rezone it back.
But if they were going to, for example, say your kids, you know, I don't know, had to get in a van and take a ride and come back in a week without explanation.
with no justification, with no good explanation for it, then you might say, well, the government might not be just assumed to be right on that.
Because a fundamental right of my child and a fundamental right of me as a parent is being violated if I have to put my kids in a van at gunpoint and then they're gone for a week and they come back with a haircut and new clothes, that's not
That for me is too much.
So then you would hold the government to what is called strict scrutiny, where the government would have to have a very good explanation and a list of circumstances that they would say in the event of X, Y, and Z, we might need to take your kids in a white van away for a week and they would come back with a haircut and new clothes.
And then we would evaluate the decision to do it based under this strict scrutiny.
And we would be due some kind of process, some substantive due process to justify that the government was going to suspend our fundamental rights and the fundamental rights of our children for a week.
And so the real legal argument to be made by Aaron Siri about the PREP Act, or the legal argument to be made about any of these laws is, A, a fundamental right is being violated, and B, the government should not be allowed to do this
passing the rational basis test alone.
The government should be held to strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny would require substantive due process.
Something should have to happen, you know, have a meeting, have more than a signed declaration that I think we are in trouble and I need an emergency declaration.
And so I'm not a lawyer.
I don't know what I'm talking about.
And it would be great if Aaron Seery would take this little video right here, a little clip of this, and then do a whole 45-minute presentation about how the Seventh Amendment has nothing to do with it.
Jurisdiction stripping doesn't mean anything.
And the rational basis test is just fine here.
or strict scrutiny, he doesn't understand what that means.
It would be great if there would be some actual response to this argument, this discussion, instead of a, yeah, let's take the PREP Act down because it's unconstitutional.
If you're going to do that, you need to be able to describe why, perhaps on its face, just as it's written, it's unconstitutional.
And the only way to do that in American law
You're gonna need to use some of those words.
The Federalist Society, or lawyers that are members of it, ought to understand what I'm talking about, so any of the friends that you have at work, or your partners at work, or some dude that you know from your bowling league or whatever that's a lawyer, send them the clip.
Who is this clown with the upside-down flag, the distress signal in America that claims that he knows how to constitutionally challenge these laws, but no one's listening to him?
That claims that he also knows some much more biologically plausible and parsimonious explanation for what's going on here, and everybody's just ignoring him.
Actually, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is even ignoring him, and he's got him in his book.
We need to break this threshold now because the elevator pitch is good enough for anyone to hear it.
Anybody that genuinely wants to hear it.
We are at that stage right now where the sword is sharp.
All we have to do is hand it to someone and watch them go.
Nobody needs to hat tip giga ohm.
They just need to say that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system was actually dumb before the pandemic.
and that murder was used to cover that up.
Murder was used to sculpt a perfect little narrative about a spreading novel pathogen that allowed us to sell products, to move money, to set up programs, to bamboozle whole departments, universities, and governments.
There are lots of people who are not sophisticated enough to understand what happened, but we at GigaOM Biological actually have a slide deck that can kind of explain it.
It's a really long ladder that can go all the way down to the bottom of the cave if somebody dares to start climbing it.
It's not that painful.
It's got good cushy rungs on it, but it's still climbing a rope ladder.
It's still work.
Nobody can do for you.
And so, yeah, we need a new consensus about these things.
I'm not going to do that.
I don't know where I was spun all out of control there for a second.
I don't even know what happened, but that's what happens when you're talking about this new kind of totalitarianism and you had your head in this bag for so long.
And, and with so many of these people, I had to explain who Jessica Hockett was again, to somebody who was getting into her and thinking she was funny and a good writer and noticing that Michael Yeadon is, is, uh, is promoting her.
I don't know what to say, ladies and gentlemen, but I'm no longer that surprised.
It's just one coordinated operation.
Most of whom, most of the people that matter and that have been substantially deviant from the Scooby-Doo story are outside of the United States.
The only significant ones, I guess you could say,
They all had books before the pandemic.
So it's, it's, it's, uh, for me, it's very, very obvious that what we're watching is an elaborate performance.
The stage is a lot of times social media.
It's a lot of times podcasts.
And it is these acolytes that we've all been promoting for these years, thinking that these were the people that were really fighting and risking it all.
These are the ones that are hired by and supported by the people behind the scenes of Locals and Substack and X. And the sponsors that also pay into these platforms are also supporting these people.
And so you really have, oh, I like the way you think.
You really have these people that pretend to be censored on the very platforms that are promoting them, pretend to be being punished on the very platforms that are allowing them to rise.
and very much allowed to complain about the so-called censorship on LinkedIn or the censorship of the demonetization of their YouTube channel.
It's all the same story with these people and none of them have lost anything.
Was Jessica Rose trying to get tenure somewhere before the pandemic?
What was she doing before the pandemic and what is she doing now?
As far as I can tell, she enjoys a very lucrative sub stack business at this point in time.
And anybody who has a lucrative sub stack right now must be very, very thankful that all they really need to do is dictate a few thoughts into a text or speech to text program and correct the grammar and hit send.
Some people, like Robert Malone, probably have a small staff of people that's using AI and feeding it previous text and having it spit things out.
We're dealing with the utmost in malevolence here, under the pretense that anybody that gets on social media and thinks that it's real is a sucker.
And I think that's what all of these people operate under the principle of.
That anybody that thinks that social media is not just a military program is a sucker.
And in order to be a member of the elite, governing elite, or audition for the governing elite, you're going to need to be able to understand that difference.
The difference between the masses and this group that you're trying to audition to join or participating in their little charade in hopes that they'll take you in on the next show.
That's what you see here.
I have no doubt about it in my mind.
And some of them are amateur contractors spinning their teams up.
Others of them have been recruited during the course of this little maneuver.
and every one of them seems to have a book or two or a substack and none of them really has a great track record leaning into the pandemic.
None of them.
None of them was minding their own business, you know, working as a zookeeper or I don't know, as a shopkeeper or I don't know, and maybe, you know, I would believe it a lot more if there was somebody that didn't have a highly dubious record
A highly dubious record, a highly dubious background.
I mean, Jessica Rose, incredibly ridiculous.
Ahmed Malik didn't even emerge on the scene until half the planet had been coerced into taking a shot.
George Webb was on 60 Minutes in February of 2020 crying about some American Air Force lady taking and seating the whole pandemic in Wuhan with a bicycle.
And the crazy part is, is that George Webb had blocked me at the beginning of the pandemic when I joined Twitter.
One of the first weird things that happened to me in like the first couple of weeks of my membership of drastic is that somebody sent me a tweet of someone that I couldn't see.
I didn't even understand what that meant.
And then they explained to me, oh, you can go and make a different, like a log out or whatever.
And then if you log out, you can see the tweet and it was George Webb.
And what was happening at this time, of course, I was streaming with Kevin McCairn and
and Addie Adds and Paul Cattrell, who was George Webb's go-to MD hero for the next three years of the pandemic.
And he had blocked me.
So in retrospect, it's very easy to see that in 2022, and I finally kind of could see that, and then found out from Mark that this guy was meddling with Mark before the pandemic, and that he was like on all these podcasts with all these people before the pandemic, then it just, it all clicked.
Like, wow, that is so bizarre.
Then what are Kevin McCairn and Paul Cuttrell, what's going on with them?
And then the years go on and the performance kept going and the only thing that really happened was is that they all kind of were fake fighting each other and all agreed that I was no one to be paid attention to, that I was an idiot, that I was a fool, that I was lost, that I was controlled, that I was an egomaniac.
And they all played that same game.
They all did it to us.
We all lost our minds on this and we need to make sure that we do not lose sight of this as we move forward in the next couple of weeks and some major crazy bait is thrown our way.
That's why I'm getting all fired up about this, because I do think there's going to be some crazy bait thrown our way.
I don't think it's going to be that significant in reality.
I don't think it has actually the potential that they want it to be perceived as having.
It's not going to be a civil war in America, but boy, would they love it if we did that stupid stuff.
But weaponized piles of money are using their acolytes on social media
And they will continue to do it.
So will Donald Trump win?
Will Kamala win?
It doesn't really matter, because this is how we are being governed.
And if you see it this way, then when the stage changes, and the flashing happens, and the scenery moves up, and these things come in, and whatever happens, and then the motorcycles in the steel sphere fire back up and start going around like this again, and everybody's arguing about what the motorcycles, which one's going to crash,
You can remain calm in your seat.
You don't have to run for the exits.
You don't have to, you know, just keep eating your popcorn.
Worst case scenario, we might have to take a couple of weeks off because of whatever they're doing.
But they are gonna be doing something.
I'm very convinced of it.
They're gonna be doing something to get us to make mistakes.
And those mistakes are only gonna be
They're only going to be possible if we are actively engaged in social media and thinking that somehow we are gleaning real useful information to make choices about the future.
And it's not going to be available for a while there.
It's really not going to be available for a while there.
And once you see that and understand that, then it'll make more sense what I show you today.
Wow, so I really got off my track there somehow.
I'm not going to go through all that again.
Let's just do this right here.
Ha!
37 minutes of nothing.
Sorry about that.
Sometimes I just need a warm up.
Sometimes I just need to decompress.
This is a Monday.
And this is a don't take the bait thing.
This is the first video I'm going to start out with.
It's something that you might not watch and that's okay if you don't watch it.
It's actually better if you don't watch it because it'll be a little bit more...
It'll be a little more unnerving when you hear it then because realize that lots and lots of people do watch it.
Lots of young people watch it.
I'm not sure really what the demographic is.
But I do, I will confess that I am looking for these mid-level
Let's call them influencers for lack of a better word.
Performers, auditioners, performers.
I'm looking for these different performing shows, auditioning shows, looking to make it to the next level.
And so they usually have between 250,000 and 750,000 people subscribing.
Tim Poole's not that kind of guy.
but the guys that are on Tim Pool's podcast often are.
And so it's very, it can be very instructive in my imagination, at least, to go on and listen to these people with that filter in place.
The filter is that there's this demographic of college kids, demographic of recent college graduates that really need
distracting.
They really need a very effective hamster wheel with lots of lights and rewards and fun music and an essential oil sense.
Otherwise, they might get off the wheel and find somebody like me, find somebody like Mark, find somebody like Scott Shara or Joe Marshall, and we would then very quickly have a problem because these kids are smart.
They've been bored for a while and they know that they've been lied to.
It's just a question of will they meet someone that will tell them the truth or just another liar?
Because there's plenty of them.
And so you need to see what the bait is.
You need to see how bad it is right now and how close they want us to come.
So I'm just going to, you know, this is just instructive and then we're going to move on to biology after this verse.
I don't even know how long we'll watch this video.
Yes, Huberman, Chris Williamson, that's... Chris Williamson is an excellent example of that mid-level auditioner that actually gets quite promoted a lot on, you know, by Joe Rogan or the people that are in that circle are going through his show a lot.
Like, Eric Weinstein has been on that guy's show like five times in the last four years.
Huberman is a real advanced enchanter like he's impressive Are you sick you're saying?
How do you think a civil war or a breakdown of the United States would begin you have a theory?
Yes?
Yes, I have multiple.
I've now real quick.
Sorry, so I just want to make sure I'm clear here
Following the election, you have already said you think there will be 1,000 deaths, politically motivated deaths by April, is that correct?
Yes.
And either this will be the effect of or the beginning of what may be a collapse or breakdown?
I think it'll be a war.
I think you'll still probably get your groceries.
You'll still be able to watch.
And so who is this guy?
Does he have a faculty position?
Or is he an academic?
Or is he a pilot?
Is he an advanced Fortnite player?
Is he a ranked Call of Duty player?
Who are we dealing with here?
Listen to the language of certainty.
And listen to the kind of pseudo checkmate bombing run he goes on here.
It is absolutely absurd.
This can't be anything other than a shithead.
Yet, this is what a lot of young people are listening to.
This is a lot.
And if you listen to this, it's already thoughts going through your head.
It's already adding to the noise that's rising to the level of full attention, which is not good.
So I'm not doing this to you
for any other reason than to illustrate the dangers that are out there right now.
How bad it really is.
You have already, most of you already have a very finely tuned filter and are very good at sorting this whole thing out.
There are children in the world that are not.
Lots and lots of them.
Netflix keep in mind in Syria or Ukraine people the horrible thing is you'll still have to go to your job you'll still have to pay your bills you'll still watch Netflix with the kids it's just Chicago's being shelled and and I want to I do want you to begin with your scenario and I want to stress this too it's a point that I like to make when I was in Egypt in 2013 across the street from the Hilton was McDonald's yeah
There's a guy sitting down eating a cheeseburger and watching soccer, and three blocks away was the revolution.
APCs were surrounding, Blackhawks were flying overhead.
We got in a car and drove to Heliopolis and went to the mall where everybody was going about their days and nothing was happening.
So with that in mind, people seem to think that a war starting means literally you're in your home and bolts are flying.
But explain to me what you think is going to happen in the next couple of months.
I've studied dozens of different historic crises, and the reason I think we're going to have a war is partly intuitive.
You just look outside, but it's also I've studied almost every single model of the science of history where people have been trying to develop models to predict history, and about five different historic models, most of them dating to the 20th century, say that in the 2020s America would have a civil war.
And I was like this is like Strauss house generational.
So Strauss how David Hackett Fisher, Peter Turchin.
There's a handful of others.
There's Goldstein is a really terrible author.
The ones I pull on the most are Peter Turchin and David Hackett Fisher.
They really get into the data computer science level.
And so now imagine where we are here.
Is this any different than a Kevin McKernan?
who can just go around and say, yeah, you know, in the Burkhalter lab, they've already screened several different subjects for, you know, advanced nanopore.
And they see, you know, replicates of 45, blah, blah, blah.
And it could be all of it very technically accurate and completely scientifically irrelevant to the point of where we're going and what we need to teach our children.
Because of course, it's just a hamster wheel.
And anytime you grab onto any of these little rungs of the wheel, if it's cycle count or if it's, I don't know, the primer dimers or whatever.
And in this case, if you grab onto any of these things, well, I don't know any of those authors, so I better Google those things.
You've just grabbed onto the wheel and started running again.
You don't need to waste even five minutes of your time trying to figure out who those people are or what models of human history he's talking about.
Models of human history that can predict something bad will happen every couple hundred years?
Oh wow, those models must be very sophisticated.
See what we're dealing with here?
And kids watch this, you know, with their headphones on so they can't be distracted and they can hear it perfectly.
But their phone turns sideways.
And so if something happens on social media that is hyped up to be the beginning of something terrible, they've been primed.
So I'm not saying anything is terrifying or it's scary.
I want you to see how clownish this is.
Cause this isn't going to motivate anyone.
This guy can't motivate anybody.
Is somebody really listening to this guy and going, wow, he's really opening my eyes.
I trust this dude because of, because why?
Because of what I said earlier, because he looks like a very skilled Fortnite player.
I think that's a blower or something across the street.
Oh, darn.
I might have already spoiled that.
Sorry.
I want to listen to a little bit more of the model part, because it's really funny.
The Fall of the Roman Republic, the English Civil War, Fisher, Peter Turchin.
There's a handful of others.
There's Goldstein, who's a really terrible author.
The ones I pull on the most are
Peter Turchin and David Hackett Fisher, they really get into the data computer science level.
And there's a handful of, there's like four variables, there's three variables that Peter Turchin looked at, where if you look at these variables, and he's used this for over a dozen crises over history, you can predict the years these historic crises happen in.
Those are average wages,
income inequality, and competition for elite jobs.
Those three variables were able to predict the fall of the Roman Republic, the English Civil War, the Black Death, the French Wars of Religion, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution.
So see the spell casting that's happening here?
It's the absolute, it's a battleship size mountain of bullshit being thrown at you at once.
Models of world history,
using three variables alone, have predicted x, y, and z.
Now, I don't know if we have to argue about whether human history and its cataloging and archiving are high fidelity or not.
I don't know if we need to discuss the idea that the victor writes the history, or if we have to discuss the idea of our history being a lie, or he just thinks that he has access to the accurate history, I guess, and he also has access to all these models, and it only needs, think about this, kids,
Products of our school system are very vulnerable right now to this kind of stuff and they don't have any adults to listen to and that's what we need to start providing them.
We need to throw a lifeline to the kids that watch this.
25,000 people watch this guy live.
Sometimes it's as high as 50,000 if he has the right guest.
50,000 people live.
Did he say four variables?
Sorry.
So many more.
Wow.
And these crises happen every 250 years like clockwork.
The last real version in the Western world was the French Revolution.
Before then, the wars of religion in the mid 1600s that killed a third of Europe's population.
Before then, the Black Death in the 1300s, which killed half of Europe's population.
So these are patterns that we have computer models to study.
They're very consistent.
And so I'm looking to all these historic examples to inform my analysis of what I'm about to say.
oh darn it we're gonna spoil it again so that's pretty impressive right he's he's said he's stacked up all these chips in front of him like you know i got this i know this i checked this i checked that i read this book you didn't read i know these models you didn't read plus computers computers computers ai
What are you going to do at that point?
This guy must know more than anyone on earth.
He's just because he decided to read the right things.
I guess this is the dude that everybody's going to talk to.
Do you know who talked to him?
Tim Bilyeu, for example.
Another one of these mid-level guys, the impact factor or whatever it's called.
That guy also is one of these dudes.
He had Rodney on his show before the pandemic.
That guy's been rising for a while now.
And he's been on there very recently.
He's doing the rounds just like the guy with the curly hair and the everyday spy shit.
There's three variables that Peter Turchin looked at where if you look at these variables, and he's used this for over,
a dozen crises over history.
You can predict the years these historic crises happen in.
Those are average wages, income inequality, and competition for elite jobs.
Those three variables were able to predict the fall of the Roman Republic, the English Civil War, the Black Death, the French Wars of Religion, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and so many more.
And these crises happen every 250 years like clockwork.
The last real version in the Western world was the French Revolution.
Before then, the wars of religion in the mid-1600s that killed a third of Europe's population.
Before then, the Black Death in the 1300s.
My guess is that people like this would actually fail at starting a fire in a wood stove.
And I'm not even joking.
I think that you could get this person to smoke out a house by just closing the damper.
I mean, we're dealing with some very, very malevolent, like this is terrible now.
And so we need to have pity for our neighbor.
We need to look with kindness to them.
Kind words don't cost us anything.
And as much as I would love to be and embrace that kind of energy, it has become very clear to me that that's not the way forward now.
I and we all have to let go of that energy and focus on trying to embrace the people that are willing to go forward with this truth that they murdered a lot of people and lied about it.
And it's a very simple explanation.
You only need to look at the opioid crisis.
You only need to try to figure out whether they got pure oxygen or high flow oxygen at the start of their protocol.
And you only need to realize that these products already had names before the pandemic and calling them investigational vaccines and going along with that is what these people did.
And by doing that and going along with this narrative of something bad happening in the background, these people can directly contributed to the murder of thousands of people in America and maybe around the world.
I don't know.
And so now the new hamster wheels are being rolled out so that as people get tired of running in the COVID wheel, there are other hamster wheels to run in.
I don't know if you've noticed, I think some people in the chat have already mentioned it.
I thought I saw something solar, but there's even solar weathermen on the YouTube now.
and extreme weathermen on the YouTube now that have rolled out these multi-screen, multi-webcam to monitor hurricanes and monitor the solar flares.
It's extraordinary what's going on right now.
And that's also not spontaneous.
This is by design because we are being ruled by these military programs and the content that's being forced on them.
It's what killed half of Europe's population.
So these are patterns that we have computer models to study.
They're very consistent.
And so I'm looking to all these historic examples to inform my analysis of what I'm about to say.
So how does it begin?
So I have a tier list of multiple variables.
My top... Did you see the way that he handed it off to Tim and Tim says, so how does it begin?
Did you see the smile?
In case it's not obvious, they are performing for the young.
They are actively engaging in theater that is directed by and scripted by the people that make them rise.
I don't care if they know, I don't care if they're smart or not, this is a problem.
And it is a very, very clear example
that can be used to illustrate how we are being manipulated.
These two guys are working together.
Tim Pool provides the platform, this guy provides the script, and they go off on it together.
He has rehearsed this on other people's podcasts and laid it out now.
on one of the biggest ones, Tim Pool.
Listen again, please.
so how does it begin so i have a tier list of multiple variables my top one was a financial crisis and now he almost paused with his hands like this so i have this tier list of variables he handed the mic like
And Tim Pool said, so how does it start?
And then he went like this, almost like Mr. Evil or some shit, and then very quickly corrected himself.
Watch it again, because it is absolutely malevolence.
And it is malevolence on the amateur level, because we are at the stage where the shit is breaking down, where the real theater is breaking down, and you can see it in real time.
This is from like a couple days ago.
Be consistent and so I'm looking to all these historic examples to inform my analysis of what I'm about to say So how does it begin?
So I have a tier list of multiple variables my top one was a financial crisis and that was going back years I figured out a lot of this stuff in 2020 and financial crisis was my top bet because you look at the English Civil War the French Revolution and the France's previous crises in the 13 in the 1600s Etc.
And it's normal.
It's magic
It's magical.
It is a malevolent enchantment of two or three people agreeing to talk about shit and agreeing that things are interesting, agreeing that this guy's got answers, agreeing to listen to him, and it creates something that doesn't happen when that guy podcasts all by himself, because that's not the kind of message that he's sending.
Tim Pool plays the role of the enchanted.
He plays the role of the enchanter.
There's no such thing happening here with GigaOM Biological.
If you don't like what you're hearing, you don't like what you see, you don't trust what you see, there's nothing else here.
There's nobody for me to bounce my lies off of.
There's nobody for me to say, what do you think?
And they say, oh, I think you're smart.
That's exactly what's happening here.
It's much more complicated than a laugh track.
It is much more complicated than a laugh track now, ladies and gentlemen.
And we need to wake up and realize it, that our kids are being influenced.
Not just about what they put on their face, or what clothes they want to wear, what soap they're going to use, or what shoes they're going to buy, or what sneakers they're chasing.
No, no, no.
Also about what they think about the adults in their life.
Also what they think about their peers.
Also what they think about sex.
Also what they think about love.
Also what they think about... It's not spontaneous.
So much of this is now scripted because it's allowed.
There are no rules about lying to people on YouTube or on social media.
No rules about, you can get mad if somebody's lying, but there are no rules about it.
It's not illegal to make a YouTube channel with all your friends and pretend that they're people that are randomly chosen to give cars to, when in reality, you're just giving them their own car back.
You can do that.
And if you get a million subscribers and all kinds of sponsors to be on your, and make $100,000 a year by doing those kinds of videos, it's totally okay.
Nobody can get mad and it can be much worse than that.
And it is.
And when it comes to the real politic of the minds of our children, the minds of our college kids, the minds of our young adults that are not yet having children, but thinking about it,
the peers of Tim Pool, the 30-somethings, ladies and gentlemen, they are wholly being governed through their skilled social media use, and this is a perfect example of it.
No useful information is being given away there.
It's exactly the opposite.
Obviously we can see it, but what we need to do is start fighting actively to make other people see it.
Young people need to see this.
Young adults need to see it.
There is no truth available here.
I've been to so many award shows where the winner comes back to the table and very modestly says, oh, it's not like I'm curing cancer or anything.
So it is so humbling and inspiring to be sitting here with people who sit back down and say, actually, I am curing cancer.
So thank you very much for letting me be part of this amazing evening.
Victor Ambrose and Gary Ruvkin have provided groundbreaking insight into how living things build the trillions of proteins that run them.
They discovered tiny instruction sets called microRNAs, the key to an intricate system by which genes regulate other genes.
When I was a kid, I remember being curious about the world.
I remember reading a book about Clyde Tombach, who discovered Pluto.
And he was a farm boy who was an amateur astronomer.
So I think I identified with him because I was growing up on a farm.
And so there was this possibility that somebody like me could become a scientist.
The space program somehow captivated me.
I was eight.
When you're eight years old... Is that Bret Weinstein's brother?
My self-esteem was not based on my athletic ability.
I found my equipoise in imagining myself as a scientist.
That's what I could be.
We were postdocs together and collaborated.
And then we both started our labs at Harvard on different campuses at Harvard.
And I think we sort of decided to split up the project that we'd begun together as postdocs.
The dramatic moment came when each of us had decoded some of the letters that correspond to these genes.
And we wanted to compare the sequences.
I was working in my office, and he calls me up.
He goes, do you see it?
Do you see it?
Oh, this was 92 when we had started in 82.
So it was a 10-year culmination.
The discovery of microRNAs was the first step in a small RNA revolution.
There's an enormous range of biological processes that microRNAs are involved in, from cancer to heart disease to neurodegenerative diseases and so forth.
When I was a first year graduate student, I didn't feel like I was the smartest kid in the class.
But now looking back on it, I was definitely the luckiest kid in that class.
It's an amazing thrill to be considered one of the leaders in a field because I was just trying to be pretty good.
It's really you are aware right that that guy got the Nobel Prize not for micro RNAs But he got the Nobel Prize for the Google fold program or some shit like that, right do remember here What I'm showing you here is where he's being awarded a prize for micro RNAs and the discovery of them and
and being awarded by Kate Beckinsale and Elon Musk, and a tribute paid to that biology.
But that's not, repeat, not the biology for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
But this, we're being recognized for doing something literally together by sharing information.
You just can't take that away from us.
It's terrific.
For discovering a new world of micro RNAs, the tiniest genes that are the powerful regulators of other genes.
The Breakthrough Prize is awarded to Victor Ambrose and Gary Rupkin.
Now keep in mind what they just said there.
Powerful little genes that regulate other genes.
So they throw that word around in a very aspecific way because, of course, Erwin Schrodinger's talking about a different kind of thing when he talks about genes.
Mendel was talking about a different kind of thing.
Now even micro RNAs are genes.
What an interesting sort of
You know, script, Kate Beckinsale reads things.
She wasn't, that's not her idea.
That's not her shooting off the cuff what she knows about this guy's work.
That's her reading a script.
Genes regulate other genes.
Well, that's curious.
What if there are micro RNAs in every transfection product that is made using standard commercial recombinant DNA and RNA technologies?
What would that, what implications could that have if micro RNAs are a source of regulation and actually genes that we don't really understand and we just gave an award for in 2015, but then didn't really need to give an award
in 2024.
I'm confused.
That's weird.
I'll let it play out and then we'll see what the next slide has for us.
I've been very inspired through my life.
As a child, it was the space launches.
And then when I decided to become a scientist, I joined an ongoing revolution in DNA, in the genomics revolution, and that's been my workshop.
I want to thank you so much.
I want to thank my family so much as well.
I think that it's extraordinary that we as a society have supported basic science for so long.
This is the secret of our success.
Finally, I want to thank Candy, who's been my partner in life and in science for more than 40 years.
Thank you for taking me on as your project.
I can't even say anything.
I can't say anything.
I have nothing to say.
Next, please.
Oh, this is 2014, one year before he's going to explain what he found.
This is cool.
Today I'm going to talk about the small RNA revolution that occurred between 1990 and today and how that emerged.
My name is Gary Rovkin.
I'm a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School.
one learns as an undergrad.
So since 1990, there's been this ongoing revolution realizing that small RNAs are actually some kind of regulatory, they play some kind of regulatory role.
And now we're going to hear a very simplistic version of that regulatory role that was built in a very simplistic model.
And just like the textbook behind me about prion diseases that is almost exclusively data derived from yeast experiments, we're going to hear about a regulatory mechanism that is most certainly present in our own system, but in a far more complicated and enmeshed sort of way than would be present in the organism that he identified it in.
He identifies it in an organism, a maybe pattern integrity that is sufficiently simple that the role that these molecules may or may not play in that system is discernible.
As the complexity of the pattern integrity in space-time gets higher, as you move into more complicated animals than what he has looked at,
then the compounding complication and complexity cannot be underestimated.
Even if the fundamental truth that small RNAs are also genes that regulate other genes, then we have identified another layer of complexity that cannot be accounted for in the blunt instrument known as transfection and the blunt instrument known as transformation with adenovirus or other viruses.
other particles with DNA in them.
And so we are really here right now.
Here we go.
The central dogma is the DNA to RNA to protein.
And he's going to argue that the central dogma needs a little adjustment because microRNAs
are a regulatory point, a general regulatory point, perhaps for every gene that's ever expressed.
And perhaps multiple microRNAs have multiple roles, depending on whether we've ever looked or detected them.
And so we are opening up a door of almost infinite additional complexity at a level that is more difficult for us to detect in vivo because it's a smaller signal and smaller molecules that are easier to create from the noise.
And so here he is working in a very simple model so that he can discern them from the noise, supposedly.
And if he can, then it only implies an incredible level of complexity in our own pattern integrity that would, again, underscore the absolute absurdity of using an RNA transfection in a lipid nanoparticle, proprietary or not,
on healthy human beings under any pretenses, nevermind an elaborate hoax about a novel viral pandemic.
They recruited people early and groomed them for a long time so that they were sure that they would stay in their lane, they were sure that they would keep saying the same things, then they would sure provide hamster wheels for people to never usefully escape.
This is one of them.
This guy, more than a lot of people, should be able to go, wait a minute,
Did Kevin McKernan say that the RNA sample that was submitted by these companies was actually a smear?
You mean like a smear from the pure intended RNA all the way down to all the fragments down to like 10 bases?
Yes, that's correct.
It was a smear.
And so at the end of that smear are a whole bunch of random, what you might call small regulatory RNAs that will also be present in the shock, also transported by the lipid nanoparticle, also packaged.
And so sure, maybe you'll get lucky and you'll express some spike protein and it'll be fine and you'll make some antibodies and everything will be happily ever after.
But what about all those little tiny RNAs that apparently are part of the central dogma that this guy found and lots of people were finding already back in the nineties.
We should just forget about those.
Yeah, we should.
And to make sure that you forget about them, this guy was given a Nobel prize.
the central dogma of molecular biology, where DNA makes RNA that makes proteins, and small RNAs have modified that over the last 20 years.
The first example of modification was the microRNAs that I'll go into in great detail today.
And they are thought to be made from very small transcripts,
22 nucleotides long that then regulate the translation of target mRNAs to then cause less protein products.
So it's another layer of regulation.
But in addition to microRNAs, there's also many other tiny RNAs that are made inside of cells that probably regulate the production of RNA from genes and also add a regulatory locus.
So RNAs are regulated by micro RNAs.
And I think how that works is that they bind to them.
And when they bind to them, they become double-stranded RNA and that gets instantly degraded.
And then now he's also talking about other regulatory RNAs that influence the way the DNA is translated to RNA.
And he says, probably.
So you can already see
that they have no idea what they're doing when they inject an RNA into a healthy person inside of a lipid nanoparticle, even if they could off the shelf pull a absolutely 100% pure RNA of this sequence that they purported to use with the exact chemical composition that they wanted it to be, and then put it in the lipid nanoparticle exactly as the way that they wanted to, it would still not be an appropriate therapeutic for a healthy human.
But here we are talking about things that are hypothetically impossible.
You can't get that pure RNA.
There's always going to be contamination.
And there's going to be not only contamination of RNA, but DNA and endotoxins and everything that come from being able to not being able to purify the commercially
manufactured using recombinant DNA methods, you're not going to be able to purify that into anything that would resemble the cartoon that we just described where you pull the pure RNA off the shelf and you carefully package it in the lipid nanoparticle.
They can't do that.
And so this is a very big problem and they needed to make sure that anybody understood how incredibly complex this problem is or potentially is, how little we actually know about it, would need to be firmly in their pocket with a very prestigious appointment and a very, very unassailable CV.
That's what you see being built here.
That's what was built with Stanley Prusiner being promoted by Hillary Kaprowski.
That's what you see here.
And that's how we got here.
That's why Peter Daszak was in place on 60 Minutes years before the pandemic, because this was a ongoing full court press to make sure that when they finally decided to close the main doors of the trap that everybody would be in.
And we still are.
Only some of our ideas are outside of this trap.
The rest of them are still inside because the trap is all-encompassing.
It's not small.
It's designed to contain all of us in what Teilhard de Chardin called the no-sphere.
This is one collective idea about our biology, and it's a very bad mythology, but it is a giant trap for our children.
So that generations of children will never actually understand their biology.
They'll never understand how sacred a child is, a baby is, and how perfect every person is.
with their imperfections.
That's the whole point.
And those were discovered at about the same time, and I'll talk about that too.
So the star of the show is C. elegans, the nematode.
And this is the animal that is not as big as my arm.
It's a millimeter long.
And it has been a subject of thousands of researchers worldwide.
who work on it.
It started as a field by Sidney Brenner in the early 60s as the most simple, complicated animal to work on.
The worm is an animal and it's phylogenetically related to us up here, but pretty distant and much simplified as an animal.
So simple that instead of having billions of cells, it has 959 cells as a full grown adult.
So, you know, the, the interesting thing about this is, is that why aren't there, you know, how come they haven't remodeled this thing then they, they know exactly how many cells there are.
And they know exactly when they, they divide into those cells.
They know exactly how many cells compose the whole animal.
They have the whole genome of it.
But they haven't figured out how to rearrange anything in the worm.
They haven't managed to have it have two heads or anything like that.
Rearrange stuff.
So they have the protein catalog.
And then they think they're done.
Even though we can go all the way back to someone like Erwin Schrodinger that we're covering in Biology 101.
And we can find in chapter, on page 21, we can find a quote.
And it is, maybe it's not 21, maybe it's 22.
But in term, see, this is what we're dealing with here.
But the term code script is, of course, too narrow.
The chromosome structures are at the same time instrumental in bringing about the development they foreshadow.
The chromosomes are not just a recipe for proteins, but somehow or another, the plan of how those proteins sing together across time is apparently encoded there.
That is what Erwin Schrodinger realizes has to be the truth.
If the chromosomes carry the information of life, as the physicists and chemists have assumed since the Manhattan Project and onward,
then the only way that's possible is if they are code law and executive power, or to use another simile, they are the architect's plan and the builder's craft in one.
We have not cracked this code, ladies and gentlemen.
We may find generations from now that some more is added to our understanding and we see multiple layers of it or something like that.
It's also possible that we never will.
But right now,
There is an entire academia of biology that assumes that we have already cracked this, we've already bridged this gap.
And that's the danger that we're in.
Whoops, what the?
This is the lineage of the animal.
It was worked out by John Sulston in the early 70s.
This is showing the pattern of divisions that take place in the embryo.
These are the divisions that take place during larval stage one.
This is not Brett Weinstein's brother.
Sorry, I just made the joke.
Stage four and out pops an adult.
And it produces progeny every three days.
So it's a very fast genetic system that attracted a lot of talent.
And the field of C. elegans has always been very influential to me in particular.
It's just populated with really wonderful people who work on many different biological problems.
And I've always felt blessed to have been surrounded by people who work on so many different aspects of the biology of this animal.
It's a way to learn everything about biology in a microcosm on one organism.
There's the mistake.
There's the mistake in a nutshell, right?
Let's listen to that again, because he says it better than I could ever say it.
And we should just listen to him and let him say it, because it's perfect.
It's a way to learn everything about biology in a microcosm on one organism.
This is the trap that we are in right now.
This is a way to learn everything about biology in a microcosm in an organism.
This is absolutely positively
I have no responsibility for the... Something's breaking down there.
We had a little computer problem.
Sorry about that.
But it's absolutely wrong.
And that is, I assure you, the exact same problem
with this book right here, okay?
This book is way too frickin' big for how simple the principle is.
If there are proteins that, if they are folded wrong, can cause other proteins to fold wrong, and this can just cascade out of control, then you don't need a book this big to explain it.
And most of the data shouldn't be from yeast, but it is.
It's almost all from yeast.
And that's the problem here.
These people have allowed, they have actively bamboozled us into believing that what we can learn from yeast directly applies to us and implies that we are nothing but determinist chemical reactions.
It's nothing more to us.
C. elegans is exactly the same as us, we just have more cells and trick us into believing that we are special.
And that's exactly what Sam Harris would tell you too.
This is the trap, ladies and gentlemen, and he's absolutely inside of it.
And all of these academic biologists that believe that their knockout mouse or their inbred mice experiments have real interesting implications in understanding our own systems.
And this is such a terribly malevolent trap because every once in a while, it is true.
For certain pure genetic things, for certain pure genetic examples, for certain really obvious things, yes, it's true.
But it doesn't help us understand ourselves.
as a species, as a phenomenon, as an individual, and how we fit into that.
It doesn't help us at all.
In fact, it takes us farther and farther away from understanding that in a meaningful way.
And in fact, I believe it really does, in a malevolent way, misuse what could otherwise be a very, very high potential
for humanity to evolve in a direction as a species that would be good for everyone involved, all the generations to come.
And that's the very scary thing for me right now, is that I do think that it's kind of like a moment like that, where we could go one way into a green paradise, and we could go another way into an absolute hellscape.
And it is a question of whether every individual adult human is willing to carry the water for the next generation and protect them from this attack that's gonna continue for probably a decade to come before whatever else in the script is gonna happen.
And we need our children in the next couple years to
be fully aware of the stage.
So that despite the performances and despite the coordinated lives, they're able to communicate with one another and form communities and maintain them and move forward in a different direction.
And that is only possible if we can show kids this fundamental illusion, what he just said, that is absolutely positively not true.
We cannot learn very much or anything about ourselves by studying these worms in this way.
We cannot, because what it does is that it entices us to believe
That there is a description like this that fits us.
That there is a description like this that fits our dog.
That we just don't see our children in the right light, and otherwise you could learn a lot about your kids from Sea Elegance.
This is an illusion.
It's a terrible, malevolent illusion that I was under and lots and lots of people are still under and we must free them from it.
It's an illusion.
On so many different aspects of the biology of this animal, it's a way to learn everything about biology in a microcosm on one organism.
And the real malevolence of this, sorry, I gotta go back, because I didn't mean to advance like that.
The real malevolence of this is that they are using people like him, rewarding people like him, because they need children to think like this.
They need children and they need universities to teach this at the fundamental level, even to high school kids.
That the science that this guy does
Edifies the idea that genes are determinant That we can be described by a combination of physical and chemical laws that we just don't understand how yet and this is a an absolute malevolent lie about the irreducible complexity that should be biology biology should be a source of continuous reverence and and and in a pursuit of an accurate description of the sacred and
And instead, it has been twisted around to really, in my humble opinion, represent the opinion that God is hands off.
that because evolution is true, the phenomenon of man, that's what I think is happening here, that's how I would characterize it off the cuff, really, is that the phenomenon of man is an admission that this guy, Teilhard de Chardin, and these people are looking to teach our children that God is hands-off.
that the creation that God did is a process that he put in motion and it is spinning into the future.
And now that we understand that, it's okay for us to influence that process.
It's okay to take control of it.
It's okay for a bunch of smart people
the wisest of us, to take control of that species-level evolution.
It's okay for us to do that because God made it that way.
That's exactly what these books combine to teach people like Peter Hotez and Jeffrey Sachs, and probably a lot of these other people that are following this general tact.
is that evolution is a process guided by God, maybe set in motion by God.
And therefore, now that we understand that, it's okay for us.
It is the next evolution in our divine existence for us to take control of what is otherwise a process that God put in motion.
but is not actively engaged in or doesn't require respect.
Now that we understand how it works, God is hands off.
He gave us the knobs.
We're not going to turn them.
That's the argument that they make.
That's the argument that all of these people are making.
And I would argue that's the enticing argument that makes these people think that what they're doing is not malevolent.
What they're doing is what we have all been destined to do.
And we just happen to be born in the time when it's going to happen.
And it's very easy if you have a lot of money and power to have parties and discussions that get exactly here.
And it's been happening for decades, for generations.
You see?
At least two generations.
I hope I'm making sense.
If I'm not making sense, you know.
keeps reiterating.
So this animal is retarded.
It never really gets to the adult stage.
It always has patterns of division as if it's a larval animal.
And what really sort of launched this project to be really important to me... You're retarded!
Sorry, I didn't see that.
That's fine.
when he was a postdoc in Bob Horvitz's lab in the early 80s.
See, so if you find a gene that you can knock out and then some weird aberrant developmental process happens, I think what's really quite comical to me at this point is what this guy doesn't realize is that what that really means is that messing with development
the development of a human.
I'm not talking about the development of a worm with 954 cells.
I'm talking about messing with the development of a human.
If you have evidence this compelling, the development is a waterfall cascading process that when it goes in the wrong direction, it can go very spirally wrong.
How is it possible that this guy doesn't understand if his model organism allows him to study any question in biology in a microcosm in an organism?
Then how the hell does he not know?
How does he not know?
that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances during the development of a young human embryo would be ridiculous.
How is it possible that a Harvard scientist with this CV is not from the rooftops screaming about the RNA impurity smear
that Kevin McKernan told us about on our own podcast in 2022.
I mean, this is really how bad it is, ladies and gentlemen.
People with the requisite discoveries.
He discovered this stuff.
He's not speaking about the, the, the, the RNA being impure at all.
He's not worried about it at all, even though there could be potentially tens of thousands of interfering RNAs in every lipid nanoparticle.
Every particle.
And discover the gene LIN14 could suppress
mutations in Lin-4, so it could take this complicated set of divisions that are temporally aberrant, and instead of doing L1, L1, L1, it would go straight to L2, and therefore have a pattern of divisions that's distinct in time.
And this allowed him to infer that Lin-4 was a negative regulator of the gene Lin-14 to set up this... how developmental timing works.
And so the genes regulate other genes, but we don't really know all the things we know.
It's just that it doesn't become a worm if we mess with them.
And so here again, we have evidence that the genes are coding much more than just a protein.
Yet when it's convenient, genes are proteins.
And when it's not convenient, genes are
are actually micro RNAs that regulate other genes.
So we have genes that regulate other genes, but only when it's appropriate or only when it's useful to discuss it that way.
Otherwise here in this case, we don't, we don't care about what these proteins do.
We don't have it to have any mechanism by which they work.
We just know that when we mess with one, we don't get the other.
When we mess with the other, we don't get the same.
It's just these, these relationships that then get,
distorted almost instantaneously by p-values and null hypothesis testing, they almost get instantaneously transformed into a high-fidelity understanding about what lin-14 and lin-28 do together.
I have no responsibility for the code.
I don't know why it keeps running like that.
I gotta figure out what's going on here with this stupid thing.
It's like not pausing on cue.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
Let me just test it one more time and see if it works.
No, it's not working.
I don't know why.
Um, it doesn't matter.
I don't need those sound effects.
This is really just, it's insane.
To me, this keeps going on.
You're going to see that what he found in these worms and then implying that we have some really rudiment, not rudimentary, but fundamental understanding of ourselves from this and, and awarding him prizes for it.
All it really does is make sure that he will shut the hell up.
about the potential implications for an impure RNA or for transfection in general in human beings.
That's it.
It's the only reason to give this guy an award in 2015 to make sure he's right where they need him to be when they decide to start rolling out these mRNAs and then to give him a Nobel Prize for a computer program?
Are you serious?
It's a big game, ladies and gentlemen.
It's an absolutely malevolent game.
Do you know why?
Listen to this.
Hi, everyone.
Welcome to this talk, Screening All DNA Synthesis and Reliably Detecting Stealth Pandemics.
Kevin Esvelt is an associate professor in the MIT Media Lab where he leads the Sculpting Evolution Group in Advancing Biotechnology Safely.
In 2013, he invented CRISPR-based gene drive, kept it to himself until confident the technology favored defense, and then revealed his findings and called for an open discussion and safeguards before building the first CRISPR-based gene.
gene drive system so do you see what she's who she's talking about kevin esvelt is going to present at an effective altruism global conference this is recent the gene drive guy
In this talk, Kevin will outline two distinct scenarios, wildlife and stealth, by which pandemic-causing pathogens could cause societal collapse.
He will then explain the Delay, Detect, Defend plan to prevent such pandemics, including the key technological programs his team oversees to mitigate pandemic risks.
As a reminder, if you have questions for Kevin, you can submit them via the Swapcard app, and during the Q&A portion, I will select a mixture of prepared and audience questions.
She is a bioethics fellow at the National Institutes of Health.
Are you kidding me?
And she's introducing Kevin Esvelt.
I wonder where he works.
Who does he work for?
Let's see what they put on the slide.
To ask.
Thanks.
All right.
Good day, everyone.
I was asked to give an uplifting talk about technical progress on mitigating biorisks so as to fill all of your hearts with hope for the future.
This has not traditionally been my strength.
but perhaps I will try.
So the other thing I wanted to.
So he's from, he's an associate professor at the MIT media lab, but he's making jokes about not being able to give uplifting talks and people in the audience are laughing about it.
Great start.
To get out there at the beginning is just, I realized that I hadn't really explained what we're thinking here in this space.
And so what does it say here?
Kevin Esfelt, Associate Professor of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Secure Bio Incorporated, Secure DNA Foundation, and a Polymath Fellow for the Geneva Center for Security Policy.
So keep in mind that this guy, along with Richard Ebright, testified in front of the House of Representatives almost, or maybe it was the Senate, I don't even know anymore.
At least three years ago already, the gain-of-function research was the most dangerous thing in the world and it really needed regulation, even though this guy already is the guy who invented gene drives and knows that gene drives are much more dangerous and very easy to make.
and could even be deployed in humans.
And humans wouldn't even know that they had been gene-drived because it wouldn't be in them.
It would be in their gametes.
And then when they made kids, their kids would be gene-drived and they wouldn't even know because no one would be looking for it, even though he says it's easy to find, but who's going to look for it.
It would be a generational modification perfectly done by intramuscular injection of a lipid nanoparticle carrying an RNA.
I'm not saying they're doing it.
I'm not saying they wouldn't do it either.
I'm saying that this guy does not work for America.
I'm saying that this guy has been part of this for a very, very long time and understood that we are being managed and governed more akin to a plantation population, a farm population, or an experimental population.
And I believe that this guy is very keenly aware of that, and totally fine with it.
He's one of these very, very atheist, you know, it's just the way it is.
We're just physics and chemistry, so there's no morality.
Might as well be on the winning team.
That's where we are.
Otherwise, this would not exist, and it wouldn't be from 2023.
I needed to change the title of the talk because so much of the risk these days has to do with AI as well.
And in a lot- AI bioconvergence screening global DNA synthesis and reliably detecting stealth pandemics.
This is like the smart guys, Peter Daszak.
This is the mathematicians, Peter Daszak.
The molecular biologist Peter Daszak.
This is not the 60 Minutes Peter Daszak.
It's not the, you know, UN Peter Daszak.
And nobody talks about Kevin Esvelt but me.
Nobody, not one person.
No one talks about Gene Drives, nothing.
But it's a bio weapon.
It's a bio weapon.
A lot of ways, unless we deal with AI, we're not going to be able to deal with bio.
And what's more, those of us in the biospace, if we can influence AI in a positive direction, that's potentially much more impact than we could get otherwise.
So I'm going to tell a little bit of a story.
So if we can influence AI in a positive direction is 100% PSYOP.
Part of the script.
This guy is a very effective weapon.
That's what you see here.
I don't know if he knows it or he's just going along because, you know, in the military, that's what you do.
You just don't need to know.
If this is what you need me to do and you're going to pay me this much, I'm happy to do it.
If you tell me that this is patriotic, well, then I'll do it even harder.
That's how this works.
That's how some of these people got involved.
I'm afraid that that's how, for example, Peter McCullough got in.
At first, he really believed that there was a lab leak and that it might be being covered up.
And so he was recruited as somebody that we really need somebody with a level head.
And then at some point he realized that, wait, I think I got into more, bit off more than I want to chew.
Other people are still just happily going along.
Peter McCullough is one of the only people who seems like he's kind of pissed that he got sucked into this.
This guy's not mad that he's got sucked into it.
He loves his job, this guy does.
We have our sprint over the last two weeks where we've been trying to do that as well.
But first, what is our threat model for BIO?
Now, we don't want to talk about specifics, of course, because those are info hazards.
But in terms of where the threat is going to come from, what goes wrong?
Obviously, we can say there's a non-state actor pool, and then there's the state actor pool.
But even among the non-state actors, you have wealthy, well-resourced non-state actors, and then you have
So his primary goal is to maintain this consensus, this illusion of consensus that there is a biosecurity threat, we need to model it, we don't want to talk about the specifics of it because talking about the specifics of it would teach people the threats that we're trying to avoid.
We don't want to give away this big information.
That's his claim to fame.
That's his main shtick, right?
That I knew that what I was inventing was so dangerous that I asked George Church about it first.
And when he said it was safe, then I published.
And so there's this, they each have this little shtick about what they're doing to be ethical and why you should listen to them and what they sacrificed or whatever.
But this guy, nah.
This guy's just a military dude talking to other people that are bamboozled by him.
They trust him.
It's incredible where we are right now, ladies and gentlemen, because we are breaking this one day at a time, and it's breaking very rapidly.
Individual nihilist lone wolves who, for a variety of reasons, might want to burn it all down.
Individualist nihilist lone wolves.
How much of the threat do we think comes from each of these?
And how on earth are those nihilist lone wolves going to actually access nasty things?
This is what people always seem to wonder.
And it's an excellent question because these are not people, for the most part, who can do research, right?
If you can perform a reverse genetics protocol to make an influenza virus, that does not at all mean that you can do research.
So even that right there was part of the illusion, right?
He did not say, if you can order an infectious clone and assemble it in your laboratory, he said, if you can perform the manufacture of a flu virus.
And so everybody in the audience that's just sophisticated enough to have absorbed some of the narrative, it's going to fit perfect.
It's going to go like gears locking.
But if you understand that virology, especially RNA virology, is an elaborate illusion that's created by commercially produced synthetic DNA and RNA applied to these experimental models, then what he said now is just absolutely malevolent.
It's not at all imparting knowledge.
People are actually dumber for having heard what he just said.
It's nasty things.
This is what people always seem to wonder.
And it's an excellent question, because these are not people, for the most part, who can do research, right?
If you can perform a reverse genetics protocol to make an influenza virus, that does not at all mean that you can do research.
That means you are qualified to be a technician in one of these laboratories.
That is not the same as doing novel research, which, by the way, in bio, usually fails.
This is why, despite our best efforts, we are still slowly withering away and dying.
Now, I wrote this delay, detect, defend roadmap to just sort of give a concrete view of what we can do to solve the problem.
And basically we are vulnerable.
So here he is admitting that he works for the Geneva Center for Security Policy.
So he cooperates with foreigners.
He's not an American patriot.
He's giving a talk at a
effective altruism conference or whatever it's hell was called.
It is, this is awful.
This video is readily available on YouTube.
You can find it yourself.
I don't want to waste too much more of your time with it, but I assure you what he's going to talk about is screening all kinds of things, sequencing all kinds of things, collecting all the data, collecting all the data.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven't seen it, please look at the Dear Senator Ron Johnson stream that I did a couple of days ago.
I think it's really one of those things that it's good enough to share with people that don't know who I am.
It's good enough because I tried to stay reasonable and tried to stay calm.
I think it would be really nice if people really started to push
Um, some of these ideas a little bit better, you know, pushing the idea that we can describe the murder and lies in America that was misconstrued as the start of something terrible.
And we can, we can, we can characterize it very succinctly.
We can also characterize and explain very well how on an academic bench PCR is great, but how it was used malevolently for the pandemic.
We can also explain how these investigational vaccines were products before the pandemic.
We can also explain how even in its purest form, this wouldn't have worked.
That's what we talked about today.
And we can explain why some of these people who should have done known better are getting Nobel prizes.
and not for micro RNA.
Define the term infectious clone as transfection and transformation in cell culture would have been the obvious way for the no virus people to win already a couple years ago when I gave them that information freely and tried to bring them and CHD together and instead they made that blow up in my face.
So I know for sure that nobody's ever gonna say RNA cannot pandemic because
Again, that would be something that would bring the whole narrative down to its knees.
Thank you very much again for being here.
Don't forget that endemicity is impossible to tell from a background because we have no data.
We also need to be very succinct when we talk about the fact that these people are playing a game by not talking about 2020 and not looking back to the fact that the vaccine schedule in America was always criminally negligent before the pandemic.
The transfection was a product before the pandemic and therefore criminal to roll out as an investigational vaccine.
And that RNA cannot pandemic and we don't have any biology to support that idea.
That's why everybody got so excited about DNA.
All the things that RNA doesn't have.
If you liked what you saw or liked what you heard, please go to GigaOMBiological.com and find a way to support the stream.
We really need help at this point.
We're going to spend a lot of money on the free live event that's happening on November 3rd.
Not a lot of money, but more money than we have.
And, uh, we're bringing some people in, um, grandma in for Christmas, which we also really probably are spending money that we don't have on, but we need grandma here for Christmas.
And so, um, you know, any little donations would be appreciated.
And if you're going to share, please share stream.gigaom.bio.
Cause that's what the viewers and I pay for as a way of getting the word out without algorithms, without logins, um, without anybody tracking.
and without, you know, other things popping up.
Just Gigaohm, and just Mark, and just Clips.
Thanks for being here.
I'll see you again real soon, probably tomorrow.