I'm here.
I'm going to give you everybody a couple seconds to uh join up.
Good to see you guys
Good morning, Christy, Jason, Brother Spoon.
And of course, number one on the list, left hand, Monkey Wrench again wins the money.
He knew I was coming on, I think he could see it.
Anyway, ooh, new notifications.
Well, I don't know, we'll see how long that rides.
Not a long introduction this morning.
We're gonna try and save that for Mondays when we have to get everybody in the right mood to
to appreciate the Meddler Circus.
And then today we are doing actually Bad Biology, as you can see in the title.
I hope I changed that.
So I'll be here in a second.
Come out to the coast, we'll get together, have a few laughs.
do
You know, it's funny you would say that.
We are going to talk a little bit about evolution today.
We are going to talk about Bad Biology 101 and evolution because of DNA.
I've discovered a new argument to make that is definitely not my own, but I haven't found all the people who have made this argument before me.
But I think a lot of what's going on here is enabled
by the ability of these people to use the sort of a, it's like an intellectual checkmate.
Hi, my name is Jonathan Cooley.
I'm coming to you live from the back of my garage.
I usually come to you as GigaOM Biological, a little news brief.
But on Tuesdays and Thursdays, I'm gonna try and establish a pattern where I also come and discuss either some aspect of what I think should be a new Biology 101, or which,
it's starting to become obvious that that's not going to be so easy.
And it's something that's more of a project ongoing and a lot can be learned and developed from the angle of trying to see the bad biology that's present now because there's so much of it.
And more importantly, so many of the ideas that the new biology will essentially break because if you start
by understanding biology fundamentally, not as evolution because DNA, but you start understanding it as life as a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time, then you can start to imagine and process
the living, breathing world outside of your, in your garden, you can start to process it in a different way.
Because right now, because of the way we've been raised and because of the way that we've been taught about Biology 101, we and our imagination, and this is something very important that I hope I can, that I can revisit many times over the coming weeks.
Your imagination can only work with the tools that it's given.
And that's what is so magical about the current, you know, our generation being exposed to the level of and the sophisticated level of media that we are exposed to.
Movies with CGI that can fool people are an exceptional tool with regard to arming people's imagination with sets of ideas which, if incorrect, can allow them to move forward
You know, if you operate with logic on those ideas, then you can start to create all kinds of things that aren't real because the assumptions upon which they're based are false.
And this is actually where we left off with Matt Briggs'
probability course where we were just starting to understand how logic is a useful tool, but if applied incorrectly or without
understanding that induction is ultimately what you need to be using, logic can be easily applied and get you nowhere, or even worse, get you into a very, very deep cave, and that's where I think we are.
Just one very succinct way of saying how deep of a cave we're in, it could be that in
in 15 years, intramuscular injection will be laughed at.
Not that we let our kids on the internet and let them have social media or let them have violent video games, but actually we might be most ashamed of the fact that we let this horrible idea become accepted as a generally
you know, understood fact that you can inject people with stuff.
And that's a reasonable way of augmenting their health.
I think we can get to the stage where young people and future, you know, parents of the next generation will be armed with a biology that will
enable them to avoid, oh wow, I can't speak, avoid enslavement by these people who are pushing this bad biology that includes bad medicine and bad food and all kinds of bad advice that they're now gonna slowly back out of as if the people that are backing us out of it have just risen out of nowhere but are not part of the imprisonment that we are in.
And that's why these ideas aren't going to be discussed except for by a few people.
Maybe even just me and Mark Kulak of Hesotonic ITS will ever discuss the principle.
And, you know, a few of the guys in my introduction, like Uwe Altschner, will discuss that if RNA cannot pandemic, this may be the single most important three words we pass on to our kids.
If using intramuscular injection to administer medicine to healthy people is wrong, this may be one of the most important ideas that we pass on to our kids.
And certainly, if the Human Genome Project has just begun, then the recent history of it and of science in general, if looked at under a different lens, should reveal
the naked truth that the evolution because DNA mythology has enabled this creation, this giant false library of knowledge to be created based on that assumption.
And that's a huge assumption.
I mean, it's a huge assumption that again, remember that even the Olympic torch
in Salt Lake City was the shape of a DNA molecule.
And the DNA molecule was laser beamed into the middle of the Olympics of Athens.
And there was a giant virus and all kinds of sick people in a hospital at the Olympic Games in London.
These are all, they're narratives.
They were narratives that were laid down and seeded and given to people behind the scenes to see, don't you think?
that dignitaries take into Olympic games and told, look what you can see from above.
Did you notice that?
That's what's coming.
And then it comes.
Imagine the kind of influence and power that you could create if over the course of a decade or so, you brought certain people into what they thought was behind the curtain.
and saw how the sausage was made or, you know, it's like when the curtain of Wizard of Oz is opened up and you see all the knobs and the place where he's speaking into and you realize that almost all of the effects are just, you know, what he does from his board.
This is the kind of thing that I think they've been doing for a long time, bringing people in.
bringing, letting people into the inside.
There's this really famous photo with like Tom Brokaw and Judy Woodruff and, and an Annenberg lady and the old Bill Gates.
And, and, and, you know, the, the, you know, the photograph I'm talking about that those people were brought in then.
And they don't need to be brought in on everything.
What they need to be brought in on is the idea.
And this is very key.
If you can imagine it, close your eyes and imagine.
that there's a big velvet green curtain.
And first they show you the curtain.
Then they open it a little bit and you see that there's all kinds of activity back there.
And people come out of the curtain and tell you what's behind the curtain.
then they can also take you behind the curtain and let you see what's behind because for a long time they could just let you meet people who have been behind the curtain you can see them coming out from behind the curtain but you yourself are not allowed behind the curtain and then only years later are you allowed behind the curtain to see that actually behind the curtain there's a several other circular curtains
on stage behind and on those circular curtains when you see behind them there are certain tables and they have all kinds of computers on them and stuff.
And so you only after you are taken to the third level of because you did first you didn't even know the green curtain existed.
And then for a long time, you were just mystified because now that you knew that the green curtain existed, you get to go to Bulls games and you get to sit in the, in the sky box and people, you know, do favors for you and stuff.
And you get some phone numbers that work and you get free parking.
But then when you see the curtain gets opened and you start meeting people coming out of the curtain, that's a whole nother five years of indoctrination and Truman show, you know, coordinated lying to you, setting up what to expect when you get behind the curtain.
So that when you get behind the curtain, you also already see something that your imagination has already been prepared to see.
And if this starts already when you're a child, that evolution is real.
And here are the dinosaurs.
And here are these super smart scientists who discovered DNA before you were even born.
And here are all the Nobel Prize winners that have been given out.
And here's your teacher telling you because he heard from her and they learned together and they want to...
And it's all really based on logic.
It's a gigantic scaffolding of knowledge that for the most part is an illusion because the founding, the principle of it, this DNA evolution because DNA, this doesn't work.
It's not as an acidic idea as they present it as.
They present it as though once we discover DNA, we have conclusive evidence that evolution is real.
And so we need to think on these cosmic timescales and the change that we're looking for, we'll never actually see because it's on those cosmic timescales.
And if we don't find evidence of those cosmic timescales in the rocks, well, then you're just gonna have to take our word for it.
And if the rocks don't match up with even the cosmic scales that we do say we see in the rocks, we'll just scale everything up different.
So these are all parts of the same toolkit.
And they are logically linked all the way back down to this fundamental assumption that evolution is real because we found DNA.
And I think if we approach biology from a different perspective, you will see that the idea of evolution is insufficient to explain the sacred irreducible complexity that we have to acknowledge if we approach it correctly.
that the reason why I never made it in academic biology is because I couldn't square the circle with regards to why are we asking so many dumb questions, so many compartmentalized questions, so many questions that are basically just add-ons to already a long series of questions that seem to have petered out in usefulness a long time ago.
Why do I have to follow in the footsteps of your mentor's mentor?
because I studied with you, but in lots and lots of ways, that's how this goes.
And so I wanted to take the time today, first of all, to take an example just out of the blue of academic biology being represented on the internet.
And of course, I'm gonna choose one of the worst examples of how it's being represented.
Here we have an example of a nonprofit actually,
run by a Columbia professor or retired Columbia professor with a wife that works at Merck.
And she actually worked at Merck for over 20 years on ivermectin, which is really interesting about Vincent Rackin-Yellow.
And so the first video that we're going to study hall today and try to approach the bad biology idea is a video from Twiv.
And we're not going to watch the whole thing.
Don't get too worried.
And then we're going to move on to another video, which
I feel like I should frame right now, just before we get to it.
You may remember a woman by the name of Hannah Fry.
She's a redheaded lady from the UK.
And she was in this very dubious BBC documentary where they, right before the pandemic, and it was in some town that started with an S.
like, you know, Sanderberry or something like that.
And she did a BBC documentary where they simulated an epidemic in this small town with a phone app.
And everybody got all excited about participating in a BBC show.
But then also, curiously enough, at the beginning of the pandemic, one of the first places that COVID-19 broke out was in this same town.
I know somebody is going to remember that.
So the Bloomberg
Originals is a very highly produced set of films that are, you know, episodes and like little podcasts that are being put out with different hosts.
And they're always women or I don't know what, I don't know if that matters.
The two that I've found so far are women.
And one of them is Hannah Fry and she's doing AI and how AI is very scary.
It's going to take over the world and learn how birds talk and this kind of thing.
And then there's this other lady, something Chan, who is doing, you know, how biology is being broken or all new rules of biology are being written.
And so that video is what I want to watch today.
But I'm bringing that video up not to bring up Hannah Fry, even though I think Hannah Fry is such an interesting character.
And it's so interesting that
Bloomberg Originals, making videos for YouTube and for the internet about these new transhuman topics, has chosen Hannah Fry to host one of these series.
And that series is about AI.
And it is equally comical as the one we're going to watch today.
So first, in this Bad Biology,
Bad Biology.
Oops, that's not how I wanted to do it.
I wanted to do it like this.
This Bad Biology study hall.
I want to watch a TWIV episode in just the beginning.
I'm going to turn down the volume for a second, but just realize at the beginning what's happening here.
This is a Columbia professor who is running a nonprofit in America with a studio in New York City.
and asking for donations from viewers on YouTube when I can almost, I mean, I would bet dollars to donuts that this guy is fully funded by large sources of money.
That's how they have the money to have a separate studio location.
And all their fancy cameras and all their stuff and probably people running the stream and editing it for them All of that stuff is possible because they're getting a lot of money.
That's not cheap It's just like, you know people who have rumble come to their house and build them a studio.
That's not cheap That's big money being well big money relative to simple humans like you and me it's big money being thrown at these people and
And in order for that to happen, you know, they have to do certain things.
So.
Support micro TV.
It's time for our annual, our annual, our annual fundraising drive as if there's some kind of PBS news hour or something like that.
Now, me on the other hand, I just want to know, want you to know that there are only a few supporters right now who are responsible for keeping the lights on here.
And then about 110 people that give me $10 a month.
And so we're not making money here.
We're running on fumes.
I'm not begging for money.
I'm asking for people that appreciate what I'm doing and have the means to think about helping for a little while because we are going to eventually get to the stage where we do have our own nonprofit.
And I do think at some point we're going to be able to
we're gonna be able to stop asking for money in this way.
But these guys are shamelessly doing it.
And more importantly, these guys are all people that have jobs.
They all have, many of them have tenure track positions and they're happy to take a stipend from MicroTV because they do a podcast and that's cool.
That's what's happening here.
And so be aware.
to our quality quorum for today.
I'm your host, Dr. Mark Martin.
And he will say in a minute that he does it for himself.
It's not for the world.
He's not doing it to save the world or to teach children or to break a mythology that he thinks might be dangerous to his kids.
That's what I'm doing.
I don't think I'm gonna save the world.
But I think we need somebody to try to seriously nudge the football because we have a serious problem on our hands because
It has become very obvious to me that the assumptions that we make in academic biology are going to be the cage in which the brains, the minds, the souls of our grandchildren will be enslaved.
next year and wanted a luxe selfie with a flash.
So these guys are writing out their scripts.
He takes it very seriously.
And again, it's partly because somebody like Vincent Racaniello has convinced them that this is really a very, very important role.
And Vincent Racaniello believes that he is, and he says it regularly, he titles his podcast Earth's Virology Professor.
I don't, I mean, that's, that is some bold statement right there for a guy who has really done nothing but cell culture for his whole life.
It's really extraordinary.
They're looking for antimicrobial things.
So not antiviral stuff, but antimicrobial.
Oh, I still have morning eyes here.
I apologize.
Yeah, Pig Hooey.
Pig Hooey, that's right.
Pig Hooey is the one who actually got me into that.
I'm just going to skip this part.
You don't need to see this.
um yeah pig hui is a i don't know if it's a youtube channel or whatever but she was awesome and she really did that well and think about this think about this that's five years ago she made those videos very very early because of course that documentary happened before the pandemic so someone could come out very early in 2020 and be like huh what in the heck happened here and she indeed did
So this is, again, one of those things where if you don't keep looking back and keep adding things to the calendar and reminding yourself of all the things that happened and keep it straight in your head, it can very easily get lost.
And, you know, I don't even remember how long a time that's been, but it is imperative.
It is imperative that we preserve this history.
especially the history that's still available to us, because that's one of the tricks of history that everybody, you know, casually acknowledges.
Number one, the victors, the victorious right history, but number two, even the history that we're given can be
you know, successive victors.
So in other words, we could have had a different history available to us until let's say 1800 and then somebody became powerful behind the scenes and slowly but surely that history was changed.
And it would take a lot of scholarship
a lot of scholarship to figure that out, or AI provided with the right texts and programmed in the right way.
But again, that's just suggesting a hypothetical way that we could use their technology against them.
We could use AI to analyze the way that human knowledge has changed over time by feeding it historical books and try to see if the AI or a objectively open source AI could analyze that and point to crucial time points and crucial inflections in our perceived understanding of our world that might cue us into very
Important time points in our history where these changes were made and I think quite frankly Mark Kulak stumbled on something very very interesting the other day.
I think it was only yesterday.
I just saw the video yesterday Today rather of the idea that Sorry, I'm stumbling around here
you know, that's what you happen when you don't have a script.
When Teilhard de Chardin came in and out of favor in the Catholic Church, specifically with the head honcho.
And I find that a very interesting theme that we're going to come back to again all the time in the new Biology 101, because I do think that's part of the way that this
this full court press has been maintained and actually even sustained and maybe even one of the most important parts of the full court press that we as young children could never have been aware of because it happened before our time.
The switch in the way that the Catholic Church defended the sacred irreducible complexity of nature fundamentally changed before our birth.
And it can be at least indirectly, broadly seen in some of the condemnation or lack thereof of the writings and philosophy of Desjardins by different popes.
I think it's just a cool little thing that, you know, who else is doing things like that besides Mark Kulak?
Okay, so I think you already see the interesting,
Well, the interesting distraction you're gonna have to ignore in order to process what I want you to process, which is, I want you to process this guy as a biologist.
And I want you to process this guy as a biologist who has a foundational set of ideas, which form the toolbox with which his imagination constructs his model of reality.
Almost said that dead on I really am trying to convey the idea that if you gave Children the idea that birds were gods and that feeding the birds was the equivalent of the best kind of worship you could do and if you took care of the birds that everybody would be Living great and then everybody was living great and that they you know when they met other people those people just fed other birds
very quickly this kind of interpretation of the world could take hold, and there could be a whole generation or two or three of people who successfully pass this interpretation on to their offspring by teaching them, as long as the teachings
let's say, made accurate enough predictions about the future that it made sense to follow those ideas.
And so for a lot of things, that's what's so interesting about evolution because DNA.
And it is so enticing because it answers this question.
that Erwin Schrodinger says, of course, just because we don't know how to explain all things with physics and chemistry, it doesn't mean that eventually we won't understand how to explain all things, including living things, with physics and chemistry.
And DNA
represents that chemistry, that aperiodic crystal, as this guy called it, which can bridge the gap between the sacred irreducible complexity that heretofore we just accepted as part of who we are,
to something that can be dismantled and understood and harnessed and optimized by human hands because the truth has been revealed to us by God.
You see, and that's where these two guys come into play.
That's where this comes into play.
Because if God has revealed to us evolution, because DNA, then these guys are making the argument that it's our Christian duty to take what we know and make the best of it.
And it may be that some of the smartest people and the wisest people are the people who can take humankind to the next step where we evolve as a species.
If you say that we all become Christ, or you say we all become gods, or we transcend God, I don't know what's the, you know, it's all different words to say different things.
Now, I want you to listen to this guy and think of him as a biologist, think of him as a child, and then how he got to the stage where he is now an adult who sees the world like he describes it.
And I think he's pretty good at describing it.
That's why I find this such an interesting exercise.
So I'm going to, of course, have to take it back a little bit and we're not going to watch the whole thing.
I just want, it's just an exercise.
I want you to be able to see the, and hear how people's whole, whole world is based on the assumptions.
Viruses.
I recently came across an article by Carl Zimmer about the social lives of viruses.
That is, how they might interact with one another.
Fascinating topic.
So it is a genuine honor to welcome Sam Diaz-Munoz.
So we're talking about how viruses socially evolve, I guess.
And so I guess this guy purports to study how viruses interact and how they influence each other's evolution.
And so again, the entire assumption is that all of these things are real.
that synthetic DNA and RNA can be put in cell culture, so I guess we can do virology.
And because all these people agree, all these departments agree, all these people that are attending this conference agree, everybody that has a poster agrees, everybody in my lab agrees, all the people that studied with him agree, all the people that studied with her agree, and all the people that studied with their mentors agree.
So who the hell are these people to question?
And so I just implore you, open your mind, listen.
This is just so cool because I can hear myself in him.
I can hear myself in him.
He has a wonder.
He has a wonder for what he sees around him.
And then suddenly you can hear him trip up and be completely, well, I guess evolution because DNA.
So that's how we do it.
It's fantastic.
Here we go.
Sorry, I'm gonna get an, oh yeah, I can do it this way, can't I?
I gotta remember that.
Of the University of California Davis to the podcast to discuss the work their research group does exploring co-infection, viral genetic exchange in RNA viruses, and most importantly, building a community of researchers that study the social lives of viruses.
Welcome to the Quality Quorum, Sam.
Thank you so much, Mark.
I really appreciate the invitation.
It's an honor for me to be on the podcast.
Oh, I really enjoy doing it.
It's therapeutic for me, let's face it.
I mean, for one, that guy works on phages.
He doesn't work on viruses.
But somehow or another, he's not very... I could have shown that in the beginning, but I chose not to because I didn't want to talk too much about that.
It's an interesting point that somebody says there's a phage toy behind him, because actually he works on phages, which we all know that even the no-virus people like Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan acknowledge that there are definitely bacteriophages.
Even Mark Bailey said, yes, there are bacteriophages when he was in the fake argument with Kevin McCarran.
So it's interesting because he is very imprecise about when he's talking about phages and when he's talking about viruses, and he always says viruses.
It is extraordinary.
I've watched several of these shows that he's hosted.
He's got like 64 or something like that now, and he's wondering if he'll make it to 100.
And it is extraordinary, really.
He uses the word viruses a lot, and phages very little, even though that's what he works on, and it would be more precise to describe them almost always as phages when he's talking.
Um, and then there was something else.
Uh, yeah.
Well, anyway, let's just go on.
I'm really selfish.
That's why I do the podcast.
It's for me, but I am delighted you're here because as I mentioned to you, I have used the Zimmer essay actually in my classes.
And you've been kind enough to give some other links to other articles of interest that I'll put in the show notes that for other people who are interested.
And to me, it's not a surprise because if microbes, bacteria and archaea can interact with one another in ways both positive and negative, why not viruses?
And I had a little hint about that and we haven't discussed this with satellite viruses.
We don't have to talk about them at all.
But I think the best way to start is to kind of talk a little bit about your background in transition to microbiology.
Sure.
Yeah, I have what some would call a pretty unorthodox path to microbiology.
I went from monkeys to monkeys.
So please tell me that somebody heard him say your transition to microbiology.
Please tell me somebody heard him say that.
I grew up in Puerto Rico, liking to camp, liking to hike, really being around nature, being on the beach and snorkeling, diving, all that stuff.
And I was very interested in animals.
I, you know, I was, it was the Discovery Channel back when it actually aired, you know,
real documentaries.
And, and, you know, I was fascinated by all of that.
And so I did know I had the experience of going to Mona Island, which is off the western coast of Puerto Rico, sometimes called the Galapagos of the Caribbean.
It's, it's, it's very, it's a really amazing place.
And I had the opportunity to work on some sea turtle research.
And I remember I was there with Carlos Diaz, who's a longtime researcher, and sitting there on the boat and having this moment where I said, Carlos, is this your job?
Do you get paid for this?
And he was like, yeah, I'm a biologist.
This is what I do.
And that's when the light bulb went off.
And then I really wanted to pursue biology.
So I studied my bachelor's at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez.
on the West Coast, and then there became interested in animal behavior through some internships as well.
research experience for undergraduates, which if there are undergraduates listening, please look those programs up.
They are amazing.
My intro bio teacher told me, look up these experiences, you get paid, you do research, have a fabulous summer.
And I did too.
Went to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Shout out to Linda Schaffner for giving me the opportunity with my questionable essay and application.
But yeah, and the other one at the Colorado Boulder at the Mountain Research Station.
And then I went to Cal Berkeley to study animal behavior.
I worked in the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.
And yeah, I was advised by Dr. Leslie Lacy, was a fantastic mentor, showed me
science from the beginning to the end.
I had a very, again, atypical grad student experience.
I, you know, was taught how to fund my projects, how to come up with my projects, you know, from a very early moment.
And so this involves chasing monkeys through the forest.
But not for any reason.
The reason I was very interested in cooperative male parental care.
I was interested basically in, I think, the unifying theme in all of my research, which is hard because it's pretty varied, is how do interactions between individuals affect reproduction.
which is which is sort of that social component.
And so in the field that I was trained in behavioral ecology, which is a subset of animal behavior, we basically assume that the and we should try to test that behavior has some genetic basis, right?
And that if an interaction leads to higher fitness, you know, basically, you
give more offspring out, you produce more offspring, that is, that then that behavior should be favored, right?
And so I think one thing that I want to emphasize is that when I studied animals, the whole disciplinary framework and the theoretical framework, in fact, the mathematical, when I say theoretical, I mean, there's some serious math behind this.
did not really ascribe any cognition or communication or intention to the animals, which people can think because they're animals.
We basically assume that, you know, what, what is, we basically assume that animals were sort of bags of genes, and that they took actions and stuff.
But but we're really counting the genes and seeing what happened as a result of those actions, right.
So that's really the basis of the field.
Okay, so how's that?
Behavior has a genetic component.
Does this work?
Yeah, so behavior has a genetic component.
That's the assumption they make.
Actually, then at the end, you know, selection would then act on the genes.
But at the end, he says the math is done based on the idea that they're a bag of genes.
And so what he's doing is what all these biologists do.
They take a bunch of animals.
They separate them using some, you know, here's all the animals that he collects, all the males that are raising animals, right?
Raising babies.
And he collects all of these and he takes all their genes and he makes a big map of them.
And he gets a map for each monkey.
And then he tries to see if he says, oh, well, these guys all had five babies and they interacted with each other.
And these guys all had five babies and they didn't interact with each other.
And then tries to separate them.
Two arbitrary groups are made.
And then he sees if they can find any correlations between, you know, the groups.
In other words, did they get lucky?
Did they select the right 12 monkeys over here and the right 12 monkeys over here so that when they go over here and look in the genes, there's some kind of segregation on GABA receptors or some kind of segregation on a subtype of AMPA receptors so that they can say, look in the brain, synaptic genes are selected against when animals don't sociologically and the genes are found in the brain and the brain's responsible for social behavior.
This is how ham-fisted it is.
And it all starts with the idea that this is just evolution.
He worked at Cal Berkeley at the Museum of Vertebrate Biology, chasing monkeys to look for cooperative male parental care.
And what did he say?
I had a very atypical graduate experience because I was taught how to frame my question and write my grants very early, which means that he was told how the system works.
He was given an insight into how you can use the argument of evolution because DNA to get lots of money.
We want to look for genes that segregate with behavior that are interesting to the overclass, like parental behavior, like male cooperation.
And so we're gonna do monkey studies in the wild that look for genes that are associated with monkey cooperation or monkey evolutionary success.
Do you see what we're dealing with here?
He doesn't know any better because he has been brought up to understand the world in this way.
And his imagination is powerful as it is after having grown up camping and scuba diving and surfing and whatever else he said he did, hiking.
And so like me, like I was, it's very easy to be trapped in that world where all this stuff makes sense because evolution is real and DNA explains it all.
And the Human Genome Project is probably the biggest crack in the armor that if we understand what happened and didn't happen, what was accomplished and what wasn't accomplished, and understand it as well as we possibly can, I think that is going to set our kids free.
It's not a small task, because of course there are layers of people, layers of curtains, and we're all on the outside of it.
And people have been coming out and pretending that they're, you know, crusading against this, you know, or fighting against it, or know what's behind the curtain for a long time, and we've been believing them.
So this is going to be a long, long, arduous process to get us out of this.
But we're going to do it.
OK, so how do we get to microbes?
Oh, by the way, if you're interested in what type of monkeys I was studying, which I think even though this is a microbial, can I sneak in a macro here?
Sure.
Yeah, as you can see on this slide, I studied tamarin monkeys.
And they are, there's not really a scale in that picture, but they are about squirrel size.
They are tiny, but they have fascinating, fascinating social lives, which you can read about.
But how do we get to, how do I?
I mean, to Solar Fire's point, it can't be always the survival of the fittest.
If you just do the simple math of evolution in your head,
There would have to be necessarily lots and lots of single examples of incredibly good genetic something or other that never gets passed on.
How many examples have we been given in film of idiot savants, they used to be called, where people are very socially inept, very, very socially inept.
and almost handicapped, but have some gift like in music or gift in math or gift in memory.
And this inevitably doesn't result in a whole, you know,
It doesn't result in a whole bloodline of people who become progressively better at doing dates on a calendar or become progressively better at every possible aspect of music or go atonal because those traits don't get passed on, because those people don't have kids.
And that happens a lot.
where even if they have kids, their kids get killed.
We're not talking about now, where almost everybody's kids live to have kids.
And so we have this opposite kind of evolution, lack of evolution, lack of selection.
But in the old days, you could have plenty of great kids and half of them could die of disease.
Half of them could die of, I don't know,
getting killed in a battle, getting robbed and killed.
I don't know what happened back then, but it wasn't like today.
I'm not saying people were eaten by velociraptors, but you know.
And I don't remember why I was saying this, but it will come back to it.
Google Scholar came out when I was in grad school.
And so I had keyword searches.
I would search for cooperation, evolution of cooperation.
Most of the time I would get theoretical papers.
And touche.
I mean, that's it.
You see, I'm still trapped in it as well.
Thank you for making that point, Soothspider.
It's absolutely true.
There you had me arguing.
I was arguing again, but then also using the model of inheritance.
But that's where we need to get with this new biology.
We need to somehow have a way of arming our imagination with the ability to understand the concept of inheritance without falling victim to the enticing belief that
because there seems to be a lot of evidence for inheritance that that process might be something that we could take over or influence in a way that wouldn't be malevolent, dangerous, disrespectful to the sacred biology that's been given to us.
That's, I think, a great point.
Thank you.
I would get something about different animal societies, stuff like that.
And then, around the, you know, the aughts, 2000 somethings, I started getting hits for papers that are about bacteria.
And I was immediately skeptical, I have to say.
So so I, I was not a microbial convert at that point.
I
I thought microbes, the way, I unfortunately did not have a wonderful microbiology teacher like you in university.
I did not, I thought microbes were in the lab.
That was sort of my conception.
And so one of the things that I'm trying to allude to what's happening here and what Microbe TV does is that they blur the line very well
and very hard, they're focused on blurring this line that I'm trying to establish as a hard line, where there are things that could be characterized as pattern integrities, and then there are things that are not pattern integrities, and things that are not pattern integrities can only be produced by pattern integrities.
They can't be something that exists on their own and evolves on its own.
And in that context, then, there's no such thing as a molecular pathogen.
And they are trying to blur the line between bacteria and these RNA pathogens that they call viruses.
They're trying to blur the line between the known part of the pattern integrity of bacteria that is the phage,
They're trying to blur that also as a evidence of this pathological pattern integrities outside of bacteria and us and all this other stuff that can be very easily qualified as a pattern integrity.
It's like, you know it when you see it.
We can work hard to try and define it.
And I think that's one of the fundamental sort of first
first order tasks at hand with regard to redefining a new biology 101 is to really adequately bring people to be able to understand what a pattern integrity is and give them enough of a understanding of it so that their imagination can always apply a screen and immediately go, yeah, that qualifies, that doesn't, that qualifies, that doesn't.
And that's the trick here, because once we get to that stage, then we can start to already then apply that as we move forward.
And we'll start with a completely different outlook.
I really think it's a absolutely shoe-in.
I mean, we can do it.
And even people like this guy can be, at least from the biological perspective, awakened.
If their paycheck depends on them not being awakened though, eh, you know, I've said this before and I will say it again.
I had just arranged at the University of Pittsburgh in 2020 or end of 2019, I had just arranged to have like a quarter million dollars worth of equipment freely donated to me while, you know, given to me on endless loan.
Um,
from a company in Germany that co-organized some of the computer equipment to be loaned to me from Harvard so that I could build a setup like I had in the Netherlands or like I had in Norway and do the experiments that I was doing there here in Pittsburgh.
And if they would have just let me keep working instead of sent me home or, you know, tried to make me go downstairs to the front door and go through the front door and
get my temperature taken like I was supposed to, I would have probably never been here.
I'd still be there right now.
And I don't know, if I was put to the task of having to take the vaccine or not for my job, I probably would have quit then.
But it would have been a very different world, a very different place, and I would have had a very different idea of what was going on.
And I wouldn't have cared a lick about what was going on with the virus, because I was allowed to go to work anyway.
and I loved my work.
I don't know, if this guy loves his work, if he loves his colleagues, if he has a good time, if there's a social network that's there that everybody agrees we're doing important stuff or fun stuff or interesting stuff and then they go and discuss it with other people and they say it's interesting and they go to the same meetings and they all get to go out to dinner together and take group photos at the table.
We've got to break the kids of it before they're already this deep.
That people who studied microbes didn't have anything to do with nature.
And so I had sort of separated those things early on in my training and sort of wasn't aware or interested in it.
And so that's where my skepticism came from.
I'm like, well, what is this?
But the other thing that happened, so but these papers were published in high profile journals.
So of course, I was, you know, curious, and then started looking more into it, and then found a whole tradition of, of people using microbes as study systems to study evolution, right?
So then stumble upon the Lenski experiment, right, all that stumble across.
Bruce Levin's work, so many people, and I find out that there are so many people who have made this transition from studying macros at one point and then finding out, oh,
Minecrafts are actually amazing.
And so one of the assumptions that you can hear here, and just for the sake of the exercise that we're trying to do, I'm trying to bring you to work your, get your mind around hearing it and seeing it.
And so I'm going to play that back again, just to make sure I get the right part of this clip.
I want that.
Oh yeah, sorry.
I got to resume.
For studying evolution and ecology.
Can I stop you?
I found a whole tradition of people using microbes as study systems to study evolution, right?
So then the StumbleUpon-Bolinski experiment, right?
All that, Stumble across Bruce Levin's work.
So many people.
And I find out that there are so many people who have made this transition from studying microbes at one point and then finding out, oh, microbes are actually amazing for studying evolution and ecology.
And so that bridge is huge because that's, of course, the bridge that is enabled by evolution because DNA and enabled by the idea that if we start here under the assumption that even though we don't have the tools now, we will eventually be able to explain life through a combination of physics and chemistry.
Evolution because DNA.
Now he's talking very clearly about how this has influenced his understanding of things to the point where he's created a whole career based on assumptions.
Based on assumptions that the social biology and the evolution of bacteria, the way that bacteria change over time,
is a direct homologue of how the human species would change over time, how monkeys change over time, how it's all the same.
It's just on different timescales.
And what this does is completely discounts the irreducible complexity that may not be present at the level of a bacteria, even though bacteria may be a pattern integrity of sorts.
It's clearly not a pattern integrity with the same level of complication that a mammal is.
And even this part of the new biology 101 is missing from the bad biology 101.
Just heard him say it, that he's fine with moving from monkeys to bacteria because he can study the exact same principles on a much smaller and more tractable scale.
So does he see the irreducible complexity of the monkeys that he was studying?
Of course he doesn't.
And he doesn't see it because evolution, because DNA, because when they start by explaining it to you in high school as molecules and cells and tissues, and they build from the bottom up, you're unable to see that
That's like introducing you to the fine art of Formula One car racing by first teaching you about tires, and then about wheels, and then about axles, and then about steering wheels.
I mean, it's not explaining how we got there.
It's not bringing you to understand what was involved.
and it takes out the irreducible complexity of it.
There's no way to put into a textbook how we got from finding fire as a pretty useful thing to know how to create, to being able to build a Formula One car.
And there's going to be no useful way to get from the rudimentary, ridiculous understanding of the irreducible complexity of biology as evolution because that's not going to get us anywhere for the very simple fact that it's an assumption.
It is not a proven, you know, evidential fact of reality.
But all of academic biology functions under that pretense.
eyes to the listeners and viewers that we've said several times on this podcast that when you bring in and I call it different faces and voices, but it can be disciplinary as well.
You can get two
narrow in your views in a particular area.
This is what I think you suffered from in your own microbiology course, if you don't mind my saying.
However, what I find is when people come to a field from outside of it, they bring new interesting questions.
look at the way that molecular biology was essentially fertilized by a large number of quantum physicists and created the field of what you and I would call molecular biology today.
What?
Did you hear that?
How's that for spectacular?
Because that's also what happened in neurobiology during my time, almost 20 years of chasing tenure, was that neurobiology became neuroscience.
And the main way that it became neuroscience was bringing in physicists and mathematicians to make models.
Holy cow.
That is, that is, that is amazing.
Okay.
He just told you what we were just talking about, that microbiology was founded by physicists that were left over from the Manhattan Project.
Thank you very much, Housatonic Live, Mark Kulak.
You see, I can repeat that clip for sure, my friend.
So, in fact, you mentioned people like Bruce Levin and one of my... There are so many people who've made this transition from studying microbes at one point and then finding out, oh, microbes are actually amazing for studying evolution and ecology.
Can I stop you for just a second because I want to emphasize to the listeners and viewers that we've said several times on this podcast that when you bring in, and I call it different faces and voices, but it can be disciplinary as well.
You can get two
narrow in your views in a particular area.
This is what I think you suffered from in your own microbiology course, if you don't mind my saying.
However, what I find is when people come to a field from outside of it, they bring new interesting questions.
Look at the way that molecular biology was essentially fertilized by a large number of quantum physicists and created the field of what you and I would call molecular biology today.
So in fact, you mentioned people like Bruce Levin and one of my personal microbial heroes, Rich Lenski.
They were not trained as microbiologists, but they learned to use microbes to answer the questions that interested them.
So I want to emphasize again, different faces and different voices really matter.
happens in the lab, it matters in the lab, it matters in society, of course, and we see evidence of it every day.
So we are here where we are today because, I assume Mark is not here, we are here because physicists have enabled us to rely on the false assumption that we are going to
be able to explain all of life with a combination of physics and chemistry, and therefore we're going to be able to model it.
We're going to be able to use math.
That enticing illusion is what has allowed our almost complete enslavement by the mythology of viruses and public health.
And that's where we are.
It's fantabulous.
The Human Genome Project, it's all, and the Special Cancer Virus Program, and the Manhattan Project, and nuclear bombs, and I mean, it's all one big, it's all one big mythology that they have governed us with for a couple generations now, maybe many more generations.
That's the point.
And so like I started the thing with, you know, if they take you behind the curtain, one of the ways they can take you behind the curtain is tell you some of this biology.
and tell you how it's, you know, we understand that it's not, you know, but here's how the game is played.
Here you go.
We'll make you chair of this.
We'll make you chair of that.
And they can easily do this.
They have done this and they have been doing it for a while because they have mentors.
The mentors can screen these people over years.
This guy's clearly not a threat.
They can give him tenure.
And it's not to say that he's a bad guy.
It's not to say that he's a good guy.
It's not to say that he's smart or dumb.
It's to say that when groups of people get together with a very common shared set of ideas, you know, if they can make you believe absurdities, then they can also get you to commit atrocities.
Is that Voltaire?
And you're just showing me yet another example in your own life.
Yeah, no, I, I 100% agree.
I think diversity is just, uh, uh, from a, from a disciplinary perspective and from a conceptual perspective is really important in biology, but it's also important in science and in the enterprise of science.
And I think that is, that is, um, one thing that, that has been.
really made my career very interesting.
Okay, now, no reason other than I think I want to get going and keep this moving, so I'm going to do the next video really quick.
This is the video from Bloomberg Originals.
You can find these Bloomberg Originals on YouTube and elsewhere.
They're very highly produced.
They have a different host.
I'm watching one about the new biology or breaking the rules of biology.
We're just going to watch it.
I'm going to try not to stop it.
But keep in mind, one of the reasons why I chose to watch this is because another host of another series on Bloomberg Originals that's covering AI is actually Hannah Fry, who, thanks to the chat, I remember now is a tip that I was given or found or led to by a person by the name of Pig Hui.
And you can find that set of videos where, again, Hazelmere!
Hazelmere!
Did anybody ever put that in the chat?
I think it's called Hazelmere.
Hazelmere in the UK, before the pandemic, did a BBC documentary where they simulated an epidemic in the town using a phone app.
And then the
the outbreak of COVID happened there as well.
Anyway, this video is a part of that series.
And this one has a different host, but it's a creepy video.
A lot of the video is nonsense.
And so I wanna say what I think is nonsense right away.
Obviously, that's not a very great title.
There are some things we take for granted.
Life is finite and organic.
But what if everything we know about being human, from how we come into the world to how we departed, were about to be radically transformed?
New ways of creating life that move baby-making into the lab, defying the laws of reproduction.
That's not real.
That was funny, though.
Once incurable diseases cured using digital replicas of our bodies that copy us right down to our cells.
And as we confront the inevitability of death, the promise of digital eternity beckons.
We find ourselves on the brink of a future where the very essence of what it means to live and die may change forever.
So first of all, I think it's important to see that all the hosts they choose are very okay with really long, dramatic shots of themselves being used as part of the documentary.
Now, obviously I'm on screen all the time, so you could make that argument about me in theory, but I'm live.
I'm, you know, varying degrees of clean.
And more importantly,
There's not a dramatic pause here.
I'm not going in slow motion.
I'm not wearing, you know, I'm goofing.
So for me, I see the same thing with the Michaels lady that I've looked at before.
I see the same thing with a lot of the people that are in the purported health freedom movement.
There are people who don't mind the spotlight, don't mind the, you know, notoriety.
And then there are other people that are in that movement that long ago just were tired of it and wanted out.
And I actually, after five years of being a part of this and running into the walls that I've run into, can much, much, much more easily empathize with the people that have decided that they're done, that they put in their time, they did their appearances, and they gave their talks.
The people that were going to hear them are going to hear them.
They need to get on with their lives.
And then there are other people who decided that they could make or are going to make a pretty lucrative life speaking out against this.
Not necessarily winning, but speaking out against it.
And I think that's what bothers me most here.
is that what we're really working against is the combination of this extremely elaborate exaggeration about what's to come and what's already here and blurring the lines between, you know, implications and mythologies.
Like, you know, if they said, you know, X, Y, and Z, therefore A, B, and C, and that therefore is completely wrong,
Then they can tell one kind of story and that's the kind of story that they have often told about this stuff Like X Y & Z being being evolution because DNA and then all these other things Well, then there must be genes for autism then there must be genes for Alzheimer's disease And if it's not that then they must inherit something else maybe they they inherit a protein that misfolds, you know, I mean I
little improvising there, maybe that's a little ham-fisted, but I need people to understand how far away we are from solid ground in this bad biology.
We are very far, much farther away than I ever imagined, even though I did have a gut feeling that looking for genes for a lot of these things was a cop-out.
Reproduction is being unbound from biology's old rules, expanding the paths to parenthood in ways you wouldn't believe.
The first major technology that disrupted what we know of reproduction was IVF.
Now, IVG, or in vitro gametogenesis, has created possibilities far beyond what IVF offered.
The possibility to turn any cell in your body into a sperm or an egg.
My first introduction to IVG was from the person who developed the technology, Shinya Yamanake.
He, at that time, had told me that it could be possible to change a skin cell into a sperm or egg cell.
I thought it was going to be really far into the future, and I was surprised at how quickly we're at this discussion now.
Development now is dynamic.
It's not just one way.
You can take normal cells like a blood cell or a brain cell that are fully committed to just.
Now, in the same sense that I tried to express earlier, that people are using bacteria to model.
To model processes as homologous to what they say are processes that happen and higher order pattern integrities.
And a very similar thing can be seen in this kind of a video where the line between what animal they're using or what model they're using in order to achieve what they claim they're achieving and how easily we can move up the chain of complexity and continue to achieve that.
One rudimentary example of this might be that the cuckoo clock that I have upstairs that was made in Philadelphia in 1924 is sufficiently
complex that my kid would probably only break it.
But if I went in there and was careful, I might be able to troubleshoot some things that weren't working right and fix them, including make the bird peep again or make the wheels turn better or this kind of thing.
But I would have no hope of opening this watch and fixing its automatic movement.
No hope of doing that.
And so everything that I understood about the clock upstairs, some of those same principles might be at work inside of this watch.
But because this watch is smaller and it has other things going on and it does things in other ways, it winds itself, whatever.
Then there are things that I can't do here, even though I know everything about the cuckoo clock upstairs.
And they do the same thing.
They keep track of time and display it with hands.
And so in biology, there are lots of times where they're going to be able to do rudimentary experiments with cuckoo clocks and claim that they understand how time is kept, but they aren't going to be able to tell you squat about the Swiss watches that everybody wants to understand, claims to understand, because they understand how a broken cuckoo clock makes noise.
And these are inadequate analogies, but they're analogies that are starting to get closer to trying to express the point of what happens in these various biological circles where you get all these ideas going.
That's the same thing with regard to, I don't know where the book is now, because they're all mixed up.
I moved them all around.
But with regard to prions.
prions are almost entirely based on protein folding and protein-based signals in bacteria and yeast and assumed to be homologs of the stuff that happens in Krausfeld-Jacobs disease.
And that assumption fuels the entire field
That assumption is made because somebody was given a Nobel Prize.
Curiously enough, a very good friend of Hilary Koprowski.
And so what we're seeing here now is the blurring of the line for the average Joe, the average YouTube user, and making it
likely that they will assume that, well, if they can do it with cuckoo clocks and with quartz clocks bought from Target, then I guess they can probably fix the smallest watches, or they can fix a train watch from the 1900s.
You know, this is a bad analogy, but you get my point.
I hope you get my point.
If you've ever taken apart a cuckoo clock and fixed it, which I have, it's not that complicated of a device.
And the parts are so big and the way that they turn and interface together and how easy you can see it, there are lots of things you can troubleshoot.
You can put oil in the right places and stuff like that, but fooling around on a real watch is not something you can do.
And so I implore you to understand that they can use synthetic DNA and RNA and play around with cell cultures and create all kinds of model systems that they claim are homologous in many ways to ourselves.
And stop lying.
This is wrong.
It's not to say that we're not learning something about bacteria from that guy's experiments, but we're not learning anything about ourselves.
We're not learning anything about evolution because DNA, and we're not testing anything with regard to evolution because DNA.
We are fundamentally starting on that assumption and then working as though, what?
The math is applied as if we are a bag of genes.
And so that's what you see here.
the idea that we are a bag of jeans.
And so anything that we learn from any other bag of jeans can be applied to this bag of jeans.
Your kid is just a bag of jeans in the end.
Doing one thing and then say, you can go back to school.
You can go back up the chain, become developmentally something much younger, a stem cell, and then go down a different path.
Stem cells are like blank pages that can be rewritten.
In the case of IVG, they take a new path to become reproductive cells, the building blocks to make a baby.
All of these technologies are unnatural.
Chemotherapy is unnatural.
Eyeglasses are unnatural.
It's not natural.
So do you see how they do it?
Unnatural defines a broad spectrum of things.
And, you know, because those are things are unnatural, then these unnatural things are fine.
It's no more, no more dangerous than eyeglasses.
Stop lying.
I mean, that's some, that's some incredible, that's some incredible stuff right there.
Unnatural versus unnatural.
For me, it's ethically unnatural or unethically unnatural.
It's all unnatural.
Wow.
And so it's always framed as a societal problem.
There are these few kids that have Angelman's disease, and Angelman's disease can be, you know, traced to a specific gene being screwed up.
And so because Angelman syndrome kids are kind of sort of like socially disabled, and so they're kind of like other disorders, and this one has a gene, then I guess everything has a gene.
It's the same, it's the same bait and switch illusion, whatever you want to call it, that they start on this assumption and there's a whole, you know, bouquet of reasons why reality is the way it is.
And they say, well, I guess we're just going to see what brand of tires they raced with and assume that race cars are race tires.
And if they chose the wrong brand, then that's the reason why they lost.
We're not going to worry about anything else.
Just what tires they're having.
I mean, again, not great analogies, but I'm just pulling them out of the air.
For that person who doesn't make their own gametes to have a baby that's biologically related to them.
AB mark.
Again, look at how mystifying it is.
How important do you feel if they set up that level of a shot for you?
There's lights in front of her, there's two or three people.
Somebody's saying, action.
Neutrogamedogenesis is almost like a science fiction technology to the general public.
But this is achievable using scientific models in the lab.
So it's reasonable to predict that this can be achieved using human cells.
So did you hear?
She said it in the most obtuse way possible.
She could have just said, we can do it with simple shit in the lab.
So hopefully someday we'll be able to do it with the most complex pattern integrity on earth.
It's wonderful.
I'm gonna replay it again just because I think that's a really great shot.
Technologies like this,
Using scientific mitochromatogenesis is almost like a science fiction technology to the general public.
But this is achievable using scientific models in the lab, so it's reasonable to predict that this can be achieved using human cells as well.
Technologies like this hit upon a very common refrain, which is once we get a new ability to do something radical, it also creates a lot of uncertainty.
If IVG becomes viable in humans, it paves the way for a future where infertile couples could have children with their own DNA.
Older women could conceive, extending the biological clock.
Same-sex couples could have a child related to both parents.
And in the most radical change of all, a person could have a baby with themselves, no partner or sperm.
Think about how awesome it would be if you had a baby that was yourself and raising it like it was just an asshole and there was nothing you could do about it.
And you were the worst parent ever.
And no matter what you did, it didn't matter because that little kid just hated you.
And was the, I mean, it is just comedy what they're talking about here.
And it is so irreverent.
It's exactly Teilhard de Chardin's argument that, you know, once this is revealed to us, we have an obligation to future generations to use this knowledge.
For egg donor necessary.
In the past with IVF, the main issues were, should unmarried couples be able to use IVF?
Should gay couples be able to use IVF?
Today, that's not really so much the issue.
Now the basic question is, how can a gay couple use IVF?
Now the idea is, of course, that you'd make an egg from one and a sperm from the other, but they can't do that.
They can only do it with very simple models in the laboratory, but now they're doing a whole highly produced video by Bloomberg Originals with a little logo in the corner here to tell us that we're on the doorstep of doing this.
Is this any different than Ray Kurzweil are telling us that if you make it to 2040, there will be no disease on earth and you will have made it to the point where you can upload your consciousness?
Is that any different?
This bad biology can be broken and our kids will see right through this garbage.
We have the opportunity to do it.
It's this generation.
It's this time.
It is us.
We can do it.
is what does it mean to be infertile?
If you have skin cells, but no sperm or eggs, technically, under the right conditions, you are still fertile.
Those very categories are being reinterpreted and reimagined, and the foundations of ethical debate are getting a little bit shaky.
No, the definitions of those words are starting to get shaky, because fertile doesn't mean fertile anymore if you say that you can use molecular biology to create a zygote.
That's not fertile.
You see what they're doing here?
This is the same game.
And they want you to fight this game.
They want you to fight this game, because if you fight this game, you'll be sucked into another game, which is really cool, which was also seeded during the pandemic.
And it's a game that I didn't really understand until, until the hat arrived.
And when the hat arrived and I put it on and I looked in the mirror
and saw the hat, it immediately became, I mean, it like snapped into my head like, I don't know, like in one flash.
And what snapped in my head was, oh my gosh, if you fight for this, then you're fighting for evolution because DNA.
You're fighting for genes, our behavior.
And that's what you heard that guy say.
that we assume that animal behavior has some genetic component and selection acts on those genes.
And so we did the math based on them being a bag of genes that their behavior reflected.
And then they look for correlations across the genome for the behavior that they thought they were selecting for.
And if they found it, they published it, p-values done.
So there is no understanding for the differences between these pattern integrities.
There's no intentional,
attempt to try and quantify the differences between the levels of complexity that are surely present outside of our door.
But instead, there is a concerted effort to make sure that we assume that the biology of one is the biology of all because of DNA.
Man, oh man, I think we're really, this is a good discussion.
I'm happy with this.
I like it a lot.
There have been cases in the U.S.
about people who propose to remove sperm from people in a terrible car accident who are now brain dead.
Can you see the hat?
Sorry.
Post-mortem or after death reproduction.
That's not a medical or scientific disadvantage, but certainly that's socially disruptive.
I got the blacked out one, but they also make a nice green one with white.
It's crazy.
If we can someday have babies developed entirely in a lab, we need to be ready to answer some new questions.
Are they someone's child?
Someone's sister?
Someone's brother?
We used to think that we knew what a womb was.
We used to think that it was pretty clear, but when I say uterus, you know what I'm talking about.
Today, it's not that clear.
Through IVG, if you create a sperm or an egg, you have to do a test to make sure that it's safe to use in the clinic, to make sure that you're not gonna transfer into a woman's uterus something that could actually go wrong.
So you have to create an artificial womb-like environment.
You can't just put it in a dish.
That's not like a real human body.
So all the research we're talking about of IVG, it needs accompanying technology
But could those other technologies like the artificial womb be used for other things?
Artificial womb technology is currently being developed to help premature infants.
I mean, they're always showing you babies that are somehow or another attached to something.
They're not just babies in the arms of their mom or babies in swaddling clothes.
It's always babies on ventilators or babies in boxes.
It's pretty impressive.
Again,
giving young people the incorrect tools to understand their world, the incorrect tools in order to protect themselves from this enslavement by mythology, this Truman Show that they are creating using mythology about biology.
It's wonderful.
We can break this.
and survive.
But one day, if this technology is perfected, lab-made embryos from IVG could be grown outside the human body.
The mission and purpose of my work is to solve the problem of extreme prematurity.
How can we recreate that magical maternal womb so that these babies can survive and thrive?
there is a great Life magazine cover with the Beatles on it.
And it was the mid-60s.
And in that issue was an obscure article about the artificial placenta.
So the idea occurred to really innovative scientists many decades ago.
But in the last two decades, the work has accelerated.
And we're at a point where we are approaching clinical translation to actually use this technology in human infants.
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
They have been working with the FDA to begin a clinical trial of safety of their device.
We are not far behind, approximately three to four years away.
Can we go from the embryo to a fetus to a live-born baby completely outside the womb?
I've learned in my work never to say never.
However, I don't think that's possible.
Some may think that the artificial womb concept is firmly in the world of science fiction.
I think that it's a little bit risky to just have that level of confidence, so we shouldn't be caught off guard.
There is no master conductor saying, we're gonna do this, we're gonna do that, we're gonna put it together.
Rather, different teams are doing their own thing.
Once the technology develops in one area, another technology develops somewhere else, then magically, simultaneously, they might be put together in a very surprising way.
Imagine the scenario of ex vivo gestation, gestating a baby outside the body.
Everybody in the world, every human being has a birth mother.
This would be a child that does not have a birth mother.
Does that matter?
It's an incredible thing to agree so much on the idea that that's a good question that you would make a documentary about it with this much, this high a production level.
That's what's extraordinary here.
That's what you need to see about this series and also the series with Hannah Fry.
It is amazing what they are trying to do to our kids.
And I don't mean, I don't mean to say that they're trying to do that to our kids.
I mean, they're trying to, as it said in the chat, they're trying to have us teach our kids a comic book science that they will be enslaved by and teach it to them on the basis that, well, we all experienced the pandemic.
We made some mistakes.
Sorry, babe, but medicine is going great.
Technology may cure infertility and bring us into the world in new ways, but it won't stop there.
It will accompany us through every stage of our lives, in sickness and in health.
The reason we're not going to stop developing AI is because it has immense potential for doing good, in particular in an area like healthcare.
So already in North America, about 200,000 people a year are killed by doctors giving a bad diagnosis.
Now, if you take difficult cases and you give them to normal doctors, the doctors will get about 40% of them right.
Surprised they're advocating for AI in public health.
Extraordinary, right?
Extraordinary how these things all overlap into different series with different hosts produced by different people that includes all Hannah Fry from Hazelmere.
If you give them to the combination of a doctor and an AI system, they get about 60% right.
In a few years' time, I believe what it'll be is the AI system will give a diagnosis and the doctor will just check it to make sure it's not silly.
But the AI system will be doing the heavy lifting.
And it will be much better.
But that has nothing to do with the training of doctors or the changing of the way that we take care of ourselves or the bad model of biology that these doctors are using to try and diagnose these patients.
Instead, what they're doing now is making a mockery
trying to make a mockery of what a doctor used to be by pulling the wool over our eyes and making us believe that AI is somehow so smart, when what we should be thinking is, holy shit, are doctors so bad at their job that the majority of them can no longer diagnose complex medical conditions because their training is so bad?
because the AI is trained only on successful confirmed diagnoses.
So how's the AI gonna make the mistakes that badly trained doctors are gonna make?
Do you see that huge right in your face bait and switch where it's actually AI is much better than doctors, humans just suck.
It couldn't be that for the last 40 years, we've been training doctors like crap and passing along a model of biology that makes them
inept at their job.
Oh baby, are we crushing this?
It is wonderful.
Could soon get even better at not just diagnosing, but treating us with the help of a digital copy of our bodies.
A digital copy of our bodies, that's nice.
What is a virtual twin?
So virtual twin is a complicated concept to build, but very straightforward to understand.
The idea is to use the basic same laws of nature that govern the products around you and build that exact copy on the computer.
See?
So if the particle physicists that established molecular biology, according to the guy from TWIV, if the particle physicists that came from the Manhattan Project, if those guys established a false set of assumptions upon which biology is based,
It's kind of like evolution because DNA.
I mean, did you hear him?
I got to play it again because that's just incredible.
I got to make sure that I get it right.
So these guys have also said that, right?
That if they just had enough data and they had the rules right, they could simulate reality.
They could predict the future.
They could, what these guys are purporting to do, create a virtual you, a virtual reality that would make accurate predictions because all the laws were there and we had enough computing power to do it.
That's not dissimilar to what he's describing here.
It's extraordinary.
Listen.
What is a virtual twin?
So Virtual Twin is a complicated concept to build, but very straightforward to understand.
The idea is to use the basic same laws of nature that govern the products around you and build that exact copy on the computer so we understand how it will behave.
For example, if we crash a car, we know how the metal bends, how the glass shatters.
We now apply that same methodology to the human body.
That's perfect!
It's exactly!
We work with a lot of pediatric hospitals because in the cases of rare diseases like congenital heart defects, it's very hard to get treatments for those because we have no data.
How would we know we would get it right?
That's exactly why in these other industries, they build the virtual twin.
They can't wait to know how a plane is going to fly through a tornado before they can build a plane that can survive a tornado.
they use the virtual twin to be able to do that.
Again, thinking as though those are equivalent pattern integrities.
An airplane in the air is not a pattern integrity.
So applying those models to life is just absurd, but these guys are fine with doing it.
Molecular biology was established by guys who didn't have jobs, because as Housatonic Life showed us, these same physicists had nothing to do.
So they went right to the Department of Energy, where they already were,
and founded the idea of the Human Genome Project.
The idea set that is the foundation of it.
That even though we don't know how to do it now, someday soon we will have all the laws of physics and chemistry that we need to understand the aperiodic crystal that is life.
This is a lie.
And we are being governed by the mythology that supports this assumption.
I don't know if they really believe they're eventually going to crack that code,
or if they're just using the incredibly enticing nature of this idea to enslave us and a lot of people even at the highest levels of this illusion.
Lots of people believe it.
I think a lot of these people in this documentary absolutely believe what they're saying and they think it's important and it's real.
These virtual twins would be programmed with everything about each person's body, our medical history, how we respond to medication, and even the unique shape and condition of our organs, taking the guesswork out of medicine and ensuring better outcomes for even the most complicated cases.
What they're really making the argument for there is if they're going to approach to understand the genome and listen carefully.
Just make sure I have everybody's attention.
in order to understand the genome, they are going to need to make as detailed a model of you as they can in order to correlate it with your genome.
No different than going out in the wild and catching a bunch of monkeys like that guy talked about in the first video, and then doing their genotype and trying to correlate between the behavior you observed in the wild and the genes you collected back in the lab.
They want and need to do this for every human because the Human Genome Project made this obvious to them.
That after all that work and all that technological devotion and development, the end result is that holy crap.
We can only sequence very short pieces and we can't be really sure about those pieces.
And it's going to take us forever to do the whole thing.
And we still only have solved the puzzle of where did the building parts come from?
We have no read on how this aperiodic crystal governs the change of the pattern integrity across time.
But they couldn't tell us that in the Nature article.
They couldn't tell us that we're still missing huge pieces to the puzzle to understand how the hell this DNA molecule could possibly explain life, nevermind evolution.
Instead, they went all in and said, we found it, we did it, obviously evolution.
And that's how we're here right now.
It's been accelerated because of the pandemic and the mythology that the pandemic enabled them to throw at us with coercion, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
We're kind of on the cusp of the industrial revolution for the human body.
We don't have to guess.
You can test a crazy idea on the virtual twin, but by the time you get to the human, you can get it right the first time.
Steve first began working on a virtual model of the heart when his daughter Jessie was born with a rare disease.
I bet Plantonics is going to love this one.
So when Jessie was born, we learned that she had this very rare congenital heart defect.
They weren't very optimistic.
How did this affect your life?
You know, I've been a patient my whole life.
I got my first pacemaker when I was two years old.
That experience really made me want to be involved in pediatric medical care because I saw the impact he was able to have on me.
So, what was the lightbulb moment?
I remember thinking, I work in this world where if you can create a 3-D image of it, we can then bring it to life and you can test it on it.
Why can't a doctor do that?
And at that moment, my two worlds collided.
This struggle as a father to be able to help her doctors understand what to do, and this professional demand to simulate life, and that was the birth of the project.
Professional demands, you know, that's what it is.
Professional demands.
If the professional demands are that the NIH has a grant call for genetic causes and genetic models of autism, then biologists all around the United States are going to find a way to meet that call.
And after a couple, three generations, we are where we are.
That's it.
It's easy.
Living Heart Project was an attempt to see if we knew enough to actually build an entire virtual twin of the heart like we can for an entire, say, commercial jet.
And it turned out within a year, we had it fully working.
ultimately going into pediatrics, you know, no one wants to research on children.
So knowing that, you know, on the horizon is something that we could simulate, you know, a hundred, a thousand cases where there's really only one individual and figure out how to help that one individual without, you know, putting them in any danger.
Do no harm is our first, you know, our first tenet.
Steve, you recently faced an incredible twist of fate where this technology also saved you.
What happened?
Inside my own head was a tumor that had grown to be much larger than anyone would want, larger than a golf ball, right in the center of my head.
Anyone hearing about a diagnosis like this would be devastated.
Did knowing that this technology existed make you feel more hope?
Especially in the setting of this specific kind of tumor, which the approach is often non-invasive, and knowing that his surgeon would be able to use similar technology to see what's going on inside his head without actually seeing what's going on inside his head.
The tumor invaded a space called the cavernous sinus, which carries a lot of the nerves that go not just to the eye, but to the rest of the face.
They were going to have to avoid all of those really delicate items.
The virtual twin would allow them to not only preserve all of those things, but to get the entire tumor out, they were able to get it all.
Again, this is the bait and switch.
This is the shell game that they're playing.
Making an anatomical model of the brain to guide a surgery is incredibly different from making a model down to the molecule or down to the cell of the brain and its function in order to store it in a computer so that when you're dead, you can be represented again.
but they are blurring the line between these two because they want you to think that we are on a natural progression from graphic surgery tools and anatomically accurate 3D models to the ability to use genes, hear it carefully ladies and gentlemen, use genes to get to the 3D model.
That's what they think they're going to be able to do, that if they make enough virtual
virtual human representations of other humans and correlate that to their genome, then eventually they're going to be able to see how it is that the genome encodes that.
They are preparing us to become the experimental animals.
We may already be the experimental animals and our children will be these.
Holy man, can you see it?
How does it feel that this technology that you invented saved both of your lives?
First, you saved your daughter's life with this technology, and then your daughter saved you.
We were able to turn a particularly threatening challenge to our life into something that really has transformed it.
I don't know how it saved him.
I can't put it into words.
Why isn't this everywhere?
Why is it taking so long for this technology to get into hospitals and into doctors' hands?
The medical field is inherently conservative.
We're still faxing medical records around and things like that.
see what's going on and do no harm is our first.
Understand what to do and this professional demand to simulate life and that was the birth of the project.
Professional demand to simulate life.
So they simulated her heart to do a surgery then they simulated his brain.
I see now.
Yeah.
That's not the same thing.
But I can guarantee you that's what they're planning.
First you saved your daughter's life with this technology and then your daughter saved you.
We were able to turn... Oh, I like that.
That could be a book.
From sheep to lab rats.
Ooh, I like that a lot.
I might steal that.
I can't put it into words.
I might steal that.
That's a good one.
Maybe that's the Biology 101 book.
The medical field is inherently conservative.
We're still faxing medical records around.
Unbelievable nonsense here.
Unbelievable nonsense.
And so the modernization of the medical system takes time.
If people knew that they could expect better, it will go faster.
Because when people start to ask for this technology is when doctors will start to say, well, okay, let me look into this.
What are the possibilities there?
Ultimately,
Our ability to manage our own health care is very much tied up in our understanding of how our bodies work.
When we have a question, we have to go and ask our doctor, can you tell me what to do?
But if we can capture all that knowledge,
into a virtual twin.
I can actually eventually play those what-if games and then I can use my doctor as a consultant.
I've spent the last week exploring the options for how to cure my disease.
This is what I think.
Let me show you the work that I've done.
Sounds like the patient all the doctors hate.
If virtual twins in the metaverse can store every bit of data about our bodies, could we do the same for our life experiences?
Will we finally realize the elusive dream of immortality through avatars that know us better than we know ourselves?
What about at the end of life and the concept of digital eternity?
So in digital systems, you can take it- This is Ray Kurzweiler's nonsense, right?
Uploading your consciousness.
Exactly the same way.
And digital systems are basically immortal for that reason.
As long as you remember the connection strengths in a neural network, you can just get rid of all the hardware.
If you build new hardware and put the same connection strengths in, and it's digital, it will behave exactly the same way.
See, so there's the assumption.
The assumption is amazing because a pattern integrity is like a...
The the surface of a lake in some in some senses and so what he's suggesting is if you just had All the all the the measurements of all the surface of the lake then you could simulate it and it would run But that's not the way it works at all A human is not is not the echo of a cave Where if you just make the same cave somewhere else out of the same material and yell into it, it'll be the same echo
A human's not a basketball court if you paint it right and treat it with the same, you know, it's not the same as an airplane.
If you have the same materials and you build an airplane in France the same way you built it in America, it'll be the same airplane.
A pattern integrity by definition is a something that has a trajectory through time that cannot be captured by a snapshot of synaptic weights in the brain.
The synaptic weights of my brain are changing in real time right now, just like yours are, as you listen.
You can't simulate that by taking a snapshot of it and then recreating it in a computer, no matter how wonderful your computer skills are, and no matter how perfect your computer system is.
Because it's missing the four-dimensional aspect.
It's missing the reincorporation of new molecules, the consumption of energy, the production of waste.
It's all not there.
There's no homeostasis captured in the weights of synaptic weights in the brain.
These people are crazy.
So you think AI can realistically give us a form of immortality?
Chatbots can be immortal, but immortality is not for people.
People are analog systems.
Nobody can replicate you without precisely replicating all your hardware, which is impossible.
So, for example, I lost my father at a young age.
Oh, he does say that.
If I could speak to some digital version of him that felt like him, I think I'd want to do that.
Why would you want that?
In order to do that, you'd need to train up
a chatbot on lock, which is impossible.
So for example, I lost my father at a young age.
If I could speak to some digital version of him that felt like him, I think I'd love to do that.
Wow, why?
What a terrible idea that is.
What a horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible way to desecrate the sacred memory of your father.
Can you see the theme here?
Today is a very busy day.
I think I'm going to cut it short here because this feels like a really good place to end it.
But they're going to go on.
This video goes on.
There are other episodes.
We're going to look at some of the Hannah Fry one at some point.
Anyway, I hope you found this useful.
I think we're going to be able to do this a lot to try and make some progress, get some words down, and get some pieces together that will help assemble this
this ladder that we can use to climb out of the cave of this bad biology, this ladder of ideas that will form the foundation of a new biology.
Maybe one of the most useful ways to find out or identify what those ideas are
are to do exercises like this where we have a study hall and we listen to a very high level production of the message and the plan and the intention and the ideas that descend all the way from Desjardins to now.
And we're hearing all kinds of aspects of it in real time.
And so if we can, and we can tie all these together,
in such a way as to throw them off the boat all together, all at once, then we will be able to move forward with our children and present them with a new way of seeing the irreducible complexity of biology right outside in our gardens and from it develop a natural reverence for the sacred.
And our children will naturally seek God on their own.
That's what I find ultimately the most beautiful conclusion of the work that I have been offered to do that has fallen into my lap for one reason or another.
This concept of a new Biology 101 that at the end of the class, the average kid, the average young adult will approach the world with a reverence that will ultimately lead to them seeking God themselves.
seeking higher spiritual explanations, and more importantly, seeking higher spiritual goals to contribute to the real noosphere, which is the continuous consciousness of people across generations.
That's what really matters here.
The continuous consciousness of people across generations, and that's what these people are after.
They want to break that chain.
so that they can replace it with the system of imprisonment that this mythology represents.
I don't know what to say other than I thought I had a really productive show.
I think I'm gonna try and do it a lot.
First of all, I'm gonna try to establish a pattern of five days a week at 10 o'clock in the morning every day.
And then within a week or two, maybe even next week, I'm gonna try and do Tuesdays and Thursdays where I also start with Matt Briggs' class again.
Today I won't be able to do it because this afternoon we have a number of appointments.
and it just doesn't fit in, but this schedule is ultimately the most important thing that I have.
And so please accept my humblest apologies for not sticking to it this week, but next week I think we're gonna be on it, but definitely I'm gonna be here again tomorrow.
I know I was late today at 11.11, so that should be the pattern that you should expect.
I'll either be on at 10.10 or 11.11.
or otherwise 1313, because that's one o'clock in the afternoon military time, not because 13 special.
And yeah, let's try to break this illusion of us being a bag of genes.
And thank you very much for joining me.
This has been a presentation of GigaOM Biological.
If you want to see the replay, go to stream.gigaom.bio.
where this will be in the biology 101 category and if you want to communicate with me maybe stream.bio or gigaohm.bio is maybe the place and if you want to support this work which I would very much appreciate and so would the few people that are floating this boat because I don't think they can do it forever and don't want to.
I would really like it if we could just get to the stage where we had enough of very small contributing subscribers so that this thing would be self-sustaining and I wouldn't have to
I wouldn't have to have people like I have now, which I'm very appreciative to and I don't want to mention names because they are all humble enough not to want to be mentioned, but there's only a few of them and they know who they are and I'm very grateful to them.
But I'm also very grateful to the 130 subscribers or so that are there every month and have been there, some of them since the very beginning.
It's just an extraordinary privilege I have.
And it's provided by you guys so thank you very much, and there's not going to be a play out in these Tuesdays and Thursdays.
So people complain about the long introduction so I'm going to do the long introduction on Mondays and Fridays, and.
a reasonably short introduction Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or at least that's what we have in the works right now.
So I'll see you again tomorrow.
Tomorrow is Wednesday, so I will see you for a Wayback Wednesday.
We're going to actually watch the old original stream with me and Kevin McKernan when I first interviewed him and see what we can find in that interview.
So I look forward to doing that.
That'll be tomorrow at 10 o'clock.
Thank you very much for joining me, and I will see you again, like I said, tomorrow.
Repeating myself like a monkey here.
Good night, good afternoon, good evening, good morning.
See you later.