do do
Adams.
Here.
Adamlee.
Here.
Adamowski.
Adamson.
Here.
Adler.
Here.
Anderson.
Here.
Bueller.
Um, he's sick.
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid is going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night.
I guess it's pretty serious.
Thank you, Simone.
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
you
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst case scenario.
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, 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.
Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest distillation of what the pandemic means to society, to biology, to science, and to democracy, and to the whole kind of idea of empiricism and integrity.
And then each of us, this incredible preeminent panel that we have, each one of you is going to get a chance to comment
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, and it's measles plus.
Okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles because not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end.
No, when we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality and it's not, it's, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs.
It'll be a moral emergency because it has to be.
The End
Hello, ladies and gentlemen.
We are here for another attempt at dispelling a little bit of the enchantment.
Welcome to the show.
I don't have any coaches, unfortunately.
I'm the coach.
I don't have a team either.
It's just me and my telescope and my
crappy internet and our interesting times.
It is in interesting times that we find ourselves.
And it is really a matter of what is perceived to be true.
We are fighting for everyone to be able to see or enough people to be able to see what's really true.
And so it does really matter what is perceived to be true.
And that's why I'm fighting so vigorously for it.
I know that a lot of people have been characterizing me as just some guy who erratically attacks people.
I don't think there's anything erratic about my behavior.
I think it's methodologically sound and methodical, actually, in the way that I do it.
Because I'm just very curious why so many people, irrespective of how they share my work or pretend to share my work, they don't share the ideas.
They don't seem to be able to take these very succinct questions and just re-ask them.
Throw them at other people.
It's like, yeah, Jay is this, Jay is that, or he has these motives or that motives.
I don't care about me.
Take these questions and start asking them.
Take these incongruencies and start spreading them around.
Don't argue about whether I'm a bad guy or a good guy.
Just take these ideas and run with them.
Steal them from me and spread them around the world.
Use your weaponized piles of money.
Use your 100,000 followers and spread my ideas.
Because you're not spreading my name.
You're not effectively spreading my name.
So just take my ideas and spread them around so that we get out of this so that as many people as possible can see.
Because there's no... there's no...
There's no use in, like, replying here or posting a video on Twitch that you know is going to go away in a few weeks when you know I have my own website, you know I have my own substack, you know I have all these things, but nobody seems to be able to post anything but Twitch.
Nobody recognizes that Jeff from Earth is making all these little clips.
Nobody recognizes that Soothspider's putting up these videos with captions.
And these charlatans and their reflection in the social media meddlers, they are still at it.
They still have all the power.
And if we want to make gentle the life of this world, we're going to have to see through their illusion.
We're going to have to not underestimate how far they're willing to go.
This is for all the marbles.
America remains the last bastion of hope.
As ironic or as ridiculous as that sounds, it's still the case that our Constitution needs demolishing or made to be made irrelevant.
And the way that they are planning to do it
is to create these artificial waves of consensus opinion.
Artificial waves of consensus behavior.
And they are on social media and most of the waves are composed of people like you that don't know they're participating in it.
And if you want your kids and yourself to be able to surf on some kind of surfboard of truth across these waves on social media, you're gonna have to learn to stay focused on the biology, you're gonna have to learn not to take their bait, and you're gonna have to learn to love your neighbor.
Not a random selection of anonymous accounts on one of these social media platforms that seems to agree with you.
Love your neighbor.
Your neighbor could be people that you used to go to college with or used to be friends with before you all had kids.
Your neighbor could be anyone that's alive and breathing and that you can confirm with emails and phone calls.
But if you're spending your time thinking your neighbors are these semi-anonymous accounts run by more than one person or more than one group or more than one AI, you are just turning over your consciousness to coordinated liars that are pretending to run in a consensus from the big wave.
And if you're here for a while, you're on top of this wave, and you're helping share this work.
Maybe even you're on that list of people that is sustaining this work with financial support.
And I really appreciate all of you, as does my family.
It's really, really fantastic.
The momentum that is building, and it's all because of you guys.
It's all because people share it.
It's all because Jeff makes clips.
It's all because somebody, Soothspider, puts captions on.
It's all because you guys take the time, you know?
You could pour yourself a cup of coffee and spend 15 minutes just clip.
paste, cut, paste, cut, paste everywhere you are on social media and you're done.
And if everybody that watches this stream did that, we would have thousands of more viewers by now.
So I'm not saying you're not doing it.
I'm saying that somebody is actively working against us.
The algorithms are pre-programmed against us.
And so we're going to have to be more persistent if we're going to engage in this informed noncompliance and spread the word about it.
This is gig on biological.
Thank you very much for being here.
I'm excited for this show.
It's gonna be really good I
Hello, everyone.
I can't agree more with Garden Variety Human.
We have to talk about these ideas and divorce them from who's speaking about them, but what we're arguing about, we have to divorce the ownership from these questions and just insist
that the correct questions get answered.
But I'm a human just like you.
I have a family just like you.
And to a certain extent, the people that are stealing my ideas, I need to claim credit from.
The people who are promoting them and
You know, all you got to do is send me a message and say, hey, dude, I think this is a great idea.
I'm going to run with it.
I would be fine with it.
But that's not what they do.
Oftentimes they do exactly the opposite.
They don't take my ideas, but they misrepresent them.
And I think I'm going to give a pretty good sort of
presentation about number one the ideas that I want to to spread and that I want to Teach to everybody but also the ways and some crafty ways that these ideas have been Falsely acknowledged falsely amplified and How what an attempt to absorb a message looks like and I think I
I think a great example is this, right?
And so this will serve as a great example for how a message or the message of a messenger can be absorbed, overwhelmed, or just diluted enough so that it's not as, let's say, acidic as it could be.
And that's more or less what this book represents to me and my family.
And so that's going to be a pretty exciting presentation to give.
I don't know who does it.
I don't know who who is responsible ultimately for orchestrating this this This Lollapalooza of liars, but there are witting and unwitting participants there are willing and and coerced participants It's not my job to figure out whoops figure out.
Oh
Oh, I didn't load that up.
Sorry, one second.
I gotta do this, and then I gotta do this, and then I gotta do that.
Restore, and then I suppose I don't have a camera.
Gosh darn it.
Sorry about that.
Sometimes I get ahead of myself here.
And it's a little tricky sometimes when you don't have a staff.
to set up a rig.
So yeah, anyway, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is actually criminally negligent and this this could have been known by
thousands of academic biologists around the United States and in the EU and maybe even around the world.
Because these techniques that were misrepresented as investigational vaccines at the beginning of the pandemic already had standard names that were beyond trademarking, transformation and transfection that had been more or less coined by some of these early pioneers in virology and molecular biology, people like Baltimore and Gallo.
So anyway, RNA cannot pandemic, and a lot of biologists ought to know better by now.
But it doesn't seem like anybody really wants to peel back the layers of this onion far enough to get to the stage where they can understand this idea.
They're fine with trying to say that maybe virology has exaggerated some things, or maybe this national security state has exaggerated some things, but they're not really willing
to sort of address why it is that I would say this and say why this is a little too far.
Because if this isn't too far, or this isn't too far, or that's not too far, then why not just say it?
Why spend 45 minutes telling everybody that we screwed up the response to this thing, and we're never really going to know where it came from?
Why spend all those words
when we could say that the national security state has known, the NIH has known, and NIDA has known for a very long time that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system doesn't really work.
But there are some things that kind of predictably happen that we could point to to say it's working.
You know, like antibodies or something like that.
But I mean, we already knew that we didn't really understand what was going on here.
The best we have is a correlative immunity that is somewhat predictable.
which allows them to create the pseudoscience that we do in academia these days.
Again, nobody seems to be able to get to the 30,000 foot level and just say it very simply that all these academic biologists in universities have been using transfection and transformation for at least 10 years now.
So it's strange that when similar technologies were rolled out as investigational vaccines that none of these people demanded a little more detail.
Like, wait a minute,
What differentiates these from all the shit that didn't work before?
Even Robert Malone apparently didn't have the wherewithal to say, hey, wait a minute.
I lost, I gave up these patents like 10 years ago because they sucked.
I got out of transformation and transfection because it sucked, because the immune response was so lame.
So I wonder what these guys did to change stuff.
And apparently his claim very recently is that I guess Peter McCullough or Peter Cullis lied to him.
The guy from Canada who invented the lipid nanoparticle apparently said that they had fixed the problems.
And so that's why he took it.
And so just like any other person with the background and requisite knowledge to know better, Robert Malone knew already at the beginning of the pandemic that transfection in healthy humans was criminal.
I'm sure he was pretty aware that the vaccine schedule in America was ridiculous and also criminal before the pandemic, just like a lot of these people knew, but have never really been able to say it out loud.
And they always stand in front of people like, you know, Brian Hooker or Laura Bono at CHD who would definitely say it out loud.
So they put other people in front of them.
Even somebody like Susan Humphreys, who can say it out loud, they have to put her in a conference with like 40 other people who never say it.
And that's how this magic is done.
That's how these controlled operations work.
They're very much more complicated than you might imagine.
And that's because it is a coordinated group of people that are agreeing to lie, agreeing not to talk about certain things, or agreeing to try and convince this person to stop doing something, or to stop dividing, or stop so erratically attacking everyone.
And it's not erratic.
It is a behavior.
It's a pattern.
You see a pattern where either people are consistently learning throughout the pandemic.
And as they learn, their rhetoric changes or they keep circling back, you know, like a hamster wheel or circumlocution where they keep going around the target, but they don't actually ever, ever approach it directly.
And so even though there were lots of different ways to say these three ideas, no one is taking it and running with it.
No one's saying anything like these things either.
You could make a nice comic about free-range RNA molecules and how, oh my goodness, the barn door is open or something like that.
But that's not going to happen, unless the cartoonist guy hears of me.
Maybe he will, because he's probably a pretty good guy.
So what I want you to do is listen to this video, because I want to make a point about it afterward.
This is one of the greatest basketball coaches of all time.
If you don't know who it is, it's Bobby Knight from the University of Indiana.
And here he's going to be talking about coaching the 1984 Olympic team with all the 1984 Olympic team, in case you don't remember, was the dream team that had all the crazy greats from the 80s, Magic Johnson, Bird, Jordan.
You know, like, like Mullen was on there and Malone was on there and and Robinson was on there and Elijah Juan was on there and just, you know, all the legends and Michael Jordan was fairly young but in his prime basketball.
And so this is him talking about coaching that team.
Somebody made the comparison because I'm angry and because I would throw a chair, I guess, that I'm the Bobby Knight of biology.
But I would argue that I'm definitely not the Bobby Knight of biology.
But I want to use a video of Bobby Knight to make a point.
When today's over, we have to work to change it.
But you, I think, have got to really be a flexible leader if you're going to be an effective leader.
I walked into the locker room.
You know what?
I think you're right about that.
But he's talking about coaching the 1984 Olympic team.
So that might not have been the dream team yet.
I don't know when the dream team was.
So you're right.
You might be right about that.
But he's talking about coaching the Olympic team when Michael Jordan was on the team.
So I apologize if that detail was wrong.
You're right.
After the first half of our game with Spain in 1984 for the gold medal, we're ahead by 29 points.
We've played basketball as well as the game can be played.
Michael Jordan has played 12 minutes out of the 20.
He has 11 rebounds, 9 assists, and 19 points in 12 minutes.
In my opinion, there's nobody that's ever played anything that can compare to Michael Jordan with the possible exception of Jack Nicklaus and Babe Ruth.
Michael Jordan is just the best there ever was at what he does by a considerable margin.
So I'm walking across the floor with this 29-point lead as I look at the scoreboard, and I'm a great believer in the best three minutes of the game for us has got to be the first three minutes of the second half.
But what the hell am I gonna say?
Hey, we gotta get better.
We're 29 points ahead.
We gotta win by 59.
These kids are gonna be a little bit satisfied with themselves.
They know how well they play.
And when I get to the locker room, I still haven't come up with an answer.
I open the door, and the first guy I see is Jordan, sitting in front of his locker.
Idea light flashes.
I say to myself, I'm going to get on Jordan's ass a little bit.
And everybody else is going to say, God, if he's upset with Jordan, how does he feel about me?
12 minutes, 19 points, 11 rebounds.
So I want to, I want to clarify everything so everybody doesn't argue about it it's my mistake.
This is when Michael Jordan was still in college still playing at North Carolina but when they were only taking college kids to the Olympics still.
And so in 1984.
Bobby Knight was the coach of the Olympic team when they took college kids, when Michael Jordan was playing for North Carolina.
And still, they hadn't done the Dream Team yet, because the Dream Team was the first time they ever took pros to the Olympics.
So I apologize for dropping that ball, actually.
And I want to go back a little bit, because it's a really good
Story and I want you to really hear what he's saying.
So they're they're 29 points ahead Michael Jordan is the best player he's ever seen he scored 19 points in 12 minutes and they're going into halftime and he believes as a coach That the second half the first three minutes of the second half have to be the best three minutes of your game That's what he shoots for so he wants to motivate the players in the locker room during halftime even though they're up by 29
What's he gonna say?
You see why I'm not Bobby Knight of biology yet?
In my opinion, there's nobody that's ever played anything that can compare to Michael Jordan with the possible exception of Jack Nicklaus and Babe Ruth.
Michael Jordan is just the best there ever was at what he does by a considerable margin.
So I'm walking across the floor with this 29-point lead as I look at the scoreboard, and I'm a great believer in the best three minutes of the game for us has got to be the first three minutes of the second half.
But what the hell am I going to say?
Hey, we got to get better.
We're 29 points ahead.
We got to win by 59.
These kids are going to be a little bit satisfied with themselves.
They know how well they play.
And when I get to the locker room, I still haven't come up with an answer.
I open the door and the first guy I see is Jordan sitting in front of his locker.
Idea light flashes.
I say to myself, I'm going to get on Jordan's ass a little bit.
And everybody else is going to say, God, if he's upset with Jordan, how does he feel about me?
12 minutes, 19 points, 11 rebounds, 9 assists, and I have the stat sheet in my hand and I walk over in front of Jordan and I look down at him and I say, Mike, when the hell are you going to set a screen?
We got four guys out there screening when you're in the game, screening to get you open, screening to get each other open.
Haven't seen you set a screen yet.
The only way I get all five guys screening, Mike, is to get you the hell out of the game.
Now, when are you going to set a screen?
All you've been doing so far, God damn it, is rebounding, passing, and scoring.
You need to screen, Mike.
Now, Jordan, you've all seen the grin.
I mean, it's the greatest grin in the world.
Doesn't quite use all of his grin in this circumstance, but he looks up at me and he grins a little bit and he says, Coach,
Didn't I see last week where you said I was the quickest player you'd ever been around?
I said, Mike, what the hell has that got to do with you screening?
Coach, I think I'm setting them quicker than you can see them out there.
Well, I was flexible enough to look at Jordan and say, then, God damn it, slow them down a little bit so I can see them.
Now, the reason why I bring this video up is because here is Bobby Knight trying to explain how he can motivate people when they're already performing at their finest and how he would do it.
And making, obviously, this is a nice speech and it's part of a longer one and he's making a joke and it is very funny.
It's probably a true story.
What I really am trying to emphasize here is that we aren't working, whoa, why did that happen?
Okay, I got to escape for a second here because I guess there's an automatic transition there that I don't want.
And so what I'm trying to say here is that we aren't working with a dream basketball team.
We're not working with a starting lineup that is now starting in the game because they've played four seasons.
2020 we weren't sure who to put in.
2021 some new people arrived.
2022 we had some new draft picks.
23 though you know we're working with the veterans and the two draft picks we traded one and now in 2024 we sent the dream team to the U.S.
Senate.
That's that's no.
And so when I'm trying to point out that there's weird patterns in people's behaviors, or they're still not saying what needs to be said, it's not because I'm trying to nitpick people so that I can get views on the internet.
It's not because my shtick is to just nitpick everybody.
These people have exhibited behaviors that only can be explained by coordinated traders.
and foreign meddlers who are specifically interested in American opinion and American opinions and aren't very busy saving their home countries, aren't very busy developing home solutions, but really interested in what's going on in the American Congress or the American social media.
I really wish I could be Bobby Knight of biology and that I was just trying to get this team to perform at its finest.
I wish that was the case.
But I'm trying to explain to the spectating public that none of these people are playing basketball.
These people are agreeing to sabotage the game.
It's the Globetrotters versus the generals.
We need to use ridiculous statements that make our things clear.
What they won't talk about, what they can't talk about.
Free-range RNA molecules are what they're talking about.
You know, if you had a fear and cleavage site or two, look out, start the air raid siren.
And it's these bad ideas that are being consciously and intelligently sustained on the internet by a chorus of liars that agrees to walk very close to, but not encroach on the borders of this limited spectrum of debate about a novel virus.
And I'm frustrated about it because a lot of these people spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get me to say certain stuff, or you gotta write stuff up, man.
Nobody can listen to your two-hour videos.
Well then ignore me.
What does it matter what I say if everybody's ignoring me anyway?
What does it matter what I tweet if you have 200,000 followers and I have 10?
But somehow or another, all these people have had enough.
So they're all blocking me or ignoring me or slagging me off after they block me.
And all I'm suggesting is, is that this,
This is a lie that certain people were put in place in 2020 in order to curate its discovery.
And we were supposed to discover it as the solution to a mystery that all of these people agreed we should solve, that has a couple reasonable answers to it.
And we've come to the conclusion after four and a half years that the most likely cause is a lab leak.
But you know, those people are gonna deny it forever anyway.
So it's at some point, it's not even really worth arguing about, right?
And that's essentially the conclusion of these people.
This is not the dream team.
This is not a starting lineup that has evolved over several seasons of coaching and performance evaluation.
This is not the starting lineup of a organically generated best case scenario for regard to what team would rise to the surface.
Who are the sharpest doctors and the sharpest orators with regard to clearing this whole biosecurity lie up?
It's not them.
This is the carefully titrated and filtered team
that is an interweaved globetrotters and generals kind of thing so that it looks like some people are better than others or get it better or do it better.
Even the referees are fake.
And that's why these people were conspicuously present in 2020, conspicuously present in 2020 with conspicuously on target ideas that would funnel everyone's conscious opinion about these things right into a mystery of a lab leak or a natural virus.
And look where we are today, funneled in by people that used to work for the Human Genome Project, which is the Department of Energy, which was a classified
project which took intellectual property from that and made multi-generational wealth from.
Where's the loyalty of this person?
With the United States and with our collective kid's future or with the people that gave him the multi-generational wealth and his family, the multi-generational wealth?
He's got brothers and stuff too.
Come on, they gotta look after their own first.
Apparently he's not too worried about sea levels rising because he's got, you know, the Atlantic Ocean in his backyard.
And he's been promoted by CHD who fired me.
He's been promoted as a hero by Mary Holland who fired me.
Mary Holland, who is all about the UNESCO, you know, human rights and all about free choice in vaccines.
Can't just say that the United States vaccine schedule is criminal.
That would be, that would be too straight and to the point.
That's why when I was gonna be on Bobby's podcast and I gave them my slides, they panicked and decided that, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, no, no, no.
You're only gonna get seven minutes now and we're gonna put you on screen with a bunch of a,
a unbelievable preeminent panel of experts that will comment on your seven-minute hypothesis, synopsis, whatever.
This is how they do it.
they have orchestrated these little bubbles of opinion and orchestrated these little bubbles of people that then trap other people into thinking that they're listening and that, oh yeah, well, I got an email from him yesterday.
Okay, cool.
Well then we'll work together and then we'll do that tomorrow.
Okay, right on, cool.
Well, we were on this podcast.
Can you share that?
Sure, no problem.
I put out this sub stack.
Can you share that?
Yeah, no problem.
Here's every one of the sub stack articles that I ever write for you to share.
Don't forget to share them.
But these same people can't seem to share my videos because they're so long.
Like, I can't ask people to watch two-hour videos, man.
You gotta write something or make it shorter.
Oh, here's my substack.
Oops.
Can't share that either because that's two-hour videos with subtitles.
We are dealing with dishonorable people, ladies and gentlemen.
We're dealing with people that have loyalties that aren't to our children and our children's children, to America and to our parents who, you know, our grandparents that served.
My grandfather and my father served.
I mean, I don't make a big deal about it, but it's not like people in my family haven't, haven't given a little.
And I find it a little strange, you know, that these people with all these loyalties and all these connections across and overseas, all these, I'm sure he's really a great guy.
I mean, I've known him for over a year.
I trust him with my life, even though I've never sat in a room with him before, but I'm sure, I mean, you know, after all this Zooming together, I know he's great.
And so I'm calling out these people.
A lot of them are Americans, but not all.
And I'm suggesting that if you get enough of these people to agree to work together, then no matter who of these people you choose, you're going to get a mishmash of a shit sandwich that will never get you anywhere.
And if they need to, they'll put you right in the middle.
like they did with this lady and that man and that man, right in the middle of all these other people.
And you'll get to say that vaccines are bad.
You'll get to say that we've been saying vaccines are bad for a long time.
You'll get to say maybe even that you wrote a book about how bad vaccines are.
But because all of these other people have already rehearsed on countless podcasts, the pitch that they wanna say, and because they've all agreed to say in the background that, well, we think that Kevin McKernan's, you know,
video is the most important.
And if it's not Kevin McKernan's, then it's definitely Robert Malone's, or it's definitely Jessica Rose, or it's definitely what Brent Weinstein said.
I mean, these are the things that you should circulate the fastest and the most.
And so then even though Brian is thrilled that he was finally able to be a part of this thing, even though Nancy, I think is her name, is super happy to be a part of it.
Essentially, all the stuff that circulated on the internet wasn't Brian Hooker's presentation.
Did you see CHD sharing specifically, our scientist Brian Hooker was speaking at the Senate and we're so proud of him.
I don't know, check it out.
Maybe it happened, but I doubt it.
It would surprise me very much, let me say it that way, that instead of Brian, it wouldn't surprise me at all that they chose someone else.
And it wouldn't be by accident.
Just like they recorded a whole interview about my experience helping out with this,
And after the video, they said, you know, it wasn't that good.
Like it won't sell the book.
Like we can't really release that video, Jay.
And then about two weeks later, I guess I got fired for saying something about Robert Malone and Meryl Nass and how it seemed like Robert Malone was saying that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
wouldn't make as good a candidate as Trump because he was a terrible manager and that the example that he was using was CHD.
He said, exhibit one, CHD.
And so then that was strange because I said, you know, I saw at Bobby's announcement in Boston, Meryl Nass and Robert Malone approached each other and just hugged without words.
they know each other well.
And so it's strange for him knowing that, you know, so much of Merrill's time and effort has gone into supporting the work of CHD as their, you know, scientific advisor for so long.
It's kind of strange because as I heard the story, Mary Holland and Merrill Nass went to Robert Malone's farm and stayed there for a couple of days in order to vet him before they decided to support his book or whatever.
I don't know if I'm getting those details exactly right, but I know for sure I was told that Mary and Meryl went to their farm and stayed a couple days in order to vet him.
So maybe that was for Fauci's book and maybe not for Robert Malone's book.
I have no idea, but they published both of those books, so whatever.
But the point is that it's strange that then Robert Malone would turn around and remember, you know, Robert Malone's book.
Sorry, but I just want to point it out.
I'm not trying to be a creep.
Robert Malone's book is published by Children's Health Defense.
It's right there.
So it's kind of a dick move for him to, in December of 2023, to say that Bobby's not as good a candidate as Trump because Bobby's not a very good manager.
Exhibit one, CHD.
So I called it out.
I said it on my stream.
I think it was the 23rd or the 22nd of December.
of last year, I said it's just kind of bullshit.
I had a dude walking on the moon behind me, and a list of all the things that Robert Malone said, and I just thought it's really strange that this guy would be such a creep to the organization that's fighting for children's health, that published his book, that his really good friend that he embraces without saying anything in Boston, that it's a shitty organization.
It's just like, wow, I mean, that's pretty hardcore.
And yet here he is, you know, right in front of the Senate and with Brian Hooker, you know, whatever.
I guess it's OK.
It's not a very good organization.
I mean, it's managed pretty shitty, I guess.
I wonder if he would say it's now managed pretty shitty by Mary Holland or.
Don't forget that Mary Holland was like working as the general campaign manager or something like that for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
until I got hired by CHD.
And then she came back to be the president and CEO of CHD again.
She left the campaign exactly like a week or two after I came to CHD and started working.
Which is notable to me, because you were working for Bobby, right?
And now I think that guy is one of the dudes that replaced her, Del Bigtree.
And so I just got to keep getting all these details out there and somebody else can take all the notes and write it all up because, you know, I guess it's really important that this all gets written up.
I personally think we've got enough in all these notebooks for a really great book.
But, you know, until I write it up, I guess it's just going to be inaccessible in two hour long videos.
So this limited spectrum of debate within which a very lively discussion is happening has been curated for four and a half years, and I still think we need to reveal a few more of those curators.
I think that there are groups even on the internet that are essentially speckled with meddlers that can kind of keep them off of the
escape route off of the escape key and still running in the hamster wheels that we need to run in for a few more years before they have sufficiently undermined our sovereignty so they can just turn on the switches and close the doors.
This has been going on for a long time, and I'm afraid the only thing that they have left is attributing bad motives to us because they can't really discuss our ideas.
That's why they won't discuss these ideas or a different spin on them.
They just won't.
And so I'm very curious because I want to explain some behavior on the internet as patterns.
You know, this pattern of the crack pipe meme with me is fantastic because it started all the way with my number one fan, Kevin McCarron in Japan, and has gone all the way to my, probably the one that provides me with the most humor, Debunk the Funk, Dan Wilson.
It's just too bad I missed him while he was in Pittsburgh.
It would have been great if he would have been
just one year longer in Pittsburgh or something like that.
I could have accidentally ran into him on the street or something.
What they're basically doing, again, is this little train performance where they pretend that they are integral in the operation of the subway.
And so what this guy is doing is he's pretending that he is necessary to stop the train.
and it's also necessary for him to start the train.
And I would argue that people like Pierre Cory and Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch and Brett Weinstein were all performing a form of this kind of masquerade where they were pretending to ask meaningful questions, pretending to meaningfully whistleblow on one idea or another, or
or pretending to meaningfully expose the cover-up of the Scooby-Doo mystery that we are all supposed to solve.
And that's exactly what this misleading of the young is designed to do.
These people are part of an operation that is designed to get us to inevitably teach this lie to our children.
And that lie is a pandemic.
Now, it's curious to me because I really have a problem if somebody can't say it.
Claire Craig is an interesting player.
She is the co-chair of the Heart Group in the UK.
She's got more than 200,000 followers.
She was a co-author on the original Corman-Dwarston report that I showed you the video of Kevin McCairn and this Bobby Malhotra guy, who may or may not be a good guy.
He might've been a good guy that needed to be co-opted by the other ones.
I don't know.
But the point is, is that that paper is a very interesting starting point.
And we'll look at that, the author list on that paper in a second.
And she says it's fine to believe in gain of function.
Specifically, this is a tweet from June.
June 8th, which is, I guess, two days ago.
You can believe there is a virus.
You can believe that virus killed people.
You can believe gain of function played a role.
And none of that would contradict what Alan says here.
In fact, it's all easier when a virus is spreading.
Now, I'm not going to now promote another person with the regurgitation of the Scooby-Doo.
What I want to point out is that this one is someone that may, possibly,
have been put in place very early at the beginning of the pandemic to slowly titrate the understanding of the public, and she may not be aware of it.
But in 2024,
I gotta point out that you're not playing, this is not good.
This is dumb.
This is a dumb tweet.
And since she has so many followers, it seems really strange that we shouldn't at least correct her on this.
It would be very bad if our children grew up believing there was a novel virus.
It would be very bad if college kids continue to believe that gain of function played a role.
It will be very bad if we don't answer the question of whether a particular virus is spreading or not.
And Claire doesn't seem to be interested in answering any of these things, even though she is an elevated thought leader in more than one country.
A lot of her followers are American, even though she's in the UK.
They murdered people to make people think there was a virus, Claire.
So it's important.
If you said it like, they murdered people to make you believe there was a virus.
They murdered people to make you believe a virus killed people.
They murdered people to make you believe gain of function played a role.
And none of that would contradict what Allen says here.
In fact, it would be easier if there were viruses everywhere.
Now that might've been a great tweet, but this is bullshit.
And so I called her out on it.
I said, hey, Jonathan Engler, Nick Hudson, those are two people that I've been in contact with for a while now.
I think Nick Hudson tries really hard.
I don't know how to say it any other way.
He's promoted me more than once.
We've had arguments more than once and he's come back and forth more than once and so have I and so I respect the guy And I see him being you know called a meddler I see him and panda just being dismissed as one big group and I treat Nick as Nick and Nick is one of the very few people in 2024 to have mentioned my name on a podcast maybe he did it because he had to but I'm not that pessimistic yet and
Now, with regard to this statement, there were a lot of people behind the scenes that were trying to say, no, Claire's great, Claire's great, come on, we trust her, she's awesome.
Which I don't really agree with, like you just correct people, and if they're your friends, and you know them well, then don't tweet it, but correct her.
And explain to her why it is that having this tweet up would be a bad idea.
When it doesn't get people to think in the direction we need them to think in order for them to extricate themselves.
The point is for people to extricate themselves, not for them to be given the answer.
That's the part that always frustrates me when people say, send me some papers.
No, pull your own head out.
And so I really think this is a problem, okay?
You can't say you can believe there was a virus.
You can't say you can believe that a virus killed people.
You can't say that, but you can believe gain of function played a role.
In fact, it's easier when a virus is spreading too.
What matters is what's perceived to be true.
So you can't just let people believe what isn't true or we're already
And so I'm very curious because Jonathan Engler wanted me to write a, well, at one point.
So Jonathan Engler is the co-chair of the Heart Group, and in 2024 there is this new UK website group thing about some kind of national testimony thing, kind of like I guess the NCI in Canada, I don't know.
And so I want to watch that testimony today because I'm very curious as to what is said and what's not said And so that's this thing that I'm talking about the people's vaccine inquiry And they're gonna do a module on vaccines and then a module for
I don't know exactly what this is, but if you look at it, there's Claire Craig.
Claire Craig is a diagnostic pathologist.
She practiced in the NIH for 15 years, becoming a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists.
In 2016, she became the day-to-day lead for pathology and clinical data in the cancer arm of the 100,000 Genomes Project.
and she also worked in AI cancer diagnosis.
From May 2020, Claire Craig has worked full-time pro bono on COVID research, distilling the evidence for a lay audience.
And since January in 2021, she's co-chaired the health advisory and recovery team with Jonathan Engler.
So that's who this guy is down here.
And Jonathan Engler has been in contact with me because we met at Panda and because
A couple times we were going to collaborate on something to do with virology.
At one point there was this idea that maybe we would write together with Martin Neal and maybe Jessica Hockett and Nick Hudson a little review about what infectious clones were and how they're used in virology.
And we started to build, sorry, I should say, I started to review, build a review that was annotated with notes and explaining why I was choosing these papers and what these papers showed.
And these guys really didn't even open the document as far as I can tell.
Maybe they opened it in the two or three weeks that it existed.
And then at some point I was just like, well, if you guys aren't going to comment or do anything, then I'm just going to stop.
And this was already the second time we tried to write something.
The first time we tried to write something, I tried to write something about the Scooby-Doo.
And it was kind of funny.
I was just testing them to see what they would do.
And they didn't really...
contribute anything, I think.
And so I didn't understand really what happened.
Then the McKernan thing happened again, and now they wanted to write that.
And I put quite a bit of work into assembling some of the stuff that I have in my archives about how to understand clones and what I was doing now for my small mini courses.
And then about two weeks ago, I believe, I was asked to read.
There's the Hart Group, in case you didn't know that.
These are the Hart Group.
There's Jonathan there, if my mouse is there.
And there's Norman Fenton, I believe that guy is.
I know I recognize that dude.
And then there's Claire Craig again.
So those are the two co-chairs of the Hart Group.
And then they wrote Martin Neal and Jonathan Engler.
Martin Neal is there.
Jonathan Engler is here.
And they both have substacks.
They wanted to write something about the Scooby-Doo a while back, and that didn't work out.
And then we were going to write kind of a rebuttal to Kevin McKernan about infectious clones and whether they're significant or not significant.
And then that fell apart.
And then I was given a version of this sub stack, let's say five days ago, but this is, and it's not five days ago, cause this was released on May 30th.
So let's say that I was given it on May 25th, but I think that's being a little bit generous.
I think it was like the 28th or the 27th.
Could be wrong.
It could have been even earlier.
It could have been a week before they published it.
And they asked me if I would read it.
And so just to kind of reenact what happened, so I opened the text and it wasn't already formatted like this, of course, but it already had kind of a summary at the beginning.
A thorough review of the available evidence suggests that the emergence of a novel engineered virus is the least likely explanation for the event known as the COVID pandemic.
And so I scrolled down virology research with the intention of enhancing pathogenicity is nevertheless unethical and unnecessary and as such should cease.
And so I realized that already, okay, you're kind of, we should adapt gain of function, claim of function.
I'm not sure yet, wait, now there's coronavirus fields, virology.
And I thought, wait, are we just gonna
write a review about coronaviruses, and I kept going, and it's super long, and I'm like, wow, really?
And this is all stuff that I covered on my bike rides.
This is all like JC on a Bike 2020, where I'm still calling coronavirus part of the flu, or the flu of coronavirus is what I did.
And so anyway, we get down here, and there's these things where it says to subscribe, they're kind of,
They're kind of dotted with shares and stuff.
So a lot of times you might stop thinking that it's over, but it's not, it keeps going.
Would we recognize a novel coronavirus if we see it?
So they're kind of novel and RNA viruses persist as a swarm.
That's interesting, of course.
We could talk about infectious and non-infectious particles, but remember, I was shown this, but I chose not to help because it was just really,
It was just a mainstream distillation of virology with some objections to the idea of a pandemic having happened, I think.
And so I just kept reading and I wasn't too happy.
You know, the fear and cleavage sites are not really that rare.
I don't know if that's the right statement to make, because again, we're using an awful lot of words and an awful lot of citations to say that RNA can't do it.
And I thought that after all the conversations that I had with these people, that they kind of understood that my take was that R&D can't do it.
So if we're going to write a review like this, you'd want to write a review where you started with farewell to virology, for example, is not a completely ridiculous document.
And the objection to AIDS and the fidelity of understanding that we have of AIDS was not a ridiculous stance to take.
But instead, they started with, you know, it seems like pages of basic virology is this.
And we accept most of it, if not all of it.
We just want to agree on the nuances so that we can then argue.
So we conclude spikes on coronaviruses are nothing special.
Spike proteins are similar and common to proteins in other viruses, including influenza.
Furin cleavage sites are common, but the vast majority of the 248 identified have not been studied anywhere nearly as closely as SARS-CoV-2.
That's a cool point to make.
ACE2 receptors are used by one other coronavirus, and that is not considered deadly.
I don't know.
Okay, arguments that unusual inserts must be manmade might be contradicted by parallel evolution or co-evolution between viruses in the swarm.
So the inserts might not mean that it's a laboratory.
So that's an interesting statement.
So hence we see no reason to believe that the spike protein or the furin cleavage site should be a source of special or unique concern, even though unusual inserts that supposedly make the virus remarkable may be indeed unremarkable.
given it appears much more likely, if not certainty, that other viruses might contain the same features by co-evolution between viruses.
So that's a pretty advanced stance on the existence of a viral swarm in the background and its components from two guys that admit that themselves, that they didn't know anything about virology until they finally sat down and decided to write this one.
So, the novelty of the fear and cleavage site, the diffuse proposal is mentioned interesting NAS is mentioned here pre print.
I guess that's a Merrill-Nass substack.
Let me get my brain out of the way for a second.
Yep, Merrill-Nass substack.
A new study reports 309 lab-acquired infections in the past.
Okay, that's it.
Nice.
So, there have been lab leaks.
The proposal for the diffuse, I've already told you that that's just a planted document to make it seem like, yeah, yeah, yeah, right.
They were doing it.
They did it.
And got me to say in Bobby's book that, yeah,
In neuroscience, you usually submit a grant with the data all done, or at least you have to have representative data for every experiment that you plan to do.
So it wouldn't be unreasonable that some of these people, if this was a real grant proposal, that they would have done some of the experiments.
That's what they really needed me to say in the book.
And that's the only thing that, the only reason why Charles Rixey came to my house was to get me to do a stream with him about the DEFUSE proposal and allow me to assert my insight from my unique academic academician position that I would know that, yeah, well, when we submit grants, we have all these experiments done.
So certainly if the DEFUSE proposal says they were inserting fear and cleavage sites and spraying them into bat caves, then certainly they've already done it.
And I think that my family would be set up with a nice farm and comfort by now if I'd have just accepted that role.
And instead I'm out in the boondocks renting a house and nobody wants to acknowledge me because I'm so erratic in my critique of people.
And so we're still here.
Gain of function, is engineering more lethal viruses possible?
Hence it looks like these fingerprints are not unique.
The challenge of enter engineering, so that Wu estimates the cost of creating gain of function virus by comparing the endeavor.
So it's a lot of questions I don't think we need to ask, but we're definitely asking them.
On the implications of serial passage, which again is part of the graphic that I've been saying for two years now is just this illusion just because you,
you transfect a cell culture and then can show that cytotoxic effects can be transferred through the supernatant doesn't mean that you're doing virology.
And yet somehow or another in four and a half years, we can't get there.
And the I mean, I was quoting the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on my bicycle at JC on a bike.
Come on.
That's what I found so frustrating about it.
I couldn't believe what I was reading here.
And then they're asking me to, to pitch in or help out, or maybe you can contribute something.
Is there actually any evidence that a viable virus has ever been engineered to match some pre-prepared functional specification and which could cause a pandemic?
What a, what an incredibly complicated question.
An earlier controversy in 2014 surrounded gain of function with bird flu here and here and here.
Given loss of function experiments, removal of features virus are commonplace.
What's the message?
The summary was again what?
Novel viruses is a function of how determined we are to able to find them.
The more we look, the more we find, suggesting that the attribution of novelty to a virus is as much a result of a politicized process rather than something based on objective analysis.
The features of SARS-CoV-2 do not appear to be as special or unique as claimed.
There is no good evidence that the many and complex hurdles in front of the deliberately engineering viruses to become more pathogenic or transmissible in humans have ever been overcome.
The theory that there was a longstanding but here hitherto undetected virus endemic in animal reservoirs is difficult if not impossible to falsify.
Is that saying that they don't have any evidence of whether there was a background signal or not?
Is that just because these two guys are English and so they have to say it as complicated as possible like Brett Weinstein attempts to do all the time?
The theory that there was a long standing but hitherto undetected virus endemic in animal and possibly human reservoirs is difficult if not possible to falsify.
I know this guy who says it a lot simpler.
I know this guy that I follow on Twitter that I could share his stream that says it a lot simpler.
But instead, I'm gonna write this substack and get pissed at that guy for not sharing it.
There are other explanations which could explain the sudden and rapid global appearance and spread of a specific sequence than the spread of a novel virus.
The available virology and epidemiology evidence does not adequately support either the lab leak or the wet market theories for the origin of the virus.
We therefore suggest it would be more apt to refer to claim of function than gain of function research.
Does this look like a ladder out of the cave to you?
Does it sound like a ladder out of the cave to you?
Does it read like a ladder out of the cave to you?
Can you understand why I didn't want to help them fix this document?
Can you understand why I find it very disturbing that they won't just correct their co-chair of heart and say, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, at least call it claim of function.
No Jay, don't attack these people.
Look, think of it like panning for gold.
If these people are really gold, a little panning ain't going to hurt anybody.
You're going to swirl around in the bowl, but you're going to remain at the bottom and the rocks will go out.
I just want to see.
I just want to understand why it is that when I shake the bowl, they go out so easy.
why they can't say there wasn't evidence of a novel virus, why they can't say that virology might be standing on shaky ground, that they can't say as a doctor and a pathologist that the whole vaccine schedule might be sketch, but actually say it's okay.
It's okay for you.
It's okay, you can believe there was a virus.
You can believe that virus killed people.
You can believe gain of function played a role.
In fact, it's all easier when a virus is spreading too.
What that last line should be, Claire, just to correct it for you, is that it's easier if you believe there's a virus spreading.
It's easier for the national security state.
It's easier for them to enslave our children.
If you believe that viruses, you know, an RNA molecule coated in a lipid protein coat can go around the earth sustainably like a little clock for five years.
And then we can get 15 million separate estimates of its genome at any given time over those five years, because we have a whole database of them.
It's not challenging any of these
these wonderfully ridiculous mythologies that these people claim behind the scenes to be, ah, we listen to you, man.
Here, this is the third time you presented at Panda.
We share your work all the time.
So I'm not, there's nothing in the summary that really looks like it's going to save anybody.
We saw viral swarms and then we got down here, spike proteins and fear and cleavage sites.
They make fun of it, but not really because you know, it's a, it's a cleavage site.
It's four amino acids.
It's, it's four bases sometimes.
Like what, sorry, it's four amino acids.
So it's like 20 bases.
Like, what are you talking about?
What's this?
Rose.
Jessica Rose sub stack.
I mean, what's this one?
That's the bio archive.
That's the, that's the, um, that's the AIDS, AIDS inserts.
So we conclude that Corona viruses are nothing special, fear and cleavage sites, blah, blah, blah.
So we got lots of conclusions still.
Not, not nothing that sounds like a ladder to get out.
So here we go.
We're on Fauchier and the,
more fear and cleavage sites, gain of function, enriching in ferrets, mathematics, it's called the curse of dimensionality.
Oh my gosh, let's ask some more questions.
RNA viruses are mutation machines.
So then why not just say that RNA can't go around the world the way that they say it did?
You can be succinct about it, right?
Non-monotonicity, any phenotype that cannot be directly matched to a specific,
genotype hence the problem is not reducible and there's no exist no algorithm can feasibly search the space of possibilities so they might be lying they might not be lying they might be lying about how they're lying oh my gosh does this look like a way out should i try to make it more simple do you think cloned wild type SARS-CoV-2 produced variants gain of function enhancements by blah blah blah studies use such a small sample size no ferrets from either experiments showed fever
So they're kind of suggesting that maybe something's weird.
Transgenic mice, still going.
You could leave a comment.
Let's turn to animal reservoirs.
You know, there's been like four different ways for you to click out of reading.
We're still going.
Dutch mink farms, sequencing it in mink farms.
So they're trying to decide whether it's a background signal or not, or they're trying to decide whether it was there before.
We're citing homes, we're citing all these people that we know are just liars.
And we're not really being very
let's say critical of any of these things.
We're just taking them at face value because these guys aren't virologists.
They did all this reading to write this sub stack.
And now it's getting promoted in the UK media as a groundbreaking review of virology and the pandemic.
Really, I regret not being a part of it because then my name would be everywhere, you know, and that's what I ultimately want.
So critical limitation, phylogenetic analysis, assumption that there's no recombination.
Oh my gosh, they're arguing about the phylogenetic analysis and the assumptions made there.
We are really far.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Ray, gain of function is routine and involves creating infectious, quote unquote, question mark, sorry, clones.
Hmm.
Interestingly, a 2014 Millet and Whitaker paper ruminates on the potential for research on the furin cleavage site.
Oh gosh.
and the gain of function there, modulated two protease cleavage sites by coronavirus from profound impact, furin cleavage site, furin cleavage site, resulting infectious clones.
First paper describes the engineering of full-length cDNA clone from SARS.
A cDNA clone contains the entire viral genetic information necessary for replication
Transcription and translation, to put it in another way, they have the potential to be infectious just like the original they clone.
They use the recovery of infectious viruses been used for the generation of a large collection of deletion mutants.
The deletion mutant is a genetic anomaly.
Let's look at finding zoonosis, ability to recover pathogens, synthetic DNA.
Yes, yes, yes.
Clearly, this is clearly gated function research.
No, it's recombinant DNA.
And recombinant DNA is then what?
Applied to a cell culture.
Can you see my arrow?
A cell culture and in mice, and that's called infection.
I mean, you can see that right here, and I've been trying to explain that to these people in particular for many months behind the scenes.
We tried to start writing about it twice, including once that was supposed to be some kind of response to Kevin McKernan that they just ignored.
But I worked pretty hard on it, annotating papers, explaining my idea, and then after all that work,
They seem to not really understand what a clone is yet because they are now insisting that this is clearly gain-of-function research and was published 12 years before SARS-CoV-2.
This is also gain-of-function research.
So it seems to me that Martin and Jonathan aren't being very consistent.
Shouldn't they call this claim-of-function research if they're trying to make a point?
And so gain-of-function is ongoing.
Implicitly no different from gain-of-function.
Gain-of-function is ongoing.
Also there should be obvious cloning viruses is straightforward.
It should be obvious that cloning viruses is straightforward.
They've never really explained what cloning viruses means because they're not dissecting it any farther.
They're kind of talking about it, but what a clone is, is taking that DNA and either converting it to RNA with an enzymatic process and then transfecting a cell culture and taking the supernatant as virology, or taking that cDNA and directly transforming by electroporation or something like that, the cell culture, and then taking the supernatant and calling that virology.
Maybe you do a few passages before you call the supernatant virology.
And I've explained that to them before in many different ways, in Panda even, in my Panda presentation.
So it would be almost impossible for me to understand that it's because I didn't help them with this, that they couldn't get it better than not saying anything about clones that's useful.
So here's masters in Perlman.
That's also just, right?
That's just virology.
So it appears to be the case that like the diffuse proposal, gain of function research,
was and is still routine.
But I thought it's claim of function research.
So wait, so how did it arise?
Wet market or lab leak?
Okay, so the zoonotic event, we're doing a very thorough thing here.
Here's Rancor's thing and also Engler's thing and some other guy and then we have pre-existing T-cell immunity and who are they citing there.
Sanity Unleashed, even though I gave supposedly the best presentation on immunology that Dr. Wiseman had ever seen when I presented the first time at Panda.
That was his actual comment when he was asked to, or was allowed to speak after my first presentation at Panda.
He said, that was the best immunology lecture I've ever seen in my life.
And, uh, I guess that that's cool.
You know, that's cool.
But anyway, um, it's, it's fine.
I'm not, I want you to see that if they would just get the ideas, right.
I wouldn't care.
but now pre-existing endemicity.
What is that?
That's a pre-existing background.
Imagine stealing a march on the science and discovering a coronavirus already endemic in humans, but not in bats or camels.
You keep this secret because you realize this is an exploitable opportunity if you can successfully pull off the bait and switch.
What do you mean successfully?
Why make it so complicated that it's in humans and not in bats and camels?
Why not just make it a background signal that's everywhere that you can pretend is only in humans or pretend is only in bats and camels and that jumps from them to us?
Is it really that these two guys are so clever
that they can't distill the lie down to the most easiest, most parsimonious, simplest lie to tell.
It doesn't have to be a specific discovery of a specific coronavirus that's endemic and we gotta be quiet about it.
Before anybody else discovers it, we gotta pull the bait and switch and make sure that somebody knows that this coronavirus is actually spreading, but it's not.
Hopefully nobody will discover that it was always a background signal, a very specific one,
that's in humans but not in bats and camels.
It's much simpler than that, guys.
The background signal for a PCR test just has to be a background signal of any and all RNA and DNA that can be present.
Just cast your imagination as wide as you want.
Maybe you need, you guys should back up a little bit
Maybe Martin Neal and Jonathan Engler should back up a little bit and watch a few presentations or a TED Talk by Nathan Wolfe, where he will explain the plethora of available background signals in DNA and RNA that it's just waiting for metagenomic sequence to pull a new life form out of.
It would be very unfortunate if you worked so hard on this review but had no idea how Nathan Wolf had represented metagenomic sequencing as the technology that would allow AI and computer machine learning to extract the genetic details out of the background of what he calls black
black life or something like that.
Black, I don't remember what it was, but he described it as an almost endless background of DNA and RNA that he was going to mine for heretofore undiscovered life forms that included viruses and other pathogens.
And if you listen to that TED Talk, what you realize is, is that if every living being in the world is shedding RNA and DNA signals all the time, from plants to fungi to bacteria to mammals to birds to reptiles,
and that this stuff is floating around in the air everywhere all the time, then creating a false positive on that background would be very, very simple for a group of people that wanted to enslave us on that mythology.
And you don't need to imagine stealing a march on the science and discovering a coronavirus that's already endemic and accept all of the basic principles of virology
that there are things called coronaviruses and they are endemic and there could be another one is already accepting 90% of virology that the pandemic is based on.
And so it's not a useful ladder to get out.
It's a stupid, complicated ladder that doesn't go out of the cave at all.
It's like circular.
All that would be needed to do would be to create a test for the virus so that it can now be discovered.
So in their illustration of what they say they understand and are paying attention to, in their understanding of it, there are viruses.
It's just that they found a special one and then kept it secret long enough to misconstrue it as when we get the test right, we'll roll it out, and then we'll be testing for the virus, but little do they know it's already there.
Oh, here's something else besides pre-existing endemicity.
Intentional spread of non-infectious clones.
Oh boy.
So if we set aside pre-existing endemicity, which is the worst case scenario that Garrett agreed about in the CNN video in 2018, and that Brett Weinstein
And Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone all agreed was the thing that we had to worry about.
And Brett Weinstein was sure that zero COVID was achievable.
And Steve Kirsch was sure that if we just force drugged everybody with ivermectin and silicoxib for six months that we would reach zero COVID.
And Robert Malone was the other side of that limited spectrum of debate.
And he was pretty sure it was already out and it was already gonna go endemic.
So let's set aside the pre-existing endemicity idea.
And then all's required is some functional amendments to existing localized viruses from a bat, say, either known or newly discovered.
Because it is from a bat gain-of-function design of a human version would be impossible.
Hence, deadliness and transmissibility could not be designed in.
It wouldn't go viral because it isn't infectious and could not cause a pandemic.
However, you could clone it so it contains novel and deadly-looking features, but you don't care what its functional features are apart from that it because the symptoms will be non-differentiable from other respiratory viruses.
You would then simply need to distribute these clones artificially to make it look like a virus that spreads.
Also, despite not being any more deadly than other coronaviruses, it might still poison people and cause some morbidity.
Then you would invent a vaccine and create a test designed to detect the DNA associated with the virus.
This, in summary form, is the hypothesis of J.J.
Cooey.
We understand this hypothesis is partly inspired by the video lecture by James Giordano.
Where are the numbers?
Substack is cited, and I guess gigaohm biological is cited, and then James Giordano, and then James Giordano again, I guess.
Where is this numbers?
Substack.
So he keeps citing himself most of the time.
Acknowledging the operational difficulty involved in continually manufacturing and distributing viral clones, in respect of JJ's thesis, clones may only have been needed to deploy in hotspots in 2020 to trigger a fake pandemic and then subsequent positive SARS-CoV-2 cases from then on, where a combination of PCR tests cross-reacting with other viruses to cause false positives and natural endemic SARS-2 virus circulating at low background rates.
Oh, my God.
Let's listen to what he says at this.
These are the people that were in the Corman-Drewiston report.
It's Peter Borger, who's a Nederlander, Bobby Rehesh-Muraltara, Mike Eden, Claire Craig,
Kevin McKernan, Klaus Steger, I don't know any of those people.
Thomas Binder I know.
I also know Ulrich O'Connor.
Ulrich Kammer was a collaborator from Germany that sent some transfected cells to Kevin McKernan for analysis of whether the DNA incorporates into the genome of some of these cancer cell lines or not.
Mike Eden, you know, Claire Craig is the person from
the person from heart that I was calling out here with this statement.
This is from her tweet over here.
And I think at this stage, it's important for them to make sure that they don't say things like this because it is important that our children don't grow up believing in gain of function.
It is important that they don't grow up
not aware that the first and foremost, it was murder.
And it disturbs me a lot that somebody who's in the UK where a lot of murder happened, isn't speaking out about it.
I don't even really wanna mention again, but just to make sure that you see what I see, it's strange to me that this biography includes the 100,000 Genomes Project, and it includes her working on AI cancer diagnostics.
It just doesn't feel right, even if it is right and okay.
And this guy is retrained as a lawyer, so he worked as a medical doctor before moving into the pharmaceutical industry and running a company where he did clinical trials, which sounds a lot like
Sasha Latapova, actually, who worked for the pharmaceutical industry or sold a company to them.
And then years later, he and a colleague sold the business and using a business using automation to streamline clinical trials.
It's very similar to the kind of thing that Sasha Latapova was involved in.
And then he retrained as a lawyer.
And now he's co-chair of this and he's also on the executive committee of Panda And so let's see what he testifies In this witness statement.
This witness statement was published on June 7th 2024 so that's just four days ago and I'm interested to see if he will get to the stage where you know after
I mean, I've got pages of him communicating with me via direct message on Twitter.
So apparently he knows what I'm saying, even if he says that, you know, nobody can watch a two hour stream.
I have a feeling, you know, they've seen me present three times at Panda.
I have a feeling they've watched my stream before.
And so I'm curious as to whether we'll get close to any of these statements in this video or not.
I'm not holding out any hope.
But I'm curious as to whether we'll get close to any of these statements or anything like this I'm also really curious as to whether or not Actually took that out.
That's funny.
I don't even have that in here anymore if they will if he will have any kind of description of the list of ways that people were injured or murdered
during the pandemic that had nothing to do with the alleged spreading novel pathogen.
So I'm curious as to what he says here.
Remember that I'll preface it by saying that this video is going to have like pre-staged questions apparently.
And so he's responding to those questions.
And so he's partially, let's say, boxed in by the questions that he's supposed to answer.
That could be by his design or their design or whatever.
But the bottom line is that this group
that's giving us this is this people's vaccine inquiry he's on the board right so we can assume i guess that he had some say in the questions that he's answering otherwise if he didn't want to answer these questions and he wanted to answer different questions like was there a pandemic or did people lie or
were people murdered, he could have those questions be the questions that were asked, or Claire Craig could have those questions asked, but instead they've chose to ask these questions.
And remember, it's June 7th, 2024, so maybe it would be time to ask some pretty serious questions, but let's see what we do.
My name is Dr Jonathan Engler.
I am the co-chair of the Heart Group along with Claire Craig and I also sit on the exec committee of an international group of scientists called PANDA.
I started off life in clinical medicine, worked as a doctor for a few years before moving into the pharmaceutical industry.
I had a job as a medical advisor designing, analysing and reporting on clinical trials to regulatory standards.
My colleague at that company and I, we set up a company involved in clinical trial management, which we sold after a decade.
following which I actually retrained and became a barrister a short period of time before re-entering the business world in the healthcare sector.
Since 2020 though, I've been heavily involved in analysing and reporting on the response of governments to what they call the COVID pandemic.
Everybody's being betrayed, basically.
You can look at the whole thing as a tragedy in three acts of betrayal.
I mean, clinical trial participants have been betrayed, the public has been betrayed by the regulators, and then the injured are being betrayed by the system.
The trial participants have been betrayed.
They went into these trials ostensibly to help other people, and in many cases they've been abandoned.
To take one example,
An American preschool teacher, she was 41, Breanne Dressen.
On the day she had the AstraZeneca vaccine, in the trial, she became doubly incontinent and yet her symptoms were dismissed as anxiety related.
And so what was the question again and how could he have maybe alternately answered it?
Let's see it again.
I don't know where I go.
I can't.
I wish it had a little preview frame.
I apologize.
We set up a company involved in clinical trial management, which we sold after a decade.
I don't have much control over the video with this platform, so I apologize.
I can't click through.
I just want to pause on this question.
I just want to pause on the question.
How would you summarize the rollout of the COVID vaccines?
Well, I would summarize it as they murdered people and got people to agree that it was either a lab leak or a natural virus.
And that mystery solving exercise scared enough people into taking COVID vaccines that they never would have otherwise taken.
That's what I would have said.
I would have said they murdered people and lied about it.
so that people would be terrified enough to take the COVID vaccines, which are actually transfections and transformations and should have been called that from the beginning.
Remember these people talk to me behind the scenes.
They send me DMS to tell me to lay off of their friends.
So it's not like they're not paying attention.
They don't, they get the idea of what I'm trying to get people to say, because I think it will be much more effective because those, those things, those ideas, they lead out of the cave.
How would you summarize the rollout of vaccines?
They murdered people and lied about it so people would be scared enough to take them.
That's how I would summarize it.
Everybody's being betrayed, basically.
You can look at the whole thing as a tragedy in three acts of betrayal.
I mean, clinical trial participants have been betrayed, the public has been betrayed by the regulators, and then the injured are being betrayed by the system.
The trial participants have been betrayed.
They went into these trials ostensibly to help other people, and in many cases they've been abandoned.
To take one example,
An American preschool teacher, she was 41, Breanne Dressen.
On the day she had the AstraZeneca vaccine, in the trial, she became doubly incontinent, and yet her symptoms were dismissed as anxiety-related.
AstraZeneca, they're meant to follow up these patients long-term, but basically they stopped contacting her after about 60 days.
During that period, she was actually fighting for her life in hospital.
In June 21, she was actually diagnosed with neurological injury following the vaccine and she remains sick to this day.
There are just numerous stories like this.
The actual trial designs themselves used to register these products were deeply flawed in many ways.
Whoa, so what?
There's a whole list of problems with the... June 21, she was actually diagnosed with neurological injury following the vaccine, and she remains sick to this day.
There are just numerous stories like this.
The actual trial designs themselves used to register these products were deeply flawed in many ways.
Okay, so he says that the... Let me just switch over here.
So he says the rollout of the vaccines is the first question.
He says the trial participants are betrayed.
The regulators betrayed us.
And so, yeah, okay.
So then the next question is what was wrong with the vaccine rollout?
So that's an interesting question.
It's kind of related.
It's kind of related to the first one.
What was wrong with the vaccine rollout?
It was rolled out on the idea
that people in the UK were dying because of coronavirus and that we had to roll out this vaccine so that people wouldn't die.
But people in the UK were being killed by starvation, by untreated urinary tract infections, through cold and through thirst.
and through secondary pneumonia is not being changed.
There's videos, there's whole documentaries about it.
So what's wrong with the vaccine rollout, again, comes back to they murdered people and got people to agree that murder wasn't happening.
That maybe we were responding wrong, or maybe we were making some mistakes, or maybe we didn't know what to do, but nobody seems to have yet come to the conclusion at heart that first and foremost, they murdered people and lied about it, which is strange.
because they definitely did that in the UK.
There's a whole list of problems with the clinical trials.
These examples are specific to the Pfizer trial.
We call it the Pfizer trial, although it's actually a product made by a company called BioNTech, which is a German company.
Everybody just knows it's a Pfizer trial because it was manufactured and sold under license by Pfizer.
But the product is actually BioNTech's.
So although these issues apply to that particular drug, there are
overlapping issues, many of them are the same, with all the vaccines.
The trial wasn't actually double-blind.
A lot of people say that the Pfizer phase 3 trial was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial, but it wasn't at all.
It was actually what they call observer-blinded, so that everybody at the site knew.
So again, just to hat tip to Pamela, Pamela says maybe he should have started with the fact that what's wrong with the vaccine rollout?
Well, they rolled it out as a vaccine and they should have rolled it out as a transfection and transformation.
They should have been honest so that people could exercise informed consent, which includes saying no, but did he start there?
No, no, no.
We don't want to use correct language when referring to transfection and transformation.
We'll accept the fact that these are vaccines, and we'll just argue about whether they work or not.
Darn it.
This is very disappointing already.
Shit.
overlapping issues, many of them are the same, with all the vaccines.
The trial wasn't actually double-blind.
A lot of people say that the Pfizer phase 3 trial was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial, but it wasn't at all.
It was actually what they call observer-blinded, so that everybody at the site knew
which drug each patient was receiving because the way it was designed was they had to draw up the vaccine from the vial and they were told when they entered the patient they received I mean imagine using this much time to explain why the trials might not have been the perfect trials when we don't need the trials anyway the whole justification for the trials is a great big charade darn it
What is going on here?
Why can't any of these people make any reasonable progress?
Give an instruction.
I'll give this patient active and give this patient placebo and that was what was drawn up.
And it's got quite profound implications that the site know which patient is on which drug because it creates bias.
So when the patient comes along and says I've got some symptoms,
whether or not that person is going to be sent for testing because they potentially got the target disease, in this case COVID or not, will be influenced by the knowledge of whether or not the patient received the active or placebo.
And the same is true for the assessment of any
adverse events, whether they're related to the drug or not.
It could be highly biased by whether or not the site know which drug the patient is receiving.
You have to look at what the trial was actually measuring, what the so-called clinical endpoint was.
So his message is that it's very complicated to understand whether or not a clinical trial was good or not.
That's his message.
So, you know, it's, it's tough to know.
And there's really difficult in there.
It's pretty specialized.
And, you know, I had a company for 10 years that I sold.
And so I can tell you how specialized it is and how complicated it is.
There's no ladder here.
And in this trial, basically they were saying the clinical endpoint was a symptom of infection and a positive test.
The question really is, what is the relevance of that in the real world?
So what if people get a positive test for something and some mild symptoms?
You've got to remember in the trial, virtually everybody who was said to be a COVID case basically had a cold.
It seems remarkable to me that nobody has questioned the
extrapolation of that claim, which is that it reduces basically cold-like symptoms, to this is going to protect everybody from transmitting a disease and it's going to protect the elderly and vulnerable from harm and so therefore we need to inject everybody as soon as possible.
It seems to me completely crazy that the extrapolation was made.
Another point about the way the trial results have been interpreted is this issue of relative and absolute risk reduction.
The headline figure of 95% reduction is incredibly misleading.
It's based on 162 cases in the placebo group versus 8 in the active group.
Indeed, that is a 95% reduction.
But what that doesn't tell you is what the actual risk reduction for an individual was.
You've got to bear in mind that that 162 is out of over 20,000 participants in each group.
So the actual risk to an individual was less than 1%.
And it reduced it from a little less than 1%.
You see why it's so annoying that in their essay they can't succinctly explain that a background signal misconstrued as spread using two or three hundred different random
products produced in China and elsewhere would be so easy.
But instead, if you accept most of the principles of virology, most of the complications of virology, and try to work with those tools, you inevitably find yourself down a stupid, complicated explanation for something that can be very easily explained by coordinated lying.
It is just shocking to me right now that we are here in 2024 and we still have people outside of the United States who are pretending to come to the rescue that are actually not doing it.
We are each in our own traps because we are each trapped in our own
System our own government our own set of laws and our own set of courts Americans must save America and English people have to save the UK or whatever however you call each other and Dutch people have to save Holland Germans have to save Germany
There's nothing I can do or say beyond the biological truths that can extricate you people.
And so talking about the clinical trials and the details of them just leaves you open for endless debate about whether or not this guy's right about those particular things.
Instead of saying the very simple and sort of irreducible questions that get right to the heart of this, something like, is intramuscular injection of any combination of substance useful in augmenting the immune system?
Do we need to ask that question or not?
Was transfection known by really thousands of people already?
Is Jay right about that or not?
I mean, is it possible that he's right that RNA can't pandemic?
Do you think that that distillation of my idea as represented in their essay is genuine?
That was their best attempt.
And now that I'm saying it out loud, of course, they're going to say, we gave him every opportunity to edit the document and he didn't do it.
It's coming.
That's the only play they have here.
They can't backpedal and say, oh yeah, we should have corrected Claire Craig earlier, but she's our friend and we didn't.
They can't say that, well, I meant to say that they murdered people and lied about it, but that wasn't the question that was asked.
There's nowhere to go anymore other than to burn the bridge with Jay and say that we gave him the opportunity three times to write with us and he just didn't do it.
So clearly he must be employed still.
Maybe he's getting NIH funding like Kevin McKernan says he is.
I just see patterns, ladies and gentlemen.
If you think that I'm not seeing patterns, then I don't know.
There's lots of other people that you can follow.
There's lots of other people whose work needs sharing.
So if you don't
If you're not behind it, if it doesn't make sense to you, if it doesn't ring true, I really suggest to change the channel.
Stop following my account.
Because I'm convinced to my bones that this is the right way.
I'm convinced to my bones that I'm helping people get out of this trap.
By illustrating that these people are not.
And if they end up correcting themselves, if they end up being the gold at the bottom of the pan after we've shaken it around, because they're like, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, easy, Jay.
That's the reaction I expect from Nick Hudson.
That's the reaction I've gotten from Nick Hudson before, where I've tried to call him out.
He says, easy, man, come on now.
Remember, we're all on the same team.
I mean, I'm trying to share you too.
And I get what you're saying.
And Nick has corrected, as far as I can tell, course corrected, as far as I can tell, at least a little bit.
And he has shared my work at least a little bit.
But this hat tip in that essay and how they talked about non-infectious clones, whatever the hell those are, is just ridiculous.
Apparently you did hours and hours of reading and didn't really learn anything because you didn't have the requisite biological background to organize a synthesis across everything you read.
which has taken me like four and a half years to accomplish.
But yeah, go ahead, put a couple of weeks in.
So this co-chair of HEART,
who doesn't want me to admonish Claire Craig because she's really nice and you know, there's lots of different views in heart.
That's what he said.
Lots of different views in heart.
Take it easy on Claire.
She's got 250,000 followers and she's saying bullshit and this guy won't correct it.
He corrects me.
He wants me to settle down.
He wants me to stop my erratic attacking.
So let's see here, what else has he got to say?
What other questions will we ask?
Down to a little more than zero.
When you say to somebody, well actually your risk was reduced by less than 1% of having a cold or flu-like symptoms, it starts to put into context how exaggerated the benefits from these products have been.
A way that some people like to describe the benefits of drugs is in terms of a number needed to treat.
So you can say that for these products, you would need to treat just over 100 people to reduce the number of people who get cold-like symptoms with a positive PCR test by one.
And when you put it like that,
doesn't sound anywhere near as impressive as saying these products are 95% effective.
But I should also point out that it's long been assumed to be bad practice to only refer to relative risk reduction, i.e.
the 95% number, without giving people a sense of what the absolute benefits to them might be.
How did the media sway opinion during the vaccine rollout?
I think the media was incredibly important, both in terms of pushing the government messaging and also suppressing any reporting of any adverse effects.
Whenever anybody died in... Reporting any adverse effects, so we're really not going to say that they murdered people and lied about it in the UK, are we?
He's really not going to say it.
They didn't murder people in Scotland.
They didn't murder people in old folks' homes.
They didn't let people die of cold.
or starvation or water.
All those people must have been lying in that movie.
Wow.
In 2020, if they had a positive test, they died of COVID.
Even if they fell off a ladder or in a car accident, these were COVID deaths.
Well, how can somebody falling off a ladder be a COVID death?
Somebody say, oh, well, you don't know, maybe it affected their brain.
And yet when it came to deaths being reported after the vaccine, the media would strain to find other explanations.
So it would say, oh, you never heard of anybody dying suddenly before?
You never heard of anybody getting myocarditis before?
You know, every single death after the vaccine would be assumed to be something else.
and there would be an incredibly high standard of proof needed to convince anybody it was related to the vaccine and that was completely the opposite policy to the 2020 policy of attribution of death to COVID.
This is the first time in history that an infectious disease has been diagnosed by one single molecular test in this way.
Throughout history, doctors have been taught to treat symptoms and to assess the patient as a whole and see how ill or unwell they are, what their signs and symptoms are, and that the test results from the lab are basically an adjunct to a proper clinical assessment of a patient.
During the COVID era, basically, if you had a positive test,
you were a COVID case, even if you had no symptoms.
In fact, it was said once that having no symptoms was a symptom of COVID, which is peak insanity in my view.
We shouldn't necessarily trust the data, take it at face value.
There are quite a lot of red flags in respect of the trial data, the PCR tests, which can be easy.
It's very insufficient, that's for sure.
And doesn't seem to reflect his understanding of virology as in that article where at least he knows there's something in the back.
Oh my gosh.
Sorry, I'm getting a little burpy from my coffee, but I just, I don't know what to say anymore.
He's able on Twitter to regularly hammer people because they're talking about the virus and arguing about the virus and believing in gain of function.
He's able to ridicule them and make fun of them.
But that's what the whole project is based on, is this idea that
we pretty much agree that the Scooby-Doo mystery is solved and that the answer is gain of function was spreading around the world.
And so if you go on Twitter and your primary thing is to make fun of people that do that, or one of the things you do, then your overarching message isn't this thing where the trial participants were betrayed or the regulators betrayed us.
The first cause is not that.
The first cause is not the FDA in America.
The first cause is not Tony Fauci.
It's so bizarre that they won't challenge the fundamentals of this whole thing.
It's so bizarre because they know that's exactly what I'm trying to do.
And instead, we have the forced elevation of yet another new set of actors that supposedly has a groundbreaking take on virology that
17 pages in, gives an absolutely shitty hat tip to ideas that I've never said out loud ever.
You can't find one time when I've ever explained it as non-infectious clones being used to do something that a regular circulating SARS-CoV-2 in the background as well.
And they were actually trying to say, hey, we gave a hat tip to you.
Dang it.
I just, I don't believe them.
I'm sorry.
I don't believe it at all.
I think that this is meddling.
I think it's a sign of meddling because again, they are, they are elevated to where they shouldn't be for being what they've done and what they've brought to the table.
It's not the dream team that's rising on the internet.
It's not the dream team that's getting published in the conservative UK woman.
It's a coordinated Lollapalooza of liars that is elevating certain ideas and agreeing not to really understand other ideas.
Their description of my infectious clones idea is about as weak as when Kevin McKernan tried to go like, oh, so are you saying that you're gonna spray the RNA around then?
Or what exactly were you saying?
Or were you saying that you were gonna convert the DNA into
RNA using like a T5 RNA polymerase.
What was it that you were saying?
We're still not really hearing a clear message here that's going to save people, are we?
...easily manipulated by changing the so-called cycle threshold, which is the amount of replication of the genetic material before it calls the test as positive.
Now it's so annoying because I've explained to him and others, including Martin Neal and the rest of Panda, that the cycle count thing is a hamster wheel.
If there's a background signal, you can design a PCR test to pull it up.
Nobody's sequencing the primers.
The primers are produced somewhere.
You know, all of this stuff could just be controlled.
You just make the primers you want.
You substitute them for the primers they think they are.
You tell them it's a test for the end protein, but it's really not.
It's for this background signal that's everywhere in a certain number of people, yada, yada, yada.
The details don't matter because it would be so trivial to do.
As long as you start with synthetic RNA or DNA, you can put it wherever you want.
It's very easy to explain.
And yet somehow or another, we, in 2024, with Jonathan Engler, who claims to follow my work and claims to be part of Heart and Panda and have seen me present three times and tried to get me to write this article with him, doesn't seem to be able to explain that virology is pretty much based on synthetic
DNA or RNA transfected or transformed into these cell cultures and the fidelity of this PCR test could easily be faked using the same synthetic or DNA or RNA wherever you wanted to find it.
You don't have to spray it.
It doesn't have to be in the people in Italy.
It could be on the swabs.
If you're sending all the swabs to a central location, it could be on the computer.
where the computer that is analyzing the data from the test could be falsifying it.
The possibilities are endless that don't have to involve you discovered a new virus that only exists in humans, but not in camels.
And then you end around the science and claim that what you're detecting is actually not there, but spreading.
Holy shit.
Let's see if he's going to say anything useful in this 24 minutes.
And even if there was a 95% reduction in the number of cold-like symptoms plus a positive test, it's worth pointing out that the analysis being focused purely on COVID misses any what we call off-target effects.
So it's no good reducing the incidence of your target disease if you then increase the incidence of other things.
And that's why
In general terms, regulators have in the past said, well, what we want to do is we want all cause mortality.
So he has to be aware of the fact that one of the ways that it was probably done in the UK is that they just took these old people and said, oh, yeah, he got COVID.
We better put you on supplementary oxygen.
And ever since we, through Grace's dad, discovered this anomaly and have tried to get people to ask that question, none of them do it.
None of them.
None of them, N-O-N-E.
Just me and Mark.
It's significant, because he's not doing it here.
He could say it here.
We saw it in that UK documentary.
And we made the world aware of it.
So, I mean, they know.
Everybody knows.
All these MDs know.
He's an MD and a lawyer, so he knows.
You know, Malik puts people under for knee surgery or foot surgery, but he's not aware that pure oxygen given for a few hours might be particularly nasty.
analyses and all-cause symptom analyses and on an all-cause basis these products fail to reduce mortality for example so the active versus placebo analysis is tending towards actually increased mortality in the active vaccinated group compared to the placebo group and that obviously is completely the opposite of what people think that they're getting from these products.
He already said that.
That was his first answer.
I want to start off by the example of Stephen Wright, staff member at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
So it's again about the regulators.
Did the regulators do their job?
What about the people that killed people during the pandemic with protocols?
I know that he writes substacks about it, but this video is what's gonna get around.
This video is what's got the support of this whole group of people that's got this whole new website.
His substack doesn't have that, his videos have that.
The heart group has that.
And so this video is what's getting seen.
This video is what's being circulated.
So this was his chance to say what needed to be said.
And yet this group apparently has chosen these questions as being the questions to ask.
Did the regulators let us down?
Did a coordinated group of traders in America coordinate with people in the rest of the Five Eyes countries to act like there was a dangerous pandemic and get us to fail?
Any question, you know, like, come on.
Wow.
Just wow.
and so he was first in the queue to get his vaccine in January 21.
Unfortunately, he suffered from a catastrophic brain hemorrhage associated with thrombocytopenia, which is low platelet counts, and he left a widow and two fatherless sons, a huge tragedy.
It took a long time, though, for the MHRA to take proper action.
In November of 21, the MHRA... This is a distress signal.
Hanging the flag upside down is like calling for help.
It's not an insult.
It's not a America needs to fall.
It's America needs help.
And if all you got is an American flag to signal with, the way to signal to another American that you need help is that.
We need help.
acknowledged that there have been over 70 fatalities with the same condition in the first 10 months of use, which works out actually at about one every four days.
In April, they had estimated the incidence of the condition to be four per million.
And by February 22, they were then saying it was actually 15 per million.
But even at that point, they were saying that we need to investigate this further, decide if it's related to the vaccine.
That was in February 22.
Meanwhile, winding back in time, it's astonishing to note that in March 21, which is a year before just about, the Danish regulators had already suspended use of the vaccine.
and already described the relationship between the vaccine and the condition as causal.
So it's interesting because he's friends with Jessica Hockett.
He could say that there's somebody in America that does research and she's pretty convinced that the initial event that was misconstrued as the start of a giant global crisis that worst case scenario could kill a billion people, she's kind of convinced that that's a fraud.
I wonder if he's ever going to throw that in here yet.
I mean, that would be a pretty significant data set to go back to or data point to go back to.
And still he's only going back to 2021.
It's curious because they rolled out the shots to healthcare workers in the UK at the end of 2020.
end of 2020, they already had the healthcare workers so scared that they were going to take the shot.
Remember there was that one doctor man that like told the prime minister, I ain't going to take this thing.
I've already been infected because I've on the frontline and it kind of made a very inconvenient video.
So again, there are choices being made here.
And remember that the choices that are being made here are partially being made by him and Claire Craig, because they are heads of the heart group and also heads of this
Looks like people's vaccine inquiry.
So if he wanted to ask different questions to himself, he could have.
And these are the questions that they're choosing to answer.
And it's June 7th, 2024.
Quote, they said, nothing but the vaccine can explain why these individuals have had this immune response.
So our regulator has been way behind the curve in investigating potential safety concerns with these products.
They did, and there were many deaths from this condition between the time.
Are you saying that rather than pausing the rollout, pausing the rollout, which is the exact language that I used in May of 2021, when I finally published my review that I now call the Scooby-Doo review on my website, where I said we needed to pause all transfections
rather than pausing the rollout and investigating signals in the data, they continued to roll out the vaccine.
Well, technically not because we pulled off the J&J shot and we pulled out the AstraZeneca shot and continued with the mRNA.
So this isn't even really an adequate account of what happened and what normal skilled TV watchers will have perceived as happening.
So if he doesn't say, well, you know, they made the gesture of taking the J&J shot off the market, which tricked people into believing that there was some kind of regulation going on.
I'm curious as to what he's gonna say.
They did.
And there were many deaths from this condition between the time when, for example, the Danish regulator had suspended it and the time when the UK regulator suspended it.
Well, actually, and I say suspended because it's never actually officially suspended.
Of course, the AstraZeneca vaccine, they just stopped giving it.
So it was never officially taken off the list, which I think is a notable point in itself.
What other shortcomings have there been from the regulator?
Wow, we're asking a lot of really important questions here.
They would have been aware of all those.
Holy crap.
It's pretty scandalous that they never dug into any of those issues.
The by distribution is basically how distributed throughout the body a drug becomes.
And at all times, the regulators and our government have basically told people, don't worry, the injection gets broken down in the arm and it has no systemic effects.
But of course, this is completely nonsensical because the actual platform itself was developed to carry cancer drugs around the body to the target organs.
And so it's designed to go through membranes.
There was already preclinical data in rats, which shows that when this product is injected, and I'm here talking, by the way, about the mRNA product, when the product was injected, it becomes distributed around the whole body.
The adverse events coming in to the yellow card system across a wide range of organ systems, including a huge number of cardiovascular events, is completely incompatible with anything other than distribution.
So interesting that he's basically making the same point that Jessica Rose made, which is the yellow card system has a signal that it didn't have before.
The bears has a signal that it didn't have before.
essentially subconsciously programming you never to question that the old vaccines were better than these.
Or maybe they weren't, but we have a signal now that we didn't have before.
And it's curious because one of the people that he really enjoys promoting, Jessica Hockett, who I've lauded as a hero for pointing out the anomaly of New York City,
She says that she doesn't think the mRNA shot is hurting anybody because she doesn't know anybody who was hurt by it.
But here he is explaining that there is a very, very hot signal for the fact that these shots, these transfections and transformations hurt people.
So I hope he's going to go out of his way to correct Jessica on that posit.
I mean, Jessica was just a person that worked, I believe, in the school system in Chicago.
Up until very recently, she has been focused on showing that the New York City story is just so ridiculous and how many different ways it can be seen as ridiculous.
And so she's done a really great work with that.
And so if she's straying off the foundation a little bit by just reporting her own observations that she doesn't know anybody that thinks they're hurt from the shot or reported to her that she's hurt from the shot, that could just be
from her point of view.
But at some point, I hope that like, I am trying desperately to get Jonathan to correct Claire Craig because they're co-chairs.
I hope that I can get Jonathan to, you know, point out that, hey, there's this video and this testimony that I did, Jessica, and I'm pretty sure that these transformations and transfections have hurt lots of people and they're just lying about it.
Because I don't think Jessica Hockett is convinced of that anymore.
And so I don't really follow.
I don't have enough time to keep track of all of these people.
When I decide that they're doing pretty good, I tend to leave them alone and watch their patterns from afar.
And so this was just brought to me because Jonathan said that I had to lay off Claire Craig.
So I just wanted to explain to Jonathan why I don't think I or she or he should lay off Claire Craig if she's gonna say that it's okay for people to think of gain of function and think of that there's a virus and it's even better if there is a virus.
I don't think that that's nuanced enough coming from such an organization with such a following internationally, we need to do better.
That's what I'm suggesting.
Throughout the body of the product.
And of course, the fact that the product is distributed throughout the body, it has incredibly profound implications for what safety testing, what preclinical studies would need to be done for this product.
So ordinarily a new drug, anything that might be, any target organ that might be affected by the product, you'd need specific studies to disprove
the hypothesis that it might be harmful.
And yet these products, because of the word vaccine was slapped over them, they were given a free pass from much of the normal preclinical studies that would be required.
And I think that is a major, major scandal.
Were there any biodistribution studies?
Hat tip to Byron Bridle coming.
There was a study done in rats, which the regulators would have been aware of, which showed widespread distribution.
It actually was obtained through an action in the states.
You've probably heard the phrase, the Pfizer documents.
And what's really meant by that is that there was a group of independent scientists and doctors in the states who wanted to see the information used by the FDA to form the basis of their approval of the product.
Is this a accidental omission of the fact that the first person that was burned on biodistribution was Byron Bridle?
That Byron Bridle got a
a report from the Japanese government that showed the biodistribution and that when he started speaking out about it, the Canadian government shut him down at the exact same time was when Pierre Kory came on the Brett Weinstein show.
And then three weeks later, here comes Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch on the Brett Weinstein podcast to talk about all kinds of things to do with the mRNA, but not that the biodistribution might be a little bit sketchy as the foremost measure.
It was more about, well, you know, we have three easy ways to end the pandemic was the title.
This is a pretty big omission because Byron Bridle burnt his whole career.
Because Byron Bridle is being absorbed by these people, which I showed Steve Kirsch and Kevin McKernan.
trying desperately to make him feel like he is still fighting, that he is still being heard while they're really just stepping in front of him.
And stepping in front of him so much that apparently Jonathan thinks that it was something to do with the Pfizer documents, which who was in charge of those?
Naomi Wolf.
Naomi Wolf had 2,300 researchers volunteering their time to go through the hundreds of thousands of pages of the Pfizer documents.
Why would they need to do that when Byron Bridle already exposed it with a single document?
Holy shit, this is a landslide.
This is like everything's falling apart like a sandcastle during tide coming in.
If you recall, this is going back a few years, the FDA wanted this to be buried for 75 years and it took action in court to prise this information out of the FDA.
And one of the early documents that came out through that process was the report of the biodistribution in rats.
And it's pretty clear that the regulators would have had sight of that.
So at the time they were telling people that the product was broken down in the arm entirely and had no systemic effects.
they would have known that it was being widely distributed in rats at least and that should raise the suspicion and the likelihood that the product would become widely distributed in humans too.
What was flagged up by the biotech?
Basically being distributed to every organ system but most worryingly to the
What was flagged which would have required further investigation?
Basically being distributed to every organ system but most worryingly to the ovaries and testes which obviously is a major concern particularly the way the product works is it makes the body's cells that take up the product
It makes this foreign protein called spike protein, though it probably makes a lot of other proteins as well.
And the body then reacts to the expression of those foreign proteins by attacking and destroying those cells, which it recognizes as foreign.
This is why we are seeing a major problem with inflammatory and autoimmune conditions as a result of these products.
So I kind of have a problem with that a little bit, just because I feel like, OK, so if
If we're gonna say that they biodistribute, but then say they're going to the ovaries and testes, that's being a little bit simplistic.
They could be crossing the blood-brain barrier.
They could be going to some people's lungs, into some people's fat, into some people's ovaries, into some people's appendix, some people's lymph nodes, some people's bone marrow.
And so that was already a little bit of a hyper simplification of something that we knew would be just criminal.
because of how little we actually understood about it.
He kind of simplified the biodistribution to a couple places, which is not really how the biodistribution should be simplified.
Just saying, man.
Absolutely huge.
Naming is everything, really, with new products.
The word vaccine made people think that these were just like all the previous vaccines they had, maybe like the flu shots that many people have had for years.
The word vaccine also meant that the regulators would allow the manufacturers to skip many steps.
There is a lot of editing.
I don't know if you are watching on a bigger screen, but I really feel like there are times when you can really see that this one was really bad.
It was like,
four clips in a row put together at the beginning there.
At least it sure feels like there's a little fade in there.
Absolutely huge.
Naming is everything, really, with new products.
The word vaccine made people think that these were just like the previous vaccines they had, maybe like the flu shots that many people have had for years.
The word vaccine also meant that the regulators would allow the manufacturers
to skip many steps which would ordinarily be required for any other drug.
So there are lots of preclinical testing that wouldn't be required.
That's simply because of the word vaccine.
The point about the word vaccine is that it suggests something that is locally broken down and that only affects the immune system.
But the fact is that both Moderna and Pfizer in their regulatory submissions for financial purposes that they have to make to the US Stock Exchange, they call these gene therapies, or they were certainly during
But do you know what kind of technology does it like that?
That's a lot of work.
I mean, that's a lot of work unless there's some AI that does it.
Maybe you have some AI that does it.
Did he say murder just now?
I didn't hear him say murder.
They cut it out?
What do you mean they cut it out?
What does that mean?
What do you mean they cut it out?
Are you suggesting that the organization is censoring their own leader or you're saying that they cut it out and you have the original video?
I'm curious.
If they cut it out, I'd like to see it.
He didn't say murder.
When vaccines consisted of a relatively narrow number of technologies, many of which had been around for quite a few decades, it's completely scandalous that you take a brand new product that was developed to treat cancer, and you change the antigen you're expressing, but you have the same basic platform, and then you just change its name to vaccine, and suddenly it becomes functionally a vaccine.
It's completely nonsensical.
Okay, no problem.
You can joke.
I like jokes.
It's good.
Okay, process one, process two.
When they talk about process one, they mean relatively small-scale manufacture and that's what they use to make the clinical trial material.
Process two is a different type of manufacturing process altogether because you need to scale up and they use different technology and that's what was used to make the product.
Now, if this does not reveal the fact that this person is a meddler to you already, I'm going to explain to you why this particular clip, which I hadn't seen until right now, is the definitive answer of whether this guy means well or is just talking to me behind the scenes to try and be able to influence me somehow into focusing on stuff that I don't need to focus on.
Because what he's about to explain right now, process two should start out with, well, this is how they use synthetic DNA and RNA clones.
to make any biologic in pharmaceutical companies.
Remember, he's a pharmaceutical guy.
He worked in pharmaceuticals and then he had a company for 10 years that he sold that was streamlining clinical trials.
The guy knows how antibodies are made.
He knows how all biologics are made.
He knows what recombinant DNA is and how it's used to create the RNA of the shot.
He knows that there's a video out there of Inovio circulating these
brown liquids full of the bacteria that's growing the spike DNA.
He knows exactly how it works.
So is this a reasonable explanation for the difference between process one and process two?
Or is this somebody who's meddling with us and not giving us a way out?
Remember, he claims to listen to me and understand me and want everybody to know who Jay is.
I share your things.
I try hard to support you.
When they talk about process 1, they mean relatively small-scale manufacturer, and that's what they use to make the clinical trial material.
Process 2... Small-scale manufacturer, no details.
Very simple details that anybody like Kevin McKernan could add here is that there's a limit to the synthetic DNA printing that we can do, which is what they do.
It's essentially printing.
We can do it, but there's a limit to how long we can print it.
That's why we can make primers super cheap, but we can't make a whole coronavirus DNA construct super cheap.
We have to make five parts of it, and then it's getting cheaper and cheaper every day.
But there's a limit.
to the length of DNA that we can make synthetically using these synthetic manufacturing techniques.
But being a 10-year-plus experience in pharma and in clinical trials, then sold his company and decided to become a lawyer in his spare time, he's not able to get beyond process one is small-scale manufacturing.
I'm going to go back a little bit to make sure you can hear the ridiculousness of this.
When they talk about process one, they mean relatively small-scale manufacture, and that's what they use to make the clinical trial material.
Process two is a different type of manufacturing process altogether, because you need to scale up, and they use different technology, and that's what was used to make the product that went into millions of arms.
Normally, when you change a manufacturing system, the regulators require you to show that the product made by the changed system is identical to the product which you got your registration on.
In this particular instance, the Process 2 product was actually only ever tested on 250 people in the original trial.
So 250 out of the 20-odd thousand only received the Process 2 product.
Now the regulators did require Pfizer to show that the product made in the bigger scaled up process was actually the same in all material regards, the same as the product made, which nearly all the patients received the process one product, but that data was never forthcoming.
They never did any proper equivalent study.
And so actually realize how incredible it is that
even with Kevin McKernan out there saying there's double-stranded DNA and endotoxins that have contaminated the shot, he's actually explaining that the regulators didn't adequately evaluate the change from the Process 1 methodology that he doesn't have any useful details about to the Process 2 methodology, which his useful details include scaling up
And he's explaining that the regulators should have better checked the equivalency between these two methodologies, these two general manufacturing practices.
Maybe we're gonna get to the contamination, maybe, maybe, which would still be very much on narrative, but I just want you to see how awful that whole little alleyway of thinking was.
that the process one and process two is not something that you need to biologically understand.
Just understand that one small scale, one's big scale.
And when you go from small scale to big scale, the regulator needs to check.
And I don't think they checked very well.
Okay.
So what else is he going to say after this?
Is it going to, is it going to, is he going to, is he going to,
pull out of the nosedive or not.
In the end, the regulator just said we won't require them to show that anymore because we've now given billions of doses and we've proven it's safe.
And of course, that is ridiculous because there is a phrase used particularly with what are termed biologics, i.e.
products which work through complex biology.
The phrase used is that the process is the product.
and for them not to have shown that the process is equivalent is pretty scandalous.
That's not to say that I think that the product made using process one was safe and effective, but it is evidence of more regulatory failure.
And of course, since the products have been rolled out, a multitude of problems related to the complex biology of the manufacturing process have come to light.
So the problems are in the complex biology of the manufacturing process, not the complex biology of everybody's immune system.
For example, the issue of DNA contamination in the final product, which laboratories around the world are now finding, and this has obviously completely unknown biological effects.
What was the question?
I didn't see it.
Sorry.
And it's incorrect that they can't sue these manufacturers in the final product, which laboratories around the world are now finding.
And this has obviously completely unknown biological effects.
Can you comment on the failure to adequately compensate victims who have been damaged by these products?
A lot of people say, and it's incorrect, that they can't sue these manufacturers, that the manufacturers have immunity from being sued.
And that's actually not true.
In the UK, the manufacturers have what's called an indemnity built into the contracts with the government, which means that people can still sue manufacturers, but the government pays the legal bills and pays any damages.
So basically, as part of the contract, the government has agreed
to indemnify the manufacturers and effectively hold them harmless for any harms caused by their products, which is extraordinary enough that that exists.
But in terms of whether people can legally issue claims against manufacturers, yes they can.
That's kind of where the good news ends, because the bad news is that these claims are very, very difficult to get off the ground.
because solicitors, a lot of them are unwilling to enter the fray for political reasons.
They'll be regarded as anti-vaxxers and so on.
But more specifically, they know that the chances of success are quite low because the courts are generally against these kinds of claims.
And because they know the chances... So what an interesting thing for this barrister to wax intellectual about when in America, it's a very specific lie.
The idea is that you have the right to sue for anything over $20 in damages.
And that's a constitutional right.
And if you say that you can't sue these people because of the PREP Act or because of the 21st Century Cures Act or whichever one or combination of gives them the indemnity that allows the federal court to say, nah, the state court to say, nah, I can't see this trial because of this law or that law.
It's interesting because again, these ideas are specific for each country.
The trap that America is in is different than the UK.
And yet somehow this barrister, who should be sophisticated enough to understand this, is both inadequately explaining that the UK is a unique situation, different from Canada, different from America, and trying to alert people of this difference.
He's trying his best to make it seem as though we're all in the same basic trap that we're never going to get out of anyway, because these regulators are screwing us on both sides of the Atlantic.
You're never going to hear a lawyer say that, essentially, this is like jurisdiction stripping.
You ever heard Mary Holland or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
or Aaron Seery talk about jurisdiction stripping?
They very rarely mention the Seventh Amendment.
And when you mention it, they say it's not time yet.
The arguments that could be nuclear are never made.
The explanations that are nuclear are never made.
Is he going to tell you that there is a kangaroo court called the VICP and the CICP that pays lawyers whether they win or lose?
And so the lawyers that participate in that system are already exhibiting a conflict of interest if they were ever to say, well, you know, this system isn't very good.
This system is essentially jurisdiction stripping with regard to the specific subject matter of vaccines and countermeasures.
Is he ever going to explain that the Health and Human Services Secretary that has the power to declare an emergency under the PrEP Act doesn't even have to justify the emergency in rational basis?
There's something in legal terms called a rational basis test, and I don't even know.
I can't teach it.
I'm not a lawyer.
But it means you got to have some good reason.
And the emergency declared under the PREP Act does not even need to be held to the rational basis standard.
It can be on a whim.
It can be just because the Health and Human Services Secretary has decided that, well, I lost too many Star Wars games in my studio, so I'm going to declare an emergency.
And so as a barrister, it's very interesting that he is like Mary Holland and a lot of these other purported legal scholars that are coming to our health freedom rescue, aren't able to succinctly codify the trap that we're in and how it's different than other people's traps.
There's no ladders being tossed down here.
Success are low.
They're unwilling to lay out all the costs associated with running these cases, which they would have to do because these cases can only really be afforded by people under no-win, no-fee structures.
And under those kind of structures, the solicitors firms have to lay out for their own work and also the expert fees required to pursue these claims.
And on the subject of experts, there's also an unwillingness on the part of the mainstream experts to speak against these products, and that's another problem in relation to pursuing these claims.
It's also the fact that individual judges have, at various times over the last few years, refused to go against the government mainstream narrative.
So to ask them to basically declare products as defective is quite difficult when you bear in mind that they couldn't even bring themselves to
to find that lockdowns were harmful to society.
It's a stretch for them to find in favour of the victims in these kind of cases.
So everything is basically stacked up against the victims.
The other thing that's stacked up against them is limitation.
And limitation basically says that in the UK, personal injury claims have to be issued within three years.
And we're coming up against or even beyond three years.
since people were injured.
So it's interesting because he's not suggesting that we should attack this on the basis that they're using the existence of a pandemic and the illusion of consensus that an emergency occurred in order to justify treating these vaccine injured and killed people the way they treat them.
Whereas if we started on the pretense that they lied and they murdered people and lied about it, and that's the reason why these countermeasures were ever rolled out in the first place, I think it becomes a different sort of legal space.
But again, I'm not in the UK.
I don't know how it would work.
He's a barrister over there.
But it seems like, again, we're not really trying to put any teeth on these.
these things we're not trying to give people useful ways to get out of the trap but just try to describe to them how hopeless it is.
In many cases there are some ways around that rule in that it can be argued that people weren't aware that they had a claim until some time later and the clock only starts ticking when they are actually aware that they have a claim but even so limitation is the major issue in relation to many of these claims.
Is there a limitation on murder?
Are there any other factors which prevent potential claims from being successful?
To be successful in the claim, you have to show that it's more likely than not that your injury was caused by the product.
And in relation to these products, the problem is that a lot of- I mean, this is so bizarre.
It's like all the content that CHD is putting out right now.
It's like all the content that they've ever put out.
It's stupid, complicated ways of never really saying that the criminal vaccine schedule is criminal, that you should just stop, that we should have never taken it, that governments and public-private health partnerships around the world are coordinatedly lying about the murder that they've misconstrued as a gain-of-function virus.
It's really very simple to say these things.
The injuries are slow burn in the sense that they are related to autoimmune or inflammatory conditions induced by the injection.
So they occur gradually worsening over a period of months or even years and this makes it quite difficult for experts to say that is definitely linked to the vaccine.
So take for example the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccine.
These were
very definitely an unusual condition that happened in close proximity to the injection.
And whilst there are some vaccine injuries in relation to the COVID products, which happen soon after, a lot of them happen months or even years after the injection.
And it's going to be very difficult to prove that these were caused by the vaccine, particularly as the conditions being talked about are suffered by people who haven't received these products as well.
It's just that they're suffered at an increasing rate.
As ever, it's political pressure really.
At the moment, the taxpayer is basically on the hook for costs of defending claims and the costs of meeting any compensation.
It's only when the government realises that there is political capital to be gained by transferring that liability from the taxpayer
to the companies themselves, to the manufacturers, that things might change.
I think if there's enough political pressure on the government, they might see that as an attractive opportunity.
And they can, of course, in our country, they can make laws, repeal laws, amend laws, as Parliament sees fit.
So they could easily extend the limitation period, they could easily go to the manufacturers and say, it's a condition of continuing operating, and there's buying products from you that you set up proper schemes of compensation.
So it's basically, as always, it's all about politics.
I think these people are lying to us ladies and gentlemen and they brought some new people on stage behind the scenes to try and keep meddling.
I just I don't know what to say other than we are in trouble until we start to see these people.
for who they are and start to notice that they have collaborators around the world, most of them in five eyes countries that are slow rolling or slowly titrating this conclusion that benefits the biosecurity state because we will pass this mythology onto our children.
This is a shot taken from the Senate committee hearing.
It's kind of ironic that be over the head of Pierre Corey is the phrase, what are they hiding?
they're hiding each other, and they're agreeing to hide each other because they are a coordinated lollapalooza of liars that will not discuss the overarching biological incongruities that underpin public health around the world.
That is, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb, and it always has been, no matter how good they get at measuring correlates of immunity
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent, and there are thousands of academic biologists at medical schools and universities around the United States and the world who have a rude awakening coming to them when they finally realize that I'm right.
RNA cannot pandemic.
If you don't like those words, say it in a different way.
Free-ranging RNA molecules is absurd.
Ladies and gentlemen, please stop all transfections in humans because they are trying to eliminate the control group
by any means necessary and if you have a hard time identifying the meddlers
come here because that's what we do at Giga Home Biological.
We shake the pan and the gold stays in the bottom and the rocks that are still stuck in the pan, they go out.
That's what happens.
So if you're gold, you stay in the pan and you're not worried about a little bit of swirling.
And if you're not gold, then you got to tell Jay, come on, man, don't swirl the pot so much.
We're all going to fall out.
And we don't all want to fall out because then where will we be?