Testing one, two.
Test one, two.
And on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, I need a caretaker.
So God made a farmer.
God said, I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, eat supper, then go to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school board.
So God made a farmer.
I need somebody with arms strong enough to wrestle a calf and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild.
Somebody to call hogs, tame cantankerous machinery, come home hungry, have to wait lunch until his wife's done feeding visiting ladies, then tell the ladies to be sure and come back real soon and mean it."
So God made a farmer.
God said, I need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt and watch it die and dry his eyes and say, maybe next year.
I need somebody who can shape an axe handle from a persimmon sprout, shoe a horse with a hunk of car tire, who can make harness out of hay wire, feed sacks, and shoe scraps, who, planting time and harvest season, will finish his 40-hour week by Tuesday noon and then paint him from tractor back, put in another 72 hours."
So God made a farmer.
God had to have somebody willing to ride the ruts at double speed to get the hay in ahead of the rain clouds and yet stop in midfield and race to help when he sees the first smoke from a neighbor's place.
So God made a farmer.
God said, I need somebody strong enough to clear trees and heave bales, yet gentle enough to yeen lambs and wean pigs and tend to pink-combed pullets who will stop his mower for an hour to splint the broken leg of a meadow lark.
It had to be somebody who'd plow deep and straight and not cut corners.
Somebody to seed, weed, feed, breed, and rake, and disc, and plow, and plant, and tie the fleece, and strain the milk, and replenish the self-feeder, and finish a hard week's work with a five-mile drive to church.
Somebody who'd bail a family together with a soft, strong bonds of sharing, who would laugh, and then sigh, and then reply with smiling eyes when his son says,
that he wants to spend his life doing what Dad does.
So God made a farmer.
you you
you.
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 our our 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.
Yeah.
do
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.
Good morning, everyone.
It is 1146.
I snuck in under the bell or before the bell.
It is still the morning here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the USA.
I'm still running in the hamster wheels, still trying to save people from them.
I hope this message finds you well.
Your consciousness is still the prime real estate.
Your attention is still the prime real estate these people are competing for.
and military programs have been deployed after a generation of charlatanism.
They have upped the stakes because they can and because we have willingly complied.
These charlatans now have the added ability
to deploy all kinds of illusions of consensus on social media, which can lead us all kinds of places we don't need to go and definitely teach us all kinds of things we shouldn't be teaching our kids.
And so that's why I'm here.
And that's why I think a lot of other people are here still fighting for the illusion to be broken.
Ladies and gentlemen, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminal, and RNA cannot pandemic because viruses are not pattern integrities.
This illusion must be broken and not be taught to our kids, or they will be enslaved by this same lively debate within that same limited spectrum.
And what Noam Chomsky refers to as a limited spectrum of debate, I gotta say, is actually just a mythology.
It doesn't need to be a limited spectrum of truth.
It can be a limited spectrum of lies, and actually,
Because of social media, we have transitioned from this model that Noam Chomsky may have been very honest about, where it's a limited spectrum of debate about something true.
We have now transitioned into a time when military programs are able to convince us of things that are not true.
We got into a car with a bunch of strangers and let them drive us around.
And we even thought what we saw outside of the windows was real, but it wasn't.
They were all screens.
They were all illusions.
Even the people that we met on the way, the cops that arrested us, all the things that happened at the wayside, all of those things were an elaborate illusion to get us to believe this kind of nonsense, to believe that a mystery virus is responsible for excess deaths.
I almost lost my coffee there.
I did it again.
It's always starting out so fast, but that's what they wanted.
They wanted us to rush in.
And these excess deaths are just not explainable by that.
They are explainable by expected excess deaths.
And then a little military operation, some murder and lies to sweep them together and create some sharp peaks that could be misconstrued as a spreading novel pathogen.
Unfortunately, the epidemiology doesn't line up.
Unfortunately, there are ways, I should say fortunately,
There are ways out.
There are legal ways out, especially in America.
We're going to discuss some of those today very briefly, um, and pass along some reading material.
That's usually, I think the best way to do it.
People don't need to take my word for it.
We need a new consensus about the vaccine schedule, about transfection and what it was before the pandemic and about what RNA can and cannot do.
We also need a new consensus about them, their murder and lies.
Um,
These people have created an illusion of consensus and now they are sustaining it.
They are clinging to it.
That's why today I actually got accused of being a bigot.
Can you imagine that?
I don't even know what my, the exact quantification of the amount of watercolor that was mixed together in the form of my background with my mom and my dad and my grandparents.
I don't, it's funny to be called a bigot today on X. But I was, and it's fun times, fun times where
The effective manipulation of the masses that was first described by Edward Bernays and later by other people like Aldous Huxley and later by Noam Chomsky has become a fine samurai sword that can be used to divide and conquer the population like slicing a melon.
And they are doing it now with brutal efficiency and if we allow these acolytes to, if we allow our children rather, to inherit
this kind of governance, we are going to be in big trouble and they will be enslaved.
I'm convinced of that.
I don't know any other language to choose other than they will be enslaved by these acolytes on social media and how social media is used against us.
And as we argue with these people and accept their argument and accept their questions and the answers that they propose, the narrative of the state is enforced.
Maybe multiple sides of the narrative, but you never get out of the trap.
You're just running around in circles against the fence.
If you're participating in it, they might have even given you a motorcycle and let you ride around in concentric circles on the inside of the great metal sphere that is the narrative.
But you are not effectively going anywhere.
And it's taken me a long time to admit that I was actually so stuck in this that I would have bought into almost every, I did buy into almost everything they were selling at the beginning of the pandemic.
I have a long track record that is freely available on the National Library of Medicine PubMed website.
You can see how long I was trying to chase tenure by looking at
neuronal connections under a microscope by working on mice and monkeys and a little bit of human tissue in Rotterdam.
The name GigaOM Biological is derived from that work.
You can go to stream.gigaom.bio and find our own personal archive of our work, Houston Tonic and I.
Full disclosure, Mark Hucytonic has now, for the past couple months, donated $100 a month to me, which I have turned around, of course, and put into this, which costs more than $100 a month to maintain.
And so, yeah, we have a server, we have our own database, we have our own suggested reading, and we are trying to get a momentum going with regard to Biology 101 and Uncertainty 101, an auditing course.
course audit of my friend Matt Briggs on Substack.
And that's all on our own website where you don't have to log in.
You don't have to give your information.
It says that your IP address is being used to share with other people, but that's just the nature of how PeerTube works.
When you watch a video, it's not stealing anything.
I'm not stealing anything.
Nobody's stealing anything that I know of.
Probably didn't sound very convincing.
Let me get over here and Let me see.
Oh, yeah, I move my buttons over here.
I got to do this then I got to do that I got rid of a
I made a very Hello, my name is Jonathan Koo.
I'm coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
This is GigaOM Biological.
It is a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
I have been continuously juggling a Craigslist collection of technology, which enables me to do some of the, what are very mundane tricks on this, um,
on this stream that include like changing over to different screens, that kind of thing, having me down at the bottom.
Those tricks are pretty rudimentary if you know what equipment is required for it and then you just look for it on Craigslist for a while.
But nevertheless, it's been an ongoing kind of thing to get this to work correctly.
I think I'm pretty happy with the way things are working now.
And so I'm excited to be here.
I've got a few interesting points to hit and just to start it off, the presentation that I gave to the Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International, MD4CEI,
That presentation that I gave yesterday was originally invited by Stephen Frost, the chairman of that, the founder of that little group.
It was originally an invitation to explain
or introduce everybody to, or I don't know, I think the best way to say it would have been explain the Human Genome Project.
Now, at first, knowing what I knew I wanted to say, I agreed to it.
But as I got closer and closer to Sunday, it became clear to me that, wow, if I would have really gone for the target,
as accurately described as explaining the Human Genome Project, boy that would have been a tremendous face plant.
I'm very free to admit that there is a level of technological detail and methodological detail and a methodological history that I'm sure has many, many punctuated landmarks that I would not be able to explain in sufficient enough detail to convince you that I was an expert on all of them, because I'm not an expert on all of them.
And I'm sure that there are people within the context of this narrative who could take a shot at a few of them, but only one or two people that is in front of the fake cameras right now would be able to really enunciate what would appear like a coherent narrative about what the Human Genome Project was, how it fell short, and where we are now.
Mark Lander might be able to do it.
Maybe Kevin Esvelt might be able to do it and Kevin McKernan and now I mentioned Kevin McKernan in that talk and we will I'm not sure if we're gonna do a whole study hall on it or not but I do want to explain why the video on Rumble has a person presenting before me about something that it seems to be kind of absurd and understand that in the context of what's going on and how close we are to the entire
to the entire theater starting to break down.
And that's really what's happening right now.
And I don't wanna be overexcited about it because of the nature and the timescale of the battle that we're fighting.
This is just, it's kind of still meaningless, but for now, the collection of performers that has been in front of us, especially acutely in front of us on X and on YouTube and on a few other of these social media, like Rumble,
These people are now beyond... It's possible for you to see them now, and I think more and more people are seeing them.
I'm babysitting a pot of coffee, which I just, for the love of coffee, I cannot let go cool.
So I gotta kind of keep this up here.
I'll get us off the starship.
And the first thing I want to start with, oh, I didn't get us off the starship.
The first thing I want to start with is a, is a Dear Aaron Seery part.
It's the 22nd of October, 2024.
And I have been trying my best in the context of recovering from the pandemic and recovering from
I don't know, more than a decade of trying to get tenure in the context of an academic medical school environment.
I have also been trying to come to better understand the
come to better understand the American legal system as it matters to me, or as it matters to this, or as it matters to this biology, especially as I've come to understand, and this is key, that before the pandemic, there were already plenty of people, already for plenty of years, that had come and gone, that had said that the vaccine schedule was terrible.
women and men, parents with injured kids or just doctors.
There've been lots of people.
There were famous holistic doctors in Chicago while I was a Chicagoan running around, you know, bartending and high school teaching.
There were doctors in Chicago that weren't vaccinating their patients.
And so for me, one of the most humbling things about going back into this history is realizing that there were plenty of people who knew this for a very, very, very, very long time.
And that the people that are in front of us now were put in front of us.
They had to have been.
And the more I dig, and the more that I put everything in line,
It doesn't make any sense other than to say that a lot of people have known that this biology is bunk, this immunomythology is an illusion, and there have never been any of these people that have risen to break the illusion.
And instead, we have the only people that have been able to sustain any level of existence have never usefully questioned that illusion as the primary flag they carry.
Just hasn't.
Anybody that's carried the flag of vaccines and the idea of a vaccine in general is very bad.
If it's intramuscularly injected, these people are not, they're not around anymore.
And it's pretty striking because now I think also it has become clear to me that the people that are playing or pretending to play on our side with the ESQ after their name,
Esquire, that's a lawyer, people with law degrees may not be playing a fair game.
And it's frustrating because it has taken me, this pandemic, and meeting people and friends and making friends with people that I trust that consistently help me, that watch my back,
that criticize me in a useful way have also, some of those people I've consulted for on trials and on court proceedings or court documents, provided affidavits, and those people answer my questions in earnest.
And after a great deal of searching and
A lot of it searching in the dark because this stuff is not out there and readily available for the simple fact that this has been an ongoing battle in the intellectual space for many, many years, many, many years before the pandemic.
It's way more than trillions of dollars at stake here, ladies and gentlemen, if the whole vaccine schedule could be put under question on its face.
That the very idea is dumb.
And so if there are people, and you can bet your bottom dollar, there were people that knew exactly this and that were saying it exactly like that, that are no longer with us.
Anybody that said it like I'm saying it right now, like a lot of people have said it, they're gone.
And everybody else that has been allowed to say it, or kind of said it, has then gone on never to repeat it, but instead gone right back to selling their book, or right back to selling their spike protein cures, or right back to saying that the spike protein is present in people who had COVID, or right back to
Long COVID they only say it one time on one obscure Podcast and then it's never said again.
It's not like they repeat it every time they get on a podcast first and foremost I'd like to say we've got to stop Americans taking these giving their kids shots.
We got to stop it all Nobody's saying that
And none of these lawyers are saying certain things that I think are really important.
So, without further ado, let me first and foremost say that on my website, at the homepage,
You can now, I did, of course, you know, it was kind of dumb.
At first, I had this stuff link all the way down here at the bottom, which it still is.
If you can see my arrow, I think you can.
If you can see my arrow right here, the stuff link is down here at the bottom.
But now I put it also here up at the top.
If your browser or your screen or whatever doesn't open wide enough, then it'll be more, and then you'll have to pull the more down.
So maybe I'll put stuff
You know, over here at home, and then livestream, and then 101, and then Soapbox, and then stuff already, and then it'll always be visible even on a phone.
I don't know.
But it's there in a couple places, and if you click on that link, stuff, you will find our Biology 101 text, which will, I think, are always going to remain at the top.
The book that I recommended that everybody read at the beginning of my presentation yesterday for the Doctors, Stephen Frost's group, was this book and that's easily downloadable there.
I also mentioned this book there and I also mentioned that book there.
So all three of them, again, you guys know are available.
If you go down one little thing, you're going to see random tort law stuff.
And this says, here's some reading for fans of Aaron Seery, ICANN, Children's Health Defense, and any other law firm, lawyer, or organization claiming to fight on our behalf.
And the thing that I want to look at is called Gallo, Getting to Market the Scientific and Legal Climate for Developing Vaccines.
Now, what's really interesting about this particular paper is, no, this one, is that
It's written by Robert Gallo.
And I might have to, just a second here, make sure I remember what year it is written.
It is written in 1987 and so that means that it's after the National Vaccine Safety Act or whatever the hell it was called, which we'll talk about in here.
Now you can find this article also freely available online.
I'll just scroll up again so that you can probably do it for yourself.
It's at the Scholarly Commons of the Boston University Law School, summer of 1987, getting to market the scientific and legal climate for developing an AIDS vaccine.
Now, what would really be quite frightening, right?
It would be really, really frightening, in my humble opinion, if this article were to describe the
legal situation that we're in better than Aaron Siri can, or better than Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
can, or better than Mary Holland can.
All of these really prominent and outspoken lawyers.
Mary Holland is speaking for the exact same Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International today at 3 p.m.
a lawyer, somebody who was on Democracy Now in 2015, claiming that her son was injured by a specific vaccine and probably a specific component of it, arguing for a testing of vaccines.
And we have not made any progress from that very disingenuous fake attack on this immunomythology.
limiting it to we better test people, we better test the vaccines, maybe it's a component of the vaccine, and that's the hamster wheel that they have managed to get us to run in for 10 years, to get us to here now, where it's still about free speech.
And that magic trick is a doorway to our enslavement.
If we don't get out of that hamster wheel now, in the next year or two,
while the chaos is still high enough, while the disbelief and the mistrust is high enough that anyone that hears the truth can potentially hear it?
This is an article from 1987, not written by a lawyer, but written by the guy who apparently discovered the AIDS virus.
And he's talking about the legal climate in America with regard to developing an AIDS vaccine.
Hmm, I wonder what we're gonna find here.
Let's go down and here it is.
The expectations of a vaccine to prevent acquired immune deficiency syndrome are rising.
Not only are the prospects for an effective immunogen improving, but immunization appears to hold the greatest promise for halting the spread of infection and disease.
Identification of the causal agent of the retrovirus called HTLV-3, LAV, or generically HIV, has provided the direction and limited the options for containing the disease.
Well, there you already see something you don't see every day.
Apparently, the virus that Judy Mikovits and her boss, Ruschetti, worked on is related to, or maybe the same as, HIV.
HIV might be a general word.
So do you see what we're doing here already?
You're already seeing it.
It is a hiding of the truth in plain sight where our immune system already uses retroviruses.
They identified that process, maybe, uh, through, through intramuscular exposure to related particles from related animals or related preparations that interfered with this or misregulated it.
And then now,
We move forward with a disease that is somehow or another based on the transmission of retroviruses that just happened to attack our T-cells, attack our T-cells, as opposed to being an aberrant form of an endogenous communication that's always there.
but would be potentially vulnerable to exposure to the related signals in related animals, if related animals have related signals.
We're not here to talk about AIDS, though, so don't worry, Aaron, I'll get right to it for you.
Hopefully we will get some responses from Aaron on this one.
We're just going to go down.
This is just an article written by, you know, I mean, I think you should download it and read it yourself.
Like I said, I'm a biology coach.
I'm not going to do the exercises with you.
And I'm not going to do the exercises for you, but I can recommend what exercises you should do.
And I think this is one that you ought to do.
This is a whole set of exercises that we all ought to be doing.
So let's get in here.
Let's get in it.
Tort liability for vaccine-related injury.
Let's see if I can get a pen here.
Highlight.
Let's just do a pen.
No.
Pen.
There.
Draw.
Perfect.
The scientific and ethical issues surrounding the testing of candidate vaccines are complicated by uncertainty about the potential liability for adverse reactions to any such vaccine.
The uncertainty is twofold.
Uncertainty as to the legal principles that will be applied if a vaccine injures or is thought to injure any recipient or uncertainty and uncertainty as to what legal principles ought to apply in such a case.
This concern undoubtedly stems from recognition that adverse reactions are sure to follow vaccination with AIDS vaccine, if not during clinical trials, then after a licensed vaccine is marketed.
So he's talking about an AIDS vaccine here.
And it's important to hear that he's talking about an AIDS vaccine here because as he shifts to generally speaking,
what the issues are with regard to strict liability and pharmaceutical products, or strict liability and a vaccine, there are a few principles that will jump out, and a few words that will jump out.
And just so you're aware, if we go already, I have the latest Aaron Seery claim right here, and we look for the word strict, it's not in the whole document.
Not one time strict.
That pretty much means that strict scrutiny and strict liability as legal terms will not be in this document.
And in fact, you can confirm that yourself by downloading Aaron Seary's document and seeing that in his case and in all the language, he doesn't talk about that.
And that's a problem if we're to believe that this guy from Goldman Sachs is actually fighting on our behalf with ICANN.
And so we're here now.
Just roll up.
Producers and manufacturers of vaccines may be held liable for injuries resulting from their products in strict liability or in negligence.
What?
Sorry, what?
Producers and manufacturers of vaccines may be held liable for injuries resulting from their products in strict liability or in negligence.
Is Robert Gallo, the scientist who brought us the HIV virus, about to explain the legal landscape of vaccines better than Aaron Seery or Mary Holland or Children's Health Defense have ever managed to write down on their website or on any publication or in any trial document ever?
Oh, yes, he is.
Oh yes, oh yes, definitely he is.
Strict liability is imposed when the product has a defect that renders it unreasonably dangerous as measured by the expectations of the vaccine recipient or the consumer.
Three categories of defects may give rise to strict liability.
Manufacturing flaws, defects in design,
and inadequate directions for use or warnings of risks.
I wonder how many times you've heard the combination of words together from any of these posers in America.
Duty to warn.
A manufacturer may be held liable for negligence when it failed to exercise the appropriate level of care required of it in producing the product and, as a result, the product causing actual injury.
That's manufacturing flaws.
Liability for failing to provide an adequate warning of vaccine risks has a long and controversial history.
Wow, you'd never know.
However, in view of the somewhat greater ease of avoiding liability on this ground, and its limited effect on decisions concerning what type of vaccine to produce, it will not be considered here.
For years, vaccines were thought to be exempt from strict liability for design defects and liability for negligence in design.
But that assumption has been soundly criticized, most recently in the Toner v. Leaderly Laboratories decision by the Supreme Court of Idaho in February of 1987.
These decisions raise the possibility of subjecting vaccine manufacturers to liability for injury resulting from defects in vaccine design on the grounds that the risks associated with the vaccine could have been avoided had a different vaccine been produced.
That sounds kind of eerily similar to what might happen now if we blame Pfizer for having produced the selected the spike protein or Moderna for selecting the spike protein.
This has caused concern among prospective vaccine producers that their financial exposure for possible unforeseeable adverse reactions may outweigh their potential revenues from marketing the vaccine.
Potential liability for design defects can influence decisions about what types of immunogens, sorry,
What types of immunogens ought to be studied, the duration of animal and clinical trials, the population targeted to test immunogens in clinical trials, whether to seek FDA approval, a candidate vaccine, and whether and how to market and monitor a licensed vaccine.
The concern is that the pressure to produce a vaccine against AIDS will result in a vaccine that might not be optimal in the sense of being free of all possible risks because there's too little time to investigate or discover unforeseeable or even some foreseeable reactions.
Does this sound familiar?
to how they didn't have enough time that warp speed just rushed it out.
The fear of liability for defects in design may inhibit manufacturers from experimenting with some immunogens or from attempting to develop any at all.
The brief history
Of this theory for liability for vaccine injury, however, argues against the likelihood that a new vaccine against AIDS would be found to have an acceptable, sorry, an actionable defect in design.
The vaccine cases strict liability has been defined in terms of its formulation.
And anyone who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused by the ultimate user or consumer, even if the seller has excised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product.
And so it is very possible that in the context of what has happened here, that somebody may be successfully prosecuted, that somebody may be held liable
It's also possible that the legal shield that prevents that by the PrEP Act may successfully shield anybody from being held liable, strictly liable.
But there is a narrative developing now about these DNA contaminations that is separate from the idea that they always should have known better, that the purest form of this would still be inappropriate for humans, and therefore,
If it's always in any form, even in its best form, if it's not appropriate for humans, then we are in a different situation, right?
We're in a much different situation.
And that's why these words here are most important for everybody to listen to.
Or it's these words right here.
Whoops, that's not what I wanted.
It's these words right here.
And I'll read them again because I think these are the words that somehow or another, maybe Aaron Seery went to the wrong law school.
Maybe Mary Holland didn't learn this at Columbia, but producers and manufacturers of vaccines may be held liable for injuries resulting from their products in strict liability or in negligence.
Those are two sort of legal spaces.
There's either negligence or just holding someone to strict liability standard.
Strict liability is imposed when the product has a defect that renders it unreasonably dangerous as measured by the expectations of the vaccine recipient or the consumer.
And so you could say, for example, that an anthrax vaccine might be unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.
You might say that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system of a healthy human
is an unreasonably dangerous idea.
Three categories of defects may give rise to strict liability, manufacturing flaws, defects in design, and inadequate directions for use or warnings of risk.
Well, in that case, the duty to warn would have been on people like Robert Malone, who have a lifelong familiarity with the word transfection, the methodology of transfection, and the biological shortcomings of transfection with regard to how our pattern integrity would react to it.
And so the duty to warn would have been on all of these people.
The duty to warn was on me at the beginning of the pandemic.
The moment I realized that Bill Gates was referring to something that I already understood as a transfection, I already understood it would be inappropriate for anybody's grandmother, nevermind anybody's child or a pregnant woman, I felt the duty to warn.
These companies would have had the duty to warn if they were held to strict liability.
The PREP Act would be struck for unconstitutionality if fundamental rights are being suspended on the rational basis test alone.
And that the government should instead be held to strict scrutiny in that scenario, that we are due substantive due process in that scenario.
Those words are not used by Aaron Seery and Mary Holland and Bobby Kennedy.
And if we don't start using them soon, the cage will close.
These are not complicated issues because they have been hashed out in other contexts where people and lawyers were very freely using words like jurisdiction stripping to describe some of the fundamental rights suspensions that occur in a pandemic emergency scenario in the context of countermeasures.
It's time to realize, ladies and gentlemen, that there are places we can push and they cannot stop us.
These are real.
Every lawyer worth their salt can find this article, can download other ones, and they can do their own research to find out whether or not these legal issues, these legal ideas come to bear here.
and then go to this third complaint and look at what Aaron Siri is doing and you will find no mention of these legal terms.
And when they are mentioned, they are mentioned in such a way that semantically makes it unnecessary for the other side of this argument, the United States, United Health and Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services doesn't even have to address them.
If you read this document carefully, the only time he uses any combination of words that resembles things that I just talked about are in paragraphs that the way that they are worded make it unnecessary for these guys to address them.
And that's why this isn't gonna win here in Louisiana.
It's probably not gonna win in Texas, wherever he cut and paste this same language.
because it's neutered.
It's not real.
And we've got to snap out of it.
I don't know if it's because he worked for Goldman Sachs and that explains it all.
All I know is, is that if anybody who is a lawyer who would just look at this and listen to what I'm saying and fact check it and teach what I'm getting wrong, we would make progress.
If some lawyer, anybody worth their salt, would just take these ideas and say, okay, Jay says these words together and these words together, and he's wrong because this and because of that, we would make progress.
But I can guarantee you, Aaron Seery's not gonna do it.
Mary Holland's not gonna do it.
They can't.
This is very serious times right now.
These are very wide open escape hatches.
These are very, very available ladders out of the cave.
It only takes one lawsuit for one person's injury to bounce up the court in a way that will get them to challenge the PrEP Act on its unconstitutionality.
But they need to use these words.
Somewhere in there, strict scrutiny has got to be said.
Somewhere in there, substantive due process has to be said.
Somewhere in there, fundamental rights being suspended has to be argued.
Somewhere in there, maybe you also have to say restoring strict liability or something like that.
But ladies and gentlemen, it's not being said.
So that was Dear Aaron Seery.
And now I'm going to move on really quick with a summary.
Don't forget that the Population Pyramid offers an example, offers an explanation that could explain everything.
And the fact that none of these people are talking about how it also explains how all these Western nations and China
would have cooperated to use this theater to manage this problem.
The extent to which they were able to manage this problem, how much headway they made, all requires you to have the real numbers, which none of us have.
Even Denny Rancor doesn't have the real numbers.
We have to just assume that the numbers that the states have collected, that the countries have collected, that the who collected are real.
And then you have to assume that Denny's analysis is real
because nobody's got time to go through an article with 150 figures that refers to another article with 25 figures that refers to the original article with 40 figures.
When all that really matters is how did Denny Rancourt calculate the baseline here?
How did Denny Rancor calculate his baseline of expected all-cause mortality?
And I can guarantee you, he didn't take this kind of data into account.
It's most likely that that's the reason why Denny was there already in May of 2020, to make sure that somebody had first dibs on that narrative of all cause mortality and made sure that nobody would start out with an expectation of a rise in all cause mortality that would start around 2019, because that would be a problem.
Because then you would realize that it might just be murder.
And why?
Because trillions of dollars were at stake.
And you can see how crazy it is that these people who were in place very early on saying that the real danger of these kinds of viruses is should they go endemic, then they'll contribute to this, you know, background of stuff that kills people every year.
Those same people had this crazy idea of endemicity, but I've never been able to
sort of wake up to the idea that, oh wow, but that also means they could lie about a background.
No, no, no.
They are absolutely certain that something appeared in a mud puddle and now is endemic.
And it could happen again.
That's why all these people in 2020 had all these different parts of the story and went all in on certain parts of the story.
And then if you paid attention to a couple of these people, you'd be putting these pieces together.
And the crazy part is, is that narrative, which covers for outcomes of transfection in a population, that narrative is being sustained by the same people right now.
same people that have been front of the Senate every year, the same people that are touring the world in the international COVID summits, the same people that are repeatedly in front of the NCI in Canada, that's all the same.
Sustaining little bits and pieces of this narrative, agreeing never to question the premise of the whole thing.
that something in a mud puddle went endemic.
And that's why nobody's talking about the murder in Scotland that we know happened.
Nothing happened in Scotland but murder.
But everywhere else, I guess there was a virus, but nothing but murder happened in Scotland.
That's why these people won't talk about that and how oxygen in America could have easily caused ARDS in anybody that they gave it to.
And that would have been characterized as COVID progression and that's murder and lying.
If you coupled that with the way that PCR was, you know, distorted as being extremely accurate, it's like a gift from God, but only when applied in earnest, like it is on an academic bench, not how it is applied as a product, a diagnostic.
Nobody's talking about the fact that transformation and transfection were product types before the pandemic, and then suddenly we called them investigational vaccines.
Nobody's talking about the fact that even in its purest form, a chemical RNA, a perfect sequence in perfect stoichiometric relationship to the lipid nanoparticle in perfect ratios would still have been inappropriate to give to our healthy grandparents, nevermind pregnant women or children.
The obvious truth that infectious clone, every time it's found, every time it's found, every time the term infectious clone is found in a virology paper, they are using it to indicate or to substitute for what should have been called the transformation and transfection of cell cultures or animals in that paper.
And by pointing this out, that these terms, these methodologies are present in all of these parts of the narrative, you can very easily see why the no virus position was also part of the trap.
And that's why the no virus people won't get to the point where they say RNA cannot pandemic because then they will unravel everything.
This was us on social media.
Do not ever stop reminding yourself that whenever you get on social media, you are getting in that chair, you are putting on goggles, you are grabbing that dirty joystick, and you are allowing them to put images in front of you and convince you of things, add thoughts to your brain.
You are essentially letting people siege your garden with weeds.
That's why I put this up every time.
I think it's really important.
So yesterday I pointed out that the United States would begin.
You have a theory.
Yes.
I have multiple.
I've now real quick.
Sorry.
So I want to make sure I'm clear here.
Following the election, you have already said you think there will be 1000 deaths, politically motivated deaths by April.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Now, this is just an illusion of consensus of two performers that agree that there's going to be a civil war and are fascinated by the.
the complexity and fascinated by models of history that are all predicting the same downfall of America.
It's not that guy explaining his dumb theory.
It's more than one person agreeing that this dumb theory is worth discussing and worth talking about and worth dissecting the details of, worth criticizing.
And so it's very different than just listening to music or watching TV.
This is active engagement in active misleading.
And if you go on social media without the understanding that it's actually you getting in a chair and putting on goggles, you will miss this because you will think one or more of these people really means well.
Maybe only the guy is a bad, maybe Tim is just a victim.
Just to be sure you know, Tim Poole actually went on live yesterday to say that he's not sure he can keep going anymore.
He has 30 employees and 10 contractors, but it's just a lot of dead weight and nobody's really working as hard as him.
And he still works 80 hours a week and without him, none of this would happen.
And so he's not sure.
Last night he titled his live stream, this may be the last Tim IRL show.
This is where we are right now, ladies and gentlemen.
The whole landscape is starting to shake because the script is having been advanced too quickly.
It doesn't mean that we're going to win.
This is a multi-generational war.
They will adjust.
They are adjusting right now.
And so we need to keep moving forward.
We can't look backwards.
We have to keep the lights forward, our arms straight.
We need to keep moving out of the cave.
We need to keep lifting people out of the cave.
Just like I showed you here, this guy presenting about his worm findings and about how
small RNAs belong somewhere in the central dogma, but completely and totally bamboozled by the system that gives him fame, that gives him notoriety, that tells everybody, that tells himself that he's a genius.
A year after this presentation, he's then awarded an award by Elon Musk and Kate Beckinsale
And it's for the discovery of mRNA and the regulatory role that they play in all kinds of processes, the absolute new level of complexity.
in terms of gene regulations.
Kay Beckinsale says that small mRNAs, regulatory mRNAs are actually genes that regulate other genes.
So we use this as an example of the kind of chicanery that goes on with regard to the idea of genes and the sort of what they want you to believe is a very acidic
an acidic discovery in the sense that it dissolves all the other questions away.
In other words, evolution was still up for grabs until we found DNA.
The determinist nature of biology was up for grabs until we found DNA.
Now that we've found DNA, clearly evolution happens.
Clearly evolution is the way that God created us.
You know, like he spun everything in motion and then a million years later, we were the result of it.
And so it was like the breath of God blowing life onto the planet.
And then the earth just kept circling the sun for millions of years.
And eventually we were there.
That illusion is part of what biologists like this guy contribute to.
Where I was when I was in tenure track seeking mode was exactly the same place.
That's how, exactly how I resolved my faith with how I was working.
And it translates very well.
I was interested in a better appreciation of the complexity of creation.
the beauty of the work of the Creator.
But at the same time, of course, I understood that I was working with people who thought the whole idea of God had been disproven a long time ago because evolution and DNA.
Almost half or more of the people that I worked with, probably all of them at the University of Pittsburgh, were working under the absolute pretense that
Everything about us was biology, including consciousness, including our experiences.
There's no soul.
Everything is an illusion.
And so when a neuroscientist is looking for consciousness, they are looking for where the illusion is generated, where the screen is projecting.
And this guy is one of those biologists, just like I was, that is under the illusion from biology 101, that because Mendel formulated some laws, but was missing the hereditary material, and because Watson and Crick found the hereditary material, then evolution and genetics are reality.
And that is not something that is under debate anymore.
That is part of the foundational bricks of biology.
Everybody builds all of their questions under with these assumptions firmly in place.
And so if those assumptions are horribly wrong, we have a very big problem.
And that's where I think we are.
And I think that's what I wanted to try and
take a shot at with regard to that explanation for the UK Doctors for COVID Ethics yesterday.
And that's why I brought this guy up and recommended that you watch this presentation with Kevin Esvelt because here again, we're talking about using very standard molecular biological techniques to try and probe what is a probably irreducibly complex background of genetic signals, misconstrue it as understanding,
confuse everybody as to the threats that it poses to our futures, so that all kinds of regulatory schemes and experimental paradigms can be set up under the pretense of effective altruism or global public health.
And he doesn't work for the MIT Media Lab.
In this talk, he's working for the Geneva security something something.
We are in very big trouble, but I do think that we are at a stage where some of the exits that are open are starting to become very visible.
So I am now going to do this PlusMD4CEI.
That's the Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International, the Stephen Frost and Charles Kovas group.
And that is available freely on Rumble, of course.
I'm just going to play my own version of it here.
in the background and I just want to talk through the first part of it here now and I'll probably turn it down as it plays.
So everybody, welcome to today's meeting of Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
We're having an urgent announcement for five minutes to start before I... So the urgent announcement was, it's a very interesting phenomenon that occurred at the beginning of this meeting.
So Stephen announced that I was going to speak again for the sixth time about the Human Genome Project on Saturday or Friday.
And then maybe a half a day later, maybe it was really sooner than that.
I don't remember off the top of my head, to be honest, because I don't check my emails all day.
Darn, the coffee's gone.
The entire group
And this is a thing that is generally not done.
It's generally frowned upon to reply to the whole group.
And this group has gone through a lot of iterations of that.
The group has also gone through, like the email is not formatting anymore because he keeps copying the same email and then putting it in a new email.
And so kind of ham-fistedly moving forward.
So every day with the email has caused some problems every once in a while.
And so as a result, it has become general etiquette for this group not to respond to that email because then you're responding to like 80 people or 100 people and everybody hates that.
But this group's already gone through enough of that where generally speaking, that doesn't happen anymore.
The only emails that we get are the emails coming from Stephen Frost and one from Charles usually.
And so it's been pretty clean signal.
Um, but for my talk about some time later, it could have been a couple hours, could have been a half a day.
I don't remember because again, like I said, I didn't check the email for this particular thing, but somebody by the name of Craig Particopa.
emailed everyone in response to the announcement that I was speaking and said that he needed five minutes at the beginning.
He demanded, and it was mandatory, required, I don't know, it was urgent, critical that he be given 10 minutes to speak or a slot to speak at the start of this meeting because he has something really important to tell everybody.
And so now what's really interesting about this Craig Partakoper guy is that he's actually pretty well known in my mind, associate with Sasha Latupova, because Sasha Latupova and Craig Partakoper are the two people that started out way back whenever talking about hot batches and not hot batches.
And in fact, Sasha Latupova appeared on GigaOM Biological as a guest representing
Craig Particopa's data and talking about Craig Particopa's data as being evidence for either manufacturing flaws or storage flaws or something, we'd have to go back to that video and see what exactly she said.
And so this is very much in line with what I've tried to explain before as Sasha Latupova being somebody who was probably involved in this nonsense on social media through her daughter already, or as evidence with her daughter already before the pandemic.
If you don't know who Soph is, she's in my introduction.
She's a, unfortunately, a minor at the time.
was making all kinds of very disturbing content on YouTube, lost her YouTube channel for threatening the life of the CEO, I guess, in jest, and eventually appeared on Alex Jones a few months before the start of the pandemic as this censored young kid who was speaking truth to the woke movement in America.
And I don't think, for me, there's any way to look back and see a minor appearing on Alex Jones with that kind of content for a couple years before the... I mean, there's some really awful videos where she's clearly, you know...
12 or 10 or whatever, pretending to overdose and dressing in a hijab or pretending to be an FBI agent.
It's an extraordinary
sort of catalog of previous activity before the pandemic for the mom to then emerge as somebody who was interviewed multiple times by CHD, including one with Polly and Meryl, including two separate appearances on the Defender podcast with Bobby all by herself, with an appearance on the
American thought leaders for the Epoch Times and also was on stage in Sweden with Asim Malhotra and Meryl Nass and Robert Malone.
in 2023 in January.
And so it's a very strange sort of pattern if this daughter of hers is supposed to be just something that happened, and that now she is a semi-retired pharmaceutical executive who's speaking out about, I don't know, I guess in 2022 it was about bad batches, and then in 2023 it was about what Catherine Watt had to say, and then in 2024 it's now I'm a bigot.
And so what's interesting is that Craig Partakoper is the guy who comes into my presentation or our scheduled presentation to Medical Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics International with an urgent, critical, you know, I've got to interrupt everybody and I need the attention of all of you people.
Now, not being invited, that's a pretty bold claim, right?
I mean, if you walk into a movie theater where they're about to start the movie and it's Dune II and everybody's got their popcorn ready, and I'm not saying I'm Dune II, but I'm just saying that everybody was there for something else.
And now you're asking for everybody to listen to you for just a minute because you have something really important to say.
What do you think he's gonna say?
What do you think the friend of Sasha Latupova, one of the first reasons why Sasha Latupova became visible all over the world, in the English speaking world, was because of Craig Pardecoper and how she and him were working on this data?
Understand the significance of what is happening here because this is a red alert to everybody.
I need to tell everybody this, he says.
And now, of course, this is the beginning of the archived video where I will discuss the implications or lack of implications of the Human Genome Project and genes and DNA.
So it's interesting.
Listen carefully.
Jay Cooey, wonderful presenter, wonderful thinker who's joining us today.
We're going to have five minutes from Craig Party Cooper, who's presented to us twice before.
This group was founded over three years ago by Stephen Frost.
I'm Charles Cobis.
I'll do a shortened invitation today.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
This is Craig Particopa right here, this guy in the upper left.
He has a vest on with no shirt.
and he's in a dark room and he's about to tell us something that we all had to, you know, everything goes on hold.
He's probably going all over the place telling everybody that this is the most important message.
Recognize that we're in World War III and that we're partway through World War III.
This is a free speech environment with appropriate moderating.
We reject the offense industry and we reject the triggering industry.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are lovingly not interested.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love and not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you and enslaves you.
Love, on the other hand, expands you and liberates you.
So thank you for being here.
The meeting is recorded, is uploaded onto the rumble channel.
And before I introduce Jay, Jay Cooey, Craig Patacoupa, the next five minutes is yours.
We are all ears and Craig, we can see your screen.
Okay.
Oops.
Darn it.
I got to go back.
My bad.
Darn, darn, darn.
I wanted to get my timer out.
Hold on a minute.
I'm going to, I'm going to get my timer out.
a free speech environment with appropriate moderating.
We reject the offense industry and we reject the triggering industry.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are lovingly not interested.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love and not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you and enslaves you.
Love, on the other hand, expands you and liberates you.
So, thank you for being here.
The meeting is recorded, is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.
And before I introduce Jay Cooey, Craig Patacoupa, the next five minutes is yours.
We are all ears.
And Craig, we can see your screen.
OK.
Can anyone... Lovely, great.
OK, so the headline is...
I'm not sure how you're going to take this, but I'm just going to tell you the facts without trying to interpret them.
A message has been found in the X logo for the X platform, and it is of significant meaning to everyone.
Now, in my mind, it should have been stopped right here.
It should have just been like, wait a minute.
No, we're not going to talk about symbology of social media platforms right now.
I don't know.
You said that this was a very urgent message.
I thought that that would mean something about murder or something about murder or maybe something about murder, but it's not.
And so we're not going to interrupt this meeting for this.
Thank you very much.
But that's not what happened.
And it's fine because we did agree that he could have five minutes.
So what is he going to say?
The logo was made public initially in August 2023 on the X platform when Elon took over from Twitter.
People have noticed that there appears to be a scratch on the logo, which was a bit odd, but no one actually zoomed in and actually saw what was embedded in the message.
So here is the actual logo, which has been present on all phones since 2023 August.
When you zoom in, you can see that the scratch isn't a scratch.
It has letters and numbers, which comprise a message.
Initially, I didn't know what language it was in, but it's now been completely deciphered.
The actual line of message points to an image above the X, which I'll show you briefly what that is.
So the central scratch is not a scratch, it's a message.
And he has deciphered it.
It's been deciphered.
When I deciphered it, it consisted of two parts.
It consisted of a sequence that repeated three times, consisting of three letters each time, and it reads,
Now this is going to sound horny, but I'm just going to say what the facts are.
It reads.
Uh-oh, we lost him.
Uh-oh.
Zoom glitch for dramatic pause.
Hang on, Craig.
This is happening.
You can see me laughing in the corner here.
You can see me laughing.
Start again.
It reads.
OK.
It reads.
666 in letters, not in numbers.
So you've got S-I-X, S-I-X, and S-I-X.
I've put a full document of this on my website, howbad.info, under the section COVID and Cult.
So people can look at it in detail and get zooming in on high-resolution images to see this.
Get some high res images and start zooming in, people.
An image that I can interpret this in detail in the files that I've provided.
This is the image that I was referring to.
Anybody that downloads those files is labeled already and on a server somewhere.
I mean, come on.
It consists of a person in a walking position with wearing shoes.
Upright walking position, but it has the head of a beast.
And it goes by a name beginning with two letters, E-L, followed by two spaces.
So it's a four-letter name beginning with E-L.
Now, concerning the image above the X, which is on everyone's phone, this is it.
And initially, I wasn't sure
what it was, but then when we used high resolution, we can see this is, it's a person.
Their head is at an angle of 20 degrees to their right.
What movie was that where they could just like zoom in infinitely from the satellite until they were reading what everybody was looking at and they could just get any image they wanted.
And it was Jack Black sitting at the console all the time.
Do you remember?
You can see its eyes here and here.
Enhance!
It should have a little... It's mouth.
And there's a symmetry at 20 degrees to the vertical.
And you can see one of its ears here, which looks quite pointed.
Now, as bizarre as all this sounds, like a fairy tale, it's actually what's on everyone's phone.
And the interpretation is...
The X, my interpretation now... Five minutes is up.
The X has always been a symbol for Christ.
And when you have a vertical line through the X, that's the iota chi, which is the symbol for Jesus Christ.
It's a traditional Christian symbol.
Here instead, it's the line going through it with the message 666 and that strange walking beast.
pointing to what looks like a kind of a devil at the top.
To me, it looks like the symbol for the Antichrist because we have, instead of... He froze again.
I think we're going to cut him off now.
It's relevant to what's going to be happening in America over the next few months, which is that they're having an election.
People are taking part in that election, and it's up to people to decide whether they want to take this information into account, that's all.
And this information isn't provided by anyone except the person who is taking part in the election.
So it's not provided by me, it's not provided by an opposition to them, it's provided by them themselves.
They're declaring who they are here.
I'm just saying this is relevant and it's going to affect the history of America and also of the globe in the coming months.
So I've said that.
That's my newsflash.
I've provided links, so here you have, you can find this information under COVID and COLD.
I've created a document that's about 40 pages where I go into detail in analyzing the image.
Howbad.info is the website that him and
Sasha Latupova have been pushing as the batch website just so you know it's all one big show ladies and gentlemen they had to send this dude in have like a video and a document so the video's on bitshoot and the document is here and i'll invite everybody to at least take this into consideration regarding a self-declared identity
of the person who actually created this image.
So people should take it into consideration.
So therefore, whatever they decide, they decide.
Well done, Craig.
Thank you for all those links.
You've put those links into the chat, have you, Craig?
OK, I'm going to go back to
Just copy and paste while Jay starts.
Just copy and paste that into the chat, Craig.
Make it easy for people to access.
And he's frozen.
Yes, he is.
All right, so we've got those links.
I can put them into the chat.
And we'll get Craig.
Thank you for that.
If you can hear us, that is a newsflash and Craig will discuss with Steven and I will stop his sharing there.
And
Jonathan J. Cooey.
I'm delighted.
We're delighted to have you again to talk about the Human Genome Project.
Jay's bio is on the show notes.
For those of you who don't know who he is, he is a researcher and wonderful presenter, wonderful investigator.
And we thank you so much again, Jay, for joining us.
And thank you again, Stephen Frost, for creating
this group and giving us an opportunity to speak the truth.
I mean, it's unfortunate because really what it does is it discredits the video.
It puts this video in a place where anybody that clicks on it on Rumble, remember that on Rumble, if you advance any video, you get two ads right away.
If you even touch the slider, you get ads in five seconds.
So anybody that even wants to hear me speak is going to have to watch like four more ads to try and get to the beginning of where the introduction is over.
That's what's most extraordinary.
And it's not Charles's fault.
You see, they know that Charles wants to make this as an open forum as possible.
Charles wants to give everybody a chance at the mic.
That's what this
this whole group is about when people ask questions they ask questions for like a half an hour each it's it's a really well done open forum and Charles does an excellent job of maintaining it that way and so that means they're also vulnerable to anybody who wants to come in and say you know like
Hey, guys, I got something really important to tell everybody.
And, you know, I got a message.
And, you know, it's a place where people and they want people to feel comfortable jumping in like that.
But what you should also realize is that that means that it's very likely that this guy was sent specifically at, that's not an urgent message that needed to come in on Sunday the 20th, unless it was to make sure that because Charles is how he is, because this forum is how he is, that this video could be polluted.
This message could be polluted with that, which can only be characterized as bullshit.
Because of course they want us to think that Elon thinks that he is the chosen one, or the savior, or the antichrist.
And that's why he wore the stupid Halloween costume last year, and he'll probably have an even better one this year.
You gotta get ready for this because that is part of the cage.
That's part of the big sphere of steel and mesh that the motorcycles are riding around in.
One of those motorcycles is labeled, Elon is the savior.
It's got fire coming out of it.
And there's a guy in a devil suit riding that motorcycle, but that's not to make it real.
And if this guy comes and points to that motorcycle and says, then that doesn't mean anything.
especially when that guy is so intimately associated with the mother of Soph.
For each other.
Jay, over to you.
You can share your screen and you're the man.
Wow, so that's an interesting thing to say.
False.
I get no interesting.
Let's just see what I get when I go to Rumble.
Hmm, what an interesting thing to put in the... Yeah, that's very interesting.
Oh no, I didn't click on that guy.
Very interesting to put that in.
Let's see what I get when I click on here.
Then I push play.
I get one ad.
Watch the news lately.
Israel's under attack.
Have you heard of this brand new product that instantly cleans toilets without any scrubbing?
Take any dirty.
And then I start the video and let's see if something happens.
Welcome to today's meeting of Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
If... Oh, ad begins in five minutes.
Oh, five seconds.
Oh, I see.
I do get an ad.
Isn't that weird?
Every time I touch the, uh, advance... Every time...
Every time I touch the physicists and chemists, oh look, ad begins in three, two, one.
The US government doesn't want you to have this drone.
Can you briefly explain why you think you don't get ads when you watch?
How does that happen for you?
Why is that false?
Very strange thing to put in the chat.
But we'll go on.
Thank you very much, again, for the opportunity to speak.
I'm going to put myself over on the other side.
If you can't see this as one screen, you just have to change your view to speaker view.
So I want to take a look at this book, which is called What is Life, Mind, and Matter.
I put a link in the chat.
It's a link on my website, where if you go to that link, you can see these PDFs that are downloadable.
And one of them is this book.
You can also find this book on the internet archive and if you just search but then it's not false What is life?
What are you talking about?
Then you use I mean that doesn't make any sense Some of the pdfs have this cover some of the pdfs have a little chicken on the front Um, there's a cambridge version.
There's a there's another well, this one's also a cambridge version.
Maybe there's multiple ones anyway, I think that the reason why this book is so interesting is because
It has become clear to me in trying to formulate a new Biology 101 for freshman students in college that something is really wrong with Campbell, the book that everybody uses at universities in America.
With the help of my friend Mark Kulak and other people like Peter Hotez and others, I understand that there are browsers that people can use and there are plugins that people can use, but that doesn't change the fact that most old people, when they open up a Rumble link,
aren't going to install those things.
It doesn't change the fact that most people that casually use Rumble and aren't very savvy are not using those things.
And so Rumble is a very bad place to put your stuff if your audience is new to Rumble.
If your audience is being brought there by social media platforms, it is a terrible place because of that.
Now, it is true.
I'm sure you can make it so that it's not like that.
But the point is to see that they don't have to.
It doesn't need to be that way.
It's that way on purpose.
And that is what makes that meddler coming in at the beginning so terrible in my mind, because the way that Rumble works for the vast majority of people who aren't as savvy as the people in this chat,
It's got ads, and there's two of them every time, and they gotta click them away.
I don't know how many times I've heard people say that they hate Rumble.
Very clear to me that there is a long mentor chain of thoughtfulness with regard to answering some very crucial questions about what we can and can't understand about ourselves.
And it's a, sorry, I thought my dog was gonna come in here.
It's a,
It's become sort of my life now.
It was COVID, but COVID has kind of passed for me because I understand it in a larger context now.
And how, more importantly, after repeating over and over again for you and for many other people, that we actually inherited these charlatans from our parents, that I realized that I needed to explore the consequences of that idea.
Oh, it's not going to work.
I want to respond to some of the chat, but I can't really click out of here.
We're just going to listen to this for a little bit.
I know it seems kind of weird for me to watch this as a study hall, but I really wanted to emphasize, first of all, the beginning and how that happens and what that represents, what connections you can make there, how ridiculous it is that somebody said that we have to stop everything, you know, stop the whole enterprise and listen for a second.
That's where we are, ladies and gentlemen.
That's how close we are.
That's how desperate they are.
That's how little actual, you know, ground is left to cover.
They're scrambling.
And this, I really, when I watched it again, this morning, I was actually
I was blown away at what I was able to articulate, having nothing but these notes right here.
I just had these notes, and I knew what I was going to do.
And you can see here that I have four PDFs open, and I don't know when I'm going to go to which PDF.
I'm just going to start with the book that we started with, Biology 101.
And so rather than doing it again for you, I think it's just better to watch it here and see what consequences of that idea, of course, are having to go back to those times and those books and actually read them to see how it is that we got to the point where we are, where people are very.
somehow able to go in front of a stage.
I think the best example that I have, I'm just going to take a cut right here.
I have little notes and I'm just going to grab this notes here.
I'm going to drop this in the chat.
It is a YouTube video that I would like to assign to you as homework.
I'm going to get that one up right now because I think it's really good for you guys to have it too.
That should be in my history over here somewhere from the other day.
Let's go down.
Don't look too hard.
You'll see all kinds of crazy videos that I click on and it's just the way it is.
There's all kinds of videos there that my sons watch too because sometimes they're logged into me so that I don't have to worry about it.
Maybe I should search myself better here.
Let's go up to the top.
and uh let's see all these solar storm people um we want to watch adam ruther that's what we want search no videos what um jeans
Search.
There it is.
Greg, everything you wanted to know about genetics is wrong.
So this is the video that I think everybody could watch as, you know, when you're bored, watch the homework here.
And maybe that's what we should do right now.
Maybe instead, that's what we should do is watch this and then talk about it.
Did I download it?
Maybe I downloaded it already.
Let me escape out of here.
Maybe instead of watching me, which is what you can do later, maybe we should instead do something together, like watch Adam's video and see if... I didn't completely screw it up.
That would be here.
and everything you know about viruses is wrong is right there.
What I've discovered over the last 10 years is that compared to subjects like physics, particularly quantum physics or astrophysics, where the concepts are so distant from us as people,
that they're almost easier to understand, especially they're easier to understand when there's revelation or when new discoveries are made.
In contrast, genetics, human genetics, is fundamentally about families, inheritance, and sex.
And these are things that we all experience and we think we know about.
And what science does
is remove those biases.
It removes the ways that we think we perceive the world and tries to describe how they actually are.
And so, in genetics, I find my thesis is that when we talk about inheritance, when we talk about genetics, when we talk about families and we talk about sex, we come with a load of baggage which has turned out to be not quite what is true.
Anyway, so we come with a lot of baggage that has turned out to be not quite what is true.
Now, this is going to be a talk where someone is going to try to hold a whole set of contradictory ideas up over their head and pretend that they're coherent.
And they are, in his mind, extremely coherent.
Why?
Because we just don't quite understand
As Schrodinger said, we just don't quite understand the obvious inability, that's what it is,
that would be here, the obvious inability of present day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences.
So this guy is under that spell.
It is the same spell that anybody who really, really, really learns this biology 101 stuff well, like I did, that's the spell that you are put under.
And it is a spell where evolution is real because DNA.
That's my best RNA cannot pandemic version of this.
Evolution is real because DNA.
That's really the central dogma of modern biomedicine.
Evolution is real because DNA.
And that's the story that he's going to tell you, despite also admitting that DNA is not life.
Like DNA is not who we are.
So he's going to have to juggle those two very adeptly.
And if you can hear the contradictions when they come as kind of like a little ring, you know, where something is off and then you hear this, you know,
In the back, you're like, wait, no, no, that's wrong.
And we'll hear it.
So let's go.
The sort of subtitle to this is why we are culturally programmed to misunderstand how genetics works.
And I'm going to start with a story about this man.
We are culturally programmed to misunderstand how genetics works.
Wow, I actually didn't catch that the first time I watched this video.
Holy cow, that is a beautiful statement.
I almost think we should listen to it again.
Title to this is, Why We Are Culturally Programmed to Misunderstand How Genetics Works.
And I'm gonna start with a story about this man.
This is Charles II of Spain, so Carlos II.
And he was, Carlos was the last ruling member
of the Habsburg dynasty.
And the Habsburgs, who many of you will know from studying genetics and from studying history, were the most powerful family in Europe.
for almost 200 years until 1700.
During that time, the Habsburg family provided six Holy Roman Emperors and ruled the largest chunk of Europe right down to the Spanish Peninsula for almost 200 years.
But it ended when Charles II died, aged 38 in 1700, because he didn't leave a son or heir.
And the reason he didn't leave a son or heir was because he was profoundly disabled.
He had an extraordinarily troubled life.
He didn't learn to walk until he was seven.
He didn't learn to talk until he was about eight.
He was physically disabled.
He was mentally disabled.
And he got weirder and more disabled during the course of his life.
By the time he was 14, the rule was effectively given to his aunt.
But he lived until he was 38.
And he was almost certainly sterile.
Several attempts were made for him to procreate with several different women, and they never conceived.
So he was probably sterile, and possibly impotent as well.
Now, for all of these reasons, the people of Spain gave him a nickname, which was Carlos el Jequitado, which means the hexed or the bewitched.
And we now think,
that he was hexed, he was bewitched, because of the really profound level of inbreeding that existed within this family.
So the Habsburgs are known for their chin and their lip, that very distinctive facial characteristic which is passed down through the Habsburg family.
probably because of this incredible level of inbreeding.
And it's pretty ugly, right?
But actually, it was considered a badge of honor in terms of it being the stamp of divine rights, the stamp of royalty.
So here's a few of his family members.
So that's Charles, that's his uncle, that's another one of his ancestors, and another one, and this gentleman here is his aunt, actually.
Now, when we see this characteristic, this Habsburg lip, all through these people, and we think about how inbred this family was, let's have a look at his family tree.
So for the geneticists among you, in fact, for anyone who knows what a family tree should look like, this is not it.
A family tree seven generations back, if you have two parents and four grandparents and eight great-grandparents, by the time you get seven generations back, you should have 250-odd people on your family tree.
Actually, most people have fewer than that because most people are relatively inbred as humans are as a species.
Charles had 29.
So he just slipped that in there.
Humans are inbred as a species already.
but the Habsburgs were especially inbred.
...on this family tree.
So if we just take an example, this is Mariana of Austria, which is his mother, and this is Philip IV of Spain, which is his father.
Now Maria Anna of Spain is Mariana of Austria's mother and Philip IV's sister.
So this woman here is his... If your family tree does not branch, you might be a redneck.
grandmother and aunt at the same time.
What that means is that this woman, Margarita of Austria, is his great-grandmother
and grandmother at exactly the same time, which means that this person, Charles, here, is his great-great-grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-great-grandfather, all at the same time.
Basically, on a family tree, you should never see loops like this, and like this, and like this, and like this.
And what we think this means genetically is that, well, in fact, we know this because it's been calculated in 2011 by a Spanish group who analyzed his genome.
His inbreeding coefficient is about 0.254.
What that means is more than a quarter of his genes are identical on both chromosomes, which means that the possibility there being recessive disorders emerging, because they didn't have a dominant characteristic, a corrective one on one chromosome, means that a quarter of all of his genomic material is subject to being homozygous at every single allele, which is more than if a brother and a sister successfully have a child.
So basically,
Genetically, he was a mess.
And it all starts, in fact, up here with this woman, Joanna of Castile.
Now, her nickname was La Loca.
Any Spanish speakers amongst you?
La Loco means the crazy, or the insane, or the mad.
She had some severe mental health issues which we haven't been able to accurately, posthumously diagnose.
But in terms of the family tree, at the level that she was at, there should be 32 women.
of one generational line at that level.
Now, because there are so many intergenerational breeding processes in this family tree, actually we don't have clear generational lines in this family tree.
But in the two lines that she occupies, there should be 32 and 64 women, and she occupies 14 spaces, which should be individual women.
So the basic point to this is that
Inbreeding is really, really bad for families, but really, really good for geneticists.
I'm sorry, what?
The big point to this is that inbreeding is really, really bad for families, but really, really good for geneticists.
And that's not really relevant, that guy there, but he's just there.
That's my next king.
All right, so when we're talking about family trees, we just go through some of the basics of biology, which all of you will know very well.
This is the first really important family tree that was ever drawn.
1837, Charles Darwin sketched down this in one of his notebooks and where he was beginning to think, following his trip on the Beagle, he was beginning to think about how characteristics were passed from generation to generation and how that resulted in the diversity and radiation of species.
And Darwin was keenly aware that no common ancestors were currently present now,
By definition, the process that he was imagining meant that they wouldn't be present now.
We only have the present forms.
We only have the one snapshot of the contemporary collection at the end of this process.
If this process were real, if this really explained and is explanatory all the way back,
to a single cell that we all evolved from, which is what this mythology professes, because again, evolution is real because DNA.
And so here you have Darwin hypothesizing about predecessors and shared common ancestors without any evidence for it and without any biological material or explanation for how that might occur.
And so again, evolution because DNA, that's it.
The whole thing is evolution because DNA and it's, it's an absolute, it's a disaster.
And 20 years later, he would publish the most important book ever written.
So this is a family tree.
This is an incredibly important family tree.
In terms of what it looks like now, well, actually in 2003.
So this is a very famous phylogenetic tree of, well, it shows the diversity of life on Earth in general.
But actually, it's changed since then.
But what this shows is about 2,000 individual species, which you can just about make out that these little hairs on the edge of this circle are, in fact, individual species, so all of bacteria.
This is a PDF that you can download and zoom in on.
And the idea is that they've ranked or ordered all of these
contemporary life forms into a hierarchy of complexity and a relationship that seems to imply common ancestry with absolutely zero data on the common ancestors.
None.
Zero.
The assumption is that those common ancestors exist because DNA.
Evolution because DNA.
So we can make this map because there's DNA.
And so obviously, this map must be true because DNA.
Archaea are crammed in here, which is not really representative of how the truth is.
But you've got process, which is single-cell eukaryotes here.
You've got plants up here, animals there, and a big chunk of fungi down here.
The origin of life is there, where
The origin of life is depicted on this screen that purports to construct or represent a phylogenetic relationship of evolution of 2,000 organisms on the planet.
Stop lying!
Do you see how bad it is?
That if you really work hard, I mean really work hard to learn this and the book that comes after it, this is where you get.
And you can very vigorously explain it.
Like a well-trained acolyte.
The first living cell that we refer to as Leuka, the last universal common ancestor, speciated and divided into two branches, Archaea and Bacteria.
And that happens roundabout there.
I've got a whole other talk about why the sentence I just said is entirely wrong, but you'll have to come back another time for that.
And incidentally, if you're a little bit anthropocentric, if you're interested in humans, just focus up there, and that is where we are.
Okay, so those ideas about the radiation of life on Earth, the branching tree-like structure of how evolution by natural selection works, that was all happening in the mid-19th century.
And as all students of genetics and the history of science know, around about the same time, Gregor Mendel, a monk and scientist, I don't really like calling him a monk, he may have been a monk, but he was a much better scientist
He was a pretty good monk as well, so he was a good monk and a good scientist, but I'm just going to call him a scientist.
He was coming up with the rules of inheritance by breeding his pea plants together, 29,000 pea plants bred together to produce
Mendelian rules, the rules of how characteristics are passed on from generation to generation, as every school kid has learned.
And he was prefiguring, of course, Darwin didn't know about this work, but it would all come together at the beginning of the 20th century.
So, you know, the fruit fly is an incredibly important model species for genetics in the early 20th century.
Did he just skip over the fact that those 29,000 pea plants that he bred were bred to be
pure breeding plants.
They were inbred, selectively inbred, to create the signal to noise ratio that would result in the Punnett square assortment of certain obvious phenotypes.
Not that dissimilar from the Habsburg family.
Another obvious biological anomaly
that probably isn't giving us that much insight into how a healthy human is generated, but how it can go drastically wrong.
And yet our very basis for the Human Genome Project, whose paper in Nature starts out with the rediscovery of the Mendelian laws of genetics in the early 20th century, yada, yada, yada, is exactly the same place that this guy just thinks we have to take for granted because evolution, because DNA.
century in the fly labs in New York, T.H.
Morgan was working out that individual characteristics were carried on individual bits of DNA and chromosomes and that these were accounting for characteristics like
having red eyes and having white eyes in a fruit fly.
And we do these experiments.
And again, understand that because there are examples where phenotypes can sort by some, what appears to be a mathematical law, those laws only work when the signal to noise ratio is high enough, when there are enough particles above the noise in order to see that.
That means you need inbred fly lines, you need inbred mice, you need an inbred family.
Otherwise, there are no signals that you can point to as evidence for how this works.
But those signals don't mean that we understand how it works well and how it moves forward through evolution.
You're not actually arguing that the Habsburgs are an example of how evolution works.
It's how evolution doesn't work.
And so the passing along of those traits and their appearance in that family is only evident because of the aberrant nature of them as pattern integrities.
Just in the same way that the only reason why there was any pattern for Mendel to find was because he created a pattern integrity that wasn't representative of what was in nature.
in the same way that none of those inbred mice at the University of Pittsburgh or any of these other schools are representative of the pattern integrity of wild-type mice.
And the biology that we learn from them is very likely inapplicable because of its anecdotal qualities.
And certainly it's not definitive if this, this guy's talking about is how it is the foundational cornerstones of all that we understand since.
No, it has been fundamentally a wrong direction, an assumption that has led us to create all kinds of fake fields of knowledge.
And we cannot teach these fake fields of knowledge to our children.
Experiments at school and as undergraduates where you take white eyed flies and you take red eyed flies and you breed them together and you get proportions of red and white eyed flies and you never get pink eyed flies.
And so again we began to understand how units of inheritance are passed from generation to generation.
I am making the argument that these units of inheritance that they point to as fundamental portions of our biology are actually only properties of the stupid, awful models that they've emerged from.
And we have been led to believe that these are the foundations of biology.
That's the same bullshit as somebody who studies yeast and says that what they're looking at is prions.
It's the same as somebody who studies phages and bacteria and says that they're studying the same viruses and the kind of thing that other virus people study in us.
This is wrong.
and how characters, how particular traits emerge in organisms and fruit flies and humans and pea plants as a result of those Mendelian rules of inheritance.
Of course, in 1953, the double helix, the structure of DNA was elucidated.
The fact that DNA was the hereditary material was known before that in the late 30s.
So less than 10 years before this book was written, in the same few years that this book was finally released and published,
We discovered the chemical structure of DNA that allowed us to make the argument that it could be the transmission mechanism of all the information necessary for life.
Evolution because DNA.
This is it right here.
Ray Gosling, Maurice Wilkins, and primarily Rosalind Franklin, who generated this image.
Actually, Ray Gosling took the photo, but Rosalind Franklin was the expert on X-ray crystallography, generated this image, which is known as Photograph 51.
Incidentally, just opened in the West End in London last week is the play called Photograph 51, with Nicole Kidman playing Rosalind Franklin.
I haven't seen it yet, but it's had very good reviews.
So how about that?
Crick and Watson acquired that data and over the course of a few months at the beginning of 1953 worked out that the double helix is the structure of DNA and that that allowed the mechanism for the transfer of information from generation to generation.
Evolution because DNA.
The structure of DNA is probably the most important scientific discovery of the 20th century.
The structure is most important.
The structure is what gives it all of its divine powers.
Its structure is what underlies its super abilities.
Its abilities to transcend normal physical and chemical laws, and its ability to be at the center of the transmission of all the information of life from the mud puddle all the way from the lightning bolt to us.
Listen to it carefully because these are the bamboozling cartoons and the bamboozling sort of biology 101 schtick that everyone is under the spell of right now.
From your high school teacher to mine.
And we need to fundamentally change this in the coming years or we are in trouble and I think we can do it.
I do.
It is because the structure, the double helix, is inherent to its function.
It's not just that it's pretty, it's not just that this is how it's packaged up together, but the fact that it is in this double helical shape, this twisted ladder, it gives it, it bestows two specific things that DNA can do.
The first is that it allows replication of that molecule.
perfect replication where if you take the ladders, and I know you all know this, but I'm going to go through it anyway.
If you take the two branches of the ladders, which are held together with the struts by the nuclear bases, A, C, T, and G, they pair up in a particular way.
A pairs with T, C pairs with G, and if you split them up,
You have all the A's and T's and C's and G's on one side, which means you know what's missing from the other side.
So you can split this molecule in two and you have all the information on both strands, which allows you to replace the missing strands.
So where you have one molecule at first, through the process of replication, you have two molecules afterwards.
And that goes on in every living cell and has been going on in every living cell for the last four billion years in an absolute continuous way.
So now, in this beautiful animation of a double-stranded DNA being copied, both strands being proofread, all this stuff, there's no water molecules in this video.
I don't know where the bases are and how they're getting to the enzyme in the right order.
I can't see any chaperone proteins or other stuff going on here.
I don't, I don't, I don't know.
I guess they have the water molecules set for invisible.
I'm sure they're in their model though, right?
And so they showed you photograph 53, which was not exactly a photograph of a double helix, an electron or x-ray crystallography.
It wasn't exactly a double helix.
But now they're very happy to show you a computer animated model.
of how DNA is copied having almost no data to back this up.
The data that they have to back it up actually probably looks a lot like the data that they use to back up a lot of virology stuff.
It probably looks like data like this.
And then somebody said, well, because this band is there and that band is there.
And we did another experiment where these signals were there.
Then we can make that cartoon because that's probably what's happening.
That's exactly where we are right now.
That's exactly where biology 101 is.
That's exactly where virology is right now.
because they can make these fancy cartoons.
They can say whatever nonsense they want and imply all the fidelity they want and exaggerate as much as they want as long as they have a cartoon to back it up.
And I don't know if Adam Rutherford is just completely bamboozled like I was when I was a grad student or when I was a wannabe tenure professor, but I can tell you for sure that at some point I was exactly as bamboozled as this guy is.
And I come to you as humbly as I possibly can to submit that this is me eating crow.
I didn't figure this out until very recently, thanks to people like Dennis Noble,
and Peter Hotez for getting me to read Teilhard de Chardin.
And once reading Teilhard de Chardin, once reading Hilary Koprowski in this book, I can see it.
Now I can see how I've been fooled.
Once I've read this guy's words and what he admits in this book, I can see how I was fooled.
I can see how we've all been fooled.
And we will continue to fool each other with this illusion of consensus about what has been figured out and the implications of it being evolution because DNA.
Strands.
There is one single strand there.
There is the other single strand there.
Now, as the single strands wind out, they then fed into another protein complex where the missing strand is replaced.
So you get
One double helix being split in two and then replaced into two double helices.
So one double helix, one, and then the second double helix there.
So this is the process by which replication occurs.
This is the process going on in your cells right now.
It's been going on continuously in every cell that has ever existed and every organism that has ever existed since around about 3.9 billion years ago.
That's an incredible level of certainty.
It's an incredible level of certainty that explains almost all of time.
Just this animation right here, just imagine it everywhere and then you pretty much understand evolution because DNA.
Do you see it?
Can you see it?
This is the absolutely, it's like getting hit in the head with a hammer for me.
Because I was so enthusiastically into the idea that, wow, I understand.
I get it now.
So much so that I was happy to teach it to high school kids.
So excited that I wanted tenure at any university that would have me, because I wanted to study the brain and how the brain was actually the end product of a billion year process of physics and chemistry.
Which is pretty impressive.
So that's the first thing that DNA does.
And the second thing that DNA does is that it is effectively a code, or it contains a code.
Because those letters, those nuclear bases on the inside of the double helix, form a language.
A language that, as Erwin Schrodinger characterized it in this book, it is a language
Remarkable language.
It is really.
It's a remarkable language.
Because what is it?
It is very, very much it is the it is very much
But the term code script is of course too narrow.
The chromosome structures are at the same time instrumental in bringing about the development they foreshadow.
They are law code and executive power, or to use another simile, they are architect's plan and builder's craft in one.
And so let's see if we have both the architect's plan and the builder's craft in one in the description here from Mr. Rutherford.
And this was worked out in the years after 1953 up until the 70s.
But in fact, the way that the letters were arranged in a particular order encoded the basic units of proteins, which are amino acids.
And amino acids string together to form proteins, and proteins
All life is made of or by proteins.
So they worked out by the end of the 1970s, and this is the doctrine, the central doctrine.
which everyone knows that DNA is a code and via the intermediate molecule RNA it makes protein and all life is made of or by protein.
Except for when you have RNA that has a fear and cleavage site in it because then RNA can all by itself express proteins in white-tailed deer and humans for many many years in a row.
Francis Crick called this the central dogma.
We don't really like the word dogma in science.
And in the 1970s, he was asked why he named it the central dogma.
And his answer was that he didn't really know what the word dogma meant, which was unfortunate.
But it just shows that geniuses can be idiots.
Anyway, so that's a brief history of genetics.
That takes us up to the 1980s, where we had really seriously begun to elucidate how biology works, how life works.
We had established, effectively, three grand unifying theories of biology, which all say the same thing.
Are there any physicists here?
Three!
Here it comes!
None at all.
That's good.
I can make this joke now.
Physicists have been trying to come up with a grand unifying theory of everything for about 3,000 years.
And how are they getting on with that?
Not that well.
In biology, we managed to do it three times in the space of 100 years.
And the first is Evolution by Natural Selection by Darwin.
Actually, the first chronologically came a few years before that, and it's called Cell Theory.
it's weirdly uncontroversial cell theory and it's weirdly not focused on when taught but i think in a slightly revisionist way it should be cell theory very clearly states two things which are universally true all like the theory states two things that are universally true
OK, go ahead.
Life is made of cells, and cells, I think, in a slightly revisionist way it should be.
Cell theory very clearly states two things which are universally true.
All life is made of cells, and cells only ever come from existing cells, with one exception, which is the origin of life.
So this is just a universal rule, and it's good to have universal rules.
That's fantastic.
It means you can set up a framework.
It's great to have universal rules, especially if they're really dumb.
From which you can invent your next questions.
Okay.
So that's two.
What was it?
Natural selection, cell theory.
Oh yeah, and the third one,
So actually, he stated it, but he didn't do it very well.
Cell theory came before evolutionary theory.
That's what he said.
Universal genetics.
All living organisms, all of those cells, since LUCA for the last 4 billion years, have used exactly the same system to encode their proteins and to reproduce.
So, you know, we've got it.
By the end of the... We've got it.
We've got it.
And now in order for the no-sphere to form, in order that one consciousness, one vision, one idea, one notion of who we are as a species, that can finally happen now that we finally have these uniting rules and these uniting ideas about who we are and about the role of God.
God is just a hands-off dude.
He just got this thing rolling, and then after that, he just let it go.
And so now that we understand God's creation, we better take the wheel.
That's what Biology 101 does.
I never thought I'd say it, but that's what Biology 101 does.
It is a very slippery slope when it is presented like this.
It's a very slick sail.
It sure is enticing, especially to somebody who doesn't know all the details that are missing here.
All the, hasn't spent their whole life gazing out the window going, how in the hell did that happen?
How is it possible that all that's out there, so beautiful and perfect?
Why don't we spend more time appreciating it, gardening it, as a caretaker,
Why aren't we all gardeners and all farmers?
Why don't we all have a farm full of animals?
Why aren't we all enjoying the fruits of creation?
It's because these people don't want us to see the creator.
They don't want us to appreciate the sacred irreducible complexity that was gifted to us in our child and in our world.
They want us to see a job incomplete, a being imperfect.
And in fact, they want us to forget about our role as an individual, forget about our own manifestation of the divine.
That God lives in us, we don't want that, we don't want to think about that.
We want to think of ourselves as part of a larger whole, this phenomenon of man.
I don't think that's where I want to take my kids.
And I don't think that that is the universal religion that I want to take hold in the world.
And yet that's where this is progressing.
That is the enticing offer that will be made in the coming years to all of these academics who have been looking for this higher calling, looking to explain and put into context their loss of touch with God.
And it will be very enticing for them to accept this idea that God's a hands-off God, and that your understanding of evolution is your understanding of God.
Your manifestation of our collective realization that we are generations of people, and so we should take... That's all very enticing to these people who have been godless for so long, who've been trying to juggle these incongruencies like I had been.
But there's also a crucial window open here right now where this oversimplification, this incredible exaggeration of fidelity and understanding, this can all be dispelled like a bad dream if we can move in the right direction toward bringing this
to the fore to our young people as they start to open their minds to biology and to adults who have tried to open their minds to biology and still have their minds open.
We can still teach this.
And once we see it, then all the certainty on PBS NewsHour and all the certainty of NIH and all the certainty of CDC and all the certainty of the who will all vanish.
Because all of those certainties rest on the exact same certainty that this guy is displaying here.
Which in this display is obviously just, you know, a house of cards.
And at the bottom of the house of cards is just a t-shirt that says, evolution because DNA.
That's it.
Just like, don't talk about 2020, COVID shots are bad, or RNA can't pandemic.
Simple messages will dispel this illusion.
And it is not as simple as evolution because DNA, but that's exactly what you hear here.
And I hope that you will take the time to listen to this yourself to hear it.
70s we understood how all biology worked.
except it turned out to be much more complicated than anyone anticipated.
The real reason that we do genetics or the real reason that genetics gets funded is so that we can begin to understand how human characteristics are passed on from generation to generation, and particularly how diseases manifest, in order that we might address those diseases.
So what began to happen in the 1980s?
once we understood the genetic code, once we understood how DNA works, once we understood how Mendelian inheritance worked, we began to look for the genetic causes of various diseases.
And one of the first- What he means by looking for genetic causes is that doing genome-wide studies for signals that associate with symptomologies.
ones was, so you know who Woody Guthrie was, the most famous folk singer, the most important folk singer of the 20th century, maybe Dylan, I don't know.
Well, he died of Huntington's disease, and Huntington's disease is an incredibly penetrative disease, it's devastating, it is inevitably, always fatal.
But it is passed down in families in a very clear Mendelian way, in exactly the same way that the eye colour in fruit flies is passed from generation to generation, and the same way that Mendel had established that the colour of his peas or the wrinkliness of his peas or the leaf shape of his petals was passed from generation to generation.
The others that were beginning to be discovered in the late 80s was also Duchenne muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis in 1986-87.
And so we'd really begun to understand the genetic cause, the underlying genetic cause, the genes that actually bestow.
Imagine, for example, that you wanted to understand how it is that somebody, this is not me showing off, it is me doing an analogy, but imagine that you wanted to understand what happens in terms of in the piano when you go,
Oh, I don't remember.
There we go.
So you play Star Wars on the piano, and there's all those strings back there in a real piano.
And then you get on a piano, and when you hit the C, nothing happens.
It doesn't make any sound.
Wow!
This piano has a very special, rare condition.
And it turns out when we open the piano that the C chord, the actual string is broken.
And that's why the C doesn't make any noise.
And it turns out that in every piano where the C string is broken, then the C key, it doesn't make any noise.
Holy cow.
Isn't that cool?
And now we understand that when the key over here doesn't make any noise, then that's because it's very likely that that string is broken.
Wow.
Now I understand why Star Wars doesn't sound very good on this piano, but it sounds better on the piano with the sea.
But do you understand anything about how the music is made on the piano or how those chords were designed or what the song is about or where the song came from or what the implications of the song would be and people that hear it?
And when I made mistakes or when I didn't?
And so what he's talking about here and what genome-wide association studies attempt to do and what they tricked all of neuroscience into doing when I started in the 2000s was to knock out a gene and then study the piano to see how songs sounded on that piano when you played it.
And if it was missing a G or the middle G or a high G, then songs would sound different.
Some songs wouldn't even be affected, but other songs would be affected.
And so now, of course, you can see how a piano is a terribly uncomplex metaphor for the human body.
But you can also understand how these kinds of examples that he cites as examples of edifying evidence that Mendelian laws are useful in studying our biology is just as dumb as saying that you understand how piano music works and what Beethoven was and Mozart were thinking.
If you understand that the C key doesn't make sound, it's probably because the wire is disconnected.
And so the complex, the exaggeration of the fidelity of understanding is, is that because these people can explain why when you disconnect certain strings, that certain songs don't sound very good, doesn't mean that they understand what Mozart's thinking.
And understanding what Mozart's thinking when he plays at a piano is still a horribly insufficient level of irreducible complexity to understand what it is they are implying here, what they are implying incorrectly here.
because we can associate some molecular signal with some phenotypes in some rare conditions, in some rare inbred pure strains, in some rare inbred families does not mean that those laws are a fundamental part of or an exhaustive explanation for who we are as a phenomenon.
and who my daughter is and my sons are, and what they can be potentially as creative individuals.
If you believe in evolution, somebody very close to me recently just said this absolutely brilliant thing that I have not been able to say so well, but if you believe in random evolution, then that means any individual could hold the trait
any individual could evolve the random trait that all of humankind would need to move in the direction of the x-men with superpowers and levitation of teleportation if somebody is going to develop that that mutation at random
and then need to pass it on to next generations with children, then any individual in an evolutionary scheme could potentially have that valuable trait.
And in fact, in the evolutionary model that you would have to play in an honest brain that was trying to imagine it, it's gonna take a lots and lots and lots of positive traits that never make it to the next generation in order for this evolutionary process to have any chance
of having a successful direction in terms of complexity.
It all just falls woefully short of explaining anything, and yet we are supposed to accept that evolution because DNA.
And in fact, academic biology has been led to know God because DNA.
That's it.
That is what this guy got in trouble for.
Because he is essentially saying that from the time that he got condemned for pushing the pith down man idea in the 20s, this guy got thrown out.
They didn't allow him to publish this work until he was dead or close to his death.
Because this work essentially says that, you know, no God because DNA, no God because evolution, evolution because DNA.
That's the little hamster wheel that we've been in for the last two generations.
And it is the hamster wheel that we stay in if we buy that virology is a very high fidelity thing, that the Human Genome Project solved the big problem, and that Kevin McKernan is one of the foremost experts on the problems it's solving.
to particular devastating diseases on people.
Now, during the late 80s into the 90s, individual labs around the world were working on specific diseases.
That tended to be how people worked in genetics in those days.
You looked at a specific disease and tried to establish its underlying mechanism.
As if they're not doing that now.
Well, they are, but now they're having even more problems, and he'll tell you why.
Ebolic or physiological or genetic cause.
And so there was a sort of
A sort of a gold rush towards trying to establish genes.
A sort of a gold rush that was determined actually by the grant calls that determined who got the money.
So it was not a sort of a gold rush and it wasn't spontaneous.
cause specific disorders.
And then in the mid-90s, at the behest of people like John Sulston and the Wellcome Trust, who funded a lot of the research that was to come, the Human Genome Project was set up, probably the grandest endeavor in science, yet certainly the grandest endeavor in medical science and biological sciences.
Maybe the Large Hadron Collider at CERN has now usurped it, but an incredibly collaborative
exciting, multi-lab, multi-disciplinary, global project, which basically said, you can have a bunch of money to work out the entire human genome, to work out every single base pair, every single gene in a human, if you start working together.
And it's a great story about how science progresses.
It really fundamentally changed the way we do science, because science became much more collaborative.
at this point.
And some people argue that that is problematic and that grand endeavors like this are not useful.
But that is what's happened.
Instead of looking at individual diseases, we look at the whole genome.
We try and establish a database in which we can fish through the human genome.
We have created a structure in which we can throw things that we think we've found, like a general map
for a national park, but not specific things.
And then when we find specific things, we can drop them in and we can compare across national parks, across genomes.
Huh, is that the same as that?
That's pretty cool.
That's got over there too on that restriction enzyme map of DNA to look for behaviors and traits and characteristics, phenotypes. 2001.
Nature published the first draft of the public consortium of the human genome to great fanfare, and it was a glorious day back in February 2001.
I was still doing my PhD at this time, but a year later, I was working at Nature as an editor, and it was great fanfare, and I don't know whether any of you remember, but just before they published it, well, actually six months before they published it,
Bill Clinton on stage with Craig Venter, who was the head of the private consortium, standing next to, oh, I've forgotten his name, the head of the public consortium, whose name will come to me in a minute.
Eric Lander.
No, it wasn't Watson, it was- Eric Lander.
Watson stood down in 1996.
Eric Lander.
Anyway, stood on stage, it was a big announcement.
It's McKernan's boss.
The language of God, the language of life.
Reports at the time suggested that... It could have also been Francis Collins, but they were all there.
McKernan was there, Lander was there, Collins was there.
He's talking about exactly that.
It would be a matter of months before we had established the cause of every genetic disease and possibly cured many of them.
That was said in 2000, July 2000.
The publication was in February 2001.
Actually, the greatest thing, the greatest reveal from the Human Genome Project was effectively that we didn't really understand how genetics worked at all.
Oh!
We didn't understand how genetics works at all.
So you can pick up this where I'm leaving off right here.
It's a very interesting exercise to see how someone who at the same time seems to be admitting all the shortcomings of the central dogma at the same time will tell you that these are known things.
These are known things.
These are known things because evolution because biology or evolution because DNA.
That's the main message today.
I hope you will take the time to share this one and also share the Senator Ron Johnson stream that I did the other day.
I think it's a very important summary with some very important details and some very sort of, you know, I think it's got the right energy for a lot of people that haven't seen me present to see that in particular.
Because I hope that Senator Ron Johnson will come around and hope that he will contact me.
I hope that we can start pushing some of these ideas forward.
Remember very clearly there's a nice list you can talk about.
You can talk about the backgrounds.
You can talk about how PCR was an elaborate lie.
You can talk about the product types that came before the pandemic.
You can talk about the transfection even in its purest form.
You can talk about how infectious clone is a nice search term to look for transfection and transformation in PubMed.
and you can challenge people to argue against the idea that RNA cannot pandemic.
They are getting away with it because they have managed to scare everybody with the idea that something can go endemic and there's no way to tell the difference between endemicity and a background if you don't have data and we don't have any.
So that's why they keep sticking to this story.
I don't know what to say other than I think we're making a lot of progress.
Thank you very much for sharing.
Thank you very much for taking the time to go to my website and find a way to support the stream.
That's GigaOMBiological.com.
Jonathan Gee, a few other people that have come through in the last few days.
I can't thank you guys enough.
My family really, really needs it.
And we are kind of stretching things a little bit on the credit cards to do the live thing in November.
I want to help out some people that are coming.
I want to help out Scott Shara with a rental car and things like that.
So if there's anybody that wants to donate money just to help out a little bit, maybe buy the food, the pizza or whatever we order for the people that are there, or you want to,
The location is costing about $900 to rent.
So if you want to take that as a figure and you have some pile of money sitting next to the garbage can, you want to donate a little bit of it to help with that, that would also be great.
But I don't want anybody to feel any obligation.
I want you to feel the desire to come on November 3rd and be present for what I think will be a very important gathering.
And if not enough people come, then I guess Virla is just going to make dinner and we're going to
have a barbecue and hang out somewhere else.
So I don't know what's going to happen.
I just know that it's going to happen because the Brownstone meeting is going to happen the Friday and Saturday before it.
And because Mark's coming to visit and Joe's coming to visit and Scott's coming to visit and a few other people might come.
Even Paul Alexander is actually threatening to attend.
So let's see what happens.
I hope to see you guys again soon.
I will most likely be on tomorrow.
Thanks.