Testing 1, 2.
Test 1, 2.
Testing 1, 2.
I don't know if this is in sync or not.
This feels bad to me.
How's it look left hand?
Are we okay?
All good, he says.
All right.
Well, let's start this thing then.
I'm going to put myself a little bit smaller down here.
Welcome to the show, ladies and gentlemen.
This is for all the marbles.
This is for the grandchildren of Earth.
That's why there is a fake anti-vax movement in America right now.
It's a very diabolical little scheme that this anti-vax movement has run on us.
It is much more complicated than vaccines just working and there being a bunch of people out there trying to grift off of a lie.
It's actually much more complicated than that.
Please understand clearly that the idea of endemicity is an enchantment.
There is no biological evidence for the idea that an RNA molecule can go from
a small concentration in a laboratory or a mud puddle or the anus of a bat, and then essentially cover the earth with its presence indefinitely.
That's the idea of endemicity, and that cannot happen, especially with regard to RNA.
They lied about a background, an irreducibly complex background, that they distilled down with a few nonspecific PCR tests, a few 220-odd
PCR and lateral flow test products that are now masquerading as high-fidelity diagnostics.
They also rolled out transfection and got away with it using placebos.
But rest assured that the entire pandemic narrative still rests on the idea that PCR is a useful diagnostic and that when you use PCR, you can find all sorts of different kinds of ghosts.
And that makes you a ghostbuster if you follow along with that data.
And so we really need to wake our children up to the concept that this diagnostic methodology has not been proven by the pandemic, even though now we are moving forward with an FDA that assumes that it has.
understand that.
That is the main and most dangerous aspect of the mythologies that we've come to accept over the course of the pandemic, that PCR is a very high-fidelity diagnostic, not just for COVID, but for anything they point it at.
You have to be very careful, ladies and gentlemen, because that is indeed where we are.
And it is as simple as there being an irreducibly complex background on which they could draw any signal they wanted.
And so they told you, hey, look, we found something.
And what they put there, what signal they released, what signal they reported in China likely has an immunological signature they knew they could track, they knew was already bright in the background, and they used other signals that were already bright in the background, associated them with this novel virus mystery, and rolled out diagnostics that we have not looked at in retrospect to see if they had any validity at all.
and the FDA is never gonna look back.
And you know that, you know the FDA is never gonna look back because all of the other organizations that are involved in this will never look back because there was an anticipated rise in all cause mortality.
a bump in the population pyramid from big families after World War II, and that bump could have been predicted to produce an overload of hospitals if we were short of beds all the time, or an overload of hospitals if NHS in the UK runs at a
certain ceiling all the time.
And so you can see it coming up there.
You can see that social security and all of these budgetary items are gonna change drastically as this population ages out.
So the question is, how do we manage it?
Well, we're gonna take advantage of this anticipated rise in all cause mortality, and we are going to sculpt it using murder and lies.
And by sculpting it using murder and lies, we created the graph that you see here.
The dark red is all cause mortality year on year.
You can see between 55 and 70,000 people every week die in America because there are 350 odd million people in America.
And that's about 2.7 to 3 million deaths per year.
And so in order to get 200 COVID deaths a week, you actually only need to lie.
You actually only need to use a shitty PCR test to claim that.
You actually only need to use a very shitty model to claim that.
And in the meantime, nobody is usefully returning to 2020 and 21 and reevaluating how we define the pandemic and how many intentional mistakes were made there.
Because that's the real crime.
That's where the murder was done.
RNA cannot pandemic.
Intramuscular injection is dumb.
Transfecting healthy people was always, always awful.
And the population pyramid is real.
And if you look up this data, you can see the problem that they were going to have in the Western world, and you can see how they are planning to manage it.
That's why all the vaccines for adults are now just a thing.
Whereas when you and I were younger, our parents didn't have any vaccinations for pneumonia and shingles and all these other things.
That's nonsense.
Just like this is nonsense.
These people are posers.
They are posing and they are liars.
This is Kevin McKernan last week or this week talking about how the DEA used to chem trail fungus over cannabis fields.
Spray stuff, you know.
And Jicky Leaks is talking about spraying clones.
Remember the thing that Kevin McKernan called Chemtrail retarded?
Remember this?
And they're working together, you see.
This is Jiki Leakes promoting the former Research and Development Director of the Human Genome Project and likely still high ranking in this Department of Energy operation where we're on to stage three.
And Jiki Leakes is just a guy who gets everybody to argue about Nick Hudson or Jessica Hockett or somebody else that's on the same team.
It's all one malevolent show.
And until you can see it, you can't show it to anybody else.
Until you can see how you've been trapped by the right-wing media on X and these other places, you can't explain it to anybody else.
Until you can explain how this scripted bullshit was done and why these people were put in place on Rumble and Locals and Tucker Carlson,
why this Tommy podcast even exists, why this guy has been like a multimillionaire is just on so many podcasts.
Why are all these billionaires starting podcasts?
Why are these senators and directors of national intelligence starting podcasts and YouTube channels?
Unless this is the way they plan to govern us with a theater on social media.
and then very careful funneling of this scripted bullshit only to the people who need to see it.
That's why my parents don't know who Jessica Rose is.
That's why my brother doesn't know who Kevin McKernan is.
Because that's the way social media use works.
They see an entirely different stage on this Lollapalooza.
And that entirely different stage also doesn't include ZDogg and Vinay Prasad and Marty McCary.
They didn't know who those people were until a month ago.
And now they're being told by mainstream media and their side of social media exactly who these people are.
Well, sort of.
Enough to know that it's obvious that something bad is happening, but the scripted bullshit will never reveal or point out the, I still can't figure out the pattern.
I know I've ruled out Russian, Chinese, and Hmong.
And now I'm trying to figure out if there's something else I need to rule out about what's going on here.
But there are a couple, three countries that show up a lot.
I mean, you could think about Persians, for example.
There's a Persian at the head of U.S.
Emirate.
And I think this guy's a Persian from India.
That guy's from India.
The other guy over there is Egyptian English, which is also weird.
And so we just got a lot of people with multiple passports.
We got a lot of people who suddenly have a really developed opinion about what should happen in America and a really
not so humble opinion about what they are capable of doing as a professional.
It is absurd to think that Vinay Prasad actually believes that he has the professional background to guide the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
It is not ridiculous to think that he has been told he's going to be put there.
It is not ridiculous to think that he was told he's gonna be put there and given a script and so everything will be fine.
All you gotta do is talk your cancer shit and we will put you in front of cameras and you will make everything hum.
Oh, I can do that.
That makes sense.
Just like Jay Bhattacharya doesn't honestly believe that he's got the vision necessary to run an organization like the NIH.
He doesn't even have the professional experience to know what probably or could go on there if you change their big focus from one thing to another.
He doesn't even understand that.
He understands hospital economics.
And yet these people are all in charge now and we need to be scared of this because they got there by a scripted bullshit.
Scripted bullshit is why we accept PCR as a diagnostic standard.
Scripted bullshit is why we accept sequencing as a high-fidelity measurement.
Scripted bullshit from Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan is why intramuscular injection is still the best idea since buttered bread.
And the reason why mRNA has huge military potential in everybody's mind.
Pure RNA actually probably does, especially if you could aerosolize it.
Pure DNA probably also does, if you could aerosolize it.
Because you could find it with PCR and claim it was something else, causing something else, a sign of something else.
And of course, as we know, if you use social media to tell people they're sick, a certain percentage of people will feel sick.
And of course, Trump was definitely shot by a kid who goes to my kid's high school.
But we don't really care about why that kid did it.
We don't know any more about him now than we did a year ago.
And of course, the lab leak mystery has been solved now.
Everybody agrees, including Jay Bhattacharya, that we need to take responsibility for the lab leak.
And so we have Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
as Health and Human Services Secretary, and we're supposed to feel like it's a big win and fight over whether Casey means and Cali means are trained agents or not, while the FDA is destroyed from within with farmers markets and seminars about talc.
Solving America's health problems are gonna be really complicated with a bunch of saboteurs in charge.
brought in by a Trojan horse behind what is a wreck of a man, it seems to me, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
We are in big trouble, ladies and gentlemen.
America needs help.
Americans need to come together under the idea that the left and the right have been played as absolutely awful as each other.
There's no good side to be on if you think one team is winning.
If you think one team or the other team is winning, then this is the sound for you.
because that's exactly the trap.
That's how we got here.
And it ain't Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
that anybody needs to be worried about.
But of course, everybody is worried about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Everybody is really worried that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is going to start killing kids or, you know, his rhetoric is going to start wrecking the country.
The vaccine infrastructure of America is about to fall apart.
And that's all distracting you from the fact that the CDC is still doing shit.
Distracts you from the fact that the American government is still moving.
There's still a lot of people being paid to do stuff.
It's just that you're being distracted with a fight between Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
You're being distracted by a lot of things that are 5,000 miles away instead of focusing on the fact that our very government is being undermined from within by a very elaborate stunt.
I mean a really elaborate, multi-decade long con
I need your help, ladies and gentlemen.
I need your help pointing this out.
The condition that we will not call autism, I don't like the word autism, he was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
The condition that we will not call autism, I don't like the word autism, he was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
The condition that we will not call autism, I don't like the word autism, he was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
On every slide, the first slide, I have quotes.
And I know that you don't read them at all, because you don't need to read them to pass or get a good grade.
But this one is pretty cool.
The quote from Alice in Wonderland.
One can't believe impossible things, said Alice.
I dare say you have
I think it should be better now.
I hope it's better now.
Present.
How's it look, Christy?
Good to see you in the chat.
I'll just start again at the very beginning to say that this is really for all the marbles.
This is about the grandchildren of Earth, and that is why there is a fake anti-vax movement in America, but also kind of spreading around the world under certain sections of the internet.
And we really need to be able to see this clearly so that we can make sure that our children are not spellbound by it or by the
the intellectually dishonest rejection of the fake anti-vax movement.
I mean, that's what we really don't want our children to do.
We don't want our children to think that Paul Offit and all these people are just right, or mostly right, and that the anti-vax movement is exactly as incompetent as it seems.
Because it's not.
It's incompetent as it seems only by design, because it's part of the same illusion that brought us the pandemic.
The same illusion that brings us endemicity, brings us autism, and brings us pandemics.
It's all one bad biology that's based on the idea that molecules can do things all by themselves, even with maybe an enzyme or two, and then it's all bets are off.
And this is absurd.
There's no biological evidence in the literature for something going endemic, nevermind an RNA molecule coated in fat.
And so what they have done, I propose, is they took a background signal and they tricked us into using their tests.
And by using their tests to find their ghosts, we thought we were Ghostbusters.
And we fooled ourselves into believing that we were solving a mystery about a lab leak.
And that illusion is only made possible by this irreducibly complex background signal and our acceptance of non-specific PCR testing.
Otherwise, there would only be one explanation for why a bunch of more people were expected to die.
And that we lost control of pneumonia and a few other things in the hospitals because we decided not to treat viral syndromes with antibiotics.
and we were able to mitigate what otherwise might have been a socioeconomic disaster.
By creating this illusion of public health needing to rescue us, creating this illusion by acting on an anticipated rise in all cause mortality, and specifically acting on it by sculpting it using murder and sophisticated lying.
One of the main things that was done in America in 2020 and 2021 was murdering Americans to make sure that the rest of the world would believe that if they didn't lock down or hadn't locked down, that they would be experiencing the same thing that supposedly America was experiencing.
But it was actually just murder and lies.
and the coordinated effort of several international groups and the meddlers that run them to use this narrative, fuel this narrative, and more importantly, never allow the retrospective questioning of a novel virus and the fumbling of the ball in terms of the response, but instead thinking about it as a national security exercise that primarily was the victims were Americans.
There were also a lot of this was happening in very specific places in very specific populations in the EU.
One of the most egregious examples being Scotland.
Anyway, RNA cannot pandemic.
Intramuscular injection is not medicine.
Transfecting healthy people should be a crime and population pyramids are definitely a problem.
And unfortunately, I think they've been sort of managed and they will continue to be managed by the public health mythology and all of the treatments for old people and preventative treatments for old people that come as a result.
We've lost control of our FDA.
That is absolutely for sure.
We have lost control of our FDA.
And if we don't get off of social media, we will have lost our contact with reality because we will be paying attention to people that are there just to perform.
Kevin McKernan actually doesn't matter anywhere else except for on X and maybe on Rumble.
And Jiki Leaks definitely doesn't matter anywhere except for on X.
And so unfortunately it's taken me and a lot of people a long time to see that these people that told us years ago that the internet and social media was a disaster and that you can't use it safely.
We just didn't take them seriously.
And then the pandemic hit and that's all we had.
That's all any of us had.
And that's why we've gotten this far.
Our children.
Our children, ladies and gentlemen, before the pandemic, we were told that screen time was bad.
During the pandemic, we were told that screen time is school.
And the same people are responsible for all of it.
Kevin McKernan, if I have my way, should be in jail at some point in American history while I'm still alive.
Because these people really engaged in scripted bullshit
to make sure that real informed consent for the American public never existed.
It still doesn't exist.
And that lack of informed consent about what they are doing to us and how they set up the remnant streams and how they faked the PCR and how they are faking the sequencing of the virus and the pretense that this is something that started in a mud puddle, this is all criminal.
And it is a sabotaging of the very
ability of citizens in America to exercise their responsibility as citizens to govern themselves and to run their government.
It's not possible if people like this are on social media and paid to pretend that they are patriots.
This is scripted bullshit, but more importantly it is malevolent and it is criminal.
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but for me, this performance here and looking back on it and realizing that it wasn't just by accident, but it was scripted, that they had planned all along to do this.
That's why in the early videos, Vinay is so uncomfortable.
And now Vinay is so confident.
It's not because over the last five years, he's grown up so much.
It's because he understands that this scripted bullshit is gonna get him somewhere.
Here, he was just recently told that that's the plan.
He was just recently told that that's coming, you know, that there's a thing.
Here, he's much more confident.
In 2024, he's much more confident, because he knows what's about to come.
He knows where he's going.
And America might've been better off without the FDA, but heck, I'll head CBER, no problem.
Because it's all scripted bullshit.
We are being undermined.
We are being sabotaged.
And because of that sabotage, we believe that there was a lab leak.
Almost all of the evidence for a lab leak comes from Indian sources.
A lot of the members, the real crucial members of DRASTIC are all Indians.
Jai Bhattacharya, Vinay Prasad,
Kash Patel, Rochelle Walensky, Murthy.
These are all Indians, all overseeing the orchestration of this event.
The only Chinese person that I can really think of is Liana Wen, and she's not really doing anything.
She's certainly not in government.
We have a Turkish guy at the head of CMS.
We have an Englishman at the head of the FDA.
We have a Indian at the head of NIH.
This is unprecedented, in my humble opinion, in a country like America with so many patriots, so many lifelong dedicated servers of our government, and they chose them?
who for all practical purposes are book authors and podcasters.
Solving America's health problems are going to be very, very complicated because R.F.K.
Jr.
as Secretary of Health and Human Services is not the end of the game.
It's not a touchdown and now it's over and we run into the locker room and pop champagne.
That's what they made everybody believe.
I think that's what Brian Hooker believed that up until very recently.
I don't think he can possibly believe it anymore.
Maybe they think that Bobby was played and they feel bad for Bobby, but that would really be a sad interpretation of what's going on.
Because the way to really explain this is that this has been a plan for a very long time to put Bobby Kennedy forward as a sort of a leader of Lemmings.
As Peter Hotez explained in that podcast we watched a couple of days ago,
It's one of the few things that could reunite the far left and the far right is anti-vax, health freedom.
And you don't think that Steve Bannon took note of that, took note of the 6 million votes that autism apparently swayed with just 90 billboards with Polly Tommy in her bra.
You don't think that he saw that and said to his friend, Tony Lyons, hey, let's get a book out there with a narrative out there where Bobby Kennedy runs as an independent and then joins up with one of the other candidates and they win.
And then that other candidate gets shot.
So Bobby Kennedy is our president.
How about we write a book like that, like a book with an epilogue like that?
Who could we do that with?
Maybe, oh yeah, that guy who was the governor of Minnesota.
Let's do it with him.
That was in 2008.
Now they're telling you a story about a kid from my kid's high school shot at Donald Trump an hour north of my house.
He lives four blocks up the street on my dog walk.
But we don't know anything more about them.
No more about his internet history, nothing.
We haven't figured out anything really.
It's okay.
Donald Trump doesn't care.
He doesn't get revenge on kids, even if they shoot at him.
Anyway, it's a big joke to me at this point that any Americans actually take what they see on social media seriously, haven't just followed along with the narrative and at some point said, wow, this book is getting dumb.
Wow, that guy wearing three pens in his shirt and pretending to be some kind of working class dude when he's worked at Goldman Sachs is kind of dumb.
This guy over here pretending that somehow he suffered as a persecuted academic when he settled for half a million dollars is kind of dumb.
That guy up there posing as a emu farmer, horse breeder turned career burning patriot came off the retired bench to save the world and has been touring the world for six years because he just loves kids or loves America or loves the future or something.
That's absurd.
The idea that Kevin McKernan is somehow just a guy who, after working for the Human Genome Project for a little while, spinning off a few companies, he's decided to use the rest of his life or invest in pot genomes because that's just what he likes.
He's just passionate about that stuff.
And then at the start of the pandemic, he was bitching about the FDA and making fun of EUA paperwork, saying that the FDA was in the way because that's just how he feels as a pot guy.
It doesn't have anything to do with anything else.
It's just, I know from, you know, being a pot guy that the FDA is in the way.
And I mean, all we really need are PCR tests.
And so we're just supposed to believe that this guy got together with Claire Craig of the 100,000 Genomes Project and Mike Yeadon, formerly of Pfizer, and with some guy by the name of, what is his name?
Bobby Mahaltra, from Germany, and just wrote a paper about how there's primer dimers and stuff, and there's a different way to do PCR, and the WHO paper was not properly peer-reviewed, yada yada yada.
That was just him being a patriot, doing what he thought was the smartest thing to do at the time in September of 2020.
That this is just all absurd.
All of that, that is just absurd.
It's just as absurd as thinking that Aaron Siri, formerly of Goldman Sachs, is really trying to save people from vaccine injury or get justice for them.
It's just all a big lie.
The biggest lie right now to understand is Robert Malone saying that we have to get the COVID shot off of the CICP and onto the VICP.
We've got to move the PrEP Act forward, you know, because as long as the COVID shot stays under the PrEP Act, CICP, then we can't really sue for these vaccine damages.
So the way to get justice for the people who were injured by the COVID vaccine is to move them from under the PrEP Act to under the VICP.
So that all the lawyers that run those things can charge all the fees they want.
That's the main reason why Aaron Seery can never tell you.
that the VICP and the whole idea of that administrative kangaroo court is actually unconstitutional.
They can't tell you that because they use it.
They haven't been advising clients for a long time that that's the way for them to get their due process to their get their, you know, their their justice.
And the one thing about the vaccine court that you need to understand is that interim fees are paid on both sides.
Listen to that carefully.
Interim fees are paid, which means that unlike any other case that Aaron Siri could take as a lawyer, unlike any other case that Aaron Siri could take as a lawyer, where he would need to win first,
He would need to win first before he could charge fees to the other side or to the court or however that works.
If you're putting cases before the VICP, you get to charge for your time as you go.
And that exists nowhere else in the United States government.
No, it's really true.
It's really true, that exists nowhere else in the laws of the United States.
The only place where lawyers get paid, whether they win or lose, before they win or lose, is for the VICP.
So now you could think maybe that Goldman Sachs lawyer isn't so dumb after all.
Maybe he's got this all cornered and he knows him and his buddies all know that this is a racket that'll never go away.
And now with COVID coming, if we could get it shifted to the VICP, I mean, class action, they're seeing millions of dollars and yes, there are people on the bottom of this pyramid who are motivated by money because they see money as power or at least money as freedom.
And so if you don't have millions of dollars and you're offered the chance to make millions of dollars, individuals will make those choices.
But to think that ultimately this whole charade was done by pharmaceutical companies or done by the DoD, it's just absurd.
This screen alone tells you that it wasn't the DoD killing Americans.
This screen alone tells you that it's much more complicated than that.
The fact that nobody talks about Tony Bark or Brandy Vaughn, it tells you it's a lot more complicated than that.
So I want to watch this Restoring Trust in Science and Health with Dr. Jay Yanta Bhattacharya and Huberman.
But first I'm going to run the intro and
and give you a couple other examples from the goofiness before we get to this one.
So just stay tuned.
I'll be right back.
The VICP is, sorry, I'll just answer that question.
The VICP is the vaccine court before COVID.
The VICP is where like Ralph Hazelhurst's case was.
Anytime you were injured by a vaccine before the pandemic, you would have had to go to the VICP.
And that I believe is under the National Vaccine, something, you know, Immunization Act, something like that.
You have to, I'm not a lawyer.
So, you know, there's some things I'm gonna get a little bit off from which law it is or whatever, but that was before and that's independent of the PrEP Act.
The VICP, I think is that one.
Anyway.
Here we go.
Yes, I'll be back in a second
A condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
A condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
A condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
On every slide, the first slide, I have quotes.
And I know that you don't read them at all, because you don't need to read them to pass or get a good grade.
But this one is pretty cool.
The quote from Alice in Wonderland.
One can't believe impossible things, said Alice.
I dare say you haven't had much practice, said the queen.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
So that's totally suitable for this lecture.
A lot of impossible things are going to happen.
a condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
Um, he was vaccine damaged.
I think, but you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
You know, I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
You know, I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
One thing I am confident of from everything I've read is that this RNA exists, you can capture it, you can sequence it, you can move it to other cells and recapitulate disease.
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, and it's measles plus.
Okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles, because not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end.
when we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality and it's not, it's, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs.
It'll be a moral emergency because it has to be.
insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Actually, J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Actually, J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Yes, testing, test, test, testing.
Test one, two, test.
I don't care how you get there.
I don't care what you do to get there.
The goal is to win.
What time is it?
Game time!
Alright, good morning.
Haven't heard any chords in a while.
Boy, that's rough.
That hits me hard.
That hits me right in the feels, man.
You haven't heard any chords in a while.
I haven't been practicing, so it's like every time I pick it up, I'm just rehearsing what I already know.
I haven't added the last bit of chords to peg yet.
So maybe I need to get it, maybe I need to get it going again.
Thank you for that plug.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm trying to encourage people to get off social media.
At least stop using it skillfully.
If you want to go there and mess it up, you want to go there and read some stuff or follow a few people like me and retweet it.
We will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
Brian, Brian, Brian, it's okay.
I already told them.
Intramuscular injection is never questioned as a methodology.
Making sure that virology is never questioned as a science.
Making sure public health is never questioned as a reason.
That's what autism spectrum disorder as a mythology is able to accomplish.
That's also what the pandemics and gain-of-function
We're also meant to reinforce, making sure that we would pass this down to our children.
And we need to understand that trap and make sure we don't do it.
The cheese is free on social media and there's a good reason why.
Very, very excited to be here.
This is a busy day, busy week.
Mark Kulak has done some really crackin' work, and it's really just brought together a lot of loose ends in my mind, make me feel a lot better about the path that I've taken and where I find myself now.
So we are gonna focus on Huberman doing Jayanta, but first we will, yeah, we're gonna
We're going to roll through a couple other videos, which I want to use as examples for what's going on here.
Welcome to the show.
This is an American stream coming to you live from Pittsburgh in America.
And so, yes, it's primarily a message for Americans because this is where the whole nonsense started.
So if you've been here for a while, you're at the top of the wave.
If not, you might be a skilled social media user that needs to learn to stay focused on the biology, not to take the bait on social media.
And to start loving your real neighbors, the people that you are in contact with, you call, that you see, that you share your community with.
And community doesn't mean a random group of people based on some random attribute, but it means the people you live with.
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jonathan Couey.
I'm Chief Biologist at Dingo Home Biological.
I have a YouTube channel called JC on a Bike, which I'm not streaming on right now, but JC in the Woods is also me.
And although I didn't edit it, it should be live now.
If it's not, it doesn't matter.
Because I'm also on Twitch, I'm also on PeerTube, I'm also on Rumble.
You can support the work if you go to GigaOM Biological.
The way it works is that... Now, why is that not playing?
That's super annoying.
I don't really know what's up.
My computer is just not very happy with me lately.
Maybe I have too much on my desktop.
And once I clear that off... I have considered live streaming on X. That does cost money.
I don't know if I want to support that platform.
I think that platform is one of the reasons why we are here.
Ladies and gentlemen, my website is GigaOMBiological.com.
The most important link there, other than support GigaOM, is that stuff link because that's where I'm going to be putting the stuff that we're writing together, the stuff that we're working on, and of course anything that you need to download.
Right now the main thing to download, if you haven't downloaded it, is the McKinsey Report about Population.
There you can see some of the links to help sponsor the show.
I thank you very much to all the people that do so and yeah, that's That's a really only possible.
This whole thing is only really possible because I've had at least one Person along with me all the way and that is Housatonic live Mark Kulak out of Boston, Massachusetts at housatonicits.com He's on twitch rumble odyssey and and and bit shoot.
I think he's even got a bit shoot hat because he
He posts there so much.
Independent bright web is what I'm trying to recruit for.
And that just means people who are basically one man, one lady shows, you know, a family, somebody that's just trying to get the real truth out as an American.
And an independent bright web is how we're going to save America, I think, because we need an alternative media that we can feel comfortable sharing with our family and friends directly via email.
I hope that I'm providing that to you.
Remember that PeerTube, where I'm also streaming and also archiving all of this work, allows downloading.
The primary intention of PeerTube is to allow you to download those videos so you can watch them offline and you can do something with them.
I don't know what you want to do with them.
You can just send them to people.
You can just
make your own YouTube channel with them.
You could cut clips, you can do whatever you want.
And the point is to get you off of regular social media.
I don't want YouTube to be able to put ads in front of you and I don't want YouTube to be able to show you these performers because YouTube is a place where you can go down a lot of different places, a lot of different staircases and find yourself in the middle of a bunch of performers with elaborate costumes and effects all in the same script.
And so I want to get people off of those platforms.
If you go to PeerTube, you are going to find me or you are going to find Mark.
And that's really it.
These people have fooled us.
Ladies and gentlemen, I feel very comfortable.
I feel very comfortable saying from between two phages that these people are all part of a malevolent network on a
I would say Robert Malone, Kevin McKernan provided script, although I'm definitely open to the idea that there are authors out there that I'm not aware of.
There's a lot of people that would be capable of writing this script.
And some of the best examples of people who have been on this provided script since the beginning of the pandemic,
I include Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan, and Mark and Sam Bailey, as well as, of course, Kevin McCairn, Mr. Worst Case Scenario out of Tokyo, both in 2020 and in 2024.
And the cute thing about this clown is that in 2020, he was working with
The Associates of George Webb, which ties him right directly to Robert Malone, ties you right directly to 60 Minutes.
It ties you right directly to the illusion of a lab leak, or a military attack, or an intentional release.
And all of these narratives are necessary in order for that mystery to catch on.
And the only real refuge that you had from the mystery of a lab leak were these other posers that were just telling you that there are no viruses at all, but then not able to get to the logical conclusion, then that must mean that the vaccine schedule, especially the one in America, is really, really bad.
But of course, they didn't have that message in 2020 or 2021, even though Tom Cowan had that message in 2018 in a Chelsea Green book.
So at the beginning of the pandemic, Tom Cowan decided to razor focus on the idea that there are no viruses, and razor focus on the idea that they can't isolate them, and razor focus on the idea they can't culture them, and razor focus on the idea that they can't purify them.
And that they use these terms incorrectly so much that it's obviously fake.
But then never explains to people, that's why I wrote a book in 2018.
And that's why I think the vaccine schedule is criminal.
But they don't say that.
Because they're just as fake as Mary Holland.
They're just as fake as Pauly Tommy.
It's all part of the same show.
And so when you see this guy,
you see what he's done, and you see that none other than Steve Kirsch tried to send me there in 2022 to work with him on hamster experiments, and now they're promoting him with the Human Genome Project, former Research and Development Director.
Now they're promoting him opposite Jordan Vaughan.
Now they're promoting him like they promote
all of them including now Pierre Cory who's blowing the lid off of SIDS.
Why didn't ICANN and CHD blow the lid off of SIDS like a decade ago?
It's because it's by design.
to descend into madness.
I mean, and it's been slow.
So this is 2024.
This is, of course, one of the intellectual dark web mirrors.
There's several of these, like Tim Poole is one of them, this guy's one of them, there's a lot of them that basically agree to argue about intellectual dark web people to make them relevant.
So if you make fun of the Rubin Report or you make fun of Brett Weinstein, you're still making him relevant.
And so I'm trying very hard not to cover him anymore because that makes him relevant.
But these guys will cover him, and I need you to see how we've been set up.
Because while we are insulated in our own little social media bubble over here, in our own boycott of PBS NewsHour, we don't know what people on the opposite side of the internet are seeing and listening to, and how easy it is to make fun of what, for all practical purposes, is our side of the narrative.
And if you see it that way, you'll understand why I think America is in really big trouble.
And I think we need to wake up and apologize for being here.
It's our fault because we bought into this fake health freedom movement.
And now we are open to ridicule.
Dissent or I mean, I should I should say he's been on it for a long time and but here is Bill Maher with his, you know,
non-anti- so bill maher is part of this right bill maher presents this supposedly rational middle ground that there is no rational middle ground there's no rational middle ground on so many things right now and that's by design and then there are a bunch of things that we're supposed to think there's no rational middle ground are that are completely irrelevant you know like epstein you're just supposed to believe you're supposed to have an opinion
And it's irrelevant.
It's worse than irrelevant.
Anti-vax, anti-vaxism.
He's on with Seth MacFarlane, the guy from Family Guy, who supported Bernie.
So, you know, seems like he has decent politics.
He has decent politics.
You don't need to have decent politics.
Decent politics.
Remember that both of these people have their SAG card.
That's the first thing to understand.
I don't have a SAG card.
Mark doesn't have a SAG card.
These people are professional actors in a union that would potentially allow them to get a TV show or a movie or to be an extra in a movie.
And maybe they're doing that too.
Understand that very, very clearly.
These are wannabe professional actors, first and foremost.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have a SAG card and they would call themselves journalists, but they do not.
This is entertainment.
Politics.
To understand the basic functioning of vaccinations and... A lot of squares that aren't socialists get it too.
Yeah.
Quite frankly, I don't think Brett Weinstein calls himself a journalist or anything like that either.
I would like to start calling myself a junior analyst and a coach.
I don't think I'm an analyst if Mark Kulak is an analyst, but from a biological perspective, from my own personal professional expertise, I feel like I could call myself an analyst.
And let's be clear.
I mean, if you look at the numbers, it's very, very hard to really get a sense of just what's going on with COVID at this point, because the CDC is not even tracking this stuff in any type of like daily manner.
Now, the reason why I'm playing it is because I want you to hear what the narrative was right before the election.
So right before all of this stuff turned over to Donald Trump, these guys were talking about Bill Maher
and Seth MacFarlane talking about vaccines and misinformation and making fun of Bill Maher, of course.
Anymore.
And they haven't for over a year, well over a year now.
But there's a spike.
There's a big spike.
And we still lose about 200 people a day to COVID.
Remember what I said now, we lose between 50,000 and 70,000 per week.
So with disingenuous use of a non-specific PCR test as a gold standard alone, you can now have a disease circulating in the background with 200 cases?
Really?
200 deaths?
Really?
A little bit higher than that right now.
And people forget that the biggest fear at the beginning of this was that our hospital systems would be overwhelmed.
And they certainly were right on the brink, particularly like in New York for a couple.
Right on the brink of being completely empty.
And they emptied them using dexamethasone, according to Robert Malone.
And so again, remember this, you know the truth.
You know how this is not at all what happened, but I need you to see that there is an orchestrated symphony of content creators.
This is a four person show with a producer and clips and everything, and a set.
This guy's been in social media and was actually worked at an organization where Robert F. Kennedy worked 10 years ago.
And so this is really all one malevolent show, even if they're not wittingly, if this one or somebody else is not wittingly aware of Sam's conflicts of interest with regard to Bobby, I don't know what to say.
But this is...
This is one show.
It is one show on the internet.
It is one show that agrees to make the other half of the show relevant by, you know, cutting on them or critiquing them.
You know, in March of 2020, where you had to have refrigerated 18 wheelers to stack all the bodies there.
And we seem to have basically settled into where COVID is going to be endemic.
and we put a- Refrigerated 18 wheelers and now we've just settled into COVID being endemic.
So this guy understands that term very well.
And I hope you can see why I'm accentuating that.
He understands that term very, very well.
And that's by design.
He's scripted.
This is scripted bullshit.
Looks like it's gonna be endemic.
Says this super clown.
up with 80 flu deaths a day and now we'll put up with, I don't know, about 200 COVID deaths per day.
We have also this... Do you see what PCR would allow to happen?
PCR disingenuously applied to an irreducibly complex background could cause the instant spread of anything, the instant presence of anything in the background.
And here, they're even probably just using modeling from a very small data set to try and claim that there are so many deaths per day or per week or whatever he said.
Sort of third element now, RSV,
respiratory virus.
It's unclear, you know, what COVID has done to our immune systems that we have this sort of like third now threat.
But we have yet to sort of step up and
except that these things are real, like even the flu we accept is more real than covid across the population.
Well, that's because more people get flu shots.
Yeah.
Bill Maher has heard of flu, had heard of the flu growing up, but covid was a new thing.
Well, let's be careful.
Bill Maher also said flu shots were bullshit in 2015.
And he said it on this too.
Oh, OK.
He's a long he's an OG anti actually.
Flu shots, we have known, they vary in efficacy from year to year based upon what the flu strand is.
We are in that stage with COVID where we don't know how to predict which strand of COVID is going to exist because- It's a magnificent level of certainty coming from a value entertainment kind of person, right?
It's a spectacular level of certainty that he's explaining this biology.
It's a very simple, ridiculous level of certainty.
It continues to mutate.
And we do know that even if
The strand of the flu that we vaccinate for isn't the one that is predicted or is different enough so that it can't inhibit your ability to get it, or it inhibits your ability to get it, but it doesn't fully prevent it.
People understand that difference, right?
reduce the chances of me getting into a car accident on my bicycle, but not eliminate it.
I can reduce it by maybe dropping my speed and by following the traffic laws, but I can't get rid of the danger of it.
I can also mitigate the implications of getting into that accident by wearing a helmet.
And if I wanted to wear, you know, I don't know, elbow pads and knee pads, that could also mitigate
the nature of the injury.
I can tell you from being an actual biker and not somebody who's just bullshitting around that the only thing you really need to wear besides a helmet are wrist guards.
You know, the ones that don't let your wrist bend because that's the only real danger when you crash your bike is breaking your wrist.
I mean, you're going to scratch your elbows up.
You're going to bump your knees up.
Having
Wearing pads on your elbows and wearing pads on your knees every day, all the time for the one time that you might crash every year is ridiculous.
And I crashed, I crashed three times in the four years that I was riding to the University of Pittsburgh.
Once on a car, once in front of a car, twice I think really I kind of crashed because I used my front brake and it was too good and my back brake wasn't.
And that's just me and my poor bicycle maintenance.
But this is the kind of nonsense where we're at.
This is 2024, and we're still trying to have this pseudo-intellectual conversation about what happened during the pandemic, and it all presupposes the same thing.
Vaccinations work the same way.
They always have.
And I just say these basic things because Bill Maher's just an idiot.
And what's also amazing in this, he looks like he's shrinking into his seat.
This guy's literally shrinking as he talks.
I mean, I just I have a few just quick points.
just to observe.
It just seems like every Club Random episode is just an opportunity for Bill Maher to get as messed up as possible.
Drinking.
Very often people who aren't doctors have been.
That's why they call their colleagues.
I'm not about this.
That's why they call their colleagues.
There's a lot of guesswork but it's educated guesswork.
Yes.
If you're not a doctor your guess is maybe not going to be as educated as
as someone who is.
But then why are doctors wrong about so much?
Well, they're right about a lot, too.
Yes.
And but very often people who aren't doctors have been right or about things.
Can you pause it for a second?
Like, first of all, like doctors are wrong about things.
Medical history is like medical science provisional.
Usually the people determined isn't just a normal guy being like, hey, I think you're doing that like heart surgery wrong.
It's other doctors being like, oh, but of course, Bill Maher is an op.
Bill Maher has a giant audience.
He has a giant audience in a very important voting part of the American public.
And he's got a great platform.
And he loves saying that he hates kids.
I think Bill Maher is one of the worst Americans alive.
Just to make that very clear.
I think our methods can stand to improvement here.
Right.
He's just talking out of his arse, honestly.
I mean, just completely.
Love how the chair just seems to be growing around him though.
Go ahead.
But very often people who aren't doctors have been writer about things.
What?
Like what would be an example of that?
I would think this country did not allow for natural immunity.
And so now I'm trying to show you this because I need you to see it.
The natural immunity argument presupposes the virus.
The natural argument of immunity, the natural immunity argument presupposes antibodies are the basis for immunity.
It presupposes that testing for seroprevalence is a way to measure immunity.
And it suggests that you are basically gonna argue for diagnostics in a different way.
And so it's a trap.
It's a trap that I fell in hook, line, and sinker in 2020.
I didn't see it right away.
I fell right for it.
And one of the guys that was primary in laying down the natural immunity narrative was Mike Eden.
Another guy who was really important in laying down the natural immunity narrative was Ryan Cole.
Both of whom I would consider part of the OG Team Robert Malone.
To be considered, and I know this is a subject near to your heart.
Pause it one second.
First of all, this camera angle is just like, I don't know, like who in the world?
Like what is the artistic choice?
Three do that in Europe.
I think they do that here.
There's mandatory vaccination and grades in schools.
Right, but if you already had the disease, you have natural immunity.
It's not really mandatory in the Netherlands like it is here.
We didn't seem to believe in that.
That was debunked though.
Don't you know people who've had COVID four or five times?
I do.
That's not natural immunity.
There's no immunity there.
You've had COVID five times.
See, so there you go.
Now you see what this is all about.
And then they'll argue that it was the COVID shot that did that.
No, it's the PCR.
It's the testing.
And it's the belief that these things, these diagnostics are high fidelity diagnostic tools when they're not.
They have not been evaluated by the FDA as medical devices, not one of them.
Think about that for a second.
And these people aren't arguing about that at all.
Marty Makary's not worried about that at all.
Bobby Kennedy's not worried about that at all.
I guarantee you Vinay Prasad is not worried about that at all.
And if you don't wake up and apologize to your kids for not seeing it soon,
We are done.
It's all about this.
It's all about understanding what they didn't question and what they still remain seemingly unable to question.
Probably because you had too many vaccines.
I didn't know.
Yeah, probably.
Probably now the reason why you get covered multiple times is not because natural immunity doesn't exist, but that the vaccination reverses natural immunity is what he said.
It doesn't let natural immunity cook.
Yeah, it's just the dumbest.
But how can he be so certain it's dumb unless he's scripted to be so certain it's dumb?
That's the thing that I can't understand about any of these people.
It is the scripted certainty of others which makes them scriptedly certain, maybe, I don't know, but we are in a very malevolent place because if you are on Twitter arguing about Casey and Callie means, you're not aware of what they're telling everybody else in America.
You're not aware of how bad it is, and it's real bad.
And this is like grade school stuff, except for a grade school student would realize like, I'm really not in a position to opine about this.
That's what's funny is they all think they're right about this stuff.
But they're not aware that they think that too?
Isn't that ridiculous?
That they are also convinced that with a few short minutes on the internet, they know the truth.
They've chosen the truth versus the lies, and they can see it very easy.
It's remarkable.
It's actually, like, extremely stupid.
Stupid.
Probably because you had too many vaccines.
I didn't have COVID.
The vaccine gave you COVID?
Sorry, Bill Maher, like, didn't have COVID because he, like, works on his own compound.
Yes.
It's never near like... Bill Maher didn't get COVID because he works on his own compound, that he doesn't mingle with anybody, that he hates children.
Again, this is a script.
This is scripted bullshit.
It's sad, but it's real.
These people get millions of views.
And they get millions of views criticizing Brett Weinstein and making fun of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
It's very, very, very, very bad.
OK, yesterday on CBS's Face the Nation, Donald Trump's former pick for FDA or his pick for FDA commissioner, his FDA commissioner, Marty McCary, Dr. Marty McCary, spent time cherry picking vaccine skepticism with out of context statistics and attempting to pass them off as medical evidence.
Margaret Brennan looks genuinely stunned and for good reason, because although this is an individual with a medical degree speaking, this was really a political influencer in a metaphorical lab coat pushing the idea that if enough people believe something about a vaccine, then it must be valid public health advice.
If a lot of people don't like the vaccine, the vaccine must be bad.
This is a doctor speaking.
Take a listen to this.
I don't know if you know these statistics, but for 88% of American kids, their parents have said no to the COVID shot last season.
So the vast majority of Americans are saying no.
Maybe they want to see some clinical data as well.
Maybe they have concerns about the safety.
I don't want to crowdsource my health guidance.
I want a clear thing.
You don't go with popularity.
You go with, as you're saying, data.
Yeah, so let's see the data.
OK, so the CDC data said 41% of children age 6 months to 17 years hospitalized with COVID.
between 2022 and 2024 did not have a known underlying condition.
In other words, they looked healthy.
And COVID was serious for them.
So first of all, we know the CDC data is contaminated with a lot of false positives from incidental positive COVID tests with routine testing of every kid that walks.
Incidental positive COVID means that COVID exists and that PCR works really well.
It's just sometimes there are no symptoms.
Stop!
I know we covered this video before, but I just want you to see how David Pakman covers it.
He's not gonna say that this is wrong because he's making vaccines a choice.
and it's about medical choice.
That's the message that we hear as part of the fake health freedom movement.
And we think, oh yeah, he's saying it right.
We don't want the vaccine anymore.
And Mary Talley Bowden says, yeah, we don't want it anymore.
So we should just not make it mandatory.
That's how we decide, you know, but it's killing people.
So it's gotta be better than this.
It's gotta be better than this, except it's not because we're being sabotaged.
walks in the hospital.
When I go to the ICU, when I walk to the P, we know that data historically under the Biden administration did not distinguish being sick from COVID or an incidental positive COVID test.
When you go to an ICU in America and you ask how many people are in the ICU that are healthy, that are sick with COVID,
The answer I get again and again is we haven't seen that in a year or years.
And so the worst thing you can do in public health is to put out an absolute universal recommendation in young healthy kids.
And the vast majority of Americans are saying, no, we want to see some data.
And you say, forget about the data.
Just get it anyway.
Okay, so on data and transparency, for decades, since 1964, it was the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, ACIP, that went through this panel recommendation.
I mean, people watched these things during COVID.
The report was then handed up.
It offered debate, it offered transparency, and it offered data points that people could refer back to.
Why did you bypass all of this and just come down with a decision before the panel could meet?
And that data, that panel has been a kangaroo court where they just rubbish.
So listen, the data is bad because of this reason.
The CDC panel is bad because of this reason.
Just trust Bobby Kennedy, Jr.
and whatever he tells you, as you and now you have these health freedom people screaming in the background.
Yeah, but Simpson would.
That data is important.
And William Thompson's a whistleblower and it's black kids that got autism and they hid the signal.
It's all being set up.
And it's all going to happen on its own little corner of the internet where the vast majority of people will still just be making fun, will still just be lambasting the health freedom movement as fake and ridiculous.
And with ease, they're going to be able to do it.
With ease.
wipes raw milk off of his mouth and trust Marty McCary and trust the fact that a great number of Americans are self-destructive and stubbornly ignorant.
And as a result of that, they haven't gotten the vaccine.
So I noticed that he also has a book.
All of these people apparently get to have a book.
You shouldn't either.
And Margaret Brennan does a really good job of exposing Marty McCary here for making it up as he goes along, making conflicting recommendations, casting doubt on CDC data, while then saying, no, the data you can believe.
And he is so terrible during this interview that she is left shaking her head as she wraps it up.
And of course we looked at that too, so we don't need to appeal to that part of it.
From Microbe TV, this is Beyond the Noise, episode number 68, recorded on the 4th of June, 2025.
This is pretty hardcore.
I'm Vincent Racaniello, and joining me today is your host, Dr. Paul Offit.
Hi, Vincent.
Hello, Paul.
This is the video version of Paul's column on Substack called Beyond the Noise, cutting to the chase on important health topics.
Today, we're going to have a look at Paul's column entitled, RFK Jr.'
's War on Children.
So let's talk about this war, Paul.
At the end of May, he made an announcement about COVID vaccines.
What was that all about?
Right, so he, on a three-minute video, posted on X. He could be in his pajamas right now.
He's with Marty McCary, the FDA commissioner at his right, and Jay Bhattacharya, the head of the National Institutes of Health on his left.
He said that we are no longer going to recommend COVID vaccines for healthy children or for healthy pregnant women.
I couldn't be more pleased to announce that as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule.
What I was hoping we could focus on today was the children's part.
So why is that wrong?
The CDC, in the person of Fiona Havers, in April of this year, presented data updating the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices on where we stand with the current COVID epidemic.
And what she said was that during the past year, there were 165,000 hospitalizations for COVID and 40,000 deaths.
Now, most of those hospitalizations and deaths were in people who were older, who had chronic conditions.
Now, one of the things I'd like to point out here, while I am still in the middle of this one, is that again, one of the arguments that I would like you to regularly remind yourself of is that at the beginning of the pandemic, everybody on the health freedom movement side, the narrative control side, the Kevin McKernan, Charles Rixey, Mary Holland,
Andrew Kaufman, all of these people were on a script about a virus and whether or not that virus was real or whether or not the sequence could really be found or whether it can be grown or purified or cultured.
But the debate was about that virus.
And it's important to see that because that debate has never really gone anywhere.
Even though our side says that there are very specific biological pieces from Kevin McKernan, to Kevin McCairn, to Charles Rixey, all the way up to Jeffrey Sachs that believe that there are specific molecular parts of the spike protein
which made it the most infectious virus, the most dangerous virus that we've ever seen.
Some of these people even say that there are pre-onogenic sequences there that are potentially dangerous from a Jakob Krausfeld, Jakob's disease.
And yet nowhere on either side of the narrative is anyone paying attention to these biological phenomenon to tell us that it's all clear.
to tell us that they're gone, to tell us that the biological signals which we attributed to a laboratory signal, a lab unlimited bioweapon, a flying AIDS virus,
a flying AIDS vaccine, all of these things suggest that there is sufficient technical knowledge that the danger could have been monitored from a molecular perspective.
And yet the only people that have the requisite knowledge to monitor this from a molecular perspective, you know, like Jessica Rose and apparently Kevin McKernan,
They aren't monitoring these sequences at all.
We just watched a video from the other day on Friday with Steven Hatfill also talking about the staphylococcus enterotoxin B overlap, some kind of, you know, sequence that's just crazy immunogenic, but he's not really monitoring it.
He's not sure if it's in any of the vaccines or not.
He's never checked.
This is the kind of the level of bullshit that you have to accept in order to think that you're still running in a wheel that's going anywhere.
That Stephen Hatfield is just not a traitor.
that Robert Malone's just not a traitor, that this guy hasn't been just doing the same shtick, the same national security shtick for the last 20 years because he's been doing it in cooperation with Mary Holland, in cooperation with Aaron Seery, in cooperation with Merrill Nass, in cooperation with all of them.
That's why none of them have made any progress in winning.
The goal isn't to win.
But there were roughly 6,600 hospitalizations.
150 deaths in children.
A lot of that was in children less than four, who are profoundly under-vaccinated group, only 5% of children in that age group are vaccinated.
What was also interesting was that it depended on whether you looked at the zero to two-year-old or two to four-year-old, but between 40 to 60% of those who were hospitalized and died were previously healthy.
One in five who were hospitalized were sent to the intensive care unit.
So what that tells you is that can young children, children less than four years of age, be hospitalized and die even though they are previously healthy?
The answer is yes.
So what we had is we had a recommendation for all children to get a primary series of vaccines.
And unfortunately, that appears to have disappeared.
So it's not just boosters we're talking about.
It's the primary series.
So let me understand this.
RFK Jr.
is a lawyer and a politician.
Makary is a surgeon, but the Charya is a health economist.
None of them have any expertise in public health or virology.
They just decided to overrule, basically a licensed vaccine has been approved for use in these age groups, correct?
right so the way this i think this is all about project 2025 in the end it's all about project 2025 stop lying and again this is just you know prerequisite reading just to make sure that they they reinforce the hamster wheel you can go read that crazy document and oh my gosh they really are nuts
We were set up, ladies and gentlemen.
The American conservative right was set up by people like Brian Hooker, and people like Mary Holland, and people like Steve Bannon, and people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Witting or unwitting, he's as responsible as the rest of them.
This is really awful where we are.
It's really awful.
The reason why Paul Offit hasn't retired and handed the torch to somebody else is because he is a deep state national security actor, just like Mary Holland is.
If you look at Project 2025 under the CDC, what they want to do is eliminate the CDC as a recommending body.
So the way this is settled out for children is that now any child between six months and 17 years of age should have a shared clinical decision making with the physician.
So what that does is it takes away the recommendation.
And the minute that you take away is recommended or should be given, then it can no longer be mandated.
Now, COVID vaccines aren't mandated.
So I don't know why they're targeting COVID, and maybe this is just round one of what is going to be an attempt to get the CDC to back off of any recommendations.
But what upsets me about this is the way that they portray it.
They say, what we want to do is we want to strengthen the relationship between the patient and the doctor.
But doctors and other healthcare professionals look to the ACIP and they look to the CDC for recommendations because those are the people who have the data.
I was at a meeting yesterday of about 200 healthcare professionals and I said, how many of you know, you know, how many children were hospitalized and how many children died last year?
of COVID and whether or not they were vaccinated and whether or not they were healthy.
And very few did.
And that's why we looked at the CDC for those recommendations.
If you're asking all doctors in this country to understand all the primary data, that's asking for too much.
Well, Paul, welcome to Public Health by edict, not by... Understanding the data implies that it's somehow really complicated to understand how vaccines work, but it shouldn't be.
It really shouldn't be.
But it is.
It's very, very complicated to understand how intramuscular injection works in all these different contexts.
It's just difficult.
It's, you know, and you can't expect all doctors to understand all these nuances, but the data is out there.
Committee, that's the whole point of the administration.
You know, the latest executive order restoring gold standard science is basically taking the decisions away from committees and putting them in the hands of individual politicians even.
it's, and this is the same thing.
The way this should work is if you really are moving away from a routine primary series recommendation for children, because let's just focus on that for a minute.
What you would normally do is you would bring that question up for the advisory committee for immunization practice, a group of experts in virology, immunology, public health, vaccinology, et cetera.
They would uniformly recommend a primary vaccine series for the reasons we just talked about.
This is a virus that can still cause children to be hospitalized and die.
In fact, more children were hospitalized and died this past year from COVID than from flu, for which there is a routine recommendation.
So they would definitely have recommended it.
The only way that these numbers are possible is because PCR is the gold standard diagnostic now, and the FDA is not going to do anything about it.
Our FDA is being sabotaged with farmers markets.
So to get around that, what you do is just what you said.
You make it an eating.
You stay, you have a three minute video post on X, where you say, this is what we're going to do, as if it's been handed down on stone tablets from on high.
You don't have input from the ACIP.
You don't have input from professional societies, you know, like the American Academy.
But make no mistake about it, all of those things are just, they're just show trial stuff, right?
They're not any more,
legal than any of the other stuff that these things are done.
Like the FDA is a legislated organization, you know, but the ACIP is just a, it's just a committee that meets that was established by the, it's not the same level of, of, you know, consequent.
It's, it's ridiculous.
Pediatrics, you don't have public comment.
You don't allow none of it.
You just state, this is what we're going to do.
So is there any scientific basis for him withdrawing vaccines from these individuals?
No.
It's the opposite.
You have a scientific basis to have a primary care, a primary recommendation, primary series recommendation for all children in this country because all children are at risk.
It's interesting.
The immunization rate in children less than five is about five percent.
So it's most children are not vaccinated.
All children by the age of six months will be fully susceptible to this virus.
Once they passively transfer an antibiotic from the mother, following natural infection or immunization, the mother will have worn off.
So they're completely susceptible by six months of age.
The virus is still circulating.
See, one of the problems here is, again, that there's this hyper focus on the specific memory of the immune system.
And this disregards a couple really key parts of the immune system which can't be ignored.
The first one is the complement system and the other one is these IgM antibodies which are far less specific but more generalized across motifs and can pick up a lot of things because that's the way biology works.
And so again, he's really focused, hyper-focused on the NIH and NIAID model of immunity.
Also, the same way that the whole regulation of vaccines is focused on immune landmarks and, what do you call it, surrogates.
And this is very, very, very disingenuous, especially because we haven't made any progress on those immune surrogates in decades.
That doesn't make any sense.
And this is, again, a national security actor who is in place and working because it is considered a national security priority to keep people on narrative.
And that narrative is, you know, never coming to the realization that intramuscular injection as a methodology is dumb, but there must be some untested part of it that maybe we made a mistake with, or sometimes it is.
It's just inevitable that some people will get hurt, but they work so well, and they save so many more lives than they hurt, then objecting to their use or fighting against their mandate is just absurd.
And that narrative is never gonna go away until we,
snap out of it until we get off of social media and start really teaching people the true biology that these people are never going to talk about.
I mean, SARS-CoV-2 virus is a short incubation period mucosal infection.
Even if everybody in the country were vaccinated every year, the virus would still circulate.
So you have a circulating virus and an at-risk population.
If you look at the number of hospitalizations and deaths from children now, young children, children less than five, it's not that much different than at the beginning of the pandemic when there was a vaccine available because it's a highly susceptible population who's not being vaccinated.
It's not that much different except that I understand that a lot of the scientific community thinks that it is.
thinks that it's different from the perspective of whether or not it has HIV inserts or pre-onogenic sequences and the staphylococcus and teratoxin B homology.
These signals that everybody on our side seems to be aware of for like five years now, but nobody has kept track of.
Nobody cares about.
Yet they're supposedly the biological basis for the emergency in the first place.
Otherwise it would just be another virus in the anus of a bat.
And we wouldn't be worried about it.
It was the fact that we sprayed all these things into a bat cave with fear and cleavage sites.
Like that was the whole point, right?
And yet, somehow or another, this guy seems woefully unaware that that's what the other side believes.
That that's what the narrative is based on.
That that's why people are talking about natural immunity and all this other stuff.
That's why people are talking about the spike protein.
They're not even, that's not even on their radar.
And so you need to see how far apart we are from our fellow Americans, how far apart you are from your fellow countrymen around the world.
if you don't realize that the spike protein is not on this guy's radar.
The furin cleavage site, the HIV inserts, the staphylococcus enterotoxin B overlap, the preontogenic sequences, the amyloid, it's not on their radar at all.
It's not in the narrative at all.
If anything, it is that COVID causes those things.
And because we have allowed our flag to be carried into the White House by Jay Bhattacharya, and Marty McCarty, and Dr. Oz, and frickin' Robert F. Kennedy Jr., backed for years by Mary Holland, and Meryl Nass, and Brian Hooker, everybody just seems to die around him.
His wife, Brandy Vaughn, Tony Bark,
And so just to be clear, the immunization of pregnant women, I know you don't want to talk about that, which has been eliminated, that would protect these infants under six months of age, right?
That's exactly right.
Yes, yes, definitely.
I mean, if you vaccinate a pregnant woman, if you transfect a pregnant woman, you are protecting the baby.
That is how dark this is right now.
And that's why you can see he's not a biologist.
He's not a doctor playing the role of a doctor.
He is a liar reading a provided script.
And the chances are really good, the script that he's on is provided by Kevin McKernan and Robert Malone.
That's how malevolent this picture is right now.
And that was also a significant percentage of those less than four-year-olds that were getting hospitalized were children less than six months of age.
They're not going to benefit from any sort of active immunization schedule.
They need passive immunization either from a mother.
One of the reasons why they might want to expose the infants to these shots early is so that they develop a tolerance to the PEG and tolerance to the cationic lipids.
That's a possibility.
Because one of the downsides of exposing people to phospholipids like PEG and these other cationic lipids is that they can develop an immune response to them, and that could lead to the clotting as well.
And so that's already well understood, because of course, before the pandemic, people had developed autoimmunity to PEG from vaping.
And so one of the motivations for wanting to get at fetuses might be to see if a tolerance could be induced, something like that.
I'm just speculating here because obviously there's no good reason to intramuscularly inject a pregnant woman that can't eat sushi because it's dangerous.
Well, from a mother who was vaccinated, yet another reason to vaccinate a pregnant person, right?
Yeah, and beyond that,
pregnant women are particularly susceptible to severe COVID because they're immunosuppressed, right?
That's right.
We're going to talk about that next time.
Okay.
So some people argue that 150 child deaths is very small.
We shouldn't worry about it.
What do you say to that?
So maybe it would be easier for people to handle this if we didn't do it as a statistic.
Maybe it would be better if what we did is we listed all those.
So the next thing I want to show you is this, uh, this thing here, um, with Jay Bhattacharya, but I gotta, I gotta put it up on the screen.
Um, and so I think what I have set up here is a very quick musical break, and then, um, we're going to go on with that.
Is that correct?
Is that not right?
It doesn't look right.
Oh, shoot.
Okay, so I don't even have a musical break in here, do I?
I guess I don't.
Where... Well, anyway, I guess we're just gonna show it.
I would like to take a musical break right now, then, if you don't mind, and then I'll come back to that.
Because I need to move my legs for a second and get a drink.
And so I'll be right back in like five minutes.
And we will watch this Jay Bhattacharya thing.
I think you'll really like it a lot.
No way.
And if it's a price I pay, some say.
No way, no way
What an interesting post, you know, chat message.
I actually considered the Equalizer theme as one of the possible themes I would use.
Settling on the NBA theme was kind of easy, but I looked at Airwolf too.
Actually, Airwolf was a really good theme as well.
And Magnum PI I've used before.
You know that I've used Magnum PI before.
Anyway, I didn't know that he did that though.
I just chose the Equalizer because I used to really like that show when I was a kid.
Now, Dr. Gallo and Dr. Fauci talked a lot about isolation and purification.
Can you tell me what the difference is between the two?
Isolation, what was it?
Isolation and purification.
Of the virus?
Yes.
Well, you isolate a virus by
finding the virus which causes a disease.
You purify a virus by making a lot of, I mean, just by purifying it so you get a pure virus.
I don't understand what the issue.
Well, they interchanged the two and I wasn't sure if it was the same thing or if it was two totally different.
No, it depends on how they used it.
Okay.
Can you explain the process of HIV isolation?
Well, didn't Dr. Gallo do that?
I mean, he actually isolated it, so.
I mean, why should I do all of this?
This is all textbook stuff you're asking me.
And let me just click over here and click over here and that should work.
Good morning everybody.
Welcome to the show.
This is GigaOM Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
Coming into the second half here, we are still working on this puzzle.
This is still a stream that is supported only by viewers like you.
If you want to share the stream, please share stream.gigaom.bio because
There you can download a lower resolution version that you could post somewhere that you could cut up.
You can also download an audio version that you could start your own podcast with.
I want you to spread this however you need to spread it.
Just send it to people.
Let them know it's there.
Please use stream.gigom.bio because I don't want people to be sent to YouTube.
I don't want people finding me on Rumble.
I want people to go where they can download and where they won't be served ads.
And just remind them when you share it, in case you're not aware, there's no logins.
There's no, you don't need any accounts.
And there's probably a couple places in there where you could fill out a form and it looks like you're logging in, but those don't need, they're not needed, they don't work.
They're part of the template that I haven't managed to get rid of yet.
And so the same with my website.
If you want to get in touch with me and my family, it's gigaohmhq at proton.me.
Everything else is kind of a mishmash of things where like the website, we can get your email, but there's no log in there because we don't have any files there.
Trying to do that.
So even though there's that functionality is built into a lot of these prototypes or a lot of these templates We're not using it We just want you to share the stream and if you're if you're willing to support then that's getting on biological.com And there's a couple different ways to do that and I appreciate it a lot What do I got here?
Is this something?
Did I have something here?
I'm not sure if I have something there or not.
I don't think I do
um what is that thing let me see animations that is the next generation of what um let me see what this is uh i don't know if this is what i want or if i'm just gonna go out of powerpoint here let me just see what this is oh yeah okay okay gen z slang some cool gen z slang
Listicle from Parade Magazine, that's gonna help.
Oh, hey.
So this guy's got about a million and a half followers.
Him and his wife make a news program, and they are also ridiculing the health freedom movement, and very, very effectively.
Make sure you understand that.
Hey, fam, it's me, your bussin' Chad.
Gooning at you in 4K.
I do not think that's the correct use of gooning.
Okay, so no cap, that's not gonna work.
Listen, here's some news.
It appears that the far right is knuckle deep in online media these days.
According to this Media Matters graph, right-leaning shows have a far larger audience than left-leaning shows.
I mean, we're not even on that graph.
Come on, Dave Pakman, he doesn't even have a beard.
His name sounds like the worst Atari spinoff game.
I'm not mad, I've never been mad.
So he mentions Dave Pakman, who we just agreed earlier, nobody sees him anyway.
But again, this is how I want you to, I want you to be aware of how they amplify one another.
how they are scripted to amplify one another.
And even if they auditioned and now they've been selected, they all have elaborate sponsorships.
They all have staff.
They are all making a lot of money.
They are making a full living reading the script that they are provided with.
Even if that script is largely given to them by hints and secondhand stuff, and they're just good at staying where they're supposed to be.
The reason why it is that the right wing is paying attention to more things on social media is because the people that are trying to figure things out are the ones that need that attention.
The Rogans, the Weinsteins, the Jordan Petersons, the Teo Vons, all of these people are out there to herd cats
The sheep don't need herding.
They are herding the cats.
And once the cats are herded, you can make fun of the cats to the sheep by saying, look at those cats.
They don't even know they're being herded.
Cats aren't even supposed to be able to be herded, but look at how easy and vulnerable they are to it.
And the sheep go, wow, that's crazy.
That's what you see here.
So anyway, I was talking with Harris and Biden and all my other pet gerbils, and we were brainstorming ways to make a buck in this new online climate.
I asked Rock, that's my other gerbil, and he pointed out that if you really want to make money these days, you apparently just have to say the N-word in public.
He also started talking about white genocide for some reason.
Anyway, a lady called a child a slur and is now crowdfunding over $700,000 and counting.
Cool wor- I mean, imagine that that's real.
Where is that $700,000 coming from?
From people that are giving to the internet for the first time?
You know, I've been sitting on the sidelines for five years, but now that this woman has used the N-word, I think I'm gonna finally start donating to somebody's Give, Send, Go.
And this went away as quickly as it came because social media allows that to happen.
And then it allows the actors on social media, not the algorithm, but the actors on social media that are paid to reinforce that theater.
world we're living in.
Kinda makes you wanna check out forever.
Remember the movie Cool World?
Anyway, anyway, anyway, anyway, fam.
Anyway, fam, today we're gonna talk about all of this.
The racist-ass internet, the right-wing dominance of online media, and the apparent appeal of Trumpism for Gen Z men.
It's all deeply connected and interwoven into insidious forces from above, just like my gerbil maze.
Riz.
M.A.G.A.
The Next Generation.
Kids love 90s Star Trek references.
Also, I don't actually have gerbils.
I lied to make myself seem cooler.
Remember that one of the guys that he could talk about with M.A.G.A.
The Next Generation is Laura Loomer.
Laura Loomer is a thumbnail colleague of Soph.
the daughter of Sasha Latupova.
And Laura Loomer is rooting for Palantir's full force to be released in L.A.
on X, of course, not on mainstream media or not on some other media platform, just on X and Rumble, because that's how this works.
and succeeded.
So, obvs, obvsiously, traditional media has been dead for a while now, and social media is the rat palace nesting inside its chest cavity.
The social meds is now how one in five Americans get their news.
This means that influencers are basically the new journalists.
See, and they knew this.
You can complain about it, but they knew it.
This is by design.
That's why people were put in place before and during the beginning of the pandemic to set this stage up.
Just like Pauly Tommy was on 90 billboards to sway 6 million votes in the UK,
They put people on the internet in place years ago to make sure that we would be exactly where we are right now with a fake health freedom movement in the White House that brought together the fringe left and the fringe right into some pseudo populist movement that has at its front people like Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and fricking Bobby Kennedy.
That's how disastrous this is right now.
without all the pesky standards.
And since the entire influencer economy is based on parasocial relationships with specific online personalities, it makes people far more susceptible to misinformation.
People tend to explicitly trust the names they closely follow, as well as any lie if it's repeated enough times, even if that- Repeated enough times by enough different people, sometimes by multiple people on the same podcast.
He's not quite there yet, but almost.
lie directly goes against common knowledge.
In other words, influencers are uniquely effective vessels for propaganda.
It's a good name for them, influencers.
They have no actual influence on anything important, but they do herd cats.
That isn't to say they're all propagandists, mind you, but rather they are to propaganda what Burning Man is to staph infections.
If you're getting all your news on, say, TikTok, you are far more likely to be blasted with misinformation.
And boy, as of 2024, 39% of young people are doing just that.
On an unrelated note, Donald Trump, the 78-year-old Republican president of the United States, is popular with the youths.
Or rather, in the last election, Trump improved with young men and young women, the latter still very much being majority blue voters.
This obviously depends on which poll you're reading, but the reason the media is so focused on young men is because that margin is a lot tighter.
They are somewhat up for grabs, but still leaning Trump.
And what was particularly shocking, at least for the mainstream media, was that Trump seemingly won over the social media generation while also spending significantly less than Harris on TV and digital ads.
But of course, if you spend any time online, you probably know what happened.
Why didn't he have to spend money?
It's because X. It's because of locals.
It's because of rumble.
That's why he didn't have to spend the money.
Do you see it?
Because of the fake health freedom movement.
That's why he didn't have to spend the money.
Just ask Dana White during Trump's victory party.
I wanna thank some people real quick.
I wanna thank the Nelk boys, Aiden Ross, Theo Vaughn, Bustin' with the Boys, and last but not least, the mighty and powerful Joe Rogan.
Look at that big baby man thanking that other big baby man.
To be clear, we're not gonna re-examine the last election or claim that this was solely why.
So now we're gonna have a crash again.
I apologize for that.
Hopefully I'm not losing the stream here.
But that's good.
I'm going to show this video of Jay Bhattacharya because that's really where we were going with that.
It's a really remarkable place, isn't it?
It's crazy where we are.
It's really crazy where we are.
And the nice thing about watching this outside of the... Since 2012, there's been no increase in American life expectancy.
From 2012 to 2019, literally, it was almost entirely flat life expectancy, whereas the European countries had advances in life expectancy during that period.
During the pandemic, life expectancy dropped.
Wow, interesting.
So there's not been an increase in life expectancy for how long, Jay Bhattacharya?
He's got all the numbers here, Mark.
Looks like he's got all the numbers.
Since 2012, there's been no increase in American life expectancy.
from 2012 to 2019, literally it was almost entirely flat life expectancy, whereas the European countries had advances.
I wonder if that could be because of the opioid crisis.
I wonder if it's enough to eliminate 20,000 people.
under the age of 40 every year to make sure that the life expectancy in America doesn't climb.
I wonder if you could use, you know, not treating pneumonia with antibiotics enough to make sure that the life expectancy in America doesn't rise.
I wonder.
It's in life expectancy during that period.
During the pandemic, life expectancy dropped very sharply in the United States and only just- And life expectancy cannot drop if the average age of death of COVID is above the life expectancy age.
Understand that.
If the only people that die are those people that are expected to die and have exceeded the expected age of death, like in Scotland, then the only way you get a reduced life expectancy is by killing younger people before they're supposed to die.
That's what the opioid epidemic in America accomplished for them.
And that's why he will not say it.
because he is an agent saboteur and he is part of a Trojan horse that's undermining the American government in HHS.
Last year, did it come back up to 2019 levels?
In Sweden, the life expectancy dropped in 2020 and then came right back up by 2021, 2022 to the previous trend of increasing life expectancy.
Whatever those investments we're making as a nation,
in the research are he's also being really weak in terms of how he's talking about life expectancy because he's not talking about the expected age of death what he's talking about is a trend of increasing life expectancy so in other words
If life expectancy were to drop from 80 to 72 because of the opioid crisis, and then start going up again, then the trend would be up until, or nowhere until 2019.
Then the trend would be down for five years, and now the trend is going up again, even though it's now been reduced by, you know, in my example, five or six years.
So again, he's using his terms and words very cleverly to make sure that he interchanges the idea in your head of what age do we expect people to die, what average age do people die, and the increasing of that number, the slope of the increase of that number.
I'm going to go back a little bit just to make sure you hear that because it's important.
He's being disingenuous at best.
Since 2012, there's been no increase in American life expectancy.
From 2012 to 2019, literally, it was almost entirely flat life expectancy, whereas the European countries had advances in life expectancy during that period.
During the pandemic, life expectancy dropped very sharply in the United States, and only just last year did it come back up to 2019 levels.
I want you to see how malevolent this is.
You need to see how malevolent it is.
This is the very first clip of an hour and a half podcast.
This is the clip that they open with on YouTube.
So this is the most important message of this podcast.
Since 2012, there's been no increase in American life expectancy.
From 2012 to 2019, literally it was almost entirely flat life expectancy, whereas the European countries had advances in life expectancy during that period.
During the pandemic, life expectancy dropped very sharply in the United States and only just last year did it come back up to 2019 levels.
In Sweden, the life expectancy dropped in 2020 and then came right back up by 2021, 2022.
The previous trend of increasing life expectancy.
Whatever those investments we're making as a nation in the research are not actually translating into meeting the mission of the NIH, which is to advance health and longevity of the American people.
They kept saying, we don't care.
And so it's almost like big segments of the public feel like they caught us in something as scientists and we won't admit it.
And they're not just... So it's first and foremost important to see that it's we against them.
It's the citizens versus these guys on the same team, which is absurd because this guy is not only a moron, but he's a poser.
And I didn't see through him at first when he came on YouTube.
I thought he was really cool.
I thought he was a cool neuroscientist.
I thought he was doing cool stuff.
Remember that the first guy who actually started podcasting on the internet about neuroscience papers and doing Journal Club was yours truly.
And then this guy started podcasting because I guess they needed some dudes.
Anyway, he works on vision.
And in this podcast, my suspicion is that he's going to brag at some point that his research comes all the way from Hubert and Wiesel.
And they solved, you know, some very basic puzzles in vision.
And now we're really far along the road of figuring out how vision works.
And that's a complete bullshit lie.
It's almost exclusively conjecture based on models that cannot be tested or verified.
And vision is one of the places where in neuroscience it's gone from bad to worse.
And maybe vision is where more neuroscience
work and money has been wasted in vision and in a lot of other places.
And so it's a very interesting place of all the places that he could have been in neuroscience that they choose this guy to make a super podcast, super podcaster of.
And the only other guy that Twiv tried to make a super podcaster of is the guy who found the ARC protein being released in exosomes in, or endosomes in the brain.
So it is without a doubt that these academics are selected for their background and for their playing along.
This guy is a gigantic ego that will get in the way of him making proper decisions and certainly often gets in the way of him having what you would call principles.
This guy has all kinds of stories about his infidelity or his, you know, whatever.
He's a monster.
This is just a fake man.
And now he's interviewing another fake man from India, who's currently the head of our NIH, and you should be terrified.
Pissed off?
They're kind of like done.
I hear it all the time.
And again, this isn't the health and wellness supplement taking, you know, anti-woke crowd.
This is a big segment of the population that is like, I don't want to hear about it.
I don't care if labs get funded.
I want to know why we were lied to or
The scientific community can't admit fault.
I just want to land that message for them because in part I'm here for them and get your thoughts on that is so what you think about just that whole act.
I want to land that message for them because I'm here for them.
This guy is so gross.
It's such a terrible script.
Let's start with lockdowns, masks, and vaccines, just to keep it easy.
And what do you think the scientific community needs to say in light of those to restore trust?
Lockdowns, masks, and vaccines.
All right, Jay, take it away.
So first, let me just say, I don't think I'm the NIH director, unless that were true.
unless what you said is true, otherwise I'm not the United States.
So I was a very vocal advocate against the lockdowns, against the mask mandates, against the vaccine mandates, and against the sort of anti-scientific bent of public health throughout the pandemic.
I've also argued that the scientific institutions of this country should come clean about our involvement in very dangerous research that potentially caused the pandemic.
The so-called lab leak hypothesis.
Yeah.
Welcome to the Huberman Lab Podcast, where we discuss science and science-based tools for everyday life.
I'm Andrew Huberman, and I'm a professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford School of Medicine.
My guest today is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a medical doctor and a PhD and the director of the National Institutes of Health.
Prior to that, he was a professor of medicine at Stanford University.
And I should mention that he did all of his formal academic training at Stanford, his undergraduate, master's, PhD, and medical school training.
Today we discuss the past, the present, and the future of publicly funded research in the United States.
The National Institutes of Health is considered throughout the world the crown jewel of basic and medical research, explicitly because the basic and clinical research that it has funded has led to more treatments and cures for disease than any other scientific enterprise.
Basic research is focused on making discoveries without any particular treatment or disease in mind when that work is done.
It is absolutely clear, however, that basic research provides the knowledge base from which all treatments and cures for diseases are eventually made.
Today, Dr. Bhattacharya shares his vision of which aspects of NIH are especially effective and which need revising and improvement.
We discuss how scientific ideas are evaluated for funding and what can be done to create more funding for more ambitious projects leading to treatments and cures.
This is a very timely issue because despite its strengths, the NIH has gained a reputation over the last two decades for favoring safer and less bold work and therefore leading to more discoveries.
We also discuss what will be done about the.
The replication crisis is, as the name suggests, the inability for certain findings to be replicated.
Dr. Bhattacharya shares with us new initiatives, soon to take place, that are designed to verify findings early and to incentivize replication so the knowledge base built by NIH science is accurate.
As some of you may know, Dr. Bhattacharya stepped into a very public role during the COVID-19 pandemic when he co-authored the so-called Great Barrington Declaration, which argued against lockdowns.
He was also quite vocal against mask mandates.
Don't forget that he also authored three separate seroprevalence studies and seeded the narrative about seroprevalence being a way of tracking the virus and showing previous exposure to it.
And he was one of the foremost authorities on that at the beginning of the pandemic.
Again, remember all evidence of the virus comes from Indians.
address vaccine efficacy versus safety, especially for young people.
Those stances, of course, were very controversial, and he explains the logic for his stance on those topics.
That discussion leads into a very direct conversation about vaccines more generally, not just COVID-19 vaccines, but also measles.
I'm glad more people are seeing that this guy is reading a teleprompter and that makes him pathetic.
Thank you very much for seeing that.
months, rubella vaccines, and the very public and controversial issue taking place right now about vaccines and autism.
We also discussed drug prices and why Americans pay 10 times or more for the same prescription drugs sold in other countries and the relationship of that to public health.
I want to emphasize that the issues we discuss today will impact everybody.
If you're a scientist, they certainly impact you.
If you're a physician, they impact you.
And if you're young, if you're old, if you're a patient, if you're healthy, if you're American, or if you're outside the United States, they will impact you.
Dr. Bhattacharya was incredibly generous with his time and his answers, directly answering every single question I asked, nothing was cut.
As a consequence, it's a lengthy podcast, but I felt it was very important to get into the nuance of these issues so that you, the listener, can get real clarity on where things stand and where they are headed.
As a final point, my graduate student training, my postdoctoral training, and my laboratory, first at the University of California, San Diego, and then at Stanford, where it is now, were funded by the NIH.
So you'll notice throughout today's episode that I'm very impassioned by the issues at hand.
At the same time, I strive to include questions that I keep hearing from my followers on social media and from listeners of the Huberman Lab podcast.
Some of those come from ardent supporters of the NIH, and others, as you'll see, are more skeptical or even critical of the NIH.
I strive to represent all those voices during today's conversation.
I certainly have my own opinions and stance on many of those issues, and I do voice some of those throughout today's episode, but again, I try to be thorough and broad-encompassing.
As you'll see, Dr. Bhattacharya cares deeply about basic science and the future of medicine and health in this country and throughout the world.
He is our appointment on these literal science and science.
Hey, Bhattacharya, welcome.
I couldn't do it anymore.
I've been wanting to do this for a very long time.
We are colleagues at Stanford, although now you've formally moved to Washington to be the director of the National Institutes of Health.
But you played such an essential role in shining a light on certain aspects of public health, mostly that happened during the time of the pandemic.
He spent a lot of time
reinforcing the narrative, and he has also been paid to reinforce the narrative of flu and reinforce the narrative of AIDS.
Just make sure you understand that.
That is his professional background.
Related to lockdowns, vaccines, et cetera.
We'll talk about that.
But now you are in the chief position of directing research dollars and the initiatives of what is arguably the most important health organization in the entire world, not just in the United States.
So thank you for taking the position.
Thank you for being here.
And the first question I have is, for those that are not familiar, what is the, not just stated mission of the NIH, but what is the really essential mission of the National Institutes of Health?
So let me start with the stated mission, because the stated mission is something entirely worthwhile.
Anyone who listens to it should say, yeah, we should do this.
It is to support research that advances the health and longevity of the American people.
And of course, the research that we do doesn't just advance American health, it advances the health of the entire world.
For a very long time, the NIH, the National Institute of Health, has been the premier biomedical organization supporting research that translates into almost every drug that you take.
The NIH has had some role in developing.
I can hear something in the background that sounds like they have altered his voice to sound deeper, and it's bothering me a lot.
I can hear like a second voice.
Can you hear that?
The other thing I want to say is that because the NIH is the NIH, and it's actually in disguise, just the Human Genome Project, if you look at all of the grant calls at a 30,000 foot perspective, you will see that the NIH is exclusively focused on genetic disorders, genetic mechanisms, molecular mechanisms, inheritance, all of the things, development, that
belie that the overarching goal set is the Human Genome Project, which necessarily, by definition, if you're following along, has to be that the entire population of the United States becomes willing experimental animals.
It doesn't just advance American health, it advances the health of the entire world.
For a very long time, the NIH, the National Institute of Health, has been the premier biomedical organization supporting research that translates into almost every drug that you take.
The NIH has had some role in developing almost every, you know, all the fights over what's the right thing to do.
I almost have to slow it back down because I hear something there that's bothering me.
It's really bothering me a lot.
I don't know why it's bothering me, but it's really bothering me.
No, I want you to be small.
Sorry, this is very hard to coordinate on my screens for reasons that you don't need to understand.
I'm going to set this back to 1 and see if I can still hear the background noise, the voice thing.
do to get good sleep, what's the right thing to do for your diet.
The NIH has played some role.
And for American Biomedicine, it's the essential institution.
It supports the careers of a very large number of biomedical scientists around the world.
And specifically, I'm going to go so far as to say that I can hear it really easy.
That guy's voice is, they're adding depth to it.
It's deep.
There's like an extra voice there.
And if I sped it up,
It was easier for me to separate it from his voice.
But if I put it at normal speed, it's harder to hear.
But I think it's there.
Particularly me.
I mean, I got NIH funding for most of my career.
I was a reviewer for the NIH, a scientific reviewer for grants.
It's an absolutely essential organization.
I agree.
My lab.
ran on NIH money primarily.
So thank you, taxpayers, American taxpayers.
And I think for most people, when they hear that word health and what you just said about the mission statement for NIH, there is this assumption that most of the work being done at or funded by NIH is- You want to hear something crazy?
or even mouse study.
They're at Stanford, right?
There's a girl that's a full professor in neuroscience in his department, a woman by the name of Lisa Giacomo.
And I don't want anybody to bother Lisa Giacomo, but Lisa Giacomo knows who I am because we did a postdoc together in Norway.
She worked with the Mosers when I worked with the Mosers.
Actually, her PhD supervisor, Mike Hasselboe, also knows me very well, and I think had a great deal of respect for me as a neuroscientist and an experimentalist while I was still doing the rounds.
And so this guy, I mean, I'm really close to these people.
Lisa Giacomo would definitely know who Jonathan Cui is.
And if she found out that I had become an anti-vaxxer or something like that, and was working with Bobby Kennedy, she would write me off because I was working with Bobby Kennedy.
Because I was working with Kevin McCairn.
Because I was working with Children's Health Defense.
She would write me off immediately.
And in retrospect, with very good reason, right?
And so what they have effectively done is taken somebody who has colleagues on faculties all around the world and done their best to associate these fools with me.
From Kevin McKernan, to Kevin McCairn, to Steve Kirsch, to Robert Malone, all the way up to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
himself, who, despite what seems to be shooting himself in the foot and this whole movement in the foot, put me in that book.
One of my postdoctoral colleagues is a full professor colleague of these two people at Stanford.
Understand that.
Is that are testing a particular drug, a dose response curve, you know, what's the lethal dose of this?
What's the half-life of that?
But as you and I both know, much of what NIH does
is fund basic research.
Research for which we don't have any clear idea, maybe even the foggiest of ideas, that there could be a potential upside for human health.
Things like what controls the pigmentation patterns of the noses of Doberman Pinscher dogs.
And how would you research that?
I don't think that that's really a research grant.
I think he pulled that out of the air and he did it very poorly.
But how about making knockout mice that we don't even know if they matter or not?
How about trying to make mouse models of human diseases?
These are the kinds of things he should be bringing up.
Not that hypothetical that was as dumb as a rock.
I bet you we could find that grant.
So when we, maybe not.
I bet you can't, you jackass.
Anymore.
But when we step back and we look at basic versus applied, aka clinical research, what percentage of the NIH.
This is such a fake person, it's kind of scary.
NIH budget, which we'll talk about in a moment.
is directed toward basic research and what percentage is directed toward clinical studies or the testing of some drug, what we call preclinical trials, testing in mice.
What difference does it make how much money is in those books under those different rubrics?
What difference does that, how is that gonna progress this narrative of whatever he's trying to get at?
Think about how stupid that is for an opening.
So we're non-human primates, et cetera.
So there's big fights over exactly what that demarcation line is, so I'm not going to commit to a single number.
What I will say is that a substantial part of the NIH portfolio appropriately focuses on basic science.
Basic science meaning fundamental biological facts that can be used in many, many, many... There's a huge emphasis on patentable ideas and patentable items and things, concepts.
All the faculties around the United States and all the grant committees around the United States really love it if there's going to be some kind of patent that comes out of your work.
I don't think he's going to say anything about intellectual property here.
Drug studies, other research where you don't necessarily know specifically in advance when you're doing it what the applications are going to be.
The NIH very appropriately funds that work, especially work that's not patentable, right?
Because no drug company has an incentive to do that work.
Wow, that's remarkable.
I did not, I haven't watched this.
The fact that that's coming out, just as I say that, that is pure luck.
I know it's hard to believe, but it is really pure luck.
And yet it's vital.
Just let me give an example, just to put some meat on the bone of it, of something that the NIH didn't fund, but actually is within the mission of the NIH to have funded if it had.
Let's just take the research that led to the understanding of the structure of DNA as a double helix.
Matt Watson, Crick, Rosalind Franklin, all those folks in England in the 1950s.
Well, that work is not patentable.
It's hard to imagine someone trying to patent the double helix structure of DNA, right?
I don't think this is a very good discussion about what's patentable and what's not.
I think that this is the biggest bullshit show ever.
Is he going to get to the Yale Law Review about the antibody patent paradox?
Is he going to get to the idea that intellectual property is currently allowed in the form of a PCR diagnostic, even though we have never evaluated any of those things as medical devices?
So that means that it's not going to be in the interest of any specific company to support those scientists that discovered that.
And yet it's vital to almost everything we do in biology.
The NIH very appropriately funds that kind of work, the work that is not in the interest of any particular company to do.
It solves a market failure, if you think like an economist.
The market failure is there's no incentive of the private sector to do that kind of basic work, and yet that basic work really advances human health.
in ways that are sometimes unpredictable.
And so it's correct and right that the NIH continues to fund that kind of basic science work, as well as the applied work, where you take the advances and say, OK, well, here's a drug that might work to treat this disease.
That kind of work also is appropriate for the NIH to fund.
dividing line where the question is like, what should be left to the private sector to do?
So the private sector tends to fund large-scale clinical trials at sort of the tail end of the development process.
Sometimes they'll fund earlier clinical trials.
But the private sector has an incentive
to fund those kinds of studies because that gives them exclusivity, patents, things.
So why should the taxpayer pay for that when there's already private actors that are willing to pay for that?
There's this interesting dividing line.
You want the NIH work to be translated so that patients can have it.
That means the private sector has to be involved.
Okay, this is dumb.
I'm going forward.
As I said earlier, they're a huge, almost religious horse over where that thing, which is we have to fund basic work, separation of vision, and blinding diseases like glaucoma, related to anxiety, et cetera.
I also know that, but I worked on clinically.
But the fundamental thing, which is we have to fund basic work, that I believe in pretty strongly.
Basic scientist, I'm not a clinician, but I worked on clinically relevant issues in my lab related to restoration of vision and blinding diseases like glaucoma.
Restoration of vision.
Stop lying.
Is restoration of vision something you can work on, kind of like, you know, Neuralink?
No, it's not.
restoration of vision what a jackass okay even just to say that that's like saying that you work on autism because you work on some mice
He's got a mouse model for glaucoma.
Oh boy.
He's sure solving all the problems, man.
He's just the man.
Related to anxiety, et cetera.
I also know that vision problems related to anxiety again.
Why?
Because there are grant calls from the fricking NIH to find genes associated with fricking anxiety.
His research is influenced, is not funded by the NIH.
It's defined by the NIH because he writes grants that fit the calls of the NIH.
He hasn't designed his own experiment in probably since his PhD when somebody else gave him a project.
This is a joke.
This is an awful fraud.
We have some beautiful cases, as you pointed out, of basic research leading to important, I will say, cures to serious diseases.
And there was no thought at the beginning.
Serious diseases.
What are serious diseases?
They're the same as rare diseases.
They're diseases defined by a protein malfunction, malfolding, absence phenotype.
They're the only low-hanging fruit in biology that we can use to feign progress in our genetic understanding of ourselves.
It's the only way that we can claim that we're working on all of these questions, is if we find an example of a rare disease, a protein that is incorrect or missing,
and then try to solve that puzzle by understanding what that gene does based on the phenotype not being lethal.
Because lethal phenotypes, where you're missing a protein, aren't really useful for understanding the biology that we don't get, the irreducible complexity of ourselves.
We only have a chance at these low-hanging fruit
where there's a single gene that seems to be off and it has a single phenotype that's replicable, that shows up all the time.
That's what a rare disease is.
That's what genetic knockout mice recapitulate.
They're creating a situation that is so rare in order to try and study
something it's really not related.
It's like an anecdotal example of how something doesn't quite go in the right trajectory across time.
And then claiming that by understanding that you understand everything or soon will.
Beginning of that basic research that the outcome would be related to human health.
I'll just briefly mention a couple.
I wanna ask more questions than I wanna speak, but my scientific great-grandparents, David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel,
did the early work to find... I told you he would say them.
They have to.
They always have to tell you where they come from.
They always have to tell you that.
And that makes them legit.
My scientific great-grandfathers.
Stop lying!
Then I get to claim Erwin, Erwin Nair and Burt Sackman as my just-grandfathers because everybody that I did postdocs with studied with them.
I'm not for
four apprenticeships away from my great-great-grandfather in neuroscience.
I'm only one apprenticeship away.
And I had dinner with him.
Structure and function of the visual system, first in cats, then in monkeys, eventually it was clear the same was true of their findings in human work.
And early plasticity, changes in the visual system of say there was a cataract or a droopy eyelid or divergent eyes, strabismus or convergent, you know, so what we call cross-eyedness and things of that sort.
And we know on the basis of that work,
that children need corrective surgeries early or else the brain is forever blind to the perfectly fine eyeball if the eyes aren't correctly aligned, okay?
In other words, the old practice of, oh, you don't want to put kids under anesthesia, it's too risky, et cetera.
So make no mistake about it.
There are mechanical aspects to the eye.
There are mechanical aspects to vision.
And so those mechanisms, those mechanics can go off, can be off, can be off in development.
The trajectory across time can lead to maladaptive visual system and the physics and mechanics of the visual system can be misaligned.
That doesn't mean that now we can understand the whole body as a meat puppet.
It doesn't mean that we now understand by, this is actually one of the reasons why vision has been so exploited in neuroscience because it has this illusion that it's just a mechanic mechanics.
And, and it's, and that mechanics part is a, is a firm handhold that we can hold onto.
We can track their eyes.
This illusion is ubiquitous.
This acceptance of this knowledge is ubiquitous throughout neuroscience.
Again, why?
Because neuroscientists that don't work on vision are taught through their whole career not to really question anybody else's work and assume that they're just doing things as best as they can, just like you are.
even though in visual science they use all kinds of measurements and correlations and models of measurements and correlations that have no bearing in reality.
They're just simplifying an irreducibly complex problem into something stupid enough that they can claim that they succeeded, that they're making measurements.
This is a master charlatan and probably also an unwitting one.
He doesn't know how bad
visual science is.
Like a lot of them, most of them don't, otherwise you can't make it.
The work of Hubel and Wiesel saved the vision of millions and millions of children in the U.S.
and abroad.
People with cataract have those cataracts removed early and on and on.
And I would also say as a second example that much of the basic work on cell biology that took place in the second half of the last century, you know,
Where are the mitochondria?
What's in the mitochondria?
Electron microscopy lights.
Let's talk about all the folds in the mitochondria.
Let's talk about- Mitochondria, mitochondria, mitochondria.
What is he talking about?
This is just bullshit.
It's very disingenuous because he's lying.
And you can go back to all of his previous work from before this year or before maybe the end of last year, and you'll never hear him mention mitochondria even once.
Go back to 2020 and look at his podcast, see if he ever mentions mitochondria, the folds in them.
All that basic cellular biology, that is the stuff of textbooks, was, as we say, necessary, perhaps not sufficient, but necessary for the development of essentially every existing cancer treatment.
But the cell biologists that did that work weren't thinking about cancer until much later in that work.
So those are just two examples.
Gosh, that is awful.
He is really awful.
I mean, as a pure biologist, this guy is such a fraud, he's actually just read a few things and assumed he knows.
That I would argue NIH had funded a tremendous amount of.
And the reason I'm setting it up this way is because I think nowadays, part of the reason you're here, is that we are potentially looking at a redirecting of a significant amount of the
research dollars that taxpayers provide to the NIH and the NIH to labs away from basic research, which understandably has some people concerned.
That said, in order to translate things from the lab to the clinic, we also need to think about translational work.
So I just put that out as kind of an offering
to elaborate.
Andrew, I have no intention of implementing that, of shifting the balance between, I think, as I said, basic science work and applied work are both tremendously important parts of the NIH portfolio.
And the question to me is what's scientifically important and interesting in terms of accomplishing the NIH mission, which is, again, advancing the health and longevity of the American people.
basic work and applied work can contribute to that mission.
And in fact, I think any large-scale scientific institution that seeks to support the mission that the NIH has, has to have both in it.
So I don't have any intention of gutting basic science.
I mean, I personally, I do epidemiology, health policies, health economics, statistics.
That's very, very applied.
But I have great admiration for my colleagues like you who do basic science work.
I think it's what advances and fuels the next generation of advances.
So it's going to stay part of the NIH mission as long as I'm the director.
Thank you.
I and many others will be very relieved to hear that answer.
I think there is this fear that the new administration is going to eliminate basic research somehow and replace it with only applied research and clinical studies.
and that somehow, and this is not my- That's an irrelevant question.
The whole debate is so stupid.
It's just a hamster wheel of bullshit.
It is awful.
I believe that there's going to be some private interests related to that, and it's all going to get co-opted in some kind of cloudy way.
What I'm hearing from you is that is not the direction that NIH is going to take.
In fact, I've not heard anyone inside the administration tell me to do that or suggest that as the appropriate path.
I just, I mean, everyone I've spoken to about my vision has said yes.
What's your vision, you traitor?
You fake person.
What's your vision?
Makes sense.
Great.
I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge one of our sponsors, David.
is a very important issue, which is this notion of IDC, indirect costs.
So my lab ran on NIH grants for many years, and my lab and other labs would apply.
Indirect costs are the 150% on top.
So basically,
My primary investigator that provided the funding or stewarded the funding of a lab that I would be a postdoc in or in the case of Brian Hooks at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, we got an R01 because I got a bunch of data in my first year working for him.
His R01 got funded and then he's paying my salary with his R01.
That R01 has to pay my salary plus about 50% on top to the university.
so that my salary can be paid plus the rent on my office and the rent on the animal facility and the rent on our laboratory space, that's all rented.
A tenure track professor at the University of Pittsburgh and most other universities is essentially running a very small business that runs on grant applications alone, or grant funding alone, and maybe some other foundational money and stuff like that, and then they pay bills with it.
They pay bills to an animal facility, they pay bills to suppliers, and they pay bills to the university that hosts them.
They pay rent.
And they pay for the health care and for the salary of their employees.
It's all just one big pyramid.
And somewhere in the middle, shitty part of the pyramid, is where that primary investigator finds themselves.
They are paying the salary of the
Department head.
The department head at the Department of Neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh is named Peter Strick.
And Peter Strick is a longtime monkey guy.
When I left Pitt in 2021 or 20, he was being paid $508,000 a year as salary.
Now that might surprise some of you.
You might not realize that
professors at a university that barely do any experiments anymore.
They just kind of hire postdocs and let them go are making $500,000 a year.
They are spending their time and their money on season tickets to the college basketball season.
And they are getting roughly one house in Pittsburgh equivalent per year plus salary.
And you're not aware that the assistant provost to the dean and all these other people are all making six-figure salaries.
They all are making six-figure salaries because the NIH provides indirect cost funding, which is a super scam.
And so now these guys are gonna say, yeah, but these are all, you know, essential employees and essential parts of what the, the university is a scam.
Because in any other real organization that was really doing something good, nobody would be getting paid $2 million a year to be the dean of a medical school.
Nobody would be getting paid $508,000 a year to be chair of a neurobiology department over Zoom.
That's what's happening just at the University of Pittsburgh.
And I assure you, Stanford is worse.
Stanford has a whole banking,
little organization that helps people buy property when they get tenure because it's so hard to buy anything there.
They actually have a whole program to help their faculty be able to afford to live.
And that's all provided by an endowment.
All of these big universities have giant weaponized piles of money from which they draw.
That's on top of and instead of.
And besides, the huge amount of grant money that they bring in are allowed to charge indirect costs of up to 155%.
This is a giant scam, and now these two guys are gonna agree that, ah, that's crazy.
These people just don't understand what indirect costs are.
I do, I understand it very well.
And it results in a lot of overpaid bureaucratic members of a university, all the deans, all the provosts, all that shit.
for grants, if we were fortunate enough to get one of those grants funded, we might receive, let's say, a typical grant would be a million dollars over the course of four years, so 250 a year for four years.
But then in addition to that, my home university, Stanford, would get some percentage above that, not a percentage of that million.
I would still get the million to spend on mice, antibodies, graduate student salaries, et cetera.
But some percentage of,
That $1 million, and I think at Stanford it's roughly 50x percent, so let's say another $500,000, would be given to the university for so-called indirect costs.
This is not something that just happens at Stanford.
This is typical of every single NIH grant that I'm aware of.
And the indirect costs pay in principle for administrative handling of the grant and the various infrastructure things related to the mouse care, keeping the lights on, having a janitor empty the trash at night, these sorts of things.
IDC, as it's called, has become a hot button issue for two reasons.
One, as soon as the new administration came in, the Trump administration came in, and
just this last year, they cut the IDC rate across the board, not from, say, 55% at Stanford.
Other places were 75%.
Some places were as low as 30%.
They said, nope, we're not paying this stuff anymore.
The National Institutes of Health, in other words, the taxpayers, will pay up to but no more than 15, 1.5% above any given grant.
I'd like your thoughts on that, because this weaves into some bigger issues that relate to a lot of the sentiment that, you know, why should taxpayers be paying for these universities to run, especially when universities, some, not all, have large endowments.
Right.
So actually, I should preface my remarks by saying that there was litigation against that 15 percent, which essentially said the government couldn't
impose that 15%.
So it's been blocked?
Yes.
So right now the rates are whatever they were.
They're not the 15% based on that court order.
I can't comment on the litigation and I can't comment as a result of I'm now a member of the government.
It's like I'm not allowed to do that.
But I do want to talk about the broader issues related to indirect costs.
And I want to put it in a broader context.
So the context is this.
mid-40s, Vannevar Bush, who was like one of the main science administrators in the United States, he made an argument that the federal government should partner with universities in organizing the scientific infrastructure of the United States.
The universities were tremendously important parts of the scientific infrastructure, and the federal government had an appropriate role in supporting the universities of the country to do scientific research of interest to the American people.
So the indirect costs kind of structure came out of that commitment.
And, frankly, it makes sense to me, right?
It's appropriate that the federal government have some role in deciding how to support the universities of the country to be organized around research that is in the American interest.
The question is how much should it be?
How should it be structured?
You know, in what way?
Those are the key policy issues that we're really talking about.
I think the mention of Venomar Bush is exactly that.
That's a seed.
That's funny.
We're not talking about should there be some federal support for universities.
The question is how.
Let me just step back and talk about the current structure, the way it works, because it's really non-intuitive.
So first, you're a brilliant scientist.
You apply to the NIA.
I'm going to go past this part, because we don't need to hear this.
This is scripted.
This was very scripted, and so we don't need to hear a scripted response.
I want to get to the next part.
$1,000.
Now, you know, all the projects, not just one, right?
So it's funding that comics of this work, right?
My concentrate the federal support for the money in the two to a select few universities.
They're winners and losers.
And so the is that are not way in a way need in order to have the right structure with the universe.
There are right.
Can we can the can the American taxpayer be sure that we're auditing the use of the indirect costs and the unbelievable facilities questions?
And then on the on the back of that, there's also other research institutions that have very different, different something on the building.
Tenured at Stanford, but my lab started off at University of California, San Diego, a public university, typically
when foundation money comes in, the university imposes a minimum of about 8% administrative cost just for handling that research and for the exploration of whether or not the findings from that basic research will benefit through the private company.
It's $34.
Listen, I've been grateful to publish in Nature and Science.
These are like Super Bowl rings for scientists.
I'm sure it's part of the reason I got tenure at Stanford.
and I had great fun doing the work and I believe in the work.
It stood the test of time.
I believe in the work.
Were I not an employee of Stanford that pays for the subscriptions to those journals, I have to buy the work to understand the crazy picture for anyone that doesn't understand how one piece relates to the next, relates to the next.
And now that I'm in public, I'm in media, I'm public facing, what I've come to learn is that the general public... I'm in media.
He says it.
He's in media.
He's very smart.
Max Delbruck was right.
You know, assume infinite intelligence and zero knowledge, but Max Delbruck was right.
Wow.
What a name drop that is because Max Delbruck would say that most of this is bullshit.
Whoa.
It's very hard for people to connect more than two or three dots.
They're busy.
So, we could talk all day about how this leads to that, leads to this, the brick on the wall model, and then there's this treatment.
And they're like, I'm paying for this stuff and I can't even read the paper about it, let alone glean the positive benefits without paying out the nose.
I am shocked.
So a couple of things.
Let me go backwards, because you had two major issues you brought up.
So first, the journal thing.
My predecessor, Monica Bernoulli, who was the NIH director, the National Institute of Health director before me, she made a decision, a really great decision, essentially to say, if the NIH supports a scientist's work, and then that work leads to a journal publication, that publication ought to be available free to the public
immediately upon publication.
You're not last year for free.
So he has to purchase a million.
That's correct.
Thousands of dollars to publish it.
Then they sell it.
So December of this was I said, why wait till December?
Let's just do it in July.
Great.
Thank you.
And so starting in July, that what you just said will no longer be the case.
The American political like journal editors make now is it like the
the level of investments the scientists are able to make.
A token to the public for all their, you know, dollars over the last, how old is the NIH?
170 years.
I think when people start to understand how the NIH works a bit and they understand this IDC thing, this indirect cost thing, the question comes to mind, you know, how much
of the cost of running science at a university.
Then now we've created a place, things that translate to an important device or drug that the university is going to capture some of that upside.
And Stanford is a place where there's
let's just say a history of people going into biotech and to neurotech and because of the influence of the engineering school.
There's actually a great joke about Stanford that a former president of Stanford told me, which is there's only two kinds of Stanford faculty, Stanford faculty with companies and Stanford faculty with successful companies.
Discussion for another time, but- It's not very funny.
That I review charting the cell types in the retina.
I think,
Most of the time, the university and the scientists who do that work are not capturing the upside.
The general public isn't capturing the upside.
They're actually paying for the upside.
Well, I got to go.
I can't take it.
It's so awful.
I wanted to put aside the business about the US versus the rest of the world.
Now I want to bring that to the forefront.
It is also true that American taxpayers
And Americans pay somewhere between two to ten times more for the same product, the same drug product, as people in Europe pay.
Why is that?
There's, again, a lot of complicated reasons around to do that.
But he's an economist.
Isn't that what he should be specializing in teaching you?
is a very, very simple observation.
There's something in economics called the law of one price.
When you have one country charging 10, there's a market in one country where the price is 10 times more than for another country.
What you'd expect is somebody to go buy the goods from the other country, from the cheap country.
let's pay the cheap price, then go resell it in the- But you can't do that because the FDA's in the way.
Is that the answer?
Country that has the high price.
And now what would end up happening is that you'd get an equalization of the price.
As long as there's the capacity to move across and essentially close this arbitrage opportunity through competition,
you'd see those price differences collapse.
And yet, for decades, Americans pay two to 10 times more for the same product, often made in the same manufacturing facility, than Europeans do.
And it's, again, a complicated reasons why, but it has to do partly with the way that American health insurers interact with drug companies.
Drug companies essentially use Americans as a way to fund their research and development efforts.
That's what they say.
The higher prices that we pay fund the last mile research that the drug companies do to test the new products.
Are you saying the last mile research is the most expensive because it's the stage four clinical?
Guys, this is awful.
It is so bad.
They sell the drugs to us at a premium.
I mean, I have foundations that do research and development down in the United States.
I heard this recently as a press release from President Trump.
that drug prices in the United States are sinking.
Drug has been approved.
That could be a slightly higher probability.
That used to link it to the tariff policies.
These other countries will simply say, no, we're not going to.
In loose terms, they have much lower abuse potential than a lot of us.
Truly struggle with by suppressing the wakefulness mechanism as opposed to promoting the sleepiness mechanism.
We're almost an hour in.
200% will happen.
how the drug companies respond to the executive order to make sure of the Americans.
So all drug profits are had in the United States.
So we are at an hour now and he has not talked about the opioid crisis at all, even though we opened the whole podcast with the life expectancy in America being at a standstill up until 2019 and then plummeting after 2019.
We're talking about indirect costs and funding of research and other bullshit.
It's remarkable, way more remarkable than I thought.
And are most of those for the sort of Adderall and psychotropic type stuff?
Sorry, I don't know if psychotropic is the correct term.
I'm going to get beaten up by people if I don't get this right.
Let's just say psychoactive.
to where they're making the most money.
Just the things that America, Sweden, which is great, that's a good thing, but it's not actually as far as the broad health of the American public addresses illnesses and try to hold on, especially chronic diseases, and as a result, and we're failing at it, right?
Europe, on the other hand, is seeing expanded life expectancy.
This, I think, this change of trying to equalize drug prices, aligning our portfolio of NIH investments to meet the health needs of the American people, it's a long-needed corrective.
You asked me, will it succeed?
I hope so.
That's the reason I took this job.
I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor.
science and medicine, but also epidemiology and economics.
There's a saying in laboratories, which is that just adding more money doesn't improve the science, but it certainly allows you to take bigger risks in service to health and discovery.
And without money, no science gets done.
I mean, no money, no science.
You can't pay graduate students, postdocs, et cetera.
I don't want to spend too much time on the structure of basic laboratories, although that's my leaning.
I could spend hours talking to you about what's going to happen.
I would say that one of the things that he's reinforcing there is the idea that scientists eventually have to have postdocs and graduate students, because I think that's bullshit.
Right up until I left academia, I was doing experiments every day.
because I was one of the only people who could do them as well as needed to be done.
And it was very hard to pass that expertise on to somebody else.
I could supervise somebody for a little while, but inevitably a postdoc isn't interested in mastery of a particular methodology.
They're interested in exposure to it.
They're interested in a publication with it, but they're not interested in mastery.
And if there was anything that frustrated me in my 20 years of being a neuroscientist, it was running into the number of people that wanted the shortcut to the merit badge.
You know, what do I have to do to get a guitar on my sash?
Well, you have to learn your scales and, I don't know, be able to play a Pearl Jam song.
And then you get a merit badge.
Okay, I'm gonna go do that.
And then they're done.
And they go for the rest of their fricking lives calling themselves a guitarist.
And that's what this guy did.
He did a few post-docs, he got a couple nature papers, and now he's a visual scientist who supervises other people who do visual science.
But he's not an expert or a master in anything with his hands, anything with the animals, anything with surgery.
These are expertises that at this point, he gets postdocs that have them, or he sends graduate students to another place to get them, because that's how real tenure professors work.
They very rarely have the expertise that they supervise.
I'll give you an example.
Lisa Giacomo is at Stanford right now.
Her grad students are recording from rats and they're alive and they're moving around.
And if they're doing that, then they're doing something that Lisa Giacomo has expertise in and became an expert in during her postdoctoral work.
If they're doing MRI, if they're doing, I don't know, transcranial magnetic resonance,
I have no responsibility.
That's the problem.
And so what you have very quickly in academia is a situation like existed with me at the University of Pittsburgh, where somebody like Brian Hooks, captain in the US Navy, wife from China, working for McKenzie, that guy is supervising a dude like me.
who can't teach me really anything about anything except for maybe MATLAB programming.
And that he's not even really good at.
And yet he's supervising me after having gotten a grant using my experimental data.
That's how these people engage in the fraud that they engage in.
It's all different layers of fraud where you're really just running a Ponzi scheme.
You're really just running a little Ponzi scheme and you're not even at the top of it because the Dean is and the Provost is and the head of your department is.
Shit, the IT guy that gets paid more than you is at the top of that pyramid closer to the top than you are as a tenure track professor.
That's the reality of this.
and they're trying to make it all about ideas and health and pharmaceutical profits, and it's just all a malevolent shitshow of liars.
The universities, et cetera, we'll come back to that, but there is one piece that we opened up earlier that I think it's important that we close the hatch on, which is the notion of indirect costs being now, well- Are we still there?
Holy shit.
I can see where
I'd say, well, why don't they just dip into their saving when it potential for like, if, if you think of it as like a fixed support for the fixed cost of research.
Wow.
I can't believe it.
I agree with my reasons too.
An hour and 10 minutes of our high paid time of our NIH director was wasted with this jackass.
And this guy's running ads on that time.
On our NIH director's time, he's running ads.
and universities.
I want to ask one more question, then we'll move into issues of public health, specifically.
But having been on study section, I realize I never explained what study section is.
Study section is one of the greater you pay for it as well, new concepts, new hypotheses.
There's no study section on a given topic, say Alzheimer's, where you
That's a stupid freaking example because there is a study section on Alzheimer's, you dipshit.
You didn't have time to come up with a real example?
Come on.
Maybe there's no study section on endosomal transmission in the brain.
you're a neuroscientist you could have come up with something smarter than that you jerk people from the coast but where you also don't see somebody from the midwest somebody from the desert southwest that there's always been geographic coverage in the in the people who decide which grants get funded oh my god that let me even fall certain conservatism
in a desire to make it originally interesting, but is predictable in terms of its ability to create papers and page grants.
And then at the end they go, we were funded for 30 years.
I've had this, when people brag about having the same grant for 30 years, I just go, oh my goodness, you should be embarrassed.
How about seven different grants over the course of 30 years?
And tell me that one of them led to something interesting.
But don't kid yourself into thinking that having a grant, an R01 that lasted 30 years with five renewals, it's like, I look at a lot of those careers of some of my senior colleagues, and I'm like, you made the interesting discovery in the third year of the first iteration of the grant.
The only thing you've proven is that tenure keeps people around too long.
But if you write a bunch of grants that don't go anywhere or don't mean anything or are useless because the grant call was useless to begin with, then it makes you kind of a jackass too, right?
Because at that stage, when he's talking about having seven or eight grants, he's talking about writing seven or eight grant applications to predetermined grant calls.
You know, glaucoma or anxiety genes.
or autism spectrum disorder and vision.
He's a charlatan of the first order.
It's gross.
Okay, so before the pandemic in 2020, it was actually for a decade before, I'd been working on measuring the innovativeness of the scientific portfolios.
Measuring the innovativeness of science portfolios.
And now he's head of NIH.
Had a paper that was published on the eve of the pandemic asking how innovative is the NIH portfolio in particular?
And so, so like, let me just describe the- Oh, that was just by accident.
The methodology, because it's easy to understand, right?
So take every single published paper.
published in biomedicine and I can't do it.
I can't do it.
That comes to getting funded.
It's a little indirect funds to provide to the university.
Indirect costs.
Again, I've got a job for life.
It was money.
And then you can explore more, et cetera.
And it's a shell game that every scientist learns to play, because otherwise, as you say, you get it in the neck, which is grant speak for you're done.
You fire you.
You have to can't take students or postdocs.
You got to fire technicians.
You close your lab and
You become what's called dead wood.
So there's a game that's being played and it's it's not a dirty game But it's this kind of like how about like but dead wood is paid really well
Deadwood is paid very, very well.
Kind of don't ask, don't tell game.
Everyone knows that people are doing this.
And look, scientists are good people.
I want to be very clear.
They're just trying to survive.
Most scientists, I think, I believe most scientists are trying to get it right.
I think that I think at least half of scientists are liars.
I think half of scientists are cheaters.
I think half of scientists know they're lying.
I think half of scientists know they lie in applications.
They know they lie in interviews.
They know they lie in grants.
They know they lie in abstracts.
They know they lie.
They're very good at making up shit.
And they're very good at twisting shit around to think that, oh, yeah, I guess it is significant.
Local culture can contaminate things.
And this grant, this local culture contaminates things.
What could be worse than the local culture inside of a tenure track laboratory?
What could be worse than the local culture of a tenure track faculty?
I can't think of anything worse than that.
To be funded.
I'll grant you most of them.
Okay.
Yeah.
And you know, I'm here in part as an advocate for the public and in part as an advocate for the science community.
I can't split myself any differently.
So am I Andrew.
I know.
But with lower IDC, who will get tenure?
IDC again.
for the pandemic.
It turns out that it's early career scientists that are most likely to be as you tend to wait.
It's a secret because when you're young, you're hungry, given the space.
Don't have to beg.
We need young labs to be funded.
This is an open door.
Put them at this postdoc once devoted.
You know, when I
did my PhD and did my MD in the early 90s and then into the mid 90s.
I don't want to destroy this program by saying this, but these are where people finish college and they decide to go two years of research before they decide to go to graduate school.
This in my mind delays and kind of drains the initiative of a lot of, look, there's nothing more beautiful than someone graduating college who's still excited about biomedical science, taking that energy.
Usually they don't have a lot of other commitments yet.
I think we should fund them so they can have a healthy life.
They don't need to have a lavish lifestyle, but a healthy life.
A healthy life where they study the genome.
A healthy life where they contribute to the Human Genome Project.
I'm still getting new ideas right now.
It's more about creativity.
I'm sorry, but science is full of people with no creativity.
Science is full of gunners like this guy.
Gunners like Peter Hotez.
Gunners like ZDogg.
Gunners like Vinay Prasad.
You just have to tell them what they have to do and they'll do it.
I mean, these are not trivial issues that they're trying to pursue.
They deserve, and their peers deserve,
the majority of the taxpayer dollars for discovery, because I think that therein lie the number, the net.
I mean, that's what's discoveries that young, I'm so just, but.
Just to put a real fine point on it.
So I think in the 2000 teens, there was a policy that in order to be honest, I think, I mean, it's really hard.
supports what you're saying.
There's another aspect, too, which is letting go of one's own ideas, especially if you're funding and your ability to pay your people.
I was part of the National Eye Institute's audacious goal.
And sometimes it can lead to good.
We discourage that.
Take a big scientific risk where I might fail, but if I
Academic Biomedicine, we are too intolerant to failure.
Stardust does not.
I completely agree.
And I should definitely point out, I never had trouble getting grants.
So I'm not coming to this with any cynicism.
I moved on to podcasting, and I still teach and closed my lab out of a joy of what I'm currently doing.
It wasn't that I couldn't.
He closed his lab to podcast.
Holy shit.
Stop lying.
I mean.
Stop lying.
This is really bad.
He closed his lab to podcast.
That's just an admission right there.
He's part of this malevolent governance structure on podcasts.
You know, the thing that Cody was talking about on his news show about how the right wing watches a lot more than the left wing does.
You know, the Steve Bannon show, the intellectual dark web, it's all one malevolent show and we are trapped in it.
While the rest of America laughs at us from the outside, we must wake up, we must apologize, and we must pull our heads out.
risk-taking and unturned the crank.
The key, probably the most important thing I'm going to be dealing with, that plus the roughness of the NIH portfolio.
We have to limit their suffering of dire condition due to obesity, diabetes, and on to some remnants of health longer.
And most of the treatments are geared toward the older population.
Is that true?
Yeah, that's true.
A lot of people, population aging, there was this idea of a compression of morbidity.
That is, you live a long life, and the time you spent really sick and disabled was compressed at the very end of your life.
Rather than spending a long time disabled and sick and you you you die die after having spending like a decade or more very sick the idea was that that were which we have advances in our cultures as produced results so that you You live a long life and you only spend you know, a few months really sick at the end of your life That hasn't panned out
In fact, we have very little increase in life expectancy and for many, many people, unfortunately, a very long period of time.
in a state where the quality of life is not that high, not that good.
And so that's the population pyramid problem in a nutshell, and why they had to manage it, and why they needed this Indian saboteur in place to lie about it.
Dementia, chronic disease leading to, say diabetes, leading to all kinds of kidney failure, macular degeneration, you name it, peripheral vascular disease,
I can't do it.
You end up with a situation where all of these amazing biomedical advances that we've had over the last decades have not translated to actually improving the health and well-being and longevity of the American people.
I think that the biomedical infrastructure, research infrastructure of the country has to translate over for results for real people, for the American people.
People can ask us, why are we doing what we're doing?
It can't just be that we're doing cool things.
I mean, not that we're not doing cool things.
A lot of cool things are getting done.
But if they don't somehow eventually translate over, again, I don't mean to distinguish basic science work.
I think basic science work is really important.
But eventually, it has to translate over, or else people will think we've made these vast investments.
These people are lying.
They are traitors to our children.
if we're not actually... This is part of the Human Genome Project, and the next stage of it, our sovereignty is being inverted, our children's sovereignty is being inverted under this mythology about vaccines, this mythology about contagion.
And it is being obfuscated by all of these people.
The fake health freedom movement will never tell you that intramuscular injection is just plain dumb.
They will never tell you about the biology of injection versus ingestion.
They will never tell you about Tony Bark.
Because the bad biology is what this is all about.
Evolution because DNA and surrender to your status.
It's for all the marbles, ladies and gentlemen.
It's for your grandchildren.
We're supposed to teach them this bullshit.
And I would like to not do that.
I would like to stop that from happening.
It was a background, ladies and gentlemen, that was misconstrued with nonspecific PCR tests and they got away with it with placebo.
Stop, stop, stop.
Ladies and gentlemen, I love you.
Good to see you on this Monday.
I'll see you again tomorrow.
Thanks for being here.
Thanks for sticking it out.
If you can and want to find a way to support the stream, please go to GigaOMBiological.com where there are lots of different ways.
And so that's, you know, it's a complicated question.
Yes.
You can capture it, you can sequence it.
Thank you very much.
I'll see you tomorrow.
In condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
In condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.