I tried and told her I loved her, she didn't care, but anyway.
I told her we'd still be friends and she didn't care, but anyway.
I tried last week not to call her, she wasn't home, but anyway.
I think I'll spend my life alone, I really don't care right now.
But anyway, the state of affairs and the state of emotion, the kind of thing that you must understand.
I'll tell you one thing, you tell me and that day we walk away, maybe then shake hands.
We're joking when you taught me this, but anyway.
The news man said not to sit on the strange colored sheets.
It's my life he's trying to save.
Well, anyway, I found out that I got a cancer.
Too many television waves.
Well, anyway, it's a state of affairs and a state of emotion.
Kind of thing that you must understand.
I'll tell you one thing, you tell me another.
We walk away many dead shapes.
Someday an answer will find us Quite a long shot, but anyway I think the past, the past is behind us A real confusing event, but anyway I put all my hope in tomorrow It's gonna be great, I can tell, but anyway I see a new, a new day is dawning I'd like to say to you, well, but anyway It's a state of affairs, a state of emotion The kind of thing that you must understand I tell you one thing, you tell me another We walk away, maybe then shake hands
Yo, welcome to the Spock Casa.
And let's see how I'm pricey.
Yo, you remember O'Hara.
My boy, Sulu.
Hey, y'all.
What up, Spock?
Baby, no salsa on the leather.
Keep it on the chips.
Artwork.
Dope.
James T. Kirk, president and counsel.
This boy love that leftover roast beef.
Spock, it's solid beef, baby.
He like it a little, you know, rotten.
And this here is my sanctuary.
See, this is where I chill, where I relax, where I chillax.
Scotty, beam on down, baby.
As always, Scotty, bringing the power.
Oh, yeah.
Thanks for putting that link in the chat there for free rain.
I really appreciate that very much.
And please, please organize a way to see the live stream.
I'm going to do my best to represent our work very well in South Dakota in a couple of weeks.
The red pill, Pittsburgh, might actually be when the brownstone comes to Pittsburgh in November.
At the beginning of November, there's a brownstone meeting in Pittsburgh, and I may be the actual red pill that shows up there.
Who knows?
I got my ticket.
They're gonna have to revoke it if they don't want me to show up and cause trouble, so to speak.
Throw a wrench in their works.
A body cam, I bet.
Dollars to donuts they wouldn't let me do that.
But yeah, it's not a bad idea.
I think truth is good for kids.
We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in society.
We want everybody to feel good.
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 afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst case scenario.
I'm not sure exactly who he is.
His name is J.J.
Cooey and I believe he's a consultant for C.H.D.
and I believe he has a Ph.D.
in some sort of scientific discipline from what I understand.
Unfortunately, I think one of the reasons why they're doing it in Pennsylvania, and it doesn't matter if I come or not, is Pennsylvania is a two-party state.
Can't secretly record anybody here.
That would be a very bad idea in Pennsylvania.
Can get you in trouble really quick.
I think I've been baited.
I think I've actually been baited more than once into recording somebody illegally or, you know, and that's really dangerous in Pennsylvania.
You just can't do it.
So I'm always recording.
If you're on my show, you're being recorded, just so you know.
Hello, let's push the button here.
Hello, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the show.
This is Giga Ohm Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
We are daily or nearly daily trying to work through the necessary exercises in order to
effectively see through the illusions of the pandemic and how they did it.
And it's taken us many years actually to get to an understanding that makes sense where the different angles on what is true add up to what the truth really is.
And it isn't a matter of what is true, but what's perceived to be true.
And that's what so much of social media has been about.
It's been treating your consciousness as prime real estate.
and giving it to the highest bidder, in this case, probably a national security operation being executed on all of us.
And the way it has been executed on us is that they are keeping us from effectively asking any questions which will get us to these questions.
Any lines of thought that will lead to these questions or these ideas
are avoided, and they are avoided by a carefully crafted and orchestrated group of characters that I've come to call Team Worst Case Scenario.
They're the ones who convinced us that solving the Scooby-Doo mystery about a lab leak or natural virus was a great idea.
they're the ones who are committed to the spectacular lie that has gained a function as a potential pandemic source they are the ones who are spectacularly committed to not really discussing how many different ways the protocols were murdered and how much of a slippery slope something as innocent as supplementary oxygen
in response to a low pulse ox, quote unquote.
How slippery of a slope that could be.
All of these things need to be hidden.
You can't talk about this stuff.
If you want to argue about how badly they've covered up the virus, you'll be a hero.
If you want to talk about how badly they're covering up murder, they're going to attribute bad motives to every single thing you bring to the table and claim that you're not bringing any evidence at all.
These people are influenced by, given comfort by, and in fact probably employed by, weaponized piles of money that are descendant from this original objection, probably not accurately recorded, where Andrew Jackson tried to expose the
the den of thieves for what they were.
And remember, this is still back in the day when there might have been some gold backing up some values.
We don't have that anymore.
We're fiat currencies on top of fiat currencies on top of derivatives.
There's no way for anyone to accurately see what they've done in that regard.
But there is a way to see what they've done with regard to biology because that's a mythology that is solely reliant on that commitment to lies.
That's why Tony Fauci has been in charge for so long.
It's hard to get a succession of people to commit to lies about the basic truths of our irreducible complexity.
It's not too hard to get one
one guy's son to lie about it for his whole life, his whole professional life.
And that history is slowly being erased, being cleansed.
And you better get it while you can, because it will eventually be gone.
Buy books.
You know, backup CDs and stuff is not enough.
You need to buy books.
I've learned that in a very wonderful way.
I've come to love all the books that I'm surrounded by because these charlatans aren't in those books.
The charlatans that are descended from the OG charlatans, Baltimore, Gallo, Kaprowski, and Plotkin,
Those are my OG charlatans, and I know there are more, but I leave that up to Mark Hucytonic, Mark Kulak to add to that list.
But for me, for now, those four are pretty much enough because they explain how almost everyone in this narrative has come to be in this narrative, including Mickiewicz and Malone.
Yeah, that's right, including Mickiewicz and Malone, not just Rancid Yellow, not just Fauci.
but Malone and Mickiewicz too, which is really weird.
And so the only way we're going to make gentle the life of this world as we shed this mythology that has been put on us over generations is to make sure we stay focused, that we don't take their bait that they're trying to give us and that we try to love our neighbors.
And in fact, that's what we've been doing here at Giggo and Biological for quite some time.
That's been our deal.
And this wave of coordinated, it's an artificial wave.
It feels like, wow, everybody agrees.
And this wave of consensus was artificially created by a bunch of people who agreed to lie on the internet.
And if you want to use the truth,
and the understanding of the sacred biology that is us and our children to surf this wave, well, then you're at the right place.
And I don't purport to be as good a teacher as that guy in the white trunks, but I'm doing my best.
And if you've been here for a while, you know that at Giga Home Biological, we stay focused on the biology.
We don't take the bait on social media and we love our neighbors as best we can.
The way this works is that people are sharing the stream consistently every week.
And that's why we're already at 58 viewers after just 14 minutes.
And I expect we'll be over 110 viewers by the end of the program.
It's just a trend they can't break.
And a lot of the reruns are being watched on PeerTube, which is exactly the idea of that platform in the first place.
We don't want to steer people to an archive that's going to disappear like something on Twitch.
We don't want to steer people to an archive like on Rumble that's obviously supporting some of these other narrative people and promoting them.
We want to steer them to a place that's completely free and actually now funded by these viewers.
So, you know, one of the places that I spend money
from the subscriptions is on PeerTube.
So that archive, completely taken care of by us, is also provided by us.
And so all of those people on that start stream, thank you very much.
Illusion, his participation, that's it.
You gotta participate.
And if you wanna engage in noncompliance, you actually gotta, you gotta learn the biology.
do do
Good morning, everyone from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
This is Gigaohm Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
My name's Jonathan Cooey, and yeah, it's the 5th of June.
We still have work to do.
I apologize for being late.
This is the first day of summer vacation in my house, and so there are a few different balls to juggle here.
I don't think that that's gonna affect the 1010 stream long-term, but this morning, we still had some loose ends to tie up,
And so I had to be lifeguard in our little tiny driveway pool.
There are some incredibly small neighbor kids that come over sometimes that can actually still have a problem in our little pool, even though it's only like, I don't know what, how deep it is.
So after lifeguarding this morning, I am here.
I am a human just like you trying to best cope with
a world full of people that are confused and frustrated and also unreasonably certain about things.
And so that's what's really weird, right?
You have people around you everywhere you see, especially in America, because it's here worse than anywhere else, I imagine.
where people are just so riled up and confused and also sort of have their hairs on end because they assume that half of the people in the world are diametrically opposed to them.
So we're in a very dangerous place right now in America, I'll admit it, but I do think that there's a very easy, however narrow, way out, and that is trying to reconnect with the sacred biology, the irreducible complexity,
that was you when you were born and your child when he or she was born, and in fact all of us.
And it's only because of the extreme lack of proper nutrition and the extreme presence of environmental toxicity in America in particular that so many people are so unhealthy.
I mean, if you eat
unhealthily your entire life.
If eating habits are spoiled from school onwards, even from birth onwards, then you really have a problem.
And of course, we start, most American children start with two injections within a few minutes of their birth, which is really an abomination and something that I myself was a firsthand witness to when my daughter was born seven years ago now.
It's to me something still that I very humbly submit.
I did not pull my head out as fast as some of these other people who have come before me that actually have children who remain vaccine injured, some of whom are now vaccine injured adults.
And these people deserve all of the respect and deference that we can offer them.
However, a lot of them are burnt out.
A lot of them are tired of fighting because they have been fighting for 10 years, and people have been ignoring them, and they have been shouting into an echo chamber that may have been some of these organizations purporting to be speaking for them, helping them, advocating for them, when in reality they were just a little 55-gallon barrel that everybody was yelling into, thinking that they're
that their voices were being heard.
And so that's really what I'm trying to get this idea out.
I'm going to try and do my best at the Red Pill Expo to really explain how it is that people, by lying consistently about the biology and asking consistently the wrong questions and acknowledging consistently that these are the right questions, even though they're the wrong questions, has led to a
a false illusion, an illusion of consensus, that it is becoming common knowledge that four and a half years ago, a lab leak occurred.
And that common knowledge is about to pass on to our children, where they are going to talk in the locker rooms or with their history teacher about the fact that what indeed happened, apparently, it seems like it was a lab leak.
And I am making the argument that this is exactly the intention of this so-called fifth generation warfare that's supposedly working on top of a natural phenomenon, which is a coronavirus pandemic.
And this is a wholesale lie.
And all of the people that I am currently criticizing are people who I believe are part of a team of people
who wittingly or unwittingly at some point has become part of this national security narrative which was designed all along to bring to the state where people understand that I guess it was a lab leak.
Now, the reason why I showed that Alex Karp video a few days ago is because Alex Karp is very succinct when he says that he went to Germany to study how it is that we know things.
how it is and whether or not people can actually participate in their republics.
And so these little hints are all over the place from all of these people when they've been first introduced, when they first come out, when they first spoken, when things are a little less reined in or less polished.
And what you see is that these people have been sculpting, have been forming,
these rather complex concepts in our head by planting them in social media, planting them in mainstream media and movies and books and in philanthropic endeavors and conferences and in bureaucratic meetings and in grant proposals and in tabletop exercises, all the same ideas.
so that over years there is an illusion of consensus about a background of viruses, retroviruses, coronaviruses, DNA viruses, RNA viruses.
All of it is outside of us.
All of it is alien.
All of it is we exist despite.
And so essentially there's all this erroneous, pathogenic,
aspects of the world, which is really a gross distortion of what I see when I look out into my backyard, what I've seen for my whole life and know to be true.
And it's only because of the blessings and curses of this pandemic that many of us have come to understand how badly we were fooled.
More importantly, how badly all of our teachers, all of our parents,
All of the people that I was ever mentored by are fooled.
And many of them remain fooled, even though I have, as best I've tried, to really explain to them that, look, I was there too.
I was fooled like you, so I understand exactly what your mindset is.
And I feel like I've thrown a very handy lifeline to a lot of these people.
And they've just kind of said, nah, I'm not really interested in climbing out.
And so we are at a very crucial point right now where maybe we're not going to get over a threshold.
Maybe we are.
But if we're going to do it, it's going to happen, I believe, in the next few months where a threshold is reached that can never be reversed.
Quite similar to where we were with the shots.
We need to get most of the people who are still open minded to see the possibility that they murdered people and then blamed it on a lab leak.
And that's what they want to be the
the end sort of set point, the end attractor state of everybody's conscious and unconscious assumptions about the last five years, especially university students.
You can't understand how important it is that especially they, because if their parents don't fully fall into that attractor state, they're going to stay there.
And they'll assume that their parents don't understand the nuances of what occurred.
And there's going to be a concerted effort in the coming months to make sure that this does become common knowledge.
That's why Chris Martenson, that we've talked about in the last couple of weeks, just did a podcast like yesterday that said that the lab leak was starting to become common knowledge.
It's exactly what their plan was and exactly why all these people, trusted sources, were put in place, promoted on the PBS NewsHour in 60 minutes and in the Senate years before the pandemic.
What they want you to believe is that this operation started in 2020, but it did not.
2020 was a public reveal.
They have been covering up for a very long time that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
It's very possible that the old vaccine schedule is much worse than this one.
And that's why EpiGirl's message of look at the VAERS signal though.
The VAERS signal has been pretty low up until now.
Now you see that EpiGirl's first and most important message was actually that the VAERS signal from the COVID vaccines is so much higher than any previous.
vaccine.
In fact, all the other vaccines combined.
What an interesting message now in retrospect that she started out with and stuck with for an extraordinarily long time, almost exactly like the character described in the Spars document that I'm referring to, Epigirl.
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic.
Today I found some really funny coincidental evidence of where things are going with regard to this thing.
Remember my argument.
I'm making the argument that we got picked up on the side of the road.
And we got into a car, and we thought that all the people in the car were, you know, a bunch of hitchhikers in the same situation that we were in.
You know, a meteor hit, one guy stole a car, drove down the road, picked up somebody that needed help, then another person, and then another person.
We're all in this situation together, and we're just driving away from the crash.
We got to get out of here.
But in reality, what happened was we were told to stay home, we went on social media, and then social media was programmed to put certain people in the car with us.
And incidentally, those certain people that in the car, the ones that were supposedly censored and then started Gab and Locals and Telegram, are all united in their inability to question the fundamental principles of this faith.
There was a novel virus.
Millions died and were saved from it.
Gain of function is real and a virus will come again.
And once you start to see that although Jessica Rose is a hero for speaking out about VAERS signals, she can't question this at all.
And in fact, the first three papers that she ever published are doing computational math, making a math model of virus growth or something like that.
She's a virologist.
More recently, it's become more obvious, I think, because they're really off script and they're panicking and they need to do something to step someone in front of me.
So they're desperately trying to figure out how to do it.
Maybe they're gonna, I showed you already, maybe they're gonna have Sasha Latupova and Kevin McKernan get into a big fist fight or something like that.
Maybe they'll get on a Twitter space together and argue, argue, argue.
It'll all be fake.
Maybe Sasha Latipov has already done it with somebody else and argued and it's fake.
The reason why you know she's fake is because you have to do research about what she allowed to happen or what she allowed to be done using her daughter when her daughter was a minor before the pandemic.
If you just look into that,
You can find her videos.
I think her moniker on the internet was Soph, S-O-P-H.
I don't know what her name is.
I don't care.
I just need you to know that there's no reason to trust this person.
any more than there's a reason to trust Kevin McKernan.
But Kevin McKernan is a very important player in this.
There were lots of random people that were added, like Sasha, that don't play much of a role, and in the end can't really play much of a role, because she was already doing something before the pandemic.
And the moment that becomes clear, the moment that everybody finds out that, wait a minute, what, your daughter was on Alex Jones before the pandemic?
What the hell?
Wait, your daughter threatened the YouTube CEO?
Wait, what?
Wait, you took intellectual property and data from the University of Rochester and made a company and sold it to Pfizer?
I mean, that's just an absolute meddler.
Look what Joe Lee is doing on Twitter right now.
He's trying to pretend that the reason why they hired me at CHD was to distract from his string theory.
I mean, the pathetic level that they're at right now, where they're trying to use a combination of lies and victimhood, and somehow I'm still collaborating with this one or that one.
I don't want to be too... I mean, there's hardly anybody with a record of integrity in this except for me.
I mean, who else has admitted consistently when they were wrong?
Who else has got a link up that says exactly how wrong they were?
Who else can have the claim to fame of trying to have sent an email where I tried to bring CHD together with the no virus people on both sides said, meh.
Who else can claim to have helped Bobby Kennedy write his book and even gotten the words in there, they didn't need a virus.
and then worked for CHD and got fired because they said something about Robert Malone and Meryl Ness.
Who else can claim that?
Sasha's been on Shannon Joy four times.
Sasha's been on the Coronavirus Committee in Germany three times.
She's been on Malik's podcast twice.
Who is that meddler?
And why is Kevin McKernan having a conversation with her on the internet now?
But Robert Malone says she's a bad guy.
Robert Malone has outed her as one of the worst.
Remember, he was on Steve Kirsch's podcast a couple of weeks ago.
I don't really appreciate that.
She's part of a three-year campaign of interference with his life.
I mean, you can just look at the videos.
We've studied them day after day.
It's very clear now they are liars.
They have revealed themselves as liars.
It only takes a few hours of time to listen carefully to how I delineate that they have to be liars.
It's impossible for them to be where they are saying what they said in 2020, 21, 22, to now be claiming what they're claiming.
They have to be liars.
And they're fundamentally liars because they all agree that an RNA molecule can pandemic and it definitely can't.
So I saw this guy today, which is really interesting.
And I got to get the things off of here for a minute.
So I saw this guy today.
I'm going to leave this graphic up, though, because I want everybody to be reminded constantly that the spread of bad ideas is very diabolical and actually programmed to work against us.
So I don't know who this guy is, but he tweets a lot in Polish.
And he claims to have worked for the CDC in the past.
I'm not trying to promote him, I'm just trying to show you a pattern.
I said that Jessica Hockett was gonna release the video from what we briefed Senator Ron Johnson's staff on.
So we didn't get an audience with Senator Ron Johnson, we got an audience with his staff and somebody or two people who were far below the informed level that we hoped for.
We basically got recent college graduates, as far as I could tell.
So it's unfortunate, but we did what we could.
And so I said, you know, in coming, we might release this video.
I'm really excited about it.
And this guy decides to tweet, actually.
Most of the time, he just retweets people.
But in this case today, he decided to retweet more noise being sent to Senator Johnson's panel.
Hmm.
So I just started to look at what he had retweeted today.
And he retweeted Kate Lindy, who was promoting Brett Weinstein's video.
He retweeted Jason James, who retweeted Brett Weinstein's video.
He retweeted Jeffrey Tucker.
That's the guy who runs the Brownstone Institute that I'm going to crash, but I've paid to crash in November.
Oh, wow, there's Shannon Joy, look at that, and The Who, that's great.
He says that Barack Obama is actually behind what happened.
He's Steve Kirsch, there you go, isn't that great?
And Jordan Chattel, I don't know where he's from, but he feels like a meddler as well, just from who he promotes, but then he promotes Professor Martin Neal, that's really nice.
and the virus origins and gain of function research.
So that, that's an interesting review, because that review is basically based on, it's based on taking the word of previous to
the pandemic, previous to the pandemic, textbooks about virology.
They're basically trying to go on what fields virology said about coronavirus before the pandemic and then use that as a starting point to say what did or didn't happen in the pandemic and what is or isn't possible with coronavirus research.
Now, for the most part, I just want to say that I was offered the opportunity to write that with them or to help them
edit it or write it or contribute to it.
And I did not.
And the main reason was because when I read it, I realized that they had done what I did in 2020 and bought a virology book or got the PDF and read it.
And so I didn't really want to go and say, well, I mean, yeah, but
And so it was frustrating to me.
So then, of course, he also is promoting Nick Hudson, but notice carefully the pattern here.
Notice carefully the pattern here.
He's only promoting Nick Hudson when he's replying to Steve Kirsch, or when he's replying to Jeffrey Tucker, or when he's replying, oh, when he's got this guy on who was on the Campbell Show about T-cells.
I think, or no, cancer, sorry.
So it's a very interesting place we're in because it's starting to become obvious.
They're running out of room.
They're running out of actors.
They're running out of anonymous accounts.
If you just stop paying attention to anonymous accounts alone, the noise of Twitter disappears greatly, but you can also still see it.
And this very lively debate is being curated by these people.
That's why it's very suspect to me that somebody who is followed well in Poland
Has decided to speak out against me and it's interesting because other people were trying to get me to interview this guy earlier this year And I never really was in contact with him.
So it's strange that he's got something in his in his bonnet for me So, please work hard every day to try and see through this thing that has been going on since the 20s this is Edward Bernays talking about how Democratic society is ruled
by the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.
And there's a special word in there.
It's the organized habits and opinions.
Organized habits and opinions.
These people and those people and those people and those people.
And that's what these guys are doing.
Make no mistake about it.
That's why I'm hammering on Kevin McKernan.
There is no other way to explain why Kevin McKernan was on an April podcast talking about a background signal and that you're going to have to come up with some pretty good evidence if it's a lab leak because I don't believe it.
It could have been in circulation for 40 or 70 years.
Then the next month he's back again talking about how he's got to test cannabis because you know we use bat guano and people sneeze all the time.
And cancer patients and old people are using weed like never before, so we wouldn't want cannabis to get in the weed supply and then kill all these old people.
And they had a discussion about masks and whether or not they're appropriate anywhere or whenever, and how often they need to be renewed, asking the wrong questions over and over.
And now, today, we're gonna watch one from December of the same year.
And it'll probably be nothing sort of extraordinary, what he says.
That's why it's also extraordinary that I think part of the reason why I was let go from CHD is because pressure that was put on by him or people that were associated.
It's my understanding that he himself called and complained about what I was doing on Twitter.
I can't remember off the top of my head which one, who told me what, if someone directly told me by email or if someone told me about somebody else who got the phone call.
But either way, that person was involved.
And so it's also very strange that these two people, Jessica Rose and Robert Malone, were so prominently featured in my podcast with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which was supposed to be an hour with him and me, and then was changed about a few days beforehand.
because Robert Malone didn't want to listen to my talk or something like that, and it became seven minutes.
And it wasn't even supposed to be a panel until then.
And incidentally, this panel, I think Robert Malone spoke for at least 40 minutes.
And it wasn't my best presentation by any stretch of the imagination.
Seven minutes is short for me.
But I did my best, and more importantly, these people did their best to make sure that they continued to maintain this illusion that a Scooby-Doo mystery was on the way to being solved and that gain of function was very likely.
And these people have been misleading the young for a few years now, and it's time that we don't take it anymore.
We have to draw a line somewhere.
And anybody that's on that red side over there is still sketchy.
I think that Sukrit Bhakti is almost there.
I think that Peter McCullough is almost there, except he still says what he's got to say, I guess, to stay alive.
I don't know.
But the rest of these people are just fully meddlers.
They're just liars.
They're lying about their motivations.
They're lying about their insight or how they can't figure anything out.
They get no fracking idea or they think it's an evolutionary thing or whatever.
Double-stranded DNA is the most dangerous.
Oh, it's mutating.
Whatever it is they say.
They're all wittingly or unwittingly, willingly or unwillingly, they are misleading the young by insisting that nobody really scrutinize 2020, that nobody really pay any attention to what people were doing in 2020.
And that's why I think it's important the work we're doing.
Because if you believe this.
So what do I do?
I go to Des Moines.
Ladies and gentlemen, the people on the screen, I have nothing against Des Moines.
I lived there for four years.
I go to Des Moines.
I infect a couple of sentinel cases in Des Moines.
I go to Seattle.
I infect a couple of cases there.
I go to North Carolina.
I go to Wisconsin.
What I'm doing is I'm using a dispersion methodology to be able to infect sentinel cases with a highly morbid condition.
These individuals complain.
Again, this is a central nervous system condition.
So they're complaining of whatever the bug may do.
It'll produce some cascade of neurological and neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms.
And then what I do, the real bug that I use is the internet.
I take attribution for that, yes.
The real bug that we use is the internet.
But what you need to understand is this is a public facing brochure presentation of what was really done.
What was really done is that very skilled agents, very skilled members of a team and carefully recruited members of a team were unleashed mostly on the United States in order to control the perception of the early pandemic.
Now, I don't know if Jessica Hockett's right, and it's much more fraud than it is murder.
I don't know if Mark Hulak's right, and it's more murder than fraud because of the opioid epidemic and all these other things that are definitely being ignored by these meddlers.
But I do know that if you ever question the central narrative of a novel virus with a strange disease that they've had multiple times, that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine work for,
that you are not part of this group anymore.
You will never get invited into this little circle of buddies.
And I think the only reason why Brian Hooker or this lady from the NVIC are there is because that's how they do it.
They absorb a couple of people.
They let them also present.
They make them feel part of the team.
They get to be in the group picture.
But in the end, the message was controlled.
limited spectrum of debate was reinforced and the narrative that we're all supposed to eventually accept as common knowledge about a lab leak is also completely preserved.
Brett Weinstein, of course, was a guy who was in a social signal chat with me for a year along with Chris Martinson and a few other people that are definitely notable in this narrative, but
I'm a little afraid to mention because of legal issues.
However, those people were essentially part of this same narrative that was trying to, I don't know why that didn't play.
I guess we have to escape.
We're probably running out of RAM in the 101st slide.
And that's why it's interesting now that he's on with Russell Brand talking about Russell Brand's recent conversion to Christianity and whether or not God is real or not.
Around the same timing a few weeks ago, right?
We also had Jordan Peterson talking with that English guy, Pierce Morgan about God and whether he believes in God or not.
And his answer pretty much was, well, I behave as if there is one.
I work under the assumption that there is one, but he doesn't understand what you mean by believe.
And it's not very dissimilar to what these two yo-yos talk about as they try to, I believe and I feel this kind of, well, you know, these old religions need to be universalized because there's so many universal truths that are evolutionary dependent or evolutionarily obvious or evolutionarily convergent or whatever other garbage he says.
This is the worst kind of liars because they are working for the slavers.
And that's why I find it very interesting that someone who calls my work noise is also promoting Brett Weinstein's appearance in Geneva with all these other people.
These same actors, Robert Malone, Jessica Rose was rapping on stage in Geneva.
And I will not ever, I promise, I make this promise to you.
I will never use that video on my stream, even though it is absolutely hilarious.
and I've downloaded every resolution of it possible and backed it up on every location possible, I will never make you watch it.
But I assure you, if you ever need a laugh late night or you're drinking and you want to make someone spit out their drink, that's the video to look for.
So here we are, you know, I still really think we're mapping it out here.
And I think you can start to see the pattern very quickly.
If you watch these people promote each other, you watch these people pat each other on the back and sell each other's books and, uh, and, and promote each other's podcasts and podcast appearance.
You'll see why they never address these points.
None of them ever will.
They just won't.
It's unfortunate, but they're just not going to address it because they know they can't.
So I just want to give you a heads up.
Justwritemedia.org slash blog slash archive slash 14 517, which I will now put in the chitty chat, right?
I'm going to try that.
Yes.
Gotcha.
Copy.
Bang.
That's one.
And then here's the video and we might watch it tomorrow or we might watch it at some point because it is a pretty good video.
This dude's a lawyer and he's got a pretty good basic take on the pandemic.
Listen.
I might not have queued it up correct, but it'll play.
The reality is I'm convinced that modern societies, our society is not susceptible to pandemics.
That's the one lie that underlies all the other lies.
We are not susceptible to pandemics with the advent of modern antibiotics and the whole panoply of pharmacopedia
of repurposed drugs that we have available to us to deal with any disease threat that may arise.
So that we are subject to pandemics at all is the greatest lie.
And anyone who advances a platform, news, advice, recommends vaccines,
They need to go into the category of extreme suspicion because they're trying to sell you something based on fear and a fear which is wholly unjustified.
Watch out for the purveyors of fear.
They are probably lying.
Now, I love that take.
I know that there's some things we can say about that, right?
We can say it, but he's a lawyer.
So you can't expect him to have the sophistication of someone who has been reading biology his whole life and then turned to this pandemic and read as much as he could.
He hasn't had time to do that.
He's attacking the dragon from a different side.
But he's really close to the truth here.
I mean, pandemics, epidemics, these kinds of things are kind of the same.
And the one problem that I have with it, and I'm sure that there are people in the chat who are going to hear it, is that he's saying the reason why is because of medicines and pharmaceuticals.
It's not about sanitation or water or the things that we know got rid of polio and measles.
And so, I'm a little skeptical, but I don't think this guy's a bad guy.
I just think he needs to be shown that, okay, there's a ranking here, and you should first realize that
You know, good sanitation, water purification, hygiene was essential to the first initial precipitous drop.
And then, of course, we treat disease better and better and more successfully all the time, and people are not dying of secondary infection like they used to.
We have to be very careful about how we talk about this because otherwise we're essentially reinforcing this idea that out there There are all these things that are that are out to get us or that are taking advantage of our weaknesses or whatever it is when in reality That's probably not an accurate way to think about our place in this in this molecular soup So I just I just wanted to make that clear And yeah, we will
We will keep this playing because I know that they say a little bit more.
Our guest today is Chess Crosby.
Mr. Crosby was leader of the official opposition in Newfoundland from 2018 to 2021.
As a lawyer, he has a background in medical malpractice and class actions.
He did pro bono work for claimants to the 9-11 compensation scheme and worked on tobacco cases, which 20 years later are still in mediation.
Oh, I like this guy.
He believes that government overreaction to COVID-19 was so massive that Canada needs an equally massive no-fault compensation.
So he thinks the overreaction was so massive and all I got to do then is just push him one step farther and realize that the overreaction was planned.
And that's why they had this illusion of consensus from the very beginning that the worst case scenario might happen.
A billion people dead.
If we can just push somebody like Chess to that, whoa!
Because then he becomes really powerful, right?
Because then he can start to challenge them on real biological principles as well as legal and moral principles.
And he becomes a very, very difficult force to reckon with.
I would be very interested in talking to Chess Crosby from Newfoundland.
So we got work to do, ladies and gentlemen.
They are gonna continue to meddle.
And so let's watch this, the first part or whatever we can get through of this podcast from December, 2020, again with Kevin McKernan.
We're listening to Kevin McKernan because he rose very early in the response to the pandemic about very specific things.
If you're not aware, he wrote a paper along with some other people, interesting people, in fact,
about the methodological shortcomings of the PCR test as published by Drorsten and The Who.
And in retrospect, it looks to me like a controlled op
coordinated by a few people to tie together Mike Eden and Claire Craig and Thomas Binder and a few other very early outspoken people together on a unified front of objection to the PCR test.
But it was a mealy-mouthed objection because it wasn't about the general usefulness of PCR, but the specific
perceived shortcomings of a methodology proposed by Drorsten and circulated by the WHO, which again did not ask the right question.
The right question was, can we roll out a PCR test and know anything about and get anything from the results?
And the answer should have been no.
but the answer wasn't no.
The answer was that, oh, well, you know, there's primer dimers and blah, blah, blah.
They might be false positives or there's, you know, things that don't work right.
Cause their temperatures are off.
There's like 10 different objections we have.
But none of them are based on the objection that none of these PCR tests are being adequately shown to not pick up a ubiquitous background signal.
In fact, nobody's even asking that question.
In fact, I would argue that that paper got a bunch of those people together under the consensus that that wasn't even a relevant question.
And so I do think it's very important.
Kevin McKernan is one of the central players here, even if he wasn't originally meant to be, um, as central as he is now.
I think it's probably the case.
I think if anybody was not supposed to be as central as they are, it's Robert Malone, because he is a red thread that connects all of these people right back to these, you know, Kaprowski, Plotkin, uh, Baltimore and, uh,
and Plotkin, Kaprowski, Baltimore, and Gallo.
And so yeah, it's an extraordinary place where we are, so I'm gonna escape out of here, and then I do think I've got it all queued up already, if I'm lucky.
And then I can make it big.
And I'm doing it at regular speed because I'm going to pause and talk and we'll see what we can get through.
The boys are going to basketball without me today, so I do have plenty of time to make this a long one.
So if you need to get a drink or take a bathroom break, maybe now is the time.
It says full screen.
I don't know why it didn't go full screen yet.
You know, even after the vaccine, they want masks and they want social distancing.
And there doesn't seem to be any exit strategy for this, which is concerning because there is no scoreboard for the negative consequences of the reaction.
That's just all getting swept under the rug.
We see, we do see notes from, in many papers that have come out on the harms of lockdown, and they seem to be ignored.
There's a lot of concern from the UN and others in third world countries, there's going to be starvation.
I'm Christina Hudson-Kohler, an egg processing manager living in Syracuse, New York, and you are listening to the Vance Crowe Podcast.
Welcome back to the podcast.
I'm glad you're here.
Today I'm interviewing a past guest, Kevin McKernan.
Kevin is a scientist that once was working at MIT on the Human Genome Project.
He has then separated, started his own company, built them up and he is an expert.
So if we just stop it right here and point out that in the intro, the first, the two things that they emphasized was that the response is what hurt people and there's nobody accounting for that.
And then he did a UN plug.
You wanna hear it again, just in case you missed it?
That's what he said, right?
I mean, it was the response hurt people and nobody's keeping account of it and the UN.
Even after the vaccine, they want masks and they want social distancing and there doesn't seem to be any exit strategy for this, which.
is concerning because there is no scoreboard for the negative consequences of the reaction.
That's just all getting swept under the rug.
We do see notes in many papers that have come out on the harms of lockdown, and they seem to be ignored.
There's a lot of concern from the UN and others in third world countries there's going to be starvation.
I'm Christina Hudson-Kohler, an egg processing manager living in Syracuse, New York, and you are listening to the Vance Crowe podcast.
Welcome back to the podcast.
I'm glad you're here today.
I'm interviewing a past guest, Kevin McKernan.
Kevin is a scientist that once was working at MIT on the Human Genome Project.
He has then separated, started his own company, built them up, and he is an expert
in the PCR space, which is really an interesting space to be in during coronavirus.
So we have a wild conversation about the details of those tests, those nasal swabs that people are having shoved up their noses and the rapid test.
And what does the antigen test mean?
And Kevin is one of those guys that I love staying in contact with.
I watch him on Twitter and I find his perspective to be interesting if only because it's different.
I happen to find Kevin to be intelligent, fair-minded, able to articulate complicated ideas.
But even if he wasn't, I really love the fact that I'm able to explore ideas that... Isn't that pretty extraordinary that they let that webpage expire?
I find it extraordinary.
Nobody seems to care.
that are not being published in other places, and I think that that is a really important thing.
We're going to get to the interview, but one thing that you should be aware of is if you like conversations like this, if conversations with people that want to push the envelope, that they believe that their faith is best tested by going out and exploring the world, consider joining the Articulate Ventures Network.
It is a place where we have big conversations about all kinds of complicated ideas and people have various perspectives that are not all in sync.
And so it makes for much better conversations, but we have a culture around it that makes it a fun exploratory time where you can learn from and it makes your life better.
So if you're interested in joining, join before the first of the year at network.articulate.ventures.
So I'm going to head now to the interview with Dr. Kevin McKernan.
Sorry about that.
Kevin McKernan, welcome back to the podcast.
Thank you.
Yes, it's been too long.
Miss Chandy about this stuff.
What's new in the world?
My, how the world has changed.
So for anybody that is new to the podcast, Kevin McKernan was one of the very first guests I had on that was willing to take a contrary position to the national narrative about what was going on with coronavirus.
And so I wonder if he'll accurately articulate what exactly was contrary.
I don't mean it contrary as in like, it wasn't there.
It was, let's think about the measures that we're taking.
Let's lay out some lines.
Let's talk about data.
So he, he definitely does.
He did not question the virus, but did question the measures in response.
And that's pretty much the whole operation in a nutshell.
And now he's supposed to be the go-to expert that keeps you away from questioning the fidelity of the PCR test or understanding what cycle threshold means versus the specificity of primers versus a clean
distilled water background control or a distilled water plus a bacteriophage with a known sequence in it versus a nasal swab as the basis for a starting point of PCR.
And all of these things, I'm sure they're not going to cover now, but I just want to predict it ahead of time so that you know what's happening here.
This is narrating, this is sorry, curating the narrative like nobody ever did.
Like a
He was central.
And man, you are the guy that I turn to when I say it's really easy to me to know what the national narrative is.
But how do I know what other people are thinking?
Because it's often pushed out of the world.
So what do you think?
What is the status of coronavirus right now at the end of December of 2020?
OK, well, my my sense of it is it would be much better if they didn't make a lot of these generic outpatient treatments illegal in our country.
So for those who aren't familiar with ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, which we probably spoke about many months ago, those have proven to work really well in India.
And now we have doctors down at the Department of Homeland Security pounding the fist in the table to open them up for U.S.
use.
And I thought they were working in America.
That's interesting, right?
So there are no American accounts of ivermectin working right now.
It's just in India.
That's curious.
I wonder, maybe that's true at December 2020, but he's actually telling a story now that India is the source of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin data, which is neat.
I think that just happened.
Ironically, like the week they made the vaccine available, they opened up those two, which is kind of incredible timing.
But yeah, I think in India, they're seeing something like 90 or 80 or 90 deaths per million and maybe 100 deaths per million.
And we're up at like 800 here in the States.
And one of the things they do there is if you get symptoms, they don't tell you to wait around for a couple of weeks before coming to the hospital.
They give you hydroxychloroquine out of the gate.
And I think the ivermectin data looks even better.
So those are really cheap, off-patent drugs that haven't been used quite a bit here.
And so we have a contagion here that's larger than it needs to be.
At the same time, there's a lot of other folks I follow on Twitter that have some really good studies here, or will point you to a lot of good studies that demonstrate the excess deaths are
are barely exaggerated here in the news.
We have this obsession of following PCR cases.
So I think one of the things that is being done here, he said that ivermectin looks better than hydroxychloroquine.
My feeling is, although I'm not going to claim to have the pharmaceutical or mechanistic
definitive explanation.
But my feeling is, is that something that is essentially very, very much related to an ant poison, maybe even chemically identical to an ant poison, is less likely to help you with a respiratory disease than something like hydroxychloroquine, which at least in some pharmacological descriptions I've heard,
it is actually a zinc ionophore.
So that's one of the problems here.
Already we have a guy who could give us some mechanistic explanation for why it is that something that is normally an insecticide or a boticide or a parasite killer that you take once a season is something that can now be used against a respiratory disease, maybe even whenever people think they have it.
And so it's an interesting thing to note that his primary argument is that his evidence is India and what he's read about India.
He's not been to India.
He's not done the study himself.
I mean, he doesn't even have friends in India, my guess.
And so it's a very curious thing.
He said ivermectin looks better than hydroxychloroquine.
Hydroxychloroquine was what Zev Zelenko pushed.
and said that he treated a couple hundred people in Congress with, not ivermectin, which is now what all these people say is the miracle drug that also cures cancer.
Ladies and gentlemen, they are liars.
PCR cases are really not informative.
You really have to look at deaths.
And I know those come later.
It's unfortunate.
But the excess deaths are what's really critical.
Every time this year, there are deaths that go up in the wintertime, something like 8,000 a day.
And we are, in fact,
I'm
He's itemizing all of the death certificates, not all of them.
I think he did a study of a couple thousand and noticed like 40% of them aren't really COVID deaths.
So we've got a, I think a narrative in the news that likes to profit on this fear campaign.
And I don't know what's driving it.
It's probably conspiratorial to go there, but it's not reflective of- It's not conspiratorial to say that they murdered people and then we're going to blame it on a lab leak.
and that they put people who were connected to them for decades in place early on to make sure that as they slow rolled everybody to this understanding, both sides of this argument, both sides of this many faceted argument would come to that conclusion and essentially teach their children that that's the best explanation for what happened.
The date of this podcast is the 30th of December, 2020.
what's actually going on if you dig into the numbers.
That's when it was released.
I don't know when it was recorded.
It was probably recorded before the 30th of December.
The numbers are we have a second wave.
One of the things you'll notice is that he doesn't say anything about the winter of severe disease and death, which they announced right before this, I think.
Or was that 2021?
I don't remember anymore.
I'll go back.
Thanks for the interruption, Jessica.
Good to see you here.
So we've got, I think, a narrative in the news that likes to profit on this fear campaign.
And I don't know what's driving it.
That's probably conspiratorial to go there.
So was that a plug for Scott Jensen, who says there's only 40% of them aren't COVID?
So there is COVID.
There is a virus.
So apparently, Scott Jensen doesn't question that either or didn't at the time, so much so that he felt he could promote him, which is interesting.
Um, it's, it's not reflective of what's actually going on.
If you dig into the numbers, uh, the numbers are, we have a second wave.
That's really a ripple.
Although if you look at the PCR data, it looks as big, if not bigger than the first wave, but it's just not pulling through in terms of, um, the IFR, the IFR, and this continues to go.
And so what is key here to see, and I hope you can see it, um, is where is it?
Oh, sorry, I gotta go like this.
My bad.
What's key to see here is what he's telling you are PCR cases aren't informative.
Why?
Not because they aren't cases.
They are cases.
He just got through telling you that we have another wave, although it's not manifesting in its IFR.
It's not manifesting in its creating sickness.
but he's absolutely positively not questioning that something is spreading.
He's not questioning that the PCR has identified something spreading.
It looks even worse than last time, except people aren't as sick as last time.
Can you see it?
You have to see it very clearly before I can move on.
This is extraordinary because again, this narrative is very specific.
He talked about antibodies twice in a row since he's been to this podcast.
Now he's here reinforcing the narrative that the PCR cases aren't informative.
Why?
Not because they are not cases.
Not because they're measuring on a pre-existing background.
There is spread, it is monitoring it, and it's showing that the spread, despite how amazing it is and how with such high fidelity we can track it, it's not hurting anybody.
At least not as many as they thought it was gonna.
And so maybe they've overreacted.
Stop lying!
I think John Ioannidis just put some work out demonstrating it approaching the flu now, which I think is what we spoke about back in March, is that this thing would eventually reach the flu, if not lower, because it'll probably reflect what most other coronaviruses do over time.
And so asking the question of will this become just like the flu in the future is asking the wrong question because it accepts the fact that something was released or leaked and it's spread around because we can track it.
Let's get better.
And you understand the disease more.
You understand who it affects.
And you try to protect the vulnerable.
And you do a better job at managing the disease.
And the numbers improve over time.
So yeah.
So he's talking about a combination of learning what the right stuff is, and everybody building a little immunity, and the vaccine rolling out.
And that's just the way these things work.
Stop lying.
I think there's a lot of problems in the PCR side of things.
And that's what seems to be driving the panic and the fear.
And a lot of that, I think, is a misunderstanding of what PCR is measuring.
It's really not measuring your... Well, here, let's stop for a second, because one of the biggest differences between when you and I spoke the first time and now
is that I didn't know anyone that had coronavirus, but we were watching videos of people laying dead bodies in the street and running away, right?
So right now, it's been a little bit inverted, like we don't see those types of things.
Now we maybe see hospitals.
I don't watch regular news, so I don't I don't really have that much of a chance to see it.
But but I do know people that have lost
grandparents to coronavirus.
I know people that are in their 50s going to the emergency room and getting put on ventilators.
So, like, one thing that I hesitate as I'm hearing you describe this stuff is because I'm like, I don't know, man.
Seems like people got pretty sick with this one.
Yeah, I'm not a denier.
It's happening.
Without a doubt, there's a virus spreading around.
But you have to also put it in context to all the other numbers that are going on.
The flu's disappeared.
So this time last year, there's probably some coronavirus floating around that we all... So he can't adequately explain that the testing went away?
He's not going to say that at all?
Flu disappeared?
Really?
Please tell me he's going to stay on that.
Because if he makes the argument right now that flu actually disappeared and coronavirus replaced it... Stop lying!
I'm gonna laugh my... I'm gonna have a hard time controlling how long I laugh.
called the flu.
So we probably under called it last year.
We're probably over calling it this year.
So yeah, those things do happen.
There is a very large separation between the young and the old on this.
I think it's about 1000 fold difference between the young and the old in terms of the the the mortality.
So the older you are, especially when the old people go into the hospital with a low pulse ox and they get a supplementary oxygen and a kid goes into hospital, they probably don't.
Kid can probably take supplemental oxygen a lot longer than an elderly patient can.
Do you see it?
Because I do.
Or if you're over 70, you're a thousand times more likely to die from this than you are if you are a child.
But if the child is less than the flu, you also have to look at the average age of death.
The average age of death is older than the average age.
So this is a group of patients that are, unfortunately, in the last years of life, and this may be accelerating their demise, but it is not changing the overall statistics.
But what about all the young people that died in New York, supposedly?
What the hell's going on here?
The whole argument in this first summer was that New York was evidence that everybody was vulnerable, that everybody needed to lock down.
The schools needed to stay closed.
The schools are closed right now in December of 2020.
My kids are using iPads and shitty Chromebooks.
That is still going on.
And this started then.
It was going on.
This was the second year.
College students had gone back to college, but under ridiculous circumstances, because people like Richard Ebright said that 250,000 people could die if we go back to college without some kind of controls.
This guy's talking about focused isolation.
We might as well isolate all these old people, because they are vulnerable, so we can separate people who've been married for 50 years.
We wouldn't want them to kill each other.
He's saying nothing!
but what they want him to say.
He's asking none of the questions that would enlighten the people that are listening to this except to trap them in the Scooby-Doo.
It takes very significantly on the excess deaths.
If you were to compare the excess deaths of this year to 2019, 2018, 2016, you can see spikes like this.
I think some really interesting work, I'll see if I can connect you to,
I'm going to murder his name here.
What is it?
I think it's Daniel Rancourt.
I have to get his spelling for you correctly.
But he's done some work showing the timing of a lot of these deaths.
And there's a really abnormal spike in the deaths last year, right after the WHO announced this as a pandemic.
And it's synchronized, like all over the globe.
You just don't get that.
You usually get these waves of excess death that track seasonality around the globe.
But when the WHO announced this as a pandemic, you see this massive spike in excess mortality.
So interesting to plug Denny Rancourt here.
Denny Rancourt has not always been super helpful.
me.
He's been supportive, he's been a good guest, but on Twitter there's been a couple times where he's essentially, yeah, not been as helpful to me as he could have.
Got some people's feathers ruffled at CHD when I was working there and kind of made me the focus of it.
He also does not believe that there's anything nefarious that happened on 9-11.
He does not believe there were explosions in the towers.
He thinks it was a natural collapse, which is an extraordinary, quite remarkable stance to take as a physicist.
And so as much as I want to believe in Denny Rancourt,
I think Denny is being used one way or another, whether he likes it or not for a very specific part of the message.
Um, and.
At this stage, it might not have been clear really how they were going to use them.
It might've been very clear how they were going to use them.
They needed to get him in, in, in here, just like they got Dan Jensen in here, I guess.
uh, that occurs within like a couple of weeks after.
In Daniel, uh, Rancourt, I have, I have to get his spelling for you correctly, but you know, he's done some work showing.
And he got his first name wrong.
So maybe he's not really telling you anything, you know.
The timing of a lot of these deaths.
And there's a really abnormal spike in the deaths last year right after the WHO announced this as a pandemic.
And it's synchronized all over the globe.
You just don't get that.
You usually get these waves of excess death that track seasonality around the globe.
But when the WHO announced this as a pandemic, you see this massive spike in excess mortality that occurs within a couple of weeks after the WHO announcing this.
And his theory is that that was manmade.
Everyone started going into pandemic mode and started overventilating and perhaps mistreating this.
So there is a contribution to our reaction to this disease that is elevating those excess deaths.
So that's very, very succinctly absorbed.
So we are acknowledging that Denny says that it looks like it was just a manmade thing.
And then Kevin says very succinctly, so it looks like our response to the virus
Caused a lot of people to get hurt.
Damn, that's impressive.
I'm gonna play that again.
2019, 2018, 2016, you can see spikes like this.
I think some really interesting work, I'll see if I can connect you to, I'm going to murder his name here, what is it?
I think it's Daniel Rancourt.
I have to get his spelling for you correctly.
But he's done some work showing the timing of a lot of these deaths.
And there's a really abnormal spike in the deaths last year right after the WHO announced this as a pandemic.
And it's synchronized all over the globe.
You just don't get that.
You usually get these waves of excess death that track seasonality around the globe.
But when the WHO announced this as a pandemic, you see this massive spike in excess mortality that occurs within a couple of weeks after the WHO announcing this.
And his theory is that that was manmade.
Everyone started going into pandemic mode and started overventilating and perhaps mistreating this.
So our argument is that a combination of fraud and murder was used to create mass casualty events that were misconstrued as a spreading novel pathogen in New York City, perhaps in Italy, perhaps in a few other places.
And the rest of it is nonsense.
confusion, frustration, and doubt reinforced by people like him who just make sure that whenever you try to get out of the cage that he's standing there going, no, no, no, back, back where he came from.
No, no, no, no, not this way.
That's the wrong question.
So there is a contribution to our reaction to this disease that is elevating those excess deaths.
We have to remember that some of those excess deaths could be cancer patients, they could be overdoses, they can be a lot of these things from lockdown that are also creating excess deaths.
And the way that we're categorizing COVID-19 right now, we've never done this before where if you ever die, if you ever are PCR positive for COVID-19.
Yeah, he did say overdose.
Like in the last 28 days, you'll get labeled a COVID death.
even if you get hit by a bus.
So there's a lot of over-categorization of the disease now.
They're not- That sounds like hyperbole, right?
Like that sounds like- No, it's just not.
It's actually just part of the narrative because he's actually not saying what Denny Rencor said, which is there's no evidence of anything spreading.
There's no epidemiological evidence of spread is what he carefully avoided saying.
while making it seem like he's acknowledging that there are other there's miscategorization of death and stuff too so it's really just terrible we can't know anything this fifth generation warfare is almost impenetrable
You're saying even if you get hit by a bus, I know it isn't bad.
Yeah, there's gunshot.
There's gunshot victims that go down as COVID.
I mean, so there are cases that are that extreme.
The exact frequency of those, I'll have to point you to Scott Jensen's work on it, because I think he did a little bit more itemization.
Scott Jensen again.
Interesting.
I have, but it is happening.
And there are, I've got family that work in the hospital space, and they certainly see oddities on their end as well, where they just see an over-categorization of it because there's liability for flu patients in hospitals, and there is basically liability waivers for COVID patients.
Oh, so there's another reason why COVID became a thing.
Another reason why fraud was committed.
Another reason why Jessica Hockett might be right.
Because in New York in particular, there was a complete waiver.
for COVID treatments, provided you follow the recommended protocol.
This is extraordinary right here.
I think it's really, really key to see how extraordinary it is.
And if you can, congratulations, you're right there with me.
The hospital.
So the first thing they test for is C-19.
And if it's endemic and you have it, but you might have it asymptomatically, but you have something else that's causing your health problems, you're going to go down.
What did he say?
And it's endemic?
He did just say that, right?
So did he just drop in the idea that COVID-19 is already endemic?
Because six months from now, Bret Weinstein on his podcast with Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone is going to make the argument that prophylactic use of ivermectin by everybody on the planet for
30 days would get rid of COVID forever and we could reach zero COVID.
He's already suggesting that maybe it's endemic.
You know, like that, that journalist named Garrett, who in the CNN video before the pandemic said that the worst case scenario with one of these lab leak epidemics is that it becomes endemic and we're stuck with it forever as an additional disease that we've all got to cope with.
It's all one story.
It's all one story with many tellers.
And they're all liars.
Patients in the hospitals.
So the first thing they test for is C-19.
And if it's endemic and you have it, but you might have it asymptomatically, but you have something else that's causing your health problems, you're going to go down in the record as a COVID death.
So we have a lot of data to unwind here.
I'm not suggesting I have the- It's going to take a long time.
He's not suggesting that he has all the answers, but it's never crossed his mind in 2020 that maybe they just lied about it.
Maybe they're just murdering people and lying about it so that the pandemic potential that's implied in the literature can be permanently accepted by the masses as common knowledge.
like Chris Martenson explained on his podcast two days ago, 24 hours ago, 14 hours ago.
Higher answer.
It is a disease we need to take seriously, but I think the proportionality of the response is actually doing more harm than good.
Well, and like you can see when you just described about the doctors maybe overreacting to coronavirus, like all of a sudden seeing a patient and saying these symptoms add up to coronavirus.
And and so therefore going down that path as opposed to looking at other reasons why they could be getting sick.
And that's something that, like, you could feel that in the air.
And I think when you go back and reference, like, you know, when our children say, what was it like when coronavirus was going on?
See?
When our children ask, what was it like when coronavirus was going on?
You will pass on this mythology.
And it will be common knowledge that the most likely source was a gain of function lab leak.
unless we beat these people, unless we reject these people and engage in informed noncompliance by rejecting them.
You got to remember how intensely scared and worked up people were and how much that would cloud their judgment on every other thing.
And it seems odd to me that all of the restrictions that they put in place when they were in panic mode are still the exact same ones.
Nobody's been like, okay, okay, now that the craziness has happened, now we can look at what's working and what's not, and let's roll some of these back.
All of them are still on in full force, if not harder now.
Yeah, that's concerning.
I was hoping some of that would die away with the whole election being behind us, but obviously this is global and that's not happening.
We still see a continued focus on, you know, even after the vaccine, they want masks and they want social distancing and there doesn't seem to be any exit strategy for this, which
is concerning because there is no scoreboard for the negative consequences of the reaction.
That's just all getting swept under the rug.
So now he's kind of announcing that there's no exit strategy, that this is going to go on and on, because I think it was always meant to go on and on.
They just didn't expect to be where they were, where the vaccine was released already at the end of 2020.
That, ladies and gentlemen, that I think is the problem.
I think they maybe even wanted to do adenovirus longer.
That might have been the plan.
And then to withdraw the adenovirus in a much bigger show, and that part of it was accelerated.
And now we're already there.
We're getting through it right now, right?
In December, they're still out there.
AstraZeneca and J&J, there's people still taking it, I think, in December here.
and the mRNA is about to come out or it's available to the people on Hollywood sets and on newscasting sets.
They're all getting the fat mRNA from process one.
They're all being told it's great.
You're part of a priority list of people.
That's all going on right now in the context of this video.
My friend Annie Wershing is probably taking a shot so that she can be on set with Captain Picard as the Borg Queen right now, December 2020.
And then one year later, she will develop a really fast brain cancer and die and leave a family of three and a loving husband behind.
That's what's happening right now in 2020 in December.
And I'm not adequately equipped to explain to Annie or my friend Nathan in Chicago that you can't take these transfections because what they're telling you isn't right.
I couldn't articulate it.
I didn't see that virology was really an illusion because people had convinced me that that would be crazy.
I had done experiments with adenovirus before, so I thought, wow, I mean, we must, there must be something out there.
And about a month later after this video, a month later, maybe even a couple weeks, Kevin McKernan will be on my stream for the first time.
And you're darn right we're gonna watch it.
drug, we do see notes in many papers that have come out on the harms of lockdown, and they seem to be ignored.
There's a lot of concern from the UN and others in third world countries there's going to be starvation, and at scale that just dwarfs by orders of magnitude the coronavirus deaths that are on the table.
So the proportionality in response is just gone.
And I think a lot of people are frustrated
that the people running the show have conflicts of interest.
At least I hear a lot of this about the SAGE group in the UK.
We need that anecdotal knowledge.
Why was the vaccine not supposed to be available until 2025 and how do you know it?
It would be great for you to share that with us.
Thank you.
Those people are involved in either testing companies or vaccine companies.
So they see the science through the solution they have in their hand.
And I don't, you know, we're all human.
I can see that happening.
If you happen to be in that field, you're going to be very pro-vaccine.
What if you're in the field of testing?
Are you going to be very pro-testing?
Because Kevin McKernan's in the field of testing because his friend Buckholtz is in the field of testing.
And right now in 2020, Buckholtz isn't concerned about contamination in the process too shot.
He's helping the government develop PCR tests.
He's working with the CDC and the NIH to develop sequencing primer sets.
Buck Holtz, the guy who said that the DNA is really only a worry for his daughter.
I mean, he'd still give the shot to his grandparents and his parents.
I mean, of course, it's not that dangerous for them, they're old.
That's what he said in front of the South Carolina Senate.
You can go back and look, it's still on YouTube.
And these people promote each other.
And he's just admitting it right here.
I mean, if you're into the testing, then you're going to, you know, be advocate for testing.
If you're into the vaccines, you're going to advocate for the vaccine.
And so he's telling us mostly the truth.
But every time you get close to the brick wall, he turns you around and gets you to walk right back to the beginning of the middle of the cage, right?
You're about to hit the chain link.
He turns you around again.
to a
We're all human.
I can see that happening.
If you happen to be in that field, you're going to be very pro-vaccine.
And I think what Pfizer has done is amazing.
The technology they have behind that vaccine is just stunning what they've pulled off.
We're all human.
I can see that happening.
If you happen to be in that field, you're going to be very pro-vaccine.
And I think what Pfizer has done is amazing.
The technology they have behind that vaccine is just stunning what they've pulled off.
They've synthesized, I think it's 4,284 base long RNA.
30 micrograms in every injection.
That's an incredible synthesis feat.
When you have to like five prime cap it, they change.
What does that mean?
It's like, slow that way down.
They have to make this RNA model.
He is so impressed with their ability to manufacture the RNA.
It is really a feat.
And so is anybody going to doubt it?
Is anybody going to hear him and say, well, I guess if he says it's great, I mean, that's pretty badass.
That's a pretty big ass seal approval now, isn't it?
Stop lying!
I mean, ladies and gentlemen, give me a break.
Molecule that's 4,284 letters long.
That's a very hard RNA molecule to make.
And in the process of doing so, they've had to put in pseudouracil inside of every, they replaced one base in there, the uracil base with a different one called pseudouracil.
It's a non-native nucleotide, but they do this because that nucleotide protects the RNAs from getting degraded by nucleases.
So it lasts longer in your system.
It doesn't just get eaten up.
It's not going to cause frame shifts or spontaneous stop codons or wobble bases at all.
That's not going to be a problem there, Mr. Human Genome Project?
Not by yourselves.
And then they also put a five prime cap on it and a three prime cap.
These are things that protect the RNA from degrading as quickly as it does.
And that's been the main weakness of the approach, which is why you need two injections, is that the RNA is not replication competent.
It doesn't replicate on its own.
Why would he use the words the RNA is not replication competent unless he wanted you to understand the idea of replication competence?
to seed the idea of replication competence.
Because viruses are replication competent, but the RNA molecule is not.
Please tell me I'm not wasting my time here.
Stop lying!
I got to play that again.
there, the uracil base with a different one called pseudouracil.
It's a non-native nucleotide, but they do this because that nucleotide protects the RNAs from getting degraded by nucleases.
So it lasts longer in your system.
It doesn't just get eaten up by your cells.
And so there's no mention of transfection being wholly inappropriate to augment the immune system of healthy people.
None at all.
No mention of what possible crazy sorts of small RNAs might be created by substituting every uracil with a pseudouridine that can cause premature stop codons whenever the wobble base happens.
And that's separate, sorry.
Premature stop codons are separate from... And what is a premature stop codon other than the ribosome just falling off the transcript?
I don't think there's any way to mechanistically differentiate between the two.
So every once in a while, it hits a pseudouridine and falls off.
And so you get these incomplete translations of those RNAs.
Will those RNAs interfere with...
native transcription?
We don't know.
Will those RNAs provoke an incorrect translation of a partial protein?
We don't know.
He doesn't know.
He's not even going to mention that yet because it's not time in the narrative for him to mention any of these things.
But now in 2024, it's fine for him every once in a while to measure them.
Most of the time he doesn't.
He just says double-stranded DNA over and over again.
And then they also put a five prime cap on it and a three prime cap.
These are things that protect the RNA from degrading as quickly as it does.
Uh, and that's been the main weakness of the approach is just why you need two injections is that the RNA does not, is not replication.
So he's actually arguing that two injections is the right way to go here too, which is also interesting.
I don't even know.
I'm not really taking notes cause I'm just so flabbergasted, but let's see.
Um, yeah.
So Pfizer is, is, is amazing.
And pseudouridine is a thing.
It's not a dangerous thing or a weird thing.
They just did that because, you know, it's a Nobel Prize winning idea.
I mean, if you can't see it, that this is just an absolute horrible liar and a traitor,
who is all about working for the national security state that he cut his teeth working for back in the day with the Human Genome Project, MIT, Francis Collins, Tony Fauci, Lederberg, all these people.
I have no doubt in my mind he's probably smoked a cigar with David Baltimore.
It doesn't replicate on its own, per se, inside your cells.
So it has to be there long enough for some protein to get made for your immune system.
Can you imagine the barbecues that they've had at his palatial house on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean outside of Boston and Marblehead?
Can you imagine the kind of barbecues that were there?
Who was there when he was a teenager and his dad was throwing a barbecue?
Who was there when he was working for the Human Genome Project and they threw a barbecue?
Think about it, ladies and gentlemen.
Think very carefully.
To recognize it, but it needs two injections to do it.
But that's an absolute stunning feat of DNA synthesis or RNA synthesis.
It's just they've done an amazing job.
It's both.
It's DNA and RNA synthesis.
Please clarify.
up there but um it's been rushed injections to do it but that's an absolute stunning coming of it's coming dna synthesis here it comes rna synthesis it's just they've done an amazing job there but um it's been rushed uh you know i'm not jumping in front of line to get to it i'm going to kind of wait and see what happens it's been rushed um so if you're involved in that it's just they've done an amazing job there but um it's been rushed it's been rushed who rushed it
Lying!
Who rushed it?
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
Was Donald Trump who rushed it?
In fact, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
at a Bitcoin conference just said it.
Last week, I showed you the video.
A couple days ago, I showed you the video.
All these sponsors, him on stage.
Trump did the lockdown.
Trump is responsible for the vaccines.
They changed the script.
Wasn't supposed to be like that.
I'm pretty convinced.
And that's why we're so far off kilter now.
Why it's so easy to see these meddlers that they had to have Epigirl rap in Geneva.
She rapped!
I can beatbox.
I'm not jumping in front of the line to get to it.
I'm going to kind of wait and see what happens.
So if you're involved in that, I think everyone's high-fiving each other over what a feat that is.
And actually, that's going to probably skew your interpretation of what should be done with coronavirus.
I know that Peter Cullis was moved to a scotch after he heard that it was 95% effective.
I'm a little concerned that there's so much regulatory capture in a lot of these agencies that we're not really seeing the true science filter through here.
We're seeing the lobbied interests run the show.
And that's a little bit of, I don't know how to reverse that other than a change in how the media is operating right now.
Because I think a lot of the media is in fact captured by many of these organizations.
Well, so you're an interesting character in that you, media is captured by who?
He's not aware of the CIA and the government working with the media.
That's kind of weird, right?
He's not very sophisticated on some fronts, but boy, is he an expert on PCR.
really despise or dislike the regulation that goes into the world of medicine and the application of it?
I don't despise the idea of standards and regulation.
I despise when they're centralized and they're easily bought off because that tends to create a lot more power for the incumbent than it does for the entrepreneur.
And that's, it seems to be, our government, the larger it gets, it seems to be more prone to this, right?
So when you looked at what happened with hydroxychloroquine and with ivermectin, you've got physicians from around the world that are screaming to get this to people.
These are generic drugs that had safety profiles that were well understood.
Why the hell were those held back in the United States?
and the only pattern you can put together, and granted this is connecting dots and maybe deemed conspiratorial, but is that they were trying to promote Remdesivir, which was patented and $3,000 a pop, as opposed to $20 solutions that were generic and there weren't really a
an advocate for in Congress.
And so he's laying down a narrative, a Scooby-Doo mystery with bad guys that were trying to protect Remdesivir from an EUA by getting rid of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
And you're now asking a multilayered bad question.
In fact, I asked that multilayered bad question for almost two years.
And I asked that question with respect to the
the vaccine as well, thinking that they were hiding hydroxychloroquine ivermectin because they wanted to protect the EUA of the coming vaccines.
And these were all questions that do not get at the heart of this, which is what that lawyer Chess said.
which is that if you say that there's pandemic potential in the world, you're a liar.
If you've been saying there's pandemic potential in the world, you're a liar.
If you're saying that that pandemic potential can be monitored by a bunch of different PCR product tests called diagnostics, you're a liar.
If you say that we have 15 million high-fidelity sequences of a novel virus that just developed from between 80 and 40 years ago in the rural parts of China, you are a liar.
Kevin McCurden's a liar.
He plays for whatever weaponized piles of money have orchestrated the controlled demolition of America by paying these traders inside our government, inside the public sector.
They're all part of the same controlled demolition.
A lot of them are foreigners.
A lot of them have different passports.
All of them, all of them have connections to the beginning of the pandemic and dubiously knowing things like the spike has gained a function.
Where's any of the data on the fact that the RNA was a smear?
That data is not out yet, but he's gonna come on my stream and tell me all about it.
And seed a narrative of process two.
He tried twice to come on my stream and see the narrative of Process 2 before they ever admitted there was a Process 2.
Before I was even aware of this, how this all connected with regard to infectious clones in the literature.
This is such a wonderful video because it shows so starkly
What did I say at the beginning of the stream?
What did I want to put in?
I wanted to do it different.
I was actually going to start with this song, which starts with a very, very curious statement.
A stained soul cringes at the small details in the mirror of embarrassment.
We'll start with that one tomorrow.
These people with their stained souls, all we got to do is show them in the mirror.
show them what they themselves said and everybody could see them for who they are.
I'm not, I'm not doing anything that Kevin isn't doing to himself.
This video that was never censored on YouTube just like the previous two that are still available on YouTube despite his going against the narrative.
The generic owners of these drugs aren't pooling their resources to go and present to Congress why their drug should be at the front line, or trying to court Fauci over what should be the standard of care.
But the standard of care was the worst drug we had.
If you look at all the studies on remdesivir, it's clearly the shittiest drug we've got for this, yet it became the standard of care.
And I can only explain that by regulatory capture.
I don't have proof of it.
But I think the standard of care was supplemental oxygen for people with low pulse ox.
I think the standard of care was for a long time to ventilate people after they had pain from the supplemental oxygen.
And I think that they want you to think about remdesivir so that you chase the videos of Rick Bright and you chase the videos of all these guys talking about snake venom to come.
They're going to come.
They're not coming yet.
They're coming.
You see?
You have to see this where it is in the timeline.
He's setting all those things up like tea, like balls on a tea for the people that come after him to go.
And more parts of this narrative are people are chasing more balls in the wrong direction all through the cave.
But no data supports it.
And yet it gets it gets front lines.
And then we had all of these things.
You're like a super serious scientist.
So have you found yourself in the past in this same kind of like conspiratorial warped world?
Like to me?
This is like, this has to be like an observation.
So it's never happened to him before.
Science was fine before the pandemic.
Now it's crazy.
Wow, that was a good one.
Alarming experience for you as as like somebody that is now crossed the Rubicon and started questioning orthodoxy.
But like to the extent that you're saying this is a grand conspiracy, like people are making huge sums of money over this and we may want to look at.
I don't know that it has to be very grand.
I think you can have lots of parallel entities that have interests that happen to align, and that they're all pushing for the same thing.
And so it looks like a scientific consensus to those that are in power trying to make decisions.
And their attention is always paid to the people who have top dollar, and that's just how the political system works.
You know, you don't necessarily need to have, you know, some type of great reset level of conspiracy to make this happen.
Like, this could simply happen out of market forces when the market is so disturbed by— It could also be a mass psychosis, right?
You know, it just happens, you know, where people go crazy and they run off a cliff.
You know, like that guy who's at the Senate meeting from Belgium who says that it's a mass psychosis.
And actually, when the Breggans spoke out against that mass psychosis idea is when, when Robert Malone started to sue them.
Still on the fence with the Breggans because they have this huge, huge, long record of integrity before the pandemic.
So even if they sold a book that says it's, you know, gain of function or says that it's a bioweapon or gets a lot of things wrong, I'm still trying to give them, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt because, but there's no doubt that Robert Malone suing the Breggans steered a lot of attention to them.
And Robert Malone is definitely never going to sue me
None of these people will, Children's Health Defense, any of these people that I'm calling out as part of this, they can't sue me.
They won't sue me because number one, they don't want any more attention than I'm already got.
And number two, you can't sue somebody for telling the truth.
There's no other way to explain these people why they are coordinated in their presentation of these very curated ideas, this limited spectrum of debate.
the political forces that seem to control it all.
We don't really have a free market making these decisions.
We have a market that is highly controlled and highly regulated through D.C., which turns everyone away from funding entrepreneurs to funding lobbying groups to push their drugs.
So you don't have to have the best drug.
You have to have the best connections in Congress and in D.C.
to move things along.
And that significantly, I think, discredits or makes it a big disadvantage to anything that's generic that doesn't have a single owner with deep pockets.
So these generic drugs, I think, got overlooked for this very reason.
And you would think that that's what the NIH is there for, right?
The NIH should be looking for areas of market failure and promoting them, knowing the market's probably not going to dig their feet into generic drugs.
But we didn't see that with the NIH.
We saw the NIH promoting remdesivir and many of these vaccine approaches, and they have some patent estate connections to those.
NIH isn't doing this market correction thing that we're we're hoping it would do.
It seems to be an amplifier of the lobby.
So let me just make very clear.
I don't want to make I want to make sure that everybody sees this at this stage in his discussion, right?
At this stage in his discussion.
Dang it.
At this stage in his discussion, he has not said that anything about intramuscular injection of the previous vaccines being a problem.
He's never said anything about transfection versus transformation and bothered to try and differentiate between the two.
Even though right now in December of 2020, there are two types of products on the market.
He flatters the Pfizer as a manufacturing miracle.
and reinforces the idea that an RNA can pandemic.
So all of these things that I would like somebody to challenge remain unchallenged.
No one really wants to talk about what evidence that they have that works against these statements.
And so we're still here, still just narrative control, narrative curation process.
When we talk about hydrochloroquine, is that the malaria drug?
Yeah, hydroxychloroquine is the malaria drug that you use with zinc, ideally.
And they were sometimes, I think, providing, giving it with an antibiotic as well.
And then ivermectin is a similar deworming agent that's been generic for quite some time.
A similar deworming agent.
See what I mean?
What in the shit is that?
As far as I can tell, it's closer to an insecticide than hydroxychloroquine is.
Similar agent.
How do they work?
I heard for a while that people were saying ivermectin blocked the 3Cl protease.
I even remember that
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think John Campbell of YouTube fame with 3 million subscribers, who didn't save a single person from taking the shot, actually did a show with little cutouts, little tiny cutouts of how a enzyme works and then how something can interfere with it.
And he did a little journal club about a paper.
I shit you not.
So there's no mechanism here, they're just similar.
when uh... you know this is a big disadvantage to anything that's generic that doesn't so disturbed by the the political forces that seem to control it all like we don't really have a free market making these decisions we have a market that is highly controlled and highly regulated through dc which turns everyone away from funding entrepreneurs to funding lobbying groups to to push their drugs so you don't have to have the best drug you have to have the best connections in congress and in dc to move things along and that significantly
I think discredits or makes a big disadvantage to anything that's generic that doesn't have a single owner with deep pockets.
So these generic drugs, I think, got overlooked for this very reason.
And you would think that that's what the NIH is there for.
The NIH should be looking for areas of market failure and promoting them, knowing the market's probably not going to dig their feet into generic drugs.
But we didn't see that with the NIH.
We saw the NIH promoting remdesivir and many of these vaccine approaches, and they have some patent estate connections to those.
So the NIH isn't doing this market correction thing that we were hoping it would do.
It seems to be an amplifier of the lobbying process.
When we talk about hydrochloroquine, is that the malaria drug?
Yeah, hydroxychloroquine is the malaria drug that you use with zinc, ideally.
And they were sometimes, I think, providing, giving it with an antibiotic as well.
And then ivermectin is a similar deworming agent that's been generic for quite some time.
I think they use it.
So he admits that they were giving it sometimes with an antibiotic, which would then again, you know, it doesn't work for a virus, right?
So why would they give an antibiotic, Kevin?
in horses and veterinarians.
You can still get it on, actually, I think on Amazon, as like a paste for horses.
But you can't get it from a physician who will give you the proper amount and the right dose regimen for it.
But I think this just changed a few weeks ago.
So at least I know hydroxychloroquine got reversed when the vaccines went live.
I don't know where ivermectin stands, but there is better data on ivermectin.
And many physicians pounding their hands on the table in DC trying to get this thing opened up.
So we mean, like Pierre Corey was probably pounding his hands in D.C.
when he was invited to be at the first Senate hearing that he then went and told what happened in New York.
I think Jessica is on that like flies.
Yeah.
So that's interesting.
I got to go back a little bit because he said something else.
I think they use it in horses and veterinarians.
You can still get it on, actually, I think on Amazon.
So you can still get it on Amazon, he's actually telling you.
You can get it as little tubes of a yellow paste for horses on Amazon.
I mean, wow.
Wow.
Really?
Wow.
Did he just say that?
Where did I put that?
I had one of those tubes here once because I wanted to have it on stream.
Now I don't know where it went.
Darn it.
It's like a pace for horses, but you can't get it from a physician who will give you the proper amount and the right dose regimen for it.
I think this just changed a few weeks ago.
So at least I know hydroxychloroquine got reversed when the vaccines went live.
I don't know where ivermectin stands, but there is better data on ivermectin and many physicians pounding their hands on the table in DC trying to get this thing opened up.
So we wouldn't have a clogged ICU problem or a clogged hospital problem if we could do outpatient treatment.
So many- So he's still reinforcing the idea that we have a clogged hospital problem, which I'm not really-
I'm not really sure that's true.
It was ever true.
And certainly, I think at this time, it was very important in December of 2020 to sustain the idea that that was true, when it really, it definitely wasn't.
of this, you know, the hospitals are overwhelmed justification for lockdowns is self-imposed.
It's the government not letting go of what are already approved drugs.
Doctors usually had the freedom to prescribe these things off label and that was ripped away from them during the pandemic.
And that to me looks like they were just parting the Red Sea for their friends to pull other drugs.
But who ripped it away from them?
Because I understand from people like Mary Talley Bowden that it was just pharmacies who were refusing to fill.
So that's not really the NIH, that's HHS, or it's even state health departments doing it.
You see the problem here?
We're not telling this correctly.
He's implying that it's coming from above, that Donald Trump is doing it, or his administration is doing it.
And it's exactly the opposite.
The states had to do it.
That's why the responses across state borders were so different.
And that's probably why county to county, there was no spread in any of Denny Rancor's data that he kind of mentioned, but called him Daniel.
drugs through.
Wait, you mean they changed that doctors were no longer allowed to go off books in order to be able to, and that's not normally the way that works.
No.
2019 you could prescribe these things for outside of rheumatoid arthritis or for other, other uses.
And during the pandemic they reversed it.
How did they reverse it?
You see how crucial this is.
It's very important that you see this.
How did they reverse it?
Because this is not an accurate description of what happened.
Hydroxychloroquine was given in EUA, but only for hospital use, and ivermectin, something, something, I don't know what, but this is not what happened.
The FDA didn't stop doctors from prescribing off-label.
Be wary of this.
This is 2020.
See it for the malevolence that it is, getting you to ask the wrong questions based on the wrong assumptions about the wrong questions.
Evil.
Well, I mean like- You could prescribe these things for outside of rheumatoid arthritis or for other uses and during the pandemic they reversed it.
Evil.
well i mean like it if you if that really is true you will be in the definition of the creation of suffering worse where it's not needed then yeah you're right like uh... and those are my words you cannot look up by doctor peter mccullough from baylor easily leading cardiologist was down there uh... explaining this shenanigans to uh... senator i think it was uh... ron johnson i believe
But, you know, he went over the surgesphere debacle, you know, the whole New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet retraction.
They published these bullshit papers on this drug being harmful.
And then they used Peter McCullough and Pierre Corey and him to promote it and to say that these are the questions we should be arguing about.
Look at this fake data.
Oh, my gosh.
I think they made up a whole data set.
I think they're covering it up.
I think this might be a lab leak.
James Todaro on Twitter, another physician who's well-versed in the Bitcoin space, just looked through the... He just promoted a physician that's well-versed in the Bitcoin space.
Stop lying!
Come on.
And realized it was a scam, put out a paper describing it as a scam.
It wasn't a peer-reviewed paper, but he put it on, I think he put it on a Google Drive, and the drive got censored.
But eventually, he was right.
And it showed that this Surgisphere company was describing it as a scam.
He went over there.
His leading cardiologist was down there explaining this shenanigans to Senator, I think it was Ron Johnson, I believe.
But you know, he went over those.
He is pretending not to know that the name is Ron Johnson.
He's pretending not to know that Peter McCullough, I think his name is Daniel Rankert.
It's all a elaborate charade.
There's just fear of debacle.
You know, the whole New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet Retraction, they published these bullshit papers on this drug being harmful.
And James Todaro on Twitter, another physician who's well-versed in the Bitcoin space, just looked through the data and realized it was a scam, put out a paper describing it as a scam.
It wasn't a peer-reviewed paper, but he put it on, I think he put it like on a Google Drive, and the drive got censored.
But eventually, he was right.
And it showed that this Surgisphere company was a spring-up company.
We still don't know exactly who funded them, but there are some connections to one of the authors, to Gilead, who makes from Desivir.
And we saw Gilead.
Billy, I'd also fund the Bulwar study.
Well, I didn't fund the Bulwar study.
I think they showed that the Bulwar study in Minnesota was one that wasn't very favorable on hydroxychloroquine either.
But there's a problem with that.
I mean, you might as well be going, you know, we saw in file F-160.
Hydroxychloroquine can't save you from the effects of ARDS induced from supplemental oxygen, I bet you.
I bet you hydroxychloroquine cannot save you from the ARDS that develops from extended exposure to high flow oxygen.
I bet you it can't.
And I bet you ivermectin doesn't do a lot for that either.
or three seven one six that this was true or this was not true answer about that i just thought those references a little bit better but i don't even mean to spell out the references i'm saying like an ordinary person like me sits here and says i have no way of going through and discerning whether what kevin is saying is true or what the government saying is true however i can say that my experience with corona virus has led me to believe that the people that are in charge
are not making what i would think of as like a continual regular service of good ideas and good decisions and the biggest eye-opener to me so far even bigger than the experience of going out and having masks all over everybody which to me is still bizarre but uh
but is when I went to get a PCR test.
So we had somebody caring for our daughter that tested positive for coronavirus, not very sick at all.
She always wears a mask when she's caring for our daughter.
And so boom, now we are on quarantine because not that we were in contact with her, but that our daughter was and we'd be holding our daughter.
And he probably watched the video earlier in the pandemic where Steven Hatfield explained that if your kid is sick, then you should use an apron.
And you should be doing all kinds of things to make sure that you don't have contact.
You know, take off your shoes.
You should be wearing gloves and a mask.
When you tend to your kid in the bedroom, you're supposed to wear an apron.
Yes.
That's Steven Hadfield said that.
So he's on quarantine now because you know, Brett Weinstein says that when you get tested and you have, you gotta, you gotta quarantine, the whole family's got to go on quarantine now.
So now you've got to like, all right, well, what's the thing that we can do here?
So we like, let's go get tested.
So we wait four days and then we go get tested.
And when I show up at this clinic, which is like the only one that I can get in to get the, the day of thing.
Um, the, it is like T going to the TSA.
They have us wait in the car for like two hours.
We come in.
It's a bunch of people standing around and I know they're nurses.
The woman that comes to do my readings isn't even wearing gloves.
She just comes in and like puts it like a cuff around me.
And there's no way she's actually looking at the dial.
I mean, she's just like, you know, kind of.
And then they come in to actually do the test.
And they tell me nothing about what's going on because they must be doing an ungodly amount of these and jam it all the way up my nose.
And I was just like, yeah, so shocked at the way this goes.
So we've got to all share in this common experience of being nasally raped.
We've all got to share.
We've all got to testify that it happened.
it's dirty in there, like stuff wasn't picked up.
And you think, where would all these PCR positives come from?
It must be because they're not doing the test with the kind of accuracy and high fidelity standards that they should be.
And that might be causing added problems.
I can go get healthcare anywhere I want.
So what if this is where I could get to, then where is the rest of the country?
Wow, I mean, imagine all those poor people what what they are getting tested at CVS or something going to get healthcare and it's got to be worse than this.
And that is a scary, scary thought.
Was anyone there, um, you know, maybe you, you, you weren't, uh, you weren't asking these hard questions.
I do it because I'm in the PCR space, but when I've been to a few of these things and I, and I ask like, well, what's the false positive rate of the test?
Oh, I asked man.
Cause I had just been, that's why when you were tweeting about this, I was like, wait, what?
But how would you know the false positive of the test?
See, that's also a incorrect argument.
He's saying what words sound correct, but unless he's gonna explain that without extensive testing of any one of these products before the pandemic, we would never actually know what the background signal was.
And therefore you actually couldn't calculate the prevalence.
And you need to know the prevalence of the signal that you're looking for before you can estimate the false positivity.
So he's never going to actually break that down.
And the only people that have ever tried to break that down on the internet have broken it down in an incorrect, very obtuse, convoluted way.
Instead of very simply saying that without any data about previous prevalence of any of these amplicons before the pandemic, hell if we know what this means.
That's the very simple flashcard for the PCR exam, for the PCR diagnostics.
And they want you to believe that PCR is very high fidelity, that we can trust all these people.
And so the only thing they're not telling us is, is what's the, what's the prevalence, what's the false positive rate.
But he's not going to tell you how you would calculate the false positive rate and how it would be impossible given the fact that they have no data from before the pandemic.
Stop lying.
Tell me about the test because, and I went in there and I actually asked them and then we'll get into your answers on this.
So I said,
What did the number of tests that come back positive that shouldn't be?
And the woman was like, I don't know.
It's not very many.
It's really, it's really, really good test.
And then I was like, what's the process for you doing this?
Like, how does this test get done?
Um, they come and pick up the vials every couple hours.
And then, uh, we'll, we'll let you know sometime in the future.
And I, and like, she just had no concept.
And like the fact that it was so dirty is there that it led me to believe it'd be hard to get reasonable tests.
Yeah, same experience here.
And in our case, the rapid test was $140.
And I think the PCR test was like $320 or something.
So the price of these tests is ridiculous at the moment.
So somebody was making a lot of money, huh?
Wow.
Because it's all taxpayer funded, you know?
Spare no expense.
We've got to assume the worst case scenario is going to happen.
Maybe a billion people will die.
I don't know.
There's some raccoon in Japan that says that.
And there's this guy, some MD called Paul Cottrell, who also says that.
A PCR test should be like maybe $10 to $50, right?
But they're all elevated because they've created this artificial demand, this regulatory demand that doesn't necessarily need to be there.
So that's one issue.
And no one there knew the false negative rate, the false positive.
They didn't even know the name of the test they were running.
And I even tried to ask a very simple question, like, what's the percent positivity?
How many of these things are lighting up per day?
Is it 1%?
Is it 10%?
No clue.
You know, so I left very disheartened with it.
That's really what kind of made me dig more into this.
Cause I was like, this, this is what PCR is turned into is it's like, I have better, I get better medical information out of people at a dispensary than I get from people that are shoving stuff up my nose.
So explain to people what the PCR test is supposed to be doing and kind of what's going on with the test people are using.
So it's supposed to be measuring, uh,
Well, it depends on who you ask what it's supposed to do.
I can tell you what it does.
And it measures if you have any RNA molecules that are related to the virus in your system.
And it's pretty good at that, actually.
It measures if you have any RNA molecules associated with the virus in your system.
Holy shit.
Is that really where he's going to start?
Because this is going to get ugly really fast.
Explain to people what the PCR test is supposed to be doing and kind of what's going on with the test people are using right now.
So it's supposed to be measuring, well,
It depends on who you ask what it's supposed to do.
I can tell you what it does.
And it measures if you have any RNA molecules that are related to the virus in your system.
And it's pretty good at that, actually.
It can pick up very small numbers.
But that thing that they jam up your nose is not very good at sampling.
There have been studies showing anywhere between 1,000 to 10,000-fold variance in the amount of human DNA that comes on that swab.
Regardless of whether they pick up the virus, some of these tests will look for a human gene just to prove the test worked, which is a good idea.
If you can't see the human gene, you missed the nose, right?
But even those signals vary quite a bit.
And so that tells you that the sampling is really roughshod.
So I can tell you from consulting work that I've done that there are very few tests that existed in Canada or in the United States in 2020 or 2021 that had a positive control that was amplifying a known transcript from human DNA, I swear.
And the ones that did, did not show adequate amplification of the human signal.
I've seen the raw data.
I've spent hours on it because I'm consulting for a couple lawyers.
specifically on the fraud that is the PCR test.
And so I am extremely curious to hear him describe it as measuring if you have RNA molecules related to the virus.
Stop lying!
It measures an amplicon.
The tests that I've looked at have measured an amplicon that is supposed to be a 300 base pair fragment associated with the N protein encoding RNA segment of the RNA genome.
So that's definitely not measuring if you have RNA molecules related to the virus, it's measuring specifically if you have one.
which we know in terms of their own description of how these RNA molecules behave when they hijack a cell, there are hundreds of thousands of copies of that RNA and comparatively fewer of the more relevant enzymes that are associated with what?
Replication competence.
Something that he dropped in the background a few minutes ago with regard to the RNA and the amazing work that Pfizer has done in making non-replication competent RNA in high quantities.
Stop lying!
I mean, I can go on all day.
and probably not very accurate.
And then it's looking for virus RNA, though.
It's not looking for active virus.
And that's a big problem, because the time frame for which you're qPCR positive can be outwards to 50 days.
There's some papers that show it out to 77 days.
But the time window where you're infectious is around seven days.
So, you know, you can have a scenario where it's a 10 to one ratio of people who are not infectious that are getting quarantined versus those that are infectious.
So it's horrible.
So the question is, when is infectious?
How do we define infectious?
We could argue about that for a couple of years, at least, I'm sure.
Concerning whether you're infectious or not.
And then this cascading effects of telling people that they have a positive test when they don't have a positive test.
It's a cascade.
And once you get involved in it, it's like,
So that's why we limit how many people we see now, just because if we get an incorrect one, you're done.
Oh, so that sounds a lot like what Brett Weinstein argues for.
I mean, if you test positive, then you're screwed.
So you better limit your connection with people because how you get infected is coming in contact with other people.
influencing the exact contagion narrative that the biosecurity state needs us to believe, needs to become common knowledge, and has hired or recruited Kevin McKernan to do it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's very true.
And you know, everyone writes it off as no big deal, you're getting quarantined, you're not dying, you know, suck it up.
But that has an impact on how many nurses are in the hospitals, because their kids go positive, and then they got to stay home.
And it has an impact.
My wife is a physical therapist.
She can't treat people if she's positive, or even is in the cascade of somebody being positive.
Yes, exactly.
The cascade of someone being positive.
That one didn't catch on.
And so I don't think... Chain of infection is what he should have said.
He wasn't up to date on that vocabulary.
People appreciate the six degrees to Kevin Bacon that everyone's in.
You are probably three degrees from someone who's positive.
And so that means all of society's stalled because the test... He just used the Kevin Bacon game to tell everybody that you're only three degrees of separation from somebody who's infected.
Holy shit.
is overly sensitive.
Now, some of that, we've written actually a retraction request for some of these methods.
One in particular, which is the first one that the WHO put on their website, and I can point people to that retraction review.
That doesn't mean we're saying all PCR is bad, but one- Oh no, we are very clear about that, Kevin.
We are very clear that you're not saying all PCR is bad.
Holy shit, I've been making that statement for three years straight.
You traitor, you liar.
You misleader of the young.
In particular, that got launched really early is very bad and does create a lot of false negatives and false positives.
And it's really- False negatives?
Holy shit.
Set the seed for running this test with your blinders on.
The challenge with this test is people are turning it into a yes, no answer.
And that's really not helpful.
You really want to know your viral load and you want to know the value that comes out of the test.
You want to use more of our products to evaluate whether or not you're sick and exactly what place in the progression you're in.
I can provide those products for you.
Otherwise, because you want to know, do I have a little bit of virus?
Because if I don't have symptoms and a little bit of virus, I'm probably not infectious.
And I'm not going to worry about this.
Maybe I'll get tested again in two days.
And if the viral load goes down, I know I'm on the back end of the disease.
He is saying exactly what Steve Kirsch says, that, well, my wife tested positive, and then a few days later, I tested positive.
How else should I understand that if it's not spreading in my house?
Holy...
disease, not the front end of the disease, right?
There's a lot that you could do to minimize the impact on society if you know what that CT level is.
There's a CQ or CT score on these things.
Those two terms are interchangeable.
Yeah, you've got to learn about R, not R0, but RE, and you've got to learn about CT counts in the PCR field.
And that just measures, it's a log scale, it measures how much virus you have.
So, if you don't utilize that log scale, it's literally like you crying, you know, yelling fire inside of a movie theater every time you feel the Richter scale move, you know.
And it's a log scale, and we're hiding that information.
But if you were to do that, if you were to, you know, yell panic every time the Richter scale moves without telling people it's like, you know, a scale, you know, an earthquake that's a two versus a seven, you're going to have massive chaos in society.
And that's what they're doing with... He couldn't smell his cats for weeks.
This test, they're not telling you what it is, and they're taking this overly cautious approach of quarantining people that are asymptomatic and aren't infectious.
That's exactly the James Giordano line of, you know, prodrome, predrome syndrome.
And I think it violates a lot of medical ethics.
We couldn't get away with this in 2019.
You're just not supposed to be doing medical tests on asymptomatic people without informed consent.
And it's pretty clear nobody's informed.
No, but not even the physicians or the nurses that are administering these tests know what the CT value is.
They don't even know the name of the test or the false positive or false negative rates.
So the informed nature of the test isn't there, and the consent isn't there.
No one's taking these things consensually.
I mean, I shouldn't say no one, but a few people are taking them consensually.
They're forced to take them to get back to school.
They're forced to take them to get back into the workforce.
They're forced to- There's school stuff.
I mean, there are people going in weekly to get tests for coronavirus.
Yeah, like the entire student body of the University of Illinois, the entire student body of the University of Ohio.
And those remnants were already sold.
They had a buyer for the leftover swabs.
You know, like somebody that might want to amplify the human DNA in it.
They're telling you the truth here in 2020.
They're just not telling you the whole truth.
They're seeding a narrative that they can then control.
And that's why Kevin McKernan has been all over the place for the last four years, from the beginning till now, in front of the Senate, because he is part of that narrative curation team.
Just like Robert Malone and his wife, just like Jessica Rose, aka Epigirl.
just like Merrill Nass and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and Mary Holland were probably the controlled op for all of these vaccine-injured parents so that they have somewhere to yell and they'd have some conference to go to, some hero to point to, but they were never gonna score a touchdown.
They were always playing the Lucy game, always pulling the ball away just before Brian Hooker would kick the field goal.
just before these people would reach the finish line.
Make no mistake about it, one of the biggest delusions that they need to hide is that that previous vaccine schedule wasn't that bad.
And that this is much worse.
I mean, what they did here is crazy.
That's what EpiGirl's main job is to make sure that you never go, hey, wait a minute,
You proved that the coronavirus vaccine was dangerous using VAERS.
But then that just leaves everybody open to be saying that the VAERS is just not, it's not reliable.
The exact same excuse that they used for VAERS before the pandemic.
And now we're running in a hamster wheel that we were already in at the beginning of the pandemic.
And that's why Jessica Rose is very careful not to say that all vaccines were bad.
She still hasn't gotten there, despite being an immunologist, computational virologist, and whatever else.
But she's sure that these COVID shots are bad.
Boy, is she sure of it.
She was also really sure for a couple of years that the spike protein was a sign of gain of function.
It might hurt people's mitochondria, or maybe even Walter Chestnut's right, and it causes premature aging, almost like a radiation sickness.
It's all the same team.
All the same team.
One, two, three, worst case scenario.
Worst case scenario.
It's a billion dollar business now.
I'm like, fine, if you're sick, or maybe if you did come in contact with somebody that had a really bad case, there may be some level where it's like, hey, you've got to go get tested to find out what's going on.
I think symptoms make sense.
Yeah, if you've got symptoms, take care of this.
That's a really good sign.
The asymptomatic spread stuff has really fallen apart.
I mean, that was sent around and quite popular in the spring.
A lot of the papers came out of China.
That was the terrifying part because that made everybody an other.
That made every single person you encountered, whether they were sick or not, dangerous.
They might as well have had leprosy.
Absolutely.
And that was, I think, the key for them to get control over society is to send out and amplify that message that it doesn't matter if you have symptoms.
You really, everyone needs to be afraid of everybody else.
and we all need to panic a little bit harder.
But the papers that are coming out now, I think the most recent one in JAMA showed 0.7%.
Look how close they walk to the truth and they never quite get it, right?
They would lie about everything except the actual thing.
That they would never lie about.
Obviously, that's true because PCR works and sequencing works and I'm from the Human Genome Project, but they would lie about everything else.
but just not to the extent to which this would be an illusion created out of whole cloth of consensus.
No, that's not possible.
He owes his allegiance to NIH and the U.S.
government.
He owes his allegiance not to even the U.S.
government, but specifically to MIT, the Whitehead Institute, Eric Lander, Francis Collins, and all the people that coordinated via the Department of Energy, the Human Genome Project.
It was a top secret thing.
He got to take intellectual property out of it and try to develop it commercially.
And it was successful several times.
His dad was also in biotech and he claims to have pulled his own self up by his own bootstraps.
And now he's risking his career in pot genetics to try and save our children from something, I guess.
and asymptomatic spread in indoor environments.
So the worst possible condition where everyone's locked inside, the- You mean like the Biogen super spreader event that Robert Malone was at?
Symptomatic spread was barely noticeable above background.
And I think it was something like 25% if you're symptomatic.
So the asymptomatic story is really crumbling.
And that really points
and underscores why these PCR tests can be so damaging.
They're the right tool in the hospital, and the doctors need these tests.
There's no doubt that doctors like these tests, but I think they're all a little frustrated that people are taking an RNA score that comes off this test without any information on symptoms or any other clinical management, any understanding of prior disease, of the patient's background, and declaring you a quarantine subject, not even knowing if you're infectious.
They could not get away with that in 2009.
He made sure he asked the question again, are you infectious?
Are you infectious?
I think they're all kind of shocked that it's happening now, that this level of testing is happening, even on children that don't really have the capacity to perform informed consent.
It's really gone way overboard.
And the reason I brought up the regulatory stuff before is that when these industries get this big, they're hard to stop.
I mean, Thermo did $2 billion in testing last quarter.
They're growing 40% a quarter.
Quest did $1 billion.
LabCorp did $1 billion.
Those are just three I know off the top of my head.
This is a multi-billion dollar... Oh, so it's those guys that are responsible, not the people that are making the tests, not the people that got the EUA.
What if I told you that an EUA was granted by the FDA to a former movie producer, a porn movie producer, and that that porn movie producer was allowed to start a PCR business?
and start testing municipal employees weekly in 2020.
Would that surprise you at all?
That not everybody that got into PCR testing was as qualified as this super genius?
Would that surprise you at all?
But PCR is great for this, it just should be in hospitals, you know?
Even though they were doing it in every university that I was allowed to.
They were doing it in municipalities all around the United States.
Hospitals.
He's talking out of both sides of his mouth here.
Quarterly industry.
That's not going to stop anytime soon, given, you know, they're selling these now to every high school and every, even elementary school, that, hey, you have to test all your kids every week.
And the schools don't know any better, other than if we don't do this, we might be liable.
So they all sign up for it.
And this is kind of absurd, because the kids are a thousand fold less likely to ever get symptoms.
and they're not known to transmit it very well.
So it's like they've gone after the part of the- Just can't seem to muster the possibility that this would allow an incredible amount of exaggeration and lying.
You know, like Peter Thiel said right before the pandemic on the Portal podcast.
that all this fidelity could be faked, that all this knowledge could be faked, that this signal could be generated out of whole cloth, background, even not necessarily background, just a flawed PCR test that maybe was designed by a Chinese company that was chosen by a porn producer.
We had over 200 EUA grants in the United States alone for PCR diagnostics, 220 products.
were given EUAs as PCR products.
And as he described them, what do they do?
They measure if you have RNA molecules related to the virus.
Stop lying!
What a awful, malevolent liar.
offering no useful insight at all.
And this vapid moron that's interviewing him that used to work for the World Bank and Monsanto is playing along because he's getting promoted.
He's promoting some network called what?
The Articulate Ventures Network?
Boy, I can imagine.
I can only imagine.
I can only imagine what that is.
If we were to look into that, I'm spraying ink everywhere now because I'm starting to slam my pen down on the page because I'm pissed.
I want this over with.
I never want to see this person on social media again.
He's just a fraud like they all are.
And I'm gonna, I can go on all day.
I can go on all week.
I can go on all summer and I'm gonna.
I'm done with this.
There's no more punches being pulled.
I'm not titrating anything anymore.
Population that can't vote.
And force them all to take these tests that aren't necessarily... It's a big boondoggle.
Maybe it appeases the teacher unions.
I don't know.
But the teachers are the ones that should be getting tested.
They're the ones that are more at risk.
What a question!
Oh, we should be testing the teachers, not the kids.
Holy balls.
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
And that might as well be him saying it.
He has all the responsibility for the people who didn't know better and transfected themselves.
He has all the responsibility for the people who didn't know better and bought into the fear and uncertainty and doubt and transfected themselves.
Just like Robert Malone, just like Brett Weinstein, just like Jessica Rose, they're all guilty of murder because they're covering it up.
They know that they murdered people and tried to misconstrue it as a lab leak.
And they know that they're failing miserably at it because they're off script.
Because we needed three years of badgering before we would believe it.
They didn't have time because maybe Trump rushed them.
I don't know.
It seems like it might be true.
And so now they're so off script.
They're so lost.
that Sasha Latapova, mother of Soph, is interacting with this character on Twitter.
I mean, it's amazeballs.
Yes, please.
But we see all the focus on the children.
I don't get it.
It's really bizarre.
So you said earlier that you applied for a retraction.
Why are you taking this on as something that you're participating in?
I mean, you're not.
I got asked to do it probably based on my Twitter history, just having an understanding of this.
But I also didn't know the authors.
I think the people who really initiated this.
I also didn't know the authors.
OK, so who initiated it?
Because I know who initiated it because Thomas Bender told me it was the first author.
The guy who went around on Twitter calling people glowies for three years.
wanted an independent view on this of someone who wasn't.
The authors were in Germany, and I don't know them.
I didn't even know of them prior to this.
I probably should have.
They're well published in the virology space.
But I admit it's not known.
He didn't know Jorsten.
No, nobody knows Jorsten, even though he's the guy who made the PCR test for the first SARS virus.
And they said, oh, it's perfect.
You understand PCR, and you don't know these people.
You're a perfect person to take a look at this.
What do you think?
And when I first looked at it, I was like, eh.
I've made those mistakes in PCR myself.
I don't know that I would want to go after a group of people that were trying to be early on this during a pandemic.
I would want to perhaps cheer them on.
I'm all for the entrepreneur, right?
But they then backed up and said, no, no, you have to look at how this happened.
This happened through regulatory capture.
They took this protocol and sent it to the WHO before it went through peer review, and after they gave it to their labs where they have a financial interest in testing.
And I said, all right, that kind of triggered me.
I was like, that's not cool.
So it has nothing to do with PCR testing, nothing to do with having no background data, no evidence, no background information to work from to tell whether or not this PCR test is pulling off of a pre-existing background or an existing spreading novel pathogen, nothing like that.
just an incredible amount of words that mean nothing, that said nothing taught nobody anything.
This whole broadcast has been that so far.
They sent it to the- Explain that last part, meaning that these are not like university professors that are sitting in a laboratory.
So some of the authors are, but they have scientific advisory relationships to labs in Germany.
And so make clear, he's talking about the Drorsten
publication and their conflicts of interest.
He's not in any way telling you that Thomas Binder, Claire Craig, Peter Borger, Kevin McKernan, and these other people are on that paper.
He's not saying that.
I
He's deflecting from the idea, so who did you write this paper with?
Because you were asked to do it.
Who asked you to do it?
We're not talking about that at all.
He's focused on the Dorsten thing, and they're bad guys, and they've got all these conflicts of interest.
Never mind that he owes all of his allegiance to the national security state that gave him the intellectual property that allowed him to build multigenerational wealth with his father and his brothers.
Don't mind that.
Pay attention to the Germans with conflicts of interest.
I'm going to keep grinding and grinding.
Some testing revenue.
And so those companies got the assay first, no crime there.
Then it went to the WHO.
I'm like, well, you're trying to leverage regulatory authority there to get your test approved when it's not been peer reviewed.
When they put it through peer review, they were on the editorial board of the journal they put it to, and it went through peer review in 24 hours.
And that's never happened at that journal before.
We went through and scraped all of the submission timelines and the peer review timelines off the journal, and the average is like 172 days for this journal.
And I think the next closest one was like a 20-day peer review.
See, so it's not fair that they got it through peer review so fast, so it must be fake.
Asking the wrong questions and then having a very vigorous debate within that limited spectrum is exactly what he's done for the last 45 minutes of this video.
So this thing got rammed through peer review.
But couldn't this be the response to Pearl Harbor or the response to 9-11 where people are rising to the occasion?
I mean, like, I mean, I can see you're saying, hey, they broke their protocols.
This is really different.
This may be why there are holes there.
But there doesn't necessarily have to be malintent in that.
No, the only thing that I think is a real scar on the peer review process is they didn't disclose the conflicts of interest when they did this.
And that put the journal in a bad spot, because the journal didn't have the radar out for conflicts.
When you submit a paper, you're supposed to submit all your financial conflicts with it.
And if you don't disclose those, and they didn't- Think about how much time and energy he's wasting on this that has nothing to do with reality.
It's just like, wow.
So what's a list of things that we can talk about for 15 minutes each that will not save anyone?
can't disclose themselves either.
Somebody else figured out they had conflicts later and complained to the journal.
And the journal finally updated the paper to mention their conflicts of interest in the testing labs.
So the journal got blindsided.
They got sent this paper, didn't really appreciate the conflicts that were there, let it zip through peer review too quickly.
And lo and behold, it's the worst performing assay in the marketplace.
We've got reams of evidence on that, that it actually is flawed.
So the peer review here broke.
And it was done with, I would say, malintent, because they hid their conflicts, which later came to light.
Now, that's one insult.
The second insult is ramming it through the who.
The who's not a peer-reviewed body.
They're just going with the relationships that they have and people they trust.
And so they probably knew these people.
Are we setting up the who to be the main bad guy, the who to be the people that we need to fight eventually that Meryl Nass will have to make her own nonprofit separate from CHD so that she can fight the who on her own with the help of Mary Holland?
I see it.
I just see just narrative curation.
I just see a guy who works for them, a trader selling out America and our children.
and threw the protocol up.
He's just staying loyal to the people who've taken care of him his whole frickin' life.
But now the WHO's got this dirty protocol on their hand.
You'll notice, I think a few weeks ago, after a retraction request went through, the WHO shifted their communication on PCR and started backpedaling a little bit on, hey, we may have some PCR protocols in here that are early and need refinements.
So I think they've seen the writing on the wall that this is now a massive liability that anyone... Interesting point that, uh...
Oseen makes there that it's not, he's not saying that Jorsten was an editor.
That may be how he got it through peer review so fast.
So it's kind of weak.
Again, making sure that you will run and hit the cage, right?
Because you'll run and complain and then somebody else will point that out and say, yeah, but he was an editor.
That's how they got it through so fast.
I think he caught a very good thing in the chat there because he's setting people up to run into a different part of the cage then.
When they go running and telling their friends, yeah, but they got it through peer review and it wasn't fair.
And then somebody else knows a different part of the story.
Heard it from wherever Osine heard it.
That it was just him being an editor.
money who's been falsely locked down or had their business destroyed is going to want to file case against whoever created a test that falsely led to those circumstances.
Whoa.
That is, that's a Peter Thiel paradox.
If I've ever heard one, it's happening.
Everybody has talked about the liability going towards go safety, go see a Peter Thiel paradox.
What T F.
is a Peter Thiel paradox.
That is bizarro world.
A little bit on, hey, we may have some PCR protocols in here that are early and need refinement.
So I think they've seen the writing on the wall that this is now a massive liability, that anyone who's been falsely locked down or had their business destroyed is going to want to file case against whoever created a test that falsely led to those.
Interesting that I'm actually consulting on exactly such a case.
And CHD and ICANN are not.
Let me repeat that again.
Interesting that I'm consulting on a case exactly about this.
And CHD and ICANN are not.
Interesting, right?
It's not like the people in these cases haven't sought their help.
They got laughed away.
They were told that it's a stupid case, that it'll never go anywhere.
And yet here he is in 2020 saying this is a huge vulnerability potentially for any business that wants to sue for the people that made those tests.
What an interesting thing for him to say.
What an interesting thing for me to hear him say in light of what I'm consulting for.
Maybe we'll have to add him to the witness list.
circumstances.
Whoa, that is that's a Peter Thiel paradox if I've ever heard one.
It's happening.
Everybody has talked about the liability going towards go safety, go safety, go safety.
But you're saying the polarity could get reversed.
It has been.
The cases have been filed.
Yeah.
So they're going after these people.
And I don't know where and what jurisdiction is gonna prevail, but there's enough people that class action lawsuits now materializing.
I think Reiner Fulmich is the person who's the head of the sphere in this.
Nice, Reiner, the guy that took their money and made it into gold or the guy that like paid for his house because he was afraid the money that was donated to the CIC would be lost.
You mean the guy who set up the Coronavirus Committee in Germany that then actually recorded an interview with Sasha Latupova like four times?
That one?
The Coronavirus Investigational Committee in Germany may have done some interviews with some very good people, but has over-promoted some very bad ideas and some very bad people.
Sasha Lantupova being one of them.
Meryl Nass being another one.
And I suspect many more.
Remember, Germany is at the heart of this, right?
Germany is at the heart of this international group of people and traders that are interested in serving the globalists and interested in controlled demolition of America specifically.
You don't think there are people in Germany who've got a vendetta with us?
You don't think there are people in the UK that got a vendetta against us as a people?
You're mistaken.
And they are trying to bring to light that these tests that went through a shaky peer review have destroyed businesses and people's lives, and they want to see some change.
So I got involved because I could review the science, the paper.
I can't speak to all those politics.
I can't speak to the lawsuit.
I'm not a lawyer.
But I can certainly find
problems and protocols.
And I've gone through all the other literature that demonstrates this protocol is in fact flawed compared to everything else.
And I'll leave it up to everyone else to decide whether the peer review system needs to change.
But if you want it to change, he's got a solution that involves blockchain.
Just in case you wanna know, that's his thing.
He spoke about that in front of the Senate too.
The blockchain will help peer review.
As you know from- So tell us about the flaws in a way that would make it- Yeah, tell us about the flaws because that's another thing that he is being seeded in order to do.
Possible for a lay person to understand.
Well, there's- He's never gonna get to the stage where he says that P-values as they're currently used on the academic bench and as they're currently used to fuel the publication crisis,
needs to be fundamentally reorganized around different principles and around testing models for validity.
He's not going to explain that flaw in the publication system.
He's going to argue for a sort of peer review system that's just different.
with blockchain because blockchain is so awesome, Bitcoin, blockchain, Bitcoin.
A few papers out there showing positive signal from this test when they run it on no template controls.
That's another scientific word for water.
So you don't want water creating a positive because that quarantines somebody when it shouldn't.
Now it's not doing that on all samples.
So how does a PCR test create a false positive?
if it's such an accurate and useful thing, at least in the hospitals, according to him.
What is this bullshit other than, well, then they're not making very good products, are they?
And yet we are told to rely on these products, even if they're designed by and ordered by and administered by a former porn movie producer.
But it's the FDA getting in the way.
It's like 10 pages of EUA stuff to get anything out.
That's what he said in the first one.
They would see that.
If all water samples lit up, we would have known this well back in January.
This paper was... Water samples?
You mean sewer samples?
Stop lying!
submitted, I think, on the mid-January time frame, which is very early, actually.
If you look at the timeline of when coronavirus was around, and the body of work that went into this paper probably means they started on this in November, December time frame last year.
So they were very far ahead of the curve.
So far ahead of the curve, people are questioning how they know.
They are known in this space.
They have been studying coronaviruses for a long time.
In fact, they even used an old assay that they had for SARS-CoV-1.
They used an old assay.
Do you remember what he said that PCR was like?
PCR is like making chocolate milk.
So what is this, they're using an old assay from before?
other than a lie.
Because it's like making chocolate milk.
You just put primers in, you find their melting points, you choose the cycle length, and you go.
What is he even saying here?
He said in the first podcast that PCR is like chocolate milk.
And yet now they're making chocolate milk like they made it last time?
Instead of making new chocolate milk?
Has PCR as a technique changed?
He's a liar.
Stop lying.
He's a liar.
Stop lying.
Probably means they started on this in November, December timeframe last year.
Uh, so they were very far ahead of the curve.
So far ahead of the curve.
People are questioning how they know, but, uh, they are, they are no.
Oh, so maybe it was around a little earlier.
Maybe they covered up a lab leak and that's why they started it so early.
in this space.
They have been studying coronaviruses for a long time.
So they, in fact, they even used an old assay that they had for SARS-CoV-1 because they were, I think they discovered that virus.
So very credible in the space.
So they had a jumpstart and they ran with it.
They were very credible in this space.
Like he's also very credible in the PCR space.
That's where I find myself in the PCR space.
He finds himself in the national security narrative creation space.
But for the love of God, see this liar for who he is and the malevolence in his every word.
He serves the people that would enslave your kids.
But that's one flaw that scares people.
When you see water samples lighting up in other laboratories, it means there's a problem with the assay.
I've dug into that assay, and I can see where the problem sits.
It's with the design of their PCR primers.
These primers are the pieces of DNA sequence that you have to do.
So if we get the PCR right, it's great.
If we get the transfection right, it'll be great.
All this stuff is awesome.
Pfizer just pulled off an amazing feat.
design to make the PCR reaction amplify.
So you need to know a little bit of sequence to design a PCR reaction.
And in this case, they had a little bit, you need to know a little bit of the sequence in order to design a PCR test.
Wow, I thought that's interesting.
Is that part of the making of chocolate milk?
What the shit is going on here?
It's a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt.
He's not teaching the host anything.
God forbid he would use a graphic or something, right?
None of these people are able to use slides on Zoom ever, unless it's a peer-reviewed paper.
Liars.
Traitors.
Selling us out to the highest bidders who are probably globalist, weaponized piles of money.
Otherwise, why drop in the Peter Thiel paradox comment?
Maybe they all work for Peter.
It's possible.
some information from China.
Peter and Elon, the private interests of the globalists, you know, Peter Thiel, the gay guy, Elon Musk, the gay guy, you know, those guys that are faking it.
I'm sorry, but it's true.
I hate to break it to you.
where they could design some short sequences that would anneal to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and amplify a short 100 base pair region of that virus.
We're listening to a bunch of people who don't have to protect their kids from this world.
That's why they are so happily to lie.
Because they don't have any kids to protect.
They have no interest in the next generation, except for as lab animals.
They have no skin in the game.
Once you start to realize how many of these people don't have skin in the game and how many people had skin in the game, the ones that don't have skin in the game didn't have very much in the game before the pandemic and have risen to prominence, like Epigirl.
Others of them had an incredible amount of skin in the game, you know, like Judy Mikovits and Robert Malone, and they've also risen to prominence.
Robert Malone had a whole bunch to lose, including property at the foot of the Shenandoah Mountains, the Shenandoah National Forest, and a horse breeding operation funded by Big Pharma and by the WHO, and by consulting for people who got over $50 billion in grants, sitting on study sections that awarded grants,
for the NIH and NIAID and for DITRA.
He called himself DITRA and us being the DOD at the beginning of the pandemic when he was talking to people like bus rider, MD, Paul Cottrell, who is promoted as a hero by George Webb, the fakest of all fakers.
And they're all associated together.
They're all connected to one another, including this faker, this traitor,
this poser as a dissident who was put in place as early as possible, as early as anybody else, to control a limited spectrum of debate about a novel virus?
Well, if those primers react with themselves, they have a harder time reacting with the coronavirus RNA that's present.
And that looks like what's happening is these primers look like they have some secondary structure in them and they have what's known as a primer dimer artifact that's making them create false signals when they shouldn't.
As a result of this, they also are less sensitive primers.
When your primers are busy messing around with themselves, they're not messing around with the target DNA that you want to amplify.
And so they are less sensitive to amplifying your target.
And that's been demonstrated in lots of literature as well, that they're not only a source of false negatives, but also a source of false positives.
So that's a bad way to start the day with coronavirus, particularly early on.
Many people copied that assay because it was at the WHO.
They did a similar kind of appeal to authority and said that who said these things work, we're gonna use them.
And then 20 papers later, we find out that everyone needs to redesign them and there's a problem.
I don't know how frequently they're used today.
For instance, the story with your daughter, I have no idea what test they ran on your daughter because it's impossible to figure that out in the United States.
Yeah, it's impossible to figure that out in the United States because actually all the tests were centralized.
All the testing was controlled by DITRA for the first year or two.
Something that they just conveniently leave out.
but we know for a fact.
Centralized sequencing, centralized testing.
So when Kevin McKernan says there's 15 million sequences of this virus, so don't tell me it's not there, he's talking about DOD, DITRA, CDC, FDA, HHS, curated sequencing database.
He's not talking about open source, even though he claims that's the case, it's not.
If you use their primers, then you're sequencing their signal.
He's not explaining how sequencing is done yet.
He's probably not going to get there because that's not part of this.
Just like he didn't say anything to do with the potential dangers of pseudouridine substitution in the mRNA.
He never called it a transfection.
He never said the transfection hasn't really been working, hasn't been used successfully to augment an immune system, but boy, did they make an amazing feat by manufacturing this DNA and RNA.
That's what Kevin McKernan just said.
December 2020 the traitor and liar who's responsible for the murder in the United States and enabling it So we just assumed if the sitter had it that that it was like we were not.
Oh, yeah Just be at home.
We'll just quarantine.
There's no price link nice link Check that out damn How the you of I?
turned its COVID test into a moneymaker.
Look at that.
Isn't that neato?
Oh, it's $65 million business as well as doing a public good.
That sounds exactly like what Kevin McKernan is arguing for.
And that's how you become a test subject without even knowing it.
That's how they get to run the first AI program on, can we take all of these unidentified samples from the University of Illinois and cross-list them with their names, and then also look at their data on the Epic database?
and see if we can connect any genomic data with their medical data.
I wonder if we could use an AI to try and solve that problem.
Well, all we need to do is get a hold of the remnants from one of these universities, and we can use our high throughput sequencing machines that we've already had for several decades, and certainly for the last decade, and we can sequence all the human DNA we have.
We can create a database of it and then we can cross check it against predictions that would be made for the symptoms that they might have, for the attributes that they might have.
And we have the genetic data from the remnants and the medical data from the EPIC database.
And they're all freely available because we can get the EPIC database without people's names and we can get the remnants without people's names.
And then we can use these AI programs to put them together.
And if you don't think that's what these monsters were doing, then you're just naive.
They were ready to do it.
That's why they want you to be arguing about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
That's why they want you to be arguing about who did it and who said it and who released it and whether or not these tests are expensive or not.
Whether they need to be a week or two weeks apart.
Whether you should renew your mask all the time or just sometimes.
because it's all part of the same charade.
And that Human Genome Project fraud is most definitely aware of it.
His boss and mentor has said over and over again, Eric Lander, that we just need the genomes.
Like, we need a lot of genomes.
We need all the data.
If we don't have all the data, we can't figure this out.
If we learned anything from the Human Genome Project, it is that we need all the data.
Stop lying!
We are
grinding this in.
This is like putting a cigar out on the hand over and over again.
We will not stop.
So you have no idea as a person going to get a test, which one's getting deployed on you.
And they all have different sensitivities.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
That's a really interesting thing.
You're saying there are multiple tests going on in the background.
Hundreds.
You don't actually know which test you are getting.
And so they would never use that to lie.
It's just unfortunate.
It creates a lot of noise.
And it's because they rushed it.
because they got EUAs, because they flubbed it, because the whatever, whatever, whatever, but not the central thing that James Giordano told us in 2017, was they seed a few cases and lie about it.
How would they seed a few cases?
The PCR test, the sequencing, that's how.
They would use recombinant DNA or an RNA to do it, which in the virology literature is often called infectious clones.
Because as Kevin has been seeding throughout this little video, your main question you should be asking is when are you infectious and when are you aren't?
Because the tests don't tell you that.
Stop lying!
No.
And that's important because some of them have been thoroughly validated and some of them have not.
The most thoroughly validated tests will have compared the PCR signals they get to the number of infectious viruses that are there.
So you can take virus from patients and run it on a Petri dish that has Vero cells grown on it on a lawn.
And it will create all these plaques that you can use, these little death spots in the lawn.
Yeah, so plaque assays, the thing from the 50s, he's actually saying is a very valid way of measuring the number of viral particles that can replicate in a sample.
Not next generation sequencing or nanopore or any of this other shit that he knows exists and could be applied to get a higher fidelity signal.
No, no.
He's actually arguing for the 1940s and 50s technique of plaque assays that involves multiple layers of agar.
Can you see it?
Tells you how many virions.
You just count those little plaques and it tells you how many infective viruses you have.
He agrees with Vincent Racaniello.
He agrees with David Baltimore.
He agrees with Robert Gallo.
He agrees with Stanley Plotkin.
He agrees with Hilary Kaprowski.
He agrees with Francis Collins.
He agrees with Tony Fauci.
And his opposition to them is wholly a manufactured act.
He's a traitor.
In the patient sample.
You do that in hundreds of patients, and then you also run qPCR on them.
And then you can correlate what CT level is reflective of which infective load.
Jafar did this at DDA Realt's lab.
This is the lab that came up with hydroxychloroquine.
DDA Realt's lab.
Great.
That's wonderful.
Another, another probably controlled op.
great work on basically measuring how well their PCR tests correlated with infectability.
That's right.
They're promoting that.
He did something to do with infectiousness and CT count.
And it was also with hydroxychloroquine, but we ignored that part of the paper.
And we're mainly talking about the fact that he was looking at viral load and infectiousness or some shit like that.
That's why they promoted him.
And their number came out around CQ 33.
I remember all this.
I remember every one of these lies.
Why?
Because I was told to leave my faculty position that I loved, leave my lab, leave my students, leave my microscopes, leave everything that I had built, everything that I'd worked for, and not come back because I didn't go along with this.
So I was paying attention.
Like when you get punched in the mouth, you kind of pay attention.
I've been punched in the mouth a lot during this pandemic.
And now I have the feeling that I'd like to punch some other people in the mouths.
I wish people would visit me in Pittsburgh this year.
which is virus after that point.
So they probably don't call anybody after 33.
Uh, in United States, uh, we haven't seen assays that have been, uh, deployed that way.
And so some people call out of assays deployed 40.
Some people call it 37.
It's hard to find out what they're calling these things that you have to kind of call up each lab and ask like, what, where, where are you calling this at?
And what is your, uh, what does your EUA documentation say on what your limit of detection is?
Is it 37?
Why are you calling me at 38?
If your limit is at 37, you know, these things do happen.
He doesn't even talk about the stochastic nature of PCR, that it's got to start.
And if the reaction doesn't start for three or four cycles because of the very small amount of material that's available for amplification, or if your concentrations of primers are wrong, or any number of other reasons, then the cycle might just not kick off.
And so then it will go exponential in a later time.
And so he's not telling you any of these things.
He's not actually informing anybody about how these work.
That's why he started with PCR measures if you have RNA molecules related to the virus, which is a gigantic battleship size bullshit lie about what this PCR does.
It doesn't look for if you have RNA related to the virus, unless you mean one little tiny part.
That makes it really confusing.
I mean, I received a letter from one of our schools saying we're, you know, oh, we're going to do school testing on all the kids.
And we're going to use one of these four tests.
We don't know which one, though.
We're just going to choose my own adventure as we see fit and find the best pricing.
And I'm like, well, those were great books.
I read Choose Your Own Adventure books when I was a kid.
They were awesome.
I should buy those for my kid.
Some of these are saliva tests.
That's fine.
That's less invasive.
Some of these, like, shove something way up your nose, and you can actually do some damage.
I kind of prefer you work on the saliva ones.
Oh, yeah.
Now, here we go.
Nasal tests are bad, but saliva's great.
U of I was using saliva.
They developed their own saliva test.
The case that I'm working on, they got an FDA for nasal swabs, but then they used saliva, which is pretty funny.
It's all just one big cluster F of liars.
Maybe tell us, what was this test validated on?
What's the validation for this?
So the message that we received when we went to get our test was, you can do the rapid test, but if you don't have symptoms, it's only 70% good at detecting it.
Yeah.
So so then we're like, well, why would we get then the rapid test gives us no information, right?
Like, yeah.
Is it possible that we are only 44 minutes into this and it's a minute?
It's an hour and 20 left.
Is it possible?
How is it possible that it has been nonstop narrative curation for three podcasts?
Three separate appearances in 2020, carefully titrating
this viewership into a Scooby-Doo narrative where Pfizer does amazing manufacturing feats and pseudo-uridine is just something that they do to make the mRNA last longer, but it still doesn't last long enough.
That's why you need two shots.
You heard it here.
That's what he said.
The video is still up on YouTube.
He's a traitor.
And everybody that promotes him is a traitor.
Everybody that retweets him is a traitor.
Everybody that coordinatedly lies with him in front of the Senate and in front of other places is a traitor to America and to all the free people on earth.
The people that think nationalism is okay.
It's okay to fly the Dutch flag if you like it.
It's okay to fly the American flag.
Isn't it interesting that if you fly the American flag, everybody already knows that you're a Republican?
that you're a conservative, isn't that weird?
I shouldn't say Republican, I should say conservative.
Then if we're negative and it's positive, there's 30% of the time you're not gonna know that?
How does that work?
I'm actually more fond of those now than I was before, mainly because I feel like picking up the people who are symptomatic is the most important thing.
This chasing all the asymptomatic people with PCR I think leads to more destruction.
But why do you need tests to pick up people that are symptomatic?
I mean, if it's a novel disease that everybody now agrees was very strange, then what do you need a test for it?
If you're only concerned about picking up people with the strange disease that everybody agrees, it was strange.
Malik said it was strange.
Robert Malone said it was strange.
Meryl Nass said it was strange.
Mary Holland said it was strange.
Kevin McKernan said it was strange.
We've watched them all listen to them all say it in the last two weeks.
They're going to flip out because their disguises are broken.
Their illusion is breaking.
Anybody that watches this stream or any of the other work that I've done in the last two weeks will be permanently freed.
Please share this work.
But the rapid tests, I like for that reason, in that they only pick up people who are really hot for the virus.
And therefore, they are infectious.
And you should probably, they're actionable, right?
You don't end up sweeping in all of these people that have the virus in the rear view mirror, which is what we're doing with PCR.
So you end up with, I think, more targeted quarantines that way.
So they're frowned upon because they're new, and I get that.
But I do think they're, Michael Mean is a good person to follow on this out of the brood.
I think he's got his head on straight about the use of these rapid tests.
For one, you can do them like in 20 minutes.
And that means you can do them and maybe catch the pre-symptomatic phase.
The problem with PCR is there may in fact be a pre-symptomatic window.
That's still up for debate.
I think the asymptomatic spread things get nullified, but the pre-symptomatic spread is a concern.
That may only be a day or two.
And if your PCR test doesn't get back for four days, then there's no point doing it.
You'll already be symptomatic by the time you get the answer.
So the rapid test can tell you right on the spot, am I pre-symptomatic?
You could probably take them more than once to know
Is the viral load going up or down?
There are some of these tests that can give you a number, as opposed to just yes or no.
And I think those are the more interesting ones, because you can tell if your signal is going up or down.
So to discern between pre-symptomatic and post, the virus goes up in copy number very, very quickly in the front end.
So you see a rapid change in the amount of... In copy number or is it the sub genomic RNAs that are replicating and actually very few full genome sequences are actually assembled.
According to next generation sequencing, the same kind of sub genomic RNA array is produced by synthetic clones in cell culture that's produced whenever they get lucky enough to get something to grow from a sample.
It's never viral competence.
It's never full genomes.
It's always these RNA fragments, which he's not at all saying here, at all, not even close.
In a podcast where he used replication competence to refer to the RNA.
RNA shot that he doesn't call transfection.
I mean, if you can't see how malevolent this is and the implanted contradictions, the implanted walls, the implanted incongruencies that are always going to lead people into this little circle of bullshit.
that can give you a number as opposed to just yes or no.
And I think those are the more interesting ones because you can tell if your signal is going up or down.
So to discern between... But predrome is exactly what James Giordano sold us.
It's not asymptomatic, it's predrome.
symptomatic and post, you're looking for the virus goes up in copy number very, very quickly in the front end.
So you see a rapid change in the amount of RNA if you're in the pre-symptomatic phase.
But it decays really, really slowly on the tail end, like weeks to months.
And so you would see... He actually wants us to believe that there is a pre-symptomatic phase, but asymptomatic transmission is dumb.
Talk about asking layered incorrect questions.
I mean, this is an Oreo cookie of bullshit that he's throwing at us all the time.
And he's not even bothering to be kind enough to give us milk to dunk it in because PCR is chocolate milk and dunking Oreos in chocolate milk is so stupid.
Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense.
The CT values more or less stay the same or go down if you take them two or three days apart.
So the rapid ones you could accomplish that with when you do this with PCR in the turnaround time is what it is.
Oreo cookies are only made of bullshit.
You know that, right?
There's no living
organic material in them.
So that's why I use it to represent Captain Synthetic here.
It's only what it is because they're centralizing the testing.
QPCR could do this on site in an hour, but we don't have those tools approved yet.
QPCR could do this in an hour, but we don't have those tools approved yet.
That's weird because the
There were lots of QPCR testings being done as far.
Wow, that's a weird statement.
I'm just... And these things to labs that then go into some centralized lab that doesn't get you, it sits in a queue and doesn't get you an answer for three days.
So you can't really do those things.
You can't really take them multiple time points because the centralization is choking up the efficiency of getting the turnaround time right.
So I do believe the home testing makes sense, like there's several benefits to it, is that you could take it more frequently, you'd only get alarm bells when it really mattered, and you maintain the privacy of all this.
I mean, I'm really nervous that all of this QPCR data is centralized in government databases.
that were just built this year.
I mean, would you trust the DMV with all this data?
I mean, like, what could you do with that data?
I mean, to somebody like me, I'm like, I don't know.
What does that mean that they have that new?
Is he going to say anything about the remnants having all the details of the microbiome and all the details of the genome of everybody that got swabbed?
Is he gonna say anything about the fact that the saliva test would give you your whole genome and some idea of what your microbiome might contain all from a saliva test?
Is he gonna say that's what they're using or is he gonna do something else like super bullshit?
Where are the odds?
Ready?
Hazel swab and all the information.
I just worry that it's not accurate.
Like how do we know that they're not manipulating the data?
I'm only worried that it's not accurate.
I have no worry that they'll might use it for other reasons.
I'm just worried that it's not very accurate.
Wow.
I mean, this is just a, a, a,
It's like shooting fish in a barrel with no water.
They're reading it right.
Who is the auditor of their spreadsheets on this stuff?
They have to collect this data from hundreds of labs in their state and then present it on a daily basis.
It's not something that the whole community can audit and know whether it's ever been hacked or been manipulated or changed.
You know what's really interesting about this, if you start to think about it, is how many of these people, how many of these people, like, there's some, there's some interesting ones, because I think it's really interesting to think about the idea that if you look at this little diagram that I got, and you think about who these people are and what they have and haven't done, like this one right here, I couldn't, didn't recognize it because I changed the colors.
But think about the fact that somebody like Charles Rixey or Kevin McCarren could easily be using these videos to show you that they think that Kevin McCarren is actually covering up the deployment of a bioweapon.
But they don't.
You do see that, right?
That even somebody like Andrew Huff or even somebody like Robert Malone could say that you worked for the Human Genome Project.
You're not to be trusted.
You're just pushing a narrative.
You're covering up the release of a bioweapon.
Why hasn't Kevin McCairn even mentioned Kevin McKernan?
Why has Stephanie Seneff been on Kevin McCairn's podcast talking about prions like three weeks ago?
Stephanie Seneff, a member of the illustrious Stephen, Steve Kirsch steering committee that also this guy was a member of.
Also, Stephanie Seneff, also Mark Girardeau, the bolus bozo.
Who else was in that steering committee?
Jessica Rose.
A guy by the name of Matt Crawford is the one who actually invited me into that group.
And then tried to make a big show about how Steve was ignoring his DMED data interpretation.
And Steve got the DMED wrong.
And then they did a podcast together where Matt was assured that he dunked on Steve.
It's all too late now.
They use this fake rivalry shit with me way too often since 2020.
Faking, storming out of a signal chat because no one will listen to me.
I'm going to make my own Bitcoin chat and teach everybody the truth about how you hold on for dear life when you buy Bitcoin.
It's all one big show coordinated by the weaponized piles of money that Peter Thiel and Elon Musk and Facebook and social media and crypto and locals and all these fake things.
all these government-private partnerships, private-public partnerships that are working together to usurp our republics, to control, demolish America.
These are all traitors.
They're all traitors.
And if they're not traitors, then they need to be pushed out of this group with a violent shove, and they need to apologize to us for having been in this group for four years.
They need to admit that they were doing and saying some pretty stupid shit for way too long.
And that means that a lot of people died because of it, because that's what I've said.
And that's what anybody with any integrity would say, given the fact that we were lied to about this, that they murdered people and tried to call it a lab leak.
So centralization of data that is governing people's freedom, I think everybody should stand up and take alarm to because they could be fabricating this for all we know.
I don't think they are.
They could be fabricating it.
I don't think they are, but they could be.
Well, they got to tell you the truth, man.
They've got to say it at least once.
Otherwise, karma will come and get them.
Otherwise, the universe will be out of balance.
They could be faking it, but I don't think they are.
Why would they do that?
RNA can definitely pandemic, I'm sure of that.
I mean, I'm in the PCR space.
Stop lying!
I don't have evidence for it, but I think it's freedom.
I think everybody should stand up and take a long too, because they could be fabricating this for all we know.
I don't think they are, and I don't have evidence for it, but I think when it comes to them destroying the constitution, that maybe we should look.
And that's not something that you can really do right now.
You also can't really get your CQ values out of these tests.
So you don't know the viral load.
And that would be very, very valuable.
But if there's a virus, then they're not faking it.
What are they faking if there's a virus?
So he's not really saying it.
You see, it's like a little tiny tickle.
You thought you heard it.
but she didn't.
DRASTIC just came together again and made one website instead of two.
It used to be DRASTIC Science and DRASTIC.
And Charles Rixey came to my house in Pittsburgh to try and convince me to talk about the diffuse proposal and to come back together with DRASTIC, that we would represent the Americans in DRASTIC, nevermind that the rest of DRASTIC is foreign meddlers, half of whom are anonymous.
One of them offered to help me day trade with Chinese stocks on a fake Slack group that contained Yuri Dagan, the guy who blocked me out of drastic and started a new group of drastic because some of us wanted to talk about transfection as a problem.
That's all 2020.
That's all right here right now.
I'm probably still arguing with drastic about why it is they threw me out.
in 2020 for talking about transfection.
That a guy who has worked for the Human Genome Project still can't call transfection and says Pfizer has done an amazing feat of manufacturing.
Stop lying.
called that probably were non-infectious, asymptomatic, and after CQA 35.
And there's a large portion of them that are after CQA 35 that are getting whacked with quarantine that probably shouldn't be in Rhode Island.
So there's a lot of value to the data.
And I think part of the problem centralizing it is that nobody can put it to use.
And that's a real shame.
So, um, what about this antigen test that people talk about?
Because people, there are a lot of people being like, I want to go give blood so that that way I can find out if I have the antigens and if I do, I'm home free.
Oh, so there's a rapid antigen test, which looks for the spike protein to know that you've got, you know, full virus there.
And that's the reason why I have, I started with on Bobby's podcast with the idea they could have planted the spike protein, because a lot of these rapid tests were looking for the spike protein, and he's just going to say it, and I'm going to back it up again, that if the spike protein is there, then that means the whole virus is there.
The spike protein is the most abundant
of any of the RNAs that are detectable by their assays in these transfections and transformation experiments in cell culture.
The spike protein, the fusion protein, it is the most abundant RNA, and it is assumed to be the most abundant protein that's produced.
That might not be true, but that's what he would tell you.
And so what he's going to say is that it looks for the spike protein that says you have virus, but that's wrong because that's the most abundant protein.
It's actually the least likely to indicate competent virus because it's going to be on empty viruses.
It's going to be on all of these replication incompetent particles that Robert Malone will tell us about in a few months from this podcast.
The vast majority of particles in a coronavirus infection are non-replication incompetent.
They're not infectious.
They don't do anything.
They just float around.
Antigens, and if I do, I'm home free.
Oh, so there's a rapid antigen test, which looks for the spike protein to know that you've got full virus.
So the antigen- It looks for spike protein so that you know that you've got a full virus, and then as fast as possible, keeps talking.
And that is an absolute bald-faced lie.
It's an absolute bald-faced lie.
The spike protein or an antigen test for the spike protein does not indicate virus at all.
Not at all.
But he just said it.
Antigens, and if I do, I'm home free.
Oh, so there's a rapid antigen test which looks for the spike protein to know that you've got, you know, full virus there.
Why did he say it so fast?
Because he knows it's a lie and he's ashamed for having worked for the people that are enslaving our kids?
Maybe.
He deserves to be knocked out.
He deserves to have fruit thrown at him whenever he's in public.
He deserves to be recognized by every American.
He deserves to be on a wanted poster.
He deserves to be on, uh,
team worst case scenario like a movie poster where he's gazing off into the distance and right underneath him is Jessica Rose looking the other way and maybe a silhouette of her rapping in Geneva is the way it would be.
And then Bret Weinstein standing like this with his wife in his arms and Eric Weinstein with a black umbrella and all this other shit.
That would be appropriate here.
Antigen tests that are looking at IgG and IgM are a bit different.
Those look for what antibodies your body has produced.
Those can be delayed in their production.
IgM cannot even be specific.
IgM can be for damage associated molecular patterns that are not specific for anything.
You liar.
GM comes first, IgG comes second.
And they- And IgM comes first and IgG comes second.
And one of the things that I was teaching for this year while he was doing it, is that there was data from Japan that showed that there was no IgM signal in any infected patients.
The first signal that came up was IgG.
which in my naive point of view at that time was at least enough evidence to show you that it wasn't a novel virus and that we were making antibodies in these COVID patients for previous identified damage associated molecular pattern targets.
He's telling you Francis Collins' lie right here, which is that, well, what happens when you get infected with coronavirus is you make IgM and then you make IgG.
But that didn't happen.
And there were papers that showed it.
And I actually saw these papers from Sukrit Bhakti.
who explained very well why these papers indicated, from his knowledge of antibodies and the complement system, that this meant that we already had previous immunity to whatever this bullshit is.
These people are lying to us about a novel virus spreading.
Otherwise, there would be IgM followed by IgG.
And he just lied about it right there for you.
And you wouldn't know it because the immunologist
Jessica Rose didn't tell you.
He wouldn't know it because the guy who said he was gonna teach immunology in 2020 never did, Brett Weinstein.
He wouldn't know it because Robert Malone or Meryl Nass have never been able to explain it to you.
And Mary Holland's just a lawyer.
But I just explained it to you right there.
This might be the most damning five minutes of this whole video so far.
Because he is a liar.
And he is lying to you about the antibody progression of this virus because we never observed it.
And if he really wanted to make his mealy mouse argument that he's been making for the last three hours in these last three videos about there being a preexisting background, this would be this zero prevalence data.
And the fact that there isn't an IgM bump before the IgG bump would be perfect evidence for that.
But is he going to do it?
No, because he's a little higher.
They will disappear after a month to six months.
I think IgM disappears first, and IgG sticks around the longest.
So those are helpful to tell you if you have the virus.
The only problem with the antibody tests are that not everybody mobilizes an antibody response.
In fact, I think only half the people mobilize an antibody response.
You can take it and not have them and be, well, I still don't know whether I got it or didn't get it.
But if you do pop positive on those, you know you had it recently, and you're probably over it.
So there's some use there.
What they really need to fill the hole are T cell tests.
I mean, last time we spoke, we were talking about all this.
We were talking about T-cell tests for four years.
It's not that easy.
In fact, we have a video from TWIV when Christian Anderson, the coronavirus hero guy, admitted to Vincent Racaniello and his friends that he went into T-cells, but he found it was so hard and so annoying that he decided to go into infectious disease instead.
That's the truth, Ruth.
T-cell immunity that was out there from prior coronaviruses.
Well, they're now coming up with ways of sequencing your T-cell repertoire to understand whether or not you've built anything that could predict.
And then it actually already came out in 2020, a paper which showed that and suggested that we were already having T-cells to the conserved regions of the coronavirus.
You know,
polyprotein 1A, 1B, and all the sub-proteins that get translated into the replication complex, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase complex, the thing that he still hasn't mentioned, still hasn't talked about with regard to how you detect the virus or what we would make T-cell immunity to, even though somebody like Stanley Perlman actually published a series of papers in early 2000 showing exactly what targets, what epitopes, what
damage-associated molecular patterns are made memory to after SARS-1, and it is indeed the polyprotein, the open reading frame 1AB.
Like, come on, guys.
That you've seen a SARS virus.
So,
Those aren't ready yet, but when they do come to market, those I think will be very helpful, because then you'll have a very complete picture of whether or not you've ever been exposed.
I don't expect that to be cheap, though.
I expect those will still have a fair amount of cost associated with them, because there's sequencing involved, and it probably won't be done remotely.
So as coronavirus has just pounded on and pounded on, now all of a sudden there is a new invisible monster called the variant out of the UK that now is even scarier than the one before.
Is that Delta?
What are your thoughts on this giant invisible monster?
It might as well be a Monty Python skit.
That's such an embarrassing association that they've made that I hope someone goes to jail for.
That's ridiculous.
It fully debunked.
Nobody, no one in the field believes that variant is more transmissible or more virulent.
In fact, there's evidence that it's less virulent because it's missing ORF8.
So, ORF8 is a region.
Oh, so they were tracking certain parts of the virus because open reading frame eight was missing from the new variant.
Interesting.
So while they were tracking certain things, they didn't bother to track the fear and cleavage site.
They didn't bother to track the AIDS inserts.
They didn't bother to track any of the
molecular overlap, the mimicry.
None of these dissidents that are supposedly coming to our rescue with all this knowledge, like Judy Mikovits or Kevin McCairn or Charles Rixey, that have all these spreadsheets and done all this reading, thousands of hours of work, none of them have bothered to track the epitopes that they say are responsible for this being an obvious bioweapon.
Even though apparently in the sequencing they're watching for all these open reading frames disappearing and reappearing, they're not keeping track of the stuff that's the most indicative of a lab leak.
That's kind of strange.
I don't know.
Or stupid.
Or fake.
The genome that one has deleted ends up being a less virulent form of the virus.
And that variant happens to be in phase with ORF8 deletion.
We're not finding, even the pro-lockdown epidemiologists, which I do follow on Twitter, just always know what they're thinking.
Even those folks are yelling.
He keeps plugging following people on Twitter, that the debate is happening on Twitter, the discussion is happening on Twitter.
And four years later, we're still being told that Elon Musk is the only one fighting for free speech on Twitter, even though he simultaneously seems to be turning over
everybody's ID information to an Israeli firm and forcing everybody to ID themselves if they want to be making money on his platform.
Can you imagine a scenario where we already knew that there was going to be an orchestrated buyout of Twitter, that Elon Musk was going to be elevated to a crusader of free speech?
that he would already know it.
And that's the reason why Vance mentioned a Peter Thiel paradox out of nowhere.
And if you start to see it that way, it starts to become pretty clear what's happening, doesn't it?
Ladies and gentlemen, it is three hours and 23 minutes in, and I'm going to take a giant break.
And that means I won't be back until tomorrow.
I don't want to be unclear about what I'm suggesting.
I do not want to be unclear about what I am claiming.
I want to be very clear about my message.
I don't want to pull any punches.
I think these people and maybe some of the ones in yellow are part of a national security operation.
that was orchestrated by weaponized piles of money that are running traitors in our government at all levels.
And it doesn't take very many people to sabotage a tug of war and for nobody who's actually trying to know.
Just like it doesn't take much to sabotage a tug of war and have some people really pulling in earnest
Like maybe Dell, like maybe Brian Hooker, like maybe this lady from NIVC, NVIC.
Maybe some of these people, maybe even Senator Ron Johnson is really trying to pull.
But these people are not.
These people, I am sure, are part of a limited spectrum of debate.
that is designed to control, demolish America, and they're off their timeline.
They needed longer to convince us to blow ourselves up, to tear ourselves apart.
And so they are trying to adapt to the place that we are, and they're not doing it very well.
And I think it's gonna get worse and worse as I continue to grind, because there's nothing to do about this.
I'm using their own words, their videos of their own words and comparing them what they said then to now.
And they're revealing themselves as the liars.
Because we have the entire context of the pandemic recorded live on the internet.
And they haven't deleted it yet.
So it's just work that has to be done.
And no one else seems to want to do it, so I'll do it.
And I'll keep doing it.
And I ain't never gonna stop until my children are effectively clear of this, that my grandchildren are effectively clear of this, that your grandchildren are effectively clear of this, because it is absolutely, absolutely important that we understand that they are misleading the young on purpose and that they have coordinatedly done it.
It is absolutely important to understand that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb, and these people are covering that up.
It is absolutely important to understand that transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent, and these people are covering that knowledge up.
It is absolutely important to acknowledge that RNA cannot pandemic.
We don't have any good biological evidence for it.
And these people are a part of a coordinated campaign of lying to make sure that murder is never revealed as the real story.
Ladies and gentlemen, please share this stream wherever you can.
Stop transfection in everyone that you love and even those people that aren't with us yet.
because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
This has been GigaOM Biological.
If you like what you see, please go to gigaombiological.com and find a way to support.
And if you want to share the replay, please share it at stream.gigaom.bio because that's where nobody makes money and that's where the music is playable.
And that's what these people have actually helped me to provide, which is all these subscribers.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate everybody who stayed the length and Who is here every day?
Love you guys Love you guys