This, for the purposes of Stephen here yet, where is he?
He knows we get underway at five past on the dock.
He'll come, he'll join us.
All right, everybody, welcome to medical doctors
for COVID ethics international and today's discussion.
This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost.
During the darkest days of the COVID scam response
with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice,
freedom and health.
Stephen has stood up against government
in power over the years and has been a whistleblower
and activist, his medical specialist,
his radiology, I'm Charles Covest,
the moderator of the group.
I must relate to his passion provocateur
I've practiced law for 20 years
before changing career 30 years ago.
And over the last 13 years, I've helped parents
and lawyers strategize remedies for vaccine damage.
And damage from bad medical advice.
The latest numbers we've heard is that,
is that bad medical advice is now the number one killer
in America.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions here
and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay,
now many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vexers.
If this is your first time here, welcome
and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat
and where you're from.
If you publish a newsletter or podcast
or you have a radio or TV show or you've written a book,
put the links into the chat
so we can follow you, promote you and find you.
And even if you've done it last week or the week before,
keep putting it into the chat
to make it easier for people to find.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III
and that there are various battle lines
as part of this war.
Most of us understand the development of science
and that the science is never settled.
And then if someone tells you the science is settled,
you know you're dealing with a fraud or an idiot.
Some of us believe that viruses exist.
Some of us believe that viruses are a hoax
and some of us are on the fence on the matter.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours
after which for those with the time Tom Rodman
runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you're able to join.
We will listen to JJ Couey.
Our guest presenter for as long as JJ wishes to speak
and then we have Q and A.
This is the third time that JJ has joined us.
His previous presentations are available
on the Rumble channel.
Stephen Frost by Longestubbies tradition
asked the first questions for 15 minutes.
There's no censorship.
It's a free speech environment.
Free speech is crucially important in our fight
to preserve our human freedoms.
If you're offended by anything be offended,
we're genuinely not interested.
We reject the offense industry that requires nobody
to say anything that may offend another.
I have a standard template of nine potential answers
to somebody who says I'm offended.
If you want that template put a note in the chat,
I'll email it to you.
It's very useful be ready with your response
when someone says to you I'm offended.
And also what's Ricky Gervais
if you ever want to be amused by people
who claim to be offended.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you.
Love on the other hand expands you.
Before we start we were talking about Gandhi.
The game plan clearly has to be non-violent,
non-compliance with bad government behaviour.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk fest
and extraordinary range of actions and initiatives
have been generated from linkages made by attendees
in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources
that will help you with the details in the chat,
the meeting is recorded
and he's uploaded on the Rumble channel.
And now welcome to our guest presenter, Jonathan J. Couey
globally renowned genius.
And thank you, JJ, for giving us your time,
wisdom and insights again.
And thank you, Stephen Frost,
for creating the group and for organising JJ to speak to us.
JJ, we are in your hands there, Stephen.
I've arrived and there's JJ.
Hey, JJ, thanks for coming to speak to us.
You're very welcome.
Thank you all for taking the time to listen.
I'm gonna try and go as quick as I can
because I know that you've heard me before
and there's a lot of buzz about
different recent conversations I've had
including one with Wolfgang Wodarg.
And so it might be that I cover the wrong things here.
And so I'm gonna try and fly through it,
but please keep in mind that I've done a presentation
like this enough so I can handle an interruption
and it might be easier if you interrupt
when the question is relevant for everybody
rather than waiting until the end.
And so barring any, you know,
if it becomes a thousand questions,
obviously it's probably not good,
but occasionally I don't mind at all.
I need to-
Hey, JJ, I'm happy to do that.
So everybody, so today,
because JJ has been with us so many times,
we'll do it unusually.
So if you wanna ask a question, JJ is good.
You watch the screen, JJ, if you see your hand come up,
you know, stop when you stop talking
and handle that question.
Does that make sense, JJ?
It does accept all the magic that I have.
It makes it very hard for me to watch the Zoom
so I can't really look for hands.
Then I'll handle the hands up.
Okay. Just put your hands up
if you have a question pertinent to that issue.
And then at the end, when JJ finishes,
then we'll do the normal price.
It's fantastic.
JJ, how many times have you spoken to us?
Is it three or more than three?
I thought more.
This could be the fourth time.
I think so, yeah.
This could be the fourth time.
Yeah, very good.
I'm gonna borrow a starting slide
from my friend, Vera Sharav.
I think Edward Bernese's statement is very important here.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation
of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.
There's an important element in democratic society
and those who manipulate this unseen mechanism
of society constitute an invisible government,
which is the true ruling power of our country.
And maybe now with the internet
and with the who and other organizations
around public health, it may be that
this may be the mechanism by which they plan to rule
our global society.
And I wanna start here all the time
just to bring everybody up to speed.
I apologize if it's a bothersome thing
for those of you outside of the UK.
But I've been trying to explain
that we've been fooled into solving a mystery.
And I use the example of a cartoon show
from the United States called Scooby-Doo,
where teenagers solve a mystery every week
in the town that they're driving through.
And it inevitably involves a monster
that needs to have its mask removed
and then the bad guys revealed to be someone
that was earlier in the show.
What I am suggesting here
and something that I wanna be very clear about
is it's not in 2020 that this started,
but it started a much longer time ago
with the co-opting of certain investigative lines
in primary literature in biology.
And so by carefully co-opting certain narratives
into the biological literature
and importantly funding investigation
into certain ideas in the primary literature,
you can seed a series of papers over a series of years
that can imply a danger that's not there.
It can imply a link that's not there.
One of the most spectacular ones from my own field
is the preponderance of literature
that's looking at correlations between genes and autism
and often in animal models of autism.
And so after many years of funding this kind of research,
we have a whole foundation by which anyone
who wants to justify the further investigation
into the genetic causes of autism
can simply cite all of these hundreds of papers
and build their grand proposal from there.
So it's a very dangerous sort of environment
in which this pseudo-intellectual pursuit occurs
because you can't just ask any question you want.
You've got to ask a question for which you can get funding.
And oftentimes the way that academic biology
makes progress is dictated solely
by what questions they're allowed to ask.
And with response, with regard to RNA viruses
that that general academic pursuit
has been hyper-controlled for a very long time.
And I think if you reflect on all the people
that are involved in virology and how virology
from AIDS onward has been, let's say, scripted,
you can see that there's some incongruency
between the real biology that we can verify
and the real biology that they claim.
At the same time, of course, they've
been running tabletop exercises.
The most famous example of one is event 201.
But of course, we can go back decades
and see that there were many tabletop exercises looking
at bioterrorism, what could be done and what could happen.
Now, the trick with this is to understand, number three,
is to understand that they have game to this out on a table
and they've actually run it live before.
There was a swine pandemic and swine flu pandemic in 1976
that was part of this.
There was one in 2009 that was part of this
that afterward was analyzed over and over again,
especially from different countries' perspectives
and how the language barrier in a place like Belgium
played a huge role in the uptake of the vaccine.
They analyzed this like a post-war analysis
of the battle plan and lamented about the fact
that they didn't have the kind of social media reach
in 2009 that they have now and that maybe they would have
been more successful in the Flanders section of Belgium,
the French speaking part had they been able to work
into that language a little better.
All of these things have been gamed in such a way
so that this time around, the actual presentation
of the narrative at the very beginning was hyper-controlled.
Right down to the three word phrase, build back better
or new normal, these kinds of things were just as,
this is the obvious, this is the one they made videos about
so that everybody got excited about.
Look, all these world leaders are saying,
build back better but nobody got really suspicious
about some of the other things that everyone was agreeing
about including the fact that this was a pandemic.
The attributes of the pandemic were actually early on,
seeded in such a way, I believe so that the narrative
of worst case scenario was present from the beginning
and that people could already consider in January of 2020
that if these people are lying about it
and it is the worst case scenario,
we could all lose several people in our lives.
That billions of people were gonna die.
And so this worst case scenario was extremely important.
Number one, to make sure that everybody complied
from masks to lockdowns to getting iPads
and putting your kids in front of them,
all the way eventually to the end of 2020
where the transfections using dentovirus
or using mRNA and lipid nanoparticles were taken gladly
because of the fear of worst case scenario.
They of course told this story under the pretense
of a national security response
and so the people that were curating this narrative
were also kind of under some constraints
under what they could say and were required to say
that we're at war with this virus and that is biblical.
And finally, the whole idea and I really believe this
with all of my heart that one of the main objectives
of the original three years was to make sure
that a story about a virus spike protein could be confounded
with the story of transfection to that spike protein
so that when transfection didn't work out
as well as they hoped it would,
they would be able to blame it on the poor,
rust choice of the spike protein as the transfection target
rather than transfection in general.
And now we can move on to subsequent generations
of this technology,
purporting to solve some of the problems that are there.
And I will include the double-stranded DNA contamination
in this general ruse to try and confuse us
about what effects are coming from where.
Early, what I want is high morbidity.
I want people to complain.
So what do I do?
I go to Des Moines.
Ladies and gentlemen of people on the screen,
I have nothing against Des Moines.
I live there for four years.
I go to Des Moines.
I infect a couple of sentinel cases in Des Moines.
I go to Seattle.
I infect a couple of cases there.
Okay, so we've listened to this video before.
This video is Dr. Giordano.
Dr. I can't remember his first name, shoot.
But anyway, it doesn't matter.
Dr. Giordano, he works for the US Army
and he's explaining here
how a seeding of a few annoying cases
using a toxin or some other substance
which would cause people to go to the hospital
and complain could be combined with an internet campaign
to create the illusion of spread.
And then that illusion of spread could be claimed
by a terrorist group and also denied by governments
and you could cause confusion that would cause a rift
between the populace and their government
and that would ruin a country over time.
Now, although this is not exactly what I think happened,
I think that this presentation from 2017
really puts out an outline which we need to consider
as a real possibility has an alternative to the idea
that either a natural or a lab leak virus
has circulated the globe for the last four and a half years
and that it has changed its flavor several times
across the entire globe in a sort of almost,
I don't know, color changing kind of manner.
This story doesn't have any foundation in biology
but this one has stories in, has a foundation
in military lectures, it has a foundation in biology
and it has a foundation in previous tabletop exercises
which discussed these kinds of things.
So number one, a military response with the ability
to drive local mass casualty events.
I believe that it's very possible that in the places
where the script called for a lot of people to get sick
and there was also a military presence
to make sure that that appearance was maintained.
Doesn't necessarily mean that 20,000 people were killed
in four weeks in New York
but that seems to be the numbers right now.
We don't have death certificates,
we don't have any firm evidence
of where these 20,000's bodies went
but the numbers that are officially reported
are a mass casualty events that begins and ends in four weeks.
There's no evidence of spread after that
and these numbers need to be corroborated
because again, the New York City was a place
where lots of people rushed to help
including people like Pierre Corey
who although he came after that 20,000 deaths event
was very quickly in front of the US Senate
telling about how this was a war
and that this was crazy deadly
and that it was a real battle.
And so we've got to be very careful here
because it's very likely at the beginning of the pandemic
in these places where these mass casualty events were occurred,
people were also co-opted.
They walked in, they said,
hey, this is a national security thing,
we don't know how bad it's gonna be.
It could be worst case scenario, we need your help.
We're glad you came
but we need this message delivered to social media.
You're a credible guy, I think you can handle it
but you're gonna have to stay on script a little bit
because the worst case scenario,
we need everybody to believe it so that they comply
so that they lock down so that they wear their masks
so that we figure out whether this is really bad
or whether it's ongoing.
And so they could have scared it, threatened him.
Not saying that anybody was given a suitcase of cash
and that's how they did this.
I'm saying that the people who ran this
used the worst case scenario to co-opt
all of these people to make sure that they stayed on narrative.
And at the same time in the background,
there are financial and legal incentives to declare COVID.
And at the same time, there's this social media campaign
where the worst case scenario of a lab leak
is already being whispered about.
And at the same time, there are people on regular TV
already denying that that's crazy.
And now if you institute inside of hospitals,
little tweaks to different knobs,
little tweaks to different procedures
so that the average all cause mortality goes up.
And then you have a couple specific things
that when they test positive or they're suspected
of being COVID, you can get a lot of money
if you put them on this protocol
and you're also free of legal obligation
if you put them on this protocol.
Then there's gonna be a lot of hospitals,
especially in America who are gonna put them on this protocol.
If you also combine that with social policies
like do not resuscitate orders to EMTs
or any countless other ways that they mistreated
old people in nursing homes,
you can also increase all cause mortality
under the umbrella of this spreading COVID virus.
Emergency social policies and these COVID hospital protocols
then need to be ignored by the people
who are perpetuating the worst case scenario narrative,
not because they're mean,
but because this is part of the way that this would work.
We didn't know anything then.
There were no numbers.
We can look back now and look like,
wow, you should have known better,
but we really can't say it then.
And that's how I got stuck into this too.
That's the reason they convinced the public
that a lab leak cover up was happening before their eyes.
I was involved in a drastic Twitter group
that also convinced me that I was breaking the story
of a lab leak right before my eyes.
I felt like I was being a hero.
And so they roped us in to figuring this mystery out
and to fighting about it.
And all the while they also used Australia and New Zealand
as lockdown examples where they threw people on the ground
and forced them to get in masks
and they brought them to trailers away from their house
to be quarantined.
They couldn't do that in America,
but they needed to show the rest of the world
what could be done and what might work,
what a real lockdown looks like.
Then they needed people like Brett Weinstein in America
to complain that while we didn't lockdown hard enough,
otherwise we'd already be at zero COVID.
Zero COVID being a real thing that we talked about
for two years that we've all forgotten about,
but that was a real debate.
And so the way that they hid all of this activity
was to just agree that we're gonna talk about a novel virus,
we're gonna talk about millions of people died,
we're gonna talk about millions more could be saved,
you just listen to me,
and we're gonna talk about gain a function
being a real likely source of it.
And therefore this danger will come again and again.
And if you don't question this stuff,
you can say anything else.
And they have been laying this narrative for decades
that cell culture and animal passage
can access pandemic potential
and now we can stitch them together and it's even worse.
And they want us to pass this idea onto our children
so that they grow up with these boogeymen forever,
that this mythology governs their behavior.
And I believe there are a number of people on the internet
that were recruited before the pandemic,
for narrative control,
not even knowing there was gonna be a pandemic,
just thinking that, wow, I get to help out
with the governance structure of America
by being the new social media, the new media,
the new mainstream media, I get to be that guy,
that's so fun.
Joe Rogan doesn't have a $100 million contract on Spotify
for nothing.
And so we had guys like this in America
in February of 2020, listen carefully.
Help.
Bit but I kid you now.
Come back where we're from.
People come in.
Or you can't hear it.
They die.
Just try again, JJ.
Try again, JJ.
Maybe I have to switch my sound settings.
We can hear it just a bit muffled to the start.
Oh, okay, that's good.
All right, I'll play it.
Sorry, it's very quick.
Biblical.
I kid you now.
People come in, I get intubated.
They die.
The cycle repeats.
You overwhelmed?
Yeah, the systems overwhelmed.
All over the place.
My daughters and intern in Brooklyn,
first year resident, she starts the ICU today.
I couldn't sleep last night.
It's scary.
9-11.
Now what you know here, sorry, he says one more thing.
He said 9-11 is nothing compared to this.
Now what's important to see is that that guy
was also featured on Tucker Carlson.
So even though we now know when we look back
at New York City, most of the hospitals were empty.
That guy was on Fox News telling the United States
the whole world that it was biblical, like hell.
And they had world leaders saying that it was a pandemic
and it's the new normal.
We're gonna build back better.
They had people on the news saying this.
They had virologists agreeing that the ACE2 receptor,
her ACE2 receptor affinity,
sure seems to indicate that they enriched this
in a laboratory, maybe even with humanized mice.
And none of these people acknowledged
that there was this huge propaganda campaign
that caused fear and uncertainty and doubt.
They sent old attending physicians home
because the virus was so dangerous
you didn't want these people that were near retirement
to be in the OR or into the ER rather.
They sent old professors home from universities
said, don't come in, you should just take early retirement
because if you come into a university
you could get this terrible thing and you could die.
They told people not to resuscitate people
because you'll spread the virus when you give them CPR.
You better use ventilators with a higher pressure setting
than you've ever used before
because otherwise they might spread the virus.
Yeah, but these people can talk, that doesn't matter.
Sedate them and vent them because they get COVID money then.
$35,000 a person and they get no,
there's no liability for the care of that person
if they designated them COVID.
Lack of antibiotic use was just built into the protocol.
Poor use of steroids was just built into the protocol.
Eventually, Madazzalam and Remdesivir
was built into the protocol.
The opioid deaths have gone up every year in America
since 2017 or something like that.
But since the start of the pandemic
they're going up much more rapidly.
These are not excess deaths that can be discounted
but they are excess deaths
that very easily hospital administrators
could call COVID and did.
More importantly, these deaths happen across age groups
which reduce the expected lifespan of America
and then they can be pointed to us saying,
look at what COVID did.
And without any honest accounting
of what's actually happening in America,
what's actually killing people in America,
these deaths are getting mixed up as COVID
because they only care about excess.
And if you compute it wrong, all of those are excess.
Death certificate fraud, financial incentives
and then we go to track and trace
which happened in America for literally a year.
They had whole companies that were making phone calls
to warn you that somebody that you work with
was tested positive and then we go all the way back
to the beginning and we find this PCR fraud,
this lateral flow test fraud and likely sequencing fraud
which we have all come to accept
as being evidence of something which it's not.
And we've come to accept that evidence
because no matter who we got into arguments
with, they just seem to all be stuck
on this novel virus as being real.
It's the limited spectrum of debate
that we've been trapped in for four years.
It's the way that we get our family and friends out
is by alerting them to the idea
that this hasn't been a vigorous debate.
It's been a very limited debate,
actually tricked you into solving a mystery
that got you to accept their monster.
They started us out in the beginning of the pandemic
at a lonely road all by ourselves
with only social media and mainstream media
to look to besides our family.
And then no matter who you got in the car with,
they were gonna tell you a story about a novel virus
that killed millions, that we should be able to save
more people from if we would just give them
these novel treatments and gain a function.
It's definitely a possibility and the virus will come again.
And so it didn't matter who you chose.
It was a random cards.
If you got lucky and chose Mike Eden,
well, and maybe you were losing your mind for three years
because no one else agreed with you.
If you heard Wolfgang Wodarg before he stopped speaking up
because of censorship, he might've been gone crazy by now.
But if you found any of these other people on TV
or on social media, you're still hot in the debate
about, oh my gosh, these people were lying to me.
Brett Weinstein was hot on this telling about lab leak
and natural virus.
He even had a member of drastic on his show
named Yuri Dagen, who was the first guy
to identify the fear and cleavage site
that supposedly set this from a normal average coronavirus
into something that could skirt the world
for five years like a lighting bolt.
Most recently, I got courted by one of the things
that happened not most recently, but most relevant
to the story I wanna tell you today is that Charles Rixi,
a member of drastic and an American,
came to my house in Pittsburgh to convince me
that my assessment of the diffuse proposal,
which is a leaked grant proposal, which supposedly
describes the insertion of fear and cleavage sites
into coronaviruses and them spraying them into bad caves
by eco-health alliance, was likely a fake.
I said that the moment that anybody showed it to me,
I said, that's gotta be a fake.
There's no way that anybody would've written
that grant proposal and if they did write that
grant proposal, they wrote it just so that people
would believe that these experiments would be done.
They're ridiculous and even if they did them,
my current conclusion is this doesn't create
pandemic potential, but it does create this ongoing debate
about whether that's pandemic potential or not,
which is the scooby-doo to begin with.
So this guy was involved in that.
He actually came to my house.
He's one of the people who claims that he released
the diffuse proposal to the public.
Now, why is this important with regard to Kevin McKernan?
Well, Kevin McKernan is this guy who worked
for the Human Genome Project.
He's not a doctor or a PhD, but he's a very clever guy.
He's sold a lot of patents to different companies,
a lot of companies.
He's sold or got bought out because he's got a lot
of ideas about how to sequence DNA.
So there's no question that he's sharp as a knife.
The deal is, though, is that he's been on my stream,
at least twice he came on my stream in the first two years
to talk about the transfection, to talk about
the RNA impurities, to talk about what would happen
when they code on optimized the RNA.
And so we had an ongoing relationship,
but at some point in time, that ongoing relationship
tumbled and stopped, because I said
that the double-stranded DNA in the shot
was probably not the worst thing that's in there.
And even if that wasn't in there, it would still be bad,
which is what I thought we agreed on already
with the previous two times we had discussed this.
However, that kind of fell apart.
Why is that interesting?
Well, it's interesting because after being blocked
for over a year, it looks like Robert Malone
is promoting Kevin McKernan and a particular article.
It's a particular article about the diffuse proposal
and about how the diffuse proposal has had some extra evidence
brought forth because a FOIA request reported by Emily Koff
has shown that they ordered some of the enzymes
that would have been needed in the proposal,
that they had some email conversations
about the contents of the proposal.
So these other orbiting documents are argued
by Robert Malone, Kevin McKernan,
a guy by the name of Archimetic, and Jessica Rose,
all to be further evidence that the diffuse proposal
is real, that they actually put fear and cleavage sites
into coronaviruses and they sprayed them into bat caves.
And so the implication is, is that they made it
and that an RNA did circulate the globe
for the last four years and is still circulating.
Now, I wanna put reference to the fact
that I also wrote an article about this at the time
that the paper came out with, none other than Charles Rixi,
that guy that came to my house,
and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the CHD Defender.
In that article, I acknowledge that the diffuse proposal
has this methodology in it, but I was already at that point
telling Bobby that you have to consider the possibility
that the diffuse proposal is a fake with the design
of trying to get people to buy into this lab leak thing
because a lab leak implies a virus with unknown potential.
It could be an unknown level of deadly,
an unknown level of stable, an unknown level of whatever
because it's not natural and that's the whole,
that's the whole beauty of the Scooby-Doo.
Once you start accepting this as a mystery,
you need to solve, you're accepting that boogeyman.
And so what's interesting about the promotion of this
is that it all seems to be a concerted effort
to make diffuse real again.
Why is that interesting?
Well, because I think this all spun out of control
when I started to talk about what clones are.
And I think that this has a lot to do with this
because if you look in the comments section
of this actual post, you will find a comment
about Kevin McCurnan, the author of this,
makes to a subscriber or follower of me.
And so I just wanna read this.
I know it's sometimes annoying to have somebody read something
but it's a little small and I wanna make some points
about what this is and then we're gonna listen
to what we're gonna discuss what this is really all about.
So this is somebody who said that what about clones
and the fact that RNA can't go around the world
with high fidelity for many years.
That's the basic 30,000 foot message
that I've had for a while you're probably familiar with.
This is common, remember this is a response
from Kevin McCurnan, the guy who has been going
around the world on lots of podcasts
telling people that there's double stranded DNA contamination
in the shot and that that means that all these guys
are bad guys and that it could explain
all of the problems that we've been having
which I really believe is a red herring.
So here we go.
This is common JJ Cooley bio-babble slash folklore.
Coronaviruses circulate the globe every year.
There is no reason why an engineered version
could not do the same given it was derived
from parts of viruses that have been doing this
for millions of years.
So I have the virology textbook behind my head here
because I want to emphasize that Kevin McCurnan,
the guy who worked for the Human Genome Project
and now has a marijuana genetics company
I mean and lives on the Atlantic Ocean
in a very beautiful house whose brothers
have several companies about testing for cancer
and that his father was an absolutely giant
set their family up really well as a successful businessman.
This guy is no business, no reason to waste any of his time
coming against a guy who's renting his house in Pittsburgh
and streams from his garage with less than 3000 people.
But here he is already 100% on the virology that the NIH
and the who and the CDC and everybody else
would love you to believe coronaviruses circulate
the globe every year and there's no reason
why an engineered one couldn't do the same.
In this case, someone spent the effort to hyper optimize
the COVID-19 ACE2 binding affinity
so that would spread far and wide.
That's weird because the first year and a half
we were debating about the fact that it had a fear
and cleavage site which made it very infectious.
Now he's saying that it was actually the ACE2 affinity
that caused that.
I thought the ACE2 affinity had something more to do
with how many people it would infect or how easily
it could infect people.
But the fact that it would go throughout the body
and be very systemic and that when you coughed it out
it would already be ready to bind
was the fear and cleavage site.
The fault in this logic is assuming the spread initiated
when Chinese claimed it did in 2019
when in fact there's evidence of prior circulation.
This is also important because this is the opposite
of what I said.
Prior circulation gives time for it to achieve
an endemic state.
We've already said that it's likely that the background
endemic RNA signal is being confounded with new spread.
The most efficient mechanism would be the package of virus
and infect a few people in the city.
Exactly as Giordano's lecture tells us
and exactly as I've been teaching
for the last almost three years.
So again, this is a January 19th, 2024 post
about my ideas and he says that the seeding clone hypothesis
is chemtrail retarded, dropping clones everywhere,
hoping for magical transfection to occur
while having an endless parade of spies
dropping spreading these clones around his keystone cop
when packaged virus will perform
all this skullduggery for you.
So he wants you to believe that viruses
are something very different than clones.
When virology acknowledges and actually thousands of papers
that clones are their best approximation
of what they can barely find in nature.
So it's a direct inversion of what I have to believe he knows
is the truth about RNA virology.
You expose yourself to infinite more disclosure points
gonna get caught.
So leaking the virus provides camouflage,
plausible diet ability.
So here we are again being forced back
into solving the mystery.
So this is the final insult.
The keystone cop clone chemtrail hypothesis requires teams
of covert people and frankly is stupid
if you know how to package a virus.
Well, this is curious because that's not the argument
that I'm making.
So I wanna clarify that first.
The argument that I'm making is that the cartoon version
of the infectious cycle is incorrect
where a virus goes into your lungs
that makes copies of itself and then you cough it out.
It's much more complicated than that.
One of the very early clues that we had of this
was when Robert Malone told us
that the vast majority of viral particles
are non-infectious, their replication incompetent.
And so that's what's represented at the cartoon over here.
I believe this is also the reason why a lot of the objections
of the no virus camp are actually very much spot on
and have a great relevance to our trying to understand
the infectious cycle for real if there is one.
And I'm open to the possibility that there isn't.
So the first thing that I'd like you to imagine
or think about is virus packaging
and what that has to do with.
This is a cartoon, a computer model of viral packaging.
The idea is again, that little tiny red line there
is the mRNA and it's supposed to be coiled
around the end protein and then a bunch of end proteins
brings that full genome of the virus into the endosome
and the endosome has the spike protein on the inside of it.
And so when it invaginates like that,
then you get this vesicle forming on the inside
of the endosome and that's supposed to be the free virus.
Now the question becomes, how in the world
is this all orchestrated?
How does your cell just get told?
Okay, take this and wrap this all around
and put this in there and arrange this that way?
The idea that the word hijack is sufficient
to justify this cartoon as being fact
is absolutely unacceptable.
And that's again, part of the no virus people's objection
that I think is really spot on.
And in fact, there's almost everything that they say
is true, it's just the things that they chose not to say
for two or three years that frustrate me.
But again, it could just be that I was an idiot
and stuck with these people.
This I want to, whoa, sorry about that,
that's from my stream.
So I would like to, oh, come on, end.
I would like to just give you a brief introduction
to RNA viruses to make sure that you understand
where we are.
This is influenza A and influenza A,
if you can see my arrow is right here
and it's binding with the cell,
it's gonna go into the endosome
and then it's gonna release into this thing
a negative strand RNA and some proteins which can copy it.
So the first thing to remember in case you're unaware
of this is that flu and measles
are negative strand RNA viruses
that they can't be read by our ribosomes.
So in order for an influenza virus to be a useful particle,
it also needs to have all of the accessory proteins present
so that that negative strand RNA
when it's released into the cell
will be reliably copied into a positive strand RNA
which can be then translated into proteins by our ribosomes.
Now, that's a pretty interesting scenario, right?
Because then if we go back to this illusion here,
then in a flu virus, when a flu virus is assembled,
not only do you need to get a full genome in there
or in the flu viruses case,
actually you need to get about eight circular RNAs
into the same virus,
but you also need to get some of these proteins in there
because if they're not in there,
then this virus will be useless.
So contrast that to the positive stranded RNA virus
of coronavirus and you will see that actually
the translation of the full genome occurs immediately
and you produce N proteins
and you produce this primary translating poly protein.
And so these compound proteins, something, something,
apparently can copy sub-genomic RNAs right away
to genomic RNAs or sorry,
genomic RNAs right away to genomic RNAs you see
in this picture here, this is from like science magazine.
So if you think that this is kind of a bad picture,
I agree, but here you have just a little cartoon
that seems to indicate that this amount of protein
is capable of making copies of the single stranded
genomic RNA, but it's also capable
of making these single stranded genomic RNA,
sub-genomic RNAs that are little tiny ones here.
And they don't really explain much more about it.
It's again, a lot of hand waving,
but again, you can see the task.
None of these RNAs are supposed to be packaged.
Only the full genome should get packaged and shipped out.
And yet when we've looked at the expression
of these positive stranded genomes in cell cultures,
we see that the preponderance of mRNA's
that are produced are actually all these sub-genomic RNAs,
like hundreds of thousands of times more
than any full genomes that are made.
And so this seems to kind of,
to support the idea of what Robert Malone said,
which is the vast majority of viral particles
don't end up with a full genome inside of them
because the full genome is very rarely copied
with very rarely copied successfully.
And then every time it is copied successfully,
there are a number of errors in it
because of the way that RNA is copied.
Now, it is possible in the realm of possibility
that this little area here in the cartoon
will be found to be quite high fidelity
and Jay's all wrong and he's an idiot and he can go home.
But I really doubt that.
And more importantly, there's no real,
there's no real firm molecular evidence
for the fidelity here at this step.
They can say that it's here or it's there,
but the bottom line is that it's not like
copying double stranded DNA.
And so you're already at lower fidelity with that.
And so what is actually happening here is most likely
that these RNAs, these viruses,
are interacting with existing machinery
that already packages things,
that already puts RNA or DNA into a package
and already has proteins on the outside
because then it would make a lot more sense.
In other words, it's kind of like a cuckoo clock.
And if you hijack a cuckoo clock,
you can't make toast.
You can make it ring at the wrong time.
You can make it make funny noises,
but you can't make it make toast.
And I don't think that a virus can go into a cell
and make it do something that it already doesn't do.
Cells already package exosomes and send signals
to one another.
And so I think that this is just hijacking of that signal.
But what that means is that what we are doing
is we are packaging RNA.
And the vast majority of the RNA that we find in there
is either low fidelity copy or even a impartial copy.
And that's the problem with what they find
when they look in these papers,
what they find when they look in the wild.
And so this is the analogy I've come up with.
They are more like mixed tapes.
And so you cannot grow them in the wild.
A mixed tape is from the old days
where if you bought this in the store,
it would sound really good.
But if you copied it for your friend,
it would already have this hiss
and it wouldn't sound very well.
So you could make a mixed tape for your girlfriend
and put all the songs that reminded you of her on one tape.
And it would sound okay.
But if you wanted to make a copy of that mixed tape,
it would sound really awful.
And this lacking a loss of fidelity upon each copy,
there is a, there is a equivalent to that
in the copying of RNA that is orders of magnitude
more important than the copy,
than in the copying of DNA.
And that's why an analogy for RNA versus DNA,
useful one might be an audio tape versus a CD.
If you make a mixed CD and then you made a copy of that CD,
it would be a pretty decent copy to listen to,
but it's not the same with audio tape.
And so I'm making the argument that like audio tape,
an RNA signal found in the anus of a bat
or found in the lung of a sick child
is not a culturable signal
that can be made infinite quantities of,
you can't just grab it and go
and then put some more in the culture
and pull some more out.
And that's always been a problem for them.
And the way that they overcome it
is a technique that is who's,
the credit for inventing it has been given to Ralph Barrick
by the narrative, by the TV, but in reality,
these are just standard bench techniques
for putting two pieces of DNA together.
And in this case, the DNA that they're putting together,
that they're ligating together is actually DNA
that is the copy of a genome that they say
they found in the wild.
So they make this DNA copy,
and I put a little CD here to indicate
that this is a high fidelity copy.
And because a coronavirus genome is so long,
they need to divide it in a few plasmids.
And so that's where the ligation comes in.
You have five pieces that you can grow in a bacterial culture
and then those five pieces need to be ligated together
into one genome.
And that ligation step requires a sort of puzzle piece
to be cut in both ends of those plasmids.
And then that puzzle piece cut is actually done
by a specific enzyme.
And so with very clever choices of codons,
you can actually make an assembly kit
for coronavirus genomes that you can kind of insert pieces
into and this methodology has been blamed for,
again, that sewing icon that I put on the worst case scenario.
It is the stitching of things together
and using this technique to do it
that then leads to a huge quantity of DNA.
And this is the part where Kevin McCurnan
seems to want to try and obfuscate the idea of clones.
The problem is with clones is that
when you make this DNA in a bacterial culture,
you can make as much as you want.
And so when you convert it to RNA,
there's only one step from converting it to DNA and RNA.
So there's a limited amount of errors that will be made.
And since you're moving from a pure template of DNA
to a limited amount of errors of RNA,
you will produce a purity of this full genome
that doesn't exist when you sample these from nature.
Because when you sample them from nature,
the mRNA makes a bunch of subgenomic RNAs
that overwhelm the RNA signal
and the full genome is almost undetectable.
And this gets overcome if you do it this way
because you have a DNA copy of the full genome
that you convert to RNA.
So there's no subgenomic RNA produced.
You're not even using an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.
You're using an RNA polymerase
that has been commercially optimized.
And what this allows you to do
is produce cell cultures that are replicable
and everybody can use your DNA.
You can just make more of it from the DNA that you made.
You can make more DNA if you want.
You can also make replicable animal models
of these infections and you can also share it with people.
The worst part about this is just like the mRNA shot,
you can produce industrial quantities of this.
It doesn't have to be small batch brewing.
You can do a giant batch of this CDNA
and then convert it all to RNA
and you will have a large quantity of infectious RNA
that could have never, ever, ever, ever been generated
in any other way because of the nature
of RNA copying and fidelity.
And so they have indeed used this for all RNA papers forever.
This is what they do now.
They find a signal, they make a clone,
and now if you want to use my clone, I can send it to you.
This is an example of a paper that was done in 2019
right before the pandemic where they use
human coronavirus 229E and they make a clone of it.
They take this clone and they put it into a cell culture
and they look for these subgenomic RNAs
to be transcribed and they're trying to look for
the relative ratio that they're produced in.
And so I'm gonna skip this slide.
When they find the, this is kind of a hard graph to read
but what you're looking for are these signals here
and what level they are relative to the x-axis,
sorry, the y-axis, hello.
And so as you go up in the y-axis,
you go up in abundance
and the coverage here, so what you're covering
is the full genome which is listed on the bottom.
So this ORF1A and ORF1B are where all these magic proteins
are which are able to copy the viral genome
but also make the subgenomic RNAs that are necessary
for viral replication and assembly according to virologists.
The interesting thing is is when copying begins
using this clone, the vast majority of subgenomic RNAs
that are present are the M protein, the M protein,
the E protein, a protein called number four
and the S protein.
And in fact, when you look for full length RNAs,
they only found two.
So while there were somewhere between five and 8,000 copies
of the N protein in some of these transcripts,
a lot of these are high numbers
and they're different lengths
and different variations of that fragment,
there were only two fragments that could qualify
as anywhere near full length.
Now we could have missed some, except the problem is
is that we've seen this same signal even in the old days
when we were doing it in old ways,
when we were still really just being able to look at mRNA
and looking at whole fractions in gel pull downs,
they still saw the full genome is almost invisible,
it's almost impossible to find
and so this is a very consistent signal
and it's probably not the limitations
of nanopore sequencing in that latest paper
because this signals the same.
When a coronavirus RNA replicates,
it very rarely makes a full copy of itself.
So how in the world are these things spreading
from person to person?
It definitely isn't the way that the cartoon describes it.
That's the reason why this story doesn't make sense
and it's really hard to culture.
Well, if the virus was making perfect copies of itself,
it would be easy to culture, but it's not.
It's making very poor copies of itself.
Many of the copies are non-replication competent.
That makes it difficult to culture coronaviruses from the wild.
The solution that they've come up with
is to take that RNA sequence that they find in the wild,
turn it into cDNA constructs that can be grown
in high quantities in a bacterial culture.
They can then use any number of ways
to convert that cDNA to RNA.
You don't have to get into that now
and in fact because we're gonna talk with somebody
like Kevin McCurnan, it would be really silly for me
to try and wax intellectual about all the details of that.
But the point is, is that when they do this,
they are able to create a purity level of a single copy,
many, many copies of a pure RNA that can't exist in nature
because of the nature of replicating RNA.
Now, the trick is, is that up until now,
no one has really tried to measure the infectious ratio
of a coronavirus swarm in an animal or in nature
or anywhere else.
But my guess is it's a lot different than one to one
or 10 to one or even 50 to one.
The point is, is that if you make an RNA copy,
or sorry, a DNA master copy,
you can make lots of copies of the same RNA
and you will have averted this problem
that makes it so difficult to culture coronaviruses
from the wild.
So I'm gonna-
JJ, are you suggesting that they're making,
so you know, if you put that infectious clone
into a mammalian cell,
you're gonna get a very similar output
to what SARS does, right?
The replicated machinery is gonna make this really odd array
of different expression from the N gene, the M gene
because it has to, right?
If you wanna actually stoichiometrically put
one genomic piece of DNA or RNA into a capsid,
you have to make like a hundred to a thousand spikes,
a hundred to a thousand, you know,
N proteins, envelope proteins.
So they're gonna express a lot more of that junk
at the end of the molecule,
just to make that assemble correctly.
Are you suggesting that to do an infectious clone release,
you'd have to like take the clones,
grow them in a coli, like they're doing through the vaccines
and then purify them and then make a lot of T7 like RNA off of it
and then infect people with the RNA somehow?
Because in that case, it would be linear,
it'd all be one molecule,
it wouldn't be all diced up
and having this different type of expression profile
that we see in nature.
Right, so that's kind of my point is that if you did that,
you would have an infectious clone would be
and not an accurate representation of what SARS does
when it's on its own.
So the question becomes, ladies and gentlemen,
what in the world is this all about?
Why in the world all of a sudden in January of 2024,
do I, after being blocked for a year
and just kind of ignoring him,
do I still get this kind of vitriol
when we discussed it live over,
that was in March of 2000 of last year,
when we discussed it live,
he didn't have, this went on.
There was 15 more minutes of that discussion
where we discussed all of these principles
and he didn't think it was crazy.
And yet now, yes, sir.
Well, was that,
we have had Kevin McGurnan on as a guest,
but I can't remember what he looks like.
Was that him then?
That was him then, absolutely.
Right.
And so here he is calling me
Keystone Cop clone chemtrail hypothesis
when we've discussed it many times
and he didn't call it this.
And so I think-
Well, he seemed a little bit exercised there,
I think, when he was challenging you.
That's okay.
I don't have any problem with that.
Oh, no, I know, you know, yes, okay.
I was just calling it.
So the first thing that he says is that
in this comment is that
coronavirus has circled the globe every year.
He also says that they hyper optimized
the receptor binding domain
and that equals fast spread.
Now that wasn't the way it was.
It was actually, and we turned this off,
it was actually the fear and cleavage site
that was blamed for that for quite some time.
Then we have this,
then we have,
it could not spread as fast as what he said.
And so it has to be already endemic,
but I've been explaining that to him
that this is a background
and that if there is a background
that's being confounded by the PCR,
then we would,
we were just being misled.
He is purposefully ignoring that
for more than two years.
And what?
Kevin, why?
Just let me go forward.
Let me go forward.
Ask it at the end.
Seating clone hypothesis is chemtrail retarded
is not a scientific discussion here.
This is a multi-millionaire
wasting his time on his own sub stack,
trying to trash somebody who has 3,000 followers
and was just laid off from CHD.
Like why does he even need to waste his time doing this
unless there is a reason?
And the reason is,
is because this idea is the right answer.
You infect a few people with a clone
so that you get the same sequence
in any place that you look for it.
And if it lasts for a little while or a few days,
it doesn't matter.
I don't know how long it will last.
I don't know how much quantity they would use.
I don't care.
The point is,
is that this biology is real.
The papers are hundreds
to argue about whether or not RNA replicates at this,
at this fidelity or that fidelity
doesn't change the fact that,
that these clones are used
to make coronavirus biology replicable
in each, in each experiment.
If you don't do that,
then the moment you do an experiment with a coronavirus,
you can't replicate it because it's gone.
And so this Keystone COP,
chemtrail hypothesis insult is actually an admission
that this is actually real.
There's no other way that this guy with a cannabis company
is gonna be touring the world talking about these shots.
And so leaking the viruses better,
he's actually arguing that real viruses
have attributes that clones don't.
And the most important thing
and to understand is that in all of his time,
in all of his podcasts,
in all of the microphones he's ever had,
he's never once pointed out that on top of all this,
they were really exaggerating the danger of whatever it was.
And that the protocols in America
probably caused mass casualty events
that were misconstrued as spread.
And so the defense of there are viruses.
The defense of the relative replication competence
of viruses is irrelevant.
If you don't actually acknowledge
that there's this giant body of misleading media coverage
that went on for years.
And these people ignore all of it
and make us focus on clones
and talk about whether or not I'm right
or a little off on the replication competence
of a particular gene in the coronavirus genome,
it's absolutely absurd.
And you can see it here
because in that same video from March of last year,
Jessica Rose says that it's the best idea she's ever heard
and it explains almost everything.
Here is the the sub-stack that she wrote after that article
that says, by the way,
massive thank you to Jonathan Cooley,
Matthew Crawford, John Bodwin
and Mark Giroudot for the Thursday night chats.
You know who Mark Giroudot is?
He's the guy who claims that it's a bolus effect.
And if you just hit a vein
that that's where autism comes from.
You know who Matthew Crawford is.
You know who John Bodwin is.
You know who Jessica Rose is.
This is a description of the Steve Kirsch steering committee
that used to meet on every Thursday night
where I would explain this stuff to these people
that now ignore it.
The only person who covers this idea is Matthew Crawford.
Mark Giroudot insists that it's still just injection
and missing the vein.
John Bodwin is talking about what he needs to talk about
and he's, every time he says
that the protocols were murder, somebody cuts him off.
We need to wake up to the idea that we have been lied to
and that there are people who are actively lying to us.
They are obfuscating the truth about this
and they even go so far as to say
that the viral swarm isn't real.
Even though they have to admit
that RNA cannot be copied perfectly,
if it can't be copied perfectly, the swarm is real.
Done.
And so they have, there's an orchestrated campaign
to make this diffuse proposal real
so that this fear and cleavage site becomes real again
and so that this cover-up becomes real again.
And so you think that we think that our families think
that we need to teach our kids
that this was a solved mystery
and that Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance are guilty of this.
We need to return RNA to real again.
We need to return the biology of RNA and clones real again.
That's what we need to do.
And now I'm gonna use this analogy
and then I'm gonna wrap up
but look very carefully at this guy, this Italian guy
pretending to stop this subway.
And so he gets on and he pulls it to a stop
and then he's gonna go over here
and he's gonna chalk up his hands
and he's gonna pretend that he's doing this.
Now what I want you to understand
is that the more people
and please do this thought experiment
if you haven't already, the more people
that he recruited to do this act,
the more convincing it would be,
especially if you were a young person
or you didn't know anything about electric trains
and the bigger the people were,
the more animated they were,
the more lights and sparks that they had
in their uniform or more tools that they used
and more noises that you heard
as the train stopped or the train went away,
the more convincing it would become
that these people were stopping and starting the train.
And I want you to think about the pandemic
as something like this,
that if enough people were to act like
there's a pandemic to agree,
to fight about what the pandemic is
that you would be bamboozled by.
You would think, wow, look at all these, it must be.
And if you were one who really wanted to participate,
you might've been being invited to hear.
Here's the tug of war, pull on the rope.
You can help us by pulling on the rope.
And so you get your position on the rope.
Gaijai, Gaijai, Jim's raised his hand with a question.
Oh, it's okay, good.
I'll stop right here.
Go ahead, Jim.
Well, actually, JJ, it was very interesting
what you were just saying,
then you're interrupted on a peace sentence.
What was that?
Well, I don't know, just that all of these people now,
if you think about how this little cartoon goes,
the more people that you have standing along the train,
the more convincing this illusion is,
and so that people are doing something that matters.
And in the start of the pandemic,
do you want to ask your question now, Jim?
Go ahead.
Actually, I didn't mean to interrupt.
I just wanted you to address the,
if you could, the different types of spike pro teams
that are being alleged by a guy named,
Jason McClellan, who supposedly invented the vaccine.
I can comment on that a little bit.
Are you aware of that guy?
I'm not aware of that guy, but I think-
And I don't want to interrupt you.
I didn't mean to interrupt.
I just wanted to get in line early.
You're gonna have a lot of questions.
This is great talk.
Okay, great.
So the point would be then to get back to this
is that the more people you had standing on the train
that agreed to talk about one thing,
and that not question the pandemic,
but just talk about one aspect of it,
like a novel treatment,
or whether we can build immunity or not,
or whether T cells are involved,
or it's all B cells, or is it a natural killer cells?
Did the lockdowns work or not?
I mean, are we seeing evidence of masking working in Asia
or not?
These debates were all real,
and they were all televised,
and they were all designed to make sure
that you didn't question the primary thing
that was happening,
which is that these mass casualty events equal spread,
that these PCR tests equal spread.
And so all of this stuff was scripted.
It was, it was gamed.
It was tabletop exercised for many years.
They knew that they were getting closer and closer
to getting it right.
And so I would argue that there are a couple things
that we can know for sure.
I, Droxylchloroquine and Ivermectin,
are underutilized, pretty useful drugs.
Chances are very good,
that in a place like America using processed food
and eating as bad and exercising as little as they do,
that something like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin
when applied to somebody with some immune problem,
some sickness, that it might have some general effect,
even if it's not directly related
to whatever that they were experiencing.
The point being that these are underutilized pharmaceuticals
that have no real danger if they're used properly,
and even their overdosing is probably not that dangerous.
So you have this issue here that if you accept this,
again, this is the mystery,
a novel virus needs novel cures.
What did they choose?
They choose novel cures that you could argue about
without any problem.
And then they also conveniently did really badly design
studies that people could argue about.
People like Brett could argue about.
People like Pierre Corey could write a whole book about.
I would argue that the double stranded DNA is another opportunity
to make fake helpers join in the vigorous discussion
that will never question the necessity
of the transfection in the first place.
Nor will they question the general application
of transfection as a vaccination methodology
because they will say, like Buckholtz did,
that if this DNA is in the shot,
I would still give it to my parents,
but I wouldn't give it to my daughter.
He actually said that in front of the South Carolina Senate,
this guy who claims that he was whistleblowing
on the DNA contamination and confirmed
that Kevin McCurnan's measurements were right.
This is a guy who was also very involved in the testing
for coronavirus for the first two years.
It's not for nothing that he was chosen to be the guy
who again stepped to the side of the train
and pretend to help stop it.
They praised the methodology and they blamed the rush.
And so the last thing that is is this diffuse proposal
and it's contents and whether or not it's real
and whether or not the contents mean that they were already done.
Whether these released emails indicate
that the experiments were obviously already done.
And just like other aspects of the narrative,
if you accept this relevance or even argue about it,
you are not arguing about whether RNA can go
around the planet and change colors.
And they have done this with lots of things,
including meetings all around the world
where people are invited and considered celebrities
and get to go on stage and present their results.
And then somehow or another, their results
or their objections never quite come
out of the meeting like they should.
And so in this scenario, I just want you to imagine
where Jessica Rose is a good guy
and Byron Brittle is a good guy
and Denny Rancor is a good guy
and Nick Hudson's a good guy and Ryan Cole's a good guy
and they're all these people on the stage
are pulling on this tug of war.
But actually when it comes right down to it,
maybe some of these people in yellow aren't actually pulling.
Maybe they're not actually going to leave this meeting
and tell everybody everything they heard,
they're just going to tell everybody some things
that they heard.
And that's how they did this throughout the entire pandemic
by calling me, by putting me in signal chats
and having me give them tutorials on my immunology ideas
and then not putting them on their podcast,
not telling anybody who they were learning this from,
correcting themselves, but not giving credit.
They did this to everyone.
They're doing it to Denny Rancor right now.
They're doing it to Nick Hudson right now.
Nick Hudson was at this discussion talk conference
in Romania and Budapest and nobody ever said
that his talk was great and I'm sure it was.
And nobody's ever said that Denny Rancor was there
and that he showed there was no evidence of spread.
They just show that he shows that 17 million people
were killed by the shot because that's okay to talk about.
But the fact that mass casualty events
don't have spread away from them is not okay.
So they don't talk about it.
But Denny presented that data.
And that's how this is done, ladies and gentlemen,
they are controlling a narrative about this potential
and any other parts of this narrative are just discarded.
And they keep bringing you back to this faith
and keep making it about this phase
without making it about there being no evidence of spread,
not making it about the projected Medicare costs
that were saved in America and around the world,
especially in America and not making it
about strict liability.
In America, in our law,
with the way that we speak about what happens
with regular pharmaceuticals, it's strict liability.
You're responsible for the damage
that's done with your product.
And we don't apply that to vaccines.
We could just change that, but nobody talks about it.
We have this separate system called CICP and VICP,
which are two kangaroo courts
where all of the claims against vaccine manufacturers
are brought and the US government pays all of those damages.
They even pay for lawyers that bring losing cases.
And in our constitution, it says in the Seventh Amendment
that we have the right to sue for damages over $20.
So that seems to kind of contradict
because we're not allowed to sue vaccine manufacturers.
We have to use a kangaroo court.
It seems that that's a pretty obvious violation
of our Seventh Amendment.
I know they have it.
But what?
You got to mute yourself.
It seems like a regular, that's a violation
of the Seventh Amendment, but nobody ever talks about that.
None of the lawyers that have been in front of this
in this group have ever said to you
that one of the ways that we could win
is that we could take a single vaccine injury to court
in a state and have the state court say,
no, we can't see your claim because of the prep act.
And then you could take that as an appeal to a federal court
and have the federal court strike the prep act
as unconstitutional.
We could be done in months, but nobody's doing that.
And that should tell you all you need to know.
With all of this biology that I have to teach,
I got laid off.
And not from a university this time.
And so I think the most important thing to understand
is this teamwork case scenario is real.
Some of them were co-opted, some of them were forced,
some of them were coerced, some of them did it gladly.
Some of them were in place before the pandemic
and found themselves between a rock and a hard place
as part of this control mechanism in the media.
And then, wow, do I really have to go along with this?
Yes, you do.
And we are victims of this.
Our children are victims of this
because they are being misled to believe
that something real happened that could happen again
and that, thank goodness,
transfection worked pretty well for grandma.
And it all started with this illusion here.
Spike protein and antibodies and the antibodies
from infection being very much weak
compared to the vaccine antibodies.
This is a picture that's taken
from Francis Collins' own blog in July of 2020.
This is the illusion in a nutshell.
This is the lie in a nutshell.
The variants go on into the future
and your infection antibodies are useless.
And depending on who you got in the car with,
you would have heard all this.
You would have heard arguments about all this.
If you were lucky enough to get in the car
with Thomas Binder, well, good.
But then you would have had to survive four years
with people telling you that Thomas Binder was crazy.
And that's the new world order that they want to teach our kids.
That's the new world order they want us to teach our kids.
And our teachers are doing it.
Our college professors are doing it.
The college administrators are doing it.
Soon this lie, like in the book 1984,
is gonna be forgotten to become truth.
And so it's up to us to teach our kids the way out of this.
It's up to us to teach our kids
that they have been fooled by this,
that these changes are real.
That they are being transitioned to submit
to a digital ID and digital currency.
The digital ID is not a big deal
because if you have a phone, you already have it.
You're being tracked and monitored in ways
that a digital ID won't even do.
It's the digital currency you need to be afraid of,
of course, but I'm not an expert in this stuff.
I just know that they're probably right.
People like Michael Eden are probably right.
This is the next stage.
And they want you to believe that one of their excuses
for this, one of the excuses for this level of control
is the ongoing threat of gain of function viruses.
This is most important to understand.
We cannot let our children get on this train
where we believe that we've defeated all diseases
in the past by vaccination,
that we believe that novel coronaviruses can jump.
We want them to believe that asymptomatic is spread
is what they need to think about.
They're already telling people in America
that RSV is asymptomatic
and that they need to be concerned
about all of these respiratory viruses
as being asymptomatic.
This is a train that our kids are currently on
and we have very little time to get them off of it
before they have their own kids and teach them
that this is the reality.
And so we need to get them off this train.
We need to get them out of this new world order
so that this isn't erased.
The way to think about this in case you're not there
is that they have told us that we have an ongoing RNA
viral pandemic that started in 2020
and has been going on for five years,
five years of sustained RNA transmission
that started in a point in a puddle,
at an animal cage and has gone around the world
since it leaked, that's ridiculous.
But it is a faith that no one questions
and it is a faith that your children can be trapped in
if you don't start pointing it out to them
that we are in the fifth year of this lie.
I never thought we'd get this far.
And you can see it as a background.
They don't know what was in the background before.
It could be just noise like on a radio
that they've turned really loud
and then told you there's organization inside of it.
And this RNA signal being confounded as spread
could have been seeded.
They could have seeded the sequence using RNA or RNA clones
or the DNA construct and put it in sewers.
And the PCR would have been positive.
Some people would have probably complained
because the spike protein and N protein are immunogenic
and would have annoyed their immune system.
So a transfection by a clone
would have done everything and more to create
and see the illusion of the pandemic
without endangering anybody, except for the people who bought in.
So the way to see these people that are meddling with us
is they don't ever talk about the childhood vaccine schedule
as being criminal.
I heard Pierre Corey on Jimmy Dorr last night
saying it was criminal and I loved it.
So good for Pierre Corey.
Advocate for strict liability of all pharmaceutical products.
That's the way you speak to lawyers.
You just say, no, I don't want to talk about
all this other stuff.
Why don't we advocate for strict liability?
Why don't we use the Seventh Amendment
to strike this prep act?
We need to start saying that regularly.
Investigate the use of deadly protocols
to create mass casualty events
that were misconstrued as spread
and investigate whether or not
transfection could have been used
to compound that problem or to create
the molecular illusion of it.
Declare or take your sovereignty back from them
and the sovereignty of your children
and withdraw from the who in the UN entirely.
And if you want to see the medlers,
they're not talking about this stuff.
They rarely cite the deadly protocols.
That's number three.
They rarely use the word transfection
although Brett Weinstein occasionally does.
They never use the word clone to explain anything.
And in fact, if they use the word clone,
they use it to ridicule me.
And finally, they attack people instead of ideas
and they're unable to summarize across the entire show.
And that's really evident with somebody like,
with somebody like Kevin McCurnan,
who has defended transfection in the past
by saying, I hope we don't throw the baby out
with the bathwater because of this contamination.
And has also very distinctly not spoken up
about any of the protocols ever,
which of course were used to justify
the rollout of this product.
And if you really wanted to bring everybody to attention
and to understand how badly with bamboozled,
you would tell the whole story, at least in a nutshell,
and not just say it's double-stranded DNA
and then my hair's on fire.
And the reason why they're doing this
is because the rich people in private meetings
have been saying for a long time,
we gotta start collecting this data from these people
before they're gone.
And since we're gonna get rid of them,
we should start collecting that data.
They want your kids and they want your kids kids.
So this is a multi-generational thing.
You don't have to think about this
gonna be over in a couple of years.
This is not gonna stop because they've convinced themselves
that if they collect enough data and the AI evolves,
that we're eventually gonna solve all this
and we're gonna become the transhuman futurists
that everybody wants us to be.
So please stop transfection and human
because they are trying to eliminate the control group
by any means necessary.
That's the end.
I'm open for questions, thank you.
Well done, JJ, great job.
Sorry, that was so long.
I didn't realize that was so long.
It was wonderful.
So we'll go back to our normal process.
Steven, next 15 minutes,
and then Jim, you'll be first after Steven.
So Steven...
They had a cold previously
and for a couple of months, if they had flu
and they also lost their sense of smell,
it's just amazing.
So it seems to me that people operating cults
and they just operate on a belief system
and that's how we solve,
they don't, they're not capable of analysis
but actually even the people who are capable of analysis,
they overthink everything
and think their tiny little area of science
is gonna solve the world's problems.
No, without them putting it into context,
what they're saying,
that it has no significance whatsoever.
It's completely lost and they might as well not bother.
So I just wondered what your comments are about that.
I mean, yeah, I agree.
Right now we're just,
I don't wanna get too explanatory about it
and pigeonhole myself
and it just, I wanna be sure that this possibility
of there being real biology
that could have been used to mislead us
and even misleading virologists
and misleading molecular biologists
into believing that this signal is higher fidelity.
So it is cultish, but it's cultish with real,
you know, it's like if you went to a ceremony at some cult
and across the water was a giant, a giant idol
and in front of that idol,
a bunch of people looked like they were,
they were, I don't know, sacrificing goats.
From the other side of the river,
you don't know what they're doing
and a lot of us are on the other side of the river
with regard to the pandemic.
We don't really know what's going on behind the scenes.
We don't know what goes on behind the idol.
We don't know where those lights are coming from
or whether those people and those costumes
are who they say they are.
And so we're really lost here.
I think it's very important to realize
that so many of us have been duped
into accepting people as not,
I don't like the word savior,
but as people who are trying to come to the rescue
on white horses when this script almost certainly
prepared that for us, it had to have.
And only in retrospect as it becomes so visible.
So I think you're right in characterizing it that way,
but it is extremely diabolical
because not everybody who's participating
knows that they have been bamboozled.
I did not know how badly I was being fooled
and how many people were active in fooling me
for those first two and a half years.
It's only obvious now.
It's strange because it's strange
that even you could get into it
because it was obvious to me from the beginning
that everything was wrong.
Nay, nay, that's different, maybe you have to,
you have to, you have to see
that that's not what I was thinking.
Those aren't the questions I was asking.
I was not asking, is the pandemic real?
I was asking, is the virus lab leak or natural?
And if you're not.
Yeah, but this is the point I'm trying to make
with this talk is that if you were asking the question
of whether the pandemic is real or fake,
you were stuck in a certain path that was very different
than being stuck in the, is the pandemic a natural
or a lab leak.
And if you picked the right people,
you were gonna be stuck over here
and you were never, ever, ever going to be allowed
to ask this question.
Do you understand that if you're in a private chat
with a bunch of people that think this is a low-level lab leak,
you can't ever get those people to discuss the possibility
that they might be completely wrong?
And the questions that they ask are going to fuel
this very limited spectrum of debate
that's very vigorous within it.
And if it's somebody like Joe Rogan talking
to Mike Osterholm, it's these are things
that people all have to sort out.
And as an academic biologist, I went with academia.
I got stuck with academia.
And so I was trying to sort out what's wrong with academia
and to get all the way to the stage where I can now
relatively succinctly explain how screwed up academia is.
It took me a long time.
I needed to get far enough away from it so I could see it.
And so every person, every doctor, every health care worker,
every carpenter that bought into this mystery
needs to work their own way out.
And there were own way away from this
because they've been so entranced and enchanted
to solve this mystery.
And then they also, don't forget, almost all of us
came to the conclusion that we had solved it,
that I was winning, that I had finally figured it out.
And that's a very dangerous place to be,
because then you can really be really hard to be convinced
that you've been fooled.
And that's where I was.
And I brought a lot of people there.
And a lot of people in my family or family and friends in circle
took the shot because I wasn't arguing the right biology.
I was telling them it was a lab leak.
So hey, if I say it's a lab leak, but you don't have to worry about it,
how are you going to take my word for that?
And that's what I was saying.
It's a lab leak, but you don't have to worry about it
because your immune system is strong.
And all you have to do is doubt your health
or doubt your immune system or say, well, I'm not as good a shape as Jay,
I better take the transfection.
So I didn't save anyone when I could have saved someone
because I was fooled by the same narrative.
And that's what I think is so powerful about my story,
because I can start crying about it.
And one of my friends had an aneurysm on December,
I don't remember what the date is anymore,
but he had an aneurysm, just a freak.
He's just dead.
He's got two daughters and a beautiful wife.
And he's gone forever because he and his family took the shots
because I didn't have it.
I didn't have the story back then.
And it's really important that people see that it's OK.
We all didn't have the story.
And if we can all come to this realization,
we can all collectively lift each other out.
There's it really is an important moment, I think.
Yeah.
So one, just very quickly, I get traction when I say
that I'm a medical doctor to people I don't even know.
I just talk to them.
I know how to talk to people, as Jerry Brady says.
And when I say that I'm a doctor, not for any glory or anything,
obviously.
And then I say, no pandemic, I get their interest.
And then I say, by the way, there's no novel disease either.
There's no COVID-19.
And they say, oh, well, I had COVID.
I said, don't think he did.
But by that time, we usually got some kind of conversation going.
And they kind of believe me.
But I noticed that they are a bit disturbed.
They're very confident about saying they've had COVID prior
to me saying no pandemic, no novel disease.
And so it is a way, I think, that we can influence people.
But maybe you need to be a brilliant biologist,
like you, or a doctor.
Because they hesitate to kind of take me on.
Because it may probably look as though I mean business,
because I do.
But anyway, I wanted to ask you, the gain of function thing.
I think maybe the message is being missed by some people.
So in my opinion, the gain of function research,
which they're plugging and saying, oh, how illegal it is.
And the people are saying, oh, it's terrible.
They're doing gain of function research.
United States is funding this gain of function research.
But they don't understand even the people on our side
who should know better.
They don't understand the talk about the gain
of function research and saying how bad it is
and how it shouldn't be going on.
And I think David Martin talks about it.
They don't understand that they're playing into the narrative.
And I think that's what you're saying
through much of the talk.
And I don't know how we kind of phrase it
so that people really understand it.
Yeah, I mean, I think that that's the reason why I'm trying
to teach the clones in different ways.
Because the gain of function, anything that they do,
anytime they insert something or they make a synthetic virus,
they're making clones.
So it's only a question of how much that they make.
They make a little bit, or they make a lot.
Because the RNA is still not suddenly endowed
with extra copying capabilities
because you put an extra base or two in there.
That doesn't change the properties
of this multipoly protein replication complex
that's hardly even understood.
And so you can put whatever RNA you want
and you're limited by copying it
with an RNA dependent RNA polymerase.
So they keep making all these statements
about what's going on.
But there's nothing that you can do to the spike protein
to change how well the RNA that codes for it is copied.
That's like ridiculous.
And that's the argument that we needed to learn
the weaknesses of it from the very beginning
because all of us just bought into the cartoon
that there are viruses and then they replicate
and then we cough them out and then other people get sick.
And it wasn't until I started really getting challenge
on that and really listening to the objections
of some of these people like Mark Bailey,
where I started to see
that there was something really incongruent.
And I still feel like we need to revisit
a lot of these narratives because best case scenario
for virology and biology is that the fidelity
of the signal has been grossly exaggerated
but there are signals that we could characterize
as a measles virus or a flu virus
or maybe even coronaviruses.
But the worst case scenario for virology
is that all of these are simply amplified noise
that's been mischaracterized as transmitting pathogens
which in that case we have been probably actively misled
by people controlling this sort of thought space
which is a much more diabolical situation
and it goes back to AIDS and the people
who controlled the biology story of AIDS
and goes back to the whole vaccine schedule in America
going from live attenuated vaccines
to recombinant vaccines that were given intramuscularly.
So that's the problem with this too
is that a lot of these people,
that's why I say that at the end
how can you see the medlers,
it's very hard to imagine that someone on this journey
of discovery in the pandemic would stop at,
wow, I guess they made a mistake with the transfection
and so we should fix that before we move forward.
Like it's kind of a very selective attention
on the lies and a very big amount of lies
are ignored in that interpretation of reality.
And so it's hard for me to believe
that very many of the people that are on our team
can still basically say that they think vaccinations
in general are very good like Brett Weinstein still says.
And this is a very big red flag for me
that almost everybody that lost their career
and got censored and had to shake a can on the internet
should be at the stage where they realize
that the CDC is the largest producer of vaccines in America
and that we have a schedule with more shots
that are earlier than any other Western civilization country
in the world and that alone, that difference alone
should be enough to call on criminal.
It's broad, I do this, absolute broad.
Yeah, so I just wanted to ask you this key question, JJ.
I don't know whether it's key,
but it just seems to be to me.
I think that biology, genomics,
I'm not sure about genomics and epidemiology,
but yes, I think so.
Biology, certainly virology, genomics, epidemiology,
evidence-based medicine were constricts
to achieve exactly what they launched in 2020.
And that epidemiology, sorry, immunology,
that as the virology increased in importance
in inverted commas, the immunology sank into,
wasn't seen, you know?
So the very subject which taught us all
how brilliant the human immune system is
and presumably the immune system of animals too,
that went, lost its influence in the 80s.
When I was at medical school, immunologists
were kings of medicine,
but now it seems that the virologists
wanted to be kings of medicine.
And I think that what they've been doing is fraudulent
and it was a construct.
I don't know it was fraudulent, but I think it was.
I feel that it was.
And it was a construct which was necessary
for these bastards to do what they did in 2020.
I think it's very possible that a lot of this mythology
will break down.
I do, I do.
Yeah.
I don't think we're under any obligation
to be sophisticated enough to delineate
what parts are fake and what parts are not.
We just need to be focused on the current regime of lies
and then work backwards from there.
Yeah, but we have to be able to attack
the world of virology if that's what we need to do
in many different ways.
And so I'm just thinking a little bit further
than the end of my nose or trying to,
because a doctor should be thinking about the possibilities
and warning his patients or the world if necessary
about dangers.
And so, yeah, so there was something else
that has gone out of my head.
Yeah, I liked your,
I liked your examples.
Your analogies were excellent, I thought.
So you talked about how our children are on the train
and we have little time to get them off the train.
You didn't use those exact words,
but I understand what you're saying.
We, and what I think the train was,
was endless, deadly viral pandemics in the future.
And not only was there no pandemic in 2020, in my opinion,
but actually the possibility that there can be pandemics
in the future, I think is another construct.
They put this about so that they can instill fear
into the population and thereby achieve their aims.
It's just necessary to have the fear
and put out the propaganda.
So the whole thing that people are fearing disease X
and people who shouldn't be distracted are distracted.
I won't mention names,
but you must have seen the disease X and Marburg.
It's just nonsense.
And we don't need to fear all this nonsense, you know,
and thinking about the next pandemic.
So the British governments, I need to tell you this, JJ.
They, so they had an inquiry in the,
are having an inquiry, COVID inquiry.
I try not to watch it because it's so bad.
And what they'd intent on doing is saying to the,
the agenda is to say to the British people,
well, actually we should have locked down a bit earlier, you know,
and then it would have been a lot better.
And so along comes Boris Johnson,
the former prime minister of the UK,
who has many, many faults.
He actually determined the remit of the person
who's doing the inquiry,
but of course he's out of power now.
So he comes along, I think he blew the whistle.
He said, so she was commiserating after two days of evidence
when Boris broke down, you know,
and the story in the newspaper that Boris broke down
because everything was so sad,
we should have locked down earlier.
But guess what?
Boris comes out at the end when she's commiserating with him.
And he says, I don't think I'll see you in the,
in the near future.
And I was thinking to herself,
well, what world is that?
You know, he's describing,
I think he'd been meeting,
they'd been meeting at every party in the,
in the near future.
So he said, I don't think it was,
he said, I think, but you can't look into it.
I think we need to determine where this came from.
Well, dead right, but nobody noticed JJ.
Nobody noticed.
I thought, wow, the former prime minister of the UK,
who was beaten into following the narrative,
in my opinion, likely,
he was blowing the whistle at the end of his evidence
of the COVID inquiry.
And nobody noticed, except me.
And well, if he says, if we says,
I would argue that if he says,
we need to determine where the virus comes from,
that he's telling you,
you need to solve the mystery of the Scooby.
No, he just said it.
He said it.
Yeah, it's okay.
Goodness knows what he meant.
I'd love to contact him and find out what he meant,
but probably he's got an army of people stopping people
getting to him.
So you remember when he went into the hospital
and he was terrified allegedly for his life,
he ended up in ICU.
I don't think he was in hospital.
Or he was in the emergency.
He was predicted to go into the hospital
in the Olympic Games ceremony, right?
I mean, we saw,
is it the 2012 games that were in London,
where they had the virus from above
and they had a giant death walking around
with all the attribute,
or it was a tribute to the NHS
and they had all these beds being pushed around
and one of the people that was in the sick beds was him.
So like they told us that it's beyond absurd.
He wasn't in the bed.
Yeah.
I didn't know that.
You've never seen that?
There was a guy with yellow hair
and he was like in the bed whining
and they made him look absurd.
It was like a caricature of him.
Wow. Yeah.
Oh yeah.
There's many minutes there.
It's a possibility that I don't know for certain,
but it's a real possibility
to think about the Boris Johnson.
Didn't believe what was going on in 2020
and he had to be persuaded.
So it could be.
Yeah. It could be.
OK.
All right.
Thank you, Stephen.
OK, now Jim had his hand up first
and what happens with Zoom
is if someone says anything
that takes your hand down automatically.
So Wolfgang, I saw you came in there,
but Jim first and Jerry.
Yeah, thank you very much.
Great presentation.
And I'd like Stephen for us to read.
And I have a little bit of a different view on things.
I'm concerned about not about the virus or whatever,
but the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
as a bioterror weapon,
engineered pure and cleavage site
from a bacteria put on that spike protein.
And we are seemingly living the plot
of a Tom Clancy book called Rainbow Six,
where a alleged virus is released
into the Olympic Games
to spread around the world and the vaccine.
It's worse than the virus that he populated the Earth
by radical environmentalists
in the name of climate change.
My question has to deal with
how we prove or first getting immunity
and if you can address NK and T cell immunity
as good immunity versus IgG immunity as bad immunity
that they're measured, they had VAD, CDC
and everybody's measuring right now.
And if you can address the different types of spike protein,
meaning the first spike protein
is the one that was transmitted by computer
from Wuhan, allegedly.
Number two, the spike protein that was allegedly engineered
by Jason McClellan using proline restraints,
six proline restraints
and I emailed you a video of his presentation
and how that spike protein invaginates into,
goes into, gets into cell
and number three, the spike proteins
that are allegedly made by the DNA contaminants
that seem to be correlating very well
with the dangerous lot numbers or batch numbers
and how bad is my batch.
Thank you.
T cell immunity and natural killer cell immunity
is complicated and we don't know a lot about it
but I can generalize to say that in my last three years
of reading, it seems apparent from the primary literature
that T cell immunity is formed to proteins
that are conserved across a wide variety of viruses.
One of the most conserved proteins
would be these proteins that are in the replication,
transcription complex
and those proteins are highly conserved
across all of these supposed variants of SARS.
That's why they only show you the spike protein
and only talk about that
because of the other 30 proteins that are in the coronavirus
they don't seem to be changing and they don't care.
So that's already an obvious tell
that this narrative about the spike protein
is really not biologically plausible
because you have other people saying
that the spike protein is the only protein that matters
or the only one that's changing
and that's just not plausible given the way
that we know RNA is copied.
So I would suggest to you that T cells
that are relevant for any of these RNA signals
are gonna be primarily aimed at RNA dependent RNA polymerase
or accessory proteins that are common across these viruses.
Another common one is actually the N protein
because it is around the N protein that this RNA is coiled
and so you can't really vary that protein too much
and then get packaging to go well,
at least in their cartoons.
So that is another gene that they have looked at
in the past as a general indicator of coronavirus presence
and now they have obfuscated this idea to say
that this N protein can be used to identify
a particular coronavirus and it's up to molecular biologists
to judge whether that's true or not
but the vast majority of these PCR's
are not using nested primers
and so there's a certain level of accuracy
that's just not possible that a lot of academic biologists
assume is there.
If you want me to give you that little briefing
and I've never really done it before
but I think it's a good idea to try and do it here
because you asked the question.
When you amplify the whole virus genome,
it's a very long genome
and you actually are usually, sorry,
I'm bumping my camera there.
You usually are looking for like a very small amplicon.
This amplicon might be only 300 bases long
whereas the whole genome is 30,000 bases long.
And so you might look for two amplicons.
You might look for a spike protein amplicon
and RNA dependent polymerase amplicon
and this would have been in the old days, pre-2020,
pre-2020, dang it, I keep hitting my camera.
This would have been any coronavirus.
You would have used PCR to find two small fragments
and then you would have used metagenomic sequencing
to amplify everything in the sample
and then use a algorithm to see
if there was a full coronavirus genome.
Most of the time you wouldn't find a full genome
and so instead you would just replace the genes
you didn't find with genes that you found in the literature
and then you would make a DNA clone of this sequence
that you purported to have found in nature.
After 2020, they've been doing the same thing
where they first said that we're gonna look
for a small amplicon in the spike protein
and we're gonna look for a small amplicon
in the RNA dependent RNA polymerase
and then at some moment in time
they changed what they're looking at
and now they're looking at N protein
which is even farther out here on the genome.
It doesn't really matter.
And this is N, this is S, this would be ORF1.
The point is, is that when they look for these amplicons
they're finding a very small signal
and the best analogy that I can come up with
would be to say that the local library got blown up by a bomb
and none of the books got burnt
but they all got blown into a million pieces
and so I think that you, Jim,
you've written a yoga book
and I have primers that can find the sentences
of your yoga book
and if I find the sentences that correspond
to your yoga book, I can prove to you
that you wrote a yoga book you didn't even know you wrote
and so I look for a few sentences
that are pretty common across a lot of books
like the following is an explanation of
or an alternative way of doing this would be
and then I claim that this is very specific for your book.
I mean, look, it's right here on page 67.
It's really your book
and then I find that signal in the burnt exploded library
and I say, look, Jim, you wrote a book
and that's very similar to how they've found coronaviruses
in the past.
They look for signals and they find a very short portion
that is thought to be shared across many coronaviruses
and then they look for the whole book in this pile of words
and it's very easy to assemble the whole yoga book
if you can use all the words in an exploded dictionary
or an exploded library
and it's hard for us to know as biologists
what signals are actually there at this size scale
because the only way we have to probe it is with PCR.
So you almost have to know what you're looking for
before you look for it and then when you look for it,
you won't know if it was there for real
or if it was just a sentence from another book
and the most important thing to see here
is that in biology we're not using a dictionary
that's got 10 million words in it
and we're not using words that are spelled
lots of different letters.
We're using a limited number of bases
that code for a limited number of codons
which code for a limited number of amino acids.
So the shorter you choose the amplicon to seek,
the more likely it is that you're gonna find a signal
that's not related to what you thought you were,
i.e. if you look for once upon a time
you're gonna find a lot of signals in that blown up library.
And so to get back to your question
to make sure I don't lose my track of my thought here
the spike in Wuhan is actually a,
I'm gonna cut back over here,
I apologize for this, I'm just gonna do it quick like this.
The spike in Wuhan, that's this camera,
spike in Wuhan is a construct that was made like this.
It was made with an assembly
and my question would be in terms of the clone
is that keep in mind this has to do with vaccines
and it has to do with converting us,
I apologize for this long answer
but I hope it's good.
And converting us to believe
that the previous combination of substances
which we injected to Augmentia immune system
is not as good as the current new combination
of substances that we augmentia immune system with.
And the way that they fooled you with that
is they probably put this spike protein
that they wanted to inject to you into these places.
And that's what I think you're hinting at
is that the design is not only the proleens
to keep it from being able to change confirmation.
The design probably was the insertion of small epitopes
that companies like Epivax and other companies
have been working on for decades
to try and find ways to make proteins
that your immune system ignores
into proteins that your immune system pays attention to.
Because the current way or the old school way
that you do that is that you take
a recombinant protein that you made in a laboratory
and you inject it into the muscle of a child
in combination with heavy metals or other toxins.
And those toxins attract the attention
of the immune system and macrophages
and they try to process this garbage.
And one of the arguments is that the processing
of that toxin also causes the processing of those proteins
and then you develop antibody immunity
to those proteins that you made.
The trouble is is that your immune system
is learning to respond to something on the inside now.
And so the antibodies that you make are on the inside.
The T cells that you made are not to anything
other than those proteins.
And when those proteins aren't around,
those T cells don't have anything to do.
And the trick here, I'm just gonna keep talking
because I think this is all really good stuff
that probably you don't hear very often.
The other thing to keep in mind
is that there's two different mechanisms
that are going on here with regard
to the immunity.
So when a virus is replicating in your cells
or when your cells are transfected,
the main thing to realize is that there is a molecule called,
I'm drawing it in the wrong shape
because this is like the shape of an antibody,
but it shouldn't be really in the shape of antibody.
I apologize.
But it's a molecule that can present other molecules.
And this molecule is called MHC.
There are two different kinds, MHC one and MHC two
that I don't wanna confuse you with.
Just understand that when your cells are making stuff,
they need to report what they're making on the outside
by presenting small fragments to the immune system.
And so there are T cells that are patrolling
your immune system all the time
and checking that like a little bouncer,
checking to see that the ID on this cell is okay.
Are you guys cancer cells?
Are you doing what you're supposed to do
and making act in and other things?
And so there are natural killer cells
and there are T cells that are doing this check
that are seeing what on the major histocompatibility complex
is being presented and whether that jives
with the other signals that are present on that cell
and so that the immune system can confirm
that this cell's doing what it's supposed to do.
When a cell is producing virus,
the idea is is that on the MHC molecule,
there will be viral proteins presented
that the T cells can recognize and come
and destroy this cell before it's able to release full variants.
And of course, the earlier that protein is expressed on MHC,
the better chance we have.
If you recall that cartoon we looked at an hour ago,
the first proteins that are expressed
during coronavirus infection, according to the scientists,
are these replicase transcription complex proteins.
So if those are presented and they are shared
across the number of these viral species,
then this would be the way that T cells would be activated
and have absolutely nothing to do with the spike protein,
which would be necessarily expressed later.
And also because of the nature of the way it is,
it's gonna be on the outside of the cell,
not presented on MHC, but on the outside of the cell,
which is a very different signal.
Now this is the worst part.
When we transfect a cell,
the MHC is not going to be presenting in the same way
because all these antiviral things are not activated
because they've chemically altered the RNA
to make it invisible to our cells, internal machinery.
It just sits there and it's there for a long time.
And it expresses the spike protein
on the outside of the body or outside of the cell
and it expresses small fragments
of the spike protein on MHC.
This is a problem because if the body
doesn't, can't tell the difference,
it's gonna destroy this cell
and then it's gonna try and process it.
And every time it does that,
there's a potential that it's gonna process
something of its own and it's gonna cause autoimmunity.
That's less likely to occur in an infection
because that infection is occurring at a barrier.
Cells that are patrolled regularly by the immune system
like epithelial cells,
the orientation of the immune system
is oriented around patrolling those cells.
If you transfect someone and that LNP goes anywhere
in the body, then cells are gonna be doing,
they're gonna be presenting bad proteins
that normally the immune system does not expect them
to express bad proteins, not as an expressed,
the proteins that infection vulnerable barrier cells
are expressing.
And so this is a whole different task
for the immune system to sort out.
And so your question of spike in Wuhan is so important
because the idea for me would be
that if you really wanted to pull off this show
and make sure that the entire Earth thought
that transfection was pretty effective,
you better choose a protein that your body won't ignore.
You better choose a protein
that after the fourth transfection,
you still get a bump in antibody response.
And that's not guaranteed for every protein.
In fact, most proteins without any alteration,
your body would build tolerance to very, very, very quickly.
And so it's very striking that even from the fourth
transfection, people are still building
a noticeable bump of antibody seroprevalence.
That's very dangerous.
And it's dangerous because again, this attack,
it should not be blood-based.
So there's no reason to have a preponderance
of IgG antibodies.
You want to have T-cells
that are eliminating viral infection before it starts
in the cells where viral expression is supposed to be.
So this whole engineering of the spike protein
may have even been kind of a red herring
to make you confused about the fact that,
okay, what's the dangerous part about this spike?
And thinking about whether they have eliminated
the dangerous part of the spike or not,
when in reality, it is the transfection
of your cells and the randomness of it
that leads to the dangers rather than
any particular aspect of the transfection in general.
And then if I go all the way to the double-stranded DNA
question, it's not that I don't think
the double-stranded DNA packaged in a lipid nanoparticle
or not wouldn't be dangerous.
I think it's probably pretty dangerous.
That's why they keep it out of all biologics
using anion chromatography to remove it
from monoclonal antibodies, for example.
There's no DNA allowed in a protein biologic none.
If you have DNA in it, it will be canceled.
That lot will be destroyed.
So this is an extra interesting aspect of making RNA
because you can't use the normal procedures,
the accepted gold standard to get rid of the contamination
because you can't separate RNA and DNA very easily.
So that's another tricky thing that they just completely
ignored as they rolled out this transfection
and then conveniently brought it up as a problem
only afterward, we rushed it, we didn't know.
We should've used better methodologies.
We shouldn't have made such big batches.
All of these are excuses to make you think
that transfection could be good if they had done it right.
And that I have been saying is a lie
for at least three years, if not four.
It was the only thing I could see through
from the very beginning that they were confounding
this narrative of, oh my gosh, we chose the wrong spike
and the spike was gaining a function.
Now it's even worse.
And that was all just, that's just all an act
to make you think that transfection could be good
if they just got their act together.
Holy cow, I hope I answered something.
Yeah, well you took Jay Jay Jay.
Thanks very much.
But 20 minutes and you've got six hands up
and we're finishing in half an hour.
So you better handle it.
Okay, faster next time.
Yes.
So, Jerry.
Hi, Jay Jay.
Hello, my favorite long hair.
Yeah.
A stroke off GP from Ireland.
And our suspended GP from Ireland,
I've still suspended temporarily three years ago.
You just talked to Steve in there about,
you know, I don't know, I don't want to waste your time,
but you're talking about Steve,
to Steve in a sort of being cut and being fooled.
It was all about perspective.
It's a perspective of the observer.
I as a GP could see there was no illness.
There were no major illness in the community.
There were no people dying of COVID.
So it's very, very easy for me to cop on to the fact
that COVID was a hoax.
And that in effect, you know, it didn't smell right.
And then to look at the PCR test, you know,
it's quite obvious that it really couldn't diagnose COVID
or a pathogen as such.
But what I'd like to ask you about,
you used to work clone, you know, surely all viruses
or clones in the sense that are in exact replicov,
you know, in the absence of a sexual reproduction,
but they are a clone.
So I'd just like to elucidate your use of the word clone.
Sure.
You know, I'll try and draw a little picture of it
because I think it's important
and a lot of people are asking that question, so it's good.
So I think where I would like to go with this
is just to draw a little cartoon about how it's done.
So when you copy DNA, the DNA strand opens up, right?
And then it comes back together as it's copied.
And that coming back together can reveal mismatched bases.
And because of the nature of copying DNA,
there are actually accessory proteins
that are accessory to the main protein, the RNA polymerase.
There are accessory proteins that can proofread
and correct the mismatched bases that are here.
And that's well known DNA replication in bacteria
is very high fidelity.
But in the cartoon of a viral replication,
you have a single stranded RNA
that is copied by an RNA dependent RNA polymerase.
And that copying is definitely not high fidelity.
And even though they claim
that there are accessory proteins
that can increase the fidelity, the error rate is real.
And so when you copy a 30,000 base pair RNA,
it is by necessity, according to most virologists,
you will make three errors.
You cannot, it is not possible
to use an RNA dependent polymerase
and copy 30,000 bases perfectly.
You can do that with DNA
because there's a proofreading step that corrects.
So not only is this enzyme, the DNA polymerase,
is that not only is that enzyme known to be orders
of magnitude higher fidelity,
but it's known to have accessory proteins
that are orders of magnitude higher fidelity.
And it's all dependent on this double stranded model.
And that's absent in all RNA viruses
because they're all single stranded.
It's either there are a couple double stranded RNA viruses.
I should be careful.
But most of them are negative or positive strand.
And positive strand means
that they can be translated directly into protein.
Negative means they have to have their own enzyme
to do that translation.
So flu and measles need their own enzyme.
AIDS needs its own enzyme,
but coronaviruses are special.
They don't because they're positive stranded RNAs.
They can be translated directly into proteins.
And one of those proteins that they need to translate
right away is the RNA dependent RNA polymerase
before they can ever copy themselves.
And so the reason why I would argue
that these viruses, if they exist at all,
are so difficult to culture.
For example, they might do a 96 well plate preparation
from a bat and only two cells
will show cytopathic effects
and only two cells will be PCR positive.
And they can't culture from that.
They can only sequence.
And then the way they overcome it
is they take the sequence that they find in their laboratory
and they convert it to a DNA molecule.
And the reason why this is important, Jerry,
is because they can make as much of this DNA as they want.
They can make a truckload of it,
like a literal tanker truck
full of almost perfect copies of this consensus genome.
And then because commercial products exist
like T7 RNA polymerase,
they can convert that DNA to a perfect copy of the genome.
And that perfect copy of the genome
in that quantity, a truckload,
cannot exist in any bat or in any bat cave
or any community of animals
because those RNA molecules are by definition all different
because they've all been copied by RNA polymerase
and therefore none of them are the same.
And so I can create a purity of RNA
using this cloning technique
that no matter what culturing techniques,
no matter how sick the animal is,
no matter how virulent the virus is,
by definition, none of the RNA molecules can be the same.
And this is the illusion that they have told us
when if an RNA molecule goes
in a million different directions on Earth,
but all of those RNA molecules just happen
to random walk to Delta
and then random walk to Amacron,
there are no evolutionary mechanisms inside
of an RNA molecule coded in lipid protein
to account for these directional moves.
It's just not possible
because the fundamental randomness of this process
and it's this process that they most don't want us
to talk about because it undermines the whole concept
of it's still going, it's still going
because it can't be.
And it's much more likely the case
that if there is a real bonafide signal
that it's just a signal that was always there
and that's the best I can do for pencil drawing.
But anyway, you're muted again, Jerry, sorry.
That's unusual for me, I'm not usually muted.
At one stage you said they're getting close to it.
What was it?
Was it a call a depopulation?
No, you went down to say it was transhumanism
in our children, our grandchildren.
I looked and they've come to the idea
in the conclusion that in effect
the vaccinations were about a call
or a depopulation effort
rather than just totalitarian control.
Would you agree or disagree with that?
I mean, I hesitate to say that they would make any moves
to prevent that.
But I do think that there is a real multi-generational move
here with the idea of getting our children
to accept a different way of governance.
And so I do think that this is a long move.
And so they're never going to convince us
that the vaccine schedule is good.
They just need us to shut up long enough
so that the college kids accept it
and they give it to their kids.
And so we're also in a very weird state right now, Jerry,
because it's very hard for us in this group
to know how far our message is going
because it often just echoes off of people
that we already know are following us.
And so it's very possible that we're reaching farther
and we're not allowed to see it.
It's also very possible that we're not getting anywhere
and we're just running in a wheel.
So I'm optimistic because this group expands
but I'm still very pessimistic
because we are up against a monster for sure.
Thank you, Jerry.
You're very welcome.
Great help.
Thanks.
You're welcome.
Thanks.
Thank you, Jerry.
Keep riding that motorbike around Ireland.
Wendy, you're next.
Hi there.
Thanks so much for that presentation.
I always love listening to you.
My question, I'm very interested in the DNA contamination.
And so what you're talking about with Kevin McCurnan,
I'm curious about the plasmid.
I'm curious about the DNA fragments
and the open reading frames.
So it's been published by Kevin McCurnan,
David Speaker and Jessica Rose.
They wrote a paper looking at the sequences in the plasmid
and it looks like there was a reverse open reading frame
that was also a gene that seems to be a spider silk gene.
And I'm curious about this because of the fact
that the embolomers have been finding these
weird slots in blood vessels.
There's weird fibers that people are seeing
in blood samples in the microscope.
And there's also now coming about people
that have weird clot kinds of things in their large intestine
that they're kind of grouping out
when they do parasitic cleanses
that look strangely like the embolomer clots.
And it seems that there's silk proteins in those clots.
So I'm curious about your thoughts on that.
Are those DNA fragments, you know,
I know you said that any DNA getting in
can be potentially bad.
And especially if DNA fragments get in
and interrupt other genes,
it could be contributing to the turbocancer stuff.
But if pieces of these open reading frames
are getting in and making spider silk proteins,
I'm just curious about your thoughts on that.
Wow, I hadn't heard that before.
I have to look that up.
I would be, I would be first very careful
to fully rule out the possibility
that endothelial cells are being destroyed by neutrophils
and being cleaned up.
And when they are cleaned up,
there is a process of fibrinogen being produced
or fibrin being produced.
I get those two mixed up,
which ones the breakdown and which ones the not.
But there is an enzyme that comes along
with neutrophil elastase that destroys these endothelial cells.
And in the process of doing that,
there are clotting factors that are produced,
there are things that happen
that can result in this micro clotting.
And it's not clear to me,
I don't know if this would be,
I assume be related to the stuff
that secret bacti has worked on
and all these embalmers have worked on.
I just don't, I would caution you to realize
that the fibrinogen fibrin clotting cascade
that has been described by these people
has no special biology
and it is just how antibodies and how clotting
and how platelets and how this might cascade out of control.
And so adding a silk protein to that
could be potentially something that could be later debunked
or something that could be disproven.
When in reality, it's a criminal investigation.
We don't have to prove where these clots
are coming from in order to call it a crime.
And so I would always encourage you
not to get too deep into the minutia of the explanation.
In this case, it's very enticing to think about that,
but I would say that SV40 as a sequence
might be more interesting than silk protein.
Because again, if it's silk protein,
it should be very, very simple to prove it.
The protein should be very obviously not fibrinogen
or not fibrin to fibrin base.
So if there's a serine.
So yeah, and apparently it is obviously no fibrin.
So all of that has been looked at.
I appreciate all of those thoughts.
So Kevin McKernan, and now that I know more
about your thoughts about him,
he has sequenced that reverse open reading frame
in the plasmids that are contaminating the vaccines.
I can paste the paper that was published in the chat.
Sure.
And then you can read that paper.
Sure, please do.
It's cold.
The other thing that I would just talk about
while you're putting this in there
is that one of the things that I think is very much overlooked
is what happens to the lipid nanoparticle
after it gets released in the endosome.
So there's a very good presentation
by I believe a Spanish guy with the last name of Segella
or something where I've seen,
where he shows very definitively
that the chemical properties of the lipid nanoparticles,
the cationic lipids that are used to transport the RNA,
once they are internalized into the endosome
and they get into this lower pH of the endosome,
they change into very corrosive cationic lipids
that can go around and essentially create
reactive oxygen species and destroy mitochondrial DNA
or even if they get into the nucleus,
they could destroy nuclear DNA.
This aspect of the delivery mechanism is completely ignored
because they don't want you to think about them
after they've delivered their RNA
when they change their chemical properties quite a bit
after reaching the pH of the cell internally.
And so that aspect of this is also something
that I think there's a concerted effort to hide.
And so any discussion of relevance
with regard to the lipid nanoparticles
often obfuscated by somebody
who doesn't know what they're talking about.
And so this, I'm not saying that they're telling
this silk protein story for that reason,
but I do think we have to be very careful
about latching on to these hyper-detailed explanations
that we don't need.
Did you put that in the chat?
Yes, so I will find it in a second,
but I would really like you to look at the plasmid sequence
and that reverse open reading frame silk protein.
And if that fragment can get into people,
why are they putting spider silk in people?
And maybe the next time you'll talk with that.
Well, hopefully I'll be able to tell you
exactly why it's crazy, but maybe not.
Okay, yeah, that'd be great.
Thanks, thank you, Wendy.
Alberto, I'd love to see you.
JJ, thank you.
Two camps seem to be emerging on our side of the aisle
and the camps are the pro-vax people
but just not pro-this-vax.
And then the pure true anti-vax camp.
And to say that I think this jab is bad,
I think the whole all the history of jabs were bad.
And I think that's easy to see
when we're paying attention to what people are saying
because I've always said,
beware of the person that wants to fix the formula
or improve the formula for the future.
So thank you for that for kind of slowly,
this is the layers are getting peeled back
and that's being revealed which camp people are in.
The question that I had though was in yesterday's,
in your yesterday's podcast,
you kind of went into the details
about getting laid off for children's health defense
and I'm sorry to hear that.
You had said that there was a McCurnan did a podcast
with two CHD people and because of that,
you know, you slightly criticized or debated
or something critiqued it,
but you got reprimanded for that
from the children's health defense people behind the scenes
and somehow that you feel may have caused your
layoff or something.
Do you know what the timeframe of that was?
How do I find that video where McCurnan was?
I would have to look on my chat.
So it was a little, it was a little wild before I did it,
but he had gone on Brian Hooker's podcast,
doctors and scientists and when he was on that podcast,
actually Mary Holland joined him.
And so what I did was watch that podcast in critique,
what Kevin was saying and I pointed out that I thought
that maybe Mary and Brian weren't really aware
of what he was skipping or what he wasn't pointing out
and how much more there was to talk about.
And the way that I got reprimanded was that they just
didn't want me to cover that kind of thing.
They didn't want me to redo podcasts.
So it wasn't necessarily that they didn't say
that Kevin's a good guy and you shouldn't pick on him.
They didn't want me to critique, to risk portraying
some kind of, you know, not a uniform front for CHD.
And I understand that.
I mean, I was working for them as a staff scientist
and then to go on my podcast and have the president
and the chief science officer on there.
And not necessarily, I don't think I said anything wrong,
but it would be very easy for someone outside
of the organization to say, hey, it looks like they don't
agree on everything, what the hell's going on?
And so that's what I got reprimanded for.
I didn't want to say that Kevin was involved,
but it was how that started, let's say it like that.
Why don't put anybody on a pedestal
and that goes for Bobby Kennedy.
I know you no longer work for him.
And hey, I might still vote for Bobby, you know,
for the most part, I mean, I like him.
But I also know that he knows that bears doesn't publish
all legitimate reports received.
And then I wonder like, why aren't you really
clamping down on that one?
But needless to say, I really appreciate that you,
your search for the truth and, you know,
not being afraid to investigate under every rock.
I appreciate you, JJ.
Thank you so much.
You're very welcome, Albert.
Thank you.
Thank you, Albert.
Now everybody, we've got an interesting breaking story
relevant to what we're talking about.
And this just came in.
So JJ, very relevant to your comment on lawyers.
And here it is.
Justin Trudeau fails as justice prevails.
Federal court and candidate declares Prime Minister Trudeau
exit outside of his legal authority
when he took unreasonable constitutional measures
against the Canadian truckers.
So federal court in Canada has just
ruled in favour of applicants who
filed an application against Trudeau
for unreasonably and unconstitutional measures.
So that's one of many cases that are happening.
And it's quite possible, JJ, that judge who's
shown some bravery at last.
His grandchildren may well have died suddenly.
You never know.
But anyway, I just bring everyone's attention
and I want to sidetrack it.
But there are, as Warner Mendenhall's
going to tell us in February, thousands,
hundreds of thousands of cases in the pipeline.
So it's not true to say that they're not happening.
But it's very true to say that most big law firms do not
want to attack the system because they get
the bulk of their income from the system.
So that's our challenge.
Albert, thank you for that.
Anders.
Yes, hello.
Thank you, JJ.
It was wonderful to hear your presentation.
I was fooled like a lot of people
to believe in the virus theory.
I must say that after last year's
intense investigations, I don't find any reason anymore
to believe in the virus theory.
And that it is a big risk for a lot of people
who are confused in that theory that this is correct science
to present all of these modeling out of computer science
that there is so and so genetic, let's say, footprints
or what you claim.
I think we need to go back to real science
and to go long back to the philosophical discussion, which
were going on for more than 100 years ago,
about whether Lewis Pasteur was right or not.
But that is a mean comment that is connected to my own research.
Which I would say conclusively come
to the final conclusion that the COVID so-called virus of 2020
was an invention and not the fact.
And there was mortality across the Western countries.
But that mortality was strictly connected to protocols
and to the launch of 5G.
So that is my general comment to it.
But let's say the question is, how can you all or those
who continue this, continue the virus theory against,
let's say, the postulates or Robert Koch and all the lack
of evidence that there is such a thing like a virus?
That is my question.
I would argue that there is plenty of evidence
in the literature that cells excrete small vesicles
with RNA and DNA in them.
I'm dispute.
OK.
And so I think that my main argument
is that they can make RNA and they can make a lot of it.
They can make DNA and they can make a lot of it.
And that means that some of the experiments
that they do in the literature are definitely possible.
They can make enough DNA to put on a cell culture.
And then the cell culture will so psychopathic effects
and try to copy the DNA.
And then afterward, there might be more DNA or more RNA,
excuse me, than when you put it in the first time.
But it won't be the predicted amount and assortment of RNA
that the cartoon provides for.
And in fact, they don't need it to because they use
psychopathic effects to show the presence of a virus.
But they never then go farther than that.
And so I would totally agree with you
that viruses are likely a phenomenon that
have been exaggerated both in fidelity and in significance.
But I would also argue that in place of that,
there are technologies that are sufficiently advanced
so that a DNA molecule or sequence could be planted anywhere
and that RNA could be used to transfect someone
and make their cells express proteins.
And if that's the truth, which I'm sure it is,
because I've used these transfection agents in mice
when I was an academician, a biologist in medical schools,
I used to do these experiments where I transfected mice.
And so I am confident that if they wanted to express
a protein in your lungs, they could do it.
If they wanted to express a protein in your skin,
they could do it.
And I'm sure that they could express a protein in your gut
if they wanted to do it.
And I'm sure that if they put DNA into a sewer,
they could use PCR to tell you they found it.
And so all of these very standard methodologies
could be used to create the molecular biological signal
that someone with a high level of sophistication,
but also a very high level of specialization
would never be able to tell the difference
between BS and truth.
And that is where we are.
And I do think that it's been going on for a long time,
probably since the AIDS virus was first characterized
and said to be in circulation.
And we're probably dealing with a scenario
where when they started to grow things in cell culture
and then inject them into people,
there were problems because they couldn't detect
the kind of immune signals that were present
in these cell cultures.
And if there are immune signals that are
at the same size scale as viruses,
then it would be very easy for a controlled discussion
of this biology to result in a horrible misinterpretation
of a signal that is almost exclusively endogenous
as opposed to being exclusively pathogenic,
which is what they would like us to believe.
Is that kind of an answer?
Yeah?
Thank you.
Thank you, Anders.
Wolfgang, welcome.
Loving to see you for those of you
who don't know who he is, Stephen,
has organized Wolfgang to speak just twice.
So far, I think, Wolfgang, twice or three times?
Twice.
Twice. Welcome.
Great to see you.
Over to you.
I came explicitly because I heard JJ some days ago
in the coronavirus, and I was very fascinated
about his knowledge and his interpretation
of what he observed in the last years.
And I think I'm not a specialist
from molecular biology, but I observed
the whole business of vaccination industry for many years
as it was of a public health institution.
And when in politics, too, about the patent laws
and all this around how they tried to have formulas
where they could have claims to work with, to earn money with,
and they had their claims not only in the land,
they had them also in biology.
And they tried to shape their claims there
and to give them, give their claims certain meaning
that they could produce because you could only get a patent
when you can use it for certain techniques
you have to describe.
So this is working out such theories
that there are some molecular molecules.
You could do something against with the certain technology.
This is the basis of getting a patent and earning money with it.
And I think it was, we are trapped for many, many years.
I think much wrong, I think it started in the 50s or 60s already
when they were trying out the first vaccinations,
when they had the idea, the pharmaceutical industry got the idea,
that it's too little business only to deal with ill people.
They wanted to sell something to healthy people.
The market is much, much, much bigger.
And this was a genius idea to tell people we can do something
with your immune system.
And I think this was a fantastic idea for them.
And they developed it more and more.
And they went more and more in the granular fair.
They went to molecules and they went into the immune system.
They invented stories about good immune system, bad immune system,
all such things, which have nothing to do with biology,
which we can never understand.
And JJ, you said it last time it was great, I was fascinated.
They tried to just to describe the irreducible complexity of life.
And they picked out something of it.
And they made narratives around it.
And they had to sell their products and to get their patents.
And now they, I think it's just trying
to open a new sphere of business.
And they can only do it with a war of speed methodology.
Because normally, we should need some time
to find out whether people get healthier or not,
or whether they're really protected or not,
have a control group or whatever.
It's a very, very long process.
And then when you find out such things,
whether something is working or not,
it's only statistical results.
You don't know what happens on a certain person,
because this is the irreducible complexity of life
that we are all different.
And so I think this business, what I observed in the last year,
is for my experience now, it is just
that I don't advise people anymore to take any vaccine.
And it goes much further.
Observed also the clinical studies they did.
And above normal some sort of drugs
and how they constructed their narratives there.
They are constructing narratives everywhere.
And I think if we want to change this,
one very effective thing would be just to forbid patents
on such things, forbid patents on living,
on everything that has to do with life,
and to forbid patents for drugs.
And I think this will solve a lot of problems.
And I tried to work for it in politics.
And I experienced that there was certainly people coming to me
and the lobby was coming, and they were really terrified
when I started to make such an initiative.
So I felt that there was something very important
with the patent right.
So this is just what I want to say,
and I want to thank you very much,
because you're much more strict in your thoughts,
and you're much more, I got lost sometimes,
I got lost at my time, got lost in molecules, too.
And I was distracted very often, too.
And they made it very well, but the more they did it,
and the more we find out that, oh, again, you were trapped,
again, you were mistreated, or you were cheated.
And so we learn that we are cheated.
And this is a very interesting process,
which made perhaps lead to some improvement
in living together in this inreducible society,
complex society.
Thank you very much.
I think it's a great comment.
I just want to follow up by saying
you might not be aware of it,
but in the United States right before the pandemic,
there was a Supreme Court decision,
which basically decided that all intellectual property
of monoclonal antibodies was based on bad science.
And they actually decided to say
that the intellectual property of antibodies
was based on a formula that had been repeated so often
that it had no relevance anymore.
And one of the things they talked about
was that the claim of monoclonal antibodies
is that it's a single molecule.
When in reality, it's not a single molecule at all,
and depending on which animal produces,
it's going to be as many variations as possible,
the kinds of motifs that are created.
And so they portrayed a level of fidelity in creation
that wasn't there, and the Supreme Court basically
took a whole field of intellectual property
that was the basis for a lot of pharmaceutical value,
pharmaceutical company value,
and made it very shaky ground right before the pandemic
as to whether or not you would even be able to patent
an antibody in the traditional manner.
And so one of the things,
this was actually all discovered
by a friend of mine, Mark Koolack, of a huge atomic life
who just lost his YouTube channel yesterday
for a video that he put up.
But he found this antibody paradox
being covered by a Yale Law School review
that was then several months later,
cited by the Supreme Court as the evidence
for the biology of monoclonal antibodies
not supporting their general patents.
So this was a huge change that occurred
right before the pandemic, seemingly very convenient
so that no pharmaceutical companies would invest
in monoclonal antibodies,
but instead would convert to this new...
No, there are sites on first, though.
I don't know whether you know, a physics professor,
and he was telling when there are problems,
we have a narrative and we deduct from this narrative
everything we do.
We take some new narrative
and we make it the basis of all the things we do.
And then we don't, when we don't go,
when we cannot go further, we invent particles.
And we discuss about the particles
and what we have learned all about the particles
and we can't go further, we invent particles of particles.
And like this, it goes on until there is a new narrative.
And I think we are at the level now
that there will be a new narrative.
And I hope so, you started it.
Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you Wolfgang.
Okay, Stephen, we'll go for another 15 minutes.
We've got two questions
and there's Stephen for closing questions.
We'll go for two and three quarter hours today.
JJ, are you okay for another 15 minutes?
I can probably do it.
If I pass out...
Quick on the quick...
If I fall over, you know, then it's what happens.
Yeah, correct.
Tom and Meicher and then Stephen
and we'll finish the two and three quarters.
Gotcha.
Can you hear me okay?
I can, wow, nice, Meic.
Okay.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, so...
Let's see if I got my question.
Are you from Wisconsin?
Does that say you're a Wisconsin guy?
Yeah, yeah, I am.
I grew up in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin.
That's where I was born.
Right, and I was on the Mississippi
when I grew up in La Crosse.
Okay, nice.
Now, early Michigan.
Yeah, so I had asked you this before
and it's kind of a minor question,
but this lateral...
These grocery store tests that are in cardboard boxes.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Are those...
Yeah, are those lateral flow?
And, well, yeah, I have, I have, I guess,
three or four questions, but that's a quick, easy one.
Are those lateral, I hope, are lateral flow
and you talk about lateral flow fraud.
So should I do all the questions?
Should we do one by one or what's the best way?
No, I mean, it's fine.
You can just say it.
I know what you're asking about now.
And I'm limited in my...
I haven't looked at the specifics
of each of these products.
There's a lot of them.
And so what antibodies are present in them
and what they're specific for is specific for each product.
So it's tricky to...
It's pretty tricky to discern
which of them would be, let's say, more reliable
or less reliable for the indication
of the presence of these proteins.
So that's tricky, but go ahead.
Just ask.
Oh, so I assume, do they create an antibody?
Are they detecting antibodies in general?
They're not detecting antibodies
in a lateral flow test.
I think you use your saliva, right?
And so they're detecting spike protein or N protein
and it's antibodies to those proteins
that then move and then get bound
to a second protein that changes color.
And if I'm wrong about this,
then please don't let that undermine the rest of my biology
that I taught because lateral flow tests
are kind of tricky with the antibody problem
because the specificity is...
So yeah, I love your train thing and everything,
but this is what I'm up against
with a lot of people on the other side.
It's like, oh, I tested positive for COVID again.
This is like that eighth time I've had COVID, et cetera,
and it's based on those tests,
but you don't need to respond to that.
So this is like a teaching kind of question.
It exposes all kinds of confusion that I have.
And let's see.
So it's the idea of, okay, the virus has a genome,
and is that represented one-to-one by the mRNA
and within that genome, how many genes are in it?
And is that another way of asking for how many proteins
does it code for?
And then at the higher level,
as you're kind of going up to hierarchy,
there's a lot of different types of genes
that are going up to the higher level.
So you're kind of going up to hierarchy.
You've got chromosomes, you've got the cell nucleus,
and then you have the entire human genome.
Could you kind of quickly touch on those concepts?
Sure, so in a viral genome,
you expect a virus to have in a coronavirus 30-odd proteins
that are encoded in a single genome,
and the genome would be one long RNA.
That's the idea.
And our cellular genomes is one long,
double-stranded DNA molecule in theory for each chromosome.
And so our genome is just gigantic,
and instead of having n proteins,
we have our DNA organized into chromosomes
that is really DNA around histones and other proteins.
But a viral genome is supposed to contain all of the proteins
that are necessary so that when that RNA goes into the cell,
remember that if it's a positive strand RNA,
then it can go right through the ribosome.
If it's a negative strand RNA,
it needs to be turned into a positive strand RNA
before it can be converted into protein.
So for negative strand viruses like flu and measles,
there has to be not only a genome in the viral,
but there also has to be an enzyme set
that can copy the negative strand RNA
into a positive strand one before flu proteins can be made.
Before measles protein and viruses can be made.
So the coronavirus is an opposite kind of thing
because it's positive stranded.
So the first thing it has to do is go into your cells
and translate itself into protein
so that the proteins that are present
that copy it from positive to positive are there.
So that's the trick that I wonder if you caught it,
but it's something that I find very frustrating
about the current model of the way that these viruses replicate,
and it's part of that bothers me,
I gotta find the right slide here, apologize for this,
is that in this model,
oops, that should be here, and then yeah,
in this model, this is the diagram
where they show a coronavirus replicating,
the thing that has to happen, right?
This is a positive strand RNA genome
which can go right through the ribosome,
but you want a positive strand RNA in your viruses
that go out of the cell.
So you might presume that the positive strand RNA
has to be translated to a negative strand RNA
and then the negative strand RNA gets transbagged
back to a positive strand RNA
because that's how these double stranded molecules are copied, right?
They rely on the mirror image in order to make the copy,
but this is a single strand RNA,
so you don't have that.
And interestingly, in this diagram,
it shows, if you can see my arrow,
it shows that the RNA dependent RNA polymerase
is translating a positive genomic RNA
into another positive genomic RNA.
I can't find a single paper that explains how that happens
or explains why that's so special
because the flu virus needs to change its RNA
in from negative to positive
and then the positive needs to be copied back into a negative
and packaged in with the enzymes required to be a full virus.
So the flu virus...
Can I ask you, can I ask you,
do you have any examples of positive...
No, Tom, Tom, Tom, this is...
Oh, okay, no, then I'm gonna go to my last question,
which is kind of a bombshell thing.
I had a friend in this group connect me with another friend
who is that you've got an adversary out there
and I just...
I've only watched like three hours of him
and could you comment on Kevin McCarran?
Oh, sure.
Kevin McCarran is a guy who streamed with me
starting in the first week of March
and we did a stream of about five hours long
every weekend for five weeks in a row
with another guy by the name of Paul Catrell,
who is a completely fake doctor
who was promoted by George Webb
for a very long time at the beginning of the pandemic.
And Kevin McCarran is a guy who when I first met him
was very convinced that over a billion people would die
and that everybody should be at home making masks
and that we should stay home for 60 days instead of 20.
He was also very convinced that the spike protein
was gained a function and that there would be a massive
influx of amyloidosis and spike protein induced prion disease
and he was already convinced of this in March or April of 2020
and he remains convinced of it now five years later.
He has done nothing but stream about the N word and Jews
and how the Jews are responsible
and he has done nothing but associate his own racist bigotry
with me and a couple other people
with the idea, I guess, of slandering us.
And the first time that I reviewed his work
was when he got in a shouting match with Mark Bailey
and at that point, he already started calling me names
and said I was a liar and I didn't know what I was talking about
but he didn't really lose his mind
until I started teaching about the clones
and then him and Charles Rixi
pretty much have gone full tilt,
giga-ohm spiral and all these other things.
There are hundreds of hours of videos of these guys
spending most of their time trying to say
that I'm a bad guy and it's just absurd.
It's laughable at this stage.
Do you realize that Kevin McCarran came to Pittsburgh
from Japan and tried to stay overnight in my house?
This guy is more than a medler.
It is, this is real.
Like these people came to my house.
They are being paid to keep the worst-case scenario alive.
I assure you.
And most importantly, he was involved in making it very hard
to decide, the idea that we were transfecting billions
of people, one of the most likely possibilities
would be misfolding of proteins
and potential generation of prion states.
So imagine that they knew this was a possibility
and they had people like Kevin McCarran
from the very beginning out there
in the darkest corners of the internet
putting this nonsense out there
so that when it finally did happen,
it wouldn't be very hard for them to confound it
with the original gain of function virus.
This guy's one of the worst characters out there,
I assure you.
Oh my gosh, he makes me mad.
He really, really has been messing with my family
for four straight years.
Yep.
Thank you, JJ.
Thanks, Tom.
Make it.
Very briefly.
Thank you so much, JJ.
Good novel.
It must be very late there, huh?
I mean, my goodness.
I'm putting the affords here.
Okay.
Your wife's from the Netherlands, isn't she?
Netcloped, yep.
Yeah.
Hillhoot, Hillhoot.
Okay, I have a question.
I read the book of John of Robert Kennedy,
the Wuhan cover-up.
And there it says that you said it is on page 284.
I know what she's going to read.
A virus designed by a jean jockey on a keyboard, says Kui.
So, what do you think about it?
Is this correct or?
At the time that he's quoting me,
that's exactly what I said,
but what I'm meaning is that they created a clone.
So when you do it on a keyboard,
you make a clone.
And this is, again,
I don't know how to say it any other way,
other than to say that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
wanted to write a book about a lab leak.
And it wasn't until very late
in my service of this book
that I started to realize
that I was perpetuating the wrong narrative.
And I did teach it to him.
It is in the book in some places,
but there are quotes,
including one where I think it's very late in the book
where I say that oftentimes grand proposals
are done before they are submitted.
And that was used to say
that maybe the diffuse proposal was done.
And I would argue with throwing myself under the bus
to say that they went so far as to come to my house
to convince me to say that.
And they did.
They convinced me to believe that
for several months that I was wrong,
that the diffuse proposal might be right,
and that I needed to think very carefully
about whether I was putting people in danger.
And this, when people come to your house,
when people call you on the phone,
when people send you emails like this over and over
for many, many, many years,
it becomes very difficult to stick to your laurels
and say, no, I'm sure Mike Eden
and Wolfgang Wodarg are right.
And these guys are full of baloney.
And that's really where we are.
And during the writing of that book,
you can see the evolution of my thoughts
and at least I can in my notes.
And it's just a question of,
Bobby's ultimate objective was to make sure
that the mythology was captured.
I don't think we are in a scenario
where Bobby couldn't come to understand this biology
the way that we understand it
and just don't necessarily think
that it's gonna be that easy.
And I'm for sure that there are lots of forces out there
that have made sure those books were written.
And it's just very hard.
I don't wanna say anybody's a bad guy
because I think so many people like myself
were taken by the narrative and by the performances
and by the previous rumors and mythologies
that we all grew up with.
I gave my kids all their shots in 2022
before we moved to the new school that they're at now.
And it was a week later that my wife and I sat down
and watched Vaxxed and we cried for hours
because we realized, oh my God,
what in the hell have we been doing?
We've been working for Bobby Kennedy for half a year.
We never bothered to watch the movie.
That's how stupid I am.
So I don't want anybody to think I hate it
when I get introduced as a genius
because I'm not a genius.
I figured this out like everybody else
that went crazy, figured it out.
And only very few people were smart enough
to be ahead of this and I wasn't one of them.
I definitely wasn't.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you, make it look good to go.
We're gonna move on.
Thank you, great question.
Now, JJ, just to just stay there, JJ,
we're gonna last couple of questions from Stephen,
but one thing I want to remind everybody of,
it's a crucial concept,
make all of us feel good about not being geniuses
because Albert Einstein said every one of us
is born a genius,
but if you contemplate all human knowledge
between my hands, the smartest person on the planet,
whoever you think that is knows this much,
each one of us knows a tiny little bit.
That's the point of these conversations.
So, JJ's very honorable of you to admit being stupid.
I'm stupid.
In fact, the wonderful Anthony DeMello,
when he says this,
it is wonderful book awareness.
He says, when somebody says you're an idiot,
agree with them.
Each one of us, we are total idiots
except for this tiny little bit.
So, glory in your idiocy.
Now, last question, Stephen, are you there?
Last couple of questions, JJ, I will let you go.
Yeah, yeah, I'm here.
So, just to switch on the video.
So, JJ, I was kind of,
I was going to ask you what happened at CHD
because it was completely mystifying to me,
hearing that you had lost your job at CHD
on the 4th of January, I think you said.
Yeah.
I couldn't think of any good reason
why they should choose now to get rid of you
because as far as I can see,
you are absolutely essential to understanding
what's going on.
But now it makes sense because I remember reading it,
but I like R.F.K. Jr.
I really like him.
Remember R.F.K. Jr. is not at CHD anymore.
He had to break all ties with them
in order to run for president.
So, he has no influence, and he actually was not,
he was not involved in me being hired.
I actually got hired because some of the writing team
from the book also worked at CHD
and advocated for me to be hired by Brian.
So, it's absolutely nothing to do with Bobby.
I know that for sure because I actually called him
when I got laid off because I was so sad.
And what did he say?
Well, he said he couldn't do anything about it,
he had nothing to do with me being hired
because he had already left the organization.
They call him chairman and leave,
but that's just a moniker that means nothing.
He's nothing to CHD can't be.
They can't talk to him.
They call him what?
A chairman on leave.
All right, yeah.
But is he going back there?
Well, I doubt, I don't know, yeah, I don't know,
but he can't be a part of the organization now.
He is all contact has to be broken
by definition in American law.
So, that tells me that it's quite possible
that he would have come to agree
because I was mystified when I heard about three months ago,
maybe I can't quite remember that he was going to write a book
about all the gain of function stuff.
And I thought, no, no, don't do that.
That's part of getting everybody into the narrative,
discussing the gain of function
and how terrible it is.
And so I like David Martin a lot,
but I don't understand why he's fallen through it either.
And anyway, point is that it now makes sense
what happened to you at CHD in my mind anyway,
that you are actually saying,
well, actually don't believe this gain of function stuff.
It's playing into the narrative.
They want you to believe that it's all about fear.
And it generated fear, whether they could do it or not,
and they didn't need to do it.
So that's very important to understand.
So taking it so seriously that you write a whole book about it,
well, yeah, I remember thinking at the time,
should I email him?
And what, say, but I thought,
he's got so many people around him,
he probably wouldn't take any notice,
so no point in wasting their time.
So, but I did think about it.
And maybe you and I could go to him
and maybe Wolfgang too might be prepared to do it.
I'm trying to work on a brief that describes this biology in text
and has some citations and things.
I think in the next week or week and a half, it will be done.
And he will be one of the people that received it.
So look at him in the long run.
Oh, I don't know why not.
CHD in the long run.
If he's got it wrong, you know?
Oh, no, that's right. That's right. I agree.
So if you write the whole book about gain of function research
and goes down the round ball route, you know,
I just think he's going to look at fooling 10 years time.
And so we need to warn him off and we're not warning him off,
but suggest that, you know,
there are dangers in going down that route
because I really think that the whole thing was used
just to generate fear.
Well, he's a he's a lawyer.
He's a lawyer, so he could very easily do what I've done
and just say, I didn't get it.
And now I get it.
He could just say it. It's very easy.
I mean, it's harder.
It's harder for somebody like me to do it than a lawyer.
I mean, why not?
Well, whether whether RFK Junior becomes the president or not,
he's got a huge following around the world.
Yes, I agree. I agree.
And so it's important for him to know it whether or not I agree.
Absolutely.
So maybe Wolfgang would like to join us because he he's got incredible insights to
and actually Wolfgang, you are a virologist, aren't you?
Oh, no, we're stopping.
We're not having a conversation there.
That's another statement.
Another question to you, JJ, is do you want to write a book
because I know someone who's a publisher who who's very interested.
He can't couldn't be on tonight's call.
Sure. Put me in touch with him.
I mean, I've found a lot of people that are interested in me writing a chapter or two,
but then they just ask me for the chapter right away.
And so it's hard for me to.
But yes, I would be in theory.
I'm already writing for a very long time.
I just don't publish it yet because I I'm not a very fast writer and I'm very anal.
So it's it's good and he can please
even get the book written for you if you know you dictated or you could have it.
Well, don't don't tease me with those things.
Just put me in touch. It would be great.
I will do. Yeah.
And Wolfgang, the same question to you.
Would you would you like to write a book or not?
Well, would Wolfgang write a book with me?
We could write a book together.
Yes, yes, I would love it.
That's what we do.
Well, set it up set it up, Stephen.
We're going. OK.
Wolfgang and JJ, you are you are a disgrace in demonstrating that you are not drinking
enough water because for you to sit there for three hours without going to the toilet
is very. Yeah, yeah, but you haven't made the toilet.
So you're clearly not drinking enough water.
Oh, I have to go. Don't worry.
Yeah, good. All right.
You have to go. Everybody big.
Thank you to JJ. Right.
Work. Thank you so much.
Stephen, thank you for organizing everybody.
We're going. We're way over time.
Tom Rodman's video group, the link is in the chat and we'll see you on Sunday,
Monday, depending on what part of the planet you're on.
Thanks, JJ.
Thank you very much, Stephen.
Bye bye.
Wow.
Holy shit.