This was some updating and some updating, but you know that takes a little while, I apologize.
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
Oh, come on, you're kidding me.
Why isn't it playing?
I got no music.
It's like something happened over here.
Crash monkey.
Let's try it again.
There it goes.
Had to crank it up a little bit or something.
I don't know what happened there.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
This is Gigo on Biological High Resistance Low Noise Information Brief.
Brought to you by a biologist.
We're still waiting for the Zoom meeting to start in the background.
I got to assume that it's going to start because my friend has been reliable in the past
and hopefully we will get this all set up.
Exciting times, ladies and gentlemen.
We're getting lots of views on our recent discussion with Law Alexander.
There was also a rumble stream that happened yesterday with Jessica Rose, John Bodwin, among others.
And that went off really well on rumble, which was exciting.
The Zoom meeting is scheduled for 12 o'clock, so I hope that we're just warming up the engines
and getting that going.
I'll pull that link up.
Does the title not say who I'm zooming with?
Hopefully that's going to come true.
This is Gigo on Biological High Resistance Low Noise Information Stream.
Brought to you by a biologist, Jonathan Cooley.
Hello, that's me.
Thank you very much for joining me.
I have a meeting scheduled with Juan Michael Eden and Paul Elias Alexander at noon today.
And I'm hoping that we can stream that together.
And we'll have a brief conversation with Michael about what he's seen and where his mind is.
And then we'll try to run the infectious clones idea past him and see what he thinks about it.
So this is quite exciting.
But like I said, if the Zoom meeting over here doesn't start, then we're not going to have the show.
That's why I didn't really schedule it because I wasn't absolutely sure that's what happened.
I think Michael is somewhere on the other side of the planet.
But we're waiting for the host to start the meeting and we'll see where we are.
Hopefully this all goes well.
How is everyone?
49 viewers already.
Let's take a minute here.
See if we, I guess that's always going to go off.
So I'm just going to put that off now.
Maybe I'll set on some other music that will hopefully set the stage for what we're trying to do here.
And then we will take a look at this rumble stream.
See if we can get that up right now because that's a great place to default to if this meeting doesn't come through.
Keep in mind that as this has been spreading around, ladies and gentlemen, there's good reason to believe that
it's good reason to believe that people will start to intervene now to try and stop this information from getting any further than it's already gotten.
And so if you think for one second that suddenly there's going to be a flood and everything's going to be fine.
If we're right about this, the resistance to this idea is going to quadruple right now.
I think we came.
Hello.
I hear one.
I'm very excited.
Yeah.
Looks like Alexander's got his, Dr. Alexander has his IT person with him, so it's fine.
Excellent.
He's so good.
It's a terrible thing that technology crap.
That technology crap is terrible, Paul.
Don't let it frustrate you.
Hey, Jake, can you hear me?
I can.
Did you see me?
I can.
Okay, so I'm on.
Excellent.
So what's going to happen is that, um, Twitter, I mean Zoom does like 35 minutes, so I'm not recording yet.
Zoom does like, um.
35 minutes and then locks off.
So I have two streams.
So when that locks off, then I will, um, could read then I'll remind you if you could then reconnect to zoom again for the second.
Um, link, please.
Um, did you the one in my email or?
Yeah, you have link one and then you have link two.
Okay.
The reason for this is Jay is I, and I want you to give me your stream to to amplify, but I have a huge following to one rumble and I've found that your, um, our interview did really well.
So we have a huge following there and on sub stack.
So I want to take it quickly and put it into rumble, blah, blah, blah.
But anyway, I'm glad we become good friends too, because there are a lot of IT stuff.
I'll be blunt that I am not an IT person and we try and bumble our way.
And, uh, like I know nothing in IT.
I use it, but I don't know it.
And I'd like to learn things from you.
I'm just letting you know in the future.
Yeah.
One thing that's really great is that I have basically not fired any of those cannons yet.
I can edit videos.
I can post them all over the place, but right now I only live stream and I've been saving that as the next step.
Okay.
So once we're ready and once we've got the content that we need, we're, we're going to be able to edit and make as many videos as you want.
So you have other people on right now.
I do not just you.
That's it.
Me and you.
I mean, I'm, I'm streaming already.
There's 48 people watching, but these are the same people who are already already always here.
Dr. Eden.
Dr. Eden just texts me and said he's running about eight minutes late.
Oh my gosh.
This is the most exciting day of my recent adult life.
I can't tell you how excited I am.
Holy cow.
I feel like there's more music.
We need like, you know, if we were really to do this right, we would need to do something like this.
I mean, you know, if Michael Eden is coming on the show, we should do something like this.
And now the starting lineup for your world champion.
You know what this is?
This is when the Chicago Bulls would announce the starting lineup with Michael Jordan.
This is the music they used.
This is the music that Michael you should have on when he comes out.
That's awesome.
That makes that makes me happy.
I'll just leave that back there.
If you could do it.
I've also gotten a lot of very good response.
My typical video on Twitch after 24 hours when I'm.
You got it.
When I'm really lucky has about 20.
About 2,200 views.
And your interview has 9,000 so far just on Twitch.
It has another 1,000 on Rumble, another 1,000 on Vimeo and another 600 on BitShoot and like 200 on Odyssey.
So it's way over 10 grand.
And I've never had a video go over 10 grand in less than three days.
So that's we're crushing it, man.
We're crushing it.
I'm telling you.
And it's only just started.
Today that video is shooting.
Like it's doing about 1,000 every four hours.
So that's really fast.
And that's just on Twitch which nobody watches.
Like people hate that thing.
That's the only reason why I'm allowed to stay there.
So we're going to promote this.
Put it everywhere.
And it'll go just as fast.
Yeah.
And I think what is this interesting about with you is people like in my substock.
All of the responses are that they're so grateful.
That first of all, I would interview with you and that people are giving you the space to try and unravel and unpack your theory, et cetera.
And what you're thinking because the reality is we don't want censorship and all of that.
And more importantly, you have very valuable things to see.
You're not just anywhere in the individual.
It's a lot of things.
Like I was speaking to Dr. Amalynn recently.
Richard Amalynn.
And he's he, you know, because we do some stuff with the wellness company.
First of all, sons company with their with their.
What do you call that?
The online healthcare and the supplements, et cetera.
And what Amalynn told me, you know, when we touch base on you and your work is the time.
He learned so much listening to you.
That's the key.
He said there are things that.
And he thought he's an expert that he didn't think about and he didn't understand, realize until some things that you had said.
So, which is a very good thing to me.
And so on.
You know, look, we, we, we in a space J where there's a lot of competition for airtime.
And somehow the others created me a song.
Some people have decided, you know, like animal, animal farm, that book.
Some pigs are more special than other pigs.
Right?
Oh, man, I forgot to push the cut.
There we go.
Yes, I get it.
So that's how they do it. And depending on what I'm saying.
They move that way to with somebody like me is not that they don't want to hear what I'm saying.
But depending on how hard I'm pushing back and what the topic is.
So it's just very interesting that even within the freedom movement.
Their censorship.
As crazy as what I just said, I'm telling you, I am, I was involved with the, I know you're not taping on every just talking, even if people are listening.
It doesn't matter.
I was involved three years ago with Dr. McCullough.
Dr Zalenko, et cetera.
It's like live though, just so you're very, very aware of it.
It's like live live.
I'm not editing this.
People are listening.
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah, but we just talking.
Yeah.
Right.
And when we, when this started on, you know, Zalenko and McCullough, they were talking about, you know, we pushing out the early treatment and, you know, I became part of that group to write the papers and to sort out the algorithm, et cetera.
So we were involved from the beginning to start the freedom movement in the United States, the COVID-19 freedom movement. And then I was involved in starting in Canada, et cetera.
I have found, which is the most remarkable thing to me is that as it has grown within it, it has its own, its life.
It's so funny that people group develop alliances and groups within the group.
And who they find is their favorite person and who they like and don't like.
I'm mortified by these people on outrage because we all fight enough fighting trying to slay one dragon.
And we have lives to save.
You have to set personalities on that bullshit aside.
You have no time for games.
But a lot of these people play games.
You know, YJ?
It's about money.
It's about donor money.
And trying to get money out of each other's pockets.
And they have to come up with the most creative ways of doing that.
And somewhere in there, a lot of these people, I call them today, grifters.
They have lost sight of what this was about.
It's not about you.
This is about informing people, sharing information, you know what I mean?
And et cetera.
So I found myself in interviews where the interviewer, who is interviewing me after five minutes,
I realized, but wait, this is more about them than me.
I couldn't even get to speak.
You know what I mean?
It's like they advertising themselves.
So you two have to be very careful because, because as you emerge properly, and I think
rightfully, you're going to find out that depending on your brand and the attractiveness
to it.
Yes.
Let's go stop.
Hello, Michael.
Hello there.
How are you?
I couldn't, I couldn't be happier right now.
I've been waiting for this for, it seems like three years.
Oh, wow.
Well, I'm probably going to disappoint you because I'm not the, I'm not the scientist.
You are.
I mean, you read lots of papers.
I'm not an academic and I'm usually mild off the pace, but I might come up occasionally
with a, with a gem of a deduction, but that's probably the best I can do these days.
You were the one that held a lantern up and made me brave enough to read these papers, my
book.
Well, there you go.
Okay.
Yeah.
I always say to people it wasn't, wasn't really encouraged.
And that's because in a, in a heartbeat, almost when I realized when I, when, when basically
when lockdown happened, I knew at that point, I could outline why I knew it.
I knew this meant totalitarianity and depopulation, but I'm good at that.
Making deductions from very little data.
I was certain.
That's what it meant.
And it's because 60 countries at once did something that made no sense that did not match their own
pandemic preparedness plans and was counted to common sense, you know, I was destructive.
And that meant since it wouldn't help anyone, but we've damaged business.
That meant the people who own money and capital must have approved the operation.
And since that means they're not doing it for monetary reasons, since they sit, describe
the money creation process must be another reason.
And very quickly, we knew they were talking about vaccine passports with that ghastly,
heavy glare and other people.
And I just put it all together.
Digital ID everywhere will be a restricted threshold.
And I knew vaccines made no sense.
You can't, you can't vaccinate against.
You can't vaccinate using an injected vaccine against an inhaled pathogen.
If you believe they exist at all, which I certainly did at the time.
But they can't work with, you know, because you generate a best detail memory.
And at worst, circulating antibodies that don't penetrate the airway.
I also knew that the Cochrane reviews are through the vaccines, but they actually don't work.
Probably this is a thought, speculatively.
But because the older, the frailer people have less responsive immune systems.
So we've got an overlap problem here with the people who are most likely to die,
the ones who are least capable of benefiting from a vaccine.
I think that's true.
And the people who could respond well to a vaccine, if it was properly designed,
don't need it because they're able to throw it off.
And so, you know, and then also I've worked on.
MRNA and SIRNA technologies just on the side.
I had a postdoc doing some work on the side.
And that was 12 years early before I'd left Pfizer.
And we agreed it was hopelessly distant from grind time.
We could not get the materials to penetrate cells in vivo,
except when we injected them and then they went to the liver.
And if we inhaled them, they would either break down or simply not penetrate epithelial cells.
We were using the SIF rays, you know, just to see if we could get a marker in and we couldn't do it.
So when I heard a decade later that my former employer and others were rushing a vaccine using this technology to people,
I knew it couldn't have been fixed.
And I did several literature surveys to look for the, what was the magic bullet that had arrived in the 10 years that I'd missed and there wasn't one.
So I thought this is going to be dangerous.
So, yeah, so that's that I came in very early, but I say I worked it out.
I didn't really work it out on March 23.
I will say when I allowed myself to put the bits together in the SIR,
I could then retroface it to the lockdown.
I realized it didn't need any new information beyond lockdown in the context of it being unprecedented and going on in multiple countries at the same time, which, as I say,
it needs to be a conspiracy theorist to say, well, that's evidence of a super national action in the only way it could possibly happen.
Yeah. And so things got more and more confirmed as the year went on.
And you'll remember that Dr. Wolfgang Bodag and I wrote a public petition before any injection had emergency use authorization warning them of several toxicities.
We missed several important months.
We're not perfect, but the ones we pointed out have come true.
So I've been warning people not to take these things since before they arrived.
And of course, not have one myself.
So, yeah, I wish I wish we could wait more people up.
So, you know, gentlemen and ladies listening.
I always think that's my mission because I can't save me.
You know, I can't save anyone.
I can't save myself because having this information doesn't give you.
It's an unusual occasion where you can have a very good idea what the stress is and not be able to protect yourself very well against it.
So it's ever so clever the way these, I call them the perpetrators, by the way, because I don't know who they are, but roughly, I call them the perpetrators.
And also it doesn't have any suggestion of any particular religious group because I know people get in trouble when they say globalists.
So the perpetrators, they, on one hand in Britain, they're talking about introducing digital ID for everybody who files their own taxes.
So that's from this year. And it's, it's also with like one gut.
It's called one dot gavel something's like your central database thing.
You know what this is going to be.
So it'll be the world's first common format interoperable,
database, and it'll start with just new, you know, some basic information.
But, you know, sure as it is, it will soon have your financial information, your health information, including quits vaccine status.
And, you know, that's all that's needed.
And then the last bit of slapping the.
Payings together is coming up with a pretext to it to introduce central bank digital currencies.
And at the same time, gliding cash off the table or making it so difficult to use practically that you'll be forced to use electronic money and that.
There's one.
I'm still hanging my hat on something, but I know it's very.
It's a very weak thing to do.
I heard a couple of people talking about CBDCs and AI.
Now, I didn't know anything about AI, but there were two gentlemen that were interviewed by a good person.
I can't remember who it is now.
Jane, Jane's selling part.
So two of them said they'd worked in AI.
One was in finance.
And they said they thought that the perpetrators were.
We're running a long way ahead of the actual capabilities.
So, you know, I don't know.
I don't know anything about computers, but what I do know is whenever you phone up your lecture to your gas company and you get a computer.
Right.
The bloody thing is hopeless.
How many you're not filling up to buy a piece, right?
Or you're not you're not filling up to get psychoanalysis.
You're probably filling up about your meter reading or you're moving.
You know, whatever.
Given there are very constrained set of things you could possibly want to fill up your utility company about.
My experience is they always fail.
I mean, hopeless, almost amusingly bad.
Whether you're typing on a keyboard or trying your best to speak.
Code of O, code of a speak.
The thing goes.
It literally just comes out of its bedroom all over with its panther and examples.
So that's the shape of things to come.
I feel a bit more optimistic about their inability to control us with AI.
But that's probably helpful.
So anyway, that's.
You've brought up so many things that I want to pick at because I think there's a couple really nice pivots here and I want to keep you talking.
So first, you mentioned, and this is good to get us to where we need to go.
Don't worry, Paul.
I got it.
Michael, you mentioned that you talked with and agreed with early on with Wolfgang Woda.
He and you, I believe you could correct me if I'm wrong.
Are two people that very early on suggested that there were before the pandemic, hundreds of different causes for respiratory disease that we never bothered to identify.
And now suddenly we're identifying them.
This one key piece of biology stuck with me for three years and it's still a crucial part of what I want to say today. Can you expand on that and fill that in.
Well, just.
I think having worked in the field of respiratory for a long time, I think that the signs and symptoms that people present with are as much or more a consequence of their own status when challenged as, as opposed to a characteristic
consequence of the thing that's made the meal.
So it's put it another way.
Again, I'm going to have to put the camera accepting for the moment the viral model of transmission because I'm having serious problems about this, but regardless of what I think that stick with the model of your common colds and.
Oh, we're going to have such a good conversation today.
I know I don't know what I know anymore. That's the most, that's the humble point, whereas I used to be really sure, but when I examined it, I was only sure because someone had told me and it seemed to fit.
But when you actually examine it, it's not, it doesn't seem so sound.
Luckily, I don't just for the record. I don't believe there was.
I don't think there was a novel respiratory pathogen respiratory infection myself that calls this.
What if I told you that I think I have a biological explanation for.
Well, that'd be great.
I've wrote it down beforehand that why do we even think there's a novel virus.
I've asked people this because they get crossed when I when I question whether it exists or not.
I said, well, what's the evidence that there is what they think for a long time and they go.
We've been told the was, I said, yeah, so the perpetrators, the people who have lied about everything else.
Lockdowns, masks, mass testing, border controls, business closures, those people and the vaccines, you know, those people.
I told you it was a virus. So, how much confidence did you ascribe to the information came largely from a bunch of proven criminal lives.
That's one thing.
The other one is dodgy methods and publications.
So, I know there's papers that claim to have identified from, you know, a person who was allegedly ill with COVID.
How the hell when it was COVID is nothing characteristic about this disease.
There really isn't. So, but so dodgy methods and publications with the other arm.
And then the other one people go, well, obviously there was the vaccine.
Lots of people were ill. I said lots of people it all the time.
About 1% of people die every year and probably 10% have an illness bad enough to remark about every year.
So, I think simply bad testing, misattribution and confirmation bias explains the rest.
But in practice, there's three reasons why I don't think there was a new pathogen laws that the epidemiology does not is not consistent with it.
And that's I have to blame Dennis Langport here.
But the epidemiology just looks wrong.
The leaders behavior. Remember, we need to treat this like a crime scene and not a scientific experiment only.
It's a crime scene because it is a crime scene.
So, on leaders behavior, they're skipping around, hugging each other, having parties, remember.
That meant they have no fear.
And I think they have no fear because they knew there was no new public health risk.
And then finally, I go back to our good friends, the perpetrators.
Imagine, I mean, this couldn't fall out of the back of a white van one afternoon.
Someone thought about this and discussed it with senior colleagues.
However, they relate to each other as it's bulk and mind control.
They asked have met and have chats.
And we know that there's 25 years worth of tabletop simulation of either bio warfare or infectious disease pandemic.
So they were going to do something like this, whether it's, you know, however they were going to do it.
And I came up a couple of weeks ago.
I thought the inherent variability of outcomes.
We got our heads together and used the best technology.
We were able to cook up a gain of function material that was capable of being transmitted and replicated itself.
I don't know whether that's possible. I have friends who are not sure it is. I don't know.
But let's say that's what we decided to do.
Then we would need to find some way of getting it out into the public so we could scare the pants off them to steal the words of one of our British ministers.
But think of the inherent variability.
Let's say you're presenting to the senior perpetrators in these shadowy figures.
And they ask you if no conflict are you, this won't fade out in the first few days or weeks.
And you go, well, I'm not 100% confident.
It might do that.
Okay.
So make a little note.
You know, say, in terms of the least hours, you've tested it.
Have you been in Ukraine or perhaps we as in China?
We haven't done that.
Okay.
So how, what's the least hours that you're expecting to have?
And they'll say green what point one and one percent.
And they go, that seems a huge variation to me.
The top end could perhaps civilization, couldn't it?
If it, if it's quickly in sort of population center that was important, you could disable the world's oil supply or chip factories or something.
And then the perfect, you know, the scientists would go, yeah, that's probably true.
So I'm summarizing now as a perpetrator.
Oh, no, I get it.
You've just told me that you could release this material and it might fade out in a couple of weeks, or it might go wealthy, like the goldilocks scenario, but it might be more lethal than we would hope.
And there's an outside chance at all crash civilization.
I think I've turned to the people on my left and right and say, in ladies and gentlemen, we're not doing that.
So come back with something that's much more controllable.
And I think what they came back with was exactly the same plan, except they didn't release anything.
They just told us they did and use doggy tests, papers with thoughty methods and bad publications and the misattribution confirmation bias and fear did the rest.
That's why I think I think you're so exactly on the money with about 95% of what I think.
And if I just teach it, just tell you this one story or point this one thing out about virology that you may not be aware of.
I think everything else will fall right into place and you'll it'll be like a light bulb because it did it for me.
That's exactly how it happened for me.
Okay.
I wonder, do you think Paul should I just show him now or is that appropriate?
How should we do this?
Yeah, and I just wanted to say, you know, we skipped introductions because Dr. Eden Mike, Mike is the guest star today.
And we're so grateful.
I just wanted to add one thing that he said, so you can go ahead, Jake, is that that table top exercises over 25 years that Eden mentioned, they all ended one way.
They funneled us towards vaccine, all of them.
Yeah.
And when you said Jay about the not being novel and Dr. Eden, I will, I will then remind the listeners this.
We had in February, 2020, a ship outside on the city diamond princess.
3,700 people, which the virus burnt out at 19%.
Only 90% of the close ship got infected.
What we found only seven died.
Only seven.
The median age was around 81 on that ship of the dead people.
Number one, but key is this we had instances where husband and wife was recruited in a cabin.
The husband had hot COVID and he died in that cabin.
And the wife didn't even get infected. You need to ask yourself why that diamond princess pretty much told us this was not a novel virus.
We, our immune system saw this virus in some capacity before.
And that's what I want.
Yeah, no, I agree with you.
I, you know, to the extent that the infectious, whatever you call it.
To not to rain. Anyway, yeah, the infectious principle.
If that is what happens, then, yeah, you can't draw the conclusion other than that.
It was pre existing in unity of some substantial amount.
So, yeah, and then we might be getting into semantics.
So.
If you, if you had a modified pathogen that was by definition novel, but had a lot in common, you know, 80% similar.
Then your immune system would see that as the same. You would have no difficulty in recognizing you've been infected by its brother as I see described it. So, yeah, I've got to be careful with the words.
I know people get upset sometimes that something can be novel and yet, and yet have immune memory.
The reason that's explained.
Yeah.
Jay, we have, you know, so much you want to say and you are the star.
So, not a star. This is just, this is just the biology. I just have always wanted to show it to Michael. So I'm very excited to be able to do it.
I believe Michael that there's a trick that the virology field has been hiding.
And I think most virologists are unaware of the implications of it.
But I think people like David Baltimore, Vincent Rancin yellow, the people that were at there at the beginning of retroviruses and at the beginning of cancer and viruses like like Robert Gallo.
These people all know that over time, the model of viruses as a pathogen should have changed and it didn't.
The main thing that I want to teach or not teach, I don't want to sound like I'm teaching anybody anything, but I want to reveal to you is I can get my my mouse to be in the right place.
Oh, yeah, sorry. It's this computer. I forgot.
Is that I think what they did was they tricked us into believing that if you can't see because your head is in the way, I guess.
I'm in the way.
I have to do this. I'm just going to I'm just going to move it a little bit.
Oh, I felt you.
No, no, don't please don't do that. I want you to stay there. It doesn't matter. We'll just leave it like this for now because this doesn't really matter.
The point of the point that I want to make with this slide is that I think that they have taken a long time to elaborate on the idea that gain a function research is real, and that even bat cave viruses are capable of causing a pandemic.
But even more important, they've spent about 20 years convincing us that if you passage viruses in a cell culture using a particular selection method, or you passage them through animals and select for the really sick ones, you can make it make a pandemic virus on the other side.
Then more recently, they've spent the last three years trying to convince us that a darn it that a virus can also be stitched together so that if you put the right combinations, you just described it like five minutes ago if I put the right combinations of things together that I might create something that could pandemic.
I believe that all of this is mythology.
And the reason why I think it's mythology is because there's real good evidence for it in the literature.
And the foundation of it is the cartoon of how viruses really work.
What they tell you is that you get a virus and it goes into your lungs and it makes perfect copies of itself, or let's say nearly perfect copies, and then you cough those on other people and very slowly over thousands of infections.
It changes, but virologists have always known that's not true.
And the reason why is because darn it.
I'm going to try and move you over here is because if you see this, I'm getting you out of the way here that you've never been able to culture them.
That rhymes.
So culture.
They never been able to culture.
Well, they are able to every once in a while.
You know that every once in a while they get them to grow for like five passages long enough for them to sequence and then reassemble a genome.
But they can't, I can't send you a virus and you can grow more.
It's not like a breeding pair of mice.
I can make knock out mice and send them to you.
You can make as many as you want.
That's interesting.
I knew it was difficult, but I didn't know.
I didn't know that it was never.
Never.
They cannot.
You can't buy a cultureable freeze-dried virus or whatever you can't.
And then the reproducibly.
Here's the trick.
You can't even believe it.
It's in every paper since 1981 when David Baltimore and Vincent Ranson Yellow first did it with polio.
RNA doesn't copy itself perfectly.
It makes really crappy copies of itself.
That's why it's almost impossible to culture.
And in fact, if you go back to the virology of the eighties and nineties, you will find them reminiscing about how difficult it is because so many of the particles are replication incompetent.
So here's their trick.
They have decided and they figured this out in the eighties that they could just convert a consensus RNA genome to a DNA copy.
And they can make many, many, many perfect copies of that in bacteria.
And then they can transfect that back into a cell culture that will produce exosomes with the RNA that they want to make an animal sick with or to send to their friends.
And it's replicable because the DNA is always it's always high fidelity.
Yeah.
And so the trick that I think is revealed here, this is just a few of papers from these are just papers from one year, all infectious clones of all different viruses.
That's from 2010.
So what they've done is if you think about an RNA virus as a mix tape, like you used to be able to make lots of different songs on the same cassette tape.
And then they would all come from the same different albums and they would be of a certain fidelity, but you couldn't make copies of the copy because it would get crappier and crappier.
That's what happens with, as you're talking about respiratory disease, never can sustain for thousands and thousands of cases.
It only really does for a few hundred if you're lucky.
And that's because respiratory viruses can't copy themselves at high fidelity like is portrayed on television.
So I've been trying to teach people with the idea of comparing it to a cassette tape versus a CD.
But the point is if you can make CD copies of something that is not normally high fidelity copying and then you made enough copies of it.
That might be a real easy way to distribute a molecular signal around the world to make it look like something was spreading extremely fast.
Okay.
Yeah, that's possible.
So you're saying, I think where this is a laboratory technique or trick they've learnt to get rounds are really serious, you know, a timely difficult problem of low fidelity replication of RNA.
And think about what you just said a minute ago about run by me a scenario where we have more control.
If you release a high purity clone that can't replicate itself at high purity, then it would decay exponentially and only really be a problem wherever you released it.
Yeah, that's true. We'd still have to.
Yeah, so yes, it addresses one of the three objections to there being a novel virus, the other two being the epidemiology doesn't.
Are you familiar with Dennis Rancourt?
Absolutely.
I've interviewed him twice already.
Sure, no, he is good. He's a very open minded, but also, he's very, he says, I need a, I need a good explanation for why it is that something that you could inhale and would make you ill would not kill the most vulnerable people who tend to be the oldest and already sick.
And that's not, that's not the pattern of all cause mortality that we see.
So they were very sharp.
They were very sharp spikes in a lot of places.
Really.
But what they weren't doing was killing the.
85, 95 year olds over the 65 year olds. In fact, if I remember it correctly, I think Dennis Dennis team found that the peak.
Age bands that saw the biggest increase in all cause mortality was I think the 65 to 70.
So only a little bit older than me. And I, I don't feel like I'm likely to die by catch one of these things.
It's normally the people who are so close to death or almost any challenge that made them quite ill.
They've got very little.
Formerly reserve cardiovascular reserve, you know, pancreas reserve and so on.
It doesn't take much.
It's like a machine that's nearly failing.
It just doesn't take much.
If you've got a week ignition system and a low compression on two cylinders and one of your two carburette is leaking.
It only takes a small plug in a bypass.
In one in the remaining car rest and the dampening will just stop.
Whereas it would have just been an annoyance on a brand new vehicle.
Just think, why is it running rough?
It will keep going.
So that's why, and I think that's why fundamentally.
Regardless of the challenge, if it is something that makes you here acutely.
The people who died, since we're the ones who already most vulnerable to an early death, but is by virtue of age and.
You hit on another good idea earlier to where you said that it's not so much what you're infected with, but it's your own personal response to it.
A lot of these respiratory diseases present very similarly across these co morbid people.
So the next thing I would like to share with you just to kind of follow up with this.
I wonder, are you familiar with nanopore sequencing at all?
No.
So usually when they do Sanger sequencing or anything using PCR, they are limited by the range of amplicon size.
And so they have to make lots of different pieces and then reassemble the whole puzzle.
And then nanopore sequencing is cool because they use a protein ion channel and they can let really, really, really long strings of DNA go through it.
In fact, two million base pairs can go through and they can get a read from it.
So this is a paper that was done in 2019 right before the pandemic, where they used an infectious clone of human coronavirus 229E.
They transfected some, I believe it's H U H seven cells and then they took the super name, supernatant off.
And they looked at what kind of RNA was produced by the cell culture.
And you'll find this really curious because you would think that in doing this, right, they would find.
You know that there are sub genomic RNAs that they can find.
And so there's all these different genomic, different sizes of RNAs that they predict will be there from previous experiments.
But the point is, is that when they looked at in the infectious cycle, which you just said you were suspicious of, and I am too,
that, that when they look for whole genomes, you would think if they did this with a clone in a, in a culture dish,
there would be hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of thousands of full genomes that they could look at and look at the variation in and see why this is cool.
Right. Well, guess I would think so. Yes, if there was anything, you know, if the model would have, as you say, replication, then it would surely need to be complete.
Right. So which, this is really cool because you know what they found? They found the largest genome they found are the largest sea, full sequence they found was 26,000 base pairs, which is pretty close to full size.
But listen to this. And it's really funny. They found 400,000 copies of the end protein. They have found more than 100,000 copies of SM and N.
And they found only two copies of the full genome. Wow.
Okay. So you can imagine a scenario where if you were shedding N protein exosomes, S and M protein exosomes, you might make your fellow family members show signs and symptoms that were milder than yours.
That's not a sign of, that's not a sign of infectiousness and a clone would be really good at doing this is what they did. This is from a clone.
This should have been the purest copies of the genome that they could make in a laboratory. They only got two reads.
And they've done this with coronavirus three times since the start of the pandemic and the most full reads they ever got was 111.
So that shows you that the infectious cycle is essentially something that they've, I think, that they've misled us about. They must have misled. Wait. Oh yeah. Sorry. The zoom ended. I'm going to go to the next one.
Going right away. Here we go. I'm already in. Check it out.
Okay. Join Bing. Don't worry. We're getting them right back. We're almost there.
Don't worry. Here we come. Is this going okay? Are we doing all right? Are we doing all right? I think we're doing all right.
We got him. I think we got him. All right. Good, good, good, good, good. Thank you guys for being here. This is so exciting.
My coffee's still warm.
I'm not sponsored by Yeti. I just happened to have a lot of these because my brother was crazy about them and he gave me all the garbage. And this one I actually found on the street in Pittsburgh while I was on my bike. And I had to buy a lid for it.
Come on guys. Come on back. You can do it. Whoa. Oh man. We got him. We got him on the clones. We got him on the clones, which means all I got to do is just show him how it all ties together with the PCR and then he'll get it.
He'll get it. He'll get why we can bring all the molecular biologists on side, all the people that think the testing works on side, bring a lot of health care workers on side, bring people who are confused on side. Nobody has to be right. Oh my gosh. Come on dude. Link too. I'm on link too. I gotta be. This is gotta be right. He's just slower than me. It looked like his wife and his wife and his wife.
His wife was helping him with the IT. So he might not be. Come on. I'm getting pumped. This is sweet. We are doing it. And we're doing it because of you all because you guys shared because you guys stayed because you guys didn't buy the BS. It's awesome. It's awesome.
Come on, dudes. All right. All right. All right. We're back. Look at that. How quick is that? You guys are fancy. It's like you guys used you before or something back again. Nice. Yeah. So they didn't find any copies and not the copies that you would expect if they're model of the infectious cycle means anything real.
So I'm wondering whether the sequences that code isolated proteins, are they? Why would they make you ill? And if so, what would be the mechanism for that?
They might just irritate or something. I mean, I'm thinking only of just mild respiratory annoyance. I'm not thinking about necessarily a response.
Yeah, it would also make sense because one of the first proteins that that cohabitant people that don't show symptoms, one of the first proteins they build immunity to is the end.
And a lot of these. I mean, I even have a paper from the 80s where they have the gel and the gel even has just a tiny shadow where the full genome should be in the giant over expressed piles of garbage way down the gel for these small things.
Very interesting. I think it's a major. I think it's a major insight into into why virology can be so easily hacked apart in terms of isolation, purification.
It means that a lot of people have solid grounded stand on, including people who say there isn't SARS-CoV-2. It's really impressive if you if you think about the fact that they cultured this virus only in three places.
I think Italy, Washington State and Wuhan. And so in theory, you would have only had to make had to make the clone competent in those three places long enough to put the sequence up and then provided there was a background of coronaviruses that the PCR could over overlap on.
It's game over.
So, can I ask something, Jay? Yeah, sure.
So, so at this stage, what we what what the model the theory is is indicating is that we are put it. So looking at it from a clone release then but from potentially multiple sources.
Multiple points. I don't know.
Multiple points could have been the same source. Yeah.
Yeah, same source, but multiple points globally.
To try to understand the epidemiology we saw initially.
Yeah, I think that's the only way you can you can get a molecular signal that was so high fidelity. I mean, otherwise, there would have been much more variation early on. And if you look at the first SARS, there was variation between patients.
You didn't you didn't need to follow an immunocompromised patient. It was patient after patient had a different sequence. And that didn't happen this time. So that was also weird.
There was also a military control over that sequencing. I'm sure you're aware that DARPA and DITRA are the ones that run that that's not an open source database that scientists are contributing to.
Yes. I mean, I'm I'm I'm quite a fan of minimalism and I'm not sure from the I'm not sure from the epidemiology that that we even need to posit the presence of a of a new material of any kind.
Well, I may be wrong, but I'm not convinced there's any evidence that that we have more people sick than normal. And the reason we have more deaths is they were murdered in hospitals and care homes.
That that for sure. That for sure is absolutely true, but that's definitely true. But imagine I'm for me, Michael. I'm just trying to think that that there are a handful of doctors in these places who saw something that didn't last very long,
but was pretty consistent for the week that it did. And those people I want to offer an explanation to.
No, I can't. I mean, I can't count. I can't count it because I wasn't there.
But it is a medical friend of mine said, if you think, if you think, you know, if you're expecting something, then you may interpret what you see in a way that you would have done if you'd not been primed to expect something.
You know, that's, and certainly, I mean, I know lots of people who, who say, I'm really certain that COVID exists because I had it. And I said, look, it's really interesting. How do you know you had it?
And they said, well, I had a positive test. I said, OK, what else? Oh, well, I had symptoms I've never had before.
And I said, how old are you? They've said 60. I said, see, you know, how many times have you had an acute respiratory infection, they think for a moment and they can't remember.
And it's like maybe 20, 40. I don't know. I don't get told very often anymore.
But so if I get one a year, and there are multiple causes, it's not unlikely, probabilistically, that some people will have their worst, their worst events ever.
But that doesn't mean that's not evidence that is a new pathogen. And people say, it is. And I say, no, it isn't.
I'm not saying it is. And I'm just saying, I don't read the information as we're requiring it.
Jay, can I ask something? Of course you can. Initially, right? And the doctor, you know, I'm going to ask him here.
That schematic you were putting up where you were showing the infection initially in the lung and the fact that most of the virus is probably broken and improper.
That initial, I think that's important for us to go to the listener again. But doctor, what you are seeing is what I've been arguing.
And even Jenny had a discussion is that if you look at the observed and you expected deaths, what we're doing is those two lines would have stayed on top of each other mostly all the time.
Had it not been what you're saying, either the delay treatment, when corporate bears and how we sedated people with my dazzle hours.
And you're right on both fronts. Yes, because people are genuinely ill. I'm not denying people were ill or died. That would be observed. They were ill. Some people were ill and some of those died.
And all the people who were ill, some could have had their life saved. I mean, that's not for me. I'm a PhD in automatic.
But if you gave over time a hundred such patients to a physician, some would be saved by appropriate intervention.
So that's definitely true. Some people died who didn't need to. And a lot of people, I think, were killed directly by ventilation, remdesivir.
Yes.
My dazzle morphine, things like that. So, in both ways, there were deaths that could have been avoided and deaths that were manufactured in people who definitely wouldn't have died.
And there'll be some who would have died, whatever they did. It's a combination. What I've not found it necessary to hypothesize a novel virus.
And I've asked myself, why is it that we're even having the conversation? It's because, well, we were told it was one. Yeah, we were told it was one.
There were a few publications, but I've been informed by people who understand virology in a way I don't, that the methods themselves are imperfect.
We say that they would be surprising to someone who's payment is fresh from from the scientific method in other fields, you know, absence of certain controls, for example, apparently is is is absolutely characteristic.
You know, you give them good excuses for why it's done that way, but it's still an absence of a control. They can't really draw conclusions that people stay.
And, you know, but that really, that really Michael, that really stems from the fact that they don't behave as the cartoon of a virus.
Very to almost impossible to culture. They really are only genetic signatures that are found in the wild and the only way that they can make them tractable in the laboratories to make a CD and a copy of them.
Amazing. And so it's really ubiquitous. This is the only way that they've ever been reliably and repeatedly studied and everything else is it taking a genetic signature from the wild and claiming that it is representative of something that exists.
But it's very interesting what you just said, because I haven't thought it all the way through, but the end game always has been control and injection.
Yeah, and injection, and they've used fear and incentives, both both punishments and as it were rewards for doing what they want.
But the injection consisted of some materials that are, they bear surprising, still allerically with some of the stuff you've just been describing that, you know, that there's an encapsulated incomplete sequence capable of being expressed, but not
doing, not capable of in going on to infect in versus another person. But nevertheless, there'll be a number of copies of this lipid nanopascal encapsulated RNA encoding, I think, for them, spike protein, whatever that is.
And when you do that, again, as a biologist and immunologist, when I look at it, I think what that will do is it could harm you through over expression of a of a biologically active protein or spike protein.
That homologous proteins from other, you know, biological settings were able to hurt mammals and injure human cells and feature and so on. So there's no excuse for not for not being well aware of that.
And in terms of formulation that the lipid nanoparticles didn't take you long to fall across papers that from the formulation folks, people who do pharmacy what's called pharmaceutical R&D and formulation of active drugs to make a medicine that lipid nanoparticles tend to distribute very
unevenly to all this or a bit in particular to over itself or certainly mac rats and mice and so on. And then what was the third concern? Yes, that is that if you
this is an immunological concern, I remember this occurred to me very early and I must have felt sensitive because if you express it in your body a protein that is non-self, your immune system is so clever, it will recognize that as non-self.
It will recognize it, which is a miracle of recombination of your T cell receptors and film, but that it will know that it's non-self because of the absence of certain co-stimulatory signals and it will then your immune system will then attack.
The cell is bearing that non-self flag. And I remember thinking, well, if you inject people with this stuff, when they end up with, you know, auto attack or some immune attack, I remember thinking, well, it must have resolved that, right?
Because you can't go along and inject millions of people up, but this is, you know, and I do think that's a contribution to the adverse events.
So it doesn't, you don't even need spike proteins into people. Any non-self protein is expressed sufficiently high copy number that your immune system is under.
No, no, no doubt that it will, it will interpret it as infection or potential cancer attack.
So, and then you may listen, I should know that certainly my government in the UK, and I think American too, lots of other places have announced because the pharma companies wanted to announce it because it's price sensitive information that they can arrive.
Governments had arrived at business terms with the drug companies to acquire a number of injections of new so-called mRNA vaccines that will allow them to inject each citizen 10 times, each citizen 10 times.
So then if you, if you inject each person, you know, every three months packs with the sequence that will induce some degree of autoimmunity, my guesses are not very good gambler is that you wouldn't not many people would survive that.
And I can't see if a nine reason I keep, I've said this for three years, there isn't a benign reason for injecting you with an mRNA encoding a non-self protein, and especially grab it in lipid nanoparticles, which they do.
So when I heard that, I thought that, that I think that's going to be, that's the depopulation to what else is it for.
It's not, it's not, it's not for producing immunity because it doesn't do it.
I would just like to give you a little anecdote there just to put us in the same place.
I don't want to be the guy who's talking, but so when I spoke up at the University of Pittsburgh in 2020,
I was a guy who worked only on mice, and my thing was to use optogenetics to change the way that neurons fire with light.
So you have to express these proteins in particular neurons, and then you make slices of the brain and you use a laser in a, in a, in a, in a, under a microscope.
So it's all in vitro stuff.
But it's tissue selective, either tissue selective deposition or expression.
Yeah, it is. We're driving, we were using a dendovirus that had particular promoters that were specific for particular neurons.
And so you could really isolate and, and dissect a circuit.
But what was interesting about it is, is that I came to the University of Pittsburgh as an expert on doing that.
And, and the monkey people at the University of Pittsburgh wanted to use optogenetics in their monkeys.
And I had done, I had done healing slices in, in, in the Netherlands before from patients that had glioma removed.
And so I had expertise in cutting bigger pieces of tissue and, and they thought that I could do this.
And I told them that you have to do it in a monkey that you want to get rid of.
And they're like, why? And I said, well, because you can't put these things in their brain and then let it go for another.
Because it'll just be a lesion. Like the immune, the reason why it works in my mice is because I wait four weeks, the optimal expression.
And then I kill the mouse, take the tissue and use it. But I don't, I don't put it in there and then let the mouse live for two years because the, the brain would just get attacked by the immune system.
And they didn't believe me.
So we sacrificed the monkey 18 weeks after the experiment and the entire place that we had put the tissue was a lesion.
And they were mad at me because they said, I didn't prepare the tissue slices correctly.
And Michael, if I hadn't cut extra tissue, I wouldn't have been able to say, look, I went past the anatomical ejection site and it's fine now.
It's a lesion. I told you this.
No, good. And that's why, but that's why I spoke out.
Yeah, that's why I spoke out, though, because these are exactly what they were planning on doing.
The J&J is a identify respect scene. I couldn't believe it. I was like, you use this every day.
How can you not understand this is not fit for purpose?
Quite. No, absolutely. Yeah, I think I'm often depressed at how my colleagues who are regarded as pretty clever people.
I'm sure they are, but we all know so little and we think we know a lot, but the vulnerabilities don't know very much.
So I know personally, for some varying degree, three of the executive vice presidents or senior vice presidents running the vaccine programs in three of the four main companies.
And I thought, they're either, they're either, they either don't understand what they're doing and they're not as clever as I remember them.
Or they do know what they're doing, and they're not the good people that I thought they were.
So I thought, I don't like either of these options. I don't think I've missed just something.
But basically, I took to accusing them on the record of crimes against humanity.
You either don't know what you're doing, in which case you should get them out of your deal.
Or you didn't know what you're doing, in which case, you know, you should turn yourself in in Egypt where your conscience gets you.
One of them resigned, whether that was the reason, but they did.
But nobody contacted me nor their lawyers. So that seemed quite surprising to me.
I thought I would receive a writ or something.
Because it's a pretty big claim to make against a named individual.
Absolutely.
But I did it anyway, because I've been wrong in lots of ways.
But what I'm not wrong about is that this whole thing is a malign, you know, cutie-tat of the world. That's what it is.
That's not, that's, there's no possible, you know, whatever.
A group of very clever people who've worked for a long time for their own reasons have taken over.
And I keep looking into the camera and saying, if you, if you're listening, thank you for listening,
I'm going to lay on you, the audience, some of the responsibility that you have to persuade your network that we are under the most extraordinary chance ever.
And the reason is that they're not listening to me, your network's not on this coin you are.
They're not, they're not looking for me or, or 100 other people like me trying to, trying to warn you.
But you are, and you're in touch with those people.
But the main media is not going to tell them the truth either. So if you don't do it, we will lose.
It's simple as that, believe it. The crime is it goes the other way.
If the listeners do persuade, you do your best persuade everyone in your network, you know, friends, neighbors, relatives, workmates, whatever.
You'll probably get shouted out, you know, I know all about that. I've been going for three years, bro, don't know.
So if you can, if you can wake some of them up, we will win.
I just, we can't lose if enough people know that we're under attack as well.
We will detect the moves they make as a line instead of thinking, Oh, well, yeah.
So, for example, I mentioned earlier, Britain's introducing digital ID for people filing their own taxes.
I've seen that in other countries, different reasons.
I saw today announcement that several more countries are filing central bank digital currencies.
You know, those, those together, they're so, if you're not looking for them and realizing how they can be misused, you will not see them as threatening.
That's why these people should know they are threatening.
But then you'll take care of yourself, use cash, for example, staying known to digital ID as long as you can, like indefinitely.
You know, that's because we basically, if we don't walk into the cage ourselves, we can stay free.
But I'm worried that so few people know that something bad is happening.
That a lot of people will, will be cajoled into going along with something because they'll think, well, how big is he lazy?
If I have a digital ID, well, I've got a passport.
It's convenient. It's so convenient, Mike.
Yeah, so convenient. It's so convenient.
You're right.
My wife often says, she says, you know, joking aside, they're right.
It's convenient. It's all small, but they can be misused.
Yeah, that's the problem. So.
But Jay, go ahead.
So, you know, I know we're going to have the opportunity to have multiple discussions because a lot of this is very important because I find like the U.S.
and the Congress are having hearings that are like going around in circles.
It's like a game.
We are having discussions yet for society and the world.
So let me ask you a question because we have Mike Eden here.
Yes, please.
Let's try and say if you, if we want to train and we have five minutes, we have to explain to Mike what you're called the court thesis here based on this research.
And how in terms of the court thesis is regarding a clone release principally with.
And the idea of how this plays with early treatment, meaning that we support early treatment.
We, this is, we have been part of the early treatment model.
And it is a very critical part, but, but how, how, what are we trying to say in terms of most of the severity on the initial release of clone, etc.
Can you just explain that in, in a simple to sort of my 50,000 understand.
And I think, I think I can. So the, the main thing that I, that I think will help you understand why I'm a little bit enticed by this idea is because there are doctors that think that these early treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin worked for a while and then their effectiveness decayed.
And I don't, I don't know. So for example, would you, would you.
I would at least say that are the idea that you're putting forth, which there was, it was a complete 100% drill with little or no novel virus because they just changed protocols and people got very sick and I totally agree with that.
What I'm trying to do is make a few more people right, the molecular biologists right, maybe some of the people that work on PCR can be right because PCR with nested primers works pretty well.
So what, what other alternatives are there and the best one is this background from which the, from which the real virus could never be drawn in the first place.
But the other one is this clusters of severe cases. So I'm thinking that somewhere in here, there is an actually admission.
I just want to just play a one minute video of somebody who gave a presentation in 2017 because I think what he says is really important.
What he's describing is how to use a pathogen to create a rift between the citizens and their government. And it's really insightful because, again, it's from 2017 and now imagine you use a clone, which only a few people get sick from,
a few people need to be cultured from and a few people need to be sequenced from in order to start the theater.
And that's what I think is required because you couldn't not start the theater. That's what I'm all I'm guessing.
What I want is high morbidity. Can you hear that?
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.
I go to North Carolina. I go to Wisconsin. What I'm doing is I'm using a dispersion methodology to be able to infect sentinel cases with a highly morbid condition.
These individuals complain. Again, this is a central nervous system condition. So they're complaining of whatever the bug may do.
It'll produce some cascade of neurological and neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms.
And then what I do, the real bug that I use is the internet. I take attribution for that. Yes, I'm a terrorist group.
And I have done this by infecting with a highly little agent and the first signs and symptoms of lethality are X, Y, and Z.
These people are really sick with this. But then I say others who are also infected will show subdromal, pre-dromal signs of lethality and what that will be is anxiety.
Sleeplessness. Or just asymptomatic transmission and PCR positivity, right? That would also be enough to drive the hysteria. So listen, he keeps going on.
Agitation. What I've now done is I've got every individual who is diagnostically hypochondriacal and I've got every individual who's worried well flooding the public health system banging on the door.
The CDC comes back and says they could even set up drive-through so that's real convenient for them to do the testing and to fall into this hysteria, right?
That's what they did all around the United States. That's not real. I come back and say, that's fake news.
And as a consequence of doing that, what I do is I create a schism between the polis and the public health system.
I fracture the integrity of trust and reliance upon the population and its government.
And of course, I'll be able to then incur a ripple effect. And if you want to see what this looks like.
And so then he describes to go on to describe how for a while after the 9-11 attacks and the anthrax things that there was all kinds of white powder scares all over the United States where sugar would get spilled and then people would call the police.
Right.
Some of them are changing in accidents where people thought it was a terrorist attack.
And it's possible some of them were bad acts of dropping powders to frightened people, even though they weren't anthrax.
Yeah.
And so I can see how that would go.
Yes, if people are, you know, we see this with, I don't know if there's an incident with an aeroplane, a certain kind of aeroplane that was a difficulty with one of the engines.
You know, then you hear three or four cases over the next fortnight and you say, Oh, my word, those engines must be unreliable, but there's over reporting things that really weren't even problems that they just sounded similar.
And they were salient. So they got reported.
Yeah, that happens all the time. And that's why misattribution and confirmation bias is it's a real problem. It doesn't matter how clever you are.
You're, you're just like for example, it's just that's what humans alike. You warned about a world. And then anything that looks vaguely of all time.
You know, you, you're overreacting. Oh, it's just a cat magnified or whatever it is.
Exactly. But yeah, or a funny smell in the kitchen has there been a wolf in here. It's like, no, it's, you know, you've left your pet food to go off. You know, people will.
People put things together in the most peculiar way. They're not always wrong, by the way. Yeah, but especially, especially if they're coerced like they were, though, and they were coerced.
And that's a good point about, as you say, the people who are prone to be very frightened of illness. And that's not always, it doesn't always track with, with the rationality.
You know, I've met young healthy people who are very frightened of this virus. And I've met older people who say, come and give me a half.
Yeah, I've got to 80. I'm probably not going to die this long. Right. So, yeah, if you had, and they had to write me wrong.
You didn't sense it. I remember, I remember thinking how remarkable it was that if people are so ill and so worried that they might have it, but they might have to drive for an hour to go to, you know, to go to Australia.
And yet people did turn up in their hundreds. Absolutely. Yeah, that is probably a, that's definitely a selection of some kind.
Yeah, interesting. So, you know, it is, it is possible. And I always say that I don't have a copy of the script. Right. So I don't really know what's going on me.
So the thing that really gets me excited is the possibility that the no virus idea was seeded because it's inherently wrong. Yeah. And so, if this really is as elaborate of an op as we think it is, there's, there's people around everywhere.
So we got to make sure that we realize that I've been trying very hard to understand what is possible biologically and what is it. And I think they've lied to us about so much.
A wonderful anecdotal story. I don't want to keep you longer than you need to. I found a video where Robert Malone is talking about how when he was a PhD student, he was thinking that within 10 years, there would be a geneticist at every hospital using retroviruses to kill childhood
to cure childhood diseases. And of course, he was way wrong. We're nowhere near that. We're not even close to that. We haven't even hardly made any progress. It's extraordinary.
Yeah, it's funny. All of my professional life, I would, people would come up with really interesting ideas. And I was often fairly sure they wouldn't work. I mean, it's not, it's not a fun job.
I said, I'm an enthusiastic skeptic. I really want breakthrough ideas, right? Yeah, yeah.
But on the other hand, if we can kick it in the head for five minutes, we've got to be our own best critics because you go up in front of management review, they'll kick you in there.
Yes.
You know, and often you can, but that's the thing. If you, if you find the weakness and then see the sometimes still the essence of an interesting idea there.
And that's what I think that that's the last I think if we go to the hundred thousand foot level, I wanted to piggyback on your idea before we let you go if that's the plan.
Imagine the AI of go or chess and how they fed it. They had defeated games, many, many, many, many games.
If they want an AI to figure out how the human genome works, they need to feed it many genomes with many, many lifetimes of data.
And so they need to get our children, not you and me. They need to get our children under the impression that sharing their genetic data and their medical data is something that they're doing for the greater good so that the AI can get us into this trans human future.
That's what I think they're doing to those, those college.
I mean, I think they're probably doing a variety of things. So, again, I remember the finance lady Catherine Austin fits. She said, I've been around people who think this way long enough that whenever you think you've worked it out, you think it's one thing.
She said, it's always three, four, five things, always. And she said, partly it's because there are opportunists that say, what else can we do when we make this move? What else can we accomplish?
And in addition, there are, it isn't a monolithic group and the perpetrators isn't necessarily a single group. It isn't, there isn't one person stroking a white cat and hollowed out volcano. I don't think so.
But there are stakeholders that basically are in charge of the money and they have the power and they intend to maintain that.
And they probably trade off with each other the way you do in business.
Absolutely.
One way to make your idea flies to say, you know, I want to accomplish A and B, but to get stallion George on the side, I've introduced C and D, which will also be accomplished.
And, you know, why not?
They're complete nutcases and they're not normal. That's for sure.
But we are, we are the, we are the organisms upon which they've been experimenting.
Yeah.
Well, Jay, let me just say something quick. You know, I, I, I like you in a sense of, I'm like you.
You know, you want, we want people to entertain other ideas and to peer behind the curtain, so to speak, look below the rock, because we didn't have all of the answers and we've been trying to make sense for this last three years.
As we push back on a lot of the wrongs and the debts that came from the lockdowns and now this vaccine and then how we were treated in any hospitals.
But how do you think then, because we are all proponents of early, even you have spoken highly of it. How do you think this theory fits or drives the treatment model in the sense of where does it optimally fit.
Because I can see the role and the continual role for repurposed off label therapeutics properly well prescribed and handled it for serious illness, et cetera.
But where do you see it fitting.
Can we cue him in? I mean, Michael, I think I remember you mentioning or somebody mentioning that you mentioned that we have to reevaluate what other drugs were given in compliments so that we know whether hydroxychlorine,
whether hydroxychloroquine did something or that.
Yeah, that's right. And also that we've talked a bit about a variety of respiratory illnesses that they present, and they're classified. I didn't know this until the pandemic, but they're classified as influenza like illnesses.
They're not really called flu. They're called live. And it's because they're influenza like they're not the person giving that patient that diagnosis is not saying you're real because you have an influenza virus replicate in your area you might have.
All we can say is that your breathlessness, your temperature, you know, whatever, this near all of these things, cough, are reminiscent of influenza.
And so that's what we'll call it, but it could be 20 diseases.
And some people might benefit, as Paul says, if we have, as it were, the road effects of carefully selected medicines, you know, we've made me that we've never really bothered to take care of of patients because there's the old joke, isn't that?
If you go home, you'll get better in two weeks, but if you take this treatment, you'll be better in 14 days.
And it's quite hard. It's very difficult for family practitioners because someone turns up and they've got a cough and they say, it's got worse in the last few days.
And I feel feverish and they think, well, this poor person might have incipient bacterial pneumonia.
You better send them home and it's Friday. You know, send them out. You'll be dead on Sunday.
So, as a precautionary principle, they'll give them whatever whatever is appropriate.
And so you end up with a huge amount of prescriptions of antibiotics for acute acute test infections or acute upper airway infections where it's not necessary.
But I think what we've learned through the pandemic is that they weren't all wrong.
You know, a lot of people said, oh, you shouldn't prescribe antibiotics in this setting.
But according to Dennis Reinhoep's data, the peak in depth occurred in the people in whom normally large numbers of prescriptions for chest infection would be given.
And they reduced by between a quarter and a half. And these people were dying.
So genuinely we were getting better.
And we probably don't know that's the difficulty is that they don't know who to give it to.
And so some doctors will err on the side of therapeutic caution and prescribe widely in other people.
And maybe some of the lattice patients end up in emergency room at the weekend.
I don't know. It's not easy. There isn't a right answer.
That's why good doctors are worth their weight and gold. You know, the ones that.
Puts and snare to feel the patients and think very hard.
Unfortunately, there aren't that many of them anymore.
They're mostly prescribed according to a pleasure.
Right. Yes. I think it's a really, I think it's just, I don't know what to say other than thank you. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I just feel like.
I don't want to overstay my welcome and instead just say that you ever have time to talk again.
I think we should continue the conversation because I think you like me and other people went full circle from, from being pretty sure that this was nothing to doubting ourselves for a while then going back again.
That's how effective the whole campaign was.
And I know for sure that I've learned more about immunology in the last three years that I ever intended to learn.
And I still very much am convinced that this is a very elaborate theater that we've been put through.
And so I feel like hammering away at the biology was the way that I brought myself to the light.
And like I said, you were one of the only people holding a lantern up that gave me the courage to do it.
I mean, I literally mean you and Wolfgang Woda for the two guys.
Thank you. Yeah.
No, I always say to people that I'm not, I'm not doing anything different than I used to when I was being paid to do it, which is to try and make a synthesis of all of the information and try and work out what the decades is going on.
And what should I do to try and make it better?
That's what the drug discovery is like this.
It kept normally there isn't there isn't a self-appointed lease trying to murder you.
That's it.
It didn't normally happen in my company anyway.
But so basically I say I'm doing what I used to do in under extraordinary circumstances.
But part of the reason I spoke out and continue to speak out is I say to people, if you're frightened of the embarrassment and consequences of speaking out, think of the consequences if you don't speak out and I am right.
So it's not the risk of not the medical.
I know some people who think, well, I heard you might, but I'm going to carry on believing in government.
I just point this out.
If you believe the government and I'm right, you'll lose your freedom and probably your life.
If you've followed me and others like me and I'm wrong, the worst that happens is you'll get laughed at.
So it's not symmetrical, is it?
It's just based on probabilistic outcome.
You should pay attention to the outliers like us.
Because as I say, if there is the plot and you allow it to continue, you're going to come across.
You're going to lose your freedom.
Whereas these crazies, that's what I'm now classified as, even though I had an entirely normal and boring life.
That's 20.
You know, I'm not making this stuff up.
It's that nothing we've been told, as you said, we've been lied to about almost everything and it didn't just start in 2020, unfortunately.
And what's happening now is people must know it was in stage, for example, to rush a new technology pharmaceutical product, you know, a genetic vaccine at people.
And then inject, I think they've injected 6 billion people on the planet.
I mean, that makes me shiver.
Yeah, 13, 13 billion doses, they brag.
Exactly.
So, yeah, you're right.
So there's enough for everybody to about two roughly.
But I think six out of the 8 billion people have rolled out their sleeve.
You're about to get cut off.
So I'm just going to say bye.
It goes away.
Thank you so much.
Thanks, Paul, for setting this up.
I hope we talk again soon and I'll talk to you later this afternoon, Paul.
Thank you, Michael. Thank you very much.
Thank you, everybody.
Thank you.
Work hard.
Stay up, Ryan.
Thanks a lot.
Stay upright. Thank you.
Wow. Wow.
Are you kidding me?
Yes.
We just had a stream with Michael Eden and I'm a little freaking out.
I'm sorry.
I'm not having a real good reaction to it, but it's something that had to happen for so freaking long.
And I'm so happy that it happened.
And now I'm going to go spend the rest of the day with my kids and play some basketball.
And maybe even drink a beer after my wife gets home.
Oh, man.
I really needed that.
Oh, I really, really needed that.
That was really good.
Thank you very much for joining me.
I'm just, I need to process that and then I'm going to edit it and put it up elsewhere.
Thank you very much to Paul Elias Alexander for giving me a 15 minute phone call that led to this.
Thank you very much to Michael Eden for taking the time to talk to me and sharing his ideas with us.
And thank you to everybody that supports my stream, including Greg and Rodney and Eddie and Canada and Jeff in Canada and everybody.
We're doing this together.
Huge shout out to my brother from another mother, Mark, who's the time to climb.
One of the heroes in my pantheon for sure.
Thank you very much.
You better start sharing that.
I see 143 of you out there.
You better start sharing that.