like Thinking about it this morning how to approach this I think we just have a conversation.
I think the thing is we make it conversational and And that'll be it and you know, and however it goes is how it goes and I'm not I don't want to try to make you Into no, but one of my friends said, you know when somebody asks you a question You don't have to give them 50 sentences.
Maybe you can try and give them five or three and
and then see where that goes.
So that's that's also what I'm working on, too.
I mean, it's hard, right?
I just have a fountain of of random garbage in my head right now because I'm so discombobulated.
And so it's it's quite frankly, it's a godsend in a way to have somebody like you challenge me to organize my thoughts a little bit.
So I appreciate it.
OK, cool, cool, cool.
I'm glad.
Yeah.
I mean, I just I figured I was like, you know,
let's just like talk as if like we're having a phone call.
Yeah.
The way we when we talk on the phone and like the way we talk, you know, even even right now and we're not talking like the you know, about this whole covid thing at this moment, we're talking about how we're going to talk about it, but where it's kind of conversational.
And yeah, maybe at points you do talk for three or four minutes uninterrupted or whatever it is you need to make a point.
And that's perfectly fine.
Um, but, uh, I think if it's like kind of conversational, I think, uh, people will benefit from that.
And so, um, but I'm going to, I'm going to do a little bit of a, of, of like a sort of intro, whatever you want to just start.
Absolutely.
Make it spontaneous.
I promise I'm not going to drop the ball like yesterday.
No worries.
No, no, no.
I don't see it as dropping the ball.
I just see it as like a process.
So it's all good.
Okay.
Here it goes.
All right, Jay Cooey, how are you?
Good morning.
I'm doing all right.
It's getting warm in Pittsburgh, so now that it's spring suddenly, it's great here.
Indeed.
Yeah, same here in D.C.
It was like 75 yesterday.
It was beautiful.
And I think maybe we've turned the corner.
So you and I have been in touch for roughly two years.
We've talked extensively.
We've talked about collaborating.
And I got sort of sidetracked by October 7th in Gaza and everything happening there.
But, you know, the whole time, this whole COVID question and all of the implications are just eating away at the back of my head.
And I've been meaning to
do an interview with you or find a way to collaborate all this time.
And so I'm glad we finally get to do it.
So thanks a lot.
Hey, no problem.
I don't know what to say other than the timing probably couldn't be better at this point.
So many hypothetical stars have aligned that we might have sat around a campfire and said, hey, wouldn't it be funny if this happened?
And now we're here.
So it makes more sense almost to talk about it now and be on
somewhat stable or ground, at least in the sense of, you know, the the basic players are the basic players.
And so we might as well talk about it.
And it is something that's really extraordinary.
When we first when we first started talking, I don't even think I was ready to to I don't even know if I'm ready right now to explain everything.
I mean, it is really so overwhelming.
just to kind of accept things the way that they are not perceived on TV and whatever.
It's been a long journey for me because I was not awake before the pandemic, except for in certain aspects.
I understood that they might lie about Hillary Clinton's past, or they might lie about Bill Clinton, or they might lie about, I don't know, Jeffrey Epstein or whatever.
I understand that there are stories and within stories and certain arenas, but I guess I...
I underestimated how much truth Dulles told us when he said, you know, the when the American people, everything that they believe is false, then we will have finally succeeded.
I never I never understood the depth of that truth.
But I think I understand it better now.
Absolutely.
That's such a remarkable quote, and
you when you apply it to, I mean, a variety of of sort of mythologies, maybe you could call them some people, you know, would call psyops, which has, you know, kind of military implication, which is often the case.
But I think, you know, we can maybe call them mythologies that are constructed intentionally.
And the covid event is one of them.
And I'll say, you know, for
not to pump you up too much, Jay, but through the sort of journey, if we can call it that, that I've had since the earliest days of COVID until now, there are very few people who I have seen, I mean, myself, my understanding, my opinion, my analysis has changed drastically, where I was totally caught up in the narrative in a big way.
No pun intended.
Right.
And and there's been a long process.
And you are one of the people who I've seen who has gone through your own sort of process.
And the people that I do not trust are the ones whose analysis has not changed, who is have not evolved or have evolved in the way that
we are, you know, basically the official narrative evolved.
And so, you know, there's a lot to say about that.
But I mean, I think it'll be helpful for people if I kind of explain why I reached out to you, got in touch with you in the first place.
So, I mean, my understanding of COVID early on was,
I mean, I was very focused on regime change operations.
And at that point, US regime change operations against China.
There was like a color revolution in Hong Kong that was happening in 2019.
These basically crazy riots that were backed by the US, where they're terrorizing the population of Hong Kong.
in order to destabilize it.
And there was also the whole Uyghur genocide narrative, which was totally, basically fake.
And so I see this, you know, what's going on in China, that there's some crazy virus going around and
And they're taking it very seriously, and they're building hospitals in three days, and everyone's wearing a mask and all these kinds of things.
And I'm like, wow, that's pretty crazy.
And then I start to, around a little bit after the new year of 2020, I come to understand somehow that that virus is coming here.
and we are wholly unprepared and our capitalist government does not care about us and is going to let this virus spread all around and kill as many people as possible.
And that was kind of like the the left wing dissident view that I had been taken in by.
And so therefore, I thought we need to lock down.
I mean, they're not going to like they're just going to let this thing spread.
We need masks.
I mean, look, everyone in China is wearing a mask.
Why are we not wearing masks?
The mailman is coming around.
You know, I go to the grocery store.
These workers are not provided with what they need.
And I was like, even
Before even it really hit the mainstream narrative because I was tapped into kind of what was happening in China to some degree I was like, you know, the sky is falling everyone and the media machine hadn't even really turned on here.
So Then finally it happens here
And, you know, everyone's going to Costco and getting toilet paper and and water.
And there's this like panic.
And I'm still thinking like, you know, this is this is serious.
OK, like what's going to happen now?
And then the origins debate started soon after that.
That was one of the big questions.
And it took me, I mean, whatever, I'm in some ways I'm embarrassed, but this is just it's I didn't have fluency in any of this stuff.
You know, I know about like Gaza and Israel and these kinds of things, this like medical, biological virology thing.
People don't know about that.
It's very hard to resist the propaganda.
So
I was skeptical of the lab leak narrative from very, very early on, as I think a lot of leftists were, because I, and they, saw it as racist, that there's this long history of claiming that migrants, and Asian migrants especially, bring disease into our country, and we're blaming it on them, and much more likely, this is something the US may have been involved in.
So I was skeptical of that and I saw who was promoting it.
Very hawkish right wing figures.
Senator Tom Cotton, for example.
You know, Trump ended up promoting it and he has, you know, very strong anti China bend.
There was all this warmongering going on with China.
And I thought that this was phony, much more likely, you know, well, then probably it's a natural origin.
So it took me, I would say, I don't know, a year or so to I never became like an aggressive, like angry person telling, you know, who if people didn't wear masks, I wasn't going to like denounce them or anything like that.
I never became angry and aggressive.
But it took me, I would say, about a year to realize there was something really fishy going on.
And
What I started to see, actually, one of the first big piece for me was the death certificate issue that I got clued into.
And I saw there was a
a directive that the CDC had issued telling medical professionals to issue death certificates in a completely different way than they had ever been issued before and only
specific to this, what they claimed was a new disease, COVID-19.
But the thing is, if you are issuing a death certificate in a specific way only for one disease, and you don't have a standard way that you're just applying to all of them, then you're going to get a different result using different tests, right?
So a different measure.
So that started to suggest to me that there's something seriously wrong here.
Maybe I can even pull up
Hold on, I'm gonna pull up.
Okay, I'm gonna pause it and I'm gonna pull it up.
I think this will be really actually instructive for people.
Death certificate, here we go.
Death certificate.
Okay.
Oh, shoot.
Okay, resume.
Okay, so I start to see there's something funny going on with the death certificates.
Specifically, this is the alert.
There were a series of alerts that the CDC issued.
And in particular, if you look at this language,
basically, you have to understand how death certificates work.
And I spent weeks learning that with someone who had a lot of experience in death certificates.
And what I saw in here, the key thing was that
COVID-19 would be, it says the underlying cause are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying, the underlying cause of, okay, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.
So this is before they have said what these new.
Wow.
I've never seen that before.
At least maybe if you showed it to me, it's been a long time.
That's funny.
Wow.
So right.
So like any scientific minded person should understand they are now biasing people.
So they're creating their they've they're they're stating what their intentions are.
We want more COVID-19 deaths.
So if you really examine this death certificate stuff, what they did is actually flip it on its head.
So the bottom there, the bottom there, it's even better where it's bolded.
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease is caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.
So you don't even need a test.
No, no.
It gets better.
Yes.
Yeah, crazy.
Oh, yeah.
So I mean, actually, I have even, um, uh,
Sorry, I have to look over there to that screen and then I can see it very big, so that's why I'm looking over there for your viewers.
I have videos of CDC, top CDC scientists and doctors giving like a seminar or like instructions to medical professionals around the United States.
I'm saying that, yeah, you don't if you think it's covid-19, just mark it as covid-19.
Fantastic.
I would love to see that stuff.
That stuff needs to be revisited and archived.
It's not probably archived any on any of my sites yet.
I should have a few of those videos archived.
I have it all.
And then and then there was actually a question from from a doctor who says, OK, well, do you want to know, you know, if we have like an initial an assessment that, yes, this is covid-19 is probable.
Do you want us to come back when we have confirmation of when it was, of whether it was actually covid-19, if it's confirmed or not?
And they said, yeah, but you know what?
You don't have to do that because we're not going to change it.
It's just going to be marked as covid-19 anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
They basically say that.
So.
So this is a huge scandal from the top, and I began to understand mine, you know, the entire basis of like everything I've thought about this was was probably wrong.
I spent several weeks on this death certificate thing, trying to understand it and going through these alerts that they had put out.
And then I started to look at the narrative of the origins debate.
At some point, I started to look at the origin of the narrative.
I'm sorry, you know what it was as I saw
Denis Rancourt's work, where he basically said there's no evidence of a pandemic.
Now, there's a lot to be discussed about that.
Denis Rancourt is a Canadian scientist and physicist who did a lot of the early work looking at the death data.
And his position was that there's no evidence of a pandemic.
So of a spreading virus.
So and we'll come back to that, Jay, because I know you have a lot to say about it now.
That made me think, well, if that's correct, OK, I want to look at the narrative of of the origins debate.
And so what I started to see
is there was a concerted effort starting in January, 2020 with articles like this.
This is one of the early ones from the Washington times saying virus.
Oh, have you seen this one?
Yeah.
But all the more importantly, the Washington times is the one place I was actually quoted before they kind of quieted me down.
So it's funny.
I like that.
Right.
So coronavirus linked to China biowarfare program possible.
Analyst says who is this analyst?
This analyst is.
Well, first, it's referencing Radio Free Asia, the old CIA propaganda outlet funded by the U.S.
government.
And they and they reference Danny Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer.
Officer.
OK, so that's pretty shady.
Why is that name?
That name rings a bell with me.
That's not like some kind of Israeli super soldier guy, is it?
Or.
That's the only time I've heard of him, and he's linked to some NATO program that... Oh, there's something to... I gotta write that name down.
That's awesome.
Wow, okay.
Okay, so, so this is, you know, the basically, right wing media promoting lab leak early on.
And at this point, the mainstream media is saying no, no, no, no, no, this is racist.
This is crazy.
Donald Trump is a lunatic.
Steve Bannon, Tom Cotton, they're crazy.
How could they say that?
And then you have
Another one that you should keep in your list is Steve Bannon.
The first person that I ever found to say it on the on the media was Steve Bannon, that that that it was a lab leak.
I think he said it on January 25th.
OK, so, yeah, Bannon, you know, you and I know it's a key figure in this we can talk about.
But so so I just want to illustrate this dynamics.
On one hand, you have basically NATO aligned Israeli disinformation
claiming that this is a lab leak from some Chinese biowarfare program, some kind of version of that.
Then on the other hand, you have the Poynter Institute, which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, which I knew very well as basically a CIA front meddling arm that operates all over the world.
and funded by Google, funded by basically the other arm of the deep state, saying that, no, this is not true.
This is false, that Danny Shoham's claim in The Washington Times is false.
And oh, I should also say that the author of this Washington Times article is Bill Gertz.
Bill Gertz.
Bill Gertz is the guy who interviewed me.
Really?
Yeah.
He wrote the same article.
Yeah.
OK.
Bill Gertz is basically like longtime Pentagon official.
I will.
Well, that's again, that's me not doing my legwork.
But yeah.
Wow.
like longtime neoconservative with ties to the Pentagon, the CIA.
He actually got fired from his position at the Washington Free Beacon after he took a $100,000 loan from a Hong Kong tycoon that was arranged by the fugitive Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui, who became like Miles Guo, right?
Oh, my gosh, dude, what are you?
Why haven't I had this conversation already?
Wow.
I don't know.
I don't think we ever talked in this about about this level of details, though.
And so he was he was hailing Myles Guo, if I'm saying that that name right, as this anti corruption figure.
And so it's totally corrupt.
So this guy's this guy's like a CIA operative who's writing this this like total slop.
And of course, Miles Guo ended up, you know, he was very close with Steve Bannon and they went out on a yacht and declared that they were creating like they were basically announcing like one Guaido style regime change in China.
So so you start to see this how this like whole thing comes together.
You have basically one side of the deep state saying that
lab leak is probably what happened is probably responsible for covid.
And then you have the other side saying, no, no, no, no, no.
This is you know, it's a natural origin and neither of them will give any conclusive claim or evidence.
Neither of them will ever prove it.
And this is like the tip of the tip of the iceberg in terms of the research I have showing how this narrative
was uh... uh... rolled out it was you know so so the so the whole idea is that we stay uh... uh... what you know the the question they want us to ask is what is the origin of this virus which is all presupposed on the idea that there is some virus spreading around and that we're just supposed to accept that they don't want to talk about if that's actually true
I get so and again, I have a you know, if you said on Facebook, if you said that there was a lab leak for a while, you would have been suspended.
But then they lifted that suspension arbitrarily.
And Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert suddenly, you know, Jon Stewart goes in the Stephen Colbert show a year later and says, actually, I think it is a lab leak.
And it what was once a.
racist and right wing uh... conspiracy theory suddenly became welcome in polite liberal society and then it became kind of like what most people thought uh... but again there was never any definitive proof and we've been just it's just constant
to
There was a new assessment that with low confidence that it maybe came from a lab, which again is just total slop It's meaningless low confidence Some agencies think so some agencies think don't think so.
It's there's never any concrete conclusive Assessment nor is there any evidence provided?
So so this Made me think
I'm really starting to suspect this whole thing is fake.
And I reached out to Denis, like, is this even biologically possible?
Is this just science fiction?
And Denis said, you need to talk to Jay Cooey.
And I think I maybe watched like one or two of your streams or something like that.
And then I called you on the phone and I sat on my porch and explained to you who I am.
And we talked for probably two hours.
And and, you know, you kind of opened my eyes to a whole sort of biological angle that confirmed what I suspected.
And we've been basically in touch, you know, on and off since then.
I've just been so wrapped up with with Gaza and everything happening there.
But so that's why I reached out to Jay, which, you know, when I did redacted the other day and they and they asked me that and I just kind of gave like a really brief version.
But I want to explain that in a bit more detail so people can understand.
You know, I think when you have
A big part of getting the right answer is having the right question.
You're halfway there.
And so once you've figured out, oh, what is it that I'm actually trying to answer, then you know where to go.
But if you don't know what the right question is, you're not going to get anywhere.
So that's how that's what led me to you, Jay.
Yeah, that's I think I want to jump off from there and make a quick point for everybody listening that as you investigated the
the idea of a lab leak or a natural virus and it's spreading to America, you investigated it with the tools and the angles and the ideas and the sources that you're used to using.
And so at the start of the pandemic, that's the interesting position that I found myself in was I was an academic biologist working at a med school.
I just started reading what I considered to be what anybody would read in my position, the primary literature about coronavirus.
So everything on PubMed, all this peer-reviewed stuff, all the barrack papers.
And if you read scientific literature for a living, you understand what is being written there.
And essentially when I write it, when I would write a paper, now,
Maybe your listeners don't know this yet, but I was a neurobiologist and that sounds like a big deal, but it's really not.
I worked almost exclusively on mice.
All of my experiments were on mice neurons.
I looked at how neurons communicate with each other and synaptic connections, yada, yada, yada.
I felt very comfortable reading the literature of coronavirus and RNA viruses and flu viruses and infectious disease because as a biologist, I kind of understood that, you know,
what the limitations of a lot of the methodologies are.
Virology is not like a bunch of magic or very specialized techniques.
Most of the techniques that are in virology are developed somewhere else and then brought to virology or applied to virology.
And I came to figure out very quickly that surprisingly
Let's say surprisingly little progress has been made in the methodologies used in virology.
And so once you understand one paper, you understand a lot of them.
And the one consensus message that I got from the primary literature is that viruses are real.
They're everywhere.
And some of them are more dangerous than others.
And there seemed to be a very general agreement that you could manipulate them, change them, purify them, culture them.
And they did this all around the world all the time.
And so this was...
edified in my mind by the fact that I used viruses on my bench and I transfected animals.
We can talk about that later.
So I had this sort of opposite conclusion in the mystery solving exercise.
Instead of coming to the conclusion that this must be fake, I came to the conclusion that this happens all the time and that they're just talking about something that is always going on in a way to make it seem like it's a crisis when it's not.
And I understood virology as understanding this.
And so at first, I approached it very naively to my faculty and my friends at work, you know, just kind of like, but yeah, but dude, they've been talking about lab leaks for for 20 years.
I mean, it's not wouldn't be unusual.
And if it did, why would we worry about it?
We've had exposure to these things before, like,
I was thinking I was understanding it from the exact sort of, you know, almost the flip of the coin of you in the sense of not only is a lab leak possible, but that's also not dangerous and also could be exaggerated.
And that message
was met with a lot of resistance from the people that I was solving the mystery with.
Maybe this is a good time to drop in that I got involved with this group named Drastic, most of whom I still don't know who they are.
And at some point we parted ways simply because they were absolutely sure that the origin of the virus was the most important answer.
to get to.
Supposedly you're tasked with solving the lab leak proving that it did come from a lab and it and it you guys got written up in you guys got written up prominently in You said Vanity Fair right and then and Tucker Tucker did a segment about it wrong yeah, definitely he he attributed the founding of the group to the wrong person on Twitter it can only be one person because that's how Twitter works and
And then he also said that one of the primary members was this guy, Jamie Metzl, who was never in the group, which was really a bizarre thing for him to say.
For a while, I was, you know, like really mad about that.
Like Tucker Carlson didn't give us credit.
Right.
And Jamie Metzl is one of the kind of maybe the most prominent liberal proponent of the
a lab leak theory or op, we might say.
And he's a longtime government official, U.S.
government official, who is super hawkish on China, extremely hawkish on China.
So so, you know, his or his I don't know, the fact that he was said to be involved or some the whole thing.
I mean, I know, you know, I don't know.
You can say how you how you see it now, but I mean, it sounds like you were in a way unwittingly recruited to promote this narrative.
I mean, I think to a large extent, everyone should see themselves as unwittingly recruited to promote this narrative on social media.
And if you were really good at it, you might have been even promoted by other people.
And so a lot of this, I think,
in retrospect, really feels like a lot of unwitting participants, you know, that are just, I don't know, trying to make ends meet, trying to figure it out and believing people and, and the trick is, you know,
Just the vast majority of people don't get entangled as much as I did, and maybe, you know, to a certain extent with regard to Gaza, you are a person who gets more entangled than a lot of people ever have, and so you tend to rub elbows with more of these people who are tasked with
What I say on my stream is sort of curating this limited spectrum of debate where nobody really answers any important questions.
And so I just grossly underestimated how the pandemic would have that aspect.
I didn't understand, even after having read the Spars pandemic document, for example, where they
explicitly talk about controlling the opinion of the populace on social media had never dawned on me that what I was experiencing with the group Drastic or on Twitter or at the University of Pittsburgh might all be some aspect of a national security theater.
Now I tend to see most things through that lens, unfortunately maybe.
Right.
Well, no, I think it's, you know, learned by experience.
And I OK, so I interrupted you.
You were you were basically you got involved with drastic.
And then where were you?
Where were we going?
Well, I mean, at some point we should just tell everybody.
I really
have a pretty unblemished record of integrity in the sense of exactly what you said at the beginning of the stream.
You know, you and I change our opinions and we alter our message when necessary and presented with facts that are contradictory to what we thought.
And through that process, I went from being a full-blown lab leak
let me help Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
write a book about the lab leak to being somebody who understood the biology well enough to know that that also was a myth.
And the circumstances as they are, this guy is now Health and Human Services Secretary, and it stands that there are things that apparently he's not going to tell everybody and not going to say.
I don't know what to do necessarily about how to move forward with this knowledge, but I am for sure and confident that I could explain it to anybody in great detail.
The biological concepts that edify this, you know, you can just forget that there is an RNA pandemic.
And I understand that that's hard to explain.
But if you can see it from a bigger political perspective where, you know,
I mean, let's just do the do a thought exercise.
Do you know this story of the bear in Central Park and the bike of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?
You never heard that story?
I don't.
I think it sounds familiar.
There was a there was a little story where apparently when Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
was like 50 years old, he was riding around in a car with some friends in New York and they found a dead bear on the road.
and then they took the dead bear and a bicycle that they had in their car and they put it in the park and thought it would be a funny joke, I guess, that the bear and the bi- I don't know the whole story, but it appears, you know, like, as an- it's an anecdotal example of
You know, if you knew, for example, that this book was not written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but was written by, like, a group of, like, 15 people that included me, would you think the same thing?
And if you knew that the Fauci book was written that way, if you knew that... that... I just think we have to be aware of the fact that a lot of the opinions, a lot of the things that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
says are very much influenced by people behind him.
And so... I just...
I thought at some point when I joined his team that I was joining the winning team and that I had finally, you know, we were going to win and that this was really a moment in American history in my mind.
I know it sounds stupid now.
And in reality, I think what I did was I got really close to how the
to seeing how the nation is governed and learning, at least in this little aspect, how the nation is governed.
And so, yeah, I'm not sure really.
how to say it any better than that.
I mean, I think there are things that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
won't tell you because he's advised not to.
He's told not to.
Maybe he's been convinced that what I said is wrong.
I don't know.
But I do think that I have not been given the chance that I thought I would get to represent these ideas.
And in fact, all of the people that
that at one point in time said that they understood these ideas and thought they were great are now ignoring me.
And it's really, it's quite terrifying from the perspective of being a father and a biologist and somebody who really just, just wants the truth out.
It's really a weird and disturbing place to be right now, but also good.
I have a lot of hope because I think we do know the truth, or at least we are much closer to it.
than we were a few years ago.
So if we go back a little bit, so you basically were part of this group of sleuths, lab leak sleuths that were going to show, prove that it was a lab leak.
And, you know, when we talked before, you told me
you get a call from Robert Kennedy Jr.
and instantly recognized his voice and basically he wanted to hire you to write his book, the Wuhan cover-up, right?
Really, he spoke in very wide terms at first, that he just wanted to support my work and he wanted to find a way to
to help me, and in the end, in about a month, that turned into working as a part of the editorial team of that book, and that meant working for Children's Health Defense.
I mean, that's who paid me.
I mean, I was talking to Bobby all the time and getting, sorry, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and I hate when I call him Bobby.
I got into that habit, and I don't think it's very respectful.
I was in a lot of Zoom meetings with Mr. Kennedy.
I was in text and email conversations with him about scientific stuff.
He would ping me if I needed to check a citation, that kind of thing.
It felt real, and it was real in my mind.
I mean, uh, people responded to my emails in minutes.
Um, I really felt important, uh, and I felt well used in the sense of as a resource I was, I was put to work.
Um, and, and that made me also, you know, relearn and, and better learn a lot of the things that I thought I did on my own before meeting him.
And so in a lot of ways, I'm very happy that that obviously I'm very happy that that happened.
It also provided a year and a half of, of, of solid income for my family.
Um, but yeah, it's, uh,
We're in a remarkable place right now because I can, I think, very succinctly explain why there was no pandemic.
And more importantly, I can explain a number of possible ways that the biosecurity state could have set it up.
Those questions are all not being asked.
I mean, one of the maybe the thing that let me let me go into the like, no, I don't I don't want to go into that at all.
I didn't want to go into that.
I just keep getting stuck there.
OK.
Yeah.
No, no.
I mean, this is the I think it's an important you know, it's an important it's the essential question.
But I just want to I want the audience to understand that in the middle of research, writing for
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's book, The Wuhan Cover-Up, which sought to prove or make a very strong case that
COVID-19 came from a lab, the Wuhan lab, you realize that the entire premise of the book was false.
And you went to him or you, I don't know, called email, wrote in some capacity, communicated that to him.
And he told you this is not the book for that.
Yeah, I mean, he see he explained to me that he sees this as a historical document.
He wants to wanted to record what people said when they said it.
Um, and so he suggested to me, I feel like that, that that left it open for me to put a quote in there, you know, and, and so ever after that conversation, I was trying very hard to get my side of the story in there that these, that these signals could be exaggerated, that, you know, the, the danger could be exaggerated and that, that they wouldn't even need a virus to pull this off.
And that's all in the book, but it's in the book in such a way that you're, you're not.
you're not gonna really see it as the conclusion.
The overwhelming conclusion of the book is that all these people around the world agree that not only is it a leak, but obviously it was a leak and that the sequence shows it to you and that the diffuse proposal shows it to you.
And a lot of these things that I came to understand as part of a biosecurity state theater, once I understood the biology was impossible, but it just, this wasn't the book for it.
And so in a lot of ways,
I even when the book was published and I started working for Children's Health Defense, I still had the idea that I was going to be able to get across the finish line, that maybe I would do it as the staff scientist of CHD working with Brian Hooker and and Mary Holland, that I would be able to work under them and teach this biology in the right way and help them accomplish something that they hadn't accomplished yet.
And that that also turned out to be something that wasn't meant to be.
I don't know how I got there either.
I mean, it's just, it's a difficult thing because again, we're talking about the biology, we're talking about very short timescales.
And what I should be saying to you to try and get this message out there is that this isn't about viruses and virology.
That's the convenient myth that our children learn as they participate or passively or actively in this theater on social media.
Instead,
What your viewers should think about is that this is a much longer timescale operation that has to do with the FDA, has to do with medicine and public health and the regulation of supplements and the regulation of IP, like intellectual property in medicine and pharmaceuticals.
And the fact of the matter is, is that the FDA plays a central role in the regulation of safe and effective things.
And so it's not for nothing that at the start of the pandemic, they were throwing those words around.
It's not for nothing that
that the FDA was actually started by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's father.
It's not for nothing that this legacy is there and that this guy is now there.
That's my best feeling on this, that from the perspective of what this is about, if this was about health, then when he announced his presidency or presidential candidacy and running on making America healthy again, he would have mentioned the opioid epidemic and he didn't.
And so there's lots of little pieces of the puzzle that started to fall into place as I imagined him going to lead us somewhere that he never led us to and would take on my knowledge in a way that he never took it on.
And I don't have an explanation for it, but I know for sure that he and people around him know what I know.
And probably, I think they know it's right.
That's the worst part.
I mean, I just, you know, when you're kind of trying to characterize or understand his behavior of when you told him this is biologically impossible.
In other words, the thesis of your entire book is false.
Like you are
You know, you're putting out a book that basically says the earth is flat.
And I've realized that the earth is not flat.
And he says, well, that's not the place for that, for this.
Well, if you want to know what the real reaction was, the real reaction was after that email.
About a week later, I was on the Defender podcast and I was supposed to be on for an hour.
This is this is Children Health Defense.
Right.
But it's it's it's Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's podcast hosted by.
So he's the host.
I was supposed to be on for an hour with him, but two days before the podcast was recorded He decided that I only got seven minutes and that Robert Malone Meryl Nass Jessica Rose and Tess Laurie would also be there to comment and in fact Robert Malone spoke for about 45 minutes after I spoke for seven minutes and so it felt very
I was very upset.
I can say it no other way because it's, you know, it's not pretty hard for me to do something in seven minutes.
And I tried, but even the email I sent him would have taken me longer than seven minutes to read.
So for me, it was very frustrating.
But what I see in retrospect now,
Given that Mary Holland fired me for speaking about Robert Malone on my on my podcast I have the feeling that Robert Malone might be somebody who's very much in the background of Robert F Kennedy jr In terms of advising him in terms of keeping him off of certain topics or keeping certain topics in a safe realm I don't know but
You know, Children's Health Defense has published several books of his.
Robert Malone was a reader on the Wuhan book.
I mean, he has, you know, he's best friends with Merrill Nass, his, you know, scientific advisor for a long time.
So it's hard for me to forget that Robert Malone has been so important in this and is probably one of the people that is behind this, I don't know what I would call it.
Let me say this.
I mean, if you you know, you're listed in the Wuhan cover up is the first person in the acknowledgments as the first person with with without your expertise and your labor, the book would not have been possible.
I don't know why, you know, if I don't know if he chose to put you there for a reason or not.
But I mean, if I'm
If I've hired someone, a scientist, biologist, to write a book and I don't have the scientific expertise to evaluate a lot of the claims being made, which is why I've hired that person, and they come to me and tell me we got it all wrong.
we need to totally reevaluate the entire premise of the book.
And I say, this isn't the book for that.
Let's have a discussion.
And I put you with seven or eight other people, and I just give you a few minutes to present your case and basically stick you away in the corner.
That's a nice way of saying,
You know, we're not doing it like it's a way to drown you out and try to sort of pacify you is how I see it.
One more anecdotal thing you could add to that is that as far as I know, the only people that were paid in the list of experts is me.
Everybody else was just kind of consulted.
I am the only one that was paid a full time salary for a year and a half as that expert.
all the other paid people are listed as as Working for children's health defense in the paragraph above and he could have put me in that paragraph and it would have been fine, too But he put me in the expert paragraph and I am the only one that he paid for a year and a half To be an expert.
So I find that also a little bit less than anecdotal.
It's more than that Sorry a little more than anecdotal Right, no, that's well, so I mean, you know what you said about
RFK being you know, he's he's a lawyer.
He's a trained lawyer.
He's not dealing with science per se he's dealing with Interests and and he's in politics.
So he's dealing with interests.
He's dealing with advisors so what my my feeling is whatever is the sort of political group
current that he is going with that is going to be the overriding sort of factor in what goes into those decisions and for him to come out in the middle of writing this book when already there are significant resources invested in it you're just one guy and all of these other very very important scientists are
are totally on board is that would take integrity.
And what that shows to me is a lack of integrity.
And I saw the same exact lack of integrity from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
on Israel-Palestine, where he became, for example, very critical of the Ukraine war and U.S.
involvement there.
When it came to and and actually if you remember the whole episode even with Peter Hotez, I did a piece Okay, Robert F. Kennedy goes on Joe Rogan's podcast to talk about a variety of things including the the kovat shot we can you know get into what that actually is because you you know have a lot to say about that, of course and Peter Hotez this this
this doctor who i researched extensively he was denouncing robert f kennedy junior and joe rogan for promoting anti-science they were dangerous anti-vaxxers joe rogan's podcast rfk challenges him to come on and debate me and peter hotez refused i don't want to legitimize these guys rfk looked very strong and hotez looked very weak you can see what a fraud he is there now when it came
to Israel and Gaza
rfk just did exactly what peter hotez did he said he would debate and then he wouldn't and you could just see that he had no firstly he had no idea what he was talking about and he was just doing politics further his career and to me that just totally discredited him i'd just saw him as a complete political figure had no integrity and was seeking power what week
Who what was he on on whose behalf?
Was he really working?
Who knows?
I didn't know but I could just see this guy is not who he claims to be and just a funny anecdote here, you know, Jeffrey Sachs is one of Robert F. Kennedy jr's best friends and actually one of the the most frequent co-authors of Jeffrey Sachs is the wife of Peter Hotez
Right.
And Jeffrey Sachs is also a big lab lab leak.
He sure is.
Absolutely.
And what I mean, I'm sorry, but you know what?
Jeffrey Sachs is famous for being like one of the architects of shock therapy after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where they basically privatized the former state owned industries in the Soviet Union.
And that killed like millions of Russians and, you know,
Former Soviets, so that is his expertise now.
He apparently has has learned from that He claims to have learned from that.
But why does that make him an expert on?
Lab leak on virology on the you know, it doesn't he just kind of became a face that was out there He was put on I can't remember the name of like the Commission but some kind of Commission to investigate
Yeah, it was the Lancet Commission.
He was the, I mean, that was the, that was the best show ever in 2020, like.
Exactly.
So, so this is, you know, I think people are starting to see this sort of the orchestration of this narrative that what appeared to be these dissident figures coming from kind of different angles and lending their expertise and intellectual weight and prowess to
uh, this narrative that there was no actual scientific basis for it.
And then when Jay Cooey, an unassuming academic biologist who got fired from the University of Pittsburgh for, you know,
for basically maintaining his integrity he's brought into this and he kind of sees uh this like through his experience he saw and experienced firsthand this web of lies and and and unlike most he maintained his integrity so here he is today on this stream with me so um
So now RFK Jr.
is the HHS secretary.
I think, you know, and this is what I said on Redacted, the fact that he basically blew you off, but really tried to pacify you and kind of hand you off, I think in order to avoid
uh... damaging the narrative is what i would suspect damaging the entire thesis of his his book which was very important he tried to pacify you and then you know you eventually fired for as you said criticizing robert malone uh... from children's health defense and uh... and now you know you're doing uh... streams on your channel giga on biological well rfk is this is in the trump administration is a very powerful
position.
And as you said, I mean, that's what I noticed when he, you know, when he didn't say anything about the opioid crisis, which, you know, to not say anything about the public health crisis of our time, of our era, is just incredible.
And then
Think about how much of a checkmate that would have been when somebody threw the measles death at him.
He could have just said, well, I'm concerned about it, but don't forget that 300 kids are going to die of opioids this week.
Like, imagine if he had just dropped that and then continued on with the measles vaccine discussion, how bombastic that would have been.
Right, exactly.
And then he puts out this statement saying that actually anti-Semitism is the public health crisis that's coming from our woke universities.
And I'm just like, this guy is just faker than fake.
There is nothing real about him.
And I hate to say that because, you know, I
I even would go so far as Dennis Kucinich had this exact experience as his campaign manager when he spoke out and Dennis just dropped off like he was done that quick.
Right.
So, yeah, I mean, I I covered in twenty twenty one, I think the defeat the mandates rally here in D.C., which now I see is very much kind of a controlled opposition event.
And but RFK spoke there and.
I actually really loved what he had to say, he said he talked about tyranny and and he said basically
the technology that governments have now to control people's lives.
You know, the Nazis didn't have they would have dreamed of having that totalitarian regimes of the past.
And I actually thought that was pretty good.
I was pretty inspired by that statement because the way that, you know, social media and like so many basically social
control for methods and forms that to control a population exists that didn't exist before whether it's tracking through your cell phones are you know comp they're just so many different ways and it's true that those did not exist you know seventy years ago and so i was like that guy i'd really like to reset i wish he'd run for president and then i see you know later that he he does that it's actually he doesn't have any integrity so i mean when i saw him say that and then i see him come out is like pro-israel
All I could think of was Gaza.
When you're talking about totalitarianism and living in some, where every freedom and liberty has been stripped away from you, and you're living in a dystopia, I mean, the Gaza Strip is the picture of that, where you have millions of people, most of whom are children,
living in a tiny bombed-out ghetto surrounded by a high-tech, a series of high-tech walls and fences with remote-controlled machine guns overlooking them that open fire on people based on their gait, the way that they walk.
If they walk suspicious, they get opened.
And I'm like, so this guy who's talking about tyranny in the biosecurity state is in support of that?
Well, I would challenge the listeners to recall that Israel was the example, in my humble opinion, of what they want to do with the rest of the world and especially the United States.
They want to have a medical system that is completely open and they have all access to all the data.
and they want to be able to mandate whatever they want, and that's what they did in Israel.
Remember, they were the lab of Pfizer, they said that out loud.
A Pfizer executive said that, a sort of laboratory for what Israel is.
And I would argue that in the United States that's essentially what is now happening
over a course of many years, the inversion of our sense of sovereignty in our kids to a sense of duty to the state and what we owe the state.
And that will include the fact that, how can I say it?
without going too deep.
You know, they have wanted this data collection for a very long time.
I think one of the things that really frustrates me about the big narratives that people talk about on the internet is this depopulation idea, because it's not depopulation.
Depopulation, the population of the earth is going to decrease because we aren't replacing ourselves.
That's already guaranteed.
So they don't need to kill us off.
We're going to, the population is going to go down.
The question is, what are they going to do with this data?
And that's,
That's the kind of bigger picture where the FDA is important and the CDC and its perception is important and health and human services and the control of it is very important because during this transition out of traditional FDA regulating safe and effective and regulating the labels of products, they need to transition to
What people have been looking at is personalized medicine and I think in a lot of ways already Israel was probably way ahead on that and is way ahead on that with Cancer treatments and this kind of stuff and they're proud of it, but it is a result of having access to all data in a military fashion and and I think that from a 30,000 foot perspective we need to see this as a
a repositioning of that control in America.
And so I don't know the details of it, but I do know that the play here is not a health freedom movement.
The play is to change or alter the way that we
the way their health care system works, the way the FDA works, what power is there or not there.
And so that's why I think from the very beginning, one of the red threads that runs through this is the FDA was in the way.
It's the FDA's fault.
The FDA stopped us from using repurposed drugs, or the FDA held back this or did that or the other, and they let food dyes in, and the FDA is responsible for that.
It's always the FDA.
And that more and more starts to be something that
Every time I hear it, it rings a bell in my head.
Again, because this history goes all the way back to when the FDA was formed.
It was formed around this narrative of thalidomide.
It was formed around this control of products, the regulation of products.
And there's a lot of interesting characters in American history at that time, including Senator Kefauver, who
If you follow and look at the history of that guy and his ideas and how he was contributing to the formation of what is now the FDA, it is a very curious American history that I think cannot be dismissed as independent from this.
It's a continual thing.
I mean, if we just think of it as
I used to be very naive about Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but now I understand him differently, or I think I understand him differently, simply because I can now assume
that from the moment that his father was killed, there were interests that were taking an interest in him and grooming him and positioning him, even if it would be just to make sure he didn't cause any trouble.
But more importantly, I think it would be potentially to use him in the future.
And I think ultimately, because
He is the victim of probably one of the greatest Truman shows ever done in American history that, you know, he's even the people that he trusts are probably not all trustworthy.
And so it's just, it's, I don't have any explanations.
I don't have any quick fixes.
I just know that, you know, he's not a guy who writes a lot of books and, and, and, and trains Falcons and, and is fighting for America's health.
It's not that simple.
Let's say it like that.
Yeah, no, I think it's actually a pretty profound way of looking at him as like the ultimate Truman show.
And yeah, since he was a kid, been
I don't know if I want to say groomed, but yeah, taken or influenced by all kinds of different people, different powerful figures, this kind of thing.
I mean, I would even challenge people to look into the fact that, you know, in 2018, when the World Mercury Project changed its name to Children's Health Defense, he has often confessed on camera that he was reluctant to take on that cause.
He was happy with his environmental work.
He was happy with what he was doing.
He was making a lot of progress.
And this, in the end, is part of the reason why I understand him differently.
Because one of the awakenings that I've had with regard to working with Children's Health Defense and that is that I started at the beginning of the pandemic
not understanding that what I understand now, which is essentially, I don't, I think that we should be advocating for no intramuscular injection in children.
And that's a very different position than I was in before when I started the book or when I was talking about LabLeak or when I was riding my bicycle on YouTube.
And so I'm very, I want your readers to understand, or your listeners to understand that I'm incredibly humble when I,
when I say that I think I can make these arguments.
And I'm not the first person who has successfully tried to make these arguments and then been ignored.
And that's the part that also makes me feel better about the task at hand, because I do think it is a worthy argument.
I think that the evidence is more than sufficient to suggest that a lot of this stuff has been smoke and mirrors for a few decades.
And that's frustrating for a lot of people.
But, you know, it's not a message for everyone.
I say this a lot now, this is actually a friend of mine's phrase, but it's not a message for everyone, but it is a message that anyone can absorb.
And I think your message about Zionism is very much like that.
It's not a message for everyone, because not everyone's ready to hear it, but it is anyone.
Anyone can absorb it and then understand that in a different way.
Um, that's what makes me optimistic.
I don't, I don't think in the end, it's going to be about the adults that voted for Donald Trump and whether or not they figure it out.
It's going to be whether our kids grow up with the, the critical thinking skills and the skepticism and the foundational history that they can move forward without being enslaved by mythologies.
Like we were, um, you know, we inherited a lot of this from our parents and, uh, they didn't know either.
Yeah.
Well, let me, I want to,
kind of talk about what is the real, and I mean, you touched on this, and I think it's a huge question we could discuss at length for hours and hours.
But I want to at least try to do some broad strokes on what is the real, well, OK.
There's two things I want to point out.
So the question is, what is the real purpose for basically staging a pandemic?
And I want to say that, you know, I mean, my proof that there was no pandemic personally, what I can prove is just looking at the way the narrative was curated both sides all along by the exact same spook
a regime change outlets and propaganda organs that I've been watching for years and it's the evidence was just so overwhelming that it was like I'm about nine without any of the biology that you that
you present, Jay, I'm like 99.99% sure this is phony, and is a distraction.
And so then when I came to you, and you're like, well, I can, you know, basically teach you the biology or, you know, you do these, these lessons, basically, what are what are biology lessons on your streams on your site, which I really, you know, recommend, I mean, we're not going to do that here.
But I recommend people go
watch Jay lay out the arguments that he's presenting in detail, because, you know, we're doing again, we're doing kind of broad strokes here.
This is more conversational.
But Jake, who he is, is his character, his nature, his personality is a teacher and is, I guess, training.
And so I really encourage people to just go spend time listening to these and then listen to it again and again.
And it may be the kind of thing that
You know, like for me, there's sometimes when I listen to it and I only catch like 50 percent of what he's saying.
But then I go to sleep and the next day, certain parts of it crystallize in my brain.
I go back and watch something else.
You know, that's the kind of thing.
And that's what that's an important part of, I think, being a good student is that you have to go really learn the material for yourself.
And a teacher is kind of a guide.
So
So so I mean, another another thing that I think is really important to point out is.
A lot of people think that the that there was a virus, but it just wasn't very deadly and it was overstated how deadly it was and.
Those people, I think, often look at you or I or the idea that we present that there actually was no pandemic as like a step too far that we're crazy.
But if the analogy that I like to use is it's as if someone yelled fire in a crowded theater.
And we all agree that that happened.
that it wasn't actually, well, at least all the people who call themselves skeptics, I should say, all agree that that happened, that the danger of what was supposedly there was overstated and that the countermeasures imposed to stop the supposed fire or the supposed virus spreading all over were responsible for the majority of the damage, of the deaths, of the harm.
And so, so the only question, if people, you know, say, like, a lot of people would agree that 90%, say, or 95%, you know, people had comorbidities.
So that's what they actually died from.
This is like what a lot of people say.
They are very close to our position.
Actually, the only real difference is, was there a so most of those people didn't actually die from covid.
They died with covid.
That's what a lot of people think.
That's what I thought for a long time.
That was what the death certificate thing showed me, because I saw how they were faking death certificates.
And I was like, well, if you take these death certificates, we're just if you just stick covid on a death certificate anywhere, then it's a covid death.
which that's not how you calculate a COVID death, even if you just take the original way, the normal way of counting, of writing a death certificate and apply that,
to COVID, then like 93 percent of those deaths are not from COVID, just by that standard.
OK, so the vast majority of the skeptics, we can all agree on that.
The only real difference is, well, was there someone when they shouted fire, was there someone who flicked a lighter or turned on a little blowtorch or was there literally nothing and they just shouted fire anyway?
Um, you and I say there actually was no fire.
That's versus someone else says there was somebody flicked a lighter.
That's the only real difference.
And some people will say, well, it doesn't really matter because it wouldn't have justified all of those countermeasures anyway.
But.
You and I and maybe you can, you know, well, I would say, yeah, go ahead.
I would be careful because I think there was a fire.
I think that there was a fire in the sense of the population pyramids predicted that there would be more all-cause mortality in the next five to ten years Than there was in the past and that it was going to almost double This is the same reason why they think Social Security is going to go bankrupt the reason why they don't they can't afford Medicare in the future is because there are a
The population pyramid has more old people than it's ever had before, and they're living longer than they ever have before, and it costs more money to keep them alive than it ever has before.
And so this is all a contradictory problem here.
And so they knew that there were going to be more people in hospitals.
There were new that there were going to be more people dying in the coming years.
Now, the question was, could they murder enough people to make sharp enough peaks so that they could call it a disease?
Because that's what it is.
So in your theater.
analogy, they're telling you that the town is burning down, we have to get out of here, it's a natural thing, it's like a forest fire.
And other people are telling you, no, no, no, it's because they used the wrong light bulb in the projector and so the projector is exploding, when in reality, a couple people in the back row started a few people on fire and then said, oh my gosh, the projector did it.
And in reality, the projector can't do it.
There's no forest fire outside.
It's not coming.
And only forest fires that matter are the ones that are started by people.
So again, it becomes this issue of the argument, this is why I called it the Scooby-Doo, the argument of
And the debate about whether it's natural or a lab leak presupposes that an RNA can do this.
And it presupposes that this phenomenon is always happening.
And that is a very
It's a very malevolent trap because even as an academic biologist, you can start with that assumption and read and read and read and read and learn and learn and learn and it'll all be based on that assumption.
And it'll all confirm that assumption.
It'll all seem to not challenge that assumption.
And much of virology literature will never allow you to escape because they don't write any clues as to their own known limitations of what they're doing.
They just go along with that assumption that this phenomenon is real over there.
And so what we do in the lab kind of recapitulates it.
You know, I was aware that we do this with with disease models in mice, for example, you know, there's people that talk about autistic models of models of autism in mice, and it's just absurd because they're not autism models, their models where
some aspect of the disease is recapitulated in the mice, and then they try to cure that aspect of the mouse's behavior and call that a correlate or call that a mouse model.
And I was aware of how that science is done in the context of the brain.
I just wasn't aware that they were doing it all over the place, especially in the realm of biosecurity and vaccines and infectious disease.
I didn't know it until I learned it.
So I guess the million dollar question and this is part of this is I mean, you've been you've been touching on it.
What is the purpose of I mean, this is what you just talked about with population pyramids and the FDA.
But like if you could kind of distill down.
What is the purpose?
Because I mean, OK, we saw, for example, the greatest upward transfer of wealth in human history.
We saw the growth of Silicon Valley billionaires.
I think Elon Musk's wealth like doubled, something like that.
Jeff Bezos had you know, you saw the what's often called the controlled demolition of our economy, which I think is correct, where countless small businesses were forced to close down because they were locked down and
you know, they could not
afford to close down for a period of time, whereas Amazon is perfectly happy to, or everyone's just ordering online.
Or even worse, even worse, those little businesses didn't know that they could apply for pandemic loans and that the loans would have been forgiven.
I think a lot of those businesses had so much integrity that they didn't borrow.
They wouldn't borrow.
They were afraid to borrow.
But lots of people borrowed millions of dollars and then it got forgiven.
It's remarkable.
I mean, you know, like everything is is it was a very antisocial event, everything.
You know, when someone delivers food now, they just come to your door and they and they leave it, you know, and it's a safety thing.
When I go to get gas, it's you know, these are like somehow sanitized or it's all touch free.
Everything's more and more done through your phone.
When you go to a restaurant, you don't have a server come and ask you for your order.
Now you have a QR code where you order.
So is this like restructuring of
society in so many ways that I think it's essential for people to understand that, you know, to ask the question, what is the real?
Yeah, well, then we can start right with where you left off with Israel as a model and make no mistake about it.
One of the first things that Donald Trump announced was a half a billion dollars for A.I.
that would be applied to medical records.
and medical data, and they were all excited about it with the guy from Google.
That's not an accident.
What I would challenge your listeners to understand from my perspective is that as far back as a guy by the name of Joshua Lederberg,
deep thinkers about biology and about humankind in general, and the human species going forward.
Like what decade?
When are we talking about?
1950's and 60's, all the way up until now.
I mean, he was a very young Nobel Prize winner.
He was like a Doogie Howser of his day, if you will.
Joshua Lederberg is the guy who coined the phrase microbiome and a bunch of other phrases.
Joshua Lederberg is quoted at the beginning of one of these movies, Contagion or something like that.
He's a big thinker and he was the first guy to already say that the only way that we would ever solve human biology or start to really make great strides is when we started to use computers to
interpret the genetic code and understand it.
And I would again remind your viewers that the way that machine learning, don't call it artificial intelligence, that's just dumb.
The way that machine learning
Solves these kinds of complex problems like chess or go is through many many reiterations And then finding patterns within that those many many reiterations Which is in reality also how the human brain does it it's just you're not really conscious of that process whereas in a computer it can be programmed and
And so although you can't open the lid, these kinds of problems can be solved, but they are solved through iteration.
And if people could just step back and realize that in the context of the human genome, an iteration is a person.
The genome of a human is a single game of chess expressed over the lifetime of a human.
And so you need as many of those things as possible before you're ever going to be able to solve the big problem of how does the
How does the genome work?
And they've understood this from the perspective of mice and rats and all this other stuff and the sequencing of these animals.
That's one of the reasons why we still work on inbred mouse strains because they are genetically identical and so we remove
the gigantic variable, which is the wonderful diversity of a normal natural species.
Now, the diversity of people and genomes available now on the Earth is never going to be this high again.
If you just look at the population pyramids and project into the future, we are going to go from 10 billion to 2 billion, whether you like it or not.
If we want to go back to 10 billion,
And once we get down to 2 billion, we're gonna have to have more babies.
Like, that's the way it works.
And we're not having those babies right now, and we haven't for a while.
And so the population is gonna go down, and the people that rule...
the overclass, the people that really run the show, you know, at insurance companies and hedge funds, they know this.
They've known this for decades already, that this was gonna happen.
And they have used this as a kind of eclipse, you know, to fool the natives into believing that something else happened and that they're in control or that they have powers that the average guy doesn't have.
You know, like they can make gaiter function viruses and they can go around the world.
This is all part of an illusion
that was created with murder, lies, and an existing biological phenomenon that can't be dismissed, which is this population pyramid where there's going to be a lot of people dying and there's going to be a lot of people in hospitals and a lot of pneumonia in the coming decade.
That's just the way it is.
They are taking advantage of it to teach a mythology to our children so that those children can be trapped in it.
That's the way I see it.
And I think a lot of these people that are involved are pawns.
They are surrounded by people who understand this, but many of the people don't understand.
So the ultimate goal is, you've said, to they they claim there's basically they'll be able to understand the human genome, which would do which would allow them to do what?
Engineer an end to disease, engineer better humans than ever before.
Take control of evolution of the species is what they've talked about for a long time.
So it's like a eugenicist.
Oh, it absolutely is.
And that's why I think, you know, somebody like Jamie Metzl is a very curious person to mention, because Jamie Metzl is considers himself a futurist.
He believes in all of this, you know, human augmentation and implantation and stuff like that.
He's very big.
I mean, is there any aside from the ethical considerations of which are great?
Is there any truth to this or are they is are they nonsense?
Is this nonsense?
I mean, it would be terribly naive of me to claim that I understand the limits of the computer technology available and the limits of the sequencing technology available.
In fact, my guess is that they do have the technology to sequence everybody and keep sequencing everybody.
And that's one of the reasons why none of these people will ever
discuss, I think you were aware of this, we didn't really touch on it, but one of the central pillars of the illusion is a PCR test.
And the PCR test is effectively just on the table now.
It's used in every hospital for a wide variety of things.
They can identify anything they want with PCR.
And if you think very specifically about that, that is a medical device.
And each
Each reiteration of it should be a medical device regulated by the FDA, but somehow or another, PCR testing has now become ubiquitous and they don't, there's no, who's regulating this?
Who's approving all of these things?
It's all just, it's just all gone.
It's just all being applied.
And now what I would, again, I'm gonna try and get as much out there as I can, challenge your listeners to understand
is that medical remnants are real.
They sell the foreskin of babies in America still because it's necessary for cell culture and fibroblast cell culture.
They still sell the placentas from births in our hospitals and they sell the placentas from cesarean section for much higher prices.
And these are real remnant streams.
And what I need you to understand is that one thing that was established
in the course of the pandemic was a remnant stream of PCR swabs, which will have everybody's DNA in it and some DNA from their microbiome.
And if we think back to 2020 and 2021, when we were all locked down and all on our phones, no adults stood up to protect the college kids from this gross invasion of privacy for two years, where they had to swab whatever the university told them to swab.
And a lot of these universities were selling those remnants to the highest bidder.
And this is still going on today.
It has to be because that's the data that they will feed into the AI.
In other words, and stop me if I'm rambling, but one of the things that I've heard people say is that, well, yeah, but if they don't know,
what your name is when they swab you, and they don't know your, and the medical records are all de-identified, then how could they ever, well, the whole reason why they're setting up the AI thing is so that they can take a de-identified gene sample and use AI to connect it to the most likely database record, their medical record.
And once they have that problem figured out, de-identified, records don't matter anymore.
because they can take your DNA and they can sufficiently read it so that they can predict that you're your race, your relative height, you know, whatever.
And then if they already know that they took it from this university, now they have it down to 3000 men.
And then if they take it on that date, then they have it down to, they will do this.
in order to break the de-identification.
Because since the Human Genome Project started, they have been admitting it.
Every time they announce a new achievement, they say, well, now we need more genomes.
Now we need more people to volunteer.
Now we need more volunteers.
And the reason why they need more volunteers is because they need more games of Go.
They need more games of chess.
And they are now going to brute force it.
They want our children to be all in on this.
They want them to be in from the very beginning.
And I think that that's the reason why it's, it's, it's critical to gain control of HHS and, and, and FDA and CDC and make sure that they steer that cruise ship where they want it to go.
Because if the illusion is broken and the whole vaccine schedule, as I see it in America is exposed as a criminal enterprise, then they have a very big problem on their hands.
Because that's a, that's a,
That's a, how do you say it?
It doesn't matter what team you cheer for.
That's a pretty big message.
I mean, there's so much I don't know, we could we could we could I think we could go on for for hours and hours.
Maybe we should maybe we should leave it there.
I don't know if there are any other key messages, key points you want to get across, but.
Well, for sure.
You know, there's a lot of little tricks that everybody I want to emphasize one more time that the pandemic couldn't happen unless people people died.
And so I am not ever arguing that people didn't die.
One of the things that, you know, one short anecdote that I would really, not anecdote, but important point to mention for anybody listening is that if any of your relatives or you yourself went to the hospital and experienced hospital COVID,
The very first thing you need to ask yourself or the very first thing you need to look in your relative's medical records is when or if they applied supplementary oxygen and precisely how they did it.
Because one of the ground truths of the murder in America is that the willy-nilly application of supplementary oxygen
can result in precisely the condition that they say is what a SARS virus does, which is acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Acute respiratory distress syndrome originally applied to people who were damaged from the oxygen toxicity in the ICU, and then later was applied to the same syndrome that SARS, the first virus, caused.
So,
It's important for people to understand that there are doctors all around the United States who could have read this in a textbook or could have looked at any of the papers that were published in the 90s and the 2000s about oxygen toxicity and how this can result in extremely acute damage within an hour or two.
I find it frightening, for example, that they are publicly saying that they are giving high flow supplementary oxygen to the Pope right now.
Because if you look at the literature, there is no support for that treatment being a good treatment, and yet it's in a headlight right now.
So I don't really understand what's going on, except that for sure,
The few ICU doctors that I've talked to that I feel have been honest were absolutely clear that pure oxygen is not something that you can just put on at 60 liters a minute and put somebody in the hallway and come back two hours later or they'll be sick.
And the pneumonia that gets caused by the application of supplementary oxygen over several days is not viral.
It's bacterial.
And so if you don't treat those people with antibiotics, you are killing them.
And this is the kind of murder that I'm talking about.
The other kind of murder that I'm talking about is
is the opioid crisis in America that killed 100,000 Americans every year for five years that were all younger than retirement age, or the vast majority of them were.
And in fact, is the reason why the life expectancy in America has gone down.
And these people for the last five years have been telling us that life expectancy is going down because of COVID, and that's not true.
So these are some very basic math that everybody needs to do in their head.
And then once you do that, the other thing maybe for most people that are still spellbound, you have to realize that if you can't remember another time in your life as an adult when you were this sick, then all that means is that you were hardcore.
All that means is that when you were sick, you went to work just like every other American did.
All that means is that when you were sick before, you blew it off or you tried to work through it or push through it.
And this time, when the TV told you for six months that something deadly and terrible and contagious and awful, and it would be irresponsible for you to not take everything seriously, now even the lightest symptoms could result in you thinking that you're participating in this show.
And it's hard for people to accept that.
But I don't remember another flu, except for the flu that I had in 2019.
And I think the reason why is because the TV told me to remember it.
The TV told me that it was something significant.
But if I'm really honest, and my wife was always the one who did this for me, but yeah, but you get sick like this every winter.
Every winter since you've been riding your bike, you would get sick like this.
And you complain about the same thing.
It's not any different.
And it's not, except the TV told me it was.
And I think a lot of people underestimate that if you only have the flu every five years, you aren't keeping track of it.
And until the TV told you it was significant, your sickness or whatever you had was, it's just an imaginary thing.
It's horrible, but it's also simply simple.
It's really simple.
You can't underestimate how spending all day on a screen
Listening to these people and their stories could have led you to believe something that is not true.
even i forget the incredible psychological pressure that we were put under in that period where again they're literal panics uh... you couldn't get toilet paper you couldn't get water you couldn't get bleach you couldn't get lights all it any store you know if you were if your neighbor came within several feet of you people would freak out i mean d we were told that every single person
is a potential threat.
It is the most anti-social concept.
It's the most dystopian thing possible.
So.
So, of course, there is going to be some psychosomatic element.
I mean, I you know, when I was looking at all the death certificates, I found so many crazy cases where, for example,
of basically death by fear propaganda.
For example, there were several medical professionals, especially nurses, who committed suicide thinking after they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
They thought they got the virus and they killed themselves.
There was a man in, I believe in the Bronx, he was in New York City, I think the Bronx, who was diabetic.
And he tested positive for for covid.
And he called the police late at night and said there is a shooter in the street and the police sent squad cars, guns blazing.
And he took like a Civil War era
uh, firearm, like a revolver and some like old samurai sword and went out in the street and charged at the police and they shot him and and wounded him and he and there's video of him laying on the ground begging the cops to finish him off.
And they didn't kill him right there.
He went to the hospital and died later.
But he was so terrified of because he was like an overweight diabetic guy and he got the virus.
So he wanted to die.
He was so consumed by fear.
And that is the level of propaganda that we were subjected to, which should make people furious.
Yes.
the corporate media at the media talking heads who told us who spread that fear to kill Americans, to kill all kinds of people.
I've come to understand that they put people on social media to do it, too, dude.
definitely absolutely doesn't there's no doubt i have no doubt about it i mean it's not you know people understand that there is an alternative media so you know we know what operation mockingbird is in all these kinds of things do you think that you know the cia or whatever the deep state would not infiltrate social media which is created by which i really really military programs fundamentally like of course it's so curated the amount of
like of like Nazi propaganda that's pumped into my for you tab on X and that I press.
I don't, you know, less of this.
I don't want to see this.
And they constantly put it into my feed in order to stress me out and trigger me.
And it, and it, and it works sometimes.
And, you know, it's, it's very much like a curated reality.
And that's, that's, you know,
But were you there at some point not understanding that?
Because I was.
I really thought that Twitter was a place where people were kind of getting away with something.
I didn't see it this way for a long time.
I was fooled so well.
I mean...
Man, oh man, I was bamboozled, dude.
I'm completely bamboozled.
I think there are there are ways to use it once and you can actually use it against them to a degree once you understand what it is.
And, you know, there are ways to kind of beat their algorithm and that kind of thing.
But unless you understand the level of manipulation that is going on, then yeah, you'll get caught up.
And I think the overwhelming majority of people do not understand how incredibly manipulated it is, let alone the simple fact that
You know, checking in on this app all the time, what that does to you psychologically, where the first thing you do in the morning when you wake up instead of, you know, looking at your loved one, your husband or your wife or whatever it is and saying good morning and giving them a kiss is you look and see, you know, what notifications you got or if someone said something mean to you or if someone, you know, whatever it is or what's the thing going on.
I think people underestimate the impact of that.
And I mean, one more point I want to add about what you were saying about kind of the psychosomatic aspect of people are like, well, this is the sickest I've ever I've ever been.
One more example of that.
I have an investigation I never published.
I think you and I, I must have told you about this a while ago, but it was specifically about Pennsylvania, where my whole
father's side of the family is actually from Pittsburgh.
So Pittsburgh is kind of a second home to me.
And my father's mother, my paternal grandmother,
She was very, very sharp.
And in the in the covid era, you know, she was in like like an elderly, I guess, like a whatever retirement home, an old folks home in Pittsburgh.
And she had her friends there and she was pretty vibrant.
She got a lot of interaction, which, of course, is necessary for any human, but especially elderly people as they're locked away, taken away from their families.
That's basically what I think kills them or accelerates their decline.
Um, and when COVID hit, uh, they basically stuck her in a room and she described it as like, um, being in prison and I was not smart enough, which I almost, you know, in some, I'm, I'm, I'll just be forever.
just angry about.
I was not smart enough or aware enough or I was too bamboozled to really understand that that I wasn't a threat to her, that actually I was like myself and my newborn daughter at the time and my family going to visit her.
We were the medicine.
We you know, that's what keeps people keep would have kept her alive.
And so when I was finally allowed to go visit her, they kept us.
behind a see through piece of plastic, put in the room with masks on and we could only stay in that room for 15 minutes.
And, you know, we could talk to her and wave at her, and I'm with my like infant daughter.
And and that was it.
And I could just see how mentally degraded she was.
And then it wasn't that long after I got to see her one more time.
And she was she was still alive, but not really there.
And then soon after she died.
And I realized they just basically under the pretext of covid-19 just took grandma up to the edge of the cliff and
it's
uh... her entire family was killed in the holocaust she was a first-generation uh... american her whole family in europe was wiped out including her grandparents who came to visit and live in the u s stayed here for two years and it wasn't religious enough for them so they went back to lithuania they were all killed so her whole family is killed and then she
post-world war two has like she and my grandfather have this family and they succeed and have their small business in morgantown west virginia a furniture store that provided for their family and they became like
upper middle class and and and they ended up having a very, very big family and a lot of descendants.
And so to go from that horror to kind of like a redemption story in a way.
And then at the very end for this like eugenicists program to basically take her off to the edge of the cliff and just throw her off is the ultimate just infuriating.
It just infuriates me so much.
Um, and when I actually looked at what they did in Pennsylvania specifically to spread that fear, um, it was actually, you know, each state had different, uh, lockdown, um, orders given out by the governor.
And, uh, in, um,
Pennsylvania, it was all designed in Carnegie Mellon University in a laboratory, a privately funded laboratory that was done in concert with Facebook and DARPA and Google and Amazon.
So three of the biggest Silicon Valley corporations and DARPA, which is like one of the experimental arms, research arms of the Department of Defense that were basically creating lockdowns and the protocols that would be implemented over the whole state.
It wasn't even actual, there were no like
public health officials involved in this date they just dictated and the governor uh... was isn't it was the governor time i can't think of it remember i don't remember of the top and i'm sorry that's right i can think of his name off top my head i mean this information has been sitting in my you know in the
Archived in my brain for two plus years, but he openly boasted that we're working with these experts from Carnegie Mellon University and this privately funded organization that's basically a think tank inside the university and and they actually created a a Case tracker case counter Tom Wolfe.
It's a Tom Wolfe.
It's a really important name because he has a long history with this biosecurity state to
Oh man, there's so much we can do with this.
So they created on Facebook a way for people to just report cases themselves.
So it was like, if you have any symptom, if you have a headache, if you feel woozy, you're tired,
you can just click that as a COVID case.
And then anyone on Facebook is just watching these COVID cases just skyrocket.
It's everywhere.
I think I I'm short of breath.
I think I have it.
So just is just one of the ways they created so much so much fear.
And there's no doubt that that contributed mightily to how people perceived whatever seasonal respiratory virus or whatever they had.
And I think they're
You know, I mean.
It's not going to happen, but it's like we need some kind of independent commission to establish what actually happened the same way we need it with October 7th to know what exactly happened on October 7th, who was responsible, how many people were killed by Israel rather than, you know, everyone says it was the Hamas massacre.
They raped and burned.
What exactly happened then?
And what exactly happened?
Who were the players involved?
Who were the people at the top?
Who were the witting agents?
And this is what we need to know.
And the constant, even to this day, to talk about lab leak,
or, you know, spike protein or the origin or this or that are just distractions.
And it's like our lives, our children's lives, like our society, humanity is at stake.
And so I really encourage people to
Go watch what Jonathan J. Cooley has to say on his streams.
His channel, Gigome Biological, which I will link to, is an incredible resource.
And challenge him.
And interview him.
People should interview you, I think.
And really examine these things.
Because these are incredibly important questions.
I don't know.
You know, I mean, dude, you're a king, man.
I don't know what to tell you.
I really think we got a we got somewhere today.
I really thought it was a great conversation.
And more importantly, I want to come back and keep talking.
So if you're if your listeners or your followers have a follow up, you know, direction we need to go or topics we need to go to, I'd be happy to do it.
And yeah, I mean, just please, let's keep going, because this is well, how can I say it?
There aren't very many independent media
sources out there.
I think that you are one of them and I am, you know, you're the first person to ask a lot of these questions and so I'm happy to come and address them again in more detail or just address them again to keep getting the message out.
Yeah, I mean, we we we touched on so many different subjects that, you know, and I think people are going to have so many questions and there's so many ways to take this.
It's such an enormous subject with that is so multifaceted that, you know, I really you know, people please ask questions, post comments.
I'm going to.
We'll do more of these these streams and again, interview Jay or Jay Cooley yourself.
But now, Jay, I mean, I thank you immensely for your, you know, your effort over the years and your your integrity and your time today.
And I really look forward to doing it again.
Thanks very much, Dan.
Awesome.
I think, uh, that was better than yesterday at least.
Yeah.
I mean, I think part of it is just like, no, I mean like there's a couple of things.
I think part of it is, um,
like I need to instead of trying to be like redacted or Tucker or just be like, Jay, what what happened?
What did Bobby Kennedy tell you?
I just need to be like who I am and be like, look, here's how I got to you.
And that just, you know, just pushes gets things going.
So that's why when you texted me yesterday, I was like, you know, it's on me, too, because like, you know, this is it's it's more honest.
It's like and OK, maybe it's not.
I don't know.
I think it's much more useful.
It was awesome.
Just don't doubt yourself.
There were lots of my followers that were in the chat watching yesterday that were frustrated, but they weren't frustrated with you.
They were frustrated with me.
Because I wasn't listening.
And they were like, he's asking you for a different talking point.
So it really was me and you or whatever.
But I'm glad that we worked it out.
And again, like I said at the beginning of the stream, it's because no one's ever asked these questions before.
No one.
No one cared.
And so I don't have a good rolled up answer to them.
So I hope it came off that way, too, so that it'll all come off as honest as it really is.
Because that's what it is.
It's two guys that
are really just internet friends, and we don't have much more than that.
But we do have the truth, I think, and that's what makes it possible for this friendship to be.
So thank you again.
I don't know what to say.
I think it went really well.
Yeah.
I think so, too.
Like I said, it's just like you can't like force a square peg in a round hole.
Just have a conversation like the same way that like, you know, when we talk on the phone or this kind of thing that like we come at it from kind of very.
Largely different like places in terms of just expertise and experience, but, you know, we we've arrived in very compatible places, so I think it it it's very
Think we got that message out really well that you know from my perspective a lab leak was yes totally plausible But also not dangerous, and it could be lied about so it was actually a really nice thesis like that.
I think yeah Yeah, definitely, so I don't know what's yeah.
We'll do it again.
I'll I'll see if Well, let me know when it's out.
I'll share the link and try to get as many views as I can
Definitely.
I'm going to try to figure out how to like clip it out.
I mean, I'm going to I don't know.
I've never used these A.I.
programs that like will be, you know, we'll get like, you know, ten one minute clips.
I mean, I don't know if that will work with this, but it might.
It might be like, you know, why did Bobby Kennedy?
Why did Robert F. Kennedy, you know ignore you or whatever it might work.
So I don't know I'll mess with it.
Um Redacted, you know, I told redacted that I was like doing a full interview with you and they were like awesome We'll do a follow-up, you know, they so they want to interview me about the interview.
Oh nice.
Okay, perfect I mean, I'd rather that they would just interview you.
Yeah.
Yeah increments increments
Yeah.
I mean, what else?
I don't know.
I'm not sure what else I have to, what else I can say to represent your point.
You know what I mean?
Why didn't Bobby or RFK interview, or why did RFK, you know, basically blow Jay Cooey off?
Why didn't you ask Jay Cooey?
Like he's going to be able to explain it better than I am.
But, um, I might, I might just suggest that to them that they should just interview you.
Um, but, uh, oh, we didn't.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Maybe in like,
a week or something like that, we can talk, we can talk like Bhattacharya, because he's... Yeah, I didn't, I didn't, I had it on my page here, but it didn't ever fit in, and I didn't want to, I felt like it could potentially be a very sharp left turn, and I didn't, we were going so well, I didn't want to do that.
Yeah, yeah, it's, I mean, it's... It's a perfect excuse to bring me back though, so it's fine.
Exactly, this is the thing, like there's no way, it's like, there's just no way we're going to cover everything.
We didn't, you know, get into like transfection.
Right.
No, but I think that was what, that was good.
That, again, that you, you said it a couple of times, you know, if you want to know more, you can go to my site or we can come back again.
So it's perfect, I think.
Yeah.
You know, I just I don't know how to win because we haven't ever had the chance, you know, like if this is the chance to win, then we haven't been here before.
It's kind of like the.
Have you ever seen that movie?
Is it The Day After Tomorrow?
What is it called?
The Day Before Tomorrow?
What was it?
I think it's The Day After Tomorrow, but I never saw it.
If you haven't seen it, dude, it's one of Tom Cruise's coolest movies.
It's like, you will love it.
If you don't know anything about it, trust me, it'll be a movie that at the end you're like, I'm so happy that I watched it.
And you will forget about all your problems for an hour and a half.
It's really that.
It's wonderful.
Cool, cool.
Yeah, I mean, at some point I got to finish these like multiple written investigations that I have.
I mean, I think you actually might even have access to the one, like all the Bill Gertz stuff I was telling you about.
I mean, I have like pages and pages that just lay out the narrative of
How lab leak was I mean, I have the death certificate thing written out though.
It's it needs to be revised But like the lab leak thing I have like pages and pages and pages where it's like Overwhelming and you see like all the players.
I found the earliest instant instances of it on on like Twitter
of people promoting lab leak.
And it was and they were the shady X account or like Twitter accounts, one of which is like now, well, I guess I think is rebranded now, but was like a NAFO account.
You know, NAFO is no.
It was like this like pro Ukraine war.
It was like it's pro war, like this whole CIA operation that was like they created.
It was like they created like
They basically it was like a social media phenomenon where they just created all these like basically fake accounts or inauthentic troll accounts to artificially generate support for Ukraine war and they would attack anyone who criticized the Ukraine war or like so like me and you know, a lot of my
friends who were doing stuff on that, we would get attacked by them.
And my friend Alex did like an expose on them.
And then I look at when I was doing this investigation on like the origins of lab leak and the origins debate itself.
And one of the first ones, there were two accounts that promoted this, and one of them at that point had morphed into a NAFO account.
So they were like seeding this narrative in like December 2019, you know, two.
And then like,
Were you at all blown away when Robert F. Kennedy jr.
Just casually threw out there that his son went to Ukraine and was a machine-gun guy Where the hell did that come from dude the first time I heard that I was like wait what who what?
Great and his and his daughter-in-law is CIA.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's nobody cares.
That's fine.
Oh
Yeah, that's normal.
She's ex CIA.
Come on.
Quit being so.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Once a spook.
Once you're out, you're not you're definitely not a spook anymore.
Right.
So.
Oh, man, so much to do.
Well, like that Pennsylvania stuff is crazy.
I mean, I can send you this research.
It's just like stuff that I researched.
And this is my problem is, like I said, I take too much on and then I don't end up like getting enough of it out.
So like I have like so much research and the crazy stuff that I could probably say the same thing that I've covered things once, you know, and then I never cover them again, even though they're central.
But even if you're covering them because you see the good thing about streaming,
is like you can have like 7 or 8 or 20 tabs open and you can just go through them.
Whereas like writing an article is a much more kind of laborious... And if you are a real writer then you must be very frustrated with these people who have a substack every day or two substacks every day.
You know that's not real, right?
These people are... Yeah, I mean that's also probably true.
I mean I'm like...
I don't even I kind of honestly hate labels.
I just call myself a journalist because that's what I do.
People are like, are you a filmmaker?
I'm like, well, I kind of fell into making films, but I'm not like a trained filmmaker.
Like I could not teach someone how to do it.
I just did it because like I needed to do it and I didn't know how else to get my message across.
But like if someone, you know, a trained filmmaker or film professor would probably sit and watch my documentaries and could pick them apart technically.
And I would be like,
Yeah.
So all that to say, like, okay, I like to do investigative journalism.
I like to, you know, explore this whole lab leak thing and show the whole narrative and show how we've been fooled.
all along and we need to, you know.
But so, yeah, it's really hard for me to produce, you know, a substack post every day or I mean, it's what I need to do.
And like I had a job when I moved to D.C., I had a job at RT America.
That was my my job.
And before I became a correspondent where I was on TV, I was a I was a writer.
And so I would have to write like five articles per day.
which was like, OK, you just have to learn how to be really efficient.
I wish I could just had that level of like discipline and structure here at home.
But it's just me in my own world.
So, yeah, that's why I have so much unpublished.
But well, then that means you got a woodpile.
Yeah, exactly.
You're good.
Exactly.
All right, my friend.
Well, thanks again.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Yeah, we can, you know, and it doesn't, we don't have to, like, if there's something that comes up, you know, what, like, we can do kind of, I don't want to say newsy stuff today.
But if there's like a headline, they're like, like, I think a couple weeks ago, I sent you, let me see, like a, like a
Yeah, like that Tucker, there's like the Tucker thing.
Yeah, no, I get it.
I like to do that.
Just a little spot.
I mean, that would be cool too.
Yeah, yeah.
We could just, you know, talk for a few minutes.
And then, oh yeah, that Elon thing where he's like the J&J vaccine.
You know, I had the OG Wuhan strain.
J&J hurt my arm, but otherwise nothing.
But, you know, our MRNA, it hit hard, but has a lot of potential to cure cancer.
Yeah.
Like that's fucking crazy.
What a chump.
You know, stuff like that.
We can.
But he's not any more sophisticated than Bobby.
You're just supposed to believe that these people are having these thoughts.
And it's just it's not.
And I just it takes a long it.
You actually have to try to convince and get lucky enough to be able to try and convince these people of something before you can see how obviously it is done.
Right, exactly.
All right, my friend.
We'll speak soon.
Okay.
Be well.
Bye All right, so that was the show for today I don't think I'm gonna be able to put together another one.
Although Mark and I have been sitting on this C-SPAN
Jesse Gelsinger's dad and Ingder Verma talking about the whole gene therapy, you know, space and idea.
And so tomorrow, that's going to be my study hall at 10am.
I'm just going to watch that and take notes on it and try to contrast the
the language, the attitude, the discussion in 2000 with the discussion in 2020 and 2025.
Thank you very much for being here and for tolerating my performance yesterday.
And hopefully today will be something that'll get us a little farther.
And I'll see you again soon.