Hello, and welcome to the Corning Turner Podcast.
My guest today is Jay Cooey, and I am super excited about this.
I had a couple of you reach out to me saying that I had to get him on the show and I had to see him at Red Pill Expo.
And we ended up right, like the next day sitting on the shuttle together.
So, and immediately started talking and connecting.
So I think this is going to be a fantastic discussion.
His speech at Red Pill Expo was phenomenal.
He's a wealth of information and I think it's very timely because I hope to be wrong.
However, I do think that they are starting up already to drum up a little bit of fear porn around things like monkey pox and we had the bird flu thing and who knows but hopefully he's going to explain why we should not fall for the fear porn
programming once again, and I don't have the code yet.
I'm pretty sure it's going to be quartz, but I will be doing codes for red pills, so it's coming up.
I can't believe how fast the time is flying.
That is going to be November, I believe, 16th, 17th.
Yep, 16th, 17th, and 18th looks like it's optional.
And this is G. Edward Griffin.
I have interviewed him twice in person, and this is truly just an honor.
He is sharp as a tack.
I know people who are a third of his age who do not have the mental faculties and acuity that he does.
And not just that, but his vision and his passion.
I mean, he's working harder than most people, most people just in general.
So it's very inspiring.
And that was truly an honor.
We're going to be releasing the second episode I did soon.
We're a little behind schedule with all the editing between the conference and all the media that we've been doing.
We will get those out to you very soon.
And of course, we just did the Cognitive Liberty Conference and we are still, we're still selling tickets so you can watch the replay.
And if this is something you're at all interested in seeing, I highly recommend it.
The tickets are super cheap.
And this was just, it exceeded even my expectations.
And I had pretty high expectations with the, you know, the speakers that we had, they're
just truly brilliant minds.
And it was an edifying experience for me.
So I hope everybody who was there felt that way.
And it was also really fun for those who made it in person.
I think I am not alone in saying that it was a really fun experience as well.
But it's a lot of information.
So we definitely want to make it available.
You can have it on demand, the replays,
It's the kind of thing I'm hearing already from people that you want to watch a few times and take notes.
So it's pretty dense.
But you can get that at CognitiveLibertyConference.com.
And as always, any support for the work that I'm doing here on this podcast
is always welcomed and greatly appreciated and you can click links below or you can head on over to CourtneyTurner.com.
I do spell my name like Courtney, it is Courtney, however it's pronounced, it's spelled, sorry, Courtney, C-O-U-R-T-E-N-A-Y-T-U-R-N-E-R.com.
You can send me a Venmo, Courtney, again, Courtney-Turner at Venmo,
buy me a coffee, or if you prefer to go analog, which I completely understand these days, lots of people are making that option.
They're going in that direction.
So you can send me letters and fiscal support, and that is at Courtney Turner, 6041 Rural Plains Circle, Suite 110, number 106, Franklin, Tennessee, 37064.
And we also have really great products.
You know, one of my personal favorites, I know it's summer, but I still use the sauna, relax the sauna, the detoxing and just the health benefits are really incredible.
And I just personally really enjoy it.
I know it's summer where you know, at least if you're in this part of the world where I am middle of the United States, it's a
It's pretty warm, but I still enjoy using the sauna.
And you can get $100 off if you use the discount code COURTZ, C-O-U-R-T-Z, at relaxthesauna.com.
And some of the others, like Richardson Nutrition Company's rncstore.com, the discount code there is also COURTZ, C-O-U-R-T-Z.
And of course, there you can find the book, A World Without Cancer,
by the legendary G. Edward Griffin and we have tons of other things on there.
So, you know, definitely feel free to take a look.
Click the links below or have a look at the website and see if there's something that strikes your fancy and supports your health and well-being and supports the show as well.
So, without further ado, let's bring on Jay Cooey.
How are you doing today?
I'm pretty good, thank you very much.
I'm very happy to be here.
Wow, that was a very energetic little introduction.
I'm so excited.
I haven't been fired up in a while.
Thank you.
So let's start with, you're a neurobiologist and you kind of had a bit of an interesting experience through COVID.
I know that that was, for me personally, that was like my, I put it in air quotes, wake up moment.
I always make the joke that, you know, I was scrambling trying to find the train station and it took me forever to find it.
And I found the high speed rail and now I'm just scrambling to try and catch up.
So,
Unlike Geo Rick Griffin, I did not wake up decades ago.
But I find that a lot of people did in that, you know, which is kind of ironic, because I think, from my perspective, it looks like it was a mass scale trauma based mind control operation.
And some people really did fall into that.
you know, trap for lack of a better word.
And other people, it was like the catalyst they needed to say, wow, this we've been programmed for so long.
And so much of what we thought we knew just wasn't so.
So I'd love if you could talk a little bit about what that journey was like for you being in kind of the trenches in as a neurobiologist and a professor.
Uh, sure.
I mean, uh, it's a, it's a pretty humbling story because I don't want anyone to think anything other than, um, I was an absolutely, um, 100% focused on tenure kind of guy.
I wanted to get tenure like anybody else did.
Um, I was on the tenure track.
The idea was to get as much grant money as possible so that I, you know, could, could provide for my family and eventually get associate professor and then.
you know, full professor and the whole thing.
I mean, that was what the idea was.
Once you start climbing that ladder, it's pretty much the only way to go is up.
And so I had been playing that game for a really long time.
And for a very long time, it didn't feel like, even though a lot of other people around me were, you know, branching off into industry and doing other things, I was, I never really felt like that was the direction that I was going to go.
I thought it was just, I was going to obviously make it.
When I moved from Norway to the Netherlands in 2012, 13, 14, something like that.
I got to think about it for a little while.
It was really with the intention of staying in the Netherlands.
My wife is Dutch.
We wanted to raise our kids there.
And that was four years of struggling against all.
I mean, I tried my absolute best not to leave the Netherlands, but in the end, I just...
who wouldn't be able to keep bouncing from post-doc to post-doc in the Netherlands anymore.
And so we were kind of forced to come back to America in 2016.
And we came back right in October, and just in time for Trump to get elected.
And it was just a really bizarre time to come home to America.
But we came home to Pittsburgh.
never had anything with Pittsburgh except for the Pittsburgh Steelers that as a Wisconsin boy and a and a Packer fan I just I hated Pittsburgh but Pittsburgh is a really beautiful place and the people are really nice and the they're really down-to-earth Midwesterners more than they are East Coasters I thought for sure um and and they're and they're hard working and uh
It's, they're not great drivers and whatever, but there are lots of hills and, you know, there's lots of things to complain about here, but it's a really nice, small neighborhood place.
I feel very safe in Pittsburgh.
Um, and we love it here.
Uh, but at the start of the pandemic, um, I was really focused on this, this idea that I had a few more years to get my act together.
I wasn't even going to make it in the States.
But I was going to try to make it as a neurobiologist.
And in trying to maximize what I was doing, it had dawned on me about four months before the pandemic started that I had been riding my bike back and forth to the med school.
And I was recording just for safety in case somebody hit me with their car.
I had this camera that I just recorded every day.
And sometimes I would watch it if something interesting would happen.
And what I noticed at one point was that I could hear myself extremely clearly yelling at the cars.
And it dawned on me that, wow, what could I use this ride for?
I'm on an electric bike.
It's like half an hour, 40 minutes.
It's not completely exhausting.
And I can talk to myself.
So maybe I should do Journal Club.
And I tried it and it worked really, really well.
And I had this one trick that I don't even know if I've told anybody this, but I had, my electric bike has a square crossbar.
And so I used to print out a really tiny set of notes that would kind of describe the four figures of the paper so that I at least have some hint as to what the four images of the paper were, the five figures of the paper.
And so it seemed like I could remember the five figures of the paper every time, but I actually had little hints on my crossbar that nobody could see, of course.
So then as I'm riding my bike and if I needed to look down, I just wait for a stop sign, look down.
Oh yeah, that's right.
That was the figure.
And so it made it a real nice, you know, I could do it succinctly every night.
And if I had read the paper and I planned it out and I had my little outline, it was like gold.
I could ride and I could give this journal club.
And at the start of the pandemic, I had experiments going and my boss designated me an essential employee.
And so I was riding with the empty streets.
And so it just seemed obvious I should just read a few coronavirus papers and wax intellectual about what might be going on.
And as I went through this exercise of opening the coronavirus literature and looking at blogs, it was crazy, actually, how many people already knew this was a lab leak in February of 2020.
And not science people at universities, but some random blogger over here, some random dude over there.
And they all had this common theme that there was this furin cleavage site that made it obvious it was a lab leak.
I couldn't believe it.
And so those people all agreed that certain papers were especially interesting.
And so I read those first.
And before I knew it, I was doing what I typically do, which is take those bibliographies and then read those papers.
And before you know it, you start to build a sort of skeleton of what these people think about their little hypothesis.
And it dawned on me immediately that obviously it could just be a lab leak.
I mean, they don't mean to do it, but I mean, if they're messing with this stuff and going to get them and bringing them around, why couldn't it be a lab leak?
And then they have this, somebody said that they have this, you know, like four laboratories in the place where it supposedly came from.
So duh.
And then this whole theater played out on television and on social media and arguments in the Senate and, and these, these, you know,
censorship of different people and whatever and it just became this immensely enticing whirlwind of trying to catch up with the latest on this or the latest on that or who said this and that and it just it sucked me in so quickly and and engulfed me in so many ways and it was
It was because I was a person who took for granted the idea that I just thought that everything that was published was true.
And so if they published papers about viruses, then I guess they're true.
If they published papers about pandemic potential in bat caves, I guess it's true.
And so when you read those papers under the pretense that nobody would exaggerate, that nobody would use the scientific literature to seed a biosecurity narrative that they could then years later turn and use against us,
But it took this question of getting to the point where people were rewarding me.
I guess this is where I got invited to do the Red Pill Conference because Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
asked me to help him write this book.
And that is really when I was writing that book.
working extremely hard at that point, because he was paying me very well to focus my whole day on it.
So I was reading papers that I didn't need to read just to be thorough.
And so at that point, I had, like it or not, become an armchair virologist of some sort or another, at least from the perspective of PubMed.
And at some point, I guess I should back up a second and say that when Bobby first called me,
to write this book, I still hadn't questioned, I wasn't questioning the entire vaccine schedule.
I wasn't aware that the new things that were coming out were transfections because I had used that in my work a lot.
I used RNA to change the expression of proteins in mice all the time.
Like it's just transfection.
So I didn't understand why they were calling it an investigational vaccine.
That's just kind of was crap.
And I was pissed about that.
But when Bobby called me in 2022, I was nowhere close.
I had nowhere close to questioning the vaccine schedule.
And in fact, a couple months later, we would have to move.
And in this new school district, my kids would get their shots while I was already working for Bobby.
And it was only months into my employment with Bobby that talking to one of my
my fellow editing team people who was working also for CHD, that I had never seen Vaxxed or Vaxxed 2.
She was like, what?
Bobby Kennedy, you didn't even know about those movies?
Like, you should put your, turn your computer off and download that, you know, or whatever.
Go upstairs and watch it.
Like, shut up and get, you know,
get educated.
And so this was, I don't know if this was a month after we had given our boys their round of shots and, and, and, but we, my wife and I both cried.
Like we were shocked.
And so this was me getting kicked out of a moving truck.
It was more like that with regard to the real implications of what was going on.
And so then I worked extra hard, worked extra hard.
And before you know it, we were nine months into writing the book, or I was nine months into my assisting writing the book.
And he asked me this crucial question about what virologists mean with regard to infectious clones.
And I took an additional three weeks to try and really make sure that I had a good answer for him.
And in the end, it's kind of become my overarching conclusion that infectious clones, this term that they use in virology, it's like a term that doesn't mean
what they say it means.
It's a code term or it covers up the idea that really what they're doing is they're taking a synthetically manufactured DNA or a synthetically manufactured RNA and then they're applying it to a cell culture or they're applying it to an animal model and then they're calling that virology.
And there's lots of different ways and permutations that that can be done.
Lots of different methods to force the DNA or the RNA into the cell culture or into the animal.
But no matter which way they do it, they misconstrue this very synthetic and non-natural application of genetic material.
They misconstrued that as a pretty good approximation of virology with the simple sort of shell game that, well, we can find these sequences over here.
And so if we make these sequences over here and then put them on cell culture, it's the same thing as what these sequences over here do.
And that's a very, very big lie, because the sequences that they find over here are more like traces or shadows, and the sequences that they make over here are very, very real, and they're very, very pure, and there's very, very many of them.
And so, yeah, that cartoon's a very good one.
You take the synthetic DNA that you want, you make a little circular DNA of it, and then you can use a bacterial culture to make many, many copies of it.
And there's no natural way by which a small DNA molecule like is found in a DNA virus or a small RNA molecule like is found in a coronavirus could be copied with such high fidelity and produced in such high quantity as can be done in these traditional, what amount to industrial methods.
These are the same methods that are used to make monoclonal antibodies or any other protein biologic.
And the difference is, is that when they're making the protein as the endpoint, there's actually more steps and there's more purification to be done, whereas with an RNA transfection, they can stop after they've produced the RNA and call it done.
So the important thing to understand here I think from the 30,000 foot perspective is that the illusion of virology is that RNA by itself and the right combination can, you know,
perpetuate itself around the world.
That's what at the heart of the word pandemic for a coronavirus is that an RNA molecule, if you go with the cartoon that they said in 2020, it had a fear and cleavage site.
Because it had a fear and cleavage site, it could go from Wuhan all around the world, and in fact, it's still going now.
but previously it could never be tracked beyond a few sequences.
The best example that I've found in the literature is a 2007 paper by Mark Van Ronst in Belgium where they found a new human coronavirus that they called NL60 or NL
43?
I don't remember what it is.
It's one of the four endemic coronaviruses.
When it was found in 2007, in this study, they managed to track it through or find it in 27 cases.
And then they just lost it, or they couldn't find any more of it, or I don't know.
So this unprecedented level, we're at like 17 million sequences of it now.
This is just ridiculous.
This is just a giant mythology that they're throwing money at it and everybody's getting rich from it, but it's not really producing real biology.
And it's a crying shame, really, because this all descends from the illusion that was, I guess, originally created by the Human Genome Project.
That's what really has come down to it for me, because the Human Genome Project, I think, started out with good intentions, but they had no idea, really, how they were going to get to the end.
They just knew that they had to.
And at some point they told us that they got there, but they really haven't, and they still haven't gotten there.
And so there are small examples of where sequencing can be done with high fidelity.
There's small examples of where these technologies are very reliable and very useful, but the idea that they have taken
the, you know, multi-billion base pair genome of the human and mapped it successfully so that they could generalize across individuals is just absurd.
It spends so much money on it though that they have to, you know, produce something.
Absolutely, and I actually, I would argue, and I've come to this argument only recently, I would argue that the no virus position is actually a
very tiny lie and compared to the lie of the Human Genome Project.
And so if you spend all of your effort trying to decide exactly whether there are viruses or not, you're not even kind of close to the real big lie, the real big exaggeration that they have.
Yeah, I think it's to keep people caught in that
you know, distraction, right?
So you don't, you're not, it's a decoy.
So you're not actually looking at what's really happening.
And that's how most psyops operate.
You know, when I talk to people who've done psychological operations in the military, they always tell me they're like, it's 90 to 95% truth.
And then there's, you know, the five or 10% lie.
And oftentimes what they tell me is that it's very rarely even a real lie.
Oftentimes it's omission, lack of context or weaponizing the truth itself.
So, it's a time period of releasing the truth or distortion of minor proportions, but enough to keep your wheel spinning so you don't actually get at the real truth.
Well, there is a fine line between announcement and warning, and there's a fine line between slowly letting you in on a secret versus trying to bring you to understand something.
So, a lot of these people are essentially functioning as announcers.
or people that are slowly releasing the truth rather than... I'm pretty pessimistic.
I think that it's possible that people like Alex Jones or David Icke have long-term been playing that kind of game.
This is my personal opinion on Alex.
I think that he may have started off more authentic, but I think they've had him by the noose for so long that it's like, you know, I mean, if you're, if you're like a guns to your head and your choice is, okay, we bend a little bit or we'll, we'll shoot you.
you might bend a little bit or even worse, like we're going to shoot your child.
You know, it's like people start to make compromises and that's often more often than not.
I think that's in general how these things work.
People like to think that everybody is some sort of like really controlled long range planted operation, but oftentimes it's situational pressures and it's way more complicated than people would imagine.
They're not to say that there aren't actual plants that does happen, but I think those are actually very rare.
Yeah, I think I would, I would tend to agree.
Um, and definitely it's much more useful if the people that are actively part of the narrative curation are not in the front of the narrative curation.
So it's still best in my mind for them to find people they can put in front and kind of influence rather than stand directly in the camera.
Although I do think there are some examples, especially in COVID of people that have, they have decided to put insiders in front of the camera because the narrative is so in need of that type of control.
Especially with regard to this stuff.
I mean, that's why I think for example I've had so much interaction so many different interactions with so many different groups because for a long time I I feel like there were various people that were trying to juggle me and make sure that I was Focused on what they wanted me to be focused on and at some point I think they just kind of gave up but I
They gave up right around this time when I decided that, you know, Bobby, I think they probably just lied about it.
I don't think RNA can pandemic.
I don't think that RNA is capable of doing that, but I do think that PCR tests can be fraudulent.
I think PCR tests can be made to become positive.
And I'm absolutely sure that if they wanted to find a sequence in five different places on earth at once, it would be the most trivial thing to do.
absolutely, positively the most trivial thing to do.
Because of that cartoon you showed there, they can make kilograms of the same basic DNA sequence, which means they could take grams of it and put it anywhere they wanted to put it, and you only need nanograms of it before the sequence will be so easy to find it's a joke.
That's the trick with sequencing, right?
That's the part of molecular biology that maybe most professional biologists don't understand is that the only way that we can sequence any sequence of DNA is if we make enough copies of it.
And it's only very, very, very, very recently that
Technologies like Nanopore have come along where individual single reads can be done with some degree of reliability, but the problem is that those reads have a lot of errors, so you kind of have to run it more than once in order to get some kind of average.
I don't really understand it completely.
where they've gained the ability to read individual molecules at a time.
They've also lost fidelity in that that they used to have because they were reading thousands of the same molecule and then taking that signal and calling it a sequence.
And so there's lots of this, you know, the nuts and bolts of the molecular biology that if that if the average Joe understood it, then they would understand that the fidelity
know the the finality of oh my gosh we sequenced it and we know for sure it's him is is not as as uh as high fidelity as everybody thinks it is it's not like they've
They've taken all the base pairs of Courtney and put them out on a piece of paper and then lined them up against all the base pairs of the unknown suspect that they sequenced and then carefully looked across those billions of pairs and said, yep, it's definitely Courtney, because that's not what they need to do in order to make an estimation like that.
But they want you to believe
that that's the fidelity with which they sequence the genome.
Let me just give you that in a visual, yeah.
If you sequence a genome and it's just this long, I'm just going to represent the genome as one long line, what you do actually, when you want to compare my genome to your genome and decide whether we're the same person or not,
What you do if this is your genome and this is my genome, what we do is we take a set of known restriction enzymes and we make a restriction enzyme map of your genome and mine.
So a restriction enzyme map is akin to an enzyme that cuts a book
at a particular combination of words.
So if you took a book off the shelf and you took a scissors and you cut the book at every page that had the word combination, suddenly, suddenly she looked to the left.
And so you search this novel for every time they say suddenly she looks to the left and there might only be two cuts in your novel.
But in my novel, those cuts will be here
and here and here because it was used three times in my book.
Now, if we were the same person,
then when we cut that novel, if we were the same book and we cut that novel where suddenly she looks to the left, then the cuts would end up in the same place in the novel.
But if we're not the same novel, then those cuts will show up in different places or some of those cuts won't show up at all.
And so that's basically how they map a genome to see whether or not it's you or it's me.
They make a series of restriction enzyme maps where they cut with one enzyme and they get this map.
Then they cut the same genome
Again, yours and mine with another enzyme and we compare that map.
And if we were the same person, then both of these enzyme maps would be the same.
And the more enzyme maps you cut, the more likely it is that if all those maps overlap, then that must be the same person.
And so they do it with like 10 or 12 enzymes.
And now the odds of those maps overlapping and you not be the same person is like infinitesimal.
But that is not the same thing as sequencing a genome.
That's not the same thing at all.
And yet actually, to a large extent, the accomplishment of the human genome was doing this exercise over and over enough so that they were kind of confident that they knew some landmarks that were shared across many people.
And that's it.
So imagine that you said, well, we have detailed maps of all the national parks in the United States.
But in reality, you have generalized across all national parks in the United States, such that you understand that at least most national parks have some outdoor bathrooms, they have some designated camp areas, and they have some things that are called trailheads.
And so, okay, but does that mean you understand all national parks and can describe them all and how they all work?
Of course not.
But that's all they did with the Human Genome Project.
They made a landmark map, and that's about all they could do at that time.
And then they built on and added more complicated sequencing things so that they could maybe sequence this little chunk that sometimes shows up in people as this bigger chunk.
And then they would focus on that chunk for a while because that chunk actually was associated with Alzheimer's disease.
But in the end, we're 20 years into this reiterative lie, never actually crossed the finish line of saying, okay, we now have a definitive, useful understanding of the basic construct that is the human genome.
That's wrong.
They're never going to get that.
And well, maybe not never, but they're certainly not going to get it until many, many generations of people submit to full experimental testing and submit all their data to their analysis.
Otherwise they have no hope of cracking this code.
Because we are some of the most complicated examples of pattern integrities that exist in the universe.
You're not going to crack this code.
by just a few measurements and certainly not by a few hundred restriction enzyme maps, which is what generally speaking is
whole genome screening.
You're not sequencing the whole thing and then reading it all out like a ticker tape.
You're just making landmark maps and seeing to what extent certain known landmarks are present or not present in the disease form or in the natural healthy form.
And to the extent to which that they can make some of those predictions, they have exaggerated to suggest that eventually we're going to be able to do the whole thing like that.
And that is really
all the way down to this illusion that we can sequence viruses because that's all that's out there.
And so this sort of hand-waving and oversimplification of what has accomplished and how much fidelity we have of understanding extends from
its roots in the Human Genome Project, but now have really imprisoned us in this model of public health.
And Mike Eden said it best last week.
Actually, I wholly agree with him.
I think the idea of vaccines was already conceived with this era in particular in mind.
What do you mean?
I didn't see it.
What do you mean by that?
The whole concept of intramuscular injection to protect you against disease is an imaginary construct that people, one generation before us, like Joshua Lederberg, envisioned as a way in which
people would readily give up their sovereignty and surrender to experimental genetic testing by making vaccination an accepted sort of therapeutic, that intramuscular injection.
And so these people already knew a long time ago.
One of the best examples that I have is a book called Man and His Future.
It is from
It was printed in 1963.
And in this book, there is a chapter written by a man by the name of Hilary Koprowski.
He's got a very interesting history.
And it's called The Future of Infectious and Malignant Diseases.
And you won't believe it, but he describes viruses and that they will likely come from bats.
And so these people, and I've found lots more, we have found lots more examples, I should credit Uwe Altschner for tipping me to this book, which is just extraordinary because in this book, they also talk about how nations are holding back the human race because the human race needs to...
be a global endeavor to manage his future.
And so these individuals, these people have been pushing this narrative that we need to take control of our evolution and sort of direct our future.
by waking up and taking, pulling our big boy pants on, you know, and taking responsibility as big, strong genetic engineers.
It's extraordinary.
It's astounding to me because it doesn't matter like what angle you start
Investigating like once you start going to the right route down the rabbit hole i mean you're going through molecular biology and you know like some people went through education and some people went through the economic system right you know the federal reserve like you ever griffin talked about and it doesn't seem to matter because they all converge.
It's like, this is the goal.
The goal was this internationalist economic world order, and it's a globalist agenda.
And it is just astounding to me that it doesn't matter what angle you come at it, you come to the same, you find the same goals.
You know, I'm not saying that there's necessarily all the same players, although you come across the same players.
But I think that there's
There's definitely an intricate web involved.
It's not like a one entity, one person necessarily.
But the agenda seems to be pretty, you know, universal.
It's across the board.
That's their role.
So, yeah.
It is alarming when you see it and I definitely did not see it.
I was also a real big fan of
of reading about the history of science, but for some reason or another, I think you can also read there a long time and not come into contact with this.
Once you find it, and once you see it for what it is, it's very extraordinary.
I would really encourage you to look up Hilary Koprowski and actually
My friend Mark Kulak of Housatonic Live, he's done a lot of really good work on the history of these people.
And he's an American, and so I really like to promote him a lot too.
But yeah, he's really done a lot of work.
sort of retracing the the big ideas and he's really come back to Joshua Lederberg as one of these guys who from very early on before anybody should have had any idea about this stuff Joshua Lederberg was talking
He actually coined the phrase, the microbiome.
He coined, I don't know if he coined the phrase zoonosis, but he was the guy who helped write the movie Outbreak or Contagion.
He's quoted at the beginning of Outbreak.
He's a guy who predicted that we would use computers to sort out the genome before we even had
meaningful computing power.
And this guy, Hilary Koprowski, is really interesting because he's kind of, he might even be the guy that they made the movie The Pianist about, because he's strange.
He's a Polish virologist who went through World War II.
It seems like he kind of sort of went through the camps, but then escaped to the Vatican, and then played piano in Italy for a while, and then went to Brazil, and then came to the
came to work with, I think the United States and the UK on a yellow fever vaccine.
And his wife was also a virologist that nobody mentions.
And he's very well connected at least intellectually to some of these other grandfathers.
I don't know if there are pictures or things with all these different people, but the mentor
potential at this time was very narrow.
There weren't very many people in this space.
David Baltimore was still young at that time.
Lederberg actually was the head of Rockefeller before David Baltimore took over.
Hilary Kaprowski, I think, is
kind of above some of these people like Stanley Plotkin and some of these other people that are associated with the original vaccine schedule in America.
Isn't there Franklin Enders?
Yeah, okay, that's another one, yeah.
So you have, you'd be better off talking to Mark about the people, but I just know that I think it's very, very useful to have people like Mark or like Matt Aret or that are really trying to work out where this
where these ideas were, how they sprouted, where they were, how you developed them.
The historical and social and situational ties, definitely.
And it's really narrow, you know.
It's really a lot of fathers to sons, you know, especially in some of these military organizations or the Department of Energy and that kind of thing.
Like the people that are involved now in the dissident movement of COVID, for example, one guy that I've had a lot of negative interactions with, Kevin McKernan, is a guy who worked at the Human Genome Project and whose father was actually in microarray technology.
So that's at least two generations that have been connected to, you know, I mean, the Human Genome Project, as I said, is one of the main sort of
I don't know what I would call it, but it's one of these mythologies, kind of like the National Cancer Institute about how much money they have versus what problems they're really solving.
I think it's a money laundering operation.
That's kind of what it looks like anyway.
That's a bold claim.
you know, when you start following the money, of their own admission with the National Cancer Association, they say that, you know, they need to receive like a ton more money, even though they've received like, you know, I don't know, something like, I don't remember what the last numbers were, but it was like hundreds of millions, you know.
And then they said, but the problem is 10 times worse, but don't worry, give us more money.
We'll figure out the problem, we'll have to solve the problem.
Like really, because all that money helped you before?
We go right back to the Human Genome Project then, right?
Because all of the money that the NIH spends on cancer is based on genetic causes of cancer, which is a giant excuse for them to again, if we flip back to this, whoops, if we flip back to this thing really quick, it's just to, oh, we wanna study this part again.
And so they wanna study that part again and sequence and even more.
So then they dedicate even more money to the genetic causes of X, Y, and Z.
And as long as they keep looking for the genetic causes of autism or the genetic causes of Alzheimer's or the genetic causes, they're never going to find the environmental causes.
They're never going to find the toxic causes.
They're never going to find any of those things because their default is that anything worth finding is genetic.
And so they have this idea, they've converted everyone in neuroscience to thinking about the brain as a series of genes that turn like gears together.
And so everybody's looking for a gene that they can study in the brain and then blame it on everything or claim that it's the one key gene that does everything.
And this will get us nowhere, never.
It's frustrating because I know, I was there, I was engaged, fully engaged in trying to participate in that system.
So I know how enticing it is, I know how you can be convinced by it.
But after all of this work, these last 4 years, I'm convinced that it's worth the rest of my life to try and save as many people from this mythology.
Really, I think it's...
It's everybody's responsibility at this stage to try and get people out of the trap.
Yeah, absolutely.
So I want to address a couple of things.
You brought up the new virus being a small lie.
So would you expound on that a little bit?
Oh, sure.
Sure.
Absolutely.
I can just hear people already asking that.
Oh, so I think there's two things there.
There's two sides to that.
I don't know if I need a piece of paper and I'll turn it over.
There's two sides of that.
First of all, I don't think there's anybody on the no virus side that would argue that there are no bacteriophages.
Bacteriophages are simply genetic signals that are shared between bacteria.
You can have different biologists tell you different things.
Some biologists will tell you that bacteriophages are things that
that prey on viruses or that are that are that that's kind of the the illustration that people have in their mind but you shouldn't think of it that way you should think of it as part of the pattern integrity that is
that is bacteria.
And part of that four-dimensional flower is these small genetic signals that can be shed from bacteria in certain situations or certain conditions that allow this population of the bacteria to more adequately sort their genome to create the maximum chance of them surviving the adverse conditions.
And so a lot of times phages are produced when the bacteria colony seems to be in a situation where more genetic diversity might be necessary or the genetic diversity can be shared.
There's lots of different explanations for it.
But if you think of it this way and see it as a part of the natural biology of the bacteria, not something outside of them, then you will also very easily see
why two, probably two very big events happened that revealed that this was going on.
The first being that DDT probably caused people's lungs and or guts to become semi-permeable so that toxins from our normally, you know, inert
microbiome entered our circulation, caused inflammation, even caused paralysis.
Some of those viruses might even be bacteriophages that are not infecting us at all, but if they are allowed to get past our immune barriers, then they can cause inflammation, they can cause all kinds of things.
And I'm kind of speculating here on polio, but I'm not so much speculating here with regard to HIV.
I think there's a very good chance that HIV is the background, a background, background, back doorway that they discovered.
They haven't told us this yet, but I'm just hypothesizing.
that our immune system right now they would tell you that our immune system basically communicates to get all these cells that all go around all by themselves and they communicate using interleukins and cytokines and that's it.
I don't think that's very likely.
I think it's actually very likely that they also use exosomes in the form of either RNA signals, or more importantly, they could use retroviral signals and actually transform the cells that receive the signals.
And so that would mean that a particular T cell might be able to signal to other T cells.
Those T cells that respond to it can genetically alter
their specificity or whatever in real time.
Now, the only leap of faith that you would need is that when Hilary Koprowski and when these other people were preparing these vaccines in the early days, they were using oftentimes chimpanzee
cultures chimpanzee tissue into culture these, whatever they made, and then when they injected this monkey derived material into these patients, they were inevitably injecting very closely related immune signals.
that were sufficiently closely related that they could essentially throw our own immune system out of whack.
And if that was the case, then none of these scientists would have said, oh my gosh, we just discovered that our immune systems use, in fact, all mammals use retroviruses.
And we screwed up big time because we put these very compatible retroviruses that we shouldn't have put in, we put them in there.
So rather than doing that, they called it a disease.
And now they have free reign to explore how our own immune system uses retroviruses under the pretense of all retroviruses are outside of us and probably zoonotic.
And so this led to the idea that retroviruses cause cancer.
And we looked for a very, very long time to try and show evidence that retroviruses cause cancer.
And the whole time through all of this early biology, no one has ever, no one ever posited the idea that, wait, how is all this happening without the cell's permission?
How is this happening without any of that machinery being used in other ways normally?
And I think in,
In cancer biology and a few other isolated fields, it's already become obvious that there are these kinds of signals that are released and you can use these signals to find cancer.
You can use these signals to diagnose stuff.
That's because healthy tissue and disease tissue are communicating using exosomes all the time.
There's a very wonderful example from neuroscience that I had a lot of personal experience with that I tried to share at the Red Pill Conference, but probably
didn't explain it very well.
There have been very few good signals in the brain for what was recently activated.
And so one of the sort of holy grails of neuroscience would be to be able to look inside of a mouse in real time, and all the neurons that are working together would be the same color or something like that.
And so if you had a transparent mouse and a really fast camera, then you could watch in real time as the mouse figures out things and map which things are talking to which ones.
And then, oh, my gosh, we could really figure out a lot.
Right.
So in the 90s, people started to look for genes that could be used for markers that way.
Genes, of course, because we're interested in genes.
So we're looking for immediate early genes.
We're looking for genes that if we stain for them, they are only found in neurons that are recently activated.
Well, how the hell would they do that?
Well, most of those experiments were based on single shot learning experiences.
So there are only a few single shot learning experiences.
Usually they involve extreme pain and fear, or they involve a really nicely, highly concentrated addictive drug.
The best one, cocaine.
So you give them a rat cocaine.
It's a one time learning thing.
If they push a pedal and they get cocaine, they're going to push that pedal a lot.
even if they don't get cocaine for many, many, many pushes after they're going to pound on that thing.
So that was considered a good model.
And so they started to use that as a way of, okay, we're going to give that mouse rat cocaine.
As soon as he shows that extremely repetitive behavior, we're going to freeze his brain.
We're going to slice it up and we're going to map, and we're going to see what genes are expressed and see if we can see any patterns.
And so after a lot of work, they identified three or four genes that seemed to come on in the places that they had identified that were involved in addiction.
And they came on in real time, like five minutes after the exposure.
One of those genes was ARK.
It is a actin-associated cytoskeletal protein.
Essentially what it does is it allows the cytoskeleton to come into little pieces.
And so that a normally quite structurally sound neuron with many little branches might be able to make its branches move a little bit or might be able to extend pieces off of its branches if the actin skeleton is somewhat mobilized.
So the mechanistic explanation was really enticing because any neuron that was recently activated and needed to remodel in order to better remember where the cocaine came from would be expressing this ARC protein and then be able to rearrange its synapses.
So this, I think for at least 15 years, ARC was the primary, that's it.
ARC was the primary protein that was used as a basic marker.
Maybe you could send in a paper and a reviewer might say, you know what would be really interesting to really help this paper, is if you would take a subset of your animals and stain for ARC to see where other places in the brain are activated.
And then people would be, you know, Oh no, you know, six more months of stuff, but it's super easy to do because the antibodies are available.
So let's just do it.
So it became this thing that was in every paper and everybody did it and all everybody just, it started to become the thing that everybody did.
You look for arc was arc activated, you know, then, um, when I moved to the Netherlands, we acquired a mouse, believe it or not, that, um, the neurons that expressed arc would glow in the dark for about five hours.
Wow.
It was really cool.
You could take these animals, train them in a fear conditioning paradigm, and then five hours later open their brain.
And I could make recordings from the neurons that were green.
And that was that was freaking cool, because then we could really, you know, target the neurons that were just activated and see if they were connected or how they were connected.
And this just this this this this failed miserably because they were never connected.
And
I couldn't see any difference between the green and non-green, and it was a terrible disaster.
It looked great on paper.
It sounded great.
I was like, wow.
I spent literally 300,000 euros on the equipment and four years trying to get it to work, and we never really got my part of the paper done because there was no electrical signal that I could discern that was different between these neurons that were activated and the neurons that weren't.
And, you know, we kind of were naive in thinking about what we could do and how we could do it, but it just seemed like it was going to work.
Well, here, you know, years later, after those experiments were done and I had moved to Pittsburgh, this guy found that actually ARC protein, sorry, excuse me, I said that in the Red Pill Conference and I said it wrong, ARC RNA
is packaged in viral-like particles by the neurons that express it and released and given to other neurons so that neurons nearby that weren't activated by the stimulus that expressed ARC would still be able to mobilize their synapses if they were nearby the neuron that was releasing the ARC RNA.
And when they look for it, they just find viruses that are encoding this ARC.
And so the crazy part is, is that the guy that discovered this is now regularly on This Week in Virology because, of course, they have to control this narrative.
They don't want anybody thinking that this is just the tip of the iceberg, that maybe the brain uses all kinds of these signals, not just ARK, but any number of genes could be sent this way for any number of reasons.
And then never mind the idea that the immune system could communicate this way.
that the liver might communicate with the immune system this way, that the brain might communicate with all kinds of organ systems this way.
And so this whole concept that instead of having a background signal that's just
You have this extremely busy background signal that's full of endogenous signaling where the immune system's talking, different systems are talking.
And so instead of the PCR test in your nose being on a background of nothing, it's actually on a background of DNA and RNA being shared by bacteria and DNA and RNA being shed by your own cells, DNA and RNA that's being shed by all the organisms around you.
And so there's no,
there's no clean background here.
And yet before the pandemic, we had no data on this background.
And then in the start of the pandemic, apparently everything just works.
We can just find coronaviruses.
It's very high fidelity.
It's just yes or no.
It's only a few false positives and don't worry about everything else because it's just not possible.
And this is the,
What I'm describing is an irreducible complexity.
And what they have described is this oversimplification where there's almost no possibility of error.
And the signal that we're talking about is so new that you can't mistake it with anything else.
And all of these certainties have been stuck to from the very beginning by people like Tony Fauci, but also people like Robert Malone.
And that's what gets pretty creepy about it.
Yeah.
Well, I'd like you to expound on that a little bit.
And, uh, then I also wanted to ask just in relationship to what you're talking about, um, pleomorphism, is that related?
Um, you know, I would, I, I don't know.
Uh, I, I would be, I would, I would want to, I'm going to just do it right now.
Okay.
Cause I know pleomorphism is this idea that like, uh, proteins can, um,
you know, they can change.
But I don't know how that relates to the type of messaging that you're discussing.
Oh, well, OK, I see what you mean.
I guess I didn't know the I didn't know the definition of that word that.
If I read the definition now, I'm not really sure that.
I'm not sure really how I should answer the question.
Yeah, that's OK.
I think I would answer it the same way that I've been trying to sing it on the last few streams.
If you see that as a detail, then you should see it as a detail that makes understanding the whole more difficult.
And so, for me, that's fine.
The idea that proteins and cells, depending on the conditions that they're in, can show drastically different morphology, drastically different function, that's for sure.
The question is, to what extent is that the interaction between genes and the conditions, or the proteins and the conditions, or some unknown party that we don't know about yet, that we haven't identified that's governing that interaction,
So for me, the thing that I see that was wrong about my approach to biology is that, I'll give you an example, I'll just hold up this for an example.
But if you take this general biology book and you go through it, and you go from page one to page three to page five, and they keep telling you things, the naive
student or let's say the traditional student is thinking, okay, so they understand this, and then they understand that, and they understand all that.
Oh, wow, they understand this too.
Oh, gosh, they understand all this.
Look at all these details.
Wow, they understand all of this instead of going,
Wow, it's this complicated?
Oh no, it's even more complicated.
Oh my gosh, it's way more complicated than that.
Oh no, oh my gosh, it's even worse.
Oh shit, we've got no chance.
Oh my gosh, I better get the Bible out.
Oh man, wow.
I mean, this is just, you become reverent, you become humble.
And so if you've gone through the book correctly, it's humiliating.
If you go through it incorrectly, it makes you feel arrogant.
And I think that's what a naive, typical academic biologist becomes arrogant because they think they're about to discover a mountain that no one's climbed and they're going to climb it and that that's going to contribute something really significant toward this book, which is understanding.
But it's not understanding.
What this book is, is an attempt to simplify how complicated stuff is.
in such a way that you can kind of get a grasp on it, that you can kind of appreciate the mountain from one brief angle.
Yeah, well I mean the way I would think of it is like on the mountain you've got the trees and there are all these different types of trees and you've got you know the grass and you may have some
you know, climate, and you've got some animals, and so the book is kind of giving you a landscape of these various things that make up the mountain, but it doesn't necessarily tell you how the mountain comes into being, or how the ecosystem functions, or how it sustains, or any of those things, so.
Right, right, and it definitely doesn't tell you anything about the geology that resulted in the mountain in the first place or what they ever did over the last 10,000 years for sure.
And that's really, for me, where this all comes back to is that this, you know,
I think that part of the issue of this is that there are different things at stake for different people.
And so if you have kids, there's something at stake that's different than if you're young and just going to college.
Things are different if you don't have old parents anymore, or if you do.
And so everybody's got a different stakes.
And so this biology and how it's been
you know, sort of used very malevolently against us has, we've got to start to kind of make choices about, okay, so where, where is it worst?
Where, where are they doing the most damage to us?
And then we've got to kind of agree, I think together to fight against those things.
Because that is really where we're at.
There's plenty of people who will tell us that our system is broken.
There's plenty of people who will say that people are lying, but not very many people are willing to say, okay, so if they're lying, then where are the worst lies?
Where are the worst...
expressions of this and how can we attack them?
And I think that's why biology is an exciting place for me to accidentally find myself because the vaccine schedule is extremely important in this list of places where they are actively injuring us, actively damaging our kids' future, and it's something that we can, at least I feel like as a biologist, I can really put as much pressure on as possible.
Well, I would address two things there.
So firstly, I mean, part of the reason I even asked the question about pleomorphism is because if a cell has the ability to change and then that alters the manifestation of what it does and possibly the communication to other cells and how they operate, we saw, you know, as a result, I know even before
anything rolled out.
There's a lot of concerns that the injections might cause a prion's disease, which is this morphology of the proteins, right?
So I think just having an understanding of what pleomorphism could do and how that could manifest in, you know, illness or not,
and then understanding how something synthetic could create, you know, that kind of altering of the proteins, like resulting in something like prions, which could be quite devastating, right?
So that was, yeah.
I think that's one of the things that I think we can go from here.
I mean, and just make sure you remember, don't forget 10 minutes ago, I didn't really know what that term meant, but
If we flip that around, we already, from the academic bench, we already knew that by expressing certain genes, we could take highly differentiated cells and kind of revert them to an embryonic state.
And then from an embryonic state, they can go in a different direction, which is essentially a different kind of pleomorphism, right?
It's just showing that
that the cell development program can go in both directions and can go in multiple directions.
And so there is definitely evidence for that on the academic bench that no academic biologist would argue.
And so if there are ways that toxins can cause it to happen, or there are natural ways that this happens, then I think it's only just further evidence that the system is quite complicated.
Now, with prions, it's important.
I have a feeling, I'm not going to go there yet, but I think in about half a year I will go there.
The more that people write about something in biology, the less I believe it.
I find that's true.
That's a pretty good heuristic in general.
If you have to write a book this big about prions, I don't believe you anymore.
Because it's a very simple concept, right?
The problem with prions is that nobody can really succinctly describe it.
And there's 2 things, reasons why.
There are proteins in bacteria that behave in some ways like they say the prion disease behaves in mammals, but they are not at all related to one another.
There are proteins that fold similarly, and then you can inherit the folding pattern, and that can happen in bacteria.
But that's not the same as this purported
pathogenic folding where a very robust fold that can't be degraded can cause other proteins to very robustly fold in the same way.
And so one curious observation that you may not have made is that with all the advancements of Google and Google Fold and them announcing that Google Fold is pretty damn good at folding proteins, they haven't decided to
to take that program and try to explain how prion proteins work even though that should be a really high level very interesting question that according to these three giant books and one nobel prize is a very interesting thing they'd like to know why don't they ask google fold why it is that proteins can fold into prions or what prion folding is special about that
And they haven't done it, they won't do it.
The other thing that I find, you'll find very interesting is that one of the best friends of Stanley Prusiner, who's the guy who got the Nobel Prize for prion disease and one of his most influential mentors and one who got him to get a private audience in the Vatican before or right after his Nobel Prize was actually Hilary Koprowski.
Um, so, uh, Hillary Kaprowski is directly connected to the prion idea and the concept.
So again, it's, it, to me, it's very fishy.
I've done this whole book and this book is a lot of insistence and a lot of yes, it is.
And yes, it is.
But I don't, I don't know.
I'm very skeptical to the extent to which this is really hard biology versus a lot of speculation that's being misconstrued with some interesting phenomenon and bacteria that don't have.
a correlate in our own biology.
This is yet another prion book.
Lots of pre-on books.
And then all down there, those are all virology books.
It's crazy.
And then on that side of the thing, there is a chemistry, plants, genetics.
I mean, there's like seven different subjects on that side that only get one textbook.
And on this side, infectious disease and virology, all of them are two volumes.
There are seven authors, multiple editions.
I don't know, what is the Shakespeare line, the queen doth protest too much or something like that?
Lady doth protest too much, yes.
Yes, and she said they muddied the water so it appears deep.
Yes, exactly, exactly.
And I think that's really what gain of function is and what a lot of pandemic potential is.
I mean, what better way to run a completely safe and highly effective biosecurity state than have the main danger be an illusion?
For sure for sure.
Well, I'll just say I agree with you about the vaccine schedule So I I don't know how familiar you are with my story, but I was born the diagnosis is that I was born with congenital rubella Okay.
Yeah, so you're familiar with rubella.
Yeah, but I didn't know it could be congenital
Well, I'm not even sure that I subscribe to the narrative at all anymore, given what I know now.
But my mom definitely, there was some sort of complication during first trimester.
Right.
Okay.
I see.
And that what they claim is that it was congenital rubella.
So of course my parents, both of them were not vaccinated.
They did not get the MMR.
I see.
And so I was born with, I'm blind to one eye.
I'm bilaterally hearing impaired.
I actually didn't get hearing.
So I was almost six years old.
I learned how to speak by reading lips.
And that's, that's actually what led me to doing this podcast because everybody was wearing a mask.
And I was like, I want to have naked face conversation because I didn't realize how much I still depended on lip reading for clarity of speech.
I had heart surgery when I was a year old.
I had hypotonic limbs.
fine graphic motor impairment, stunted growth, like all sorts of complications.
They actually told my mom the best she could hope was to find a nice institution for me to spend my life.
And fortunately, they were wrong, and she didn't believe them.
So we're very grateful for that.
Yeah, thank you.
But all this to say, so I was very wedded to this idea of, you know,
you know, everybody has to have the MMR, you know, like vaccines are so important.
Like I'm living proof that, you know, of what can happen if people are not vaccinated.
I was like your biggest vaccine advocate.
And I had a very dear friend, uh, one of my best friends when I lived out in Santa Monica, California, before I moved and every, she had a son who had a seizure right after the MMR.
I mean, it was like hours after and,
very healthy, beautiful boy, like, she knew that it was definitely a reaction to this.
You know, she was mom, she's like, I know my son, this is what's going on.
And so she, and she was one of those, like a hardcore vaccine advocate.
You know, she said, anything Big Pharma and medicine, medical industry does, they know their stuff.
You know, she liked to stay out of it and, you know, do whatever she could naturally, but, you know, she didn't discredit them or, you know, she wasn't a skeptic in that regard.
And, but she started doing all sorts of research and she, and they kept gaslighting her.
Cause they kept telling her, there's no way that this could have caused that reaction.
Your son has something else going on.
And, and she's like, no, like I'm, I'm his mother.
I know, like I've watched this happen.
I know this will cause it.
So every time I would meet with her,
Like for the next year or whatever it was, this went on for actually quite a long time.
And she just kept telling me every time we would meet, telling me about vaccines and what she's learned.
And, you know, the MMR is like the big one and we have to get rid of it.
We have to fight it.
And I think at some point I got really kind of emotional and heated and I said, you know, I'm pretty open minded and I want to be sympathetic and listen.
But, you know, this is kind of personal.
Like, I just can't do this anymore.
Like the MMR is really important.
And my whole life and, you know, compromise and I deal with all these physical challenges because my parents didn't get the vaccine.
And then, of course, COVID hit, and I knew right away they were going to push some sort of vaccine.
I knew that this was what it was all about, and I started doing all sorts of research.
And I ended up pretty early on writing actually about the vaccines and what they were speculating.
And then I wrote a follow-up in 2021, I guess halfway through the year,
on the shedding that would possibly be happening.
And I wrote it as a speculative piece, but I had 39 sources in my speculative piece.
So it was not, you know, I didn't pull it out of my butt, like it was very well researched and documented.
But I presented it as this is a hypothesis and I can't prove it, obviously, other than drawing on what I can see in the literature and the previous history.
But all of my hypotheses, unfortunately, seem to be, have come true.
And so all this just to say, I think there is no, I'm convinced at this point that vaccines were, are the cause of tremendous illness and that there's no good reason to ever have a vaccine because
even if they did what they claim that they do, all the adjuvants and the fillers and the metals they put in it, to expect that that's not going to cause complications is at best naive, but I think at worst pretty sinister and nefarious.
So, but yeah.
I agree.
And I think that a way that you can, I think, usefully sharpen that message is to say that very specifically, if there was,
an immunization that would work, there is no way that it would work intramuscularly.
It might work if you inhaled it, it might work if you took it orally, it might work if they scratched it or injected it.
Even the polio, the oral polio did not, was not effective and caused harm.
No, and definitely it causes harm, but I think that the potential for harm of intramuscular injection is so much higher than any of these other... I mean, you can eat the wrong food, you can drink gasoline.
I mean, there's lots of ways to ingest things that are very bad for you, but intramuscular injection is a particularly ridiculous way of putting something into your body.
And I...
I really think that's one of the best revelations that I've had in these four years, is that's what makes it so absurd.
If you understand the immune system even in the way that these people want you to understand it, intramuscular injection seems dumb.
I would agree.
Well, I, I mean, I looked into, you know, all these allergies that have arisen.
Well, it turns out that like ingredient, my sister's anaphylactic to peanuts and ingredient number 57 in most of these childhood injections is peanut.
So, and that's because it's, it's intramuscularly.
So our bodies are designed to digest them when we, you know, when it goes through the digestive tract, but
they're not designed to, you know, receive it in the bloodstream.
So you go into like a, you know, a immune response.
And then of course, the next time you have it, the body goes into a trauma shock state, like, oh, wait, this was bad.
We remember that.
And it's trying to, you know, it's a protective mechanism.
But a lot of these allergies, like eggs are in so many of these injections, we wonder why so many people are allergic.
And I agree with you, I think it's because it's intramuscularly.
And that's not how we're designed to process these things.
Right.
I mean, all of these things should be either not passing your barriers, or if they pass your barrier, they should pass it through the gut.
And so when they do that, they're interacting with the immune system in a very specific kind of screening sort of way, whereas if
the immune system first encounters them in the company of some heavy metal floating around in your body, then it's not the right signal for the immune system.
The immune system doesn't know how to process it.
And the best case scenario is that the immune system is
I think I've read a lot of adjuvant descriptions as opening a window of learning.
So that's the best way of describing it.
Then essentially what you're doing is putting your immune system on alert, and then whatever you happen to be exposed to at that time, your immune system could potentially build a sensitivity to you.
for you.
So it might not even be in the shot.
It might be something that you eat at the same time or right after that you've been injected or something that you inhale right after you're injected or something that was in your body an hour before you were injected.
And so that's, I think, from the perspective of trying to
Describe to people the danger.
It's really really hard to to to just make a list of a few things that you should expect because again, it's a it's a system that's too complex for us to understand and the activation of it is is Something we don't understand and so the consequences of that are definitely and and then again, you know, you're you're faced with this
issue where if you're either aware that this is in a mythology or you're absolutely unaware and you you're almost incapable of attributing any
any consequences to that.
It would be like somebody who would do shots of bourbon all day, but absolutely convinced that I'm drunk, but it's not from the bourbon.
And just keep going with the bourbon.
And every day they do it.
And it's like, yeah, but it can't be from the bourbon.
Imagine a doctor who says that no matter how many times he notices that kids in his
in his practice are developing eczema and allergies and whatever.
There's just no possibility that it's the yearly flu vaccine.
It's no possibility that it's any of these things that are injected because that's not on the table of possibilities.
So we're really up against something here because of that.
We really need to fundamentally
approach the question in a different way.
That's why I've been trying to come up with these statements that I think
will make the gears inside of people's heads turn in a way they haven't turned before.
Because if you just say vaccines are bad, then you're using their terms and trying to redefine them instead of trying to give them a new idea to think about.
And then have them come to the, oh wait, he's talking about vaccines.
And so that's really what I'm trying to get at, especially because I think that so many people
that I used to work with and admire, or at least indirectly were a part of my field, are more than capable of coming to this realization, just like I did.
It's just a question of, will they hear the right combination of words and allow it to sink in?
I really think that.
That's how close we are to winning because if you and I were to have gotten together three years ago, I would have been trying to convince you that this was a lab leak, sure that they're covering it up, warning you about the spike protein and the potential for it to activate your immune system and cause clots and all these other imaginary things that they had us arguing about that may or may not be true about the spike protein, but it doesn't matter because
The RNA is not going around the world by itself and therefore there was no reason for anybody to take these transfections.
And so the equation is so very, very simple once it's reduced.
And that to me is what gives me optimism.
I think we're very close to a break here.
Even though it doesn't, maybe some people don't think so.
I know that behind the scenes, the steady pressure that people like you and others have been pushing from all directions.
I still think the only reason why it hasn't broken is because of social media.
We're already at like a 10 or 20% penetration where a good
One out of every five people, if you get them in an elevator, they're like, holy shit, I'm exactly with you, man.
And the other four might be even aware of what we're talking about, but they're not quite there yet.
But we're really close.
And if it wasn't for social media, this would have already busted wide open, I'm really sure of it.
That that would be great I wish So a couple of questions you said that it you would have been saying that this is a lab leak So what do you think the whole thing was just a narrative?
Do you think there was no actual COVID?
Do you think there was a bioweapon?
Do you think it was just it that there was nothing and then the vaccines were what really caused and they were I think there's a there's a couple very easy explanations the first easy explanation is that
that the background is hot rather than background being clean.
So if the background is hot and they are telling you that something is there that wasn't there before, but it was there before, then all the sequences could be real.
If they told you that, oh my gosh, this book is spreading like wildfire, it's everywhere, but they didn't tell you that it was on sale at Amazon for a year.
And then they went looking for it and they found it in all these bookstores, holy shit, it's going everywhere.
And they said it was spontaneously spreading, then that would be a lie.
And if they spent the last 10 years since the original SARS-1,
highly characterizing the background so that when they wanted to, they could say, hey, look, let's test for it.
Then already they have one aspect of it there.
Now, couple that with the fact
that what we talked about earlier, which is they can produce kilograms of pure DNA or pure RNA, which will be PCR positive and sequence positive wherever they want it to be.
So they can essentially put blue paint wherever they want to find it and then say they found blue paint.
So they have that possibility as well.
And then on top of that, we already know that, and this might be something that you've covered in other interviews and with other people.
And if you haven't, I would,
encourage you in the future to talk, when you talk to victims or people that have lost people during COVID, ask them if when they went to the hospital, one of the first things they got was high flow supplemental oxygen.
Because one of the things that high flow supplemental oxygen will do, especially if it is not provided with adequate feedback to reduce it when it's not needed anymore, or enough humidity, is that you can go into acute respiratory distress syndrome, you can get
can get water in your lungs and all this other stuff.
It's painful.
And it's so painful that people might actually be begged to be anesthetized or put to sleep or put on a ventilator.
And in fact, one of the, I think,
scariest things is that some of these very early whistleblowers that were in New York City, Kyle Seidel and Pierre Corey both stated very clearly that all these COVID patients had like
pulse ox that was, was really low at like 88.
And so they were running out of oxygen and they were giving these people like really high flow.
Kyle Seidel had a video out in 2020, where he was showing that they were giving people 60 liters a minute.
And so this is, this is something that would definitely create the progression
of lung damage that would easily be misconstrued as COVID.
And so I've come to the pretty strong belief that basically they just murdered people and lied about it and called it COVID.
And then once they had enough casualties in New York City that they could point and say,
between the combination of people that they killed and didn't resuscitate and also fraudulently said died in that five weeks, they had enough of a curve there for the SAGE group in the UK to make a big model and say, oh my gosh, we're at the beginning of an impending doom.
and that people could go on PBS NewsHour and say that, wow, 25,000 people have died in the last four weeks in New York City, holy shit.
And then New Zealand and Australia could shut down and they would have no cases and woo, thank goodness we were hard enough and we shut down early enough or we'd have the same problem they have in New York City.
And so this narrative, once it got started and once the consensus was created,
You know, I mean, was there really a disease?
I really don't think so.
And I don't, I think that even the narratives about needing novel treatments already then gets everybody to also accept that there's a novel virus if you need novel treatments for it.
And so most of these,
these mysteries that we were solving always had in the background, you have to accept the virus before you can solve this mystery.
And that was the trap, I think.
And that was no different for Fauci.
It's no different for Pierre Kory or for Robert Malone.
They all believe there was a novel virus and a long COVID.
And remember that
Things like long COVID, whatever it was called beforehand, chronic fatigue syndrome and many other names.
These things all existed before the pandemic, but were
for most doctors, just bullshit, or lots of people weren't taken seriously.
And remember that Judy Mikovits herself actually came out in the 90s with a potential viral explanation for autism and for chronic fatigue syndrome that later, of course, was, I guess, we were told was fraudulent.
And don't forget that those were real diseases without an explanation that Judy Mikovits herself actually came out publicly and said that she had a viral explanation that explained autism and chronic fatigue syndrome.
And so if you think of that as one continuous
sort of from AIDS because she's descended directly from those retroviral people with Ruschetti.
Her supervisor worked very closely with people who worked with Gallo and Gardner.
And so it's a very tightly knit group of people that are curating this viral narrative, especially in the early times in this field of AIDS and how this all overlapped with cancer.
And this is all one big mythology that
that I really think is still being perpetuated today.
And as Mike Eden, I think accurately said, it is not ridiculous to see the concept of vaccination as having been created with this era in mind where eventually we were just going to go full in totalitarian on you on it and use the excuse of disease to do it.
And with the idea in mind, again, going all the way back to what we were talking about a half an hour ago, with the idea that the human genome was never going to be cracked unless everybody became an experimental subject.
And, and, and the, the interesting thing that you can add to this is think about the, the brass tacks biology of what they're really trying to crack.
One of the scary stories that I could tell if I was like a futurist and we were in a secret candlelit futurist meeting about worst case scenarios in the future, I could tell you a story about how the Chinese actually have a very, very much easier task ahead of them because their population is much more genetically homogenous.
So they're going to be able to crack their genome before we can crack our much more
genetically diverse populations genome.
And so if we don't go total total totalitarian on our multi-ethnic population right now, the Indians and the Chinese are going to get so far ahead of us in this question, we're never going to have a chance.
And on the other side, you could see it as the Chinese already have their genome cracked.
And if they want to actually gain power over us, they need our data.
And so either way, you can see this thing where the impetus is to get all of our data and both sides or all sides want it.
And once you see it like that, and that these guys are all descended from the same people who were writing books like this in the 60s, are writing books like this in the thousands, right?
And so it's, we got a big battle on our hands, but at least we can start to see the outline.
I don't know.
Yeah, I think so.
Two more questions.
One, you brought up Michael Yeadon, and I know he was recently talking about ivermectin.
He claimed that it's like an anti-fertility.
Yeah, supposedly it's got these effects in animal studies.
I'm trying right now to see to what extent I can put together my own independent biography to confirm that.
It's not easy to find those papers.
I don't think there are very many.
but I haven't put much time into it.
I actually, I actually did that.
So he was on the Delhi, Delhi pod or whatever it's called last week.
Some, some English guy.
And it was actually a pretty good interview.
And I, I reviewed it or whatever.
I did a study hall of it just today.
So it's still kind of fresh in my head.
And I still have the second half to watch.
Cause he makes, he makes some statements about PCR positives.
And I think it's basically the,
the wrong narrative.
It's kind of the, you know, the TV version of it.
And I, I want to improve on that a little bit, but Mike Eden came out so early that I think he's he's been meddled with as much or more than I have in many different ways.
And so if he is gone closer and farther away from the truth in the end and in 10 years, in retrospect, we find out that he was 90% right.
He'll still be the most right person.
I think that was that consistent across the whole timeframe.
And the amount of energy that was probably spent trying to make him wrong, we would never know, but I'm sure it was much worse than any of us have experienced.
I mean, he was at some point naming names of pharmaceutical executives that he knows know, you know, I mean, he, he took a lot of risks and spoke out very well.
And I give him all the credit in the world.
Cause he's one of those people that was speaking out when no one else was and provided me the, the sort of, well, if he can do it, I can do it kind of thing.
And him and really Wolfgang Wodock were the only two people that I saw that were
biologists and speaking out.
I got a lot of courage from those two guys.
That's great.
We definitely need people who take risk and who have the courage to lead others.
And so that we can get more people like you as well.
Um, so I, I wanted to ask you, you had mentioned both Malone and Fauci and, uh, I was curious, uh, you think that they are aware or you think they just, they bought the lie or what, where do you stand on?
No, that's a really, I wavered a lot.
Um, I tend to believe that Tony Fauci might actually.
to a certain extent, have at one point been a useful idiot, but he's not anymore.
I think that's fair.
With some of these other people, it's tough.
And it's very, it's very, there's so much, you know, there's so much noise out there.
I think that's the best way.
And there's a lot of noise in academic science.
And so it is very easy,
with the combination of money and grad students and a supportive faculty, where you can be trapped in an illusion of consensus of your own creation, created by your own students.
created by your own postdocs.
And so if you have one guy like David Baltimore, who knows that it's bullshit, but he's teaching everybody despite that and perpetuating it despite that, then you have a pretty big problem on your hands.
And I don't think we have one person like David Baltimore.
I think there's 10 or 12 people that are descended from these, these,
I don't know if they would all be in intelligence agencies or in DITRA or wherever they are.
They probably are all spread out through the whole apparatus.
So that no matter where you go, there's always somebody in the room who will say the right thing.
And in the end,
you're screwed because the other two people are just unwittingly there, right?
And I think that's what, that's happened a lot.
I mean, for example, I was once on a podcast with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
And I thought at that time that I was being honored because he had invited Meryl Nass and Robert Malone and Jessica Rose and Tess Laurie all to listen to me for 10 minutes and then all respond over the next hour.
And in the two or three years since that's occurred, I've come to see that as their way of allowing me to say very little and then kind of talk over everything I said so that anything that I said that was actually impactual could be drowned out by all this other noise.
And in that meeting, I don't think Tess Laurie had any clue what was going on, even though I think some of the other people knew exactly why they were there because
of the directions that they took and the way that they interpreted my points.
I think they really knew what they wanted to say and what they weren't going to say.
But Tess Laurie sat in the corner just kind of confused the whole time.
And when they finally said, Tess, what do you think?
She was kind of like, well, I don't even know why I'm here, really.
And so I think that there are a lot of times where this kind of happens, you know, where you're excited because you're on a podcast with all these people that you already knew, but have never met.
And so you do your best to go along and to fit in and to kind of contribute to the conversation.
But inevitably,
If those people are clever enough and those people are coordinated enough in their lies, just like the Milgram experiment or the Ash experiment, you might just say that, yeah, I guess it's line number two, even though you can see clearly it's not the right line, right?
I mean.
And that's really been done.
And I think nobody can underestimate how badly that's done on Twitter, especially with fake accounts and anonymous accounts that if Courtney says something smart, and then three anonymous accounts go, Courtney's smart, Courtney's smart, Courtney's smart.
And then I see that, it looks to me like, wow, there's a pretty big agreement here.
But all those accounts could be you.
or somebody that's working for you, right?
And if the military is doing that in order to make everybody believe in gain-of-function viruses, we have a very big problem on our hands.
And I think that's what they did.
I think that's very likely.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Well, Edward Bernays would have called it manufacturing consent.
Exactly.
What better way to do that than to have a bunch of bots and it's so easy for them to do just these bot farms.
We know they exist.
One pattern that I just can't believe in retrospect that I've noticed, I've been doing all kinds of archiving, especially of videos from 2020 and 2021 to see what these people were saying when they still didn't have their script down.
And what's funny is that all of these people, so many of them, I mean, I'm making clips now so that I can put them all together in one thing where they all say, well, you know, at least Twitter is allowing us to have this discussion.
Or since Elon Musk got Twitter, we've been really been able to hash this out.
And so I can't believe how many people were saying that in 2020, that on Twitter is where to go.
And these new journalists on Twitter are the ones that are really figuring it out.
And I actually was in Drastic, which was this Twitter group that
was credited with finding the lab leak, right?
And that, I see that now in retrospect as one giant op.
Like I was just fooled by all these people that were agreeing that we were solving this mystery in real time.
It's hilarious.
Yeah, I mean, I find it really funny that people look at Elon as this, my favorite meme that just sums this up is like, there's a meme of him and somebody else and someone says to him, thank you so much for valuing free speech.
And it's like a bubble over their head.
And his bubble says data.
That sums it all up.
He said he wants to make it weed trap, but better.
And he's the guy who's literally involved in every facet of the fourth industrial revolution.
The CureVac, right?
The Tesla boring company wants to fund the Hydron Collider.
The Neuralink, which his partner on that is Charles Lieber, who created the Neuralase.
And yeah, the SpaceX, the Starlink, the Skynet.
I mean, it's like every facet of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
There's the guy.
Just pay attention to the Cybertruck and you'll be fine, though.
Ah, yes.
Yes.
The cyber truck.
Yes.
The ridiculously overpriced monstrosity.
It is so hideous, but yeah, that thing.
Um, so my, my question is, what, what, what are your thoughts on monkey pox and what, what the narrative that's circulating right now?
I know they tried bird flu.
I don't know if you have any thoughts on what, what they're doing, if it's all creation, are they.
Are they doing gain and function with it, creating something synthetic?
At this stage now, it's a very hard question to answer.
My initial reaction or my initial thing that I would say is that there is more evidence that something like a flu virus is real and that some of the things that they grow in eggs, they kind of look like and resemble
some of the things that they describe.
I'm not saying that they're real or that they do everything they say or they cause the flu or anything like that.
Because I'm just not there yet.
But
I think we should go back, I would guess that's what I would do.
My gut instinct would say to go back to the thing that I mentioned earlier, which is that they would like you to assume that no other organisms signal in any way like this.
If you discard that and instead remember, instead kind of reorganize and think about, okay, the application of some of these early vaccines revealed that our own immune system probably uses viral-like particles, maybe even something that could be called retroviruses, to communicate and we dysregulated that and
we hid it behind this idea of AIDS, then it's absolutely not ridiculous to think that a large homogenous population of livestock would also have immune signals that would shed, and occasionally those immune signals might be able to give people symptoms.
I mean, big deal.
That to me is not very surprising any more than it is that
that the menstrual cycles of girls that are in the same sorority can sync up.
I mean, that's not, okay, that's biology, great.
I mean, find out the mechanism and then it'll make sense.
And in the same way that people that work around large populations of livestock might get sick, it'll make sense too.
But the idea that that is pandemic potential is completely incorrect.
The idea that something could evolve such perfection that it could go from being able to do little or nothing beyond one or two organisms to being able to cover the planet, it's impossible.
And so that's the kind of thing that I think is most important to understand.
If you spill blue paint outside in your garden,
No matter what color it is or how viscous it is or not, or what special properties are endowed in it, it's never going to show up all over the world five years later.
unless it's actively you're making enough paint to put all around the world.
And I don't think that it's wrong to describe an RNA molecule, which is just a pretty complicated chemical, in the same way that paint could not perpetuate itself around the world for five years.
A chemical can't do that either.
And so in five years, a mosquito could spread if the right conditions and the right carrying and whatever, that could happen.
But a mosquito is a real pattern integrity with metabolism, and it takes materials in, and it sheds other stuff, and things are part of the mosquito for a little while, and then they're not part of the mosquito, just like the food you eat is part of you for a little while, and then it's not.
And this is what a pattern integrity is.
A virus is not that.
And since a virus isn't that, then there is no biological mechanism by which a pandemic could occur.
And so even if avian flu is real and zoonotic flu can occasionally occur, or if sometimes the exposure to another conspecific human that's signaling with their immune system could cause you to have inflammation, this is not biological evidence for pandemic potential.
Pandemic potential
is a different sport, in a different league, in a different stadium, with different rules.
It's nothing.
It's not comparative to that biology.
And so all of those phenomenon could be real and are not worth dismissing.
The thing that's worth dismissing is the idea that something like that phenomenon could perpetually go around the world in billions of people for years at a time.
That's just absurd.
And that's what they tell us.
That's what people from the Human Genome Project, Kevin McKernan, would tell us right now, today, is happening.
That's frightening.
That is definitely frightening.
But I mean, how else could they institute something like global martial law without convincing us that we have to be terrified?
Absolutely.
And even worse, actually, Courtney, is that how could they do it unless they got us to enforce it on our kids?
Because that's what they want.
They want parents to, that's what I see coming.
The parents are going to somehow be pigeonholed or coerced into coming to the conclusion
that their children are in danger on the internet because of anonymous people.
And so the only way to protect people is for everybody to use a digital ID on the internet.
And then of course, you're a hop, skip and a jump from, oh, well, you might as well tie your money to it too, because we can't pay you out from Twitter until you have your digital ID.
And then basically the cage is closed, right?
I mean, you can't make any money on Facebook without a digital ID, or you can't broadcast live on Twitch without a digital ID.
and then slowly they're going to start paying you out through that digital ID, then we're all going to acquiesce to it.
I mean, it's scary because it's coming quick.
Yeah, it does seem to be coming really quickly.
And then that would be, you know, the conduit to have the CBDCs, which would be the AI World Society and the total digital gulag.
So, yeah, that's very scary.
And that's why I go, I would go all the way back to Mike Eden, because he's one of these people who very early on said that, you know,
If even some of these lies are real, that they really are telling these lies, the only motivation ultimately can be that end, that it's a total digital prison.
And digital prison means that everybody's an experimental animal.
From my perspective, as a biologist, that's what they want.
They want to be able to experiment on us and collect our data.
And it's not so much our data.
I mean, maybe the data on what we read and how we look on things or whatever, but the data they really want is our genetics and our medical data.
The biometric data is what they really want.
And if you read the, I tell people all the time to go look at the AIworldsociety.net or Boston Global Forum, right?
Because they lay it out and this is their UN 100 plans for the centennial of the UN is the AI World Society.
And in that document, so they have Michael Dukakis, the former governor of Massachusetts, wrote Remaking the World, the Age of Global Enlightenment, a very New Age title.
And I do think it has a lot of New Age principles.
But if you read it, they talk about exactly what you're saying.
They talk about using 6G in order to link the internet of bio-nano things.
And they lay it out pretty explicitly and they say how they're going to have internal sensors to track all of our biometric data.
Uh, and of course they couch this in a very positive light and how wonderful it's going to be for us.
And, you know, we'll, we'll know exactly what deficiencies we have and when we need to take X, Y, and Z mineral.
And look at all those silly buildings.
Like it's just, you know, the image that they give you again, right?
Look at that.
Wow.
Well, I feel like they're actually... The semiotics, I actually feel like are quite Luciferian.
Like I feel like it's a very much a signal to what they're doing.
They were building a cyber Satan.
I mean, I might be reading a bit into it, but the semiotics actually look like they're very much signaling to the initiate.
Yeah, it's really for me, even if
I don't know if I... I mean, I don't know.
It's an inversion.
The best way that I can see it is that they've taken what, as I said with the book earlier, they've taken a huge list of observations that should have made us incredibly humble and reverent to our biology and tried to portray it as us understanding everything and virtually taking control of who we are and becoming gods ourselves.
And that to me, it's really... That's exactly it.
You had the nail on the head.
Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off, but yeah.
No, no.
And that really where I think all of these people, you know, when you go back to somebody like Joshua Lederberg, he already had in his mind that when we get the computers and when we get the data, when we have the technology, we are going to do this stuff.
And that story keeps getting repeated over and over.
Ray Kurzweiler says that in 10 years, there aren't going to be any disease.
And if you can just live for 10 more years, you're going to be able to upload your consciousness and
Although they say we don't have any consciousness.
They need to get their story straight on that one.
But he also says the singularity is nearer, and he says now it's going to be 2045, which is exactly the centennial of the UN.
UN 100.
So, yeah, they do seem to be all in lockstep on that.
What are your thoughts on, because you had mentioned the, you know, infectious clones and the, how it's essentially synthetic.
So do you have any thoughts on if they are using any kind of a synthetic bioweaponing
kind of like poisoning us so it's not just the possibility of some sort of viral communication or but like some sort of poison I think there's a lot of layers to that the first being of course that that that the story that everybody argues about on social media is that the the jabs are one thing and then they produce one thing the spike protein and that's all there is but of course if you were
a clever group of people that was going to use this opportunity the right way.
The first thing would be that, bless you, you could meet any manufacturing goal
irrespective of your actual ability to produce the product if you just produced a lot of placebo.
And the other thing that would be really valuable about placebo is that everybody that took the placebo would swear that, well, I didn't feel a thing.
That shit was great.
And so if there is no pathogen to protect you from, then rolling out a placebo is benefits for everybody.
And then more importantly,
the people that are doing it only need to keep track of a very small number of lots if the vast majority of them are placebo.
And so then if we're actually arguing about the fact that all these people got hurt in light of the fact that most people got a placebo or that placebos were available for certain rounds, then you can see a very dark
way that this could be easily manipulated to create huge pockets of populations that would insist that everything went perfectly and they have no experience with adverse events at all.
And that could be contrasted very drastically with lots of other people who definitely were injured by a bonafide transfection that did express a spike protein that was highly immunogenic and caused inflammation and all these other things.
And so the biological reality is that there were lots of companies before the pandemic that were looking for short protein sequences that could be used as highly effective adjuvants.
Before this kind of technology was even thought of by companies like EpiVax, for example, you're probably aware adjuvants were mostly heavy metals like aluminum or before that mercury or something like,
thimerosal, but each one of these things can be blamed independently for being nasty, but then inevitably they have to find something else nasty to replace it with, otherwise the immune system won't respond to the recombinant proteins that are put in with it.
So the next level of this biology was probably most aptly pursued by this company Epivax, which was a company that Robert Malone advised for a long time, and they were looking for short
epitopes, which were universally immunogenic across lots of different ethnic backgrounds.
And they were looking specifically for molecules that could activate these MHC molecules in animals or HLA molecules in humans.
And then they what they were going to do is take this, these, these, these epitopes, and then they could conjugate them to proteins of interest that were related to pathogens, and they could make these
you know, vaccines for anything that they wanted to.
So my, one of my...
One of my sort of cartoon explanations for what they might have done with regard to the spike protein is roll back to what NIH is and what NIAID had been doing for so long.
The main model of any animal disease was antibodies.
And so if an animal was sick and you wanted to prove it, you had to look in the animal and show that it had antibodies for whatever you exposed it to.
And so any disease model, any vaccine model essentially was working around this particular correlate of immunity.
And what that also means is that companies like EpiVax were looking specifically for small epitopes in protein form that would reliably
activate the immune system and how?
Well, the correlate would be antibodies.
And so they would try to find little protein sequences that would very reliably always induce antibody production in these animal models or in these cell cultures, if you will.
So my one thing that I would challenge people or ask people to think about is that if this was already understood for 20 years, that the immune system would pay attention to particular sequences and that those particular sequences might be useful, and if they found one and they wanted to
roll out a transfection that could be work, that would work, right?
And if the immune, if the correlate to immunity is your skin turning green, then all they really need to do is make a shot reliably turn your skin green.
If the correlate of immunity is antibodies, then all they have to do is give you a shot that can be testably shown to produce antibody positivity.
And so,
what they put in a shot that was going to be evaluated did not have to be anything other than something that would produce a reliable antibody signal.
Now the reason why I'm telling that story is that the spike protein was found exclaimed from the rooftops and then encoded in this mRNA and many different versions of it identically agreed upon from the very beginning.
Now one
Very interesting reason to do that would be that all the parties involved know that this is a protein that will reliably produce an antibody response because it was designed to do that.
The reason why they found that sequence is because they made enough of it and put it over there so that it would be sure to be found.
So that even a country that didn't know any better would sequence it and report it in nature.
And then the people that wanted to find that sequence to make a very successful transfection vaccine would have said, well, look what the Chinese found.
I guess we'll have to use that protein.
Now, I know that sounds like a lot of, it sounds like a big sting, but actually, just like I explained, it would be very easy to do.
It would cost you about $3,000 to make that DNA sequence in a few grams in an Eppendorf tube.
And then you would just distribute that in a place where they would look for it, like the market.
And because you had made it synthetically in a highly pure form, the odds of them finding that exact sequence is like 99%.
And if you made more of it and put it in more places, then the odds of them finding it would be even higher.
And so then they would just go on.
And this is just one way it could have happened.
The Chinese could have found the sequence.
raised a false alarm that they realized was a false alarm, but only after they reported the sequence.
And in the meantime, the global five eyes, you know, shitheads that were all planning to do this, they go, well, we found that sequence, let's do it.
And then lo and behold, look, it makes huge antibodies.
The antibody signals really strong.
It's like 90% effective.
Well, we'd never expected that.
And it would be very easy for them to do that with very simple synthetic DNA and RNA and planting it where they wanted to plant it.
And then send out that a Chinese woman to all the news stations.
You found the sequence.
We found the sequence.
We had no idea.
Wow.
Isn't it crazy.
And she might not even know what she did.
She might just have done the exact right, highly accurate sequencing and reported it as she thought she should have.
And so I don't know how it was done, I just know for sure that those kinds of things are very, very possible.
They're very cheap, they're very reliable, they're very easy, have nothing to do with a special fear and cleavage site endowing a RNA molecule with the ability to go around the Earth.
So we should not worry about it.
No, I don't think we should, except for the fact that they could release it.
So Monkeypox could be an application.
I've posited a few times on my stream that there's a couple of anecdotal things you need to know.
First, the guy at U.S.
Amarid, his name is Sina Bavari.
I think he's actually an Iranian citizen.
Isn't that great that he's the head of U.S.
Amarid?
He actually has a patent with David Hone, who is the head or used to be the head of DITRA at the beginning of the pandemic.
And DITRA is the guys who did all the sequencing for the first year.
DITRA is also the agency that Robert Malone worked for at the beginning of the pandemic for the domain server that identified Remdesivir, Celecoxib, Famotidine, and Ivermectin as four possible repurposed drugs, which is also sketchy.
But anyway, that guy, David Hone, good friend of Robert Malone, head of DITRA, and Sina Bhavari, former head or current head of US Ameritrade, have a patent together.
And that patent is actually for a virus-like particle that resembles the rod-like particles of Ebola.
So what's really interesting about that is that that's a particle that can hold a huge amount of RNA or DNA.
It is a particle that self-assembles.
And it's just a very interesting thing that the only place a particle like it has been found are these remote places in Africa, including the first time it was found when Stephen Hatfield happened to be the guy that was responding to that.
Steven Hatfill being the guy that was later tied to as the original suspect for the anthrax letters that were sent, and then later it became Bruce Ivins.
And Steven Hatfill has been on several Tommy podcasts with Robert Malone at the same time, which is also interesting.
And they've also gone to Romania to a
international COVID summit together, which is also interesting.
And actually there's also a Tommy podcast where Stephen Hadfield laughs because he tells a story about Robert Malone and him going to Rome and that they've got there and neither of them had a vax card, which is really weird because of course everybody knows Robert Malone supposedly took the two shots because he had long COVID or something like that.
So there's a lot of incongruencies in a lot of stories, but I don't remember why I got there.
Oh yeah, because
really think it's possible that even with respect to Ebola, what you're looking at is the release of a bioweapon and then let's see how far it goes.
Right.
See how far we can track it.
Let's see.
You know, can we can we like Robert Malone was involved in ring vaccinations, which was when you had a
an Ebola outbreak, then you would go to neighboring villages and vaccinate all those people to prevent the Ebola from spreading.
And so it's a really funny kind of concept to be on the ground, but not on the ground right where they released it.
So you're kind of there to see if it gets out, but you're not there to see if you can stop it.
And it's happened several times where you could see it both ways.
And because of the existence of this not so anecdotal patent, and because of the,
sort of what I'm seeing now is kind of a very simple toolbox where molecular signals can be placed and monitored and tested and so if they can make molecular signals like this, but mother nature can't, well then the explanation is pretty obvious to me.
I don't know.
I would agree with all of that.
That sounds right on target.
Well, this has been fascinating.
So I don't know if you have anything else you want to add.
Please do.
I'm kind of out of breath.
I can always come back when we have.
Yeah, I'd love it.
Yeah, tell everybody where they can find you.
Yeah, I have a website.
It's gigaohmbiological.com.
It's kind of hard to spell it all out, but you can see it there.
Thank you very much for putting it up.
And I also have my own peer tube instance, and I would encourage you to do that too.
It's really easy to do.
And there's no login or anything like that.
It's just my own videos hosted on my own website.
And if you make a peer tube, then the
the open source software that's PeerTube allows me to make a mirror of all of your content as a channel on mine, and then it automatically becomes a channel on yours.
And so actually, if everybody had a PeerTube, then we could all just link to the PeerTubes that we trusted, and then trusted networks would just form.
And we would all be controlling our own little
little versions of YouTube that would all link together as YouTube links, but not really.
It just would appear that way.
It's actually how PeerTube is designed.
So if we could get more people to get on board with it, it could actually work out really well.
But in the meantime, the last thing I would like to say is that my kids are going back to school in eight days.
And so at the start of the last week of August, I'm going to start to teach a
sort of bridge between high school and first year biology course.
And at the same time, I'm also going to audit a basic statistics course that a friend of mine is putting up on Substack.
And so I'm not going to say I'm starting to teach school, but I'm going to start to give a course of my own and then also follow along or sort of audit a statistics course and kind of help my viewers or my followers kind of follow that course together.
And I think that's going to be a better
a better expansion of my time.
I'm still going to kind of cover the meddlers and cover the bad guys and try to keep up with the narrative as it's going.
But I don't know if you noticed, but how many of these people pivoted almost instantaneously from whatever they were talking about before to everything except for Matthew Crooks.
So they almost didn't talk about the only guy we know for sure was shooting.
And they had a million other shooters at a million other places.
And they were all agreeing that there might be three or four or five.
And nobody gave a darn about where that kid came from or who recruited him or who coordinated or allowed him to get there.
Or the fact that he was in a Black Rock video that was like seriously taken down that day.
Yeah, seriously.
You know, the creepy thing is, is that my son is a freshman at that kid's high school starting next week.
Like we are in the same high school that he agreed.
He's four blocks away from my house.
Wow.
Yeah.
Like they shut down the street.
I couldn't even walk my dog the day that that happened.
Cause I was like, wait, what?
And the guy lived right there.
And he went to the high school that my kid's going to matriculate in this fall.
Yeah.
It's pretty bizarre.
Small world it is.
Small, small world it is.
Yes, that's crazy.
But you were saying that you brought that up, the fact that there were so many shooters.
Oh yeah, just that I couldn't believe how many people that I had sort of been kind of trailing and keeping track of with regard to
what they're paying attention to as being some signal as to what the controllers want us to pay attention to.
And then suddenly all of those people pivoted to, oh, the most important question is whether or not there was a guy in the water tower.
And then three days later, it was like, oh yeah, but there was also this other guy.
And it's like, whoa, how is it possible that, cause I just, for me, it was just a pretty cut and dry thing, right?
I mean,
they've been driving people nuts on the internet for a long time and if there ever was a chance on discord to encourage somebody to come and take a shot at trump i have no doubt in my mind they would encourage them to do it i have no doubt in my mind they have people on the internet all the time that are looking for people like that that are potentially
people that they could use in those scenarios to create the kind of chaos that they need to divide us.
So to me, that would have been the first thing and only thing to pursue is what?
And instead they cremated him a few days later.
They told us he had no social media at all.
It's like a teenager, that's impossible.
Anyway, yeah Well, I did an interview.
It was a I think maybe two years ago now.
It was a while ago but it shoot a woman who was in counterintelligence and she talked about exactly that how they infiltrate in these various groups like you mentioned discord or
you know, Facebook groups or whatever it is, but they'll infiltrate, you know, pretend to be one of the members of the group, and then what they're really doing is seeking people who can become AgiProp.
Absolutely.
And think about how effective it would be when they had at that one point where everybody followed their favorite influencer to Telegram, or everybody followed their favorite influencer to Locals, or to Discord group.
And now within that Discord group, you have people that are looking for
you know, victims, people that they can use to push the narrative.
And then again, we're at the stage where the people that we're fighting against on Twitter are unwitting participants that are being urged on by these people behind them.
And I think once we realize, I mean, I heard Mike Eden say in his recent video that they hired 20,000 people in the UK to work for the 77th Brigade in 2020.
20,000 people pretending on the Internet is a lot of people.
If they took even 100 of those people and focused on you and me, we'd be screwed.
Think about that.
That's scary.
That's really scary.
And now they've said they've redirected it.
Those people are looking for hate speech.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
So basically they can get any ball rolling that they want to get rolling.
And that they proved very well with things like toilet paper in February of 2020.
But they can get any ball they want rolling.
And once we realize that, I think we can start to really conceptualize how we're being played.
Yeah.
And hopefully not fall for the next time.
Yeah, exactly.
And hopefully not fall for it next time.
Yes, that is my hope.
Well, thank you so much.
I'm going to post the link below for whatever code they give me for the Red Pill Expo, so everybody can come see you speak.
I think it will be courts, but I'll definitely have the links below.
And yeah, it's going to be in Oklahoma.
November 16th, 17th and 18th is optional.
So I'm looking forward to that.
I look forward to seeing you there.
Well, I'm sure we'll be in touch before then.
And yeah, thank you all for watching and listening.
Thank you.