Bye.
Something's wrong there.
Hold on a second.
Oh, I see.
Hold on.
I got that.
I got it.
Let's go back.
We will make sure we go back.
My bad on the sound.
That's why we do this.
We got to make sure everything is set up correctly and this is quite a goofy little rig I got here.
Let's see if we can pull that off again.
Chickens are loud, it's raining outside.
And the purpose is to rid the planet of certain people.
I believe that AIDS in reality is not a natural accident.
It's not a natural disease that just sort of evolved.
Somebody cooked it up.
I think that it's something that either escaped from a genetic engineering laboratory or something that was manufactured on purpose in a genetic engineering laboratory to somebody's specifications.
I also believe that all the warfare of the future will be conducted with these biological agents.
Because now that gene splicing is a thing that can be done, it is feasible to consider the preparation of certain diseases which will kill only specific races, nationalities, or people with certain interests.
Because you can tailor the disease to attack certain things in certain categories.
For example, there are diseases now which affect only certain types of people.
Ty Sachs disease, which affects certain Jewish people.
Sickle cell anemia, which affects black people.
If you want to narrow it down and carry it to ridiculous extremes, I could see somebody in an American laboratory, or maybe even in a Swiss laboratory, making a disease that would kill only Iraqis, or only Iranians, or only Libyans, or only Russians.
Let's look at the world the way it really is.
Government is a joke.
Governments don't do anything.
That's like a cardboard cutout that hides where the real machinery is.
The world is a place that does business.
The world is run by multinational businesses that mostly sell weapons to each other.
Then you have sugar business, oil business, coal business, you know, business.
And when the guys who run these things say jump, all governments jump.
It's foolish to consider the possibility of nuclear war, because from a business standpoint, it's impractical.
It stops all business.
So, the way you have to look at it is, the chances are much more likely that the sales will continue of missile delivery systems, but what will be in the warheads will not be things that destroy real estate.
It's much more practical to think of missiles going someplace and putting out chemicals or microbes that enable the one party to subjugate the other party by controlling its labor force while leaving the buildings intact.
Oh, the next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of America, of the American people, is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us, to ruin maybe America.
I don't know.
Crash the dollar.
I don't know.
Steal the rest of what limited treasury value we have left.
I don't know.
But I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary and more importantly never be possible.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
A man in a silk suit hurries by as he catches the poor old lady's eyes.
Just for fun he says, get a job.
That's just the way it is.
Some things will never change.
Said, hey, little boy, you can't go where the others go.
You don't look like they do.
Said, hey, old man, how can you stand to think that way?
Did you really think about it before you made the move?
Some things have never changed.
That's just the way it is.
Well, they passed a law in 64 to give those who ain't got a little more.
But it only goes so far.
Because the law don't change another's mind when all it sees at the hiring time is the line on the color bar.
That's just the way it is.
Some things will never change.
That's just the way it is.
you
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
There are just too many sliders for me.
Sometimes I miss one.
I actually had to stop that last slide to acknowledge the fact that Laura Logan asking Russell Brand to baptize her if he stripped down to his underwear.
It's just really extraordinary.
There's no other way to characterize that other than extraordinary.
These admissions, I've learned from a very good friend of mine a few years ago during the pandemic that everything is an admission.
And if you think of the things that happened on stage yesterday as admissions, and evaluate them in that way, you can really see things that you don't normally see if you just listen to the words.
Because remember, your consciousness is the prime real estate they are competing for, and the words that they use are how they access it.
It's charlatanism.
These people are just very, very clever in their use of words, in their coordinated lying.
And we inherited this kind of governance from our parents.
It's not our fault.
We just have to realize and take responsibility as the adults in the room and take back the power from these charlatans.
That's what we need to do.
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 simply because viruses are not pattern integrities.
I'm really happy to be here today again, trying to keep up this schedule that I post.
I know I'm a little bit late.
It remains true that their mythology about a mystery virus that can account for the excess deaths that we're seeing is an absolute lie.
And the reason why it's a lie, of course, is because there are a million better explanations for why these people are dying.
And one of them is not a spreading pathogen.
In fact, the way you can see it is by listening to the lawyers that are supposedly coming to our rescue because they can't explain strict liability and they can't explain the Seventh Amendment and how it might apply here.
Because again, this is a coordinated group of liars trying to cover up
the murder and lies.
The murder and lies, of course, were used to make sure that we did not usefully wake up to the idea that the vaccine schedule in America was already a criminal enterprise before the pandemic started.
The transfection in healthy humans would have always been criminally negligent and thousands, thousands, thousands of academic biologists should have known better.
And RNA cannot pandemic.
And again, thousands of academic biologists should have known better.
They should have been able to figure this out already.
But because of the way academia works, none of them feel responsibility to do so.
And of course, this illusion of consensus that was created by this absolutely magnificent
set of meddlers.
Also made it very hard for academic biologists to come out and say it.
And that's because we are transitioning to a new kind of totalitarianism first described by Aldous Huxley, brother of Julian Huxley.
And it's just an extraordinary mentor chain that we have been following back to these ideas and how united
All of these acolytes are in their appreciation for these scholarsly ideas about how mankind should take control of his evolution as a species.
And the population pyramid is the hidden explanation.
The real biology is that they knew a bunch of people were going to die.
They've known it for decades, and they took advantage of this to stage the plandemic.
And they've added people to their team, their cover-up team that covers up the murder and lies that can be explained by this list.
And the list is longer than this, of course.
Perhaps a couple of the most egregious things missing from anyone's explanation are the supplementary oxygen and how pure oxygen is deadly, and the opioid deaths, the opioid epidemic in America and how it contributes to the decreased life expectancy in America, which has been a tribute, of course, to COVID.
So weaponized piles of money have used their acolytes on social media to convince us what to argue about and with whom to argue.
And by arguing with them, we have accepted the premise of the state narrative, the state narrative being bioterrorism, bioweapons, climate change, racism.
You know, some rich guys are good, some are bad.
That's the theater that governs us.
And because we have acquiesced to using social media as a substitute for free speech and direct communication, we are very susceptible to this type of governance.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to know who you're talking to, my name is Jonathan Cooey.
I'm from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I grew up in northern Wisconsin.
I became a biologist as a bird watcher with my grandmother, as a snake catcher and a rabbit keeper.
And then I grew up to be an academic biologist wannabe.
I chased tenure for about 20 years, doing everything I thought I needed to do.
You can find the stain of that work on PubMed by just looking for C-O-U-E-Y-J-J.
And you can find a whole list of things here, a whole list of experiences I've had in the last four years that might suggest that I've seen an alien that a lot of other people who claim
to have seen the alien actually have not.
Anyway, if you're, you shouldn't probably be, you're probably not watching at stream.gigaohm.bio right now.
And that might be because our server isn't strong enough to support the live stream for a bunch of people, but some people can watch there and it works okay.
There's also a archive there, a previous broadcast that we maintain.
There's a clips channel.
There is a calendar that I'm trying to follow the, the,
The videos of Biology 101 and Uncertainty 101, the course that we're doing are there.
The books that you need to download are there.
And
The Batcave is there, which is a significant archive of videos, and Housatonic also has an archive there.
So it's a pretty nice place to go.
No algorithm, no login, paid for by viewers just like you.
And so it would be really great if more people would share that.
It is doing really well, I have to admit.
my channel personally is over 30,000 views and that's you know that's that's a channel that that social media doesn't share and and you know this is all just linear growth produced by people like you um and it's really awesome because uh i'm starting to believe that
by just keeping going, that Mark and I are going to make some serious progress and eventually become self-sustaining.
I mean, that's the hope.
Whoa, that's pretty loud.
I don't know why that text disappeared.
I guess I did that wrong.
It is the 30th of September, 2024.
I'm very happy to be here.
This is an Office Hours, Journal Club thing.
We're just going to talk about a few things, just trying to keep on the air on Mondays.
I'm going to leave Monday kind of open like that with Journal Club and Office Hours so that I can basically do whatever I want as long as I show up on time.
You can see the people there streaming down on the left side of your screen.
Those are some of the supporters of the stream.
Some of the supporters don't want their name up there.
Some of them just haven't gotten their name there yet because I'm still trying to do all of the accounting and name tracking and this kind of thing, so I apologize.
to anybody who might be offended by that.
I still think it's really important to discuss the basics every day.
So I'm probably going to keep doing that for a while.
So you're just going to have to deal with that.
I still think it's really important.
I'm going to get rid of the globe, because that's only useful sometimes.
It's really important to realize that the big picture here is that these people don't want to look at 2020 anymore.
They don't want to look at 2019, 2020, or 2021.
They want you to focus on here and now and going forward and what we have to do now and who we have to work with and we shouldn't critique anyone because it's a unity party with everybody that you would ever want to be on your team already on your team.
So why would we want to reflect?
on what any of these people were doing in 2020 and whether or not they had the principles they claim to have now.
That is the role that the Brett Weinstein-Weinstock meeting that occurred yesterday in Washington, D.C., that was the role that it had.
was to paint this picture, this very false and artificial picture of a group of people that from the beginning have had the principles and have had the leadership and have had the qualities that we needed in order to get us out.
And they have not, they have been working for the narrative.
This is how national security and governance works nowadays, that we have been, again, tricked into using social media as our primary form of communication and our primary form of outward thought projection, gives all that information to them.
And that has been very malevolently turned around and used against us.
And we have been fooled into thinking we solved the mystery of a novel virus.
That's where we are.
Hell, why is my click not working?
And so that's why I think it is important and we'll continue to spend time going back to 2020 to investigate what these people were talking about and how on narrative they were about repurposed drugs, the spike, the fear and cleavage site, HIV inserts, gait of function, lab bleak, databases being deleted, amyloid and prion stuff, neurological effects, cardiological effects, mitochondrial damage.
All of this stuff was seeded in 2020
And if you use the archive that's available to you on YouTube and on other social media, you can verify this claim.
All of the people that were in that meeting yesterday that were on stage or claimed to be adjacent to them were intimately involved in seeding the narrative of the Scooby-Doo Laboratory Mystery Cover-Up Virus Lab Leak.
And by definition, because you argued about that with them,
and very vigorously, you accepted the existence of the novel virus.
You accepted the principle of RNA that can free range around the earth for five years and that we need to be afraid of the possibility that it might go endemic.
All of that biology was built in.
to their initial inquiries, their interesting whistleblower type declarations about the fear and cleavage site or the Indian paper that was withdrawn from preprint status that detailed HIV inserts.
These were all seeded to these people, encouraged, given to these people so that this could seed a narrative that would seed expected outcomes for the rollout of the transfections.
and not just the COVID transfections, but the transfections that are to come for the years in the future.
There is no going back from this if we stick with their plan.
We will eventually accept that the old vaccines were pretty kludgy and that they hurt people or that we should have cleaned them up better or we should have been more paying attention and yeah, but now we've got this new technology and thank goodness
Not only did it save people in the pandemic, but we figured out the problems, the shortcomings of it.
And we can, in future reiterations of this, replace the vaccine schedule with safe ones.
And of course, we just heard Steve Kirsch say that exact thing on Stu Peters and evoke the name of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
as the guy who in five years would have provided us with a safe vaccine schedule.
I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable.
And so one of the people, one of the many people that I think was wittingly or unwittingly involved, maybe unwittingly placed or allowed to rise on social media before the pandemic, even given some pretty good guests before the pandemic so that he would rise and be present.
and intimately connected with Brett Weinstein or Joe Rogan or any of these people and want to be a part of this, you know, new media podcasting universe is this guy here, Tom Bilyeu, who is, it's called the impact factor or something like that, or impact theory.
And he's got this idea that he's going to teach the youth and that's how he's going to change the world.
And in principle, that's not such a bad idea.
But what is he really teaching the youth by having a podcast on with a bunch of meddlers and liars that are provided to him by these weaponized piles of money?
And so as long as he gives them a microphone, how much is he really helping the youth?
He's more or less helping the military industrial complex that puts these people on his show.
And so, of course, there should be a pretty good example of that, right?
If we were to look back to 2020 and see if Jonathan Cooley is right about this, then there should be pretty conspicuous examples of, oh, wait, from August of 2020, embrace death?
The thumbnail says embrace death?
Gee, I wonder what they're going to talk about here.
Could it be that these people are also wittingly or unwittingly gonna seed a narrative with the expected outcomes for transfection to new proteins in humans?
Could it possibly be that all of the little nuggets would be in a podcast already on August, 2020?
Well, why not?
That's several months after Kevin McKernan has already been on many podcasts explaining everything.
It's already several months after Pierre Cory has testified in front of the Senate as to the disaster that's occurring in New York.
So why not on August of 2020 on Tom's show, why not have somebody and then make the thumbnail say embrace death?
Guys, this episode ended up getting amazing.
Roughly, we'll put the time code, but we got onto an absolutely fascinating topic, and I'll be heartbroken if you don't at least watch that.
So this episode was rad.
I promise you, you will not regret it.
You can go into the beginning where we talk hardcore COVID stuff, or you can skip right to the time code that's gonna be right there.
We'll put it, I don't remember where it was, roughly sort of halfway through the episode.
We got into end of life and some really, really fascinating stuff.
Be sure to check that out.
Hey everyone, this episode is brought to you by our sponsor, BetterHelp, an online counseling company with the mission to make professional counseling accessible, affordable, and convenient.
So he was impact theory, but for COVID, he decided to go and do at home and do health theory.
So number one, remember if he is influencing his million followers with an attitude of fear, with an attitude of uncertainty,
an attitude of doubt with an attitude about the worst case scenario, then the people that listen to him will feel that just like if Brett Weinstein wears a bandana and woodshop goggles and says that this is a viable strategy for going to Home Depot and protecting yourself.
then his millions of followers might do that.
They might think, well, I'm not as smart as Brett Weinstein.
And so there are young people that he's been trying to influence, that YouTube is allowing him to influence, that social media owners are allowing him to influence.
And so he's decided to do this promotion of BetterHelp, and he's decided to call his impact theory now health theory, and we're gonna hear about what he thinks and what he experienced during COVID.
I hope you enjoy.
Dr. Jennifer Hay, thank you so much for joining me.
I'm super excited to get this chance to talk to you.
Thank you for having me.
I'm excited too.
Awesome.
So this is a pretty weird time to be in the medical field.
I see your scrubs hanging behind you.
Are you more at Columbia University, the school, or are you more at the actual hospital?
Yeah, so we have a medical center that's associated with our university, Columbia University Medical Center.
I mean, you can see on the bottom here, it says COVID-19 isn't over, and this is August of 2020.
So again, interesting, right?
COVID isn't over, is it gonna go endemic?
COVID long-term, that's what they're probably gonna talk about, protect your health, face death, make death better, culture and death.
Sounds like a great program.
I just can't wait to watch.
We're not going to watch all of it, promise.
And that's where I had spent most of my COVID days.
And is it still pretty hardcore?
Is it pretty hardcore COVID there still?
You know, it's actually calmed down a bit, a lot.
I would say, you know, it was pretty intense there for a while.
I had never seen anything like it.
And frankly, I didn't think that any of my
mentors and older doctors that I have worked with for so many years had seen anything like it.
It was really, it was pretty overwhelming.
The entire hospital became, I would say, probably close to 80% COVID.
Lots of floors had to pop up and turn into intensive care units to manage these patients.
And one day, I walked around and I suddenly saw that every ICU bed had two patients to a room
Every operating room had four patients in a room, all on ventilators, and it just felt like the whole hospital was on a ventilator, and everyone had the same exact symptoms.
The whole hospital was on a ventilator, and everybody had the same symptoms.
Let's just go back and listen to it again, and make sure you realize that if they were being ventilated with pure oxygen, or even 80% or higher, then the medical certainty was that they would go into ARDS in a few hours.
We did a whole journal club on it a couple weeks ago where we looked at medical textbooks and primary literature about it from the past two, from the past five or eight years, not even that long ago, only back to 2018.
And the results and the conclusions are overwhelming in every journal.
that they've known this for years, that giving people pure oxygen doesn't work.
It's not good for you.
It doesn't work.
It can kill you.
It damages your lungs.
It causes ARDS.
It's said it in a textbook.
And so if she's talking about ventilation at the wrong pressure, which was very common because they recommended pressures because Pierre Corey recommended air pressures and oxygen concentrations because people like Kyle Seidel were talking about 60 liters a minute.
We know this is true.
And so let's listen carefully to this lady, because it's an admission.
They don't think they're going to get caught because they're not thinking that they're doing anything wrong.
They're following protocol.
It became, I would say, probably close to 80% COVID.
Lots of floors had to pop up and turn into intensive care units to manage these patients.
And one day, you know, I walked around and I suddenly saw that, you know, every ICU bed had two patients to a room.
Every operating room had four patients in a room, all on ventilators.
And it just felt like the whole hospital was on a ventilator and everyone had the same exact disease.
Everyone had COVID.
And it was really, it was bizarre.
It felt almost like what I would think war would feel like a bit, you know.
So it feels a little bit like, um,
Somebody went into a cave and they saw a bunch of crystals that they've never seen before.
And it really felt like, you know, you were on an alien planet and it was so fascinating.
And I just couldn't believe how beautiful it was to see this uniform pattern and wow.
No tragedy, no trauma, no scarring.
It's like you went past a car wreck where there was a burning school bus and you're fascinated by the screaming and the blood and the smell of burning backpacks.
Like, what in the hell is going on here?
It's like war.
I was really proud, you know?
It was like all the dead bodies around.
Boy, that was cool.
You have your teams and you trust your teams.
You really depend on them to sort of get you through and support each other.
And it was, it was, it was heavy.
Yeah.
That sounds real heavy.
Something everybody seemed to be super focused on in the beginning.
I'd think that that story would have resonated.
It would have been like front page news, somebody telling a story like that.
Now I'm beginning to worry that either because of summer, um,
or just like the climate where people have been pent up, bad things are happening to the economy, obviously what's gone on with the protesting, that people are so fed up with so many things that now- Protesting what?
George Floyd?
This is August, right?
Didn't Floyd 19, as Greg Glassman tweeted, Floyd 19, didn't Floyd 19 go on for like seven months?
There was even a public debate about whether you had to wear a mask or not when you went to... Oh my gosh.
It's an amazing thing they did to us.
It's an absolutely amazing show that they put on for us.
They're acting like the virus will give them a breather.
But you're saying that we're not seeing the sort of explosive need of the hospital.
What do you think is going on?
Is it that it's summer months, it's vitamin D, it's sunlight, it's people being outdoors?
Is it that the lockdown was actually effective?
Is it that the virus is mutating?
What do you, if you had to hazard a guess, and I know that right now it would be- So there went the whole limited spectrum of debate right there, right?
It couldn't have been overblown.
It couldn't have been a misconstrued something else.
It couldn't have been a military operation.
It couldn't have been confusion.
It was definitely a virus, but the virus might be mutating.
Maybe it's vitamin D or something like that.
What I find very interesting about Mike Yeadon's recent promotion of Jonathan Engler and my reflection on it is that one of the first people to come out very early
in 2020 was Mike Eden.
And what did he come out about?
He came out about natural immunity.
And I don't want to be too much of a negative Nelly, but natural immunity is an argument that fits right into the limited spectrum of debate where there is a virus.
It could be novel, but natural immunity would be better than what they're suggesting you do.
And so going in front of the UK parliament and going on social media and saying that natural immunity was a big deal seemed right, and in fact got me to do it for a year or two.
I wrote a review about natural immunity.
I learned the immune system to try and understand natural immunity and being able to teach it.
And by doing so, I accepted the limited spectrum of debate that there is a novel virus, and I didn't even know I was doing it.
And so you could see Mike Eden coming out very early as having not challenged the real narrative at the heart of this.
And so if Mike Eden after four and a half years or five years is now on the No Virus team promoting their books and promoting that clown from Panda that I know to be a liar because of the way that he tried to get me to write a terrible virology review with him that is still available on his sub stack that you can still see
as plain as day is now being promoted by Mike Eden, not my work, not the idea that virology could be explained to a large part using
synthetic DNA and RNA to transfect and transform these experimental methodologies rather than harvesting viruses out of the wild and growing them in culture, which they can't do.
They don't see this subtlety.
Mike Eden is not sophisticated enough to see that synthetic DNA and RNA would be all that they would need in order to seed any of the signals that they claim are high fidelity evidence for the pandemic.
Instead, he's just running around promoting people that we know are meddlers.
I'm very pessimistic at this stage.
And if Mike Eden's a good guy, then I'd love him to come on the show and talk to me about what infectious clones are and explain them away.
And I would love for him to come on and explain why, if there are pharmaceutical companies all around the world with the manufacturing capabilities to make large quantities of pure DNA, that any of this needs to be believed and that virology can't be faked, because it definitely can.
with transfection and transformation, taking advantage of the cells that already make extracellular vesicles, exosomes, whatever you want to call them.
Viruses don't make your cells do something they don't already do.
That means that if you transfect and transform them, it's not surprising that some of that extra DNA and RNA gets packaged and released.
It's not very surprising that you can take whatever supernatant is produced in that transfection or transformation cell culture and put it on another cell culture and then it still shows up there.
That's not surprising.
It's not virology, but it is synthetic molecular biology that can be done in quantity by the pharmaceutical companies using standard molecular biological manufacturing techniques that have been used to make biologics for decades.
You know, the stuff that Brian Artis is talking about with regard to venom.
And so you can see the curation of the narrative, and you can see the curation of the debate about the biology, which actually very, very carefully excludes this space where all of our cells make exosomes or extracellular vesicles.
And some of those extracellular vesicles have proteins on the outside, and some of them have genetic information in them.
and healthy tissues and disease tissues signal like this.
And they have been interested in it since the 80s, when they discovered this part of the immune system in the form of retroviruses.
And people like David Baltimore, Vincent Rackengiello, and many, many others.
have taken virology and run with it, taken virology and like somebody learning recipes, have just replicated it, wittingly and unwittingly, going forward, substituting synthetic DNA or RNA wherever it's needed, or wherever it's convenient.
And here we are, where the signal for AIDS is reverse transcriptase,
attributed exclusively to viruses outside of us and that our own pattern integrity would never use an RNA dependent RNA polymerase or a reverse transcript.
That would be crazy, right?
And decades later, of course, the truth is, is that all of these enzymes are used by our body.
All of these enzymes are present.
All of these signals, packet communication and genetic packet communication is present and they've known about it.
And there are whole faculties that are, or whole labs that are devoted to exosomal communication just in very narrow windows of disease or very narrow windows of questions, not as sort of an investigation into the universal aspect, this universal aspect of all pattern integrities on earth.
It's very likely that from fungi all the way up to higher plants, there is exosomal signaling.
We're surrounded by it.
We're bathing in it.
And it's most likely that the exosomal signaling is the homologue to the phages of bacteria.
We know, and nobody denies that, not even the no-virus people deny, that bacteriophages exist, that bacteria can send
genetic information to other bacteria and then those bacteria get transformed by that information.
There's no doubt that that occurs.
Nobody debates that.
And so the only debate is, is if there is a homologue of this type of communication that exists inside of a multicellular organism like ourselves.
But of course it does.
Our basic biology is based on the idea that our cellular components like mitochondria,
or the cellular components of a plant like chloroplasts, they have all the hallmarks of being symbiotic bacteria.
That's why mitochondria look like little bacteria.
That's why they have their own DNA.
That's why chloroplasts have a glycoprotein coat on the outside, or not glycoprotein, but a
proteoglycan coat on the outside, just like bacteria do.
These are organelles that probably are descendant from single cellular organisms.
If you believe the thing that tie hard Chardin believes, that life has a tendency to complexify.
And that complexification can be seen in multicellular pattern integrities like ourselves, where even our cellular components are actually previously, you know, existing single cellular organisms that have assembled together to form the functional unit of ourselves.
This irreducible complexity is much, much more irreducible than they want you to understand.
And I don't know how in the hell I got this far.
But anyway, let's go back to this video.
If you had to hazard a guess, why are times getting better?
I think it's probably a couple of different things.
One, I think that there was
this latent period where we didn't know the virus was spreading between people and people were getting infected.
And since we know that most people that get COVID have pretty mild symptoms and aren't gonna be that, they probably thought they had the flu or a bad cold.
And so they were home spreading and spreading it.
And then we reached this just sort of massive.
Do you notice how sometimes it's like insistent that it was strange?
And then, but for convenience sake, there's also a tremendous number of people who they can confuse it with the cold.
And there's a tremendous number of people that have asymptomatic and they don't even know they're spreading it.
But then there's this other subset of people that have this super strange disease.
And so I just, I can't square that.
Honestly, I can't.
I can't square that as a manifestation of the same biological phenomenon in multiple people.
I see it as a manifestation of the same psychosis in multiple people, the same delusion.
It's not biology, except insofar as psychological delusions are definitely biological.
Number of people infected.
Psychological delusions are the noosphere.
The psychological delusion that they induced in us was the Scooby-Doo mystery of a novel virus that might be going around that could kill a billion people, that they might be lying to us about how dangerous it is, that maybe multiple infections could be like flying AIDS, like Paul Cattrall said, or Kevin McCarran said, or Harvard to the Big House wrote and got published in the, what is that silly?
Zero hedge.
So this author that Mark and I are exploring and reading, this is not easy reading.
So it's not like we're going to take you through chapter by chapter in a few weeks.
This is like the book that you need to read, need to own for yourself.
It's only like seven bucks on eBay if you want one of these.
I've got a few of them that I was thinking about buying a whole pile of them and then offering them to raise funds and autograph them and then send them out.
But I don't know if I'm going to do that or not.
And now that I said it, Robert Malone will probably buy all these books off of eBay.
But anyway, go get yourself a copy or download the PDF that's available at any link that you can Google and start reading this.
Because the noosphere is this place where humans swim in groups.
So the analogy that I've been using, I think I'm stealing it from Aldous Huxley, or sorry, Julian Huxley, who wrote the introduction to this book.
who wrote the first chapter in this book a few years later.
This book is a book written in the 30s, published in the 50s, and is those two books, this book is in the 63, but these two books are the main reading for Biology 101 to get you in the right mindset to understand
The biology that's in our textbooks was written by people who think like this and whose end goal is to have a set of ideas that are strong enough to pass down from generation to generation.
And what are we talking about here, right?
We are talking, and we've been talking about this since the very beginning.
We have been talking about this since the very beginning.
and this book and this book.
But Brett talked about it, and people have been talking about it for a long time, that the idea is what notions, what structures of thought are able to transmit successfully across generations?
And so the lame version of this that Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein have discussed is the meme.
But they've also mentioned, curiously, a couple of days ago, the Catholic Church as being one of these entities which is capable of transmitting information across generations, despite cultural change and technological change.
Remember, this is what this is about.
How do we transmit?
useful and crucial cultural ideas across generations, and the Catholic Church could be seen as being one of the more successful sets of ideas or mythologies, stories, if you will, if you take
if you take Jordan Peterson from yesterday, the stories that transmit the information across time.
So it is interesting that this guy is a Jesuit.
It's interesting that Peter Hotez likes this guy, that Francis Collins likes this guy.
It's very interesting that Alan Dulles' brother was a Catholic bishop and he also likes this guy.
And so Mark Kulak of Housatonic ITS has unearthed this idea, this fact, that Alan Dulles' brother was a Catholic bishop and that he was a very prolific writer.
And so some of the things that I would like to share with you are involved in that.
So if I go back, just quick, so you can download them before they're needed.
I'm just going to shift this over to this screen.
And then I just want to show you that our website has been updated a little bit.
And more importantly, if you go down here, you can see that the office hours and everything is listed and it's right.
Let me get this off here.
And if you go down, there's ways to help.
And if you go all the way down here, I just, I don't, I don't, I don't want it to be something that everybody knows.
I want it to be for you.
There is a link down here called stuff.
And so I'm going to try and update this link anytime that it helps.
Um, and I'm just going to keep it running, but it's not going to be, it's not going to be a link that's up here at the top.
You see, it's not, it's not up here.
It's only going to be down here.
And if you go down to the bottom and you click on stuff,
then you'll go to a page where for today you can see the journal clubs and what needs to be downloaded and they're just articles that I've taken from these links that Mark found and I've made them into a fresh text only PDF so you don't get all the and you can find these if you search for the title on Google you can find the original link
At some point, maybe I'll also put the original links under here, but for right now, I'm a little bit limited by my web page template, and so it's just easier for me to do it like this.
I also have a slide deck there from the 28th of September that you can download as a PDF, and then I can keep updating this page, and it'll just keep building up, right?
At some point, maybe we'll have to do stuff 2 or something like that.
But for now, I think this will work.
Hopefully this will work.
And so I think you can just click on these and they'll download.
And is it downloading?
I can't see.
Hmm.
There it goes.
And so this is what I would like to read with you today.
This is an article that was sent to me again by Mark Housatonic, Mark Kulak of Housatonic ITS.
And it is an article about Avery Cardinal Dulles.
This is the brother of Alan Dulles.
And it's interesting because
Well, they touch on biology a lot here, actually.
And what I think is the crux of this is a place in scripture where they say that God is love.
And Avery and Teilhard and a few others would make the argument that God is also life.
And I think that God being life,
is a philosophical exploration direction that can lead to a further appreciation of the Creator and humility to the Creator, or it could lead to a false end where you are appreciating creation and man as part of creation
and ignoring the creator.
And so I see maybe a little trap there.
And so again, this is Journal Club, right?
So I'm not trying to teach anything.
I'm trying to learn something with you as we go.
And so again, we're talking about, I guess I wanna, we're talking about Avery,
Cardinal Dulles was a lean man who wrote lean prose, and that he was never prolix.
I don't know what prolix means, and I'm not going to look it up right now.
It makes it all the more remarkable that he was so prolific.
Of the millions of words that he published in his long, productive career, perhaps the most quoted are a handful that make up a certain passage from A Testimonial to Grace, his autobiography.
In articles about him during his lifetime and now in the obituaries that began to appear only hours after his death, we are always reading about that blear,
February day when as an undergraduate at Harvard he took a long walk on the Charles River and he noticed the early buds on the trees and had an epiphany.
It led him from atheism to theism and in short order Catholicism.
I've heard a story like that before where a guy was out in the woods and all of the the
life around him started to kind of reverberate in an extra sort of light or aura and he started to realize that it was all one.
So that's an interesting story.
That typically is the import of the story when it is set as a quote, a sort of verbal paragraph, a photograph somewhere in the middle of one of those engrossing pieces about the scion of Washington aristocracy and how he ended up the prince, a prince of the church of Rome
We understand immediately the spiritual context in which Dulles situated this anecdote from his youth.
But there is also an intellectual context, which requires some explication.
Dulles's own language at that point is, though spare enough, a bit lyrical.
And the image, a young man from storybook background embarks on coming of age adventure that holds great surprises, is romantic.
It is hard to hear the words beneath the music.
In a lecture he delivered toward the end of his life, Dulles rephrased the idea in terms that, being less picturesque, actually do justice to the idea as idea, as opposed to biographical datum.
So let's see if this helps us at all.
This is key to understanding
the position that the Catholic Church takes with regard to evolution and with regard to science.
Remember at some point in time the Catholic Church took the idea that science and
and how God sees the world can clash.
And then, you know, we have to put somebody in jail or something like that because they said the sun is in the middle or something.
That's the history we've been given.
I'm not teaching that history now.
I'm not accepting that history now.
But as far as I understand, there was this time in the Catholic church where they had to make this pivot to accepting science and the progress from scientific perspective of understanding our physical, chemical, electrical world
that there were going to be things that the Catholic Church was just going to have to accept as scientific fact, and they might get in the way of some of the things like, you know, they have said before about what scientific fact was.
And so I think that's where this can best be seen as contributing to a very mature and, sorry, I got a message.
my son is uh my son is unfortunately passing through the fire of freshman year of high school he took a lot of AP courses um and he's been kind of underestimating the requirement to study he's a very sharp kid you know he's a one one
one trial learner a lot of times he's pretty good at math and even when he gets things wrong it's mostly because he's going too fast or he didn't simplify but uh AP history is you know a lot of facts and a lot of dates and a lot of people and a lot of spelling and uh it's not something that if you're not very enthusiastic about it you're not going to keep it track in your head and I think today's going to be the first day where he has a little bit of an awakening about how much
you know, work, just small w work is going to be required to meet the requirements of some of these courses.
Anyway, I just got a text from him saying that his history teacher is mixing up the way that the test is being done, so he might have studied wrong.
And you can hear the panic in his text.
It sucks.
Anyway, here's Dulles' quote.
That's this thing right here, this part that we're looking at here.
The behavior of living organisms cannot be explained without taking into account their striving for life and growth.
Plants, by reaching out for sunlight and nourishment, betray an intrinsic aspiration to live and grow.
This internal finality makes them capable of success and failure in ways that stones and minerals are not.
I think he's talking about a pattern integrity.
Because of the ontological gap that separates the living from the non-living, the emergence of life cannot be accounted for on the basis of pure mechanical principles.
So it wasn't a lightning bolt hitting a mud puddle and then just a tremendous amount of time.
Interesting.
I kind of like this so far.
In tune with this school of thought, the English mathematical physicist John Polkinghorne holds that Darwinism is incapable of explaining why multicellular plants and animals arrive when single cellular organisms seem to cope with the environment quite successfully.
There must be in the universe a thrust toward higher, more complex forms.
Materialistic Darwinism is incapable of explaining why the universe gives rise to subjectivity,
feeling, and striving.
Now I find this a very interesting concept, the idea that life and pattern integrity strive.
A virus doesn't strive.
An RNA molecule, no matter what fear and cleavage sites or HIV inserts it has in it, does not strive.
And that really is a spectacular little quote there, because I think it's right in tune with what people like Buckminster Fuller would rather have us understand biology as.
And again, I'm referring to this children's book, Buckminster Fuller, To the Children of Earth, where he explains what a pattern integrity is using the analogy of a multi-spliced rope.
And so the emergence of life is unintelligible unless it is assumed to be deeply purpose-driven.
In characteristic fashion, Dulles presents this not as his own original thought, but rather as a precise of one of three main Christian perspectives on evolution, although it is the perspective that he said himself, he himself inclined toward.
From his autobiography, we know that his appreciation for the fact of biological life, of bios, preceded, logically anyway, if not necessarily chronologically, with his appreciation for the fact of spiritual life, of which he found to flourish most truly in the environment that is the Catholic Church.
But to say all that in one sentence is to risk understanding him too quickly.
First of all, let's stop and pause with him
before the fact of mere bios.
Does its theological aspect begin to come into focus for you?
If not, think again.
Consider Israel.
The literal meaning of Israel in Hebrew is usually translated as the man who strives with God, in accordance with the account in Genesis 32, although both etymology and the Bible story would support a man who strives after God.
which speaks even more directly to the intuition that God is what life in its manifold expressions is hardwired to strive after or toward.
So let me say that again.
Which speaks even more directly to the intuition that God is what life in its manifold expressions is hardwired to strive after or toward.
So all life on earth is striving toward the Creator.
or following the cue that Dulles provides elsewhere in the lecture quoted above, read Bergson, Teilhard, and Polvani, who look at the biological reality from various angles and in unusual frequencies of light.
God is love, as St.
John wrote so succinctly, and as Christians have never tired of reminding themselves and the world.
But what about life?
Is God also that?
To answer that question we would have to define God and then life.
And such a monumental task I would not presume to undertake here.
This is again Dulles talking.
Oh no.
Yeah, it is.
This is dullest talking, I think.
To answer this question, we would have to define God and then life, and such a monumental task I will not presume to undertake here.
For my present purpose, it is enough to quote St.
John, quoting Jesus, I am come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly.
A friend, a liberal nun, for whom the good news that God is love was the air she breathed and the water she drank, once told me that she was shaken when another visitation sister said to her in passing that the Christian promise has two pillars, not one, and that they are love, of course, and life.
Explaining to me that she recognized the truth of that statement once it had been formulated for her so starkly, she went on to marvel that it had taken her so long.
She was in her 50s.
and now she had, too, had an epiphany about the mere, the fact of mere life and that it may be of her own mortality.
She died of cancer less than two years later.
I don't know how those two things go together.
In her case, the context for the epiphany, or at least for her telling me about it, was a cluster of conversations we had recently about abortion.
More callow than my age, early 30s warranted, I was,
Troubled to find myself troubled by the thought of unborn children being killed.
I was even, I thought, you know, against it.
Immersed in the prejudices of secular university, I had been affiliated with so much of my adult life, I began to worry that I was losing my mental stability.
What would my friends think?
Abortion was not high on St.
Mary's list of injustices, or as I'd say senior, I think it should be St.
Mary's list of injustices, that as a Christian she felt
to confront, called to confront, but she listened to me sympathetically.
Oh, okay, so that's Sister Mary.
Sorry, I get it.
Sister Mary's list of injustices.
Abortion was not high on this sister's list, but she felt the need to listen.
And she sympathetically and encouraged me to follow through my instinct to take up the cause that was impressing itself on my own consciousness, on my own conscience.
The rough truth emerging from our friendly little dialogue was that for liberal Christians, the shibboleth is love, and that for conservative Christians, it's life.
A matter of not clashing values, but of different and complementary emphasis.
Avery Dulles' particular attraction to the life pillar of his Christian faith directed his mind along paths that, for the most part, believers are anxious to avoid alignment with what they regard as the losing side in a culture war
Fear to follow.
I got to read that again.
I guess I read it wrong.
Avery Dulles's particular attraction to the life pillar of his Christian faith directed his mind along paths that, for the most part, believers who are anxious to avoid alignment with what they regard as a losing side in a culture war, fear to follow.
So the pillar of life is a Christian philosophy that few people are willing to discuss because it's a losing part of the cult.
I don't get that.
But OK, I'm not a very good reader, I guess.
In agreement with the magisterium of the Catholic Church, Dulles had no quarrel with evolution per se.
The problem, which he patiently expounded, is what you mean by it.
Strictly interpreted, it
Strictly interpreted, it does not entail materialism, nor is it incompatible with the teleology that informs his view of the life sciences.
Atheists who exploit or are exploited by the popular misunderstanding about God and evolution that they are mutually exclusive propositions report to us that they have chosen one side in the matter so that they and So that they so that have we if we believe in God The difference being that they as they believe have chosen for truth and we for error so you can see where we're going here where we're going is that the God of the Catholic Church is
uses evolution and creation.
It's like one thing.
And so insofar as the Catholic Church has no gripes with evolution, Darwinian evolution, it also doesn't think that it can explain all the way back to life before it was striving.
And so there's this interesting sort of incongruity that gets held here.
as we try to accept all of evolution and science, even the fake knowledge of science.
It doesn't acknowledge the possibility that the scientific method using, you know, p-values and testing null hypotheses is capable of manufacturing fake or false information.
That's not part of this view at all.
What it is, is simply a discussion of how
sounds like how Catholicism can exist and within and on top of that ongoing search for something.
And I find it very interesting that this is the way that they talk about it in 2009 or whatever this is because this isn't that long ago.
This is when the
university system and the academic system and the NIH and the Wellcome Trust and all this stuff are at their finest hour, where most of it is good.
Most of it is still done with some degree of earnestness and whatever, but the vast majority of it is already on its way out.
And then 10 years later, you have the pandemic.
And so this little thing here, where you either believe in evolution and then you don't believe in God, is something that the Catholic Church, I can remember already back from my experience at the University of DePaul, which is a Catholic university,
Shoot, it might even be a Jesuit university where they were talking about this, this idea that some of those professors in the biology department actually spoke these words in their introduction, you know, that I don't think there's any problem with believing in God.
If we figured out that evolution has contributed to who we are as a species, then that is just a sort of
It's information that was available to us, out there to find, that God left there for us to find.
And maybe he's revealed a little bit about how creation worked, but it's still an irreducible complexity that doesn't get us all the way back to the moment of creation by any stretch of the imagination.
And so Catholic science doesn't see it as a challenge to them.
And I think rightfully so.
It's a strong position that enables others to sound moderate when they argue instead that the two realms should coexist on either side of a scrupulously guarded iron curtain.
But that's an arrangement that can't be sustained either unless you consistently halt your train of thought as soon as you suspect it's on course to cross and crisscross the border between MIT and the Angelicum.
The beauty and symmetry found in nature do not by themselves transport us to faith.
It is true.
They only direct us to it.
Although out of a stubbornness we might, like a dog, refuse to avert our gaze from the hand to what the hand is pointing to.
on the other side of the border argue, if you wish, that the varieties of religious experience are dispositive of nothing except the robust nature of human psychology, but you would have to be limited by sadly stunted imagination not to take providence as you experience it in your personal life and notice it
You notice in it that something that just begs to be given a chance to try out for the position of organizing principle of life in general, of life in its grand sweep and in its minute intricacy.
Call it the biosphere, the web of life you have been observing all these years on God's green earth.
Let's return to Cardinal Dulles' lecture on evolution.
During the question and answer period afterward, the high school science teacher stood up and asked his eminence if he thought that in the classroom, intelligent design and theories of evolution that had explicit theological content ought to be taught alongside Darwinism.
Dulles' answer was, in a word, yes.
He thought that the prevailing form of science curriculum fails to maintain neutrality between theism and atheism.
It subtly favors the latter and to redress the imbalance, a measure of theology needs to be integrated into discussions, not only of biology, but of all the natural sciences.
What an interesting fellow this guy is.
After a few more questions from the audience, the moderator intervened to make his concluding remarks and thank the Cardinal.
We stood and applauded.
As the crowd began to file out of the auditorium, I asked the high school teacher who was sitting near me what he thought of Dulles' response to his good question.
His whole demeanor bristled with indignation as he said something about laboratories and experiments and the scientific method.
I said something about the Big Bang.
He shot back that that was physics, not biology.
I replied that it was cosmology to be more precise.
And that anyway, my point was that perhaps his disagreement with the August theologian was not really about science, but about the philosophy of science.
His parting words were that if he did anything like what Dulles recommended, he'd be fired in an instant.
It was a non sequitur in terms of the logical argument we were proving so lame and attempting to play out here on Fordham Rose's Hill Campus that rainy April evening a year and a half ago.
In terms of the emotional argument that was playing us, however, the comment made some sense.
You could hear it in the familiar voice of cognitive dissidents being
being caught as if in a vice between two demands, plain spoken reason on one side and on the other powerful social pressure to disavow it.
So I think this is an interesting article.
I'm happy that Mark sent it to me.
There's actually a link down here to the original Avery Cardinal Dulles is
this lecture here.
And then there's also another article in the same First Things publication that you can click to.
And this one here is in one of the downloads that you can find over here.
No?
I thought I did that right.
Oh no, I had it up here.
Sorry, I'm an idiot.
You can find that here on the Stuff's link, right?
So these three things.
So this one is a Time article.
The one over here is a Time article about him and about, not about Avery Dulles, but about this dude.
And so that one is one that we're going to look at soon, but I thought I would give it to you already.
We might look at that later today or something like that if I have time.
And then this one is the article that the one that we just read refers to.
And so this one's also a good one to read.
It's also interesting.
So these two and these three are a good way to get yourself excited about why I'm recommending that you read this book, why we're going to read excerpts of it, why I'm taking notes on this in the original PDF and highlighting things so that we can do it in biology together tomorrow.
This is the work that needs to be done.
We need to understand why it is that we teach biology the way that we teach it, and not in a way that I would say Cardinal Dulles actually advocates for.
Now, I'm not saying I'm going to teach some kind of new Catholic biology or something like that, but I am trying to teach a biology which
is fundamentally anchored in this understanding that out there and inside of us is an irreducible complexity that should be seen as sacred all around us and evidence of the Creator and our need to strive to fulfill whatever it is that the Creator put us on earth to do.
I think that's what I find very exciting about the direction that we're moving.
It feels very, very much more like what I was
meant to be doing right now.
And so I'm excited about tomorrow and Biology 101, the fourth lecture.
I'm excited about going to the fourth class of Matt Briggs tomorrow.
And again, this is a link which is only found on the bottom of my web page.
You actually have to go down to the bottom over here, if I can get this to work.
You have to go down to the bottom and you have to look down here at stuff.
That's the only place where it's going to be.
I'm going to put my slide decks at that link.
And I'm going to put the notes and I'm going to put the PDFs and the papers that I want you to download there as well.
So that we're going to discuss something.
We can discuss it together and you can have these local to you as well.
So you can share them and use them the way that you want to use them.
And use them to share the ideas the way that when you make them your own.
That's the idea.
I think one of the best
The best things that has happened with regard to my work is seeing these few people that are really taking it on all by themselves and going with it and running with it.
There are some people out there who have really taken it and run with it.
And I'm really, really proud and happy that I've
maybe help to inspire some people to take action as well, because that's what we need.
We need adults taking action.
We need adults informing themselves.
And GigaOM Biological needs you to share our work.
If it's at all possible, it would be really great if you could help us out by sharing our work.
This has been a Journal Club presentation.
I think I can do it like this.
We don't need to watch the rest of this, but I could go forward a little bit, and I could play for you the part.
Maybe I'll do that later.
I can play for you the part where she talks about the specifically asks her, because she's a cardiologist, what's going on in the heart space.
So this is kind of the opposite of Peter McCullough, the exact same medical space, but with the opposite message of Peter McCullough.
It's in a really extraordinary interview.
I don't know if I used it effectively or not in this Journal Club.
I don't know if this Office Hours Journal Club thing is going to work as well as me having, you know, a kind of a red thread that I've figured out and want to get to an endpoint here.
But I do think for sure that Journal Club and Office Hours will get me online every day on Monday.
And so that's why I'm going to keep going with it.
I do think that there is an explanation that leads us out.
I'm going to escape from that and go down here and do this one instead.
I do think that there is an explanation that gets us out.
The explanation can be hinted at.
if we put pressure on these people.
And I'm going to keep using this clip because I think it's so vital to understand that even when Brett Weinstein and his wife decided to give me a shout out in 2022 about the word transfection and about how it was the right word, not only did they not keep using it, not only did they not define it correctly in this statement, but they never defined it correctly thereafter.
It is evidence of their traitorous and malevolent role in curating the narrative that hid the murder and lies in America in 2020.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay, but actually they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines, right?
And so she clearly did not say why we should call them transfections, not even close.
And in fact, implied that we should call them something else, not vaccines, because their efficacy is not as good as other vaccines.
So they don't deserve the name.
That's actually what she said.
And so I think that all of these people can be seen as meddlers.
The latest person to block me is Jordan Peterson.
I find that just extraordinary and wonderful.
I guess I didn't add him to this slide.
I added him to the first slide in the beginning of the deck.
What are they covering up?
What are they not talking about?
Why won't anybody talk about these things?
I don't know.
I guess it's because they are the truth.
The first thing that none of these people will talk about is the idea that a background signal could be misconstrued as spread.
It could be a genetic background signal, meaning an RNA or DNA or some other signal that's in the background that they're just lying about, that they already knew was there, even took,
the years between SARS and SARS-2 to accurately characterize it.
Maybe that's what metabiota did.
And then at the beginning of the pandemic, they roll out tests and they say, oh, look, something is spreading.
But it was actually a background signal all along.
The other background signal that they don't talk about is this idea that there were lots of people having babies after World War II.
And then after this, in the 70s and the 80s, world governments in the West tried to decrease family size.
by all different kinds of means.
And that has resulted in a population pyramid with a little bump that they've taken advantage of, an expected increase in all-cause mortality because we have more old people from the big families around World War II.
And that expected increase in all-cause mortality used in a military operation, sweeping a few more together to create a sharper peak,
has been misconstrued as a novel spreading pathogen.
There's two background signals that none of these people will talk about.
One of them is some speculation, and one of them is absolutely positively true, and that is the one about family size and the number of old people expected to die in the decade to come.
None of these people have mentioned this in five years.
They also won't talk about the many ways that on the academic bench at every university in America and in Europe and around the world, PCR is used to get very high fidelity measurements of the presence of a particular transcript.
But all of the ways that this methodology is optimized on the academic bench, all of them, all of the ways
The PCR has been optimized since its invention, has been optimized on the academic bench over the last 20 years.
All of those things, all of them were not used in the diagnostics that were given EUA authorizations in America to diagnose the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
None of them.
None of the methodological advances in PCR were used.
Single amplicons, single primer sets, that's it.
And Jessica Rose, Kevin McKernan, nobody will talk about it.
Will not list and define the ways, even in its purest form, that mRNA products would never have been appropriate for use in healthy humans.
None of them will talk about it.
They just want to focus on the contamination and the rushing and the double-stranded DNA.
And they want to blame all of the bad things on the double-stranded DNA.
That is their goal.
I said it for a year or more already, ever since Kevin McKernan and these people were talking about the double-stranded DNA as contamination.
They will never define the countermeasures as transformations and transfections even after five years, even though they were commercial products and names of categories of commercial products on many websites before the pandemic.
Just go to Sigma or some of these life sciences websites where they're dealing in chemicals and other stuff and you can find webpages for transfection and transformation products.
It's just that easy.
And none of these people will talk about it.
It was on Robert Malone's resume, for shit's sake.
And so the term infectious clone, which really just covers up semantically the use of synthetic DNA and RNA in virology experiments to transform and transfect cell cultures in animals.
And none of these people, not the good guys on the dissident side that work for CHD,
not the whistleblowers that work for FLCCC and conspicuously not the no virus people like Tom Cowan or Bailey's or Andy Kaufman will tell you that infectious clone is a semantic cue
a semantic code word for when authors use synthetic DNA and synthetic RNA in cell culture or in animals as a proxy for virology.
They just won't say it.
Instead, they asked me to send them papers and said that I was on CHD's team and just part of this big security state operation.
They are part of the show, just like CHD and Mary Holland is.
They are part of the curation of a limited spectrum of debate that will never free our grandchildren, will never teach them this biology.
And finally, they will never acknowledge that it's pretty clever to say that RNA can't pandemic.
That's actually about as clever as it gets.
Try to do it with two words.
Just sucks for them, right?
It just sucks because these things cannot be mentioned without them losing.
That's why the last time that Kevin McKernan and I had a discussion about infectious clones was recorded on Rumble on March 17th, 2023, is still available.
Why Stephanie Seneff, who recommends this book at the top, was in that video.
why Jessica Rose was in that video, and why ever since then, Jessica Rose and John Bodwin and Stephanie Seneff and Kevin McKernan will not acknowledge that infectious clones are just transformation and transfection in cell culture, will not acknowledge that pharmaceutical companies can make as much DNA or RNA as they need to make, and it will be a pure quantity that can be made in no other way.
Because that's what they're covering up.
That's why those people were in Steve Kirsch's steering committee.
That's why those people were on podcasts in 2020.
That's why those people knew that the fear and cleavage site and HIV inserts and overcycling of PCR were the things to talk about.
Because they were told.
Because they were put in place.
That's why they don't want to talk about endemicity anymore.
The thing that Garrett said before the pandemic was the worst case scenario of a bat cave virus.
The worst case scenario of a lab leak is endemicity.
That's what you're trying to avoid.
That's what the worst case scenario is.
And that's exactly what Robert Malone said on Brett Weinstein's podcast was the worst case scenario and the likely one.
even though Brett said that no, zero COVID is still possible if we could just get everybody to take ivermectin for a month.
And then Steve said, yeah, silicoxib might be a good thing to add to that too.
Stop lying.
The reason why they don't want to talk about.
Stop lying.
The reason why they don't want to talk about that anymore is because endemicity is absolutely positively undifferentiatable from a background signal because we have no data from before 2020.
They can say that the novel virus went endemic, but they have no scientific proof for it because we have no data from before 2020.
And so the more parsimonious explanation is that a background signal has been told to us as going endemic, has been presented to us as spreading to endemicity, when in reality, it's just a background signal, just a noise that they've all conveniently agreed to coordinatedly lie about.
From Robert Malone to Tony Fauci.
That's why in 2011, at a Who meeting, Robert Malone handed the mic back to Rick Bright.
Not because he's a dissident, not because he's risking anything by being in D.C.
yesterday or in Japan the day before, but because it's his job.
It's his job to make sure that you don't understand that the national security state knew that more people were going to die for about five or eight years and knew that with very little coercion, we could get a peak to show up and then we could lie about it.
And a mythology about a novel virus would be taught to our children, that they would pass on to their children.
very conveniently transmitting really shitty information about our biology across generations.
Exactly what these people have been concerned about for a really long time, about getting together a narrative that could transmit ideas across generations.
Curiously enough, it's not about the transmission of the truth of Jesus Christ.
It is the transmission of the truth about a pandemic that occurred in 2020 that fundamentally reorganized everything about the globe in our now soon to be defunct nation state model of governance.
Because the collective consciousness is about to meet around the sphere.
The no-sphere is starting to become one collective consciousness, and social media is facilitating that phenomenon.
And that complexification is being sort of opposed by this uniformity of thought.
They want the uniformity that's coming.
They've created it themselves.
because they need to fundamentally invert how our children think about themselves and their children.
They need to transmit this information across the generational gap and they're relying on us to do it.
And this is the information we need to transmit.
That they murdered people and they're willing to lie about it.
That's what we need to transmit.
And the only way to do it is to start talking about 2020 and keep talking about 2020 to try to get a new consensus about these ideas.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you enjoy the random ramblings of this biologist and want more of it, please go to gigaohmbiological.com and find a way to support this work.
Or at the very bare minimum, if you can, please try to share the work by sharing that last link there, https://stream.gigaohm.bio.
Thanks very much.
I'll see you again tomorrow.
See you tomorrow, class of 1010.