Now, Dr. Gallo and Dr. Fauci talked a lot about isolation and purification.
Can you tell me what the difference is between the two?
Isolation, what was it?
Isolation and purification.
Of the virus?
Yes.
Well, you isolate a virus by
finding the virus which causes a disease.
You purify a virus by making a lot of, I mean just by purifying it so you get a pure virus.
I don't understand what the issue.
I see.
No, it depends on how they use it.
Well, didn't Dr. Gallo do that?
I mean, he actually isolated it.
So, I mean, why should I do all of this?
This is all textbook stuff you're asking me.
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 one,
when we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality and it's not, it's, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs.
It'll be a moral emergency because it has to be.
just it's literally turning into a worst-case scenario.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case scenario.
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
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, that's not the way life is.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
You know, I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
I don't care how you get there.
I don't care what you do to get there.
The goal is to win.
Yeah.
Ladies and gentlemen, 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 are not pattern integrities.
Welcome to the show, ladies and gentlemen.
This is GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
My name is Jonathan Couey.
I'm coming to you live from the back of my garage.
This is, again, one of the only places where you can find
someone scrambling for the opening of the trap, trying to help everyone get out.
This stream is made possible by the people on the left there and a few who are not on that list.
Thank you very much to all of those people who make this possible.
We are again trying to pass on a new interpretation of our biology, a new interpretation of
the irreducible complexity that is the natural world around us.
We're trying to take back the mystery of life and trying to extricate ourselves as adults from what I have come to understand as a very, very large mythology.
that actually edifies all of modern academic biology, and that mythology can essentially be distilled to three words, evolution because DNA.
I think that there is a way out.
I think that there is a way out by using very succinct language to challenge people's
presuppositions about things.
An example of that might be intramuscular injection is the single worst way to be exposed to a toxin.
That might get biologists as well as, you know, parents and doctors and even gas station attendants to think differently about what they know about intramuscular injection.
And that is my goal with this stream every day to try and find new ways to snap people out of the enchantment that we've been placed in.
And it is important for me now at the beginning of the stream to try and articulate what we're really trying to do here.
We are trying to present a new model of how to understand the world so that people can re-evaluate their experiences, their observations, and what they think they understand about themselves and their health, as well as the history of the United States in a different context, in the idea of them using biology and medicine and
and how we understand ourselves to be as a way of undermining our spirituality, as a way of undermining our connection to God and creation, as a way of undermining our idea of the sovereignty of the individual.
All of these things are being collectively accomplished by bamboozling us about our biology and making us believe that evolution is real because we found DNA.
And I think that we can save our children from this mythology and save our children from being enslaved by it by teaching them a new way of seeing themselves and their place in nature.
And that is by seeing life on earth and life anywhere else in the universe as a pattern integrity that has a trajectory across time.
And understanding how that pattern integrity comes into being and is maintained is the mystery of life that we have not even begun to scratch, even though old bad biology would tell us that we're a decade away from having answered all the meaningful questions.
It's important to understand also that yesterday I also took a swing at this, that our imagination is equipped with certain tools and a lot of times that those tools are basically words.
Words are concepts and words can be enchantments if they are used correctly.
This is just a quick plug for JC on the hardwood, my newest project.
I'm going to go film another one after lunch today.
I'm really excited about it because I really think it's going to be something that they're just going to have to ignore and we can say whatever we want to.
And more importantly, we can say it on YouTube very shortly.
So on a way back Wednesday, my idea is to point out to you how I think this enchantment is cast and how it is maintained.
And the way it is cast and maintained is that they bamboozle us, they trick us, they coerce us, they scare us into using their words.
And if we use their words, constrained by their definitions, then we are already trapped in their
limited spectrum of debate.
If we only use the weapons that we're given, only the weapons that we find hanging on the wall, and those weapons are gain-of-function research, RNA virology, DNA is genes, evolution is real, then it doesn't matter what weapons we choose, we're gonna lose.
And that, I believe, is a way to understand the contributions of someone like Joshua Lederberg, who, for example, gave us a lot of these concepts and the words to describe them.
And so when we go to the wall to choose a weapon to fight somebody and argue about this stuff, we're choosing weapons like
the microbiome and plasmid because he made those words up and designated what they mean.
And so even the very cartoon images that are evoked in our mind when certain words are used are enchantments.
And now what I would like you to see as the confession of a recovering academic biologist is that that's what happens in academic biology, but in a much more rapid and thorough sense.
We meet people each day and colleagues each day, as well as people on the internet or people at conferences who tell us stories about concepts that have names and sophisticated names and subnames and subcategories, and then they explain to us what they mean, and then we go away with that new tool set.
that we think that we can apply to other questions that we have.
And so once you accept the idea that these are useful concepts and that we can find more useful concepts by talking to other people that follow these concepts, then you realize that the
near exponential growth of false or at least inadequately tested models of reality are just everywhere.
We're just covered in them now, we're lost in them, and in fact, we're being governed by them.
And it is a result of our language being so powerful in our mind and us not understanding it.
They want us to think that, oh, AI is getting so smart because it's figured out language.
No, language isn't that complicated.
And they have understood how to use language against us for generations.
That's why the slide in the beginning with Edward Bernays is so important.
In 1924, they already understood that manipulating people was important to governing them.
And now I and many others have been making the argument for a while and I think it should be at the foremost of every argument that allowing social media to be the substitute for free speech and communication is going to result in our enslavement because it is an illusion and they can create whatever illusion they want with that social media.
They can create whatever illusion they want.
And so with the way back Wednesday today, I just thought I would hit a gong that I haven't hit in a while, and... That would be the bell.
I'm gonna ring the bell of the Scooby-Doo.
I'm gonna switch over here to the bottom side here.
Hold on one second.
Oops, that should be cut there.
So, yeah, we are here.
And actually the Scooby-Doo mystery was solved in 2023.
Now, in case you're a new viewer, you might not know what the Scooby-Doo mystery is.
If you're a viewer from another country, you might not know what the Scooby-Doo mystery is.
The Scooby-Doo is actually a dog.
It's a Great Dane.
Oops, talking to the wrong camera.
The Scooby-Doo is a dog.
It's a Great Dane that can talk and has three teenage friends or four teenage friends.
and they ride around in a green van called the Mystery Machine.
And the cartoon that was on the Saturday mornings when I was a kid, these intrepid teenagers would be just driving around through different random towns in America and always run into some weird monster that was haunting a town or harassing a football team or something like this, or protecting a mine.
it would always turn out to be that they would unmask the the monster and find out that it just was glow-in-the-dark powder and the mask underneath the mask is some guy from earlier in the show.
And so my argument for the last few years has been that the national security state has described to us many different kinds of exercises
Event 201 is the one that everybody points at and says, oh, look at all the people sitting around the table doing this stuff.
But of course, there's a whole long list of them that goes all the way back to Dark Winter.
But there's also things like Crimson Contagion and the SPARS pandemic document.
And all of these documents describe
a hypothetical scenario where it is necessary for the government to control the messaging and to get the messaging out so that people's lives are saved from a potential epidemic.
And interestingly, in none of these stories, in none of these stories is there a detailed way in which the government might control the narrative.
And I'm suggesting that in retrospect, it has become obvious to me that what they did and the script that they played was a script where the highest levels of officials, all the way up to Rand Paul and Tony Fauci, would publicly seed a narrative about the cover-up of a lab leak.
And so they would need people who understood that there was a potential for lab leaks.
They needed people already in place that already argued about lab leaks, that said that they were a danger.
They needed already the danger to be well-described in the form of gain-of-function research, and people already in place complaining about it, and they had that.
And then they orchestrated a theater where on social media, it felt like the actual mystery and the truth was being revealed specifically on Twitter.
And then specifically censored on Twitter.
And that's what drove people off of LinkedIn and Twitter and onto Gab and Telegram during the pandemic, because Twitter was being censored.
Then Twitter got bought.
Then Elon Musk made it free.
And somewhere in 2023, it became obvious that Rand Paul was right, that Tony Fauci had covered it up, that they had given money to EcoHealth Alliance, that EcoHealth Alliance had written a proposal.
And that proposal revealed that they were going to put fear and cleavage sites into bat caves.
And of course, people were available in 2020, already very early people, very dubious people like James Lyons Weiler, not some academic molecular biologist, virologist coming out and saying, whoa, this has got a fear and cleavage site, but some guy who in 2019 was telling us that viruses that we vaccinate for are still circulating asymptomatically in the background.
A guy who wrote a book about the genetic causes of autism.
It's extraordinary.
And so this mystery was seeded by these people.
And over the course of five years, we have come to believe it.
Both sides of the narrative, the red and the blue, the Democrats and the Republicans now have basically come to believe that, well, maybe the Democrats think that it's not likely that it happened, but it could happen and whatever, it doesn't matter.
We need to regulate it.
And the Republicans are just even more convinced than they were in 2020 that there was a lab leak, like me.
I was supposed to be on that team still.
That's why they put me in this book.
They wanted me to be the guy to carry the flag for CHD, that it was a lab leak.
And had I done it, I would have been on Tucker Carlson by now.
Breaking tonight, it's official.
The Wall Street Journal reporting today that the Energy Department, joining the FBI in their assessment, has now concluded that a lab leak is indeed the most likely origin of the global COVID pandemic.
This is based on new intelligence reports and crucially involves the assessment of the national laboratories, which are part of the Department of Energy.
evening, everyone.
Welcome to the next revolution.
You heard it here first as we so we've got to have got to have some, some guy with a foreign accent on the television.
And this is in 2023, where they're announcing the fact that it's no doubt a lab leak.
No doubt.
We were the first on television to lay all this out more than two years ago.
It was dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
But now, thanks to this new assessment, our original reporting has been vindicated.
Remember, this is not just about the leak itself and the cover-up afterwards.
We must hold the Chinese regime accountable for that.
Even more important is this point.
What were they working on in that lab and why?
The answer?
Gain-of-function virus enhancement that was not just funded by Fauci, but commissioned by him.
And as we reported in January 2021, he broke Obama and Trump administration rules to do it.
Fauci, more than any other person or organization, is the one who must be held accountable.
Joining us now, someone who is rightly fired up about this and put out an incredibly strong statement as soon as this news broke today, newly announced 2024 presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy.
Vivek, great to see you.
We'll talk about your presidential message in a moment, but just your reaction to this news today.
So this is out of a dystopian science fiction novel, Steven.
You're right, you were among the very first on this.
The very research that was conducted to supposedly- Speaking of a dystopian science fiction novel.
Actually created one.
And I think there are two prongs of accountability here.
One is accountability for China and for the CCP, which tried to sweep this under the rug.
And this will not go lightly.
The US needs to lead the way in holding China accountable.
But we only have moral standing to hold China accountable if we hold those accountable here at home that purposefully evaded U.S.
constraints on gain-of-function research to anyway go through the back door and do it abroad anyway.
And I think that accountability starts at home.
Then we have the foundation to deliver accountability to the Chinese Communist Party.
And it's also a lesson in free speech and open debate having prevented us from getting to this answer sooner.
If we don't learn from our mistakes, we're just going to keep repeating them.
That's the lesson of today.
It's an incredibly strong message that you put out on this today, and I've just echoed there.
One particular thing I want to highlight from your longer statement today was that you talked about criminal prosecutions for those responsible for that second part, those who broke rules to push forward this research.
Of course, Fauci prominent amongst them.
You could put in there Francis Collins, head of the NIH.
Oh yeah, get Francis in there.
Could you elaborate on that, the criminal aspect here?
Yes, and I think here the facts are going to depend on whether there was intentionality.
But I think there's good reasons for there to be a criminal investigation opened into this matter of whether these federal officials knowingly skirted a federal prohibition on a form of research that they wanted to conduct anyway.
Many of them were on the record, objecting to this restraint on federal research.
But this reveals really what's going on in the United States.
Today, Steve, the people who we elect to run the government are not the ones who actually run the government.
The real people who run the show make their own decisions anyway.
And it appears what happened here is that they then privately used government money and public funds to be able to fund the same sort of research that the U.S.
banned here in the U.S.
to do it through the backdoor abroad.
If that was done intentionally, I think that is grounds for criminal liability.
And I think that there needs to be, this is a global pandemic.
Millions of people have died.
If there's any occasion for really delivering accountability, starting here at home, I think this is the example for it.
I mean, it's spectacular, right?
This is exactly what I mean by a Scooby-Doo.
He is purporting to be a guy who always wanted to unmask the right villain, always knew who the bad guys were, and is now vindicated by this, and has a very specific prescription for how we can go forward with unmasking the bad guys and bringing them to justice.
And what's very cringy about this is that when I was at his place, it was like May, 2020.
When I was streaming with Kevin McCarren and Charles, I mean, and Paul Cottrell and Eddie Edds.
Those were the months of the past five years where I was really interested in the idea of a lab leak.
And then at some point I realized, wait, this is not possible.
This is not how this works.
Something else is at play here.
And I still couldn't articulate it.
I hadn't learned enough, relearned enough biology to adequately understand the objection that my gut was making, that my instinct was making, that this doesn't make sense.
But already by July of 2020, I had realized that the way it would make sense is if there was a background signal on which they released something.
And then it doesn't matter how far it is what they released goes,
because if there's a background signal that overlaps with it, then you can pretend that, oh my gosh, this new car got out and it's called the Toyota and we found a few in Japan.
And then you go look in your garage and you find one, holy shit, they're spread everywhere.
And that's actually was my hypothesis already in 2020.
And I think part of the reason why so many of these people in groups
consecutively came and tried to get me back on DRASTIC's team and get me back on, focused on the lab leak and focused on the biology of the evolution of the virus and the phylogeny of it and Trevor Bedford's work.
Because then that would get me off of the idea of a background signal and off of the idea that they were lying about it with fake PCR tests.
And in fact, these people succeeded in getting me off of that idea for almost a year until 2022.
And you can happily check my record on that.
It's part of the reason why I feel so compelled to keep working on this particular problem.
on bringing light to new people the idea that we were fooled into solving their mystery.
And by solving their mystery, we have accepted their monsters.
I don't think Vivek has been fooled into accepting their monsters, but we have by Vivek.
And I also think we cannot go lightly with respect to China, who similarly has lied about this for a very long time.
But I think accountability on both sides of the Pacific is crucial.
What a perfect way of-of-of setting that out, Vivek.
Hey, Sean Hannity here.
Hey, click here to subscribe to Fox News' YouTube page and catch our hottest... So here's just another example of the same thing.
Scientists are still not sure where COVID-19 originated, but the idea that it may have accidentally leaked out of a lab in Wuhan, China, is under increased scrutiny.
Yesterday, my colleagues at CBS This Morning spoke with Dr. Anthony Fauci and asked him about that theory.
Even though you lean towards feeling that this is more likely a natural occurrence, we always felt that you've got to keep an open mind, all of us.
We didn't get up and start announcing it, but we've always said, keep an open mind and continue to look.
media coverage of the lab leak theory is also in the spotlight.
To talk more about this issue, I want to bring in Paul Farhi.
He is a media reporter for The Washington Post.
Paul, thank you so much for joining us.
So, I got to say, when I read the article, the media called the lab leak story a conspiracy theory, which is the beginning of the headline,
I was kind of feeling some type of ways because I thought, well, I mean, we didn't call it that.
The experts we spoke to said, you know, this is unlikely or any sort of iteration of this is probably not the reason why.
Um, so I was like, I'm feeling a little sensitive about this.
I'll get that out of the way right at the top.
Um, you know, there were, you know, some outlets including, sorry, go ahead.
I'm very happy that you said that, because that's exactly the case.
Reporters talk to experts.
Reporters are not scientists themselves.
They rely on the experts.
And the experts told us in the media that it was very much more likely to have been a naturally occurring phenomenon, not a lab leak.
And we reported accurately what we were told by the experts.
Since then, expert opinion has changed quite a bit.
There is some receptivity to the idea that it came out of the lab.
And that's what's changed, more so than the media having gotten it wrong.
So make no mistake about it, this is CBS.
And CBS This Morning, she showed, was interviewing Fauci and said, yeah, we never ruled it out.
It's not very likely, but we never ruled it out.
And what I am suggesting, and I want to be very clear about it, is that this was all part of a script that they knew they were going to do over the course of three years to make sure that the clock had this much time on it.
Now, we're not exactly on script.
The whole script wasn't followed, but the intention was.
to fool the American public and the world into arguing about the possibility of, the biology of,
the likelihood of, what could be a possible mechanistic explanation of, a lab leak caused pandemic.
So that by the end of the multi-year discussion, within that limited spectrum of debate, we would be left with a bunch of experts on both sides of the narrative on social media, which kind of agreed that most likely it came from a gain-of-function lab.
And the point is, is that if it didn't, it still could in the future.
And we all accept that.
And so the enchantment is the word pandemic.
Because when I say the word pandemic right now, sorry, I wanna change this here so that I have some control over that.
Yes, if we, how do I say this?
If every time our kids hear the word pandemic, the entire biology of RNA
and contagion and antibodies and vaccines is confirmed in their head because that's what happens.
That's the magic of words that have definitions that we all understand is that when you say them, those ideas are automatically turned on in your brain.
And so these are very powerful, potentially very, very powerful words.
When you say gender, what comes to your mind?
And it matters.
If you say sex, what comes to your mind?
It matters.
And they can program that with social media and television and media by just governing, by just changing what thoughts go through your head on a daily basis so that habits are formed.
And these habits, if they're formed on ideas that are myths, then you can't logic your way out of that trap.
And if they have, through the course of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and five years of consistent lying, have gotten most people in the world to accept that they need to teach their kids that pandemic means, then we have a problem.
We have a giant problem on our hands because
I think the people that have been watching Giggle and Biological for a long time, following along, been in on this fight for many years, understand that this is complete mythology that even the no virus people have been protecting.
And that's what's extraordinary about where we are, where in 2023, not 24, 24 is almost over.
And already more than a year ago on CBS News and on Fox News, the mystery of the Scooby-Doo novel virus was already solved and already being blamed on EcoHealth Alliance and Tony Fauci covering it up and Francis Collins and boy, they better go to jail.
And so now talking about pardoning them, even on social media is seeding or dropping harmonized
Ideas, ideas that harmonize with this previous history that people can't remember because they have the memory of a goldfish, but it's all in there.
And if you add up these last five years and everyone's exposure to social media, whether they like it or not, they're all inside of the same loop.
And at the bottom of that loop, when you finally settle out the, the attractor state is, well, I guess it was a lab leak.
And if it wasn't the next one could be.
There's almost nobody in the world who doesn't think this right now.
It's amazing.
The media accurately reported what the consensus was at the time.
But I see, you know, words really make a difference.
And so there were words used like debunked or phrases like conspiracy theory.
So how did the reporting on the coronavirus origins in the early days of the pandemic compare to what the scientific community was saying about it then?
And you point out that there were experts saying that it was
And so think again, remember the discipline that we're trying to hold in our head as we watch this weaponized media.
What questions are they telling us are important to ask?
What questions is she asking?
Is she questioning the biology of pandemics?
Is she questioning the biology of RNA?
Is she questioning the biology of transfection or transformation?
Is she questioning the biology of contagion?
She's actually what?
She was questioning... I mean, it's so complicated.
It doesn't even make any sense what she was questioning.
Hold on, I'm just gonna go back a second.
Less likely to be a lab leak.
But was everyone saying that in the scientific community?
And you point out that there were experts saying that it was less likely to be a lab leak.
But was everyone saying that in the scientific community?
Right, that's still...
So was everyone in the scientific community saying it was less likely to be a lab leak?
Imagine how crappy of a question you could come up with.
Could you come up with a worse one?
Was everyone in the scientific community saying that a lab leak was less likely?
And now these two people agree that that's a great question.
Oh, that's a great question.
I don't know.
I've got a pretty long answer for it.
It's amazing.
Well, the general consensus that the likely source was an animal in nature.
But yes, it was wrong.
It was literally flat wrong to have said that this was debunked because it's never been debunked.
We don't really know the source of the coronavirus.
And to say that the theory that it came out of the lab was debunked is just not correct.
And that's the correction that has occurred, I think, in the last year or so.
a greater acceptance of the possibility, because again, nothing has been proven, the possibility that it came out of the lab.
And, you know, again, there is evidence for it.
Scientists are still debating this question.
And, you know, part of this was political in nature, too.
President Trump kept saying that it was definitely out of the lab.
President Trump didn't really know, but he said it.
And I think that made a lot of people shy away from declaring it so, because they didn't want to be associated with the president's bold claim.
And so now think about how much time they've wasted and how many thoughts they've put into people's head that aren't useful to them.
You're not learning anything from listening to these people because they're not asking useful questions.
They're asking, what was the consensus back then?
And now the consensus is, why is the consensus that?
What does that mean for the biology of it?
No useful questions are being asked here.
And it's only in retrospect sometimes that you can see how useless the questions that they asked were.
So the Scooby-Doo mystery was solved in 2023 already.
We're at the end of 2024.
Keep that in mind.
It's been five years since 2020.
I want you to under, this is a lot of time.
My kids have grown up a lot during this crap.
make me almost tear up if I say that again, so I won't.
If we go back to 2021 and we ask ourselves how did we get to the stage where we were debating a natural virus or a lab leak and who was helping us get there, who was answering questions, what were people saying at the end of 2021?
At the end of 2021,
Keep in mind that university students were scared to go back to university in November of 2020.
In November of 2020, Richard Ebright said that if we open universities without any kind of controls, there could be as many as a quarter million people dead by Christmas.
That's what he said.
On Twitter, of course.
And so it was at the end of 2020 that I started talking about Marek's disease because Luigi Warren had sent me a paper about Marek's disease and encouraged me to think about the possibility that the spike protein vaccines were causing the virus to mutate and might make it worse.
Look at this paper.
And at the same time, Geert van den Bosch was coming out saying the same stuff.
And I heard about him and thought he was a hero.
At the same time, I was arguing that natural immunity would be better than getting a spike protein vaccination for the same reason.
And so I was convinced that not only was transfection a bad idea, but transfection to the spike protein was a bad idea.
And so I wrote a review about it that was published in May of 2021, and it's mostly wrong.
But had I published it in December of 2020, it would have been less wrong.
And it would have been more focused on transfection being a dumb idea, because natural immunity is always better, because we don't know what transfection would do.
But I didn't get that review out.
The review that I got out, with the help of somebody by the name of Piper Stover, was almost exactly what the lab leak mystery virus needed me to say.
But I said we have to pause transfection because not only is it hurting people, but it could be causing the virus to become more deadly, especially to the people who are transfected.
So I was lost in 2021, and it wasn't until the end of, remember in July of 2020, I was saying that it was probably a lab leak, but it doesn't matter because the PCR tests are aspecific because there's a background of SARS viruses.
And we've never paid any attention to it.
We haven't given a shit.
And now they released one and are pretending that it's spreading when it's not.
I said that in July of 2020.
And by the middle of 2021, I was already back on the lab leak and the evolution of the virus and completely lost.
And it was at the end of 2021 that I had the privilege, I thought, of interviewing Kevin McKernan.
And so I think it's important to revisit this video and see what he told me and what he didn't tell me and to pay attention to how I processed it.
Was I just rolled over by the details that I didn't understand at the time?
How much of it, if I hear it now, will sound like bullshit?
How much of it will I know is bullshit?
And how much can we really hear the truth?
Remember, this is a guy who cut his teeth at the Human Genome Project.
A guy who purports to have come out very early and be one of the foremost authorities on this is now at the forefront of a lot of these funny podcasts where he's saying that there's double-stranded DNA in it.
And even CHD and ICANN are pushing him as an expert.
So there's a possibility that this guy could be involved in even the Maha thing.
He could even be behind the scenes giving an appointment.
It's not impossible.
He's rolling in the right circles right now.
So I think it's important to check what he was saying, not in 2020 in the beginning in May or in 2020 in August or in 2020 in December, although you can do that with three videos on my website and elsewhere.
You can look for the Vance Crowe podcast.
He was on three times where he told everybody that he was a pod expert and a PCR expert and used PCR to find out if COVID was on any of the weed.
and argued that the WHO wasn't using PCR correctly, but he and others did.
And I am making a very strong accusation that he is part of this illusion that protected the PCR from useful scrutiny and led us down the path of overcycling false positives and this kind of thing.
So I think it's very important to take a look at the first time that I've actually had contact with this guy and what I thought and how I acted and how overwhelmed I was so that you can see and I can show you very humbly how and why it took me until 2023 really to figure it out.
And before that I was still lost.
And that's why I couldn't save my father-in-law, or my sister-in-law, or my best friend from college, or one of my very good friends from my time in Chicago.
I couldn't save any of them because I wasn't saying the right things.
And if anything, in 2021, I was still saying the worst things, which is, you know, it's a lab leak.
And at the same time, the worst people on the internet were saying it was flying AIDS in 2021.
Paul Cuttrell and, you know, lots of people were saying that.
So let's check this out here.
Hold on one second.
Let me just check to see if I got, I thought I got an email that was important, but I guess I did not.
Okay, that's good.
Here we go.
So this was originally recorded on December 12th, 2021.
I think I'll shrink.
And here we go.
So my background, I've been in genomics for about 25 years.
I started at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., with Eric Lander working on the Human Genome Project.
I was the team leader for R&D there.
We built all the robotics.
that's in that nature paper for the floor that does all the purification and sequencing for that project.
In around 2000, I spun some of that stuff out.
There was several patents we filed on magnetic bead isolation of viruses and DNA from
from E. coli and that stuff got spun out to a company called Agincourt.
Agincourt became one of the larger sequencing providers in the country at the time and eventually got acquired by Beckman Coulter for a lot of the viral purification tools we had.
We were building these RNA and DNA purification kits using these magnetic beads and so
They needed that and they needed to bolt that onto some of the automation they had.
So they came and acquired the company and spun out one of our R&D projects that was building the solid sequencer at the time.
That got acquired a year later by Applied Biosystems.
They brought that sequencer to market.
I spent about five years there working on that platform, competing with Illumina, and then also brewing up other ones.
We ultimately acquired Ion Torrent.
which makes these chips right here.
Another one of those little sequencers that runs on a chip.
And that, I didn't invent any of that.
I was just someone who, we saw the technology and pulled it in, and Jonathan Rothberg's team kind of carried a lot of that weight, but our team at Beverly also, about 100 of us jumped on making that platform sing.
And then after that, I kind of just jumped out to start, we need to do something different.
And I had a non-compete and now the company was LifeTech and it pretty much meant I couldn't work anywhere in the biotech space because they had fingers everywhere.
So I started working in the cannabis space doing sequencing cannabis genomes, trying to get more of these compounds public, if you will.
And what I mean by public is there's a lot of a lot of the things that you're seeing COVID right now have been plaguing that industry for decades.
where the science is funded primarily by government and it crafts a certain narrative about harms.
And so I was noticing that that plant was severely underappreciated and we just put its genome public.
And since then we've been building tool picks and shovels.
We sell snip chips and PCR kits to that industry to help them breed and help them track down viruses and track down different microbes that may affect the yield of the plant.
That's my background.
And I did do a little bit of clinical sequencing as well for five years.
So I know some of the CLIA rules and regulations and how you should be doing PCR and not be doing PCR in clinical settings.
And that got me dragged into the Corman-Drawson review.
And then I've been doing some work very recently on just looking at the mRNA structures with Peter McCullough and a few others.
Yeah, it's a really, now that I hear it put that succinctly, I'm kind of, well, I'm thoroughly humbled now and I really feel like I'm definitely interviewing someone who I need to be interviewing and that's really great.
Do you want to expand at all?
Has anything happened with the Corman-Dorstan thing at all?
So that thing we
We put that public, it got, the first one got attacked pretty heavily and we put it public, so we wrote like another 60 pages.
So remember what the Corman-Jorstin report is?
You can probably still find it somewhere on ResearchGate or something like that.
It is an objection that was written by a group of people in 2020 objecting to the Jorstin PCR test
maybe it's the Corman-Jorston PCR test that the WHO used, the objections of the paper included the ridiculous objection that it was peer-reviewed in less than 24 hours and that's not fair or that's not real.
And we all know that if it really was a global emergency and they really needed a paper reviewed in 24 hours, anybody that's reviewed a paper knows that that is possible.
You could do it.
especially something like a PCR test.
So I'm not saying the whole thing was ridiculous, but I'm kind of saying the whole thing was ridiculous.
Now, there's a lot of reasons why, but the main one being the overarching principle was not to object to the use of PCR as a diagnostic to describe a pandemic at all.
Rather, it was an objection to the way that that paper was approved and some of the methodologies that supposedly weren't right.
The primer dimers, the things that could happen that weren't supposed to happen so that the test wasn't checked well enough, something like this.
And this is important to see because it's not just Kevin McKernan and a bunch of guys from his weed factory or his weed laboratory.
It's a very curious, a very curious, I mean, incredibly curious list of characters.
The most enticing of which are Claire Craig of the Heart Group in the UK, who prior to the pandemic was part of a genome sequencing, genome mapping group looking to correlate genomes with disease using AI.
and she wrote a paper with this guy.
How the hell do they know each other?
Why are they writing a paper at the beginning of the pandemic to object to a WHO PCR test?
Why is she, a genome collecting pathologist from the UK, hooking up with a pot screening genome specialist from the Human Genome Project in Boston, and Thomas Binder in,
Switzerland, and Mike Yeadon in the UK, and the list goes on.
Many of the people on that list are still somehow or were entangled in the 2020-2021 fear, uncertainty, and doubt about a lab leak.
There's no way to explain how it is that these people are on that paper together.
except that they either already knew each other or they were put together in place because of an exercise that was ongoing.
An exercise that included scripted, scripted and carefully controlled objections that formed a limited spectrum of debate, which would fool a huge population on earth into thinking that the question of whether this was a lab leak or a natural virus was the foremost question that needed to be answered.
And we're still talking about his mastery of things and what he did and why he did it.
And I don't understand it yet in this video.
And that is a black swan hat.
Absolutely.
I'll go get it on right now.
Trying to explain all the references behind what we have.
That thing barely ever got read.
I don't even think Stephen Buston read it when he reviewed the paper.
So there is, if you go to my Twitter page, go through the story that's on the top of that page.
It's really interesting about what's pinned up there.
is that the people who are trying to attack that paper are on record in court cases before attacking Steven Wakefield for the same damn PCR problems that are in the Drosten paper.
And they got paid half a million pounds to do it.
Steven Buston got paid by Glaxo to take down Wakefield.
Uh, and he was attacking him for not having internal controls in the PCR, uh, for not, which, you know, Drosten had no internal controls.
At least, at least Wakefield tried to have an internal control.
It just wasn't performing appropriately.
I will admit, I still don't really know what he's talking about here at the time in the interview.
And now I still assume that he's talking about Andrew Wakefield and they use PCR in his paper or something.
I don't know.
Or maybe there's another Wakefield that also objected to the PCR test.
I honestly don't know, and I didn't ever check.
But it's strange, again.
It feels to me like testing out how much I know, throwing me another detail to see how I react to it, and seeing whether or not he already has me on my heels.
And if I'm on my heels, then he's going to step trip me.
That's what I feel like is always happening in this video.
But his assay had one.
Drosten doesn't even have one.
And then a lot of the other things that we've, you know, the protocol wasn't very clear.
A lot of the critiques that we put, and they got paid half a million pounds to do it.
Stephen Buston got paid by Glaxo to take down Wakefield.
And he was attacking him for not having internal controls in the PCR, for not, which, you know, Drosten had no internal controls.
At least Wakefield tried to have an internal control, it just wasn't
performing appropriately, but his assay had one.
Drosten doesn't even have one.
And then a lot of the other things that we've, you know, the protocol.
And what would an internal control be for?
Is he, is he assuming that I know it?
Is he assuming that my viewers know it?
Do you know it?
An internal control is an amplicon that is thought to be present in every person in about the same amount.
And it would be an amplicon that you could in theory scale the viral gene signal to, to get a relative idea of how abundant it was.
And interestingly, I have worked on a case in California where we had some details about the PCR test that was used to test all the municipal employees for the whole year of 2020, every week.
And it had a single amplicon for the N protein and a single amplicon for some other endogenous gene that very rarely actually showed up.
And so if you looked at all the raw results of these tests for the client, you would see that the PCR signal that came up for the endogenous signal, the control that he's talking about here, came up at cycle 40 or something crazy.
and sometimes 45, sometimes 24.
And so the change in that signal shows you the incredible variation in the background that they are using as a baseline.
And this is just one example of these tests.
There were hundreds, hundreds, over 200 tests were granted emergency use authorization.
Many or most were produced outside of America.
Many or most were produced in China itself, shipped over here, and used to describe the spread of a novel RNA.
And this guy's not questioning any of that.
Not questioning where the products are made.
Not questioning how the products are made.
Not even telling us that, you know, they could use three Amplicons.
They could use nested primers.
They could have multiple endogenous controls.
And why are the endogenous controls important?
How variable are they?
He could describe this and he's never done it.
He didn't do it on the Vance Crowe podcast and he had three different hours to do it in 2020.
And I've made many attempts over the last five years to try and explain how PCR could be used very, very meticulously in academia to prove the existence or the presence of a molecule or a protein or a gene and be used to very low precision in the real world as a diagnostic.
And that should be one of the foremost messages that any of these polymaths would have for us.
One of the most important things for you young people to understand is how PCR can work and how it doesn't work.
Why it's important that we have these different controls and how many amplicons and whether they use nested primers or not.
We have to be very skeptical of the EUA approved products that haven't adequately been tested in the real world on the background of a hospital population.
Nothing!
And we even had somebody like Matt Crawford in 2020 and 2021 telling us about how false positives can be generated just by sheer will and overcycling.
And at the same time, we have molecular biologists in the universities that understand that if you do your primers right, overcycling doesn't matter.
At least that's what they think.
Because in their situations, in their experiments, in their laboratory conditions, that's the way it works.
Why on earth would public health do it differently?
They do it better.
They do it on an industrial scale, a militarized scale.
Of course they do it better than I do it in my lab.
That's the illusion that we're all under.
And he is a very important part of sustaining that.
Paul wasn't very clear.
A lot of the critiques that we put forward in terms of primary dimers and everything else, those things exist in the Drosten protocol.
He was on record in a legal case attacking Wakefield for those same things.
So, that's the reviewer that Euro Surveillance could pull up.
It's the only one that went public.
They wouldn't put any of the reviews public.
So, we just have to go over the fact that he leaked some of this information on a podcast, that he was a reviewer, and he didn't even look at the primaries during the review, which is what our whole 60-page addendum was attacking.
I don't know, I don't have much hope that like clarifying that's gonna end the pandemic, you know, back then.
No, I agree, I agree.
And so much of that is technical.
So it won't end the pandemic.
There you go, that's the... He already got me.
But that won't end the pandemic.
Yeah, you're right, there is a pandemic.
Oh yeah, there totally was a pandemic.
Oh yeah, you're right.
Well, we'll have to find another way out then, Kevin.
Tell me more.
that that that for the vast majority of the people that could in theory be convinced a simple hand wave from the right person and that's gone but you brought up something twice in that in that description that that I really wanted to ask you about which is are there PCR tests that have what you would call a appropriate control
Yeah, there's a, I mean, there are, there are others tests out there that have internal controls.
They go off the RNase P gene and that helps them tremendously.
But what we're not seeing the industry do is pull out all the live dead PCR technology, which has existed for.
So there, how quickly did he go through that?
So remember, I'm arguing that there are several ways to optimize the specificity of a PCR test.
Besides optimizing the primers, you can make them nested.
Besides making them nested primers, you could make primer sets aimed at different viral genes or different signals that you thought were gonna be present.
I hate to use the word viral genes because again, like I talked about in the beginning of the stream, I don't wanna go over to the wall and choose a weapon that they gave to me.
And so if I talk about viral genes, I'm accepting that there are viral genes and that we have to worry about them and that our immune system has to make memories of them.
Just like if he says, yeah, but I don't think clarifying this is gonna stop the pandemic.
And I go, yeah, that's right.
I guess there is a pandemic.
And so if these people claim that they are using PCR to find a signal that they say is relevant to our health, then there are ways to optimize how they find that signal.
One of which would be to target multiple parts of the signal with separate nested primer sets and require that a positive signal be characterized as the presence of all three or two of them.
And what did not happen in 2020 and 2021 is a PCR test with that level of fidelity with multiple targets and multiple endogenous genes that were required to be present in a certain quantity in order for the other quantities to be taken seriously.
There was no test like that.
None of the tests were deployed like that.
None, zero, zip.
And yet now, as late as a couple weeks ago, this guy was on the Danny Jones podcast spreading all kinds of nonsense, which also included this elaborate narrative about how the Omicron was defined as a COVID infection without the S protein and the other two proteins were there.
So the implication is, is that we've always used PCR tests that we're looking for the S-protein, the N-protein, and one other protein like the E-protein, but that's a lie.
And anybody that wanted to figure that out could go on the internet and start downloading random emergency use authorized documents and the description of their protocols and find that there's a single PCR with a single primer set targeting a single amplicon.
And at best, there is an endogenous control that is not used as a scaler, but just used as a yes or no.
If that one comes up, then this one counts.
That's it.
And that's not how it's used on the academic bench ever.
It's not used in any way, shape or form, except in the diagnostic space.
Again, because it's allowed and because this guy is making sure that we don't ask the useful questions that would reveal that.
And now he's talking about live dead technologies, which again, what does that do?
Oh yeah, so there are live viruses and dead viruses.
And the live viruses are scary and the dead viruses are just false positives.
And the dead viruses can be there for a long time.
So we can get a false positive for a long time.
Kevin, tell me more.
Probably a decade.
It's been refined for a decade.
This is the capability to get PCR to tell you what's infectious virus, which is non-infectious virus.
And they're not doing that for a very explicit reason, because that would have cut their revenues by an order of magnitude.
I mean, if you look at just the how long people are infectious versus non-infectious, it's either five to tenfold.
And now they tell you don't get PCR tested for 90 days if you've been positive, right?
Because you might still be positive from the last infection.
you're not how many how many academic molecular biologists in your imagination should actually by their own experience know that these tests are of one one inadequate and two that there's technology that already exists that would have been better anyway what
How many people should really know that?
Shouldn't there be thousands?
There should be.
Yeah, I think anyone in the molecular biology space or genomic space knows that there's live dead tools out there.
There's even stuff published on SARS with this, that you can do live dead viability PCR.
There's even stuff published on SARS.
Why the hell would anybody else know that?
Why would anybody working in neurobiology know that?
Why would anybody that was transfecting mice know that?
Why would anybody that was transforming mice with adenovirus, why would they know that?
They order live virus from the supplier and they put it in their mouse and the protein shows up.
Why would they ever think that it's just transformation?
What is he talking about?
He just said, yeah, there should be thousands.
No, no.
That's the reason why academia was so inept at speaking up, because very few of them have the broad understanding of the irreducible complexity of biology to appreciate how much of what we say is actually hand-waving.
That's why everybody hated me in the back of seminars, because I always had to point out that, you know, well, it's kind of hand-waving what you're talking about here.
It's a nice story, but it's built on that assumption, that assumption, and that assumption, and those labs are still running on those assumptions and haven't proven them.
You're just using semantics.
That was one of my worst things that I would say because I often said it before I understood how badly I was hurting their feelings.
There's one guy that's dead right now by the name of Eichenbaum.
And Eichenbaum was a guy who worked in the hippocampal space that I was in.
The hippocampus is a nucleus in the brain that is associated with spatial understanding, spatial navigation, and memory.
And the Nobel Prize was awarded in 2014 to a number of scientists whom I've studied with and under, and greatly influenced me when I was still chasing tenure, including Edward Moser, Maybritt Moser, and John O'Keefe.
And from the perspective of, I'm almost losing my train of thought here where I was,
from the perspective of thinking about what we do and what we did in that brain, there's nobody in that space that would know anything about live dead technology in viruses.
And so I don't know the thousands of people that he's talking about, but it's me being naive and saying, well, if you know about this, shouldn't there be other people who know about this?
And he says, yeah, but the truth is no.
The truth is, no.
What he's trying to do is make me feel like there's so much you don't know that everybody else already knows.
They're not speaking up about it, so why should you?
It's not a red alarm for any of these people, and they have a professional knowledge of it, and you don't, so why should you be worried about it?
All right, thanks.
So it's not like, I mean, if you just Google search it, you'd find it.
But the problem is that there's so many people they sweep up in that tail of PCR positivity when you're no longer infectious.
And then that explodes into a contact map of everyone else you're in contact with.
So they're sweeping in an enormous number of clinically false positive leads.
Clinically false positive leads that totally are relevant to defining the biology of the pandemic.
They are totally relevant because what he's saying is, is that the paint is there, it's just not wet anymore.
The paint was spilled in China, it's been circulating for a while, and pretty much everybody is blue on the inside now.
But some of people's paint is dry, and we only need to worry about the wet paint.
That is an actually pretty good analogy for what they said happened with an RNA molecule that you can equate to paint.
It's a molecule, it's chemistry, it's chemicals.
And they say that they made a very special kind of paint, that when they spilled it on the floor in Wuhan, it got on people's shoes.
And before you know it, it was in everyone's lungs.
And now his objection is not to the story that it's in everyone's lungs.
It's to the objection that the dry paint is as dangerous as the wet paint.
And I'm over there going, wow, now I see so much clearer.
Thanks, Kevin.
Yes, technically, the RNA is there, but they're not infectious.
And so I call that a clinical false positive.
And that's probably the bigger problem than all.
He calls that a clinical false positive.
You go ahead and take that term, Jay.
Use it on your stream.
Call it a clinical false positive, because that's the perfect term for it.
That's what I call it.
Although, the Drosten things are more like analytical false positives, right?
Like your primers hit the wrong shed, or you haven't proven to us that this doesn't hit other viruses like the flu.
Those are things you can get in the weeds on with molecular biology.
It doesn't hit other viruses.
So the possibility that it could hit all of the background of bacteriophages that are there, all of the background of bacteria that was there, all of the background of your own endogenous genome is there, all the background of everything else, that's not important.
The only question is, is whether or not these PCR tests overlap with other viruses.
Stop lying!
lion do you hear how malevolent that is but can you also hear how at the time it was just for me like a this guy's so smart yes but i think the real thing is damaging society is that the way pcr is currently tolerated which is very rarely against vero cells uh and very rarely
through a viability check.
Very rarely calibrated in Vero cells.
Holy man.
That's hilarious.
Just seeding that little virology bit in there.
Just make sure that he subtly reinforces all the biology of virology by making sure I remember that there's this one specific cell line they use all the time.
Even when it's deployed, you have this long tail of people that are positive with RNA that aren't infectious.
They get sweeped in, they get contact traced, and all their contacts get PCR'd.
It just creates this huge explosion
of PCR activity that effectively just shuts down society.
Oh, the PCR activity shuts down society and it creates a very lucrative source of remnants that could be used after they are de-identified to sequence all the people that came to that testing center and build a database.
interesting how he would ignore that, seeing as he's from the Human Genome Project and wants to sequence everyone.
But in your space, in your space for botanicals and whatever, you have to have a pretty... And you can hear already that the nodule that was on my throat for almost the whole year of 2022 is building in this video already.
I almost Kermit the Frog here, but not quite.
a pretty specific, I mean, you must have run quite a lot of checks to be sure that what you're testing for is really there and that you're not producing a test.
Well, I mean, that's what drives me nuts, is these are clinical tests going on humans.
We have more controls testing candidates.
I mean, there's an internal control on every one of our tests.
You have to have, in order for you to have a viral load, which is what everyone's talking about, you have to have
two different CTs.
You can't just have one.
You need to have the host CT and you need to have the virus CT, so you have a ratio of virus to host.
So there he's already kind of indirectly admitting it, that you only need two amplicons, one from the host and one from the virus, and that's already a lie.
that would never be specific enough for anything and you would be relying solely on two primers and their specificity for a viral gene and relying on the idea that they don't pull up anything else in the background.
It couldn't possibly be any bacteriophage out there with an overlap or any other RNA with an overlap.
It's just that one.
And our primers are pretty good for it, you know.
That's the whole argument that he just made right there in a nutshell.
You gotta have one that's aimed at the host, a control so you can scale it.
But I thought he said there's all this technology for live dead that you don't need that scale anymore.
we just went around the hamster wheel.
He told us on the other side of the wheel that the PCR is silly anyway, because they have live dead technologies they could be using to compliment the PCR.
Then we got all the way around on the other side of the wheel and he said, yeah, all you really need is a scalar so that you can tell whether or not the CT, the cycle count, the cycle threshold that is reached in the PCR test of concern is significant relative to the host signal.
It's a wheel.
You're never going to get out of it as long as you run with him.
Just skip the host.
You have no clue what that number means.
There's a, there's been papers published showing there's about a 10,000 full variants, a thousand, 10,000, it's a paper called DADU, uh, in swabbing your nose.
That's the variance, the number of cells.
Can you do that all in the same tube then?
Or do you have two separate samples?
You put them in, you put primers in there that have fluorophores that, that go off.
So,
And there are some PCR kits that do this in the coronavirus space.
I don't mean to disparage all of them and call them all drawston.
But.
And so another thing he's pointing out there is that they're fluorophores.
So they do the reaction.
It changes color or it doesn't.
And the amount it changed color and the cycle that it changes color in the most rapid is called the cycle threshold.
That's it.
Something like that.
Depending on the equipment you use and the measurement you make.
but at some point the fluorescence will go to exponential and then they draw some line there, that's the cycle threshold and that's the relative level of the signal they say, and that's it.
But understand that on the academic bench, you would also be required to sequence the amplicon that amplified and show that it was what you said it was.
In other words, if you were gonna do PCR on a book and your primers were once upon a time and the end,
And then you said, okay, so we sequenced it and we found the book, here it is.
Well, did you really predict this book?
How many other books would come up with those primers?
And if you're going to make the claim that these primers are so specific that they'll only pull up one book, you're going to have to kind of prove that, right?
But you don't.
It just, it turns fluorescent and then they make a decision based on that.
And you have to take the company's word for it that they produced the primers that they said.
That company's in China.
Is a long time collaborator of the Human Genome Project, Beijing BGI.
The same company that supplied a lot of the lateral flow tests to the UK and to
Australia, and then you start to realize that if the testing facilities were controlled, you could basically roll out tests and make them read positive and negative wherever and whenever you wanted them to.
All it would require is a spectacular commitment to lying, not a novel virus that spread around the world like paint.
I think you can see how clearly it is that this is just a lie.
but it is a very elaborate lie that was sustained by many people, including people that we were fooled for many years were actually on our side, but were in fact sustaining this debate, asking the wrong questions and debating about them so that we would never usefully question the narrative that we accepted the pandemic.
The idea that even if this is a natural virus, we can make worse ones.
That might be much worse than a nuke, says kim.com with Charles Rixey and Kevin McCarran on the stream.
That's why I play Kevin McCarran in the beginning of this stream, where he's saying in 2020 and in 2024, that it looks like it's the worst case scenario.
It's literally turning into a worst case scenario.
Those are five years apart.
The exact same jackass that's been behind me for five years saying that it looks like a worst case scenario.
In 2020, he said a billion people could die.
In 2024, he's saying that it's a worst case scenario, something to do with prion and amyloid, I think.
These people all belong in jail because they have sold out our children and sold out our grandchildren's future.
by playing along with these people.
Make no mistake about it.
I am suggesting that this is very likely a player against us.
He's on Tony Fauci's team.
He was on stage, met the president with Mark Lander and Francis Collins and all of them.
They are thick as thieves.
He was the team leader of research and development.
Unless you're telling me that he told all these guys to screw off after a bad poker game or broke a bottle of whiskey on their basketball court and walked out, I'm not buying it.
This guy is in, his dad was in, his brothers are in.
And that's why it wasn't until the end of 2021 that he came on my stream and then he came on my stream and said this stuff.
This isn't the same guy that was on the Vance Crowe podcast smiling and shooting the shit.
Go watch those videos.
He's friendly and happy.
This is serious shit right here.
He has a very serious objective, and that is to assess and to make sure that I leave here humbled and confused.
The ones in the human space, they measure RNAse P, which is a gene that's human.
and they compare that CT value to the CT value you get from the virus.
Now you have a numerator and a denominator, and you can call a viral load.
And according to the Mikey guidelines that Buston-Drawson himself authored, he spelled this out very clearly.
You don't have a viral load without two numbers.
you need both.
But there is a lot of PCR out there in the coronavirus space where they're just skipping that, ignoring the internal control, and just saying if we get any signal out to 37, we call it positive.
And they will refuse to sequence anything.
I think the CDC only sequences stuff below 28, and I see other labs doing it below 32.
So they don't really have sequence validation on the stuff past 32.
All that stuff could be noise.
It could be influenza, it could be other coronavirus.
But the other thing to realize, Jason, is that marijuana, because of its,
cannabis because of its bouquet of medically active compounds.
Let's call them that way.
They can be psychoactive.
They can also be physiologically active as well.
Not that dissimilar from pine trees.
There are lots of plants that because of the breadth and the depth of their variation are great candidates for personalized medicine.
And one of the ideas that he's put forth before and one of the arguments that he's offered before of sequencing cannabis was specifically for this, to make personalized weed.
Or maybe just to sequence you so that they could figure out what kind of weed you're predisposed to enjoy.
You know, you should have a sativa or an indica or something like that.
And of course, on a pharmaceutical level, on a biopharmaceuticals level, they would be talking about the relative ratios of different compounds and trying to follow that with the genetics of the plant so that they could predict it and manipulate it.
Once they can predict it and manipulate it, then in theory, they could breed pot plants for different people.
That's the argument, but it's a wrong argument because you're just getting back to personalized medicine in some weird way to get in it.
And the more it has to do with things that people find interesting or people are motivated to argue for, like weed or psychedelics, then the more it makes sense.
And they're going to do the same thing with psychedelics, that psychedelics represent something that happens and helps some people and can make other people crazy.
And so if we figure out the genetic basis for this, we could find a whole new, a whole new tablet of medicines that could be useful to us.
And like Kevin McKernan said on the Danny Jones podcast that I highlighted on my last JC on the hardwood, we wouldn't just be drugging people willy nilly, but we would sequence their genomes and then drug them specifically for their genomes.
He's almost said that word for word.
And so that's the bait and switch illusion shell game that's going on here.
You know, I'm just, I like weed and I like, you know, cool shirts and I like cats and whatever.
And I like to post pictures of, of plates that were dead a long time ago.
That's not a useful experiment behind him.
That's an experimental plate out of the garbage.
So the whole idea that he puts that behind him already tells you that he's it's garbage.
Something's wrong here.
You don't proudly post a piece of garbage behind you.
That's weird.
I see.
We don't know.
They're not sequencing that stuff.
I see.
And that 13 number kind of lines up with probably what you've seen from Didier Riel's lab.
The paper out of, I think it was Jessica.
Didier Riel, the guy who said that hydroxychloroquine worked.
But of course, there was a pandemic, but hydroxychloroquine was working.
that guy.
Jafar, I may have, no Rita Jafar, she did this work where they calibrated PCR on Vero cells to show what CT, they stopped forming PFUs.
And you should know Vero cells are hyper
They're very sensitive to this virus.
If you compare Vero cells to human cells, you don't get the same PFU value.
So he's saying the same thing again.
Now he's telling me about PFU values and bamboozling me again.
So of course what's coming is, oh man, what is a PFU?
That's so crazy.
Wow.
I don't know any of this stuff.
You're so smart.
As you get orders of magnitude lower, PFU values when you use human cell lines.
The Vero cells really make a lot of PFUs.
And so they found the number around 33 with their assay.
So there's a lot getting called above and beyond 32.
What is PFU?
Is that like per?
Oh, PFU is platforming units, like colony forming units.
These colonies back here, you might see.
You count those.
Each one of those is a CFU.
With viruses, you make a lot of cells.
And then the plaques form where all the cells are dying.
And those are each individual virions that seeded that death.
And so you count the plaque forming units and stuff.
I don't think that what he pointed at is what he said it was.
And I think that's part of the test.
Now, I knew that already in this video, but I didn't say it.
But I also didn't, I just thought it was a joke that he put that behind him.
But this question was real, but this answer, I immediately, you can see it in my face, I think I understood already that something was wrong here, but then I let it go.
Because overwhelming is overwhelming.
And I was overwhelmed in this video.
Yeah.
And so you measure a PFU curve and calibrate it to a CT level.
And then you have a sense of, okay, this assay is picking up viability.
out at a certain time.
I see.
I understand that so much better now than I've read it probably 50 times and I didn't really fully understand it.
That's funny.
Yeah.
But I don't do viruses, right?
I mean, just trying to read into this immunology and so much of it just doesn't make
congruent sense.
I mean, I can't tell you all the details.
And that's why it's really interesting to talk to you.
So the next thing that from a general biologist perspective has been on my mind for a long time is the idea that
Moderna and Pfizer have told us that they have this sequence and they can make many good copies of it and then put it in our cells and they'll make very many good copies of a protein that will harmlessly provoke an immune response that we can rely on in the future.
And a lot of that seems odd, but the most odd of it was this calling it vaccination instead of transfection.
And I always understood transfection as being something that
I mean, when we did it to our mice, it was an endpoint after five or six weeks of having transfected.
Look at his face.
This is why he's here.
This is the serious point in the conversation.
This is the part where he can't make a mistake.
I did a particular, let's say, optogenetic protein in the brain.
That area of the brain is also going to be a little bit.
Unhappy.
Yeah, unhappy, let's say it like that, yes.
Yeah, if you overdo it with the lipid nanoparticles, they become toxic.
If you overdo it with the lipid nanoparticles.
But transfection in a mouse brain is with adenovirus, so non-infectious adenovirus.
If you overdo it,
Huh, let's hear how he's gonna talk his way out of this one.
So you can't, usually you have to go in at low MLI, low multiplicity infection in order for you to get.
You gotta go in at a low MLI.
Stop lying!
Holy cow, just another term just trying to bury me under stuff I didn't know existed.
And those terms are supposed to provoke ideas.
And the idea is, is that if it doesn't provoke an idea, what does that signal to you?
You don't know.
And that's how these people bamboozle you.
If you say, I don't know, I'm going to just try to figure out one really quick.
The calculatory difference between indebted vaccinology and infectious immunology.
Now, if I could say that three times in a row, like with conviction, even though it doesn't mean anything, you can imagine a scenario where in biology, you can hear a lot of those combinations of words and what's provoked in a tenure seeking.
graduate student wanting to graduate is, wait, I don't understand those three words.
Can you define them for me?
He said, P-F-U.
I said, wait, I don't know what that means.
Then he put what it means into my head.
And now for years afterward, anytime I hear P-F-U, I already know what that means because Kevin McKernan told me, and I feel very good about remembering what it means.
And now understand that if you have teachers that don't have your best interest in mind, you can build up a whole bunch of things that you don't know, that you think are part of your toolbox, and then start using them to build things.
And everything you build will be built out of nothing.
And that's what I think a lot of biology and medicine is right now.
It is an elaborate illusion that is based on very, very, very fundamental concepts that are wrong.
And the best that I can codify them right now is evolution because of DNA.
That is a foundationally false idea, most of which our understanding of ourselves is based on.
And ultimately, the reason why we think intramuscular injection isn't a bad way to give each other medicine.
those transfection systems to behave.
I've done, I've done some of the valiant transfection in the, I can't say this about the lipid nanoparticles they're using because they've modified them, but the ones that we were typically using were ruined.
They modified the lipid nanoparticles.
So he actually has also said exactly the same thing that Robert Malone saying in August of 2021, that I never imagined Peter McCullough, what Peter Cullis has done here.
I never imagined technology that would be so efficient.
And so he can't speak to the nanoparticles here because they've done something different.
Stop lying!
Sounds like he's protecting the intellectual property of this bullshit, doesn't it?
Betragen is surest way to destroy your cell lines is to put too much of it in there.
So I'm very skeptical of what they've claimed.
They've claimed they have these mRNAs that get transfected and then that they make this perfect spike protein.
They've never shown that.
I mean, unless your audience can find, I really hope someone can prove me wrong.
So now again, what's the question?
Stay disciplined.
The question is, do they make the spike protein that they're supposed to make, or do they make that and stuff other than that?
Because then what's the problem?
We just have to optimize it so that they do only make the spike protein.
Stop lying!
Already in 2021, we are already seeding a narrative, starting to try and get me to think that way.
that there are problems with it, that it might have been rushed, that there are shortcomings in the manufacturing that still need to be overcome.
Not that expression of a protein by transfecting a human is a bad idea, but the way that we are doing it might fall short.
Here, because I've been
There's now like so many millions of papers of SARS-CoV-2 out there.
It's very hard to dig through the literature and find exactly.
Oh, I've been looking.
I've been looking for if anyone has found like dose, you know, if they have some range of what they expect to go into circulation or what they expect to be produced.
And the other thing that you've written a paper about recently is the obvious unknown of post-translational modification and then how the protein itself is folded, given the fact that it's not the actual sequence, they've molded the sequence in such a way.
Yeah, so that is, I think that's criminal in that it's technically a prodrug, right?
Because you're giving a sequence that you're transfecting into cells and you're asking your cells to make the final drug without ever having to declare what the final drug is or prove the fidelity of making that final drug.
So that's a pretty spectacular argument that I think if he made it in December 2021, he still should be making it now.
But it's still an argument about purity.
It's still an argument about whether it does what it says on the label.
It still sounds like an FDA problem.
And so maybe the FDA didn't regulate a prodrug like it's supposed to have regulated a prodrug.
And maybe we should get rid of the FDA because they can't regulate this kind of prodrug.
I'm still hearing something fishy here, although it does sound much better than the last 10 minutes did.
They got away with a hall pass on that.
Like if this were some other drug that was a pro-drug that your liver modified and turned into another drug, you'd have to have all these P450 studies, you've got bad dose rate.
Oh, that's a really wonderful way to explain it.
I think a lot of people will, even some nurses and stuff would understand that if you point out that if this was a pro-drug that had to go through the liver first,
then you would have so many more checks and balances and tests and trials that would have needed to be done on all stages of that before.
You'd have to prove what the final drug is.
Right, right, right.
They have no evidence that they're making a spike protein off of this MR.
I mean, they have, they have a couple, I shouldn't say no evidence.
There's papers out there where they take these things and they express them in other posts.
Right.
And I've seen a couple of 3D, um, you know, crystal structures with them.
They've all used modifications of it.
Like they put a twin strap on one end so they can purify these and crystallize them.
Or they're not, they're not using the pseudo uridine template.
Sometimes they're putting them in DNA vectors and getting them to express, you know, so.
The actual mRNA getting injected into people and what actual peptide sequences that those mRNAs manufacture in cells, I can't find literature on.
I can find some people- So why didn't he say any of this in front of the Senate?
Why wouldn't, if you could, if you could spike the football by saying the whole list of reasons why this was dumb, which he hasn't said yet, of course, he's on a specific list of reasons that all falls under a grand category of it sucks now, but we could make it better.
He's not gonna touch the biology of expressing proteins that aren't supposed to be where they are in healthy people.
He's only gonna discuss it as a product that doesn't meet what it says on the label, has not been evaluated in the way it should have been evaluated.
He's not gonna ever object to the methodology of using this technology on healthy people.
He's not even gonna frame it in that context where a question like that would make sense.
That's his job here.
By the time you're done talking to this guy, you better make sure that he never asks a useful question about this again, or we're in big trouble.
Sent me material that were from Pfizer's disclosures, I think to some European government agencies, which I can forward to you if you want to link into this chat.
But they basically show that they have all types of problems in multiple different bands.
When they go and try to express these in vitro, they get all types of
fragmentation that occurs, and they don't know if it's fragmentation of the virus or stall points in translation, and the banding patterns they see on gels are smears.
So don't you think by now, if all of what he said is true, don't you think by now he should have already said, I think we should stop all of these things in people?
We should just stop.
It's just crazy that we're doing it.
At what point does that become the actual message?
Like, you know, when you're breaking up with somebody and you talk to them for like four hours about all the fun times you had together and about how bad things are all the time and whatever, but in the end, you can't just say, I wanna break up with you.
And it's so striking to me how all of these fakers are so good at talking for so long and saying nothing useful, you know, really simple.
Get to the point.
But there is no point.
The point is fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and if necessary, coercion.
And there's questions on them having to clarify why are those smears not the right size, the anticipated size.
And that's all we can see from some of the regulatory disclosures.
So what has me worried about what they did is they took
a sequence that was already code unoptimized by a virus adapted to its host and decided to make it different.
And that's also a wonderful enchantment.
Look at it, look at it falling through the little Plinko board of my head.
So the virus has already optimized the spike protein.
Ooh, I got to play the music.
Ooh, the virus has already optimized the spike protein.
The virus evolved.
Virus is an evolved virus.
Oh, what if it's not an evolved virus, Kevin?
What if it's a laboratory designed virus, Kevin?
You forgot all about that, Kevin.
We know this is now the most toxic protein probably in virus, right?
So if a virus has evolved a certain codon structure.
Look at me.
It probably has
got the codon structure right, and that it needs to make sure it's not lethal to the host so it can still survive transmission.
but they went with the route of supercharging this by codon optimizing it.
So.
Oh my gosh.
So then he's actually saying that the spike protein that they make could even be worse than the spike protein that the virus optimized not to kill the host.
Holy cow.
I almost missed that.
That's, that's even more spectacular.
Do you hear it?
More inhuman.
I mean, this is what I'm not as evolved a certain codon structure for a toxic peptide.
It probably has,
got the codon structure right, and that it needs to make sure it's not lethal to the host so it can still survive transmission.
But they went with the route of supercharging this by codon optimizing it so it would express even more in human.
I mean, this is what I'm not, I think I do, whenever you want to hyperexpress a protein, this is just what we do.
We codon optimize it, we put it behind a really heavy promoter, toss it into some cells that are gonna be sacrificial, and just jack the expression of it up.
But you're doing this in cells you know you're gonna kill,
and then purify as much of the damn protein as you can.
That's not necessarily what you need to do to dose humans.
You shouldn't be necessarily aiming for maximum expression, because when an RNA gets into a cell and starts making maximum expression, all types of triggers go off on the interferon system, being like, this could be cancerous.
Like, what the hell's going on here?
You could get apoptosis, because you're expressing way too much protein in a particular cell.
So they did a lot of things to jack up the expression.
They put a beta-globin promoter on there, which is a pretty aggressive promoter.
They then codon optimized it, which didn't need to be done, in my opinion.
And that creates all types of other problems.
When you codon optimize it, you don't know that the translation is going to go at the same speed anymore.
It may slow down due to all types of knots in the RNA you've created by doing this.
Like there are quadruplex G structures now that we know in the RNA that are much more frequent in the messenger RNAs than they are in the actual natural virus.
Does that make error rate go up then too, or?
It makes translation error go up.
It also attracts other types of regulatory proteins to the molecules because quadriplex G structures look like telomeres.
And so telomeres are involved in sensitance.
If you look at telomeres, they're all quadriplex Gs.
Sensitance.
I think it's senescence.
I think it's very interesting that he mispronounces that word or pronounces it in that funny way.
Telomeres is Brett Weinstein's little hat.
Also a very interesting thing to drop there.
It's not random.
I assure you it's not random.
It's really hilarious.
And so those things recruit proteins that are involved in the life cycle of the cell, that are involved in cancer.
Look at my eyes.
So there's actually proteins in SARS that are attracted to, there's the NSP13 protein that's attracted to quadriplegics, right?
So they now have much, I think there's like four in the natural virus that goes to like maybe nine and into the teens on the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine.
So they're creating a lot more of these stall points and translation and other biological motifs that might alter the biochemistry of the cell.
Uh, the other thing that they did is they put a, a universal base in there, uh, known as pseudo-uridine.
All right.
And many, you've probably heard about this.
The patents go to UPenn and, uh, I've never held it, heard it called a universal base before though.
It's a degenerate base.
Yes.
So it binds to, they won't call it that, but I built DNA sequencers on degenerate bases and those things were on a radar for a reason.
Uh, yeah.
So it binds to, uh, it has pseudo-uridine being uracil.
should have, it's like a fine replacement.
Okay.
So it should have a, it should have one of these 80 pairs.
Right.
And unfortunately this thing also binds to G. It also binds to itself.
It also has some binding to cytosine.
So this means that it's a very, very sticky base.
It can flip around and bind.
If you actually look at its glycosic bond.
And I don't want to sound like an idiot, but this is the first time I've ever heard this for me.
I always just assumed it was a chemically different substitute for a single base.
It does.
It replaces it.
They're replacing all of the use with this because it's more RNase resistant.
Okay.
So it doesn't degrade as much.
So that meant,
So you've now got an RNA, you've codon optimized it, you put a heavy promoter on it, and now you also took away the breaks.
The breaks are usually RNAs that come in and chew up these messenger RNAs, but they put- I think he's also confusing us here when he says promoter.
I actually think that this is something that I didn't hear before, but this is confusing because I don't think the RNA in the shot contains a promoter.
because it's RNA, it would just be translated.
I think it's gotta have something on it, but it's not a promoter.
A promoter is a sequence that comes before a gene that causes the gene to be expressed, attracts the translation material or the translation enzyme.
So a promoter on an RNA molecule, I don't think that's accurate.
I think they use a promoter on the DNA that they use to produce the RNA.
I don't think that promoter gets translated.
I do think that there is some level of confusion here and making, you know, I don't understand.
Obviously, I don't understand.
But I understand now better than I did then.
And I think that this is something wrong.
There's something wrong here.
was saying they put a very strong promoter on it, because that still would only be during the production stage.
The mRNA that's put inside of people doesn't have a beta-actin promoter.
As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, iron sharpens iron, right?
Let's make sure if I'm wrong about that, but I think this is wrong.
A long poly-A tail on this, and they put these pseudouridines in there so that the RNases can't touch it.
Now, there's a consequence to doing that, is when you camouflage these things from RNases,
You also start triggering a lot of the toll receptors to get malfunctioned, like toll receptor 3, 7, and 8 could all scurry with pseudo-uridine.
But that's a separate topic we can bench for later.
The thing I want to get across is that the base that they have in there is not very specific.
And so when you don't have specific binding, you can get all types of misbinding.
You can get all types of hairpin formations to form.
But more importantly,
This will create errors in replication and DNA, but the errors that are actually orders of magnitude more frequent are errors in translation.
There actually has to be quite a bit of
of cross-promotion in a negative way.
So what you actually will see also today, this is a message for Jung, Insif, or I don't know how to say your name, because they also have bad guys that they are working together with.
And so in this case, that Norman guy from
He's from Poland and he used to work for the CDC.
That guy has been trashing me since I saw him on the internet.
And it's trashing me about clones and about the idea that RNA virology is fake.
He is so evil, so nasty about it.
And it's ridiculous.
It's absolutely ridiculous because there's an added little bit that you don't know.
And that is that you may not be aware, but Jessica Hockett and Jonathan Engler
actually did a podcast with that Norman guy and tried to get him to talk to me in private, but he wouldn't.
And that was around the same time that Jonathan Engler and they were writing this stupid virology review on Substack that I hated and that I got, it all happened at the same time.
And Norman was part of this little group.
They were trying to get me to accept Norman as a good guy, expert, and I should talk to him in private.
But on X, Norman had already called me a clown many times in cooperation with some of the mouse army.
And so it was already obvious
And so that guy is now, I think, pretending to be opposed to Kevin McKernan, because they need to have opposition that they can argue with, because they can't argue with me.
I know that sounds very egoistic, but that's really what's happening right now.
These people have to ignore us, because they can't discuss the biology that we are discussing.
and they can't discuss their history as we are discussing it, or it will reveal that they have run out the clock on our college kids.
Our days then have to come in and read this thing.
And when you have universal basis in there, they get all confused, and their translation errors go through the roof.
And there's a couple of papers I can point you to.
You're bumping your microphone or something.
Oh, I am.
My hands are on it.
Sorry, there must be a- Oh, it's OK.
Sorry.
He's getting a little nervous, huh?
I'm getting a little nervous.
When you have this universal base in there, it not only confuses polymerases, but it more readily confuses the tRNAs and the ribosomes.
They have a much harder job of having to put these triplet codons in there.
And when one of the bases is mismatching to multiple different bases, the transcription, I'm sorry, translation errors go through the roof.
Right.
Now there's a paper on there that tries to measure these translation errors with pseudouridine.
And they measure like, they can detect it when there's like one pseudouridine in there.
And what we know from these mRNAs, every uracil is replaced.
So there, that's a very interesting point that he makes, but never is made again.
There's a paper out there, he says, that shows something to do with, what did he say?
That shows that even one pseudouridine, if there's only one pseudouridine in there, they can detect
they can detect the wobbling base.
That's a very interesting statement to make, right?
Because if that's the case, then we're really in big trouble because, I'm just gonna put this in here anyway, I don't care.
And I'm gonna, let me see where I am on this video.
Hold on one second.
Hopefully it will start again.
Oh no, it won't.
Um, I, that's it.
Um, I got to start that a little bit over.
I apologize.
I really wanted to put this in there, so I'm going to put it, I didn't dare to do it before, but I'm going to do it now.
Um, I get ahead here.
Peptide on the other end of that, that could get expressed as a chimeric protein.
We've got no evidence for this in vivo.
This is just all in silica.
There's no way that thing creates high.
You just said that you just said that they could detect the translation errors when there was only one.
Yes.
And these things have replaced all of them.
So that's a huge statement.
Again, I'm, I'm not, I'm learning a lot of this for the first time.
I did not realize that this was this awful.
Um, wow.
Now that here's another thing that's really spooky about at least the Pfizer one is there's some papers out there that show when you put pseudo-uridine in the stop codons, the ribosomes read through it.
and they sometimes frame shift on the way.
So here we go.
The ribosomes will read through it.
And now, especially with Pfizer, this is interesting because Pfizer has other sequences on the end that could get translated into proteins we don't know, which a couple of years from now, from December of 2021, will become the translation of SV40.
Do you see?
He's actually suggesting that right now, he couldn't figure out that it was SV40.
Right now, he wasn't smart enough to drop the sequence into BLAST and have it map the parts of the sequence.
He didn't do it yet.
He wasn't insightful enough as a geneticist to say, hey, wait, let's see the sequence that Pfizer published.
Let's see what it looks like.
Let's see.
Isn't that interesting?
He knows what's there, but he doesn't know how to figure it out or what it means or something.
But he knows there's extra there, especially in the Pfizer one, not in the Moderna.
The Moderna actually worked out great.
We're going to use the Moderna model to fix the Pfizer model in five years.
So he's got to seed the narrative in the right way with this character.
True.
It means they keep translating the RNA sequence that's past the double stop codon.
So you have to ask what's on the three prime end of the Pfizer UTR, like what do they have back there?
And we went and scanned all those things.
And there's actually a human peptide on the other end of that that could get expressed as a chimeric protein.
We've got no evidence for this in vivo.
This is just all in silica stuff that we're looking at.
Like if it- So what human protein is it?
I wonder why he won't say that.
Isn't that strange?
If pseudouridine ablates that SOP codon, what does it read into?
And it reads into a fairly long peptide
that has some homology to GP 130, but we don't know much more about it.
The data in NCBI is pretty sparse on whatever that thing is, but
Some of that's in the paper we put together with Peter McCullough as to what human peptide is and what does that mean?
Because writing papers with Peter McCullough about genomes makes perfect sense in 2021.
Why wouldn't the cardiologist that spoke out about the usefulness of hydroxy, oh wait, the non-dangerousness of hydroxychloroquine, why would he be the guy that this guy publishes data with?
Why not Robert Malone?
Why not Steve Kirsch?
Why not any other random person?
Why Peter McCullough?
That's a very relevant question that Jay in 2021 wasn't able to answer because Jay still thought that all these people were on the same good guy team and the people we needed to worry about were Liana Nguyen and Rochelle Walensky.
That's who that guy is right there.
He still thinks that Liana Nguyen and Rochelle Walensky, those are the bad guys.
This guy is as good as Robert Malone and as good as Peter McCullough and Pierre Coderre, all part of the same fundamental biology team.
It's Liana Nguyen and Peter Daszak that we have to worry about.
That's where I was here.
I still have that.
Trust me, I remember.
There's some error rate here, and I'm not suggesting every single spike protein that comes off this mRNA is going to do this.
These error rates happen at frequencies that are very low, but you have to keep them in context to how many molecules they're injecting into you.
They're injecting trillions of these things into you, right?
So those numbers, times an error rate, some I've seen 10 to the minus four, 10 to the minus fifth rate, they matter.
They matter.
You're going to get, you could get chimeric proteins that come out of this that have human SARS chimeras,
And what does it do?
Does it create autoantibody issues?
Does that create autoimmune issues?
I mean, the long story short is these are all hypotheses that haven't been explored.
They're in silica, but you do have to ask why.
My hypothesis about McCullough is that he was one of these people who was recruited early because it was an emergency and he believed it.
He believed in the potential of a lab leak and he was probably told that it was likely.
He probably believed some of the things that were happening.
But I do think that Peter McCullough is also crafty enough to know that there was a population pyramid problem approaching and that we might need an excuse to manage it.
I think he's also smart enough to know at some point in time that he was taken by these people and used by these people.
And that's why he's no longer in favor with them.
That's why he was the first one to come out and say, you know, if I did it all over again, I don't think I'd give my kids any vaccines.
The only person in that whole group who had any guts to say that first was him.
And it was only months and months and months later that these other people came out and started saying it, maybe even years later.
Peter McCullough was ahead of that curve by a long ways with regard to the dissident movement of COVID.
And many of them still haven't even approached the possibility of saying those words out loud.
I think Peter McCullough regrets participating and is probably not able to pull out of it anymore.
And I think there are a lot of people like that.
There have to be.
It's the only way to explain it.
They've seen behind the curtain and they know what happens to people who tell that story.
They get canceled.
They don't have to get eliminated.
They get canceled.
Their fame, their fortune, their comfort will completely disappear.
They'll be back to renting a house and begging for donations or hoping that their sub stack doesn't lose subscribers or anything else that's sustaining them right now.
the stipends that they get from Brownstone or something like that will dry up instantly.
Maybe your very lucrative job as a staff scientist will be ended because you say the wrong name twice on your stream.
Who knows?
But that's how this works.
People that you see rising in social media are the people that are approved acolytes that can control the narrative and direct it in the way that it needs to go so that the most adults are coerced into accepting that the reality is you're gonna be experimental animals in a generation.
What did Pfizer and Moderna, these people, get away with getting the prodrug certified without ever having to show their hand on what the hell these things make in human cells?
You know, that's, I've dug up a couple of papers in that paper with Peter on, okay, there's a couple other images in papers that look like this could be happening.
Like when you ever, there's one great paper out there, I think from Bancel that looks at like spikes, spike proteins that are expressed in exosomes, right?
In the blood, they showed them like four months later, really interesting paper.
They do have some like SDS page images of what they, of those exosomes and they're smeary.
And then there's another paper we found from Jiang et al that showed these, showing fragments, and the fragments that were getting expressed at the spike protein, they weren't all full length.
They were different based on the cell fraction they isolated them from, right?
And I think that was even with the DNA vaccine that didn't have the pseudouridine problems, right?
So you can imagine that would get even worse if you had all these other complications put in there.
My concern is we don't really know what these vaccines are producing.
We don't know the fidelity of it.
We suspect there's some spike protein because there's motifs that look like spike proteins because antibody studies, but we only have antibodies.
So it's kind of like the people, you know,
blindfolded doctors touching the elephant, right?
You know, you got some similarity, fine.
But we don't precisely know the diversity of what's getting expressed in humans.
And we- So the only argument that could be made by CHD and Brian Hooker and Mary Holland and Meryl Nass and Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch and John Baldwin, that this guy is not saying all of this now,
is because they think that the double-stranded DNA contamination is a legal way that they can qualify the countermeasures as being crimes.
Otherwise, objecting to the methodology on its face is the way to go.
And there's actually pretense in American law in an Idaho case where they challenged the biology of vaccination on its face, and it is supported.
The case was won.
Now, you're gonna have to do your own research to find that case and understand why it's not significant to today, but it kind of is, why it's important to understand that none of these people talk about it, why these people don't say strict scrutiny, and the rational basis test is for the same reason.
We have an elaborate, an elaborate operation has been run on us by people who have agreed to follow a script that will end with us being
unwittingly teaching our kids this mythology that includes AIDS and coronaviruses and RNA pandemics and antibodies that are immunity and vaccination that is the best invention in medicine's history.
You should be concerned about that because these LNPs don't target particular cell lines, they go everywhere.
So that's a much broader problem.
If you knew that, okay, we're expressing
Some fragmented spikes, but we've got them well-characterized, the data's public, and they're going only to cell lines that the virus sees, like ACE2 expressing cell lines or CD147 expressing cell lines.
Fine, you've got an understood complexity of the problem.
When you start using these LMPs, they transfect every cell they touch.
So now you've got to worry about not just what does spike toxicity do in those, what does all the degenerate products of low-fidelity spike expression do to many more cell lines?
it can really blow up like the complexity of the problem and even perhaps the symptomatology, right?
So why isn't he saying this anymore?
Why isn't he saying this anymore?
Why is he focusing specifically on turbo cancer and double-stranded DNA and the SV40?
Why?
Why is he saying this to me and no one else ever?
Right, right.
It's this is blowing my mind because it didn't really The, the, the extent to which this this adds variables is really breathtaking actually
It's been frustrating me because I've heard so many arguments online that, oh, it's just the spike protein that's identical to what's in the virus.
No biggie, right?
So you shouldn't, your symptoms, your adverse event profile should be a subset of what you get from the virus because we're giving you a subset of the virus.
We're not giving you the full replicative competent virus.
I don't think that theory should be accepted blindly because we're injecting these things in a more
varied cell lines, we are rejecting them, I think, at a higher concentration.
I mean, the way, how do you read those antibody studies, right?
You see that they have higher antibody expression against spike, right?
I don't read that as like a better immune response.
I read that as you're expressing more spike.
And so the antibodies are probably a proxy to the expression level of spike.
And is that a good thing?
Do you really need massive amounts of spike protein to build an immune response?
because we have to be careful here, spike's the toxic peptide.
So we're in this window like cancer treatment where we're trying to kill.
Spike is the toxic peptide.
It's exactly the illusion that they were sent in to say so that the effects of transfection would be confused with the spike.
The spike is toxic, not the methodology.
The methodology isn't stupid.
The choice of the spike was.
The choice to alter the spike was.
The choice to put in impure RNA was the mistake.
The choice to put in contaminated RNA was the mistake.
Do you see it, ladies and gentlemen?
Please tell me you do.
And am I right in my understanding, though, that actually if you go with this idea that antibodies are neutralizing the spike and that's how you build immunity in their cartoon world, then aren't they only really concerned about antibodies that have some specificity for the receptor binding domain?
This leaves an awful lot of useless epitopes in that.
It does, yeah.
And I don't know if you saw that recent paper that when they serially applied the same vaccination that the actual antibodies got more and more specific to the Wuhan type 1.
So they're kind of making matters worse by boosting.
At least they're making it worse so the patients are less tolerant to future variants by boosting.
So here he is seeding the narrative that Luigi Warren would seed in my head as well.
Maybe he had already seeded in my head by this time.
Oh, no, of course, already a year into my head this time that Khertub VandenBosch was right that the virus could be manipulated, could be
could be, the evolution of the virus could be influenced by the mass vaccination campaign.
And because we were making very specific immunity to Wuhan 1, then we were for sure going to force the virus to change from Wuhan 1.
That's where we are right now.
Listen.
So I'm, yeah, there's a host of problems with what they're, what they're doing on that front.
But I, so I hope someone can prove me wrong and find more papers, anything related to
what proteins actually get expressed.
I would have thought that if we have 5 million SARS genomes in NCBI, and maybe there's 2 million NCBI, but there's 5 million in G-Set, right?
How many sequence QCs do we have the loss on these vaccines?
5 million sequences we already have of the virus by the end of 2021.
Think about that.
That's also just part of the enchantment.
Wow, we have five million sequences already.
That's a lot of viruses we've found.
We've been tracking this thing for a long time.
It's so overwhelming how much data there is to process.
It actually hurts my eyes.
I can find one, like from Andy Fire's lab.
And they didn't even put out the raw reads.
They put out the consensus sequence.
So you can't really dig into some of this nuance and how many variations are actually in there.
So you would think there would be sequence QC locked a lot in all these vaccines.
You would also think that the evidence of when you transfect this into humans, what's the peptide that comes out with mass spec profiles in the peptides, like protein sequencing.
Do you hear the enchantment there?
When you transfect this into humans.
Stop lying!
Not when you transfect humans.
Not when you transfect humans, but when you transfect this into humans.
And so he is actually suggesting to me that it's not transfection, but it is what you transfect.
And that is the lie.
That is at the heart of my message.
Transfection of healthy humans was criminal.
Not transfection to a spike.
Transfection.
Why don't we know precisely what these are?
The protein sequencing gives you some information about what's going on.
It doesn't necessarily tell you how things fold.
I mean, one of the challenges in codon optimization is you do change the rate of translation when you do this.
And there's lots of papers out there showing that when you change the rate of translation, you can alter the folding.
It's particularly true when you hit double prolines.
And there are a lot of double prolines in the spike protein, right?
So those things end up stalling translation
and your code on usage really matters across those things.
But don't you find it also so frustrating that there are so many people that seem to have as much sort of intimate sequence gene type data, not data, but knowledge and understanding as yourself, but then focus it all on
on proving that the virus didn't come from a laboratory and look at the sequence of the virus and and wax intellectual about all of this stuff but not once turn their this same keen eye to the PCR tests to the to the vaccine or to the to the transfection and think the same with the same sharp edge i just don't get it i i think it's it's um
I think it's a hierarchy of funding that drives all that, that you'll see whether it's funding from NIH, NIAID, or from Gates, that all of those actors never want to attack the narrative.
And if you start raising the questions like, hey, we've injected a- And so what is he proposing here, that he's attacking the narrative?
They don't attack the narrative, but I do.
And that's the limited spectrum of debate getting reinforced.
Oh, but he's a hero.
Those guys aren't a hero.
He's a hero.
So if I support him, I'm also a hero.
If I ask the questions that he's got me curious about, I'm also a hero.
Both teams are playing against us.
A billion people with this.
Shouldn't we have more sequence data on the actual vaccine?
Like, you know, like you guys are doing a great job sequencing all those viruses and putting in public, but when are you going to turn your attention to what you're injecting into people forcefully?
they turn that into a conspiracy theory.
They can't question it, they can't look at it.
But if you were neutral and not in this and not funded, which I'm assuming both you and I are in that camp and a variety of other genomicists are in that camp.
The guy who was caught up in the house scheme was Rainer Fulmer, Fuller, Fulmert of the Coronavirus Investigation Committee in Germany, not Kurt von den Bosch.
We look at a signal, you should have an equal number of sequences on both sides of this fence.
The virus is really important to see where it's going,
If we don't have particularly when there's liability free mandated injections going on, and there's no QC, and when you ask for it, they mock you as an anti-vaxxer.
There's something really wrong there.
Yeah, I think that's a really nice way to put it too.
Are you in regular contact with Michael Yeadon since this or not really at all?
We were in a little bit more contact when we were doing the PCR stuff, but I haven't I've seen him on a couple I'm on so many Twitter threads and whatnot his name comes by he got I'm on so many Twitter threads and whatnot because it's his full-time job I thought he had a company.
I thought his brothers were trying to cure cancer.
What in the hell?
How does this guy with a hundred million dollar house on the Atlantic Ocean have so much time to be on social media?
Calling me chemtrail retarded
Do you see it yet?
This guy called me chemtrail retarded.
I kicked off the Twitter.
So I haven't seen as much of him since he's off of Twitter.
But there's a couple other email threads that I'm on that he's there as well.
But he did, he brought up some concern, I think over
What was it, syncytia-1 or something?
It was a short amino acid sequence that he got a little bit flamed for.
But- He's still just out there every day trying to push it.
I just didn't- Syncytin is what he got pushed for.
And syncytin has some homology to the fusion protein or something like that.
I don't know.
No, I think him and Peter McCullough and yourself and everybody who brings some kind of real
real life experience to this and isn't afraid to speak out about the incongruencies I think is part of the solution.
And I don't know, I've been following you for a long time on Twitter now since I figured out that you were one of the guys on that original
Jorsten thing.
And, uh, you know, I only did PCR in my, I did single cell PCR and tried to prove the, that there were different nicotinic receptors in different neurons that we were pulling out of the brain.
And so most of my methodology, what problems we're just trying to convince people that we could get enough material to actually get a read.
Um, they were fine with the fact that there were nicotinic receptors there that wasn't proving some kind of ghost or anything, but no,
You know from doing that how sensitive it is.
And how easy it is for somebody to say you don't have enough controls to know that you're saying what you're saying.
And so when this started, it was pretty mind-boggling to me that
rather than starting with a small needle that I had just pulled out of a brain slice and I had just recorded from, so I knew what kind of cell I was pulling out, you could stick a swab up in my nose and make the same measurement that just seemed kind of impressive to me.
I don't know.
Yeah, I've not seen the LODs on this that get down to single DNA or something.
LODs.
Oh my gosh, he's going to try and get me with another one.
But they get close.
They get down to 100 copies usually.
But the variance is sodium wide.
Yeah, I see.
You know, the LODs on this, they get down to single DNA or single copy levels, but they get close.
They get down to 100 copies usually off those, sometimes 50 off of those nasal swabs.
But the variance is sodium wide.
Yeah, I see.
You know, you get... No, I didn't.
The CTs that were in the Datu paper were like,
10 to 13 CTs from swab.
I'm telling you, Kevin doesn't like talking to people that he's not sure he knows more than.
He doesn't like talking to people who he's not sure what questions they're going to ask.
That's who he doesn't like talking to.
This was hard work for him.
The swab on the internal control.
And then you have everyone arguing over what the CT should be for the virus to cut.
Well, if you don't normalize for how much you swab, you're never going to get that.
I think my dog needs to go outside.
Hold on.
Be right back.
He has a dog?
I thought he had giant cats.
That's weird.
I didn't know he had a dog.
I thought he just had giant cats.
Wow.
I just said wow.
All right, he'll probably be back in a few minutes, so.
No, no problem.
I mean, I already really got a lot of what I wanted, and I'm really happy how quickly you got there.
I am shocked.
He has dogs?
Did you know he has dogs?
Man, oh man.
I actually didn't, I actually didn't understand at all that, that pseudo-urine.
Did you hear the dog?
My dogs make noise.
You can hear their paws on the floor.
They bark sometimes.
Hmm.
Did he just say that he had a dog because he knows that I'm a dog person?
Oh my goodness, I wonder what's going on here.
He had less specificity.
Is he going to go back to the dog?
Yeah, I'll forward you.
There's some links in that preprint on OSF about this that show the pseudouridines base pairing with other molecules.
It also facilitates quadriplex G formation because of this.
So there's a host of problems with it that are just getting swept under the rug.
And every time you raise this with people,
You do understand that although a dog isn't significant, if we were to actually find out that he doesn't have a dog, this would be incredible.
As dumb as it is, it would be incredible.
What a stupid thing to lie about.
I mean, really stupid thing to lie about.
We need to find out.
He's gotta have it on social media.
It can't just be that he takes pictures of his cats if he's also got a dog that sleeps with them or the cats beat the shit out of the dog.
There's gotta be some picture of the dog.
They're just like, you're never anti-vaxxer.
If it's too complicated, you can't, please.
But can you explain a little bit why if the RNA folds in a particular shape that you're explaining, and then that shape attracts proteins that cause senescence?
Well, they attract proteins associated with it.
I don't know if it actually causes that yet.
It's just, there's keys in the literature that show when you form lots of quadruplex G formations in RNA, you radically alter the translation rate and you alter a lot of the other cell signaling that goes on.
So quadruplex Gs are a different form of base pairing.
Most base pairings- The other person who pushed quadruplex Gs
was Stephanie Seneff, also in the Steve Kerr Steering Committee, also on the 2023 St.
Patrick's Day stream organized by John Bodwin that's still available on Rumble.
No one else talking about quadruplex Gs except for me and Seneff and him, and I talked about it because of them.
That's it, nobody else.
is called Watson-Crick base pairing, where you get that nice double helix that you get about 10 bases per turn.
When you get really GC-rich areas... I'm checking, I'm checking the link right now, because I need to know.
Twitter says... Dog, okay, I see the dog right there.
Your dog is a midget.
Okay, that's fine.
I got it.
He's got a dog, great.
What can happen is it's almost like, imagine you're like those old phone coils you have that are perfectly helical, except once in a while they get inverted and they flip the other direction.
Yes, yes.
That's kind of like a quadruplex G in DNA.
They have these capacities to form Hoogsteen base pairing when they're GC rich, and then the structure of them changes into what looks like a knot.
and those knots are stall points for translation and they also attract a lot of other cell circuitry because they're signals that are regulatory in nature.
So again, remember when you say that these chemical structures are regulatory in nature, we're talking about p-value studies in one paper.
We're talking about in vitro studies in one assay.
We're talking about p-values and two assays.
We're not talking about understood, well-defined, high-fidelity facts about our biology.
But by using the terms that define them and provoking ideas with those terms, it becomes an enchantment where essentially that's what's happening in my mind.
concepts that I don't quite understand are now being used to fill in the blanks and underscore or edify the logic of the concept that he's throwing at me here.
And at this time, I wasn't sophisticated enough to see through him, but now I am.
And now you are.
You see a lot of these quadriplex Gs in promoters.
You see a lot of them inside of telomeres.
So there are signatures to the cell that are involved in interferon response.
Um, so telomeres are involved in interferon response.
You see how imprecise it is when you start making, uh, when you, when you code on optimize the viruses, RNA into the human version of this, where the, the most of the Asian, how many times have we said code on optimize in this thing?
How many times would I say code on optimized after this stream?
Lots of times.
asking the wrong questions about transfection.
Should we have codon optimized it?
Why would we have done that?
That will make it worse.
T's in the third base of the codon get swapped out for G's or C's.
When you do that, your GC content goes up substantially.
And when your GC content shifts that much, you get quadruplex G formation all over the RNAs.
That's something that's not as native to the virus.
Actually, if you look at the quadruplex G structures in SARS, they're highly conserved.
There's a paper out there showing they're conserved across 16,000 of the genomes they looked at.
So the virus really only has these in key places for purposeful regulatory reasons.
And then they make a version of spike protein that then litters them with a shitload more of them.
Think about how significant these things should be on the list of reasons why the highly intelligent and extremely expert Kevin McKernan objects to these technologies.
And yet somehow or another, he's been in front of the Senate and actually hasn't said that these technologies in general are such a multi-layered bouquet of bullshit that it's hard for me to summarize it in an hour.
He says that double-stranded DNA and SV40 is what we need to be worried about in 2024.
Almost 2025.
None of these objections form the basis for the biology that he's now pushing.
None of them.
None of them!
So what is he teaching our kids?
What is he teaching our kids on the Danny Jones podcast?
Stop lying!
Nothing.
He's lying to them.
I think in the, I've got to dig up the exact paper, but they tripled in one of the vaccines and went up almost sort of magnitude in another one.
I mean, it went up to like, I think 16 or 19 in one gather.
So they've literally, I spent about a week trying to figure out if I could quantify or find a place that had quantified the difference in the vaccine number of quadruplex G's.
And then I found a paper by Stephanie Seneff, not about the vaccines, but about the quadruplex G's.
littered the RNA with these quadriplex Gs.
They probably didn't notice this.
I would argue they just did, if it was warp speed, they just put it through a codon optimization tool, because that's what you do to maximize expression, and they moved on.
And so they're probably not aware that, oh, we put in all these secondary structures.
Just like Annie DeGroat from EpiVax said on the video that Houston Tonic recently uploaded, we just used Word.
We just used Microsoft Word.
and did the did the search and replace the RNA.
That's going to change the RNA's recognition by a lot of the toll receptors and by a lot of the viral defense mechanisms that they have.
A lot of these viral defense mechanisms actually key off of the secondary structure of the RNA to cut it.
It's interesting that the picture that's that he actually sent me, I just got to click on that again to show you what just dawned on me.
is that the picture that you sent me is actually dog versus cat.
And then here is a cat and a dog inside of a weight room.
So does that mean he has a weight room in his house with a dancing bar and a mirror?
I mean, because the cats are there, the dog is there, that's gotta be his house, right?
Oh wait, sorry, I thought I had it up here already, my bad.
Here, check this out.
So this is the tweet that Soothspider dropped in.
And then here we see the cat is lifting some iron to deal with the dog over here.
But that means that in his Krispy Kreme house, there actually is a workout room with a ballet bar.
And that's nice.
I mean, it doesn't have to be his house, but it's kind of funny.
Anyway, let's go back to this.
Let's finish this up quick.
And that's changed now with the pseudouridine implementation and the codon optimization.
So I think that's why we're seeing a lot of these papers emerge that suggest these mRNAs reprogram the innate immune system.
because these things go in and the toll receptors are confused by them.
And we don't know how long they remain confused, but there seems to be at least a week period of either, you know, lymphocytopenia or neutropenia that's occurring.
And there's also some alterations in the ratios of CD4 positive and CD8 positive cells, right?
Those seem to be confusing.
And toll receptors are in all cells, right?
Toe receptors, they are immune.
I don't want to say they're in all cells, because I don't know, actually.
But they're in the gut a lot.
And they're in a lot of cells that are, I think, on the epithelium layer to look for pathogens, basically.
OK.
They're in all cells.
Yeah, I don't know how they exist in the brain, but I know that they're heavily involved in leaky gut syndrome and monitoring what types of pathogens and the microbiome that you've got in your gut.
But how do they, if they're toll receptors, how do they interact with RNA that's inside?
So I think it's total receptor three that looks for single-stranded RNA.
Oh, I see.
Okay.
Yeah.
And if that RNA has pseudourdine in it, I think it's, I think it doesn't see it.
The, uh,
Double-stranded RNA is another issue, which something Andy Fire's group did, is they tried to measure the single-stranded versus double-stranded ratio of the RNA in the vaccines they did sequence.
And they found a very, very low frequency of the double-stranded RNA, because the double-stranded RNA tends to trigger more of this.
Double-stranded RNA.
So they looked for double-stranded RNA, but they didn't find the double-stranded DNA that he's now telling everybody in the world they found.
That's very significant.
He's talking about a paper that looked at single-stranded versus double-stranded RNA in the transfection products and didn't find any double-stranded DNA that he now says he can find even in tumors.
He can find it in tumors.
In response.
But the real reason that they told us on PBS NewsHour that they did all this pseudouridine was to avoid the degradation.
Only the degradation, I thought it was also the activation of the immune response.
Yes, it's both.
So, they have a vaccine that they designed to avoid activating the immune response.
Because if the immune response gets activated by the mRNA and not by this toxic spike protein, then we'll have a different problem.
You see how much layered bullshit there is.
And if you start asking the right questions, it's very hard to maintain the layers.
That's why he doesn't like this conversation.
The question people are starting to raise is, okay, you evaded the immune response, but did you turn it off for a period of time?
I see.
Like, can you see other viruses now?
We certainly see reactivation of other viruses post vaccination.
Right, see, I see what you mean.
And post vaccination post vaccination.
Why not say post transfection?
Because it's not.
He wants me to think that they are transfecting a protein and the protein is causing the problem.
So calling it a vaccination is fine.
And of course, this gets even more complicated when you start considering breakthrough infections, because now you've got both to consider.
You've got to consider the biology of this modified RNA and how... Are there breakthrough infections?
Are breakthrough infections something we also have to understand?
And they have a different biology because they've been vaccinated to the spike protein?
Wow, tell me more, Kevin.
They're going to interact with the virus, which has other genes like NSP13.
We know that one interacts with these quadruplex Gs.
But how are we going to differentiate between the, I guess that's what clinical trials should have done, but how can we differentiate in your mind between the effect of the never-before-tested complete pseudouridine of all the U's in an RNA versus the effect of the toxicity of the protein itself?
Because assuming that that's also there.
Yeah, I don't know the answer to that.
I think they need to do more in vitro translation and peptide sequencing to prove, like, what is this thing actually making?
Never mind the toxicity of the new improved nanoparticles that Peter Cullis has made more amazing than Robert Malone could have ever imagined, right?
I mean, we're really... We're really very, very...
We're really, really very, very far from reaching the exit with the help of this guy.
You may not have to do that in human, you could do that in human cell lines first.
That'd be a good step forward to see, okay, what do you, what does this produce in human cell lines?
Ideally you do it, you could capture the stuff in patients as well.
If they're catching exosomes circulating in the human bloodstream with that Bancel paper, we should be able to capture those and sequence them.
But there were whole labs around the world that were sequencing the exosomes in the bloodstream of healthy people too before the pandemic.
Whole labs that were doing exosomes inside of healthy people.
It's so weird now how exosomes in this story have only to do with transfection.
It's almost as if they know that when they use synthetic DNA or RNA to transfect to sell, one of the first things they do is try to get rid of that extra shit by producing exosomes and excreting it because they already do that.
Isn't it funny?
Isn't it funny how you can see right through it now?
Well, I've seen sequences of them, or at least have high fidelity.
I don't know enough about crystallization, whether you can capture enough of that method to actually get structure information out of it.
That's probably a question for someone who's more in the structure space than I am.
You got to have purity.
sir, in order, I was going to say something worse, you got to have purity in order to do a crystallization and or you got to have an AI computer program that can do a virtual x-ray crystallography model like Robert Malone used to run the domain program in 2020 and select for silicoxib, ivermectin, famotidine, and remdesivir.
Um, but that's definitely sequence the protein.
You could definitely sequence the protein if you could purify it.
I think you could from the quantities, if you can see a band on a gel, they should be able to get that out in sequence.
So the question is, will the mass spec systems that fragment these things be able to see, you know, heteroplasmic translation, right?
This translation where there's a small percentage.
But he just told us that there's an experiment where they did it with a single pseudouridine and they could see the mistranslation.
So wait, either they can do it or they can't, right, Kevin?
I'm sorry that I was so inept back then.
I am so sorry to all the people that have suffered from transfection, that I was so inept back then, that I fell victim to these people, that I couldn't see through their lies in 2021, so that I couldn't save my friend Nathan, I couldn't save my friend Annie, I couldn't save my sister-in-law Femke, because I didn't understand.
And I couldn't say it succinctly enough so that other people could understand.
And I'm going to be apologizing for it for the rest of my life.
I'm going to be working to atone for this mistake for the rest of my life, I assure you.
Of the protein mistranslated, or is that going to be harder for them to pick up?
That's a question for a mass spec expert.
I haven't done a lot of mass spec or protein sequencing.
And what you see in the three-dimensional structure, would it lead you to believe that there are going to be
like signature error points or could you predict?
I think so, I think you would probably see some of the consistent regions where they're fragmented or very very hard questions coming now that are not convenient for him to answer but he's answering them or where the translation stalls and you'll get spike fragments.
Now, maybe some of those don't float around the exosomes because of that.
I don't know.
But you may be able to pick up partially folded spikes that would give you some understanding of, OK, we don't have one drug getting produced off of this prodrug.
We have a library getting produced off this prodrug.
And we have to consider that in the adverse response data that we're looking at.
And so what's your plan now?
You're not going to get into this at all?
You're just going to stick with your botanicals?
Yeah, I mean, I do this kind of as a hobby on the side because I'm as frustrated with everything going on in COVID as I can, but I don't have a lab that can work on this problem.
And our company is all focused on making really good.
So he's just going to fight the problem on Twitter because that's where the truth is.
So he's just going to fight the problem where he can.
genomic tools for other industries, but I'm not vested in the COVID industry.
So people have always told me, you know, speak out if you can, because you're not, I don't get PCR revenue of COVID, you know, goes up or down.
I don't have any, I don't have any vested interest in vaccines or anything.
So I can view this from a more neutral perspective.
No, my family is just tied into these people for generations already, that's all.
But no, I'm doing this mostly because my kids are affected by all this.
It's been two years.
Their school's been totally blown up.
My my eldest son never graduated from high school.
I mean, he technically graduated.
That's the first time I remember him talking about kids.
That's is interesting, cool.
but we never saw him.
He never had that experience.
You know, all of these things in their life have just been turned upside down.
They're having to wear masks into campus at universities the same week they'll have a 60,000 person football stadium.
See, so he's not, he didn't keep his kids home.
He wasn't smart enough or didn't have the principles to keep his kids home.
He didn't protect his kids from this.
And so essentially you can see it.
He sold out like the rest of them.
We don't know, but it sure sounds like he sold out.
He didn't have the foresight to say, don't go to school this year.
Even though that's what I was saying in 2020, that's what I was trying to tell Piper Stover to do with her daughters, but she didn't do it.
She just delayed the publishing of my review until May so that the timing of the emergence of Robert Malone and Brett Weinstein and all these people would only be a short month afterward and it wouldn't matter at all because we wouldn't publish it anywhere anyway.
and filled with people without masks, and they all go out and then go to their classes in masks.
It's making them grow up very distrusting of authority, which is probably a good thing, but it's also making them distrustful in public health.
I mean, the generation above them is just an oppressor.
In their opinion, they see this.
There's hypocrisy everywhere.
They're forcing the kids to do all the stuff.
They know the kids are already- But you're doing it too.
You forced your kids to do all the stuff.
You didn't tell them to not do it.
You didn't tell them that noncompliance was the way that sovereign individuals would react to this.
You didn't teach your kids how to resist at all.
You went as limp as Jordan Peterson.
I'm as lost as the rest of you.
But you're a Human Genome Project guy who knew that this was a lie from the beginning, knew it was exaggeration from the beginning, but you let your kids go back to college?
That's as stupid as Robert Malone saying that he took Peter Cullis' word for it that they had improved a technology that he already knew 10 years ago was shit for healthy people.
It's as ridiculous as Alex Jones insisting that he talked to the parents of Soph, and that they're great patriots, and that Soph is responsible for more than 90% of the stuff that she makes.
It's as ridiculous as any of the other insistence that these people have made, that they're right and that they don't have conflicts of interest or they just mean well, or I just do this as a hobby.
I don't have a lab that can do this stuff, but you just told a year ago, a year ago on the Vance Crowe podcast, you told him that you were actually doing PCR tests on pot for SARS.
half immune because of the rate of this virus in the population, and they're still running after them with needles.
What does that tell you about the generational exchange that's going on here?
It's an extraction process and probably a wealth transfer problem as well, which is going on with all this inflation we're seeing as a result of this.
Just careful little seeds of truth that make it sound like they were all fighting for the same shit, but he's on their team.
his kids already have a seat, or they're being guaranteed a seat by his successful performance over the next five years or ten years or whatever they're going to do with him.
I can't stop, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm not going to stop because these people interfered with my life for years.
And that means they interfered with the life of my wife and the life of my children.
And that's what more of a direct insult
Does a man have to have to justify his response?
So yeah, there's a lot of global issues that will probably will have an impact on our business if we don't speak out.
And so there's, I guess there's some personal interest there.
Yeah, I don't know.
I'm just really happy we finally got to talk.
I'm so happy you waited.
I can't say thank you enough.
Oh no, thank you for the work you guys did at Drastic.
I mean, that was a really hot topic that I was afraid to touch too early on.
Thank you for the work you guys did at Drastic.
Well, if you had any doubt, if you had any doubt that I was being played right here, understand what I told you before this video, that only one month after this video in January, fricking Rixey would show up and ask me to join drastic again and get behind the idea that the diffuse proposal was definitive proof of a lab leak.
Do you see it?
I was played like a fiddle.
That took a serious amount of, you guys took an extraction process and probably a wealth transfer problem as well, which is going on with all this inflation we're seeing as a result of this.
So yeah, there's a lot of global issues that will probably will have an impact on our business if we don't speak out.
And so there's, I guess there's some personal interest there.
Yep.
Yeah, I don't know.
I'm just really happy we finally got to talk.
I'm so happy you waited.
I can't say thank you enough.
Oh, no.
Thank you for the work you guys did at Drastic.
I mean, that was a really hot topic that I was afraid to touch too early on.
It just, that took a serious amount of, you guys took a lot of risk on that.
And I think a lot of people appreciate the work that you guys did there because I can remember those days, everyone was afraid that, you know, well, what if we speak out about this and they take this and turn it into weapons of mass destruction and go attack at China, you know, like this, you don't want to be the guy that could trigger that.
And you guys did not trigger that.
I'm not saying you did.
In fact, I think it's quite the opposite.
We were going to trigger them using the biology of viruses against China in a world virus war?
Did he just suggest that that was what we were afraid we would trigger, but we luckily, because we did it well, we didn't trigger that?
Opposite.
If anything, it's been neutralized in that.
It's pretty clear.
You guys took a lot of risk on that, and I think a lot of people appreciate the work that you guys did there.
I can remember those days, everyone was afraid that, you know, well, what if we speak out about this and they take this and turn it into weapons of mass destruction and go attack China, you know?
Nobody was afraid of that.
It's hilarious.
It's fantastic.
It is the worst case scenario being seeded in my head again.
The only one who said that was Kevin McCarron.
was probably on the same team like this.
You don't want to be the guy that could trigger that.
And you guys did not trigger that.
I'm not saying you did.
In fact, I think it's quite the opposite.
If anything, it's been neutralized in that it's pretty clear the funding comes back to us.
So there's there's equal blame to go around between nation states here.
We shouldn't be encouraging the nation states to
get jingoistic here.
We got to clean up our own house here.
We got too many labs that are leaking these things.
And the virologists that are on this, who are funded to continue this work, are on a campaign trail to annihilate any lab leak stories, because they know that means they're going to get regulated like the nuclear industry.
And frankly, the way they're behaving, they almost should be.
I hate to say that.
They wouldn't want to regulate them like the nuclear industry, would you, Mark?
Yeah, you should say that.
I would say that, definitely.
Yeah, they're out of control and arrogant, and they're seeing leaks left and right.
I don't know if you saw the paper from the Venter Institute.
Actually, it was from Beijing accusing the Venter Institution of leaking SARS-CoV-1 in 2007-2012, right?
I mean, that can happen at their lab, and they've done excellent work throughout time.
It can happen anywhere, and we need to up the bio-level safety levels, the oversight there when you're handling respiratory viruses that can have this type of global pandemic.
I think it's just too loose right now.
And you're not going to hear it from the mouthpieces on TV.
They're going to pull in the people who benefit from this stuff, and they're going to tell you everything's fine.
It came from penguins.
And they, unfortunately, because they have the funding, they have the microphone right now.
But hopefully, the tide is turning with all the outreach that you guys are doing on this.
Yeah, I hope so, too.
I mean, it's also just.
Drastic is doing a lot of outreach.
To me, as being a 50-year-old adult in America, I was gone in the EU for like 15 years.
And when I came back, I couldn't believe that I felt like I had
changed parties with just by leaving America.
And I just want my old America back.
I just want some semblance of honesty on television and I want some semblance of honesty with my kids.
I want everybody to kind of, you know, take responsibility for what they need to take responsibility for and start building community again.
I don't understand
how we got this fragmented, but it is frightening right now because I don't think we can take too many more years of it.
And yeah, I don't know.
It's very divisive.
They are trying to segregate and separate people.
And that is very crushing, I think, the human spirit.
But it's also crushing, I think, to any
Escalation of dissonance, you're right.
It's it's it's harder and harder for people to get together that have Experience here share these things with a loud enough voice where they aren't getting censored by the whole system I think that's that's that's part of the plan.
So there is something here that's planned.
I don't know who or what but There's just too many moves.
They've made that you can't explain to ignorance, right?
Absolutely, and you can't in and also the
Wolfgang Wodach said it once to me in a Zoom call, that he said, I've never seen foreign policy across more than 10 countries be so on rails in my life.
Right.
I mean, it's on rails.
And that's how he described it.
It is.
And it has not left the tracks yet, not since we left the station.
And that's pretty frightening.
Yeah.
Yeah, we used to have some assurances that there was.
So Kevin McKernan's dad used to work for a company by the name of Canberra Industries.
And they, what do they do?
They, um, a city firm, instead of using its own traveling salesman, uh, South sales Canberra produces radiation detection and analysis equipment used in medical research, environmental studies, and the nuclear industry.
And they're.
their president, vice president of marketing and sales was Richard McKernan.
And that's before Kevin's dad went into microarrays, which are again, a foundational technology for the human genome project.
So, you know, it could all be a bunch of coincidences that they're all mixed up in the same nonsense or, you know, mythologies or
maybe just because they all were in the Department of Energy, then it just kind of worked out that way.
Well, you guys can work down the hall if you want, because I know you work on radiation now, but we got this thing called the genome.
We're working on that down there.
If you just want to go down the hall and join that meeting, maybe you want to be with those guys too.
Holy shit.
Some energy between all the nation states and that, you know, there's jurisdictional shopping that could be done, but when it starts to get all synchronized like that, it does hint that there's something,
you know, more organized above it.
And that's.
And the more organized above it includes guys like him, includes Robert Malone, includes Jessica Rose, a.k.a.
Epi Girl from the Spars document.
It includes Pierre Corey, a.k.a.
George Floyd suffocated.
It includes all of these people and a lot of them are Canadian.
That's that's frightening.
Yeah.
Um, I hope we can talk again.
I hear people screaming already.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Good stuff.
Well, thank you for the time and hearing the story and happy to, uh, no, thank you is necessary.
I loved it.
I'm going to turn it into a nice video and I'll let you see it before I show everybody else.
All right.
Well, no worries.
I'm cool with it.
You got to take it and run.
I don't care about the edits, but all right.
Thank you.
We'll talk again.
Yep.
Bye bye.
So that was a Kevin McKernan show.
I get them guys mixed up, but John Baldwin knows the difference between the two of them.
I don't know, I think these people probably are responsible for what happened and responsible for the confusion that I found myself in and are responsible for me unable to reach a useful finish line until now.
But it doesn't change the fact that we are at a useful finish line now.
It doesn't change the fact that the evidence that's found in this book is overwhelming.
It doesn't change the fact
that the evidence in their behavior in the last few weeks is overwhelming.
Their consistent promotion of each other and their consistent elaboration of this limited spectrum of debate is exactly how they got us here.
They are all part of the same illusion.
We need to break this illusion quickly.
Right now, the illusion is about gain of function, RNA molecules and natural viruses, or that there are none of these things.
And that illusion is about to be replaced by another one that more people are willing to accept.
That the FDA has permitted bad foods and bad chemicals and bad products and bad water to be unleashed on the United States.
And the FDA hasn't done shit about what it's supposed to do, even though all of these foods are really well labeled.
even though the fluoride concentration in the water is well published.
because of the FDA and the EPA, they wanna get rid of those guys because they're shit.
And in the meantime, we're not gonna talk about the dangers of GMO plants or GMO insects or the ways that stem cell research could be used or the dumbness of intramuscular injection or the terribly diabolical malevolent background noise of remnant sales in the American medical system.
None of that stuff will be discussed by any of these people, but they're going to save us from foods that we could just choose not to eat and water we could choose not to drink.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are still being governed in the same way that was described by Noam Chomsky and before him by many other people, including Aldous Huxley and Edward Bernays.
Thank you very much for joining me and I'll see you again tomorrow for Biology 101 at 10.
And I think starting next week, we're also going to start the Tuesday, Thursday Probability and Statistics or something like that with Matt Briggs that we are on the third class of.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you very much for being here.
I'm trying to stay on schedule as best I can.
I apologize for being here late today.
Hopefully tomorrow I'll hit 1010 on the money.
Thanks very much.
And I will see you again soon.