Little ditty about Jack and Diane.
Two American kids growing up in the heartland.
Jackie gonna be a football star.
Diane's debutante backseat of Jackie's car.
Suckin' on a chili dog, outside the taste freeze Diane sittin' on Jackie's lap, got his hands between her knees Jackie say, hey Diane, they're tryin' all behind the shade of trees Dribble off those Bobby Brooks, let me do what I please, say Oh yeah, life goes on, long after the thrill
Life goes on long after the thrill of living is gone.
They walk on.
Jackie sits back, collects his thoughts for the moment.
Scratches his head and does his best James Dean.
Well, then there, Diane, you ought to run off to city.
Diane says, baby, you ain't missing a thing.
But Jackie say, oh, yeah, life goes on long after the thrill of living
Oh yeah, let's see life goes on Long after the thrill of living is gone So let it rock, let it roll Let the Bible bell come and save my soul Hold on to 16 as long as you can
Changes come around real soon, make us women and men Oh yeah, life goes on
Long after the thrill of livin' is gone Oh yeah, they say life goes on Long after the thrill of livin' is gone A little ditty about Jack and Diane Two American kids doin' the best that they can
a test that could detect a virus when the virus wasn't present.
And in addition to that, he didn't have virus, coronavirus, COVID-19 to work with, right?
He was drawing the sequencing from a computer database.
Is all of that correct?
Yes, I would say he had an intention to pick up the virus when it was present, but in his design, he admitted that he couldn't do a very good job with it.
Stop lying!
And that it would pick up other Asian coronaviruses.
And when you say pick up, you mean that it would indicate, return a positive, if there were other coronaviruses.
And for the layperson, I didn't know this either,
Everything is a coronavirus.
I mean, things, I don't mean that, but many cold viruses are also called coronavirus.
In fact, COVID-19, it sounded so exotic and scary when we first learned about it, coronavirus, but many, many ordinary cold viruses are coronaviruses.
Is that correct?
It's correct.
Yes, it's an anti-vax channel.
Welcome to the show.
It's an anti-vax channel for sure.
I think truth is good for kids.
We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in society.
We want everybody to feel good.
That's not the way life is.
But you can tell if someone's lying.
You know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's really important not to be a liar.
Introduce Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest distillation of what the pandemic
means to society, to biology, to science, and to democracy, and to the whole kind of idea of empiricism and integrity.
And then each of us, this incredible preeminent panel that we have, each one of you is going to get a chance to comment.
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones.
Until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, and it's measles plus, and okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles, because not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end.
No, when we have this new pandemic that has got 75% mortality, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs.
It'll be a moral emergency, because it has to be.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst case scenario.
I'm afraid that the latest data... Now, Dr. Gallo and Dr. Fauci talked a lot about isolation and purification.
Can you tell me what the difference is between the two?
Isolation, what was it?
Isolation and purification.
Of the virus?
Well, you isolate a virus by finding the virus which causes a disease.
You purify a virus by making a lot of, I mean just by purifying it so you get a pure virus.
I don't understand what the issue.
I see.
No, it depends on how they use it.
Can you explain the process of HIV isolation?
Well, didn't Dr. Gallo do that?
I mean, he actually isolated it, so... I mean, why should I do all of this?
This is all textbook stuff you're asking me.
so so
I think I screwed that up.
I advanced that slide just a bit too early and then it fell over on the front line instead of the last frame.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the show.
We're here again to try and dispel a little bit more of this enchantment.
I really appreciate everybody in the chat coming to bat for me.
It's not really necessary.
These people come and go.
The people that are really here to find out what's going on and find out what we're trying to do will have the patience to get through the intro because they will have checked on another channel.
It's not like we haven't been putting out videos for four years and you can't just look along that unblemished record of integrity and find a video and figure out what we're doing here.
Any obfuscation or silliness in the chat is just either naivety or messing with us.
So don't worry about it.
I mean, just enjoy the fact that we've met each other again here this morning.
It's almost not morning anymore here in Pittsburgh.
It's 1135.
I'm a little late.
Your consciousness remains the prime real estate that everybody's competing for.
The main messages of this channel are really hard to find.
Some of them are on this screen here.
There was no evidence of spread in New York City.
Infectious clones is the only real concept you need to understand in order to understand the illusion of virology.
Placebo batches were likely distributed and that's why they got us focused on bad batches.
And transfection in healthy mammals has always been dumb.
The idea that someone would come into the chat and kind of make light of the idea that we're calling these transfections will be brought into sharp focus today.
with a little journal club we're gonna do.
The protocols were definitely murder, just nobody wants to talk about supplemental oxygen as being the on-ramp.
Gain of Function is a mythology that they want us to teach our children.
The Scooby-Doo mystery is real, we were fooled into solving it, and the spectacular commitment to lies is what got us to fall for it.
There are other ways to say this.
Weaponized piles of money convinced us to argue about the origins of the virus, and participating in that argument accepted the premise of the novel virus, and we're still being governed by this theater today.
It's another way to say it.
And because it's so easy to say now, the only thing left is to attribute bad motives to the people who disagree with it, like me.
And that's what you see happening on Twitter and everywhere and anywhere anybody engages with some idea of mine.
It's not about the idea, it becomes about me.
And so I challenge these people to take a screenshot of the words on the screen and then respond to the words.
And they just don't do it.
They just don't do it because there is no response to the biological truth other than the affirmative.
They don't want to talk about this elephant in the room, if you will.
This idea that they want to use AI to solve the genome and all of humanity's problems is something that goes back to Lederberg.
It goes back to the Department of Energy.
And that's what Mark Kulak has brought to my attention over a couple years of work.
One of the first videos I ever caught of him was about Bob Barr or William Barr or whatever the hell his name is.
I think it's William Barr, Bill Barr.
And we've lost sight of how long we have had charlatans have power over us.
It's been more than a generation.
Our parents were also lost in their narrative, a narrative that was largely governed by top secret.
programs, the special virus cancer program, nuclear weapons, this kind of thing.
And this is all one big national security show.
If these people aren't active participants, they are unwitting participants.
They are look-the-other-way participants.
They are, you know, the look-away doctrine type.
Well, don't tell me.
I don't need to know.
I'll do it.
No problem.
And they are traitors to our children.
And if we're going to make gentle the life of this world for our kids, as we transition out of their mythology, we're going to have to see them for what they are.
And we're going to have to teach our children how this illusion is created.
This illusion of consensus on social media that probably exists on Facebook, but I wouldn't know, but also exists on Telegram and on Twitter.
and on Gab and on Discord and all of these places where groups of people think they're getting together and having a spontaneous conversation when in reality, unless you see it for what it is, a coordinated group of liars, you won't be able to successfully navigate the wave.
But it's an artificial wave of consensus, just like that wave was artificially generated moving away from the deep water.
It's a wave of consensus.
Not everybody's going to be able to surf it.
Not all kids are going to be able to see it for what it is.
Not all university students are saveable.
But the ones that are savable, I do believe one of the most reliable lifelines is staying focused on the biology and teaching people not to take that multi-liar, multi-performer bait on social media and to start loving their real live neighbors, the ones they can talk to, the ones they can email, the ones they can call.
It's especially a message to Western world and the United States in particular because that's where my roots are.
My father served in the Navy and married a Filipino girl, brought her back to the United States.
And the joke is that I was made in the Philippines and born in the United States.
And so I am an American kid, and that's all I got.
I'm one of these multiracial Americans that I think a lot of these elites think are garbage.
And that's why I will never be elevated.
No one's ever going to pay attention to me spontaneously.
And Peter Thiel and his minions are never going to put me in the face of your family and friends spontaneously.
So I need your help.
You've got to spread the word.
If you don't spread the word, no one else is going to find this stuff.
And I'm going to be a secret that you keep.
If you want to support me, one of the best ways to do it would be to share this work because every once in a while somebody finds this stream and is inspired to financially support and we don't need a lot of that.
I'm not trying to become the next American Idol or the next Joe Rogan.
I'm not trying to get 100 million followers on Spotify.
I just want to be a teacher.
And I want to be able to put my whole heart and soul into this without having to worry about how my kids are going to eat or how we're going to pay rent.
That's all I want.
And I don't think that's very much to ask when we are in a world of multi-billionaires and many of them who were created during this pandemic.
and a dissident operation that's made from people that haven't suffered.
If you just drop your eyes, drop your hand from your face, drop your phone and look up these people, none of them have suffered.
If they lost their job, they started as an entrepreneur and now they're super successful with the support of a supplement company or three sponsors.
The only way to see through this is to engage in united non-compliance, and it's gotta be informed.
You gotta be able to out-reason these people, and that way you need to learn the biology.
So, I think we gotta do some homework today.
Welcome to the show.
So
It is the 9th of January, July.
What am I talking about?
The 9th of July, 2024.
I was actually caught up in the comment from Endless Current.
Me being a Native American has been a problem since way before I had long hair.
When I was a teenager, I had a crew cut all through high school and was very serious about basketball, but I was also a lifeguard.
And so I would sit out on the,
the shore of a lake in Wisconsin or on the shore of a river in my hometown and lifeguard for like three kids.
And in the sun all day, I turned very dark.
And so there were lots of speculation about where I came from as a kid.
And one of the main speculations because of my height was that I was Native American.
And that is definitely not true.
My mom is Filipino and Indian, and my dad is a tall white man from Wisconsin who served in the Navy.
And I'm the result of that partnership.
I am a human just like you.
I went to high school in a very small town in Northern Wisconsin.
I went to prom.
I went to a dance called Snowball every year.
We had a very small conference of schools that we had to ride around in a bus to go play.
Sometimes the bus ride could be as long as 45 minutes.
It was a little bit like the movie Hoosiers with regard to basketball because everybody went to these away games and they were packed.
And it was the thing that was happening that week on a Friday and where were we playing.
And when I was a junior in high school, we were actually ranked second in the state in class C high school, right up until the playoffs.
And then in our first playoff game, we lost.
So it was a extremely humbling moment.
I was playing with a group of seniors that were just killer.
And then there were about five of us juniors, two of which had been already playing varsity.
And then me and a couple other friends of mine all grew to be about six foot five in the same year.
And so we had this incredible team that like was 6'4", 6'5", 6'5", 6'5", 6'6", 6'6", 6'5", 6'6".
And it was all juniors and seniors.
we won a lot of games.
I think we won 11 in a row at one point or more.
It was a really fun year.
And so I lived the ideal American teenage years.
I mean, you know, there is no crime in Kadat, Wisconsin when I was growing up.
And I grew up in the same hometown that my dad grew up in, and everybody knew my dad from when he was a child.
And so I had a lot of his high school teachers, like I am
without wanting to sound too hardcore.
I'm American as they come.
That's all I've got.
is me being an American.
I don't have any other identity.
And so when I say that I'm fighting for America and I'm fighting for my kid's future, that's exactly what I mean.
I'm fighting for the America of the old school NPR.
You remember when the rest of the story was on the radio?
I don't even mean national public radio.
I just mean the public radio of America, the radio of America, where there would be syndicated programs that we all heard.
That's what I grew up in the America that I grew up.
And so I know we can't go back to it, but we can definitely remember it as a time when we weren't so worked up about these ideas that mean nothing like racism, et cetera.
When I was growing up, racism was basically over.
And the idea of racism,
did not have the connotations that it has now where it implies this systemic flaw and this generational debt that people have to other people.
And this extraordinary place that we are in in our cultural history can be brought to a screeching halt
if we just teach people the truth.
And so I'm a human just like you.
I got sucked into a lot of these liars' performances over the last four years and got sucked into believing that there was a mystery to solve.
If we can teach our family and friends how this happened to us, then they also might be able to see how it happened to them.
There are some truths that none of these people will discuss, and if I'm being blocked by doctors, it's because they don't want to have to pay attention to the absolute bedrock message of this stream, which I will continue to repeat every day, probably until I retire, which is intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
A sort of caveat or a, what did they call that?
A corollary of that is the statement, transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent.
And it always was.
And there's actually thousands of professional biologists in America and professional healthcare people that should have done known better because the word transfection has been around for a few years.
RNA cannot pandemic.
And we know that.
I really think we know that from all the molecular biology that we've done on the bench, we know that RNA is not capable of doing that any more than if you have a notebook of carbon paper, that that could result in the distribution of a newspaper.
I understand that when you write on that,
that paper, it makes another copy on the next page, but that sort of limited ability to make an instant copy of your writing is not going to translate too well.
If you make that carbon the right way, and you use the right combination of paper, it could be enough to distribute your work everywhere on earth.
And that's the level of exaggeration that I think is equivalent to saying that an RNA, if it has the right combination of HIV inserts or furin cleavage sites, that it could go around the earth with high fidelity for five years.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
And so I've been trying to spend the last couple years now trying to teach everyone or convince everyone that the alien that I've seen is real.
And one of the aspects of the alien that I think is most apt in terms of trying to get a handle on things is the idea that I was hired by Bobby Kennedy, by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
to help him write his Wuhan cover-up book.
And during the course of that year and one month of working for him, I came to realize that weaponized piles of money had convinced us to argue about the origins of the novel virus.
And that argument alone made us accept the existence of it.
And there actually wasn't very much evidence for the existence of it.
And in fact, a lot of the arguments that the no-virus people were making were very strong.
And as I started to pivot through this cognitive space of, wait a minute, if there was no virus, then what are they doing?
Did they murder people and just lie about it?
Once we got there, I was person non grata.
And instead of being treated as what I physically am, which is the first listed expert in the acknowledgements of that book, I'm treated as if I don't exist by all of these people.
And the reason why is because all of these people are part of this theater that spans from mainstream media all the way to social media where they create this illusion of consensus with podcasts and they're harmonizing on it.
Harmonizing on the mythology.
And so that's why I always show this slide multiple times a day because Noam Chomsky told us how they do it.
And before Noam Chomsky, there was a guy by the name of Edward Bernays in the 1920s that told us how they do it, back when they didn't have the social media access to our brains that they have now.
And so without a doubt, this guy is right.
Without a doubt, this guy was telling us the truth.
He just didn't tell you the truth that this is everywhere.
This is how they control congressmen.
This is how they control people on the internet that don't know they're part of the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.
They just think I got lucky and got a sponsor.
They just think that I got lucky and people are sticking up for me, that I get to get interviewed in places.
And so I better keep saying what I'm saying because it feels like this is the right thing to say because everybody's telling me it's the right thing to say.
And so whether you're wittingly participating in the conscious and intelligent manipulation of our thoughts, or whether you're unwittingly participating, you are participating.
And that's what we need to teach our children so that they themselves do not participate.
They themselves are not bamboozled even by people who don't know they're participating.
Like all the people that think that their Twitch stream on Twitch that talks about video games or that because they dress up and groom horses on camera live are actually stars and influencers.
when really what they are are unwitting participants in the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions.
Particularly, a lot of these people are manipulating the intelligent attention of these people so that their opinions are useless.
If you spend all your day following Twitch channels that argue about different games or are really pretty or whatever, then you're wasting hours of your day where you could be learning, where you could be teaching your kid, where you could be making useful connections with the people around you, or where you could, I don't know, be doing something useful for your community or for yourself.
That's why there's a international gathering called TwitchCon or something like that, where everybody goes and talks to other streamers.
There aren't very many streamers on Twitch that actually have a message or would like to be a biology teacher, but can't because the internet is full of frauds.
That's the reality of it.
And that's why once you start to see it and then you go back to look at 2020 and you realize that someone like a college dropout, Kevin McKernan, multi-millionaire,
who took IP from the Human Genome Project and created multi-generational wealth for his family, whose father was involved in microarray technology before he got into biotech.
He claims he lifted himself up by his bootstraps to become the Pot Genome King, but that's not true.
His father was in
in with this group of people.
And in particular, because it's microarrays and sequencing stuff, he was in with the DOD crowd or the DOE crowd that Mark Usatonic has been telling us about, bringing to our attention.
And the fact of the matter is, is that he was present in April, he was present in May, he was present in December, and he never usefully questioned the narrative.
He never usefully questioned the possibility that maybe they're just murdering people in hospitals and lying about it.
No, no, there's definitely a novel virus, but novels shouldn't be capitalized.
That was his main objective.
That was his main statement.
We shouldn't capitalize novel because it's not as novel as they say it is.
And they are misleading our young adults.
They are misleading our young parents.
They are misleading our college kids over the last five years, almost completely successfully now.
We have very little time left to wake these people up.
I'm thinking less than a year before a series of events will happen that will make 2020 too far away to get anybody to want to look at it anymore.
It only is going to take one big tragedy.
These people are really traitors to our children.
Brett Weinstein could have called this transfection anytime he wanted to in 2021 because I was insisting that he do it.
Evidence is present in his podcast record because at least once, Heather Haying, his wife, said on screen that I'm the one who told them, insisted that they should call it transfection, and she agreed.
But then they never changed their lingo at all.
And here he is two days ago saying it's the right word, but it's not widely understood.
That's really, that's really lame.
It can't be underestimated how important it is to see this as the malevolence that it was at the time and is and remains now.
He's not just being a little obtuse when he says that it's the right word, but not very many people understand it.
He purposefully didn't teach it when I told him in 2021, it was the most important thing to do.
When I had just gotten kicked out of drastic, because I said it was the most important thing to do.
When I had just lost my job at a university of Pittsburgh school of medicine as a research assistant professor, because I insisted that transfection was the most important thing to teach.
And quite frankly, quite frankly, CHD and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and the whole staff of that book writing crew, they all know this too.
They all know that my stance is, is that gain of function is something that the national security state wants us to teach our children so they don't have to.
So that for generations, our kids will pass this mythology along about what happened in 2020 and how bad the adults screwed it up.
This is the precipice that we are at where real history is being created as we speak.
And that history is going to blot out the biological truth that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system has always been dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and that RNA cannot pandemic.
They're just not going to talk about it.
because they're running out the clock on this narrative.
That's what they're doing.
It's running out the clock.
That's how you should see this.
Because they started the clock in 2019 after Kevin McKernan said that, well, it's not novel as in 2020.
It was probably here before that.
They weren't sequencing people in the rural parts of China.
So that's why I started sequencing the weed.
And of course, they told us that this was trackable.
They told us it was evidence of evolution.
And when they had data that showed no evolution, like Alina Chan's data, they just made her a researcher at the Broad Institute and buried the paper.
Lockdowns were done correctly.
They prevent spread because, of course, Australia and New Zealand are shining examples of what happens when you really lock down.
And without strict regulation, gain-of-function pandemics will only be worse in the future.
And they created this illusion of consensus.
Bret Weinstein did it.
Alexandros Marinos did it.
Chris Martinson did it.
I did it in 2020.
You see?
And until I figured out what I was doing and how dangerous it was and how much it served the needs of these people,
these transhumanists, these futurists, these globalists, these servants of the weaponized piles of money that would enslave our children.
Once I realized that I was participating in creating that illusion and that the people that I thought were helping me were egging me on and keeping me away from transfection, I got angry.
I got mad and I still didn't figure it out.
It took me almost nine months of working for Bobby before I really figured it out.
And then still at that point, I couldn't consider the possibility that I had been hired to work on that book so that I wouldn't figure it out.
To encourage me not to figure it out, I still didn't see it.
I still thought Bobby had to be a good guy.
He's just trying to do the right thing.
He's just not sophisticated enough to get it.
I made every excuse in the book.
And the worst case scenario is still going through social media right now.
Are they doing this to us?
Are they killing us?
Who's gonna come to our rescue?
Will it be Bobby?
And the way they are pulling this off is by not talking about 2020 and 2021, not talking about it at all.
If you just do the research on your heroes and go to 2020 and 2021, you're gonna find people that were saying, wow, the TV's right.
Wow, the New York Times is right.
Wow, it's crazy.
Fauci, Dasek, Fauci, Dasek, whoa!
And you don't need to do that.
That's all a lie.
That whole faith is a lie.
The only thing real is transfection and transformation.
And so we're running out of mesmery there, and this will come a little hard, so hang on.
So I got a couple surprises for you today.
I got up early this morning.
I took care of the chickens.
Ruby didn't want to walk, so we're going to go for a walk after this presentation.
And I did some reading.
I did some reading for my friend Mark.
I've been pointing out that very few people will talk about the names that I have come to understand through Mark Kulak and Housatonic Live, the presentations that he does there and the content that he makes.
I've come to understand Sina Bavari is a pretty interesting dude.
I've come to understand is David Hone as somebody who's a pretty interesting dude.
Stanley Plotkin, exceptionally interesting.
Hilary Koprowski is like somebody out of a comic book.
And the Barr family has so many interesting nuggets in history, like these guys and their papas have been around for a while.
It's really cool that you can trace this family all the way back to the Manhattan Project.
It's really cool.
And then Joshua Lederberg, of course, has an intimate role to play in these stories.
And so the first thing that I want to remind you of, yesterday, of course, there is a video about the disturbing discovery of new abnormal clots that Vajon Health
actually had the audacity to promote as the string theory that Jonathan Cooey or J.J.
Cooey and Lasky Eye Center, that's Joe Lee, talked about on my stream.
This is extraordinary.
I think the string theory is silly.
Even if it is a molecular component of what might happen in certain cases during vaccination gone wrong, or immune augmentation gone wrong, it is not an be-all, end-all description of what's going on.
And the worst part about it is, is that it relies on the idea that
that after transfection your body is making useful high affinity antibodies to the spike protein that can cause the string theory to occur.
And so that's already a large assumption that makes you accept an extraordinary amount of their technologies as being sound.
And so I'm pretty sure that Jolie and his string theory are a silly trap.
And that's why he suddenly appeared out of nowhere when he did, when he came on my stream.
And the first time that he was on my stream, he was pretty good.
The second time he was on my stream, he had props ready to go.
And then as soon as that stream happened, we got a clip of it.
And the clip was just forced to go wild.
I've never had any other clip of me ever, ever, ever.
get shared as much as that clip and it is still being shared now and it's still being promoted by this guy now never there is not there's not one clip of me not one that that jeff from earth has made that has ever received the kind of attention that this clip
that was made about Jolie and myself and the string theory.
It has been shared over and over and repeatedly and repeatedly.
And somehow people can't forget about it and new anonymous accounts find it and new anonymous accounts.
And now four and a half years into the pandemic, Vae John Philip McMillan actually finds it and promotes it.
It is spectacular.
how hard they are fighting at this point to try and get me somehow to play along.
And so one of the things that I mentioned the other day was Whitney Webb had mentioned William Barr or whether he mentioned, she mentioned William Barr in her book.
And I think it's really interesting.
I have her books.
I actually have her books and they're signed by her.
And so this morning I decided to skim the book and
The... But I would say that that clip is random.
Just chance?
I don't know.
Because there's been lots of clips from this community, from Jeff from Earth, that have never gone anywhere after his tweet or her tweet.
It doesn't go anywhere.
But this single video keeps coming back so often, it's very extraordinary.
And it's not really a video about me, it's a video about Joe Lee.
So that's the other thing you need to see here.
That video is pushed as watch Jonathan Cui suddenly be taught the truth by by Jolie.
It's it's a deceptively
I feel like it was made specifically maybe to bait me into sharing it but then promoting Joe Lee by sharing it.
So I never shared it.
And watching it go and go and go and people try to force it to go and nobody ever makes that effort with any of the other videos that Jeff ever cuts.
was pretty extraordinary to me, and it's still going on right now.
So anyway, here we are, Whitney Webb on William Barr.
I've got her two books right here, and so I thought I'd go through them.
Interestingly, in looking for a picture of these books, Mark, you'll be interested to note this if Mark's listening, lo and behold, the audio books of Whitney Webb's books right now are free!
Like you can just get them on Amazon.
It's a free trial with Audible.
You get her books for free.
That's pretty awesome, isn't it?
I mean, there must be a lot of really scary, inconvenient truths for the state in these books if they're giving them away for free on Amazon, right?
Must be very, very salacious.
So let me see what happens if I do that.
Hey, to Jonathan, it was great to meet you at the CHD conference.
Thanks for your support.
Best, Whitney Webb.
Not bullshitting around here, man.
I met this girl at the CHD conference, and after her talk, the first person that came out of the conference room was none other than Robert Malone, and he said, wow, what a firecracker.
I didn't expect that.
That was great.
Remember, this is the same CHD conference that Matt Crawford wasn't registered for, but once he found out I was going, he decided to go from Texas to Knoxville and count on the fact that Merrill Nass would get him a registration, even though the registration was all closed.
Just a little tidbit of information, Matt Crawford also had lunch with Robert Malone and his wife while he was at the CHD conference in Knoxville.
And this was also the first time actually where, is it?
Or was it the second time?
I think it was the second time that, oh gosh, now I'm really lost.
I think it was the second time that I met Mark Kulak in person, but it might've been the first time and then the second time was at my house, I can't remember.
And so let's go.
What we're going to do here is we're going to go to what I've done already, previous to getting on air of course, is I've taken a look at the index here and I've looked for bar.
And you can see that I'm not very good with alphabetizing things.
So I turned to the wrong page already.
Bar, bar, bar, bar, bar, bar, bar, bar.
William Barr's right there.
And you see there's lots of, in volume one, there's lots of citations.
So we're just going to go read these citations out loud and see what we get.
Let's see.
So the first one is on 207.
Let's look and see if I can find the Barr name before you find it.
Ah, here we go, here's Barr.
Barr, one former CIA officer on Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trobert's pre-roll at this time was William Barr, the future Attorney General for Presidents George Bush and years later, Donald Trump.
Barr worked for the CIA from 73 to 77.
He joined that law firm in 78, but it is unknown if he worked for any of the accounts linked to this private CIA
during his time there.
One lawyer who confirmed, and then it goes on.
So, Bill Barr is a CIA agent, has worked for Attorney General for a couple presidents, and he worked for Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge.
Okay, cool.
Let's see, next reference is on page...
Rick's reference is on page 349, and it goes over to 350.
So it's actually two references, but it's not really two references.
It's just one.
It's here at the bottom of the page.
Um, the attorney general serving under George W. Bush at that time was William Barr.
As mentioned before, Barr had been a CIA officer before joining the agency-linked law firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge.
Huh.
And then what?
That's it?
You just said that like 200 pages earlier and nothing more.
So this mention here is not attributed.
Okay.
So, um, and that's two more mentions.
So that's three.
Then here we go to page 406.
And that appointment was made by none other than Attorney General under George Bush William Barr.
As previously mentioned in Chapter 8, Barr had not only alleged role in major aspects of Iran-Contra under Robert Johnson, but had begun his career at the CIA.
As will be discussed in Chapter 11, Barr's employment with the CIA overlapped with his father's decision to hire Jeffrey Epstein at the Dalton School
which would prove essential in Epstein's rise to prominence in these networks.
Early on, Barr essentially stonewalled Congress by denying congressmen access to privileged documents related to Promise and Inslaw Incorporated, much like he had done years earlier when he stonewalled the Church Committee on behalf of the CIA.
As a result, a congressional hearing was held in December 1990 on Barr's continued refusal to make the documents available.
After considerable political pressure, Barr moved to appoint the special counsel to investigate the Inslaw Affair, appointed retired judge from Chicago, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Yes and yes and yes, and that's it.
No more Barr.
Hmm.
Okay, I'm still not really paying much attention to Barr, apparently, even though he's been Attorney General for two Presidents.
He's not really that important.
He worked for the CIA, but that, you know, that's it.
Okay.
Here we go, we're going to page 433, same book.
Much of the dirty laundry of these different criminal enterprises would be mopped up in the early 90s by none other than William Barr, who started his career at the CIA and served as George W. Bush's Attorney General.
Barr would play a major role in covering up Iran-Contra promise in BCCI and is seen in his pardoning of the Iran-Contra criminals and his patronage of the Bua report and his thwarting of indictments related to BCCI's 91 collapse.
Some have explained specific scandals away, painting them as blights of the Reagan-Bush administrations and treating them with
treating these intelligence organized criminal rackets as isolated instances.
However, that's it.
There's no more Bill Barr.
Okay.
So CIA again and attorney general again.
Okay.
I'm going to the next one for 51.
Um,
Here it is again, William Casey and in the late seventies had worked alongside young William Barr in stonewalling the Pike Committee and the Church Committee and investigated the CIA beginning in 1975.
And that's it for Bill Barr again.
Hmm.
Not a whole lot on Bill Barr.
It's like, okay, then I go all the way to the back and that's the end.
So, um, that's the first book.
Um, let's go to the second book.
Maybe she has more on the second book.
I'll go to the index here and we got Barr.
Donald Barr's got page 2 and 3.
And William Barr has 2, 3, and 31.
Okay, good.
Let's go right to the beginning of the book.
Man, that's promising.
Okay, so 2 and 3.
Donald Barr was the son of a communist and
son of an economist and psychologist who had joined the OSS during World War II.
He is alleged to have been a member of an OSS target team in Germany and have worked for a prisoner of war camp.
His son, William Barr, would subsequently follow his father into the world of intelligence services and served from the CIA from 1971 to 77, which overlaps with the last few years his father was headmaster at the Dalton School, including the year Donald Barr is alleged to have hired Jeffrey Epstein.
William Barr, who allegedly had a role in the Iran Contra mentioned in chapter eight, would go on to serve as attorney general for George,
in a capacity, was arrested and found dead in New York prison.
After exiting intelligence, he briefly worked as a literary editor and then went into academia.
He taught English at Columbia.
Oh boy.
And for 10 years while pursuing graduate studies, he started a series of conferences in 1955 focused on identification guidance and instructed of the gifted.
and joined the School of Engineering following year, and these conferences then grew into Science Honors Program, which offered Saturday classes to gifted high schoolers.
Nice idea.
At the same time he was running his high school-focused program, Barr was also directing the Talent Preservation Project, a massive research therapy program for high school underachievers.
It is possible that there may have been an early Epstein-Barr connection if Epstein had attended one of these programs for gifted high school students.
Donald Barr would become the head.
So it's all about tying them to promoting him as the school headmaster, and the headmaster, and the headmaster, and the headmaster Dalton, and the headmaster.
So despite the fact that he was somebody in World War II, an OSS target team, that's all she's got to say.
And then she repeats the stuff that she said 13 other times in the first book.
And then adds a little bit about the dad again.
I don't know.
I'm not.
I'm not terribly impressed.
If you look at Mark's catalog of research into the Barr family, every time he opens the book on them, something interesting falls out.
And I find it incredible, absolutely incredible to see that this book is free, has an audio book on Amazon.
That cannot be good.
That cannot mean that this is the most controversial, most dangerous books for the state that have ever been produced.
It's just not possible.
This is the opposite of that label.
They are encouraging people to read this.
As many people as will download a three-month trial of Audible and will willingly put themselves on the list.
Amazeballs.
amazeballs.
So he worked for the CIA and he was a district attorney was a attorney general twice.
That's about what she knows about William Barr.
And her dad, his dad was the headmaster at at the Dalton school.
And that's all you really need to know from Whitney Webb as far as William Barr and his dad are concerned.
And unfortunately, because of
Robert Malone's incredibly ridiculous endorsement in Knoxville at the CHD inaugural conference.
I can't help but think that Whitney Webb is probably part of this ridiculous little thing.
Curious note, Whitney Webb actually mentions Joshua Lederberg in an article that she published in 2020 about Michael Callahan.
It's a really interesting hat tip to Joshua Lederberg and is actually what has led me to think that we should be looking into Lederberg like Mark Kulak is as well.
Remember, I think these people have misled us.
I think in particular, Robert Malone is intimate in terms of, really important in terms of understanding what's going on here.
I want to just cover these points really quick.
In the Vajon Health video that I covered in two videos in the previous shows, it became clear that Robert Malone has worked particularly on retroviruses.
This will become important in the Journal Club today.
Investigated packaging sequences will also become important in the Journal Club today.
suffered PTSD because those labs were so cutthroat, and he actually got a diagnosis of that.
But since then, he's able to work for DITRA, DOD, speak at the WHO, and sit on multiple NIH study sections where he's overseen and helped people award more than $50 billion worth of American funds.
He won't touch Mickiewicz because she comes from the same retro viral mentor chain that he does.
And he has actually done a movie with Gerrit van den Bosch where he has a little black taxi cab driver hat on and there's drone footage from him in the mountains of Spain in 2021.
And so I assure you that Gerrit is also intimately involved in this theater.
Finally, I can't encourage you enough, please use the website housatonicits.com and peruse the news articles and things that have been so generously correlated together, collated together, archived together for our use.
Please go there and find things that I haven't found yet.
So we did this already.
Vajon Health is a really interesting window into this that spans from Geert van den Bosch all the way through Christine Grace and Charles Rixey and Kevin McCairn all the way through to Robert Malone and
and right now up to citing Joe Lee and his string theory in a video.
It's absolutely shocking how much can be learned if you just look at that guy's catalog and see how he was set up to be present for the spike, be present for autoimmunity, and try to misconstrue it as both the spike protein in transfection and the spike protein from the gain-of-function virus are causing the same calamity in
humans.
And that is a disturbingly malevolent mythology.
And I think it's really available right now to see what's happening.
The limited spectrum of debate is currently being buttressed on one side by CHD and Brownstone, and on the other side by a much more reasonable and nuanced take by Robert Malone's Substack.
And so here we are in avian flu, and the mythology is being actively curated by the exact people that won't talk about me, and actually some of them even let me go.
After hiring me as a hero The way that they do it is they don't talk about 2020 and what they were doing then and what what they were talking about The first interview with Jolie is a pretty good interview the second one with Jolie is a
is less entertaining.
It's okay.
Um, there's no question that Jolie is not on our team.
I don't know whose team he's on, but he ain't on my team.
Otherwise he wouldn't be, um, taking the stance that he does and pretending that I'm ignoring him or something like that.
He knows exactly the truth of the matter.
Uh, and that's fine.
That's why I have him prominently featured on my meddlers, uh, diagram because that's for sure where he belongs.
Um, let's take a look at this and work together on it.
Let's just, um,
Let's just turn the highlighter on and see where this gets us.
So, let me see if I can see the highlighter here.
Which one is the highlighter?
That one, I think.
Yes.
So, this is a paper from 1994.
Excuse me, I was going to say 2094.
1994, that was the year that I graduated from university in Chicago and started my rude awakening into adult life and how it wasn't going to go as planned.
And at that time, a guy by the name of John A. Wolfe
wrote a review, a kind of special feature review with Joshua Lederberg about the early history of gene transfer and therapy.
Now, the reason why this is so interesting is because this John A. Wolfe is someone on a paper called Direct Gene Transfer into Mouse
muscle in vivo.
And this is, of course, the paper that also has Robert Malone as an author.
Now, interestingly enough, while Robert Malone is claiming to be the kind of intellectual dude that's behind direct gene transfer in muscle, you know, to do that kind of thing, transfection transformation, he doesn't really mention this guy very much.
I've heard him mention this dude, I think I mentioned, it's weird because this guy died in April of 2020.
At some point you think there would be a, yeah, you know, one of the guys that unfortunately isn't here that could probably give us a lot of insight into what's going on and would back up everything I'm saying is a guy by the name of John Wolf, God rest his soul.
Nah.
We're not gonna mention him at all.
So keeping in mind who is John A. Wolfe is the question that I'm trying to ask with this stream.
And so I thought it's actually very appropriate to go back and read a paper that he wrote in 1994 with none other than Joshua Lederberg.
Like he is the man.
Joshua Lederberg is the guy that brought us Carey Mullis and the PCR.
And you're gonna find out in this article and other ways that Joshua Lederberg is the guy that brought us, found us bacteriophages.
And so I don't know if we can read this whole article.
I think we probably can.
And as we read it, I want you to understand that this is a snapshot in the history of how these ideas have evolved and how the expression of these ideas has evolved to either avoid or minimize the ethical questions that are involved in these issues.
And Joshua Lederberg seems to almost be handing off the torch to John A. Wolfe here.
If you go on PubMed and look for this article, it's not gonna be that easy to find.
You might actually be very surprised if you search for John A. Wolfe and just get the articles that pull up.
There are a lot of interesting articles that will show up, but none of them are this one.
Let's see if I can, do I have that up here?
Yes, I do.
So let me just take this over here quick and show you this.
So here is the PubMed search that I did and you see direct gene transfer here, direct gene transfer into muscles, another paper in 94, gene therapy of primer in 1993, small interfering RNA delivery vehicles, naked DNA transport and expression in Memento 97,
So if you think then that that this guy's got a lot of stuff under his belt And that he has one paper with Robert Malone from when?
1990 It's curious that Robert Malone in that stream We watched with with vage on health over the last two days in the beginning So you have to go to the first program we did on it in the beginning of that podcast.
He's very insistent I don't know if anybody else came up with these ideas.
I'm just one
you know, we stand on the shoulders of giants, was kind of a very faux humble way of saying that there's lots of people that this idea is from and I wasn't even the first author on the paper.
And so let's read this paper to find out who the hell John Wolf is.
The term gene therapy was coined to distinguish it from Orwellian connotations of human genetic engineering, which in turn was derived from the term genetic engineering.
Human genetic engineering is derived from the term genetic engineering, and we don't want it to be Orwellian, so they called it gene therapy.
Well, that's already a creepy admission, isn't it?
That's already an incredibly creepy admission.
Genetic engineering was first used at the 6th International Congress of Genetics, held in 1931, and was taken to mean the amplification of genetic principles to animal and plant breeding.
Once the basics of molecular genetics and gene transfer in bacteria were established in the 1960s by Joshua Lederberg, gene transfer into animals and humans using either viral vectors and or genetically modified cultured cells, which became inevitable.
Using cultured cells is a lot of what they do now.
in order to fix the immune system, they'll ablate the immune system, get rid of all the cells in your bone marrow, and then put some genetically engineered bone marrow stem cells back in.
And when he described the application or when Robert Malone described the experiment that inspired him,
I can switch over to this.
He described transformation of cells.
they used retroviruses to transform the cells and then they put those cells back into the mouse and those cells express the protein.
And so what we're talking about here in this paper, and what he's saying here with the idea that either using human viral vectors or genetically modified cultured cells became inevitable, he's speaking exactly of the kind of experiment that Robert Malone described to us in that early Vajon Health June 2021 video.
Despite the early exposition of the concept of gene therapy, progress awaited the advent of recombinant DNA technology.
What is recombinant DNA technology?
Well, that's synthetic RNA and DNA made by bacterial cloning.
what virology will often refer to as infectious clones, but what pharmaceutical companies will refer to as basic molecular biology.
It is recombinant DNA technology where they grow it up in bacterial culture.
That's what that phrase means.
The lack of trustworthy techniques did not stop many researchers from attempting to transfer genes into cells in culture animals and humans.
Viral genomes were used for the development of the first relatively efficient methods for gene transfer into mammalian cells and culture.
In the late 1970s, early transfection techniques were combined with the selection systems for cultured cells and recombinant DNA technology.
Early transfection techniques were combined with selection systems for cultured cells and recombinant DNA technology.
Do you see why virology is a lie?
It's an illusion.
They're lying to you about the biological correlate of bacteriophages.
They're lying to you about what bacteriophages are and what their correlate would be in our own biology.
With the development of retroviral vectors in the early 1980s by people like Robert Malone and Robert Gallo and David Baltimore and their students, the possibility of efficient gene transfer into mammalian cells for purpose of gene therapy became widely accepted.
Gene therapy, of course, being a term that was coined to distinguish it, the idea, from the Orwellian connotations of genetic engineering.
This article outlines the conceptual and experimental beginnings of gene therapy.
The idea, how do we understand, how do we know something?
That's what Alex Karp would ask.
How do we know something?
How do we understand something?
Well, the concept can be consciously and intelligently manipulated so that it means what they want it to mean.
And he just introduced it in the abstract that to try to divorce the Orwellian connotations of human genetic engineering from that term, they started calling it gene therapy.
Not getting very far in this article very quickly.
Concurrently, experimentalists attempted gene transfer into mammalian cells, culture, and animals in anticipation of recombinant DNA technology.
So they attempted gene transfer, knowing eventually they would be able to make nucleic acids very cheaply.
What a weird statement.
Unreliable practices in early studies open the experimental results in the entire approach of gene therapy to question, even though many basic methods and theories would eventually be proven correct.
I'm sorry, but this right here sounds exactly like what I have been saying they want to do with transfection.
They want the unreliable practices of the pandemic emergency
to be discredited, be discarded because they're just, you can't put the entire methodology of transfection into question because we rushed it, because we cut corners, because Donald Trump made us cut corners.
And so just like Joshua Lederberg and John Wolf are making the argument that unreliable application of gene therapy
is making it dangerous that people might throw the whole idea out even though the basic methods and theories would be proven correct.
It's the same grift.
It's exactly the same grift and it's still ongoing.
It's taking them years to do it.
Almost 30 years to do it.
to invert our understanding of ourselves so that something like this could be read and not make any sense to us other than, okay.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and they want you to believe that the unreliable practices of early application during a pandemic crisis
should not be reason to throw the whole methodology out when the whole methodology will be proven to be correct in the end in the next generation of vaccines that we give to our old people and young alike.
It was not until transfection techniques and selection systems for cultured cells were coupled with the ability to manipulate recombinant DNA that substantive progress was made in gene transfer.
Holy shit.
They say it all out loud.
Transfection is gene transfer technology, you see.
As the enterprise of gene therapy enters an accelerating period of growth, it is timely to examine and it's, it's, it is timely to, sorry, I was trying to find out how many people are watching, but I can't see it.
I guess I don't have that window open anymore.
I had to redo my OBS and so everything's fresh.
As the enterprise of gene therapy enters an accelerating period of growth, it is timely to examine its earlier, more tentative phase of development.
The rise of gene therapy has been compared to the growth of aeronautics.
Just as the ancient Greeks fantasized about Acheros' disastrous flight, gave away to da Vinci's fanciful, if unflightworthy, drawings of flying machines, and later to the design of many strange and awkward contraptions, so too has the early history of gene therapy been marked by numerous dreamers, prophets of doom, naysayers, missteps, and fiascos.
In both cases, many experiments were attempted too early before the necessary tools were available.
The John Wolf guy works at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and of course, Lederberg is at Rockefeller University in New York.
But just as the invention of the Wright brothers' crude but successful early flying machines rapidly led to the development of supersonic jets and space travel,
So too has the development of recombinant DNA technology brought us, in an astonishingly brief span of time, to the brink of curing.
Hereto though, here the two, here there too?
Sorry, I said that wrong.
That's funny.
It's a funny word.
Untreatable diseases.
Gene therapy is not as generally thought a new concept.
The notion that genes can be used to treat human disease actually goes back several decades.
Many of the pioneers of modern genetics were aware that their discoveries eventually would lead to medical applications.
Perhaps this history is obscure because halting process
Perhaps this history is obscure because halting progress in the science of gene therapy and transfer was slow in coming.
Now that researchers and their patients have embarked on promising gene therapy trials, it may be useful to review the evolution of gene therapy's theoretical foundations and thereby gain insights into its medical, scientific, social, ethical, and economic milieus.
Reviews covering later advances in gene therapy and in non-viral gene transfer methods have appeared, and one of the more prominent early proponents for gene therapy has recently explored its history.
This contribution, while stressing early attempts at gene transfer in cell cultures in animals, seeks to place these studies in a wider historical context.
Moreover, a historical perspective may be useful for evaluating the prior art.
in patent applications.
What an interesting thing to say.
They mention IP.
Of course, there's this little anecdotal story about Brett and Eric Weinstein's dad, who happens to be an IP, intellectual property lawyer, who was appointed to the Department of Justice of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and John F. Kennedy Jr.
And so worked with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's dad.
Their dads worked together.
Interesting.
And they mentioned patent applications in this.
So the beginning of genetics, long before the discovery of the gene, our species participated in genetic manipulation.
The first Council of International Genetics was held in 1899 in London.
It was actually called the International Congress of Hybridization on the Crossbreeding of Varieties.
William Bateson used the use of the term genetics at the Third Congress of Genetics in 1906.
In the interim, Hugo de Vries and others had rediscovered Mendel's work, which originated the concept of the gene as a unit of heredity.
One of the first uses of the term genetic engineering was in a paper of the title presented at the Sixth International Congress of Genetics held in 1932 in Ithaca, New York.
So again,
The term pandemic potential probably made its debut in a publication and used it in the title or in the abstract and has nothing to do with the results of the paper or any of the papers that followed it.
To Marxist commentators, the term genetic engineering was synonymous with eugenics in contrast to social engineering of the USSR public policy.
This is also something that Lederberg talked about, wrote a paper about, which is interesting.
The term gene therapy was adopted to distinguish itself from ominous gene line perceptions of the term human genetic engineering.
While the human genome has previously been modified indirectly by human activity, more direct manipulations could usher in a new epoch.
So here we are again talking about the future of genetics.
The concept of gene therapy is set in the context of pharmacological and surgical traditions.
Gene therapy can be defined
as the application of genetic principles to the treatment of human disease.
Screening programs for phytoketoneuria and Tay-Sachs disease and many conventional medical and surgical therapeutic approaches such as liver transplantation could fall under this definition because they were founded under the understanding of their genetics and biochemistry.
That's a little weak.
More specifically, the term gene therapy unites pharmacotherapeutic with genetic principles, implicating the use of a polyonucleotide to treat the disease state.
And so this is very good.
This is very good because what this is, it's telling you how these ideas have been contorted from the irreducible complexity idea, from the sacred biology idea.
Because rather than saying that our understanding of genetics is immorally impotent, in the sense of it would be immoral to go forward with so little understanding, as actually Craig Venter said on video.
but instead trying to talk about genetic therapy as equivalent to pharmacokinetics.
When we understand that chemicals and the way that they augment our homeostasis and our physiology, chemicals are very different than genetic signals.
And
the potential downsides of administering genetic signals and treating them as just pharmacotherapeutics, you know, like an opioid.
You are actually hearing and listening to the semantic warfare that is being here misconstrued as some scientific discussion that will add nuance and understanding to our list of terms in the toolbox.
Stop lying.
And that's not what's happening here.
What you're hearing is exactly what they said at the top.
It is a, they are, they are trying to describe the term gene therapy accurately enough in their own language to distinguish it from the Orwellian connotations that are almost impossible to divorce from the phrase human genetic engineering.
This whole article is about trying to convince you that if you think about genetic engineering in the right way, it's actually not as morally confounding as you think.
It's not as actually insulting to the irreducible complexity of God's creation than you think.
If you call it gene therapy, it's not nearly as problematic.
this whole damn article's about, and trying to put this argument into a historical context so it feels more like, well, it's an illusion.
It's a consensus that all these old smart people came up with.
More specifically, the term gene therapy unites pharmacotherapeutic with genetic principles implicating the use of a polynucleotide to treat a disease state.
Ugh.
Stop lying!
It's so gross.
And so in 1878, Langley proposed the concept of the receptor substance known simply as the receptor.
The hypothesis that interactions between a drug and the receptor are governed by the law of mass action was first developed.
And so here he goes on again, talking about what should be termed biophysics.
And he should be talking about ion channels and receptors and G-protein coupled receptors and all this stuff.
But instead, he's going to try and twist it around very, very succinctly so that he can only use this stuff
for the expression of genes.
And that's the only thing that really matters is that we we can express these things in different places.
The molecular understanding of protein function and enzyme action led to the development or rational drug design based on targeting the receptor or active site you see.
So he's just trying to take
our limited understanding of this irreducible complexity and pinch it all the time off and put it on the shelf of, see, but this is another argument for genetic therapy.
It's another argument for genetic therapy.
Another reason why you should think genetic therapy is no different than pharmacokinetics.
Antisense and ribozyme gene therapies represent an extension of this concept and they have not come to market.
Approaches that involve the addition or modification of genes that are conceptually similar to protein replacement therapies, such as those for diabetes and hemophilias in the naturally occurring macromolecules are administered as remedies.
Here again, not a very good sentence, but he's trying to suggest to you that we're just a matter of time before what we do now with a very ham-fisted ways of doing it,
we can do very elegantly with gene therapy.
Transient expression of exogenous genes, the use of artificial RNA.
Oh, citing Wolf et al.
1990, which is of course that wonderful paper that
that Robert Malone often cites but doesn't point out that the first author isn't even him.
Gene therapy with the incorporation of a therapeutic gene into the cell's chromosome more closely resembles surgery in which tissue, oh that is just gross.
Gene therapy with permanent incorporation of the therapeutic gene into the cell's chromosomes more closely resembles surgery.
in which a tissue or organ is modified for the lifespan of the recipient.
Stop lying!
This is a really extraordinary article.
Thanks, Mark, for the heads up.
The discovery by Avery McLeod and McCarthy that a gene could be transferred within nucleic acids is a critical point of reference.
I didn't look at that article, so I'll just go on and assume.
Biologists have long attempted by chemical means to introduce in higher organisms predictable and specific changes which thereafter could be transmitted in series has hereditary characteristics.
Okay.
Trying to understand how evolution might occur or heredity might occur.
Sure, that's fine.
The capacity for viruses to transmit disease was first demonstrated in Salmonella.
Well, that's not what you demonstrated in Salmonella.
You demonstrated bacteriophages.
So there's a semantic shot over your bowel right there.
If you're not biologically sophisticated enough to know that bacteriophages have a lot more proof of existence than RNA viruses do, then when he says viruses were first discovered in Salmonella, you won't even realize that he's already pulled the hat trick on you.
The little, you know, cups with the ball inside of it.
It's just moving all around now.
The idea that viral genomes could become a biting part of the cell genomes was discovered with bacteriophages.
Oh, he says it in the second sentence, not the first one.
In the first opening sentence, he puts viruses as equivalent to bacteriophages, which they are not.
Stop lying!
And then extended to animal viruses.
And so if
If bacteria and bacteriophages are part of the same cycle of pattern integrity, and exosomes and higher mammals are part of the same pattern integrity, then the story of animal viruses being separate from and not a part of us, it falls right in place.
It doesn't make sense, but it falls right in place for what bait-and-switch they're trying to do here.
The ability of Roos Sarcoma virus transformed in cell culture to produce new virus.
So this is actually, that is actually Gallo.
Roos Sarcoma virus is what he was mixing and matching in cell cultures all the time and producing more
is something that Gallo apparently proved here.
So further studies of RSV infections.
Oh, this is also Temin's work.
Temin, of course, was one of these guys that was a contemporary of these guys that, of course, Mark Kulak has also covered.
Nobody else, but Mark Kulak has.
And others demonstrate the integration of SV40 DNA in transformed cells.
So again, we know that SV40 isn't a virus.
We know it was just the name on a tube.
And we know that transforming cells just has to do with reverse transcriptase, which is an enzyme, not a virus, and it was found by David Baltimore.
So here you can kind of see how all these ideas are mixed up shitty and regurgitated by their mentor-chained students.
And here you have Joshua Lederberg writing a very conspicuous article with none other than the first author of the paper that Robert Malone touts as his primary lanyard to all the VIP rooms.
The elucidation of the structure of DNA and its parsimony with DNA's surmised function
brought forth an upheaval of biology.
So we imagined that there should be something that was easy to copy and very high fidelity.
And then we found something like DNA and we said, well, we found it.
Not saying that it's not it.
I'm just saying that that's what he's saying here, right?
That one of the reasons why we assume the DNA must be it is because its structure was so cool.
The history of the subsequent discoveries of mRNA and the formulation of the central dogma, genetic information flows from DNA to RNA to protein, is chronicled in the Horace Judson seminal book, The Eighth Day of Creation.
And of course this genetic information flowing from DNA to RNA to protein is what we are supposedly trapped in.
That's the simple biology that makes a human being and everything outside of that where they copy DNA or they rewrite RNA or they use retro or use RNA, sorry,
reverse transcriptase to write DNA backwards or whatever.
That's all virus stuff.
We live despite those things rather than in concert with them, never mind using them as part of our pattern integrity.
So, speculations on gene therapy in the interval intermediately preceding the recombinant DNA era.
Key aspects of gene therapy were elaborated by forward-thinking investigators of the day.
Edward Tatum predicted that viruses could be used to induce, to transduce, transduce genes.
So transduction is a word that was often used and then replaced by transformation at some point.
But transduction is a more specific term that at this time referred to using viruses to change the genome of a cell.
So transduction is another term that you can put in your toolbox that these people have all known for decades.
Transduction, transformation, transfection are all interchangeable terms depending on how you use it.
You know, like isolation and purification.
Stop lying!
So here we go.
Finally, it can be anticipated that viruses will be effectively used for man's benefit in theoretical studies in somatic cell genetics and possibly in gene therapy.
We can even be somewhat optimistic on the long range possibility of therapy by the isolation or design of new genes into defective cells of particular organs.
Sorry, I'm going to pause here and I'm going to get the
the doc out that shows me how many people are here.
Where is that?
I still don't see it.
Why don't I see it?
It's not coming into my purview here.
Get in.
You should be here.
I want you right there.
Why won't you go in now?
Come on.
So where is the other doc?
Stats.
Twitstats is what I want.
Ah, 89 people.
All right.
An hour and 27 minutes.
That's perfect.
That's exactly what I wanted to know.
Um, okay.
So Tatum speculated that because the basis of cancer is altered genes, treatment could be achieved by modification and regulation of gene activities or by means of gene repair or replacement indirect or ex vivo approaches toward gene therapy were also envisioned.
Hence, it can be suggested that the first successful genetic engineering will be done with the patient's own cells.
For example, liver cells grown in culture, the desired new genes will be introduced by direct mutation from normal cells of another donor by transfection or direct DNA transfer.
But of course we already knew that because Robert Malone said he described that exact experiment and that experiment is what inspired him to just put the DNA or the RNA directly into the frog embryos or the chick embryos.
And then he did that while he was teaching an embryology course and then that's what led to the idea of direct gene transfer.
But they were first thinking, as Lederberg describes it right here, as the way they would do it is they would transfer a patient's own cells back in.
Which is how I think they cured or claimed to have cured sickle cell anemia or something like that recently by ablating someone's bone marrow and replacing it with their own cells that were cultured beforehand and genetically altered.
So the efficiency of this process and its potentialities may be considered improved by the synthesis of the desired gene according to the specifications of the genetic code and the enzyme of discernment, and in vitro enzymatic replication of this DNA, and by increasing the effectiveness of the DNA uptake and integration by the recipient cells as we learn more about the factors and conditions affecting these processes.
So the more DNA we can make, the more likely it'll work.
The cheaper and more accurately we can make that DNA, the more likely it will work.
And so, when Kevin McKernan tells you so excitedly that the cost of making DNA has gone down to peanuts, when Ray Kurzweiler tells you that the making of DNA and the sequencing of it has gone down to cost peanuts, this is exactly what the same narrative that frickin' they were laying down in the 90s with this article with Joshua Lederberg!
You know, the one that's in a photograph with the Sacklers and went to their funeral and stuff.
Tatum was extremely confident that gene therapy would be feasible with the knowledge of the structure and function of genes at hand.
One of us speculated about the possibility of gene therapy in an October 24th, 1962 letter to Stanfield Rogers in Lederberg, personal communication.
It will only be a matter of time, perhaps not long, before polynucleotide sequences can be grafted by chemical procedures onto a virus DNA.
And of course, if you can put it onto the virus, then the virus can carry it in.
which is exactly what Robert Malone was working on when he was working on RNA and viral assembly and packaging sequences.
And you can look again at our notes and you can look again at that stream from two days ago.
And so you can also look on Mark's website to find more about Robert Malone and Lederberg and all of them.
In an attempt to be made to transform limber cells of a male offspring of a hemophiliac ancestry by introduction of carefully fractionated DNA carrying normal alleles of the mutant hemophilia gene, this experiment would appear to be entirely analogous to the typical attempts to transform
transforming bacterial forms.
So they're trying to do the molecular biology they think they can do in bacteria in people.
And they're doing it by trying to transform the cells of people in culture and then put them back.
Robert Malone is one generation ahead of this because he, again, described this interesting experiment in using retroviruses to transform mouse cells and then put those mouse cells back in the mouse.
And that inspired him to think about direct transfection and transformation, which he is credited for, credits himself for having invented.
This experiment would appear to be entirely analogous to transforming bacterial forms.
However, it is not clear whether one should regard this as a pure example of genetic engineering, since the practical outcome would probably be best achieved by influencing the nuclear constitution of somatic tissues rather than directly tackling of the germline.
So instead of changing the germline, what we should try to do is change the tissue in people.
interesting argument.
The precedence for this type of intervention would be that the virus mediated transduction, there it is again, of the genetic characteristics that was also demonstrated in bacteria almost 20 years ago.
So transduction in this case seems to refer to the use of retroviruses to rewrite or add to the genetic complement of a cell.
So that might be transduction, whereas transformation would be using just raw DNA to do that, and transfection would be to use RNA to do that.
The proposal recently revived by Dr. S. Rogers would require the discovery or artificial formation of cryptic viruses
to which specific genetic information relevant to the cure of disease has been grafted.
So here again, Robert Malone was looking for packaging sequences that you could graft sequences to, and then that would trigger the packaging of those sequences, i.e.
the manufacture of viruses with your gene of interest incorporated.
So again, we're describing all the ideas that Robert Malone was brought on the scene to claim authorship of,
But actually it sounds like, and it looks like from the PubMed list of John A. Wolfe, that actually it's John A. Wolfe's idea.
And Lederberg seems to give John A. Wolfe credit by deciding to write him, with him, a review.
1994 right this is a review in 1994 if Robert Malone was the was the Was the intellectual juggernaut behind those papers then maybe Joshua Lederberg would have written this review with him But instead he wrote it with John a wolf who?
Robert Malone seems to really have a hard time mentioning if you know of a video where he mentions him I really be great and to know where that video is I
Rogers would require the artificial genome, once the essential techniques for grafting segments of DNA from different sources of that microbe have been perfected, experiments along these lines provide the most favorable opportunity to select these segments of DNA information which are needed.
This describes the assembly of
of clones that Ralph Baric is blamed for, but of course you can see from this article, and you could know if Kevin McKernan was being honest, that the no-see-um technique that Ralph Baric is credited with is just simple ligation.
It's so stupid.
It's so stupid that they call it no-see-um when it's just using restriction enzymes to ligate DNA just like they do and we're already talking about for decades.
It is a joke and it is so much a part of the Scooby-Doo that Ralph Baric was elevated as a molecular biology genius when in reality they've been talking about grafting DNA from different sources together and they've known how to do it with restriction enzymes for decades.
Stop lying!
In this way, it should not be extraordinarily difficult to obtain micro-DNA packets which are enriched with a gene, for example, for the synthesis of phenylalanine hydroxylase.
One may, of course, argue that similar results could be achieved by the manipulation of tissue cells and culture as if they themselves were microorganisms.
Arthur Kohnberg's successful replication of DNA in a test tube was widely reported in the popular press as the creation of life in a tube and was viewed as an important milestone on the road to gene therapy.
performed one of the earliest mammalian gene transfer experiments stated at a poultry breeders roundtable.
When presenting our data at seminars and symposium in 62 to 64, we coined the terms gene surgery and gene therapy to stress the clinical potential of our work, but there was little interest in our results, probably because at the time prokaryotes, DNA synthesis,
and the genetic code was at the center of the attention.
By the late 60s and 70s, gene therapy had become the subject of increasing number of articles and meetings.
Shin Shimer ruminated on the prospect for designed genetic changes of mankind.
And at Autumn 1969 meeting, Afosian advocated for the use of pseudoviruses derived from mouse pyelomavirus and placed in gene therapy.
and place gene therapy in the pharmaceutical tradition.
If considered the purpose of a drug to be restored the normal function of the body in some particular process of the body, then DNA would be considered the ultimate drug.
But if you consider DNA a tiny sliver of the irreducible complexity of our biology that we should consider sacred, then it's not the ultimate drug at all.
This entire article is trying to invert our understanding and appreciation and reverence for the sacred.
And it is trying to twist it around into something that's just the same as pharmacokinetics, just putting drugs in.
In a 1970 article, B. Davis discussed the human genetic engineering and explored the feasibility of ethics of somatic and germ cell alteration, cloning of humans, genetic modification of behavior, determination of sex, and sexual reproduction.
One of his major points was that control of polygenetic behavioral traits is much less likely than cure of monogenetic diseases.
And of course, this is the fuel
for the 20 or 15 years of gene knockout studies in mice to try and understand what single genes do by knocking them out and then culturing the cells or growing the mice if they do live.
And this is the reason why neuroscience was so focused on single gene knockout models of autism for so long.
Because again, one of the major overarching ideas pushed by people like Joshua Lederberg
is that monogenetic trait diseases are the low-hanging fruit of the eventual goal, which is being able to tackle polygenetic behavioral traits.
And so you can see aspects of these ideas and aspects of Lederberg's kind of influence and thought leadership potential already in these papers and before, because of course, Mark has been documenting this.
This paper is just extraordinary in how succinctly it tells you that gene therapy was a word combination chosen because of the Orwellian connotations of genetic engineering.
Stop lying!
LION!
A symposium on gene therapy was sponsored by the National Institutes of Neurologic Disease and Stroke at the National Institutes of Health and the Fogarty International Center.
The first session entitled Information Transfer by Mammalian Viruses included talks on recombinant SV40 viruses by David Jackson and Paul Berg and on RNA tumor viruses by Howard Temin.
Other sessions were entitled Isolation of Altered Viruses with Specific Genes, Information Transfer by DNA, Mammalian Cellular Systems, and Immunologic and Medical Aspects.
Several other articles and meetings brought gene therapy into more mainstream as well.
So publishing papers with the titles, with the words that they want to develop, are the way that you get pandemic potential in bat caves and in laboratories.
Surely there were other visionaries that an accounting of this early period would eventually reference.
It is apparent that schemes for gene therapy occurred to many researchers once the basic of molecular genetics were established.
Despite these premonitions, Friedman observed that it is not always quite so obvious as it is now that gene therapy is a rational and logical consistent approach to the treatment of some forms of human disease.
from both the medical and scientific perspectives.
Until fairly recently, the concept of gene therapy had been criticized by a sizable portion of the molecular biologic community as being remote and even improbable, possibly even unnecessary.
In addition, several prominent scientists rejected the reductive view of DNA's role in biology and therefore implications for gene therapy.
So that's a very shitty, tiny reference with shitty words to the fact that lots of people
said that the model of how we're trying to claim that DNA results in RNA results in protein results in us as a pattern integrity was way too reductive.
And therefore moving forward under the pretense that DNA and we understand it so we can squirt it in places was ridiculous.
That's the addition.
That's the admission that you're gonna get here.
That's it, nothing more.
Several studies in the late 1950s and early 60s revealed that cell cultures could take up radioactive DNA.
The nuclear part.
the radiation part, the mutation part.
Interesting, huh?
Oh, they're just using it for tracing.
The entry of radioactive DNA into the nucleus of cells was also reported.
The ability for polynucleotide transfer to induce the N effect was provided by viral studies.
In the late 1950s and early 60s, it was demonstrated that naked viral DNA or RNA is ineffective when applied to cells.
This was first disclosed with plant and tobacco mosaic viruses and then reproduced with polio
myelitis, semi-leaky forest encephalitis, influenza, and several other viruses in malignant cells.
Interesting.
This prompted a science review article that discussed the infectious disease implications of these studies, i.e., their release from infected tissues and resistance to antibodies may explain some anomaly.
The infectious entity presumed to be polynucleotides was obtained by phenol extraction of the virus, was labile to nucleases, and not neutralized by antibodies.
Doesn't sound like direct evidence of anything.
For example, phenol extract of poliovirus yields RNA that produces plaque forming poliovirus when injected into embryonic eggs or when applied to monkey kidney tissue culture.
I guess we got work to do here.
I don't think these are good papers probably.
Maybe these are some papers that were covered in the virology is a lie document.
Um,
In the studies of the effect of viral RNA concentration, solution composition, and temperature on infections of mango virus encephalitis in mouse fibroblasts, hypertonic saline and sucrose solutions were found to increase infectivity of RNA.
infectivity of RNA rather than transfectivity or transformativity or activity.
They call it infectivity because they are already building the synonymous with the, the synthetic RNAs are synonymous with the virus.
So they can use synthetic RNA and then call it infection.
You see, see, you see what they're doing here.
Exposure to hypertonic solutions, yes.
Polio viral RNA uptake was also enhanced by high concentration of magnesium sulfate.
Dubbs and Klinger reported higher efficiency of polio RNA plaque formation with the use of calcium depleted cells, blah, blah, blah.
Infection is also facilitated by the fine cloudy precipitate, very probably a calcium phosphate formed when phosphate buffered saline is made by mixing its ingredients before sufficient dilution in water.
It's just recipes and bacon cakes and whatever works to get more crap to get packaged.
Whatever gets more plaques.
The uptake of cellular or viral polynucleotides could also be improved by complexing with various proteins.
Amos found that uptake of radiolabeled Escher E. coli RNA by cultured chick cells was enhanced by protamine.
Other polycations such as streptomycin, spermine, and spermidine did not increase uptake but were observed to protect the RNA from RNAs causing precipitates to form.
Causing precipitates to form!
But ladies and gentlemen, one of the main objections of the no virus group is that when you apply streptomycin to these cell cultures, they form, that's what causes the cytotoxic effect, which you could describe as precipitates forming.
And the RNA is forming the precipitate.
You're gonna, number one, you're gonna see particles.
Number two, you're gonna test positive for the RNA.
And it's caused by streptomycin?
Holy shit!
The no-virus people are right, and Lederberg knew it, back in 94.
They knew it in 1961!
So this is all about DNA incorporation.
I'm not going to read it all because it's a lot of terms that are just there's coxsackie cells and helo cells and whatever.
A potpourri of studies in the 1960s asserted changes in cellular phenotype by the transfer of non-viral genes.
So here we are.
Now we're not talking about viral genes anymore.
Now we're talking about transferring endogenous genes or known genes to change things.
So this is really transfection and transformation.
Bone marrow cells and culture from patient homozygous for sickle cell disease express normal beta globulin peptide when the cells were exposed to DNA from normal bone marrow cells.
So again, this transformation experiment initiated in 1961 is still basically the basis for the sickle cell anemia cure that was recently published in the news.
They're doing the same damn thing.
and it's only become cheaper to do it and it's only become easier to do it and only had the excuse to do it because they have these lipid nanoparticles and they have this new technology that they rolled out during the pandemic that they're now claiming is brand new and improved and used to cure sickle cell anemia in the exact same shitty way that they were proposing to do it already in the 60s.
Completely ignoring the irreducible complexity of our physiology and just saying that they already understand it.
Okay, I'm going to do direct gene transfer into animals.
I'm sure there's good stuff in all of this stuff, but a lot of this here in my scan here looks very, very technical.
And so they're just talking about all the different ways that people got higher expression of the gene when exposing the gene in RNA or DNA form.
So trying to bypass the need for what they call a virus.
in order to get transfection or transformation to work.
So then we go down here to gene transfer in animals.
Perhaps the earliest predecessor of a direct in vivo approach was the use of vaccines, which permanently modified the body's response to infection.
Interesting declaration.
Vaccination with attenuated viruses may be viewed as a form of gene therapy, especially since the viral genomes may persist long-term.
So again, here you have a very interesting attempt to equate gene therapy now, not with pharmacokinetics and drugs, but now they're trying to equate it with vaccination.
And of course, we know that this is being done now, right now, today.
This is 30 years ago.
And so you can see very easy how this evolution of these ideas, more importantly the evolution of these concepts, to try to steal from them the irreducible complexity, the sacredness, the reverence for what we don't understand, and steal from them all of the morality associated with those things, and equate them to the best drug on earth.
equate them to a therapy rather than a ham-fisted meddling with an irreducible complexity that we should just respect and consider sacred.
So another notion, so the ease of administration, relative cheapness, and long-lasting effects of vaccine are ideal qualities to which the proponents of gene therapy aspire.
That's also a really gross statement, yuck.
That sounds like something that Bret Weinstein would say in his best English using day.
Another notion for direct in vivo therapy was treating bacterial infections by injection of bacterial phages.
Although this therapeutic approach was discussed in Sinclair Lewis's novel Aerosmith,
There were several actual reports of successful use in animals and humans.
The negative results of well-controlled studies and assent of antibiotics stopped further investigation.
I want you to think about something very interesting that someone sent me in, wow, I got a lot of email here.
Somebody sent me a really cool idea this morning, and I want to,
Just a thought.
This is coming from a guy by the name of, I don't even know his name because it's not in this chat.
I am a robot says, I am a robot says.
A message for JJ.
You know, I just had a thought.
Why ivermectin might be recommended for COVID and why antibiotics were not allowed.
maybe because bacteriophage transporters would be killed by the antibiotics, but not by ivermectin.
Now, there was speculation a long time ago, actually, that what they did was they produced a bacteriophage and they released that bacteriophage so that people's own microbiota would express the spike protein, maybe cause people to get sick, but more importantly, would be detectable as a PCR signal.
And so a bacteriophage containing the spike protein would be very, very interesting.
And I know of at least one PCR test that uses a bacteriophage as its control.
And so there's no doubt that there are bacteriophages that have been manufactured to contain the entire spike gene sequence.
They were used as PCR controls.
And so the idea that the PCR signal that we are finding was not present in us, but present in the bacteria in our noses, in our saliva, and in our microbiome, and therefore present in high quantities in the sewer,
would be easily accomplished by manufacturing a bacteriophage with the spike protein in it.
And then transforming or transfecting or whatever you want to call it, all of us or any of us in New York and elsewhere, where we intended to find it and we wanted to blame it on that, that toxin.
we wanted to find that exact sequence, we would plant it there.
And one of the ways to plant it there would be to plant it in a bacteriophage because then it might replicate.
You might find more of it.
It might spread around a little bit in the bacteria that it's replicating in.
Do you see?
Do you see why this biology is so important to understand?
Because the scenario that we are being offered on the television and on social media is inevitably a very simple scenario that doesn't acknowledge almost any of this complexity at all.
Another notion for direct in vivo therapy, bacteriophages, the direct transfer of polynucleotides into tissues in vivo and in situ was attempted in 1960s as well.
Peritoneal malignant and normal cells in the peritoneum and tours in situ took up radioactive DNA, but the foreign DNA demonstrated no functional activity.
radioactive DNA injected intravenously or intraperitoneally in rodents were taken up by the spleen and bone marrow cells, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they were active.
So again, we're looking at this stuff.
Early exploits of the human gene therapy in the Bayloid studies prompted many attempts to research DNA uptake by vertebrate cells.
However, the study made the entire field of gene transfer into cells of higher organisms somewhat suspect.
So apparently there's a thing here where they tried to do it, but it didn't work.
We could probably read that.
The belated studies in ducks attracted enough attention to prompt several others and investigators to attempt phenotypic modification of DNA transfer.
So Garrett, they must've done something in ducks.
A Peking duck injected intrapreneurially, oh my gosh.
So this paper in 1956 takes ducklings injected intraperitoneally with DNA extract from khaki Campbell ducks and says that they exhibited characteristics of khaki Campbell ducks in terms of body size and head size and that these effects were passed on to their progeny.
Ooh, that's an interesting paper.
to the dismay of pate manufacturers and Chinese chefs who were expecting a culinary breakthrough, these results in the ducks have never been reproduced."
Oh.
And so that inability to reproduce that result led to the discrediting, or quote unquote, of the gene transfer studies in higher cells.
And he's kind of saying, but that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
We know it works.
This just didn't work.
So that's really cool.
I'm going to keep reading this.
I'm just tired, so I want to... Recombinants and blah, blah, blah.
Here, we'll go right here.
The advent of recombinant technology, because this is where we are now.
This is where the Human Genome Project comes in.
This is where production of DNA in quantity and production of DNA using a recombinant bacterial culture is now in its heyday.
So let's read this part.
It was not until early transfection techniques and selection systems for cultured cells were combined with recombinant DNA technology that major progress was made in gene transfer.
Please see that that sentence is complete and total vindication of my four years of work to try and get someone like Brett Weinstein to teach people that transfection is what they're doing.
See it for what it is.
These people are traitors to our children.
The isolation of a single gene enabled both greater efficiency and better documentation of its transfer.
Greater efficiency would be produced by more production of that DNA, and better documentation of its transfer would make it easier to detect.
Ah, using irradiated herpes simplex virus.
I mean, it's so crazy, this.
Fragments of herpes simplex DNA generated by shearing.
I don't know.
Subsequently, other DNA.
I'm not going to read any of this anymore.
This is just crazy.
Here's some more recombinant SV40 factors.
We're using a bacteriophage.
Retroviral vectors were developed by three different groups.
which include Temin.
So it's interesting, for example, that Robert Malone's never mentioned Temin, even though he's another mentor he probably descended from.
So the conclusion, although the discovery of the central dogma of molecular genetics quickly led to the idea for gene therapy advancements,
was hindered, advancement was hindered initially by several poorly designed studies.
As the field has gained credibility in recent years, however, progress has accelerated.
Central to this progress have been the discovery of basic genetic concepts in bacteria and bacteriophages and the elaboration of these concepts to mammalian cells, recombinant DNA technology, and mammalian gene transfer techniques, including viral vectors and physical chemical methods.
So what I'm suggesting to you is that the equivalent of bacteriophage is not viruses.
Bacteriophages are part of the bacteria.
pattern integrity, just like exosomes are part of the eukaryotic pattern integrity.
And so to call them viruses and study them as things that are separate pathogens from us is being completely disingenuous to the discovery that is outlined and described in this article, which is that these exosomes are part of our pattern integrity.
And these geneticists have been trying to tell us that they are outside of our pattern integrity so that they can use them as tools without the moral and scrupulous consequences of those lies.
They have convinced us that gene therapy is closer to pharmacotherapy than it is to disrespecting the irreducible complexity that is our sacred biology.
The new field of gene therapy combines the advantages of pharmacology, namely the ability to treat human diseases with externally administered substances that have specific actions, and surgery, namely the ability to alter tissue or organ permanently.
As such, dean therapy represents a more extensive, a more extension, more of an extension of established medical practice rather than an entirely new branch of medicine, one that could potentially
Rather, sorry, I'm reading it wrong, it's so awful.
As such, gene therapy represents more than an extension of established medical practice.
Rather, it is an entirely new branch of medicine, one that could potentially revolutionize the way we treat human disease.
Stop!
That is spectacular, ladies and gentlemen.
What a great recommendation for a reading by Mark Kulak.
Thank you very much for that.
This show has been, you know, who the hell is John A. Wolfe?
And I think we found out that he's somebody pretty important because Joshua Lederberg decided to write a pretty
seminal review about these ideas with him in 1994, four years after John A. Wolfe was the first author on the naked DNA paper that Robert Malone carries around as his lanyard and access to all of the
VIP rooms that he is regularly circulating through.
The way that they pulled this off, ladies and gentlemen, is they're lying about 2020 and the murders that were committed, the fraud that was committed, and the mythology and the stories that were told.
And those stories are continuing to this day.
That's the reason why you have to call the faith a lie, because it's part of that mythology.
It's part of those stories that involve
gain-of-function research and the potential for the worst-case scenario being a gain-of-function bioweapon.
This is all elaborate lies about transfection and transformation and transduction in cell culture and they are willing to murder people to keep this lie
intact because it is how they plan to govern our kids for generations to come.
If you want to understand this, you got to understand it from the perspective of lack of fidelity.
RNA cannot copy itself very well and therefore if they want to study what RNA does, they need to make a DNA copy of it.
Once they make a DNA copy of it, they can use the techniques described in this 30-year-old paper and described by Brian Artis on stage at the Red Pill Expo, although not very well,
And they can use those techniques to make a lot of that DNA in bacterial culture.
And then they can take that DNA and convert it to RNA using any number of techniques described in that paper and developed since.
And if they apply this RNA to DNA to cell culture, it's called virology.
If they apply this RNA to DNA,
to animals, it's called virology.
And if they send it to their friends and they do it, it's called virology.
The crazy part is that these techniques can be used to make large quantities of it.
So it doesn't have to be like the virologists say, and they're just making infectious DNA clones in small quantities for my lab to work on.
It could be made using the exact same equipment that has existed for 10 years already in these pharmaceutical companies to make a giant portion of it.
and then you wouldn't have to call it infectious clones.
You can be more specific and just say, you know, it's synthetic DNA and RNA made in quantity, which we've been able to do for a very long time and been trying to do for a very long time as so succinctly described by Wolf and Lederberg in the paper we read today.
These people, especially Robert Malone, know very well they are descended from these same mentors, they are descended from these same idea chains, and that's why they are made to protect them, because they are part of it.
It is a national security operation that didn't start in 2020, although it became public then.
Ladies and gentlemen, they are hiding Pierre Kory and he's one of the greatest ways to red pill your friends.
Ladies and gentlemen, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic.
This has been Gigaohm Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information stream brought to you by a biologist.
This is our main message.
If you want to argue with us, argue with this main message, that the argument about the novel virus accepted the novel virus.
And all of these people, Fauci and Malone and everybody in between, was responsible for us
vigorously arguing about it, and vigorously engaging in the Scooby-Doo until we accepted the existence of the virus.
And these people need to stop lying!
Stop all transfections in humans, ladies and gentlemen, because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
GigaOM Biological does need your support, and that means I need you to share the videos at stream.gigaom.bio, and anybody who can, I need you to go to gigaombiological.com and find a way to support.
The work that I do with a large amount if you want to And you have it or a very tiny amount if that's all you've got and worst case scenario Please just work to share and make a habit of sharing the stream every day Because the stream is gonna be here every day at least once if not twice I'm gonna get some lunch head to the gym, and maybe I'll see you afterward.
Thank you very much for joining me I'll see you again soon
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
Stop lying!