I may need to just briefly check to see if I can find myself on YouTube and then see
what's going on here should be live right now but I'm not which is weird go live I
should be live right now because I using that same key excellent connection it says
so why am I not live it says viewers will be able to find your stream once you go
live but the privacy is unlisted so it should be public done save but I'm not
there I don't see any copy I'm gonna stop this and I'm gonna modify it I'm
gonna put this key in I'm gonna paste it down I'm gonna say okay and then I'm
gonna start it what does it do now it says I'm not doing it anymore on there
goes live on YouTube it's yes live on YouTube it's alright we're there we're
live on the YouTube as well so here we go ladies and gentlemen thank you very
much for joining me let's do this thing peer tube should be up can you check
that for me peer tube should be up we should be live there I see myself live
there I should also be on rumble peer to good here we go ladies and gentlemen
thanks for joining me
thank you very much the latest data tells us that we're dealing with
essentially a worst case
what kind of link did you put in there that YouTube video what is that and enjoy
skip to six minutes and enjoy what's that all about I'm curious what that is I
think truth is good for kids we're so busy lying we don't even recognize the
truth no more in this society we want everybody to feel good that's not that's
not the way life is but you can tell if someone's lying you know you can sort of
feel it in people and I have lied I'm sure I'll lie again I don't want to lie
you know I don't think I'm a liar I try not to be a liar I don't want to be a
liar I think it's like really important not to be a liar
I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar
I'm a liar I'm a liar I am a liar I am a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a modifier I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a liar I'm a
Afternoon, I'm 20 minutes late again,
but that seems to be the way it is.
20 minutes late, but on time, so to speak.
Business can go on biological.
We are still trying to dispel the mythology
that people are doubling and tripling down on,
and we're trying to dispel that mythology,
that enchantment with some knowledge.
If you've been staying focused on the biology,
you are not drowning in this way.
You've been skillfully using TV and social media.
You might be in big trouble,
but if you stay focused on the biology,
you don't take the pain on those systems,
and you love your neighbor, you can escape.
I do believe that.
I do believe there's hope.
And most of the hope comes from the fact
that people are still sharing this work after four years.
Still think that this is a viable message.
You can find it at gigahomebiological.com,
gigahome.bio, and stream.gigahome.bio.
There are ways to support the links, share the links.
We're trying to do our best to make sure
that we can get it out as far as we can.
My friends and friends next day.
And so that's why I haven't done a sub stack
in more than a week, which is not good,
but I do have one translated.
I just haven't done the transcript,
which is, I admit, is frustrating.
I also have an updated this list,
which is also frustrating.
But I have a lot of things that I'm working on
that I think are more important than updating this list,
even though I do appreciate it.
We are going to update it soon.
I really think there's work to be done.
Everybody that's supporting this stream,
I think, understands very well what we're up against.
And so, if your name is not on this list
and it should be, please forgive me.
It will be there in a couple of days.
And the list is slowly growing,
but we could use always more subscribers.
We're far lower than we need to be.
If this is gonna be a real sustainable action,
we can't run on fumes forever,
but my wife and my family will do it as long as I can.
This is the independent bright web.
That means that we're not sponsored by anybody but you.
We don't have, we're not selling lotion or soap
or neutraceuticals, none of that stuff.
We are just supported by people with kids,
people who lost jobs,
people who are trying to engage in United Noncompliance
and establish the system,
the network of people that can help you
engage in United Noncompliance.
I hope that's what GINGO and biological will be
in the future is a network hub for people engaged
in United Non Compliance.
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen,
this is GINGO, biological and high resistance.
Low noise information we've brought to you by a biologist.
I'm coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
in the back of my garage.
It is the 27th of March, 2024.
I am a human just like you fighting
for our grandchildren's future,
our grandchildren's freedom,
our grandchildren's informed consent.
And I hope you are too.
If you're joining me for the first time,
GINGO and biological is a news source
that is more than well aware of the idea
that we've been consciously and intelligently manipulated
in our habits and in our opinions for decades
and that this has only increased in power
and in its all encompassing application to our lives
with the advent of the cell phone and the internet.
These social media apps have been weaponized also
from the perspective of who these people are
and who is on them.
You can see all kinds of people in this picture
that I believe are very much in on this.
You can look at the picture behind me
and you can find lots of people
who have wittingly and unwittingly contributed
to this slow motion demolition of Western society
and particular the jewel of Western society,
the United States of America.
And it's not because we do everything right
because all of our teams are the best
or because we win the gold medals.
It's because our system is the one
that has that inertia built into it
around free speech and other protected freedoms.
That inertia is what they need us to kind of discount
as valuable and not be vigilant enough to guard
and to eventually just give up for our children
or not teach our children the level of vigilance
that's necessary in order to preserve those freedoms.
I think that's where we are.
And they have been consciously manipulating our opinions
about these freedoms for decades on purpose.
And the last manipulation that occurred indeed
was the declaration of a coronavirus pandemic
wherein most of our understanding of public health
was permanently shaken and we are now just basically
under the influence of a mythology
and those people who are willing
to spectacularly commit to it.
To the mythology.
And that's why we haven't been able
to exercise informed consent.
That mythology is based around an ongoing RNA viral pandemic
that has changed color, that has changed flavor
and has changed flavor in a very uniform planetary manner.
It is a phenomenon at a molecular level
that we have never witnessed anything remotely close to it
in the past.
It is blamed on things as simple as a few bases
or a few amino acids which encode
an extra fear and cleavage site
or an extra poly basic cleavage site.
And with with those a few basic mythological assumptions
inserted into the storyline carefully on the left
and the right by actors that were agreed to disagree.
We now believe that variants are trackable
and that their evidence of evolution.
We believe that lockdown would have done correctly
prevents the spread of dangerous viruses like this one.
And that we believe that without strictly regulations
these kinds of gain of function things will happen again.
We are being led to believe that this faith
is something that we cannot question
and we've been led to believe it by different narratives.
Narratives were different in Australia
than they were in Europe than they were in America.
The number of participants that come out of the audience
pretending to be innocent audience members
when really they're participating in the illusion
was different depending on what country you're in.
But I in America, I assure you that we were involved
in a magic show and audience members
were pulled out of the audience and brought on stage.
And we were made to believe that those people
were innocently participating in the show
when they were not.
They were definitely not.
And those same people now agree across the board
that transfection isn't bad.
Transfection probably saved millions of lives
even if it also injured hundreds of thousands.
That's where we are.
And unfortunately, the faith in the novel virus
going on for five years is now converting
into a faith in a novel biology
that again includes the biology of the virus,
which is the fear and cleavage site
as evidence of laboratory leak
and then the complete unnecessary effort
to track this thing all over the place
but then not look at any epitopes
that we were told to be afraid of from the very beginning.
It's laughable to me that people who have claimed
that the fear and cleavage site
is a singular attribute of the virus
which can contribute to both its infectivity
and also its rapid spread around the world
never bothered to keep track of it.
Not even in one strain, not even commenting
on whether the fear and cleavage site had optimized
or disappeared in any of the strains
and they still don't care.
And if that doesn't strike you as odd,
I don't know what to tell you
because those same people are also convinced
as they were in 2020,
that there would be neurological side effects
that at first started from the traveling of the virus
up the olfactory bulb and into the brain directly
but it also had to do with the spike protein
and its ability to cause other proteins to fold
by some heretofore, undescribed pre-onogenic
or amyloidogenic mechanisms.
These terms and these potentials
were thrown around as often and as frequently as possible
by a number of actors on the left and the right,
on the front and the back in the mainstream media
and on social media backwaters.
And they were all united on these things very early
which is odd because they're still central
to the faith in this novel biology.
We keep coming back to these same storylines
that just don't have a basis in biology
playing little clips where virologists complain
about fear and cleavage sites is not sufficient evidence
to explain how a few amino acids or a few bases
in an mRNA, a modified RNA, a synthetic RNA spilled
on the ground could result in pandemic coverage
of that same molecule and insists that it has to do
with this particular set of bases, it's absurd
but they're still doing it now.
The same fake people that claim to be really interested
in finding the origin and really interested
in catching the bad guys that are really interested
in blaming eco-health alliance and the diffuse proposal.
These clowns are the same clowns who were saying this stuff
in 2020 with less evidence,
with less basis for these speculations
but they were just as certain back then.
And there's still video evidence of these people
and their certainty online freely available for you
to go and check that these aren't new ideas.
These are ideas that were planted very early
by a coordinated obviously group of people loosely connected
to a couple of weaponized piles of money.
That's the best way I can describe it
and if we don't break this faith in a novel virus
that was probably a conflated background signal
be it actual endosomes, exosomes, viruses, whatever
or be it just genetic noise in the background
as the cartoon up there just changed to.
Either way, a noise signal in the background
that we weren't detecting but could be detected
that was then misconstrued as spread
is a very parsimonious explanation for what really happened.
It's funny because no one with any social media reach
has ever even bothered to consider the possibility.
That's the one possibility that Kevin McCurnan,
Jessica Rose, John Bodewin, Steve Kirsch,
Robert Malone, Robbie Kennedy Jr., Peter McCullough,
Jay Bhattacharya, anybody that's ever talked to me
when they hear me say that, that's the one thing that they,
I don't know, I can't really understand that.
I don't fully get it. You'll have to explain that.
I can't really think about that hypothesis.
That's hard for me. That's outside of my expertise.
How many times have I heard that nonsense about clones?
How about transfection and about previous
and conflated background signals over and over again?
These people who see me in person meet me at parties,
take selfies with me and tell me how great they love my stream
but they just can't verify or think about some of the ideas.
They're really compelling, but it's not my expertise.
They've had four years, just like I have, just like Mark has,
just like George Webb has.
We've all had four years and somehow or another,
they still have their heads in the exact same holes.
That's how you know that they're...
Scientific questions, I think, are very hard to get a handle on.
The reason for this is that in late modernity,
which we're living in, there's simply too much knowledge
for any individual human to understand all of it.
In this world of extreme paper specialization
where it's narrower and narrower subsets of experts policing themselves
and talking about how great they are,
the string theorists talking about how great string theory is,
the cancer researchers talking about how they're just about to cure cancer,
the quantum computer researchers are just about to build a quantum computer
that will be a massive breakthrough.
If you were to say that all these fields, not much is happening,
people just don't have the authority for this.
This is somehow a very different feel for science or knowledge
than you would have had in 1800 or even in 1900.
1800 Goethe could still understand just about everything.
1900, Hilbert could still understand just about all of mathematics.
And so the sort of...
Oh, I'm in the wrong...
I think it has made it a much harder question to get a handle on.
So I would say that he is misleading the young with this presentation
because he is calling knowledge that's not knowledge.
It should be called noise.
We have come to acknowledge those of us who understand
what academic biology and science has become
with the P-value hypothesis falsification thing
from Paparian science has created a scenario where
there is much more noise in our academic understanding of the world.
And so he's suggesting that that noise is knowledge
and it's just so specialized and so detailed
that people can't be general scholars anymore.
And that's absolutely not true.
What he is suggesting is that young people don't bother to try.
Now, with a little bit of work,
I feel like that I've always been there.
I've always been trying to integrate across fields as best I can
as a biologist at heart.
And so for me, this has always been the shortcoming of neuroscience.
Is that the specialization makes it very hard for us to evaluate
what each other is doing.
And very hard to understand where the real cutting edge of understanding is.
And it's almost by design.
And I was frustrated by it, but I didn't know how to express that.
I didn't know why I was frustrated.
And I didn't know at the heart of it was this ritual of probability
and falsification that created the illusion of progress.
And so he's not saying that even though I assure you he understands it perfectly.
He is signaling to some people and he is enchanting others.
That's the beauty of this.
Using the right code words, everybody that knows that he's the head
of a giant weaponized pile of money and that he's the head of a information
algorithmic mining DoD operation called Palantir.
Then you know that he's not saying exactly what he means.
But if you're just a casual listener to the portal podcast on its eighth episode
or its second episode or its first episode.
And then what you hear is somebody you think is telling the truth.
But if he was telling you the truth, then he would have listed cancer
and quantum computing and virology.
And molecular biology and neuroscience.
As places where it's very hard to tell how much progress is really being made.
And in fact, in many of these fields, it may not be being made.
So he listed a couple, but he didn't list them all.
And so is that lying?
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
You know, I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
It's really important not to be a liar, says Tucker Carlson, the professional liar.
The critical cut I have on the specialization is always that if you analyze
the politics of science, the specialization should make you suspicious.
It's because it's gotten harder to evaluate what's going on.
And it's presumably gotten easier for people to lie and to exaggerate.
And then one should be a little bit suspicious.
So they are lying and exaggerating.
Just like Peter Thiel says, they are lying and exaggerating about the fidelity of
understanding in virology, the fidelity of understanding in cancer biology,
the fidelity of understanding in the genetic causes of childhood diseases.
They are feigning this.
Every time they do a TED talk about what's going to happen in 10 years and about what
the AI is going to do and about what climate change is going to happen,
they are feigning this knowledge.
They are feigning this certainty because the hyperspecialization of science
and the use of reiterative, prepare and falsification of hypotheses has
allowed the creation of this noise that is being misconstrued by people as
powerful as Peter Thiel as knowledge.
And if people as powerful as Peter Thiel and the puppets that he puts on the
internet and promotes, like the Weinstein brothers are going to say that
this guy is right, then we have an illusion of consensus.
And that's what the intellectual dark web provided them.
An illusion of consensus that could be used to govern, that could be used to
influence the very opinions and habits of the masses.
Just like Edward Bernays described, just like Noam Chomsky described a
limited spectrum of debate within which there is a very lively discussion
within which you can even encourage the most critical views
because even the most critical views reinforce the presuppositions of the state.
In this case, the presuppositions are the model of reality.
The model of reality that they have been enforcing is one of lots of viruses,
lots of pathogens, lots of dirty in the nature.
And lots of things that you need as products to protect you from that,
to detect that, to monitor that, to administer
prophylactic for that.
And it's a giant mythology created by our willingness to give over our attention
and our trust to people like him and the applications that they sell us
on our phones.
So I wanted to go back to the video that I watched the other day because we
didn't finish it yesterday.
So this is, I'm just going to start it right away.
Here we go.
This is when Venner comes on stage and he talks about how we've,
we've gone from understanding protein as a genetic material to DNA.
It's a genetic material.
I'm going to speed it up through that part.
And then I'm going to set it back to somewhat normal when he gets done
with the part that we saw yesterday.
Thanks for joining me.
Here for yourself as well.
I'd like to welcome Craig Venter who's going to speak about what is life,
a 21st century perspective.
Craig.
I see in the chat there that somebody's talking about.
Thank you for that.
We already heard this part.
I can't stress enough how the power of AI is being used to distort what's
actually going on.
I'm going to watch a video tomorrow from 2017 where someone explains to us
what's really happening on social media.
It has nothing to do with, with neuronal networks and AI spontaneously
becoming intelligent or, or algorithms that we don't really,
I don't know.
It's a simple, intelligent or, or algorithms that we don't really understand.
It has to do with, as I've said in the last few days, very succinctly,
it has to do with simple programming.
If then else, that's it.
Simple programming is enough to put Robert Malone at the top of the feed
and put Jonathan Cooey on somebody else's feed.
It's, it's simple programming is enough to make Jonathan Cooey think his
message is getting out while everybody else doesn't see it.
doesn't see it. It's as simple as that. It doesn't have to be a magic algorithm. You
know what? Approving Remdesivir is as simple as saying that an AI chose it. And that AI
could have been a simple one line code as Mark Housatonic has so eloquently said, if
then else, Remdesivir. And so one of the bamboozledments, one of the greatest illusions that's currently
being foisted upon us is the idea that AI is at the cusp of becoming more than just machine to
control other people more than just a fancy machine. They want you to believe it's something
that's going to have emergent properties very similar to life. And that's an illusion. That's a
mythology. That's not going to happen. Can they use these algorithms and these, these, these
software to control people to manipulate their opinions and their habits? Absolutely. But
it's not gain a function in AI. It's not quantum computing that they were waiting for, or the
big and a big enough computer, or a fast enough CPU. It's already happening right now with if
then else statements, just programming the application to do it. And so when we talk about this, make
sure you understand that part of this long term programming is getting people to think of
themselves as a machine that the ghost in the machine doesn't matter that the sum of the whole
doesn't matter. The whatever the pattern integrity becomes doesn't matter. We are, we are the
Manila rope, we are the hemp rope, we are the nylon rope. That's what he wants us to believe chemistry
and physics to be here for this event. And I was asked earlier whether the goal is to dissect what
Schrodinger had spoken about in Britain, what to prevent, to present the new summary. And I always
like to be forward looking. So I won't give you a history lesson except for very briefly. I will
present our findings on first on reading the genetic code and then learning to synthesize and write
the genetic code. And as many of you know, we synthesized an entire genome, booted it up to
create an entirely new synthetic cell where every protein in the cell was based on the synthetic
DNA code. So as you all know, Schrodinger's book was published in 1944. It was based on a series of
three lectures here starting in February of 1943. And he had to repeat the lectures I read on the
following Monday because the room on the other side of campus was too small. And I understand people
were turned away tonight but were grateful for internet streaming so I don't have to do this
twice. So also do clearly do his historical role and it's interesting to be sharing this event with
Jim Watson who have known and had multiple interactions with over the last 25 years and including most
recently sharing the double helix prize for human genome sequencing with him from Cold Spring Harbor
laboratory a few years ago. Now Schrodinger started his lecture with a key question in an
interesting insight on it. The question was I'll read it. How can the events in space and time which
take place within the boundaries of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?
It's a pretty straightforward, disembow question. And then he sort of answered what he could at the
time. The obvious inability of present day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no
reason at all for doubting that they will be accounted for by those sciences. So while I only have around
40 minutes not three lectures I hope to convince you that there has been substantial progress in the
last nearly 70 years since Schrodinger initially asked that question to the point where the answer is
at least nearly at hand if not in hand. So I view that we're now in what I'm calling the digital age
of biology. My teams work on synthesizing genomes based on digital code in the computer and four
bottles of chemicals illustrates the ultimate link between the computer code and the digital code.
Life is code as you heard in the introduction. It was very clearly articulated by Schrodinger.
I know he's already starting out with a simplification that I didn't plug yesterday but I will now
in that the DNA and the four bases can be translated into a computer code and digitized and then we
have essentially taken that data and transferred it to another medium. What does that assume?
It assumes a lot of things. First of all it assumes that any proteins or RNA that are
associated with that DNA molecule are completely irrelevant and contain no information at all.
It also suggests that the methylation state of the DNA doesn't matter at all and contains no
information relevant to understanding its function. Now we could go on and on and on and on and on
about all the things that's saying that taking DNA in the four bases and turning it into computer
code is digitizing that information. Even if you can take that and make synthetic copy of it and
put it back into a cell structure and get something resembling cell division to occur
still does not say that you understand how that DNA works after you put it into that context that
you can no longer probe. They don't have a bunch of cameras inside of their synthetic cell to
see that everything is functioning and working the way that they think it does and that the DNA
is not being chemically altered or that proteins and chaperone proteins and facilitating proteins
and enzymes and RNA are not binding to that DNA and causing it to integrate back with that
machinery to work properly. And so there are an extraordinary number of assumptions that are
being made in order to simplify our own understanding of this irreducible complexity to make it seem
like it's pretty it's not that complex at all. Code script. I think perhaps even more importantly
and something I missed on the first few readings of his book early in my career was as far as I
can tell it's the first mention that this code could be as simple as a binary code and he used
the example of Morris code with just dots and dashes could be sufficient to give 34 different
specifications. I've searched and I have not find any earlier references to the Morris code although
historian that I know wrote a quick letter asking about that then and Chris response was
it was a metaphor that was obvious to everybody. So I don't know if it was obvious to everybody
after Schrodinger's book or sometime before. One of the things though Schrodinger was right
about a lot of things which is why in fact I think we celebrate what he talked about and what he
wrote about but some things he was clearly wrong about like most scientists in his time and he
relied on the biologist of the day. They thought that protein not DNA was the genetic information
and I think it's really quite extraordinary because just in 1944 in the same year that he
published his book is when the famous experiment by Oswald Avery who was actually 65 and about
ready to retire along with his colleagues Colin McCloud and McLean McCartney published their
key paper demonstrating that DNA was actually the Colin McCloud of the clan McCloud is that the
the immortal in Highlander one of the best movies of all time in case you haven't seen it Highlander
great movie substance that causes bacterial transformation and therefore was the genetic
material. His experiment was remarkably simple and I sort of wonder why it wasn't done 50 years
earlier because with all the wonderful genetics work going on in Drosophila certainly people were
looking at chromosomes. He simply used proteolytic enzymes to destroy all the proteins associated
with the DNA and showed that the DNA the naked DNA was in fact of the transforming factor.
The impact of this paper was far from instantaneous as has happened in this field I think in part
because there was so much bias against DNA and towards proteins that it took a long time
for that to sink. Now if you were paying attention there he's citing a paper that that tried to
address the issue that I just said earlier which is if you just take that DNA and you don't have
any chemical information about it you don't have any of the chaperone proteins or proteins or
RNA that bound to it in in vivo then how do you know what you're really getting out of there and
to a certain extent that experiment is valid in the sense of that the DNA transferred from
one bacteria to another transferred those genes and those traits and so I'm totally willing to
accept that some of these experiments are real and demonstrate that DNA is a genetic material that
can carry a code that can be translated into proteins. I'm not suggesting that those kinds of broad
ideas are incorrect. Please don't misunderstand me what I am suggesting though is that as they
are described they are described in a very cartoonishly simple way
and that cartoonishly simple thing involves DNA to RNA to protein with some ribosome in the middle.
Not thinking about okay for example when we read RNA don't we isn't that basically this a very
there are two steps there right understanding how those work in different tissues in different
species with different ribosomes in different enzymes in different nucleic nuclear enzymes
and nuclear chaperone proteins and and the variable list is endless and we're not talking
about that variable list at all we're trying to ignore it we're doing as much reductionist
discussion as we can about DNA here and reductionist experiments are important
but not exhaustive and certainly not the experiments that are going to get across
get us across the finish line of trying to crack this irreducible complexity. Ken in 1949
obviously was the first sequencing of a protein by Fred Sanger and the protein was insulin and
this work showed in fact that proteins consisted of linear amino acid codes so and he won the Nobel
Prize in 1958 for that achievement and was very key in terms of leader understanding of the link
between DNA and proteins but as you heard in the introduction obviously the discovery that
changed the whole field and started us down to DNA root was the 1953 work by Watson and Crick
with help from Maurice Wilkins and Roslyn Franklin showing that DNA was in fact a double helix
and had a clear explanation of how it could be self-replicated. Again this was not as I
understand instantly perceived as a breakthrough because the biochemists were still hanging on
to genetic code but soon with a few more experiments from others the world changed
pretty dramatically. I think the next big thing came from the work obviously of Carana and Marshall
Nuremberg in 1961 where they worked out the triplet genetic codes of three letters of genetic
code coding for a single amino acid and then this became clear how the linear DNA code encoded for
the linear protein code. This was followed a few years later by Robert Holly's discovery of the
structure of tRNA and tRNA is the key the key a link between the messenger RNA and bringing the
amino acids in for protein synthesis though Holly Nuremberg and Carana shared the Nobel Prize in 1968
for that work. The next decade brought us restriction enzymes so my friend and colleague Ham Smith
who was at the Venture Institute now in 1970 that found the first restriction enzymes these are
the molecular scissors that cut DNA very precisely and enabled the entire field of a molecular
engineering and molecular biology and Ham Smith and Warner Arbor and Dan Nathan shared the prize
in 1978 for that work. The 70s brought not only some interesting dress codes and characters
but the beginning of the molecular splicing revolution using restriction enzymes Conan Boyer
and Paul Berg published the first papers on recombinant DNA and Conan Boyer at Stanford
as Stanford father patent on their work and this was used by Genentech and Eli Lilly to produce
a human insulin as the first recombinant drug. DNA sequencing and reading the genetic code
progressed much more slowly so in 1973 a maximum Gilbert published a paper on 24 base pairs 24
letters of genetic code RNA sequencing progressed a little bit faster so the first actual genome
viral genome an RNA viral genome was sequenced in 1976 by Walter Fier is it from Belgium and this
was followed the following year by Fred Sanger again a sequence in the first DNA virus and this was
phi X 174 that I'll bring back to mind with you so this became the first DNA virus in the first
viral DNA genome and it was also accompanied by this new sequencing technique called now referring
to a Sanger sequencing that Sanger introduced. This is a picture of Sanger's team that sequenced
phi X the second guy from the left on the bottom is Clyde Hutchinson who was also a member of the
Adventure Institute and joined us after retiring from the University of North Carolina and took
played a key role in some of the synthetic genome work. So in 1975 I was just getting my Ph.D. as
the first genes were being sequenced 20 years later I led the team to sequence the first genome
of a living species and Cam Smith was a key part of that team this was homophilus influenza
instead of 5000 letters of genetic code this was 1.8 million letters of genetic code
or about 300 times the size of the phi X genome. Five years later we up the ante another 1,600
times with the first draft of the human genome using these new whole genome shotgun techniques
and the smaller papers the the public genome effort size doesn't reflect its significance
only its relative significance to me. So the human genome is about a half a million times
larger than the phi X genome so it shows how fast things were developing and reading genomes is
now progressed extremely rapidly so instead of years or decades it now takes about two hours
to sequence a human genome instead of genomes per day or genomes per hour or hours per genome
we can now in a recently done a demonstration sequencing 2000 complete microbial genomes
in one run in one hour so the pace is changing quite substantially. Now I view DNA as an analog
coding molecule and when we sequence the DNA we're converting that analog code into digital code
the ones and zeros in the computer very similar to the dots and dashes that Schrodinger
indicated might be the original code and I call this process digitizing biology.
A numerous scientists have drawn the analogy between computers and biology I take these even
further I describe DNA as the software of life and when we activate a synthetic genome in a cell
we call we describe it as booting up a genome in a cell the same way we talk about booting up
software. Now June 23rd of this year was Alan Turing's would have been his hundredth birthday
and Turing described what has become be known as Turing machines and the machine described a
set of instructions written on a tape. He also described the universal Turing machine which was a
machine that could take that set of instructions. I hope you can already feel how inadequate this is
that our existence is really a machine that reads a tape. I hope you can understand how
ridiculous it is that he is trying to convince this audience after years of failure that they
are almost there to understanding the machine that reads the tape. Computers equal life,
computers equal biology is one of the most absurd insults to God's creation one of the most absurd
insults and it's a verbal abomination of the beauty of life. But that's what we're doing here
right it's it's chemistry and physics which essentially means it's a bunch of zeros and ones
it's a bunch of variables that if we had sufficient ability to measure them we could predict all of
them. It essentially means we have no free will because we're just machines.
The free will is an illusion. Do you see where this goes?
This is from years ago this is one of the granddaddies of this mythology. This guy has been claiming
that if we just had enough sequences like every baby on earth we would have a chance at figuring
out how the genome works. This guy says that. This guy's got a foundation that has that as a goal.
They charge you to sequence you and then they also use your sequence and sell it to pharmaceutical
companies. That's his company. This is one of the darkest players in this mythology that understands
that the value of the people on the planet right now is is there what they represent as data.
And rewrite them and this was the original origin of the digital computer. His ideas were
carried further in the 1940s by John Van Neumann as many people know and he conceived of the self
replicating machine. So Von Neumann's machine consisted of a series of cells which encoded a
sequence of actions that be performed by the machine and using a writing head the machine can print
out a new pattern of cells allowing it to make a complete copy of itself on the tape. So many
of people have certainly made the analogy most recently in nature Sydney Brenner who played a role
in almost all these stages of early biology wrote an article about Turing and biology and in this
he argued that the best examples of a Turing and von Neumann machine is found in biology with the
self replicating code the internal description of itself and that this is the key kernel of
biological theory. So while software was pouring out of sequencing machines around the world
substantial progress was going on describing the hardware of life or proteins. So in biochemistry
the first two decades of the 20th century were dominated by what was called the colloid theory.
So life itself is explained in terms of the aggregate properties of all the colloidal substances
in an organism. We now know that these substances are a collection of three-dimensional protein
machines each evolved to carry out a very specific task. Now these proteins have been
described as nature robots and if you think about it for every single task in a cell every
imaginable task is described by a Tanford and Reynolds there is a unique protein to carry out
that task. It's programmed when to go on when to go off and it does this based on its structure
it doesn't have consciousness it doesn't have a control from a mind or a higher center everything
a protein does is built in to its linear code derived from the DNA code. Just so that's a pretty
bold bold certainty there with no room for subtleties that I hope he's going to build in later.
Briefly there's multiple protein types everything you know about your own life
most of it is protein derived about a quarter of your body is collagen it's a matrix protein
that's built up in multiple layers we have rubber-like proteins that form blood vessels in the lung
we have transporters that move things in and out of cells enzymes that copy DNA metabolized sugars
etc. Now the most important breakthrough I think outside of the genetic code is determining the
process of protein synthesis. To show you how recent all of this is this is the three-dimensional
structure of the bacterial ribosome determined in 2005 and the three angstrom structure of the
eukaryotic chromosome was just determined and published in December of last year that this is
all recent science in recent history and these are extraordinary molecules but that's a weird
thing right I mean if we sequence the whole human genome already then why do we wait so long
to sequence a bacterial ribosome what did he say exactly because it doesn't make sense we sequence
the whole human genome two decades ago already this is this is the three-dimensional structure
of the bacterial ribosome determined in 2005 and the three angstrom structure of the eukaryotic
weird because 2005 was one of the first I think it's one of the first years where we started to
actually get coronavirus sequences did you know that the first human coronavirus that was actually
sequenced and understood
around 2005-2006 what a weird time for all these narratives to start right
all together so it was just determined and published in December of last year that this is all
weir of the eukaryotic chromosome was just determined and published in December and the
three angstrom structure of the eukaryotic chromosome was just determined and published in December of
last year is that the bacteria chromosome then I don't know what he's talking about there but
it seems really weird this is all recent science in recent history and these are extraordinary
molecules there it's the most complex machinery we have in the cell as you can see
there's numerous components to it I tried to think of this as maybe the Ferrari engine of the cell
if the engine can't convert the enmester RNA tape into proteins there is no life
and if you interfere with that process you kill life so major antibiotics that we all know about
the immunoglycosides, ceterocycline, quorum phenylchol, erythromycin, etc all kill bacterial cells
by interfering with the function of this structure how many people knew that how many
people knew that a ribosome was composed mostly of RNA so ribo proteins ribonucleic proteins
and that it had 47 different proteins subunits or whatever that come together to form it including
the RNA molecules that are hybrid in there does that sound like something that we understand
or does that sound like something that they desperately want to understand if they don't
understand that machine then what do they really understand about DNA to RNA to protein not very
much think back to the violin analogy from the last couple days if they can explain to you why
a crack in the neck can be absolutely catastrophic for a strativarius violin do they understand anything
about the varnish process or about how a perfect violin works or how a violinist produces the music
on a violin they haven't even bothered to study it and so by sequencing the human genome using
restriction enzyme maps they haven't even started actually studying it by sequencing or crystallizing
the bacterial ribosome we're just getting started studying it in 2005 at the same time where
we're just starting to study coronavirus biology and and and able to find them in the wild
and now we're supposed to believe that this is basically subject matter that is mastered
that we can feed mRNA into a child's body through the muscle and expect ribosomes in their tissue
to faithfully translate the protein that we want them to translate and for their immune system
to faithfully respond to it with a useful response that's the model of reality that these guys
want us to accept right now that the that the original story line was written for and laid down
by charlatans like this man who are telling the same mythology the same nonsense story about how
eventually we're going to be able to do all this stuff
so the ribosome is clearly the most unique and special structure in the cell it has seven major
RNA chains including three messenger three tRNA chains and one messenger RNA it has 47 different
proteins going into the structure in one newly synthesized protein chain the size is several
million dolphins so this is the heart of all biology we would not have cells we would not have
life without this working and this is the machine that converts the linear dna code
into proteins and the process with doing this what did he just say i mean think about how he said it
so from there's a several million dolphins so this is the heart of all biology we would not have
cells we would not have life without this working this is the heart of biology they don't have a
clue how it works they've been telling you for years the heart of biology is dna it's the tape
the tape that goes into the machine it's not the tape that goes into the machine at all
it's the machine or the machines they don't know how the dna copying machine works they don't know
how the RNA polymerase works they don't know how reverse transcriptase works they don't know how
a ribosome works they can tell you they know but they don't
do you see what we're dealing with here
they can talk out of both sides of their mouths
these people know that they haven't made progress just like peter teal told you in that video in
2019 they know that the progress is stalling out that yeah we can sequence things faster we can
sequence more things in less time we can identify cracks in the neck of the violin faster we can
find them easier we have technology to locate hairline cracks that we're hard to see before
does that mean that we understand how the violin makes music no we don't
no we don't and these kinds of observations are being misconstrued as understanding they're not
understanding please see it this is the biology the big picture biology we need to teach to our kids
we are being misled by a bunch of people who have been misled
who are too naive or too smart to see out of it
and this is the machine that converts the linear dna code into proteins and the process with doing
this RNA synthesis from RNA is called transcription and protein synthesis is called translation
so if these processes were highly reliable life would be very different and perhaps not need the
same kind of information driven system if you were building a factory to build automobiles
that worked the way the ribosome did you would be out of business very quickly a significant
fraction of all the proteins synthesized get degraded shortly after synthesis because they
formed the wrong confirmations they aggregate in the cell or cause another problem so as
transfer RNA brings in the final amino acid to a growing peptide chain coming out of the ribosome
the next step is truly one of the most remarkable and that's the protein folding
so the number of protein confirmations if you have 100 amino acids is only a word of 2 to the 100th
power 2 to the 100th power if you have 100 amino acids so tell me again how we understand that
preons can cause other proteins to misfold how does that work exactly why do we believe that
that seems like a good idea like that makes sense proteins that have countless configurations
that are complex electrostatic magnets with three dimensional shapes inside of a polar solvent
called water and yet somehow or another despite that absolutely irreducible complexity this old
man is still trying to tell us that we basically have a grip on how all that works
or is he or is he listen the next step is truly one of the most remarkable
and that's the protein folding so one of the most remarkable that we still don't understand but
google tells us we do it's too bad that google fold can't explain the simple mechanisms by which
proteins go into prion states or go into amyloidosis and cause other proteins to do it
if the way that a protein folds is dependent on its sequence then how can a prion protein
influence another protein without the right sequence to fold into that protein
how come we don't talk about any of this stuff in the prion literature we just talk about in very
grand terms he's telling you that proteins misfold all the time that if you started a car
manufacturing plant that made cars as well as a ribosome does that you'd go out of business
think about how extraordinary what he's saying is that must mean that there's a lot of misfolded
protein in every cell that we have that must mean that misfolded protein must be dealt with pretty
effectively but how do they know that it's a misfolded protein after it gets translated from
DNA to RNA to protein who's checking what what mechanism is checking to see if that protein has
all the right amino acids do they line it up against a standard i thought these things were
just molecules with no mind yet somehow or another you're just going to keep hand waving
over and over this happens and then that happens and then this happens and then they do this and
then they do this and the most amazing thing is despite all of these errors and terrible folding
and and the last transfer RNA being wrong the body is able to get rid of those proteins very
quickly if they're folded wrong or if they're translated wrong because there's all these magic
mechanisms that do it he is trying to make you believe that protein misfolding is a very normal
thing it happens all the time it's something we have to deal with and can be pathogenic if it goes
wrong is it true that's the question you have to ask yourself is it a natural process or is it
something that happens after a long exposure to a toxin repeated exposure to chronic inflammation
other insults to the brain or tissues which go through this protein misfolding process
electromagnetic radiation or other damaging sources of biodamaged nobody talks about any of
that stuff here and the reason why is because they are oversimplifying your understanding of
what is irreducible complexity in biology the number of protein confirmations if you have 100
amino acids is on the order of two to the 100th power it would take about 10 to the 10th years
that for you to even try all those if you can try one a second so wait i thought that google
already has a algorithm that figured it all out and can do it for any protein do you see where we are
did we figure that out in like 10 years just hardcore number crunching but built into this
linear code of the amino acid based on the linear genetic code these processes
happened very quickly so here's a movie that spreads out that six microseconds
slightly longer to show you a folding of a small protein so this is the end folded structure
so you'll see it starts with a linear protein and over six microseconds it goes through all
these different confirmations to try and get to the final fold so somehow the linear code limits
the number of folds it can take but it tries a number of different ones and if it gets them
wrong the protein has to be degraded very quickly or it will cause problems so imagine all the
selection that went into this because the protein structure actually determines its rate of folding
as well as the final structure in fact the end terminal amino acid determines how fast a protein
is degraded this is now called the the end rule pathway for protein degradation for example if
you had a amino acid a lysine and arginine or tryptophane as an interminal on a protein beta
galactosidase it results in a protein with a half-life of 120 seconds in E. coli or 180 seconds in
eukaryotic cell yeast whereas you have three different amino acids a serine of valine or
methionine you get a half-life of over 10 hours in bacteria over 30 hours in yeast but these are
still relatively short times a bacteria will sell in an hour will have to remake half of all its
proteins we make things at almost similar rate but because of this instability and the random
folding and misfolding of proteins protein aggregation is a key problem so we have to constantly synthesize
new proteins and if they fold wrong you have to get rid of them or they clog up the cell this I
think it's absolutely extraordinary that he's spending so much time talking about protein
misfolding I can't even believe it
he is emphasizing this for like four minutes already that the ribosome isn't very good
even though it's the most beautiful thing and it is it is the secret to life it's not very
good machine it makes errors all the time and this protein misfolding has to be is a source of
danger like what is he talking about here how can we replace our gut epithelial cells every
three to five days if protein misfolding in RNA and ribosomes is so shitty how the hell would that work
I'm sorry but I feel like what I see here is exactly what I thought I would see here
I'm going to find as we look back on these scientists talking about the human genome project talking
about sequencing talking about the idea of DNA to RNA to protein are going we're going to find
out that we missed it but they were emphasizing protein misfolding for a lot longer than we thought
and not because they have a plethora of evidence about how devastating this is or how important it
is to understand but because they knew it was going to increase in the future and they needed to be
sure that we had a naturally occurring mechanism cartoon in our head already when it started to
become more and more apparent more and more part of our daily lives Alzheimer's cannot be a toxin
or will be angry it cannot be poisoning or will be angry it cannot be something in the water
or will be angry it cannot be electromagnetic radiation or cell phone towers or anything or
we will be angry it has to be a natural thing that just happens to some old people when they get
unlucky or they use too many aluminum pans this guy is laying down a narrative of protein
misfolding that is absolutely ridiculous because they have no absolutely none zero zip evidence
for how it is that if the ribosome is making so many mistakes how in the world do we compensate
for all that wasted energy all that was wasted raw materials that get assembled into something
that just needs to be broken down again how in the world can we take this seriously
when our endothelial cells are replaced weekly our epithelial cells in our gut are replaced
weekly how can we possibly take this guy seriously how much wasted energy is he actually describing
as part of the perfect symphony of life i hear mythology being laid here folks same way as if
you stop taking out the trash in a city and this is definitely not doubling everything comes to a
halt so cells work the same way you have to degrade the proteins you have to pump the trash
out of the cell it can be toxic very quickly there's a number of diseases known to most of you
that are misfolding or aggregation diseases and Alzheimer's disease and macao disease are
examples of accumulation of toxic protein aggregates but recently a new drug came out to deal with
cystic fibrosis and it's quite interesting people thought the mutations in cystic fibrosis
just yielded in a less functioning chloride ion channel that affected the cell's ability
to survive properly it turns out the single mutation that's the major mutation cystic fibrosis
actually blocks the protein from disassociating with its chaperonin and never gets to the cell
surface so simple changes a single letter change in the genetic code in this case doesn't allow
it to fold properly and get associated so lots of diseases are turning out to be problems from
protein folding but it's weird right so it doesn't fold properly but the RNA gets translated by the
ribosome and the system doesn't recognize it as being folded incorrectly so alchemy doesn't get
degraded so there's mechanisms that he talks about then not talk about then ignores then says
are there then says aren't there the incongruencies come every other sentence because he's describing
something with certainty of which he has no actual certainty about and he knows it
and these incongruencies are there because the story of what they understand is incongruent
they don't understand it they're still shooting in the dark and pretending they got this all under
control so you and I don't ask any questions and so that the government keeps funding them
these are the exact charlatans that peter teal was warning us about where the hyper specialization
allows people to lie and to exaggerate the politicization of science allows people encourages people to
lie and exaggerate that's what you see here a man who's done it his whole career
because he's been encouraged to do it by people like David Baltimore and Stanley Plotkin
and all the other people like Robert Gallo and Murray Gardner and everybody else who has
a vested interest in no one actually understanding the biology at the molecular level
so that the biosecurity state can have an imperative to control us forever
and more importantly so that they can invert the sovereignty that we feel over our own bodies
and that of our children so that guys like Craig Venter can finally have the genetic data that
they have already told us many decades ago they need that Mark Lander told us already a decade ago
that we would need without all the genomes we need all of them we're not going to have a chance
of figuring this out that's what the human genome project's final answer was that they got to the
meeting they went to the the secret room in the Department of Energy and they said well we've
got the restriction enzyme maps but they are so a specific that we can barely even see patterns
between people that are closely related so I think the only choice for us is to have as many
genomes as possible we need all the sequences we need them all and so China being partnered
with that with that whole movement just said okay well we'll start collecting ours we're
going to do it right now meanwhile we with our inertia in our system still have this thing called
privacy and and all that other stuff and and so we couldn't convert we couldn't just start
collecting all the data from all our kids and so instead what we did was we had people like Craig
Venter and and people like like James Giordano and others brief secret meetings and tell people
that look China is already collecting all this data and they might even be collecting it on us
too and in the meantime we're not doing anything and at some point in time they're going to have
enough data to make very big progress in cracking the pattern integrity that is the genome and how
it's translated into people or animals or viruses or bacteria and so we don't do what they are doing
we will be behind forever and so their plan was well we'll create a pandemic and we'll
invert the sovereignty that people currently have in our system to permission we might have
to do it gradually over a couple executions of it but that's what we'll do and in the end we'll
collect the data that we need just like the Chinese are collecting the data that they need and that's
what people like Craig Venter say at the back rooms of TED Talks and at at food conferences after
the main audience leaves and they have meetings with the directors and the people that coordinate
these things that's what they talk about that's what Peter Thiel and his friends at the top of
these weaponized piles of money are talking about when they talk about us and how they're
going to use us we are data and if we're not going to give up our data and then you can die at 55
am I pessimistic yeah I kind of am because it's starting to become obvious to me that this has
been going on for a very very long time and I like everybody else was a victim of it since a child
based on this genetic code so I'm trying to leave you with a notion that life is a process of
dynamic renewal we're all shedding about 500 million uskin cells every day that dust that
accumulates in your home that that's you so you shed your entire outer layer skin every two to
four weeks you have five times 10 to the 11 blood cells that die every day if you're not
constantly synthesizing new cells you're in trouble and can you see how easy it would be to get rid
of virally replicating cells that we're replicating a an RNA they weren't supposed to replicate if
that's what happens in a viral infection do you see how easy it would be if there's such high turnover
at these barriers give me a break ladies and gentlemen well and this surprised me the most
I'm looking at this about half of all our cells die during normal organ development so everything
is constantly turning over and changing looking at cancer cells the half-life of human proteins
was between 45 minutes think about all this turnover of proteins and of cells and of tissues but
all this extremely erroneous protein production that he just described five minutes ago
it just doesn't all jive together it doesn't make sense unless he's trying to lay down
a narrative about how protein misfolding can be caused catastrophic disease states unless he's
actually trying to convince people of this extremely rare possibility there's no reason for
him to talk about the extreme infidelity of of RNA translation by ribosomes and pretend that
there that so many errors in folding are made that that you know we get one out of every what four
proteins are good then or what what's his what's the ratio there because the way that he talks about
it it sounds like it's a really crappy thing as he said if you built a car factory out of ribosomes
you'd go out of business because they don't make cars very well what in the world is he talking
about then if we have such high turnover how do we succeed in getting all that height millions of
cells are being produced with perfect proteins apparently and despite that they're also making
on top of that a bunch of shitty proteins that waste all that energy waste all that ribosomal
uh uh sort of translation time and also waste all that degradation machinery think about how many
proteins that we eat digest into amino acids and then reassemble into garbage that we then
have to digest again according to this guy it's spectacular that's in 22 hours if you take the
DNA out of the cells the cells die uh so this is a key part of things that we were looking into
going forward now as you know all life is cellular and the cellular theory is that you can only get
life from pre-existing cells and people attributed all kinds of special parameters to these cells
over time this is what an artist version view of what a cell cytoplasm might be it's actually
quite a crowded place it's relatively viscous it's not this empty bag with a few proteins
floating around in it and it's a very unique environment so you know why isn't he talking
about the aspect that it's in water and at that scale water is a polar solvent with his
definite shape and so with a simple computer model you can you can show that water can arrange
very well in a compact matrix where the positive and negative dipoles of the of the molecules are
lined up in a pattern that's almost a crystal lattice and thinking about how proteins behave
inside of that highly organized water lattice is crucial to understanding how these things
would come together in this three-dimensional space that is the cytoplasm of the cell instead
he's talking about the proteins without the context in which they are found he's talking
about the proteins without talking about how they are actually electrostatic three-dimensional
shapes that at those size scales have great forces of repulsion great forces of hydrophobicity
and what's the opposite of hydrophobicity hydrophilic behavior so we really need to understand how
many of these really almost infinite variables are being edited out of this reductionist model
of the cell your cytoplasm when he says a pretty crowded place with lots of proteins and stuff
that are all floating around in a very highly organized polar solvent of water
which is again what Luke Montagnier was working on as he died when he passed away he was working
on what happens when water is occupied by biomolecules is it possible that biological molecules
have a property where they cause the water around them to organize now i want you to think about this
because this is again one of those things where the real data and the real ideas have been put
out there and just you've been distracted by people who have said that you can freeze water and capture
the emotion in it like in a picture of a wedding ring or some nonsense like that those kinds of
water memory bullshit stories are out there because Luke Montagnier was onto something
onto something that physicists and chemists have known about for a long time
has something to do with the the surface tension of water and what happens
at this where water becomes at a surface but it's how the water molecules are able to organize
relative to one another and change their properties the way that that you can move through them
and Luke Montagnier was onto the idea that if you had a DNA molecule and a DNA molecule could have
the propensity to organize the water molecules around it you can imagine a scenario where a
a DNA molecule could cause a crystal lattice to form around it in the polar solvent of water
and because of the way that water organizes itself that that shadow in the water could be more than
spun it could exist for longer than the molecules present
and curiously in my humble opinion this would have to play a crucial role in any pathogenic
infectiousness of a prion protein because in between each protein is going to be a water layer
or layers and so in order to understand how a prion protein can cause a non-prion protein to
become a prion protein we need to understand how these two electrostatic shapes complex shapes
can come together in the polar solvent of water and then produce essentially the same structure
function that's the model that we have been given that's the model that we're we're we're
going to try to understand over the coming days and weeks and when we do as we approach that
model and we see how people have have tested and tried to verify you're going to find that nobody
nobody did anything that everybody just keeps making the assumptions that this guy's making
which is that ribosomes make a lot of errors and that sometimes those errors are catastrophic I guess
but if you listen to Craig describe and it sure seems like there should be a lot more
misfolded proteins than than we seem to be aware of and we sure waste a lot of energy on it then
the proteins are actually in solid phase now a key tentative chemistry that's developed
is the notion of synthesis as proof this perhaps dates back to 1828 when Francis Waller first
synthesized urea now this is herald is the end of vitalism because the thought that you could
only get organic molecules from living entities and so a great amount of attention was given to this
but now there's tens of thousands of papers published that either have proof by synthesis as
the starting point or key point of the title we decided to take the same approach of dealing
with DNA and dealing with life back in 1995 when we sequenced the first genome we actually did a
second one that year looking for the cell with a smallest genome and we chose microplasmid genitalium
it has 482 protein coding genes and 43 RNA genes we ask simple questions how many of these genes
are essential for life but what's the smallest number of cells needed for a cellular machinery
and ultimately to answer these questions could we design and construct a minimal DNA genome
of the cell as soon as we went down that route we had new questions would chemistry even allow us
to synthesize a bacterial chromosome and if we could would we just have a large piece of DNA
or could we actually boot it up on the cell like a new chemical piece of software we decided to
start where DNA history started with phi X 174 we chose it as a test synthesis i still think that
he is again casting an enchantment here what he uses that you know see if we can boot it up
if you had a machine
that could take a book
and turn it into a movie
just coming up with an analogy off the cuff here if you had a had a machine that could turn a book
into a movie and i told you that the words were turned into images and sometimes those images
come out wrong but most of the time they come out right
and i can make a copy of the book and i can put it into the machine and it will make the same
movie that i copied the book that i copied would make do we understand the machine
because i believe that's the kind of bamboozlement that's happening here we're being made to believe
that we have a machine that can take a book that's the tape right this is a Turing machine
it can take a tape and it can read the tape and it can make a copy of itself
and so if we copy the tape and put the tape through in the machine do we understand how the
machine works then the answer is no no matter how many ways we make a copy of the tape
or a partial copy of the tape or we put the tape in a different machine and it still works
we still don't understand how the machine works and the machine is life it's a big
ship in a bottle variable that we keep calling it nothing because we can't penetrate it
we can ting the bottle at all different sides and stuff like that but we can't explain how that
ship got assembled in there how it was done or who did it and why
and so make no mistake about it he's not describing a fidelity of understanding he's
actually describing a lack of understanding a horrible lack of understanding this because
you can make very few changes on the genetic code of phi x without destroying viral particles
so Clyde Hutchinson who helped sequence phi x ham smith and i developed a series of new techniques
to correct the errors that take place when you synthesize DNA but the machines that make DNA
are not very accurate and the longer the piece of DNA you make the more errors so we had to find
ways to correct errors we corrected the errors and had this 5 000 letter piece of DNA we injected
into e coli and this is the actual photo of what happened the e coli recognized this synthetic
piece of DNA as normal DNA and the proteins being robots to started reading this piece of genetic
code because that's what their program to do they made what the DNA told them to do is to make viral
proteins the virus self-assembled and it showed us gratitude by killing the cells which is how
we defective we get these clear spots on the cell so the virus self-assembled is another one of
those very large mythologies that completely discounts the possibility like i've said before
and i'm going to say it again you can't make a cuckoo clock make toast you cannot hijack the
machinery of a cell and make it do something that it already doesn't do so cells already produce
exosomes which are are lipoprotein coated vesicles that have receptor agonists on the outside or
targeting proteins on the outside and they have a genetic signal on the inside
and i believe that all tissues likely communicate this way signal to the immune system this way
and communicate their state of homeostasis with the rest of the body in this way and if there are
RNAs which are capable of hijacking this machinery they don't hijack this machinery to make
the cells do something they don't already do they make the cells produce exosomes that contain their
sequence and so he is explaining something again laying down a mythology that precludes any other
interpretation of their limited data set a virus is replicating because and making copies
of itself and hijacking the bacterial machinery because we put the DNA in there and then stuff came
out that couldn't be a natural process that's already there all the time that your that your
experimental transfection is harnessing it couldn't possibly be that it has to be evidence of pathogens
and evidence of the fidelity of these RNA pathogens that's that it's it's another illusion it's
crazy how succinctly it's being done so we call this a situation where the software is building
its own hardware all we did was put a piece of DNA software in the cell and we got out a protein
virus with a nucleic acid a core you could call it was not to make viruses you could call it an
exosome but if they called it an exosome then they would let you know that it's a natural process
that it's a process that already exists inside of the cell so it's not surprising
that we can put a transfection in a cell and that a cell will produce
vesicles that contain the contents of that production it's not unusual because it happens
this we wanted to make something substantially larger we wanted to make an entire chromosome
of a living cell but we thought if we could make viral size chromosomes accurately maybe we could
make a hundred or so of those and find a way to put those together so that's what we did we sent
out set out to sequence these pieces that we made these small pieces we sequenced them verify them
and put them together and it looks like a soccer or basketball playoff so we put four pieces together
and we had pieces now that were 24,000 letters long we would draw these up sequence them in
assemble those together to get pieces that were 72,000 we would do this again it was very
what in the hell are you hearing here except for the assembly of recombinant clones
i thought that that Ralph Barrick invented the no-seum technique where you use restriction enzymes
to stitch things together oh no he didn't invent that oh i see craig venter says craig venter says
that we had restriction enzymes back before 1973 and that we were making recombinant DNA clones
back in the 70s isn't that strange because i thought i was told by all these people in the
magic show that it was Ralph Barrick's no-seum technique and the things that he shared with the
with the Chinese that was so scary are you telling me that we've had restriction enzymes and been able
to make and assemble clones just like he recited already since the 70s and 80s wow what does that
mean for Ralph Barrick as a bad guy i guess he's not really a bad guy anymore
can you see this the guy Kevin McCurnan trying to tell me that i didn't have anything to stand
on i didn't know what i was talking about kevin McCurnan knows this history he was working for
the department of energy and mit and the whitehead institute in this very project he knows the
limitations of those restriction enzyme maps he knows that they need countless more human
genomes to have any clue about what actually is working and how these are organized
as kevin McCurnan ever said that it actually all comes down to understanding the ribosome
i'm going to play that back because this is really important pieces we sequence them verify
and put them together and it looks like a soccer or a basketball playoff so we put four pieces
together and we had pieces now that were 24,000 letters long we would draw the 24,000 letters
long the coronavirus genome is 30,000 bases at most you need to freaking hear this you need to
hear it right now this molecular biology was not invented by Ralph Barrick this molecular
biology was not invented by Ralph Barrick no matter how many people insist it was
i have been saying it since bobby asked me to figure it out in 2022 that they were telling a
story about Ralph Barrick inventing this stuff because these are old school techniques that go
back to the very basics of molecular biology back before 1973
we are being misled ladies and gentlemen we are knee deep in it
leaves up sequence them and assemble those together to get pieces that were 72,000
we would do this again it's very laborious let's talk about a year and a half to do
and we got pieces 144,000 letters in length this was 144,000 base pairs in length
don't tell me for one second that we couldn't have made this don't tell me for one second
that we couldn't made enough of it to put all over the place so that the pcr's would be positive
and the sequencing reactions would be exactly what we wanted them to be so that all molecular
biology could be distorted into this very obvious planted phylogenetic tree where nobody pays
attention to anything they paid attention to in 2020 like fear and cleavage sites or hiv inserts
or staphylococcan and tangerine toxin B homologies none of those things that were
screamed about in 2020 were tracked at all despite the fact that we can sequence it 15
million times in four years
and we're supposed to believe that eco-health alliance a guy like like Peter Dasek and a guy
like like Ralph Barrick are responsible for what just happened here instead of the weaponized
piles of money that are currently trying to permanently have a hold on our our habits
and and our our intuition about reality decades of lying ladies and gentlemen decades of lying
about protein misfolding decades of lying about about DNA to RNA to protein decades of lying about
how we understand it decades of lying about how close we are to understanding all these
nano machines including the most beautiful important one key to all life on earth target of antibiotics
the ribosome beyond the largest piece that ever been synthesized to 30,000 letters
and at this time E. coli didn't like these large pieces of synthetic DNA in them so we
switched to yeast I found out last night this is a city that loves beer that comes from this
same brewer's yeast a beer and bread but aside from fermentation this little cell has remarkable
properties of assembling DNA so all we had to do was put the four synthetic quarter molecules into
yeast with a small synthetic yeast centromere and yeast automatically assembled these pieces
together so that gave us the first synthetic bacterial chromosome and this is what we published
in 2008 this was the largest chemical structure of a defined a structure ever assembled we continued
to work on DNA synthesis and a somebody started out a young postdoc Dan Gibson came up with a
substantial breakthrough instead of the hours the days to years he found out that by putting
three enzymes together with all the DNA fragments in one pot at 50 degrees centigrade for a little
while it would automatically assemble these pieces so it went from a year or so down to an hour
and there's a breakthrough for a number of reasons most importantly it allows us now to
automate these processes so having a simple one step method allows us to go from the digital
code in the computer to the analog code of DNA in a robotic fashion see it's weird that he's not
mentioning Ralph Barrick with all these technologies I really thought that he was responsible for like
half of all the molecular biology techniques that were used in the world but it turns out
that what he did was take proven molecular biology techniques that were developed in the
70s 80s and 90s and applied them to coronaviruses that were really only discovered and became
tractable in 2006 and 7 and 8 the pandemic narrative is is falling apart like wet tissue paper
and this is being scaled up substantially we proved this initially by in just one step
synthesizing the mouse mitochondria genome so I had two teams working one on the chemistry
and one on the biology and it turns out the biology ended up being more difficult than the chemistry
so how do you boot up a synthetic chromosome in a cell this took us a substantial time
at the workout and this paper that we published in 2007 I think is one of the most important
for understanding how cells work and what the future of this field brings so this is where we
describe genome transplantation in simply by changing the genetic code the chromosome in one
cell swapping it out for another we converted one species into another because it's so important
to the theme of what we're doing I'm going to walk you through this a little bit and by the way
these are two of the scientists that led this at Carol Luckteague was the one with a breakthrough
John Glass and there was a large team working with them so we initially did this by isolating
the chromosome from a cell called in my coides and chromosomes are enshrouded with proteins
which is why there was confusion for so many years whether proteins are DNA with the genetic
material we simply did what Avery did we treated the DNA with the proteolytic enzymes removing all
the proteins because if we're making a synthetic chromosome we need to know can naked DNA work
on its own or there are going to be some special proteins needed for transplantation
we added a couple of cassettes to it one so we could select for it and another so it turns
cells bright blue if it got activated and we found a way to get these genome into a recipient cell
a cell m cap or colon which is about the same distance apart genetically from my coides as we are
from mice so relatively close on the order 10 percent are more different
but let me show you what happened we have this very sophisticated movie
so we inserted the n-microious chromosome into the recipient cell and just as with the phiaxis
soon as we put this DNA into the cell the protein robots started producing mRNA started producing
proteins some of the early proteins were the restriction enzymes that ham smith discovered
in 1970 they recognized the initial chromosome in the cell as foreign DNA and shoot it up
so now we have the body and all the proteins in one species and the genetic software of another
so what happened in a very short period of time we had these bright blue cells when we
interrogated the cells they had only the transplanted genome but more importantly when we sequenced
the proteins in these cells there wasn't a single protein or other molecule from the original
species every protein in the cell came from the new DNA that we inserted into the cell life
is based on DNA software we're a DNA now did you listen because I didn't hear that the cells divided
what I heard was that he transfected the cells the DNA was translated there were enzymes that
were present that degraded the other genome and by the time it had transfected the whole dish
then they had blue cells that were not expressing their own proteins but the ones that they were
transfected with that's not that I'm sorry but I'll look up the paper later but that's not
artificial life that's not reprogramming a cell that's just transfection or transformation
of a of a bacteria and again I'm arguing that I think Craig Venter like Peter Thiel suggested
has a vested interest in lying and exaggerating about the significance of these these experiments
with the idea of making sure that he stays an expert in his hyper specialized field that he
keeps getting all of the the funding and that nobody questions his actual progress and the
significance of it and nobody will right because these people all need us to believe that it's
just a matter of time you might as well go limp where we are about to to solve all of these problems
a software system you change the DNA software you change the species it's a remarkably simple
concept remarkably complex in its execution now we had a problem that some of you may have
picked up on or have read about we were assembling the bacterial chromosome in a eukaryotic cell
so we're going to take the synthetic genome and do the transplantations we had to find a way to
get the genome out of yeast that transplanted back into a bacteria and we developed a whole new way
just to grow bacterial chromosomes in yeast as eukaryotic chromosomes and it was remarkably
simple in the end all we do is add a very small synthetic centromere from yeast to the bacterial
chromosome and all of a sudden it turns into a eukaryotic chromosome the centromere is when
you look at pictures of chromosomes it's that little piece in the middle of the y for example
so now we can stably grow bacterial chromosomes in yeast so we had the situation where we had
the emicoidy's chromosome in the eukaryotic cell we could try isolating it and doing the
transplantation the trouble is it didn't work and this little problem took us two and a half years
to solve of why it didn't work and it turns out when we initially did the transplantations taking
the chromosome out of the emicoidy cell that DNA had been methylated and that's how cells
protect their own DNA from interloping species so we proved this by isolating the six methylases
and methylating the DNA when we took it out of yeast if we methylated the DNA we could then do
the transplantation we proved this ultimately by in the recipient cell removing the restriction
enzymes and in that case we can just put a naked unmetallated DNA because there's nothing to
destroy the DNA in the cell so we're at this point now where we thought we had solved all the problems
we could create these new bacterial strains from the bacterial genomes cloned in yeast
and we had this nice cycle we could work our way around the circle we could add a center
mirror to the bacterial chromosome and turn it into a eukaryotic chromosome the advantages for
those of you who work with bacteria most bacteria do not have genetic systems which is why most
scientists don't work with them as soon as you put that bacterial genome in yeast we have the
complete repertoire of genetic tools in yeast such as homologous recombination so we can make
rapid changes in the genome isolate the chromosome methylated if necessary and do a transplantation
to create a highly modified cell so at this stage we decided to synthesize the mycoides genome
with all these new synthesis techniques Dan Gibson took this on almost single-handedly
if 1.1 million base pairs we started with pieces that were 1,000 letters long we put 10 of those
together to make pieces that were 10,000 letters long we put 10 of those together to make pieces
now that are 100,000 letters long and we had these 11 100,000 base pair pieces we put them in yeast
yeast assembled the DNA we knew how to transplant it out of yeast we did the transplantation and it
didn't work so those of you are software engineers that software engineers have debugging software
to tell them where the problem is in their code so we had to develop the biological version of
debugging software which was basically substituting natural pieces of DNA for the synthetic ones
until we could find out what was wrong we found out we could have 10 of the 11 synthetic pieces
and the last piece I had to be native DNA to get a living cell now what I do think Robert
Ralph Barrick did contribute is what he's talking about now which is idea of coming up with the
minimum coronavirus genome to get exosomes to be produced and so Ralph Barrick used very
standard restriction enzyme ligation techniques to create synthetic DNA versions of RNA viruses
but more importantly because the RNA virology that they had at that time was very sketchy and
only could find the RNA to pet an RNA polymerase or this protein or that protein but not the whole
genome one of the contributions that Ralph Barrick made was that here are the
minimum number of proteins that you need and so if you find a spike protein in the wild that you
want to test you can add that spike protein to all of these now why is that important ladies and
gentlemen please let's go back to the frontier why is that important because in a viral replicating
cell according to their cartoon by far and away the most abundant RNA present is the spike protein
by several orders of magnitude perhaps hundreds of thousands of more spike protein sub genomic
RNAs than any other transcript including the end protein and definitely including the probably
protein of 1a1 or rf1a in other words if you were to do a PCR test in a bat and you were looking for
novel coronaviruses their strategy was to look for the most conserved gene which was the RNA
dependent RNA polymerase and the most abundant one which was the spike protein and they look
for a conserved region of the spike protein because as you know spike proteins are highly
homologous because they have this conformational change that allows membranes to come together
we use a very similar protein in our in our developing embryo yada yada yada so our immune
system looks for that commonality that conserved hydrophobic damage associated molecular pattern
and so my point is is that they looked for those two signals if they found them then Ralph Barrick
had a whole set of genes that you could just put in with that spike protein and now you could make
a synthetic clone of a purported novel coronavirus if you just found the sub genomic RNA of the
spike protein that's how it was done from 2005 until very very recently ladies and gentlemen
exactly as he's describing it where you come up with a minimum set of genes
and by substituting natural ones in until it grows or until it works you can eliminate
the genes you don't need find the genes that you do need and now you have a minimum set
and that's what Ralph Barrick did he didn't invent no serum technologies what he did
was identified the minimum set of genes that would be necessary for an RNA to cause reproduction
of itself and packaging into exosomes not something that the cell doesn't normally do not hijacking
the cell and reprogramming it to make viruses for the first time in its existence but to hijack
the already existing exosomal production machinery to reproduce package and send out the RNA
and I think that Ralph Barrick and these coronavirus people found the minimum set of genes proteins
it's necessary to get that phenomenon to happen and they are telling you that that's a pathogen
that does it when in reality they are hijacking the synthetic machinery of a cell to try and
understand how the hell it works absolutely no different than the illusion created by this
guy claiming to try to create synthetic life I really think we're on to this
re-sequenced it and found one letter wrong and an essential gene made the difference between life
and no life so it was in the DNA gene which is important for starting the whole process of binding
to DNA we corrected that error so one out of 1.1 million we corrected that error and we got the first
actual synthetic cell from the genome transplants one of the ways that we knew this was a synthetic
cell we watermarked the DNA so we could always tell our synthetic species from any naturally occurring
one this was reported in early 2010 and science published it shortly thereafter
the watermarks we watermarked the first genome that we did just using the single letter amino acid
code and we were accused of not having much of an imagination so for this new genome we went a
little bit further and I added three quotations from the literature but first we developed a
whole new code where we could write the english language complete with numbers and punctuation
in DNA code and it's quite interesting we set the paper to science for review and one of the
reviewers sent back the review written in DNA code much to the frustration of the
science editor who could not do separate but the reviewers DNA code was based on the ASCII code
and with biology that creates a problem because you can get long stretches without a stock code
on so we developed this new code that puts in very frequent stock code ons because the last thing
you want to do is put in a quote from James Joyce and have it turn into a new toxin that kills
the cell or kills you you didn't know poetry could do that I guess so we built in the names of the
46 scientists that contributed to this and also there was a message with a URL so being the first
species to have a computer as a parent we thought it was appropriate it should have its own web
address built into the genome and as people solve this code they would send an email to the web
address written in the genome and once numerous people solved it we made this available and let
me just I know what this is hard to read the three quotes are the first one and probably the most
important one to Ireland is James Joyce the live to air to fall the triumph to recreate life out
of life somehow that seemed highly appropriate the second is from Oppenheimer's biography American
Prometheus see things not as they are but as they might be in the third from Richard Fineman what
I cannot build I cannot understand everybody thought it was very cool until a few months after this
appeared we got a letter from James Joyce estate attorney saying did you seek permission to use
this quotation and in the US at least there's fair use laws allow you to quote up to a paragraph
without seeking permission so we sort of dismissed that one then James Joyce was dead we didn't know
how to ask him anyway and then we started getting an email trail from a Caltech scientist saying
we'd misquoted Richard Fineman but if you look on the internet this is the quotation that you find
everywhere and we argued back this is what we found and this was what was in his biography
instead of proof his point he sent a picture of Fineman's blackboard with the original quotation
and what it was what I cannot create I do not understand what I cannot create I do not understand
and so rather than that being a a sort of a cardinal teaching of sacred biology which it should be
you can't create it so you don't understand it we can try
but what he's arguing of course is is that because he claims to have created it he understands it
that's what he's arguing here that's the arrogance that he's putting out here in a very
indirect way it is ugly it is an ugly arrogance make sure you see it
I think it's actually a much better quotation and we've gone back to correct the DNA code
so that Fineman can rest much more peacefully so we can actually go much further now there's
an exciting paper that includes out of Stanford that includes John Glass from my institute using
our work on the micro plasma cell to do the first complete mathematical modeling of a cell
now I was going to show you the movie of their mathematical model but it has so many different
components it would take about 20 minutes to show but this is coming out in cell I think
next week it is going to be an exciting change so we can go from the digital code to the genetic
code and now modeling the entire function of the cell in a computer going to complete a digital
circle we're going further now we're using computer software to design new DNA software
to create a new cells and this is an important part of what I'll be talking about on a Saturday
evening now in conclusion I hope it's starting to become clear if it wasn't already that all
living cells that we know of on this planet are DNA driven DNA software driven biological machines
comprised of hundreds to thousands of proteins and these are protein robots coded for by the DNA
these protein robots carry out these very precise functions and developed by billions of years of
evolution you make a change in the DNA code it makes a change in the protein code that can
affect whether the protein is functional or not it can affect whether the cell lives or not
billions of years of evolution that he's not at all concerned about screwing up billions of
years of evolution that he's not at all worried about his lack of understanding of to go ahead
and start thinking that everything is a nail it can affect the rate that the protein folds how
fast it is degraded this is all programming built into life that controls the three-dimensional
structure so this is dynamic regulation and explains most of what Darwin described as Darwinian
evolution by making a copy of the DNA software the cell can self-replicate making another copy
of itself as Schrodinger described all these processes require energy and from all the genome
two sequences a range of mechanisms that cell cells can provide energy as you know if we eat
sugar that's one way to do it and with simple metabolism it's been well worked out pathways for
decades how we extract the energy contained in the sugar molecule converting it into cellular
energy that can drive all these different processes in 1996 we sequenced the genome of
methanococcus genacia the first archaea and the first autotrof that means it makes everything
from life from inorganic substances and it makes its energy by converting co2 into nothing it also
uses the carbon and co2 to make all its proteins in lipids all these processes are coded for in
the DNA we've shown now using synthetic genomes when you put new DNA software into the cell the
protein robots read it immediately start producing the proteins coded for changing the cellular
phenotype and when you change the DNA software you change the species this is all consistent with
Schrodinger's code script and organisms astonishing gift of concentrating a stream of order on itself
Schrodinger citing the second law of thermodynamics the entropy principle the natural
tendency of things to go over into disorder describe the notion of order based on order
we get the order from the genetic code we get the order from its interpretation into
we can digitize life and regenerate life from the digital world and just as the ribosome can
convert the analog message and mRNA into a protein robot it's becoming standard now in the world
of science to convert digital code into proteins viruses and now cells scientists send digital
code to each other instead of sending genes or proteins and there's several companies around
the world that make their living by synthesizing genes for scientific labs it's faster and cheaper
to synthesize a gene than is the clonet or even get it by federal express an example of this
digital biological conversion is we've been working on new ways to make vaccines using synthetic DNA
and we progress this process very efficiently and now working with barda in the u.s. government
and novartis barda sends us an email containing a test pandemic flu sequence and we have less
than 24 hours to convert that digital code into a virus we now have that process under 12 hours
we get that to novartis and they're ready to scale up production for vaccines now we're in the process
of building a much smaller simpler what i call digital conversion device so my digital biological
converter is going to work somewhat like the telephone where it takes digital waves and converts
it into sound waves so you can hear it only will have a small box that you could attach to a computer
to in fact receive a digital wave and convert it into a protein perhaps a vaccine or even a cell
so think about in a future flu pandemic we could this sounds a lot like that that thing that David
Hone talked about where you got a arm band on one side that reads the pathogen and arm band on the
other side that makes the vaccine and injects it in you is he not talking about exactly the same
thing am i a am i a crazy person here barda and novartis
we distribute a new vaccine in seconds around the world because this is biology now moving
at the speed of light perhaps even through each individual home oh no this wasn't a plan there's
no way that this was a plan how could you possibly believe it's a plan if it was a plan they would
have been talking about what they were going to do for years already uh all life is derived
currently from other cellular life but i think it's just a short matter of time before someone
discovers the right chemical cocktail of enzymes ribosomes lipids together with the synthetic genome
to just to create a simple boot up system to get cells without a prior cellular history
wow that's amazing i'm sure it's you know only a matter of time before we are curing childhood
diseases with retroviruses in every childhood her every uh children's hospital in america i'm
sure it's not very long before the futurist dream of being able to look at your kid and
pick all the phenotypes you want and dial up the intelligence and musical creativity
will be as simple as calling craig ventors uh company and saying sequence me
so let's look at the tremendous progress in this last seven years and shorteners
lecture on this campus and try to imagine things 70 years from now uh jim watson still with us
whether he'll be with us 70 years from now is an open question try to imagine 70 years from now
is exactly the bamboozlement and mythology they want you to do by imagining a future that he just
brainwashed you into believing in or imagining you are accepting the model of reality that is in
that imaginary model in that imaginary image that model is what he just got through describing
which is that we are the summation of chemistry and physics there's nothing else
protein machines mindlessly do what they're told
and we are nothing more than a Turing machine that reads a tape
that's what craig vetner that's what all the people at the human genome project that's what
all the people that want to enslave your grandchildren want you to believe about your biology
about your children's biology and about the flawed nature of every child that's born
when in reality it's exact inversion of the truth children are born perfect
and even if they're born imperfect it is a perfect imperfect that cannot be augmented
through any rudimentary understanding that we think we have of this pattern integrity
it can't it simply cannot
but certainly some of you will be here in 70 years so in the year 2082 what will be happening
well we just saw my friend Elon Musk launch a private space flight to go up to the space station
certainly within 70 years we will have colonized the moon and Mars there's several working on trying
to do that so just like new life forms for food in 70 years we're going to be on Mars you see
where we're going here and I mean Robert Malone thought within 10 years we would be curing childhood
diseases with retroviruses and we're at least 30 years off on that if not 40
WTF ladies and gentlemen how can we take these people seriously when they've been doing exactly
what Peter Teal said they've been doing which is lying and exaggerating because of the hyperspecialization
completely allows it and because we're producing so much knowledge i.e. noise
with this endless reiterative falsification of hypotheses driven by preparean thinking
and every one of these people knows it Peter Teal knows it Elon Musk knows it
the Weinstein's probably know it because they've probably had it explained to them by their father
by these guys
it's an elaborate hoax ladies and gentlemen the quicker that we can teach it to our kids the quicker
that we break free energy production new medicines perhaps a vaccine could be sent from earth to
Mars at the speed of light taking somewhere between 4.3 and 21 minutes to get their depending on the
distance between earth and Mars the digital and biological worlds are now becoming interchangeable
perhaps more importantly and i'll speak to this again on on Saturday evening synthetic life
is going to be the tool that allows us to understand the diversity of life on this planet
and hopefully enable new industries to produce food fuel clean water and medicine
as we add a billion people to the planet over the next 12 years and every 12 years of following
that as we'll hear in a few minutes and you heard in the introduction Schrodinger's life
helps to stimulate the Jim Watson and Francis Crick over 60 years ago to help kick off this new
era of the DNA world with their discovery of the double helix one can only hope that this new
frontier of synthetic life will have a similar impact on the future thank you very much
yeah go back and sit down there sir ladies and gentlemen this has been giga ohm biological
it is a high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist make no
mistake about it ladies and gentlemen why is it doing that dang it i clicked on that slide like
three times now click click current slide there we go so we are in a trap right now ladies and
gentlemen we are in a trap and we are being trapped in this new world order where all of these things
that peter vetner said are about to come true all of this virology is real all this pandemic
potential is real and if we allow this mythology to be passed on to our children our children will
be enslaved by these machines by these softwares and by these apps not by the ai to come but by the
algorithms currently deployed and by the liars currently lying ladies and gentlemen please stop
all transfections in humans because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means
necessary intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the
immune system is dumb transfection is criminally negligent and viruses are not pattern integrity
so thanks very much for joining me i will see you again tomorrow i have an interview with
thomas binder and we are trying to decide whether we want to do 12 o'clock or i rather one o'clock
and have two hours and i think that's what we're going to do right now it's scheduled for two
but don't be surprised if it starts at one or if it's scheduled for one don't be surprised if it
starts at twelve because i'm going to try and get two hours with thomas instead of one so
he's offered an earlier hour i'm going to take it and then i'll change the schedule when i have
confirmation i'll see you tomorrow for thomas binder it's going to be a great discussion one of my
favorite people on the interwebs with regard to the pandemic and speaking truth to this power
i'm really excited about that you can find me at giggleonbiological.com don't underestimate how
much we are sacrificing for this it might look like this is a very rich production but it's a
couple of free cameras got a couple of craigslist hardware devices and an old mac that's what we're
doing this with and my family is absolutely positively living off of this stream so
if you can see that i've got about a hundred and ten subscribers that's about a thousand
dollars a month we have two thousand four hundred dollars a month in rent because we rent from
a weaponized pile of money that's starting to take over the residential property in in
pittsburgh so i'm i'm asking for help i'm begging for help i need everybody's help and if you are
already helping then share if you are already helping then share and if you can't help please
share that's about all i can say because that's what we need we need millions of viewers thousand
subscribers and we can actually win i'm convinced of it thank you very much for joining me and i'll
see you again soon tomorrow for sure intellectual bright web we'll be back tomorrow for sure thanks
you
i would be very up for meeting anyone in northern corner of western pennsylvania for a picnic
on the eighth of april if you want to organize that with me you got to email me directly i'm not
gonna tell everybody in the world where my little family's gonna go but i would be happy to have
anybody who wants to join me it is the eighth it is i think two monday's from now um we won't
have a chance to see this again without a big travel expense so hopefully we're gonna get clear
weather um my boss at the university of pittsburgh actually didn't let me go see the one at the
beginning of the pandemic and uh we got in a big fight about it actually uh i wanted to go camping
in tevisi and see it and he wouldn't allow me to do it so this this is one i'm not gonna miss i
just hope that i hope that we have cloudless day on that day okay see you later guys thank you
i'll see you tomorrow
you