good benefits.
And I was getting attacked, there's hit jobs in the media.
And he wrote me this email and he said, Dear Dr. Corey, what they're doing to ivermectin, they've been doing to vitamin D for decades, and included a link to an article called the disinformation playbook.
And it's got five tactics.
And these are the five tactics that all industries employ, when science emerges, that's inconvenient to their interest.
So I'm just going to give you an example.
Ivermectin science was extremely inconvenient to the interest of the pharmaceutical industrial complex.
I mean, it threatened the vaccine campaign, it threatened vaccine hesitancy, which was public enemy number one.
We know that, that everything, all the propaganda and censorship was literally going after something called vaccine hesitancy.
I experienced vaccine hesitancy myself.
It's a terrible condition, or life-saving.
I'm so grateful for it.
It could be a life-saving condition, but they deployed this information and I didn't understand what was going on, Tucker, because when I, for instance, I gave testimony in a Senate hearing for the first time in May of 2020.
Nothing to do with ivermectin.
I just said it was critically important that corticosteroids be used in the hospital phase of the disease.
I was attacked widely for saying that, even by my own university.
They did not want me talking to the press.
And that was based on the expert opinion of my group.
Humberto Maduri was one of them.
Like I said, one of the world experts in lung injury and corticosteroids.
Myself and Paul.
And we were validated.
Because two months later, a trial came out of Oxford showing that huge mortality reductions when you use corticosteroids.
And now it's the standard of care worldwide.
The next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge in the general poor health of the of America of the American people is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us to ruin Maybe America.
I don't know crash the dollar.
I don't know steal the rest of our our what limited Treasury value we have left.
I don't know But I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary and more importantly never be possible.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
do
you
On the rare chance that there's somebody out there with that particular musical taste, that is Edgar Meyer on bass, Yo-Yo Ma on cello, Joshua Bell on violin, and Mark O'Connor on guitar.
And I believe there might even be somebody playing a mandolin that I missed there.
But anyway, that would have then been Sam Bush.
And that was on the album called The Essential Joshua Bell.
That's my air conditioner.
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
you
I'm gonna have to see how I made that audio recording of that song because it's overloaded at the end and I don't know why.
It's clipping or whatever.
and doesn't sound ideal and it's also somehow or another still copyrighted so a lot of a lot of social media platforms won't let that music play anyway so although it is really nostalgic and nice to hear it makes that video somewhat limiting welcome to the show and
For anybody that's watching live right now or watching recorded later, the next five minutes might be something you want to turn your camera off for because I'm going to give you a little visual evidence for why I wasn't on the stream yesterday and the day before and the day before that.
I woke up I think in the middle of the night on Friday.
I'm trying to think of what day it is and where we are in the week here.
My family's almost coming back, but I feel like I've been on an expedition of some sort.
I don't know, some kind of biosphere experiment.
And if I look terrible, it's because I have actually been sick for quite a few days.
So it's Monday, August 5th.
I believe on Friday, I woke up thinking I had a bad night's sleep, and that I had muscle aches, and I was stretching a lot in the middle of the night, and I was warm and cold.
And I thought, wow, I'm getting sick.
And then all day Friday, I sat in this chair and I was reading and there were other things that were going on that needed my attention.
We hadn't paid our electric bill because V is over in Europe and she's the one who logs in there and then we couldn't get her login to work over there.
It doesn't matter.
Anyway, I was doing a lot of other things this weekend and then Friday afternoon, by Friday afternoon, I was just not feeling very well, so I got in my bed.
And no, no, that's wait, that's Friday night.
So I think it was Thursday night that I woke up and didn't feel good.
Thursday all day, I worked, was doing other things, went to bed on Thursday night and woke up on Friday and I had a terrible night on Friday night.
But when I was sitting in my chair on Friday and got up to like go eat or I don't remember what time it was.
It was like 630 in the night.
I realized that my leg was red and swollen and I had had that problem before because I have this one
for all the people collecting baseball cards at home, I maybe mentioned it before, I have this one little patch of indestructible eczema on my leg that never goes away.
That last year, the year before I got cellulitis underneath the skin, you know, you get an infection that gets broken and then it's very easy if you don't keep it clean, yada, yada, yada.
I had a swollen leg a couple of years ago already
And as soon as I realized what was going on down there on Friday, I was like, okay, what do I do?
And here we are.
Jonathan Cooey, who has been working for academia his whole life, the one, let's say, thing in the good column of working for universities, especially universities that are attached to hospitals, is usually for a fairly good price per month, you can get your family ridiculously good coverage.
And so I'm kind of used to just being able to go to the doctor and then it suddenly dawns on me on Friday afternoon at 6.30 that I don't have a doctor.
I don't have insurance.
And I got to figure out a way to get antibiotics.
How do I do that?
Well, in Pittsburgh on the South side, there's a very limited options.
And so I went through a few of those not to delineate them here and figured out that I wasn't going to get antibiotics on Friday night.
So I went to bed again on Friday night, wrapped up, put on some sweatpants, drank a lot of water and just said, here I go.
And I went to bed and I sweat through all my clothes and I got up in the morning and I thought I was feeling better.
But I had some friends that gave me the contact of a dermatologist.
I did a little virtual visit over Zoom and she said that I should definitely go seek help.
And so I went to a little clinic here.
I paid $200 cash.
I saw a doctor for five minutes who said I should go to the emergency room.
I said, I'm not going to the emergency room.
I feel much better today than I did yesterday.
I should have gone to the emergency room yesterday.
didn't.
My leg is swollen.
I mean, it's painful everywhere, but I know I'm a lot better now than I was before.
Just give me some antibiotics and I'll be fine.
He didn't really want to do it.
But he did and I got the prescription and things are feeling better now.
But when I show you my leg, understand that this is the two days after the worst swelling and it encompassed most of my lower leg and the pain went from
The lymph node in my groin through every lymph node.
I could have drawn it out with a With a with a sharpie on my legs what lymph nodes were swollen and not lymph nodes But what lymph vessels and where they went and they all came from the lymph node in my groin And if I show you my leg right now, don't be freaked out but
but it was in the front of my shin here and it was back here.
And it came in through this little piece of eczema here, which actually looks better than it ever has in a long time.
So I don't know, it still hurts.
It still feels like it needs to go a little bit.
And so that's nobody's fault.
It just, you see the,
The point I'm trying to make is that I, as a person who doesn't go to the doctor very often or think much about his health, other than how I have to exercise and eat, when I really need to seek help, it becomes quite striking, actually, in the United States, the options that are available to people.
And oftentimes, it's like go to the ER is the first thing that people say, they don't even want to bother treating you.
And it's, I, you know, I could still lose my leg in theory, knock on wood.
But, but I don't.
I don't think that a lot of times, a lot of us are sort of free from having to consider how easy it is.
In contrast, I'll just give you a very big contrast.
We noticed that when we went to the hospital for the first time in Norway, which was to have our first child, we noticed that on the door of the hospital in eight different languages, it says that health care is free for everyone in Norway.
irrespective of how you arrived here.
Now, keep in mind, that's a country of 7 million people, it's running a deficit that has more natural resources than they know what to dig.
And, and yeah, yeah, yeah, right.
They're fisheries, yada, yada, yada.
They, of course, they have plenty of resources for the few people that come there.
And, and
decide to try and live there.
And it's still very difficult to emigrate there.
So if you're there as a tourist, they don't really want to hear it.
They just want you to get get treatment, of course.
And if you're there as a visitor, yada yada.
Anyway, it's very different than here where on Friday, I could tell them what I needed.
I could tell and the only thing they said was we don't have appointments go to the ER.
And without insurance going to the ER, I think that's a pretty big gamble.
So I didn't.
My name is Jonathan Cooley.
I used to be a patch clamp physiologist, which means that I was an academic, an academician.
I wanted to get tenure.
I was writing grants, although I wasn't extremely successful at it.
I did experiments that can be represented by this micrograph over here where I recorded from pairs or
quadruplets of neurons and tried to understand how they were synaptically connected and whether or not the differences in the short-term dynamics of those synapses had any implications for the behavior that these circuits were thought to underlie.
You can find my sort of record here on PubMed if you go to C-O-U-E-Y with a hyphen and then J-J and just hit enter.
All the papers that come up should have me on them.
And then if you sort them, you know, by date or, or by relevance or whatever, there's, I don't know, there's 20 papers or something like that.
And you can kind of figure out what I was doing with my life.
before I realized that, wow, I didn't understand very much about immunology.
I didn't understand very much about RNA virology or bioweapons or anything like that.
And at the start of the pandemic, I would never would have even come close to being able to codify the biology that I understood at that time so succinctly.
Even if I would have said that, you know, RNA can pandemic and gain of function viruses are defined by X, Y, and Z, I wouldn't have had that
idea.
I would never have had that presumption because I was an akademagician.
I was very... I understood that when I was on my bike talking about coronaviruses, I was doing it very safely because I'm a neurobiologist.
Who am I?
I did 20 bike rides before this about neurobiology.
I'm not trying to pretend like I'm a virologist.
And the reaction to it propelled me into this
into this mystery solving exercise that has culminated in me being basically an outcast from academia and an outcast from the dissident movement.
And because I guess nobody wants to address the very simple points that I'd like them to address, which is intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
And it always has been.
The previous vaccines in some ways may have been less dangerous and less of a Russian roulette than what transfection and transformation in healthy humans represents.
And that's why the second statement is there in the first place.
And RNA cannot pandemic or the reflexive or the reflection, more probably what somebody like Buckminster Fuller would say, viruses are not pattern integrities.
They're just not.
And so the idea that they can sweep the world and go exponential and all these other things that people have so ham-fistedly used and attributed to them is just ridiculous.
They are not life.
So you can't attribute all of these magical qualities that pre heretofore were only attributable to patterned integrities.
You just can't.
And so I really think it's vital that your family and friends, what the...
that your family and friends, darn, that wasn't very good, that your family and friends understand that the core illusion here, and I'm really sorry about that air conditioner in the background, the core illusion here, when it gets cool enough, I'll turn it off.
I'll say it one more time.
The core illusion here is that there was a mystery virus and that we can attribute excess deaths to it.
And so the reason why I show this graph often is because in yellow, you see the calculated, not the measured or the tested flu deaths, but the calculated flu deaths per year, starting in no earlier than 2014 and the flu season and going all the way through to the end of the 2021 flu season.
And what you see here is that the calculated number of flu deaths is quite small relative to the known number of pneumonia deaths.
It's between, you know, 2,500 and 5,000 people per week in America, and suddenly those deaths
even by their own numbers, have sometimes as much as tripled during the pandemic.
And then behind that, in perfect harmony, is this pink additional overlay that is supposed to be COVID deaths.
And this is the way that we were shown the data.
This is the way that lots of our heroes show us the data, talk about the data.
formulate their sentences around the data looking like this.
There are very few people on our team who have ever, who say that they're on our team, have ever said, hey, by the way, the PBS NewsHour should have shown it to you this way and told you that between, what does that say there?
50,000 and 60,000 people die every week in America.
And that means that for something like this to happen, it doesn't need to be much more than murder and lies, especially if you have a lot of evidence for it to be murder and lies.
Especially if you have a lot of evidence about there being no epidemiological evidence of spread.
If there's no good statistical support for that, then that's very interesting if it combines well with this huge list of things.
that includes supplementary oxygen and ventilators that follow.
It includes the lack of antibiotic use.
It includes the poor use of steroids or the inappropriate use of them, maybe the overuse of them, depending on whether you talk to Robert Malone in 2021, or you talk to him in 2022, or you talk to Pierre Kory in 2021, or Pierre Kory in 2024.
I'm sure that if you could, you would, you know, go on the internet and find these videos, you would see that their opinions about these things have changed.
Maybe they've even flip-flopped.
And in reality, the biology doesn't flip-flop.
The biology doesn't change.
If you give somebody supplementary oxygen, high flow, pure oxygen between 10 and 60 liters a minute for a few, couple, three hours, they're going to have problems.
Six hours, maybe they'll have ARDS and you can put them on a ventilator.
Maybe they'll already be dead.
So we need a new consensus about transfection in healthy humans.
We need a new consensus about RNA cannot pandemic.
And we need a new consensus about the fact that the vaccine schedule in America in particular is a criminal enterprise.
And I'll repeat that again.
We need a global consensus that the vaccine schedule in the USA is a criminal enterprise.
And that would be great.
because then the right people would be on the block, the right ideas would be under scrutiny, and therefore, by association, the correct legislation would be under scrutiny.
And we might get to that thing that was on the previous page, strict liability for all pharmaceutical products.
We might get to the idea of evaluating some of these laws as to whether or not they violate our Seventh Amendment, whether they create a sort of jurisdiction stripping where we can't sue.
Because there's lots of other examples in judicial precedents where jurisdiction stripping is a pretty big deal.
But all of these lawyers, you know, he used to work for Goldman Sachs, but that's all right.
And he was a guy who managed some money for BlackRock, but that's all right.
It doesn't matter if they don't say the vaccine schedule's a problem.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if they don't use the word murder.
It's okay.
There's no such thing as a limited spectrum of debate.
How could that trap anyone?
How can a limited spectrum of debates set up by people that have been there before the pandemic, you know, around the time that the real event 201 occurred in 2018, where they talked all about spike protein vaccines and universal flu vaccines and the coming pandemics, yada, yada, yada, a year before the event 201 that everybody is focused on for the last four years.
Here's one of our heroes talking in front of a banner that says contagion infectious disease today in March of 2017.
Also saying the same thing that we need to fear free range RNA molecules.
In this case, he was talking about Arbo viruses.
And it is indeed the same network of illusionists that culminates in something like this where it's just so it's like shooting fish in a barrel and there's no water in the barrel.
Hi, Steve Kirsch.
I'm here with Dr. Li-Meng Yan, and she is a virologist.
She worked in Hong Kong.
She's in a BSL-3 lab, which is one of the highest levels of biosafety that there is.
She worked on viruses.
Her husband was one of the
I just got to interject, don't let that impress you.
My lab at Pitt was a biosafety level three, like that's just ridiculous.
Was, I guess, was the first person to actually do this.
In fact, one of the reasons, one of the biggest, most common reasons, we're going to start that frigging video over so you can hear it and knowing this while you hear it.
One of the most common reasons why your lab would need to be designated a BSL-3 laboratory is because you intend to use adenovirus to transfect mice.
You intend to use adenovirus to transfect cell culture might also be a reason, although I'm not sure.
You intend to use human tissue.
But one of the most popular reasons would be, especially anybody working on mice or rats, would be that you intend to transfect those animals or transform them.
And in this case, transform them with adenovirus was one of the things we did regularly in the laboratory at Pitt.
And so our lab was designated a biosafety level three.
It's got the same door.
You can open it up.
It opens to the regular hallway.
It just means that sometimes people are going to be dressed a certain way.
and there might be a down drafted table or somebody might be working in a hood.
There will be things present, but it doesn't mean that it's got like bubble suits and all this other stuff.
I mean, I would be willing to bet that half of the laboratories in the neurobiology department at Pitt are biosafety level three.
And so now think about what Steve is doing when he reads a script where he tries to impress you by saying, that's one of the highest biosafety levels.
There's only four.
The next one is bubble suit.
That's it.
We had one of those in Amsterdam, but we had to go through a shower and then put on a suit and then shower on the way out.
So it was a little, we didn't have bubble suits.
We just had like Teflon suits, but I mean, it was a fairly rigorous protocol.
I just, I think you're going to see a lot here.
I think you'll see a lot.
Hi, Steve Kirsch.
I'm here with Dr. I'm just going to make sure it starts right.
And she is a virologist.
She worked in Hong Kong.
She's in a BSL-3 lab, which is one of the highest levels of biosafety that there is.
She worked on viruses.
Her husband was one of the, I guess, was the first person to actually do the sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
And we're just going to have a conversation.
In case you are unaware, you're a viewer that hasn't been watching, you can go to PeerTube, our own PeerTube, and you can also find some of the latest shows by Mark Kulak of Housatonic Live, where he's done a very deep dive into
into her and her husband and her parents.
And it's clear that this is not, there's something more to her than where we are right now.
Maybe I goofed up here.
Welcome.
Hi Steve, thank you for having me.
Nice smile.
So my first question is, we'll start with the basics.
Do viruses exist in your professional judgment?
virus generally the virus yeah of course it exists okay and does the SARS-CoV-2 virus exist yes that's probably to exist was the SARS-CoV-2 virus created in a laboratory
Not a laboratory, it's a group of laboratory network.
It was created based on the bat coronavirus, ZC45 and ZXC21 in the People's Liberation Army's network, including their civil partners.
Okay, so my question is, which countries participated in the creation of SARS-CoV-2?
Was it just China, or was it China and the U.S., or China and the U.S.
and the U.K.?
Like, which countries were involved?
When we talk about country,
the tyranny country and the democratic country are totally different.
So in the SARS-CoV-2 case, the Chinese Communist Party, China, is the country which dominates and also steals the technology from other countries.
and finally develop the SARS-CoV-2 in their network, because this is their confidential, unrestricted bioweapon.
So in this case, they won't allow the other government get involved into the development.
However, they will cheat other government to make this weaponized virus become more powerful.
Okay, so did the U.S.
have a role in funding this or collaborating on this at all?
When we talk about the U.S., do you mean the U.S.
government like they dominate the Manhattan Project, or you are talking about the compromised individuals from America?
You can answer for both.
Don't you think that sounded a little scripted?
Do you mean like they were involved like the Manhattan Project, or do you mean something else?
I feel like that was very, very scripted.
I wonder if we need to go back, but anyway.
Okay, what I want to tell you is not like those kind of Manhattan Project conducted by your government.
However, there are the compromised individuals, and also some individuals because of their title, their position.
So they get involved into the downstream, the downstream problems.
So which means when China develop this, they won't tell this compromised
For example, you know Fauci, and you know Peter Daszak.
Communist China won't tell them, hey, this is our new bioweapon, and you come to help me.
No.
However, they will use the way, and those people will pretend blind, and to facilitate China to get technology, to get money from you.
And when these things happen, they realize, oh, wow, China makes a weaponized virus, and they attack us.
What can I do?
I need to protect myself.
And also I need to make more profits from this disaster.
That's what happened.
So do you want to name names?
Because you said that there's certain people involved.
Do you want to name names in terms of who you think was involved?
Oh, so many.
I think people follow my Twitter, my reports.
So many, and follow me on Twitter.
So many names, follow me on Twitter.
Now, who's the first name she's gonna name and let's see if Steve spells it or writes it down or says maybe we should investigate that name then.
Let me hear, who's the first name?
Who's the first name?
You can just give me the top 10 would be fine.
More than the top, more than a.
you know, a set of poker cards can hold, including the Chinese scientists which work for the People's Liberation Army and infiltrated in America.
And for example, very famous one is Du Manying, Professor Du worked in a New York lab center before, working with a lot of People's Liberation Army scientists who pretend to be civil scientists.
They studied coronavirus and other dangerous virus, as well as vaccines.
So that gives them a very easy way to access to the very cutting,
cutting-edge knowledge in America, and also obtained your money from NIAID.
And also, now she moved to Georgia.
Except for her and this group, we also know Peter Daszak, he actually ... I mean, what I can tell you is, he doesn't know much in technology in the lab, but he's more like the person who enjoys this position, and become a bridge, help China to get things from America, and get his own benefit.
So she said some other name, and it said that that was an example of a People's Liberation Army, or PL, what'd she say, CCP Army, what, what?
She said that the army, people that worked for the army, and gave a name, said she went to Georgia.
And now Steve has already heard of the other mention there.
He already heard of Peter Daszak.
I would be much more interested in some of these other people that have infiltrated.
I want to understand what happened then.
And yet what, where are we gonna go?
Okay, do you think Tony Fauci was involved in this and knew what was going on?
Oh, Fauci, I always tell people, I think I'm the first person pointed Fauci is compromised in media in America.
So we move on from whatever PLA operative she outed, who's now at Georgia.
Besides that lab, we know Peter Daszak was a bridge.
So it sounds like she's pretty pivotal if she's one of a couple places we need to look.
We haven't mentioned Ralph Baric yet.
I guess he's not directly connected to the Chinese government, but she said there were Chinese agents, people that worked for the PLA before they infiltrated America to steal our ideas.
And Steve Kirsch pivoted right back to Tony Fauci.
Fauci's problem is, first, he's only a doctor.
He's not a scientist, although he stays in that position.
I'm not really sure what to say about that.
That video is from 2022.
We could watch it.
I just think we would be wasting our time on them and not making useful progress in trying to penetrate or trying to get people to be able to see through the illusion that these people have created by getting us to run around in their hamster wheels, their limited spectrums of debate.
And Robert Malone has been giving speeches all over the internet and I can only find them now and I don't even really understand why.
But suddenly YouTube is serving me all kinds of things that Robert Malone did in 2022 and 2023 that I've never seen before.
By means of ever more effective methods of mind manipulation, the democracies will change their nature.
The quaint old forms, elections, parliaments, supreme courts, and all the rest will remain.
The underlying substance will be a new kind of totalitarianism.
All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly like they were in the good old days.
Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial.
Podcasters will podcast with an American flag behind them.
And meanwhile, the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite and their witting and unwitting puppets will quietly run the show as they see fit.
And so much of what these people do
is they make you feel like you're a part of it.
They make you feel like they're listening.
Shoot, they might even pay you for a year if you go along with the idea that it's a lab leak.
But the moment that your understanding evolves to a point where it no longer sells books, you're no longer useful to them.
And the crazy part is, is that everyone is engaging, who's engaging in this mystery solving exercise using social media is trapped this way, unless they are part of the trap.
There is no way that you can use social media to, for example, that guy, no matter what he does and what combinations of controls he puts in is never going to leave that chair.
And no matter how many tweets you retweet, or how clever your reposts are, or how clever your memes are, if you're posting them on Twitter and trying to get people to come to your Discord, you're never, ever, ever gonna get out.
And that's why I show this, because I really think it is important to understand that this goes back before the pandemic.
And you can see it very clearly that someone like Sasha has a daughter like Soph that was on Alex Jones.
We have been gamed.
We have been played by an illusion of consensus by players.
And it's a theater that we're not a part of.
And no matter how much you engage, you're never going to go viral because you're not on stage.
Only people who are on stage or are being brought on stage go viral.
The unfortunate thing is, is when you start to realize that a lot of these anonymous accounts that we have been hoping are also good people are probably part of the illusion.
The illusion of X. The illusion of all of these places like Discord.
where somebody like Matt Crooks can probably meet 10 people that are very interested in what he's doing, but they might only be two people.
Two people running five accounts each, pretending to be five different people to create an illusion of consensus of 10.
And it would be very creepy, wouldn't it, if Jiki Leakes is actually not even an Australian doctor?
but is actually just somebody who is part of Panda, trying to control the opposition to Panda, or maybe somebody who works for Heart.
I don't care.
I just know that Chicky Leaks is part of it.
He's most definitely part of it, wittingly or unwittingly, he's definitely part of it because he refuses to talk about the biology.
He refuses to talk about the biology and he continues to call people traitors without a, what, this diagram about fracturing groups as if that automatically means he's right?
I've been saying it for a very, very long time.
These people have pulled a fast one on us.
There's like 15 people who have agreed to be the core of the dissident movement in North America or within NATO countries.
And those 15 people will put other people on stage with them.
They'll meet them in foreign nations.
But in the end, it's just a show of chosen people.
people that have been screened on a boat off of Turkey, or people that have been screened at a conference in Romania first, or screened in their hot tub, or screened because they were at an event where they took a shoe photo.
That's why none of these people will say, yeah, but Jay's right about this stuff.
And instead they say dumb things like this.
The issue is that his one or two good ideas are sank in what?
One or two good ideas.
Why not just address these three?
That's how weak these people are.
And this is, of course, Lin Finn promoting cancelled mouse.
Could it be any more obvious how this is just one group of collective meddlers, maybe even all of them playing around in the same joke with Rixie and McCairn still pretending to be kind of apart and not really know each other, but kind of because they all retweet each other.
And here's Jikki Leakes.
defending Robert Malone and Pierre Corey and Robert Malone and Pierre Corey and Ryan Cole and Steve Kirsch and and and Jessica Rose and Faustin and Folster Coulson and Les Laurie and oh my goodness.
Oh my goodness protect protect protect and so he has no He has no difference between them.
He thinks that those guys are also good guys instead of just addressing the fact that
that RNA can't pandemic, but we can make a lot of it.
And that would be enough to trigger PCR and sequencing if we wanted it to.
Why not address the fact that transfection and transformation in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and all of these academics should have known it.
Why not addressed how ridiculous it is that he says intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Jiki won't address it because he can't and I really hope that the people that are still on Twitter would tweet this to both of his accounts because I think at this point it's kind of absurd that none of these people have taken a crack at any of these things and not even a useful crack at any of these things.
It's really kind of bewildering to me.
That's why I put this slide up all the time, specifically with this exact text, because Jicky is their bait.
At one point in time, here he is coordinating with Nick Hudson, kind of making it seem like, look, Nick, Nick is, Jicky Leaks is supporting JJ Cooey underneath Nick's tweet.
But
A couple months later, Jicky thinks that pandas are bad guys or always thought panda was bad guys or what?
It's all one big show.
And if these people don't address the biology and continue to address me as a clown or me as an attacker or me as psychotic, then you know what they're doing.
They're doing the same thing that Thomas Sowell has told us.
They just attribute bad motives to people that they can't argue with.
And so I did, I spent years doing it, but my particular video game was made by, you know, my illusion and the spread of bad ideas was moderated by different people than you.
but none of these people are talking about this stuff.
All these people that have blocked me won't talk about this stuff.
Jessica Rose won't say, Jay is right about these three things.
I agree wholeheartedly with these three things.
It's pretty awesome, because after I heard his talk on St.
Patrick's Day in 2023, I was pretty alarmed.
Like I stayed up all night the first time I heard that at Panda.
No honesty from any of these people.
These three statements have resulted in people like Kevin McKernan saying that I'm that I'm chemtrail retarded for example in a sub stack That he didn't have the guts to send to me because of course he already blocked me on Twitter a long long time ago And all of these people I am confident work for weaponized piles of money Work for weaponized piles of money that have used social media to convince us what to argue about and with whom to argue
And that's why their substacks have risen in a way that no one else's has.
That's why their censorship on LinkedIn was promoted.
That's why their censorship on YouTube wasn't so promoted.
Their censorship on LinkedIn was promoted.
Their moving to Gab was promoted.
Their moving to Telegram was promoted.
The moving to Rumble, and Rumble being freer than YouTube or whatever.
Participating in this argument accepts the premise of their narrative.
So again, whatever you do and you go on social media You're already arguing with them.
You're already agreeing to play Star Wars And when you agree to play Star Wars, you're trying to learn their mythology whether you like it or not That's why I'm so frustrated because I don't I don't understand anymore what this guy's doing other than trying to make sure that Kamala wins I guess
I don't understand anymore, but I know that all of those people over there in blue were kind of, kind of promoting him, kind of showing up at his events and stuff.
They, a lot of them I met at CHD events.
I even saw Brett Weinstein made some kind of YouTube video where he is like pleading for Trump to take him as vice president after he was shot for goodness sakes, which is pretty extraordinary.
That this is where we are like it or not.
So I would like to watch the Illusion of Consensus podcast with you.
It is a podcast that is put on by, I guess, my friend, Jay Bhattacharya.
Even though I have a hard time calling him my friend anymore.
I've been in several selfies with him.
I've had drinks with him.
I've eaten dinner with him.
Um, I've met him at least three times in person and I find it absolutely breathtakingly frustrating that when he was on my stream, we couldn't talk about the idea that it might be murder and lies and even worse.
Um,
When we meet in person, he says very regularly that he doesn't have the qualifications to evaluate my biology, but he thinks I should keep going and I should stop attacking Robert Malone.
And I just don't, I don't appreciate the contents of this podcast, but I'm going to try and keep it very objective and try to teach a little biology while we listen to this show.
And I hope I can keep everything cool over here.
It's really not cooling off in here at all yet, but I'm just going to keep dealing with it.
Welcome, everybody, to the Illusion of Consensus podcast.
I'm Professor Jay Bhattacharya, and today I am delighted to have with me in my office, of all places, my good friend, Maktan Zizi.
Maktan, thank you for coming.
I'm delighted to be here, too.
Thanks for having me.
So, Makda has a very extensive and interesting background in physics, in biology, in epidemiology, and also in biodefense.
Makda, tell the audience a little bit about your path.
Well, to avoid being boring, I have to say I'm an hybrid.
I'm an hybrid culturally because within Europe and US, I was partially trained in Europe, partially in US.
I'm an hybrid because I'm a PhD doing clinical, but then veering most strongly into molecular biology and then biophysics.
So this is like
I couldn't leave a question well enough alone.
So that means that I add skills.
It doesn't mean I'm smart.
It means that I see things with different prism.
So you're a medical doctor.
You have a PhD in molecular biology.
And I'll just tell the audience, throughout the whole pandemic, my friend has been coming to my office and we've discussed many aspects.
And I've learned tremendous amounts
from Mark about the molecular biology of the COVID vaccine and of the virus itself.
And so I'm absolutely delighted to have you here so that we can talk in some depth about the mRNA COVID vaccine platform.
Because I think that it's one of these topics, it's generated a lot of heat.
And there's some very, very important aspects of its biology
that have implications for, can it be used in the future?
Not necessarily for the COVID vaccine per se, but for any vaccine technology.
So what I'm going to explain and discuss with you is that this platform has a tremendous future, but it might not be ready.
for the big leak, and it might have basic problems that still need 15-year research before being solved.
And it's known, because all I'm going to discuss with you is not the latest publication in HR science, it's real, but it's basic textbook biology that everyone knows.
And for example,
You can meander this with me, but we have five or six domains where we know that we have problems.
Not only can we not control it, but the tools, and I would like the audience to understand that, the tools to control it are not yet invented.
Okay, so we're going to take this part piece by piece, because I think there are some technical aspects of this that are... I'm going to shut off the air conditioner.
Give me one second, because I want to be able to talk all the time.
I'm really sensitive.
I really feel like it's loud.
It's not loud.
Okay, so I wanna go back a little bit and run it back again because there were already some pretty inaccurate statements there that frustrate me a lot.
And so I'm gonna click back a couple seconds here.
Actually, I wanna hear what Jay said first.
In some depth about the mRNA COVID vaccine platform.
Yes.
Because I think that it's one of these topics, it's generated a lot of heat.
And there's some very, very important aspects of its biology that have implications for, can it be used in the future?
Not necessarily for the COVID vaccine per se, but for any vaccine technology.
So what I'm going to explain.
So what, for any vaccine technology?
So as he's saying, can mRNA be used for any vaccine technology?
I think.
But again, think about how imprecise this is and how it is specifically imprecise because this multidisciplinary molecular biologist MD and this multidisciplinary economist epidemiologist who purports to be my friend and have learned a lot from me during the pandemic can't seem to find the word transfection to talk about what they're talking about.
I don't understand what's going on here, but it's just ridiculous to me.
It's very frustrating.
I'm getting a very bad feeling about something here.
It's super frustrating.
Hold on one second.
I got to fix this problem.
Okay, um, shoot, this is getting erupted a lot.
I don't like it.
That's what happens when you stop streaming.
Um, so lost my train of thought there, which could have been the reason why that phone rang twice.
So it's a little bit of first, he starts with a little bit of over justification of his background and how he's just, you know, everything from the whole kitchen sink all the way to, to, um, bio weapons.
And then yet, Jay is too imprecise here.
Dr. Bhattacharya is too imprecise or Professor Bhattacharya is too imprecise to call them transfections.
He says vaccines, he means this new technology and can they be any vaccine?
And that's a very interesting and not the appropriate question in my humble opinion.
But again, if,
I am right, and I think that I am, that Jay Bhattacharya took the name of this podcast that he's running with some Canadian kid who Brett Weinstein introduced the world to.
That Canadian kid and him took and did this podcast and named it Illusion of Consensus, probably because somebody encouraged them to do it in order to kind of water down that term from our use.
I mean, he doesn't have any other explanation for it.
He kind of laughs it off if you ask him in person.
So it's a very strange situation that we're in because people are actively lying to us.
And they even lie to us in person.
And if they really were trying to be friends with you, then there are very simple things that we're asking people to acknowledge that would actually help people that are 20-something years old understand the breadth and the depth of the deception that occurred.
because they could have done just told us that, look, it's transfection.
It might, it might help some old people if there's a real virus, but it's also potentially very dangerous to them.
So we don't really know how it's going to work.
And it's crazy that these people want to push this stuff out because we haven't even gotten it to successfully repeatedly cure cancer because it's got to be done specifically for each cancer.
So instead of telling us the truth,
and that this technology had been around for a very, very long time.
And it's just really a technical term for forcing a part of the clock to do something on its own.
The cells are tricked, hijacked.
There's a little code put in there, and they make some protein for a while.
And we knew how to do that for lots of different years, for many years.
And they're not going to explain that right now, which I find very frustrating.
discuss with you is that this platform has a tremendous future, but it might not be ready for the big leak, and it might have basic problems that still need 15-year research before being solved.
And it's known, because all I'm going to discuss with you is not the latest publication in HR science, it's real, but it's basic textbook biology that everyone knows.
And for example, you can meander this with me, but we have five or six domains where we know that we have problems.
Not only can we not control it, but the tools, and I would like the audience to understand that, the tools to control it are not yet invented.
Okay, so we're going to take the tools to control what?
I wonder if he just means very simply the localization of the transfection or what tools he's talking about.
But again, it's this kind of imprecision that isn't very helpful.
And since you can see them glancing at some board or some music stand or whatever, they're reading off of a script.
So that makes this even worse because they're not very fluid if they have a script.
Like this is this is pathetic, this part piece by piece, because I think there are some technical aspects of this that are that are that can be hard to follow unless you have an expert guide like you to have us through.
But but we're going to get to that through the whole thing.
But I just want to make sure that we understand you have you've exactly this background.
You've worked in in Belgium.
You worked with the Belgian.
I was actually, I did molecular biology and tech watch, and I was in biodefense program.
So I work in protein chemistry, in genetics.
And the question we solve in the lab is, how can we control genes?
How can we time genes?
How can we improve a protein synthesis?
So he's the Belgian version in biodefense in Belgium.
That's the same place where Mark Van Ronst worked.
Mark Van Ronst was the commissioner, the flu commissioner for Belgium and then later for the WHO.
And he's the guy that we watch speak in front of the Chatham House in like 2011.
two years after the swine flu, complaining that, man, if we had a better Facebook, we might have gotten more people to take it, or some crap like this, and talked about how he was exaggerating the number of deaths and doing it on purpose to get compliance.
And he was speaking on stage with that Osterhaus from the Netherlands, the guy that went, yeah, when they ordered 35 million doses of his Mexican flu vaccine.
This guy worked for the exact same health department in Belgium.
Great.
I'm sure he's a great guy.
I mean, we don't have any Americans that can explain this biology.
We have to have this guy because his resume is just so good.
and its yield.
And I applied that to molecular epidemiology, looking at German virus, but at the same time, looking at what the bad guys were doing abroad.
Because in my youth, I was trained at the World Trade, also in biodefense program before coming back to Belgium.
And you know, there is, science is one, there is not a field A, B, C, D. We specialize, but to do a specialty experiment in B, oftentimes, and it's your case too, you need to know a bit of A and a bit of C and D, and then you can do B.
I definitely agree with that and I think it leads a lot of times to some very kind of polymathic sort of understanding of certain things.
I think there are lots of examples of
academicians that have amassed a very broad set of skills in programming languages and also in microscopy and optics and also in animal behavior and probably carpentry and cage design or experiment design.
There's all kinds of creativity and all kinds of different sort of focuses that one can have over the course of a 20-year career.
But it still doesn't mean that you understand biology from the perspective of a broad enough sense to see where that irreducible complexity actually is.
Because if you train in all these disciplines just enough to get the spike of expertise, to get that paper, to do that one application, to answer that one question, then you can get the idea that you have all these different merit badges.
And that means that if you wanted to, you could open your own store in any of these.
And that's not really true.
I mean, after 20 years of working with microscopes and optics, I still know that I'm a child.
And as soon as I got out, all the things that are available and the technologies that are available have changed already.
And so I'm sure I'm way out of date by now.
But my point would be that it seems like we're spending an awful lot of time in the beginning of this video justifying why we're talking to him.
And now he's going to take a lot of time justifying why we're talking to him.
Instead of just saying that transfection and transformation in healthy animals was always going to be dumb, because you can't do that in a healthy animal.
The immune system doesn't know what to do with that.
Especially, I mean, it makes it even worse that we don't know even know where it's all going to happen.
But if the likelihood that it's going to happen in capillaries is quite high, if the likelihood that it's going to happen in platelets is quite high, then there are certain predictable chains of reaction that will most likely happen.
And we've seen that now.
And so instead of explaining it as though, OK, the immune system is called in to kill those those tissues, and when that happens, catastrophic events can occur.
And those can include autoimmunity if people survive.
That's the basic gist of it.
If you transfected half of the arteries or half of your aorta and the immune system successfully attacked it, my guess is you'd have just a rupture, you'd be dead.
And so any autoimmunity that would have resulted from that transfection isn't gonna be something anybody's gonna have to look into.
And so we're not really starting here with a good start.
Understand that science is more wide than a title.
So you can be a molecular biologist dealing with virus or cancer.
But you also are an epidemiologist.
Yes.
Oh, yeah.
I created and led the Department of Epidemiology of Defense in Belgium.
Yes.
That was done before me.
Okay, so the standard question during the pandemic is, as soon as you say anything about anything is, are you an epidemiologist?
Are you a molecular biologist?
Martijn can say yes to both questions.
Yes, and he did not help me.
You were censored off of LinkedIn.
Yeah, I was banned for life from LinkedIn.
That's a mark of honor, I think, nowadays, Martijn.
Yeah, we have a kind of special badge for that, and we'll have a medal.
Okay, so why don't we get started with Professor Azizi.
So first of all, the mRNA technology, the way that it was sold to the public,
You have a platform.
Essentially, it's like a computer.
And you're programming a computer.
You use it to program your own body to produce a protein that the vaccinologist or the person doing the therapy wants to create inside your body, essentially turning your body into a vaccine factor, a little protein factor.
That's the basic idea.
And I think for a lot of the people
in public health, it seems like a panacea.
You can decide what protein is best for your body to produce so that it can produce a response, the immune response you want.
And it could be used not just for this COVID vaccine, but could be used for a million different things.
All you need is a sequence.
It sounds almost too good to be true.
good to be true, too good now, but it will be good to be true in public in 20 years.
There you go.
We could end the podcast right now, because this has been the reason to do it the whole time.
And I've been saying that for four years now.
They are running us into a trap.
That was the whole reason why they did it.
I don't think they got near the compliance they expected to, given the amount of energy they put into seeding the narrative that got everybody on the Scooby-Doo dumb train.
Like a computer, he says.
That's wrong.
If you think of it like a computer, you're really, really
you're really, really underselling the complexity of a single cell and the regulation of RNA.
And so assuming that RNA is just this thing that gets made copies of, and then it gets over there and it gets made into proteins is assuming an awful lot because of the fact that there are small RNAs that have all sorts of regulatory roles there.
And there are all sorts of ways that RNAs are post-translationally modified that could also apply to these transcripts.
Then there are also all kinds of other intricacies of the interior of the cell that has to do with the tissue itself and whether or not its metabolism is very high, its ribosomes are working in this way or in that way, because all the ribosomes aren't even the same and they're all tissue dependent.
And so you have this thing where you make this ultra simple
analogy.
It's just like a computer and you use your body becomes a vaccine factory and he knows from talking to me that it's that exact kind of cartoon bullshittery that is leading all of these young people into this trap.
A high schooler or a freshman in college probably doesn't have the biological sophistication to understand, at least not yet, that this is ridiculous.
Let's just even back up a little bit.
Let's just back up the truck just a little bit and think about the idea that he said that your body becomes a vaccine factory.
What does that mean from the perspective of Jay Bhattacharya's understanding of what a vaccine is?
What does it mean from the perspective of Matin and his understanding of what a vaccine is?
Is he gonna correct him right now and say, well, it's not quite that simple because a vaccine, a traditional vaccine often has a recombinant protein or maybe a combination of recombinant proteins and then has something conjugated to it,
like a metal, or a diphtheria toxin, or something else.
A lot of these vaccines are a combination of protein and metal, or a protein and a bacterial toxin, or maybe just the toxic part of a bacterial toxin.
Your body becoming a vaccine factory is a little bit stretching it because a lot of the components of a traditional vaccine can't be made by your body if you encode them in RNA because there's no code for aluminum or a code for mercury or a code for a lot of these other adjuvants that we don't even know the names of.
You can't encode them in an RNA.
And so already the kinds of analogies that are being used and then also affirmed by our friend here.
Yeah, I mean, it's good to be true, right?
Not right now, maybe, but in 10 years, which means that your explanation is pretty good.
And it doesn't quite work like that now, but it will in 10 years.
Let's first go at the economics of that, and then, you know, to produce any medication, whether it's a vaccine or a molecule, you need a production line.
It's a factory, and you need a production per product.
So a company that has 10 medication that are selling on the market needs 10 plant or 10 production line.
With the RNA technology, what happens is that you have one production line, you just change from day to day the message you inject, because the RNA is a message.
It's a message of a product that will be generated by your,
your own body.
So just to break this down, you have the classic dogma, the central dogma of biology.
You have DNA.
The DNA produces an mRNA, a messenger RNA, which is essentially a copy of the information implicit inside the DNA.
Yes, the DNA is like the book, the blueprint, the RNA is the messenger that goes to the little factor in the cell to produce the final product.
And then the final product is protein, right?
It's translation, right?
So you have this like sequence of information, unidirectional from the DNA to the RNA to the protein.
And the idea is I'm going to send in a
Essentially a molecule is a lot like like an mRNA messenger RNA into your body and trick your cell into producing the Protein I wanted to produce and then it has the effects that but I would want it to have like your body will be trained to deal with that yes little protein and this technology has five Needs that might be covered or might become a problem.
Can I ask what that is?
Yes, cuz you asked about a factory I think it's very very important analogy.
I
Yes, it is.
If I were to introduce the proteins into your body separately, without asking your body to produce the proteins, I would produce them outside.
I have a certain amount of dose of the thing I want to induce.
I would have some mechanism of delivering the protein to the places I want it delivered.
vaccine, for example.
It has a finite amount of protein selected from research.
Let's say the flu vaccine, we know the epitope.
An epitope is a fragment of protein.
We know what we would use to inject in your body to immunize you.
And that works, or worked.
But it is a dose that's known, finite.
If you put too much of it, doesn't work.
If you put not enough of it, doesn't work.
So there is a dose that has to be injected.
It means the white blood cell in your plasma.
So with RNA now, you don't have that.
because you give a message, you need to target a cell, not any cell in your body to be able to express that message and the cell need to present this protein to the white blood cell.
So it's a different process, different path.
Okay, so the cell, he said the cell...
He said, the cell needs to present this protein to the white blood cell.
Now, I want you to already start to recall from a couple of years ago, the immunology that you learned from me.
Um, and yeah, come on, seriously.
Um,
And recall the immunology that I taught you a couple years ago already now about how, what does presentation mean?
He says here, to present this protein to the white blood cell.
Now, I'm going to see if we've got enough room here.
We probably have enough room here.
There's two different interpretations of that that might be occurring in your, this is not going to be a very good drawing because I'm using a pen, in your, here's cell one, here's cell two.
Presentation could mean two things.
You could put mean presentation like on the outside.
This is the, I guess, the spike protein on the outside of the cell like that.
That's probably pretty dumb.
Or you could mean present on MHC, which is a molecule that is on the outside of all healthy cells and
infected cells express more of it.
And what they're doing is they're presenting the protein that they're currently manufacturing here.
And so it's a way for your immune system to be constantly patrolling your healthy tissue to make sure that that tissue is doing what it's supposed to do.
And so a cell that isn't growing very much and is only making maintenance proteins,
will present part of those maintenance proteins up there, and this molecule would be MHC1.
I believe it's one, but it might be two, but I don't think it is.
It's one.
And so that's how the immune system and
tissue communicate.
It's one of the ways they communicate.
And this presentation process increases the more activity the cell is going through.
And so the biological story that we're told is that when there's an infection of a virus, then there's even more MHC on the outside.
It's another way of signaling to the immune system to make sure that
If there's a signal that they hold up that is recognized as foreign, it's possible that you could already get the immune system to apoptose that cell because it's expressing a foreign protein.
It presented a foreign protein on MHC1.
Well, then killer T cells will get rid of it.
Natural killer cells will get rid of it more likely because the natural killer cells don't have that specific immunity or memory.
They just have this general role of patrol.
And so you could imagine a scenario where he's trying to say that transfection presents the protein on the outside of the cell to the white blood cell, but he's using an immunology term when he says present.
And then what you really mean is that an antigen presenting cell will take antigens that it has found and it will present them to T cells on MHC2.
So in this case, in this little immunology crash course lesson here, you would have a dendritic cell.
You know, I'm not drawing a very good dendritic cell here.
But you'd have a dendritic cell and the dendritic cell would be presenting on its surface with MHC II.
And it would be presenting the antigen that it had found earlier.
And then that T cell would use its T cell receptor to interface here and see if it recognizes that.
And if it does, then it would go through clonal expansion in the whole nine yards.
And so presentation in immunology means something and then precision in talking about this biology means something.
And so I'm just trying to be precise here.
And when I say, when he says cell needs to present this protein to white blood cells, it is again, kind of oversimplifying and he's not going any deeper than Bill Gates.
If he means that muscle cells are going to be presenting a spike protein to
spike protein to the immune system, what does he mean?
Does he mean they're going to be presenting it like this?
Or does he mean he's going to be presenting like this?
Because this is where Sukrit Bhakti's story came in.
Because if you are thinking about transfecting, for example, the endothelium of the lining of capillaries,
Sukrit Bhakti's idea was that on the first transfection these cells would, now we're not talking about presentation here,
We're not talking about presentation on MHC because you're making it, because that's what that is.
The cell will present on MHC1 epitopes that correspond to proteins that are currently manufactured.
So if you're making actin, then you're going to present something up here on MHC1 that tells your immune system that you're currently making actin.
And if you're making viral proteins, then the whole story they tell us is that on MHC-1, you present viral proteins.
Separate from that is the idea that viral proteins are produced in so much abundance that they are also sticking out of the membrane itself.
When they are sticking out of the membrane itself, we are talking about a very different set of possible immunological circumstances that involves antibody-dependent cytotoxicity.
And what that means is, where did my drawing go?
Oh.
What that means is, is that when you transfect these cells in the endothelium and they start to express spike protein on the outside, the ones that are transfected are, I'm reusing an S.
Well, maybe I can use this.
No, I'll use an S. That's fine.
If they're expressing spike protein on the outside the first time, this is exact words almost of Sukrit Bhakti, you might get away with it.
And that the immune system might just, you know, some of these cells will get killed.
And it'll take a little while, but some of those cells will get killed and it'll be fine.
But the next time you do it, there will be antibodies present to those proteins, especially if it was just a few in the endothelium and the rest of them were in the muscle or the rest of them were in the fat or wherever it transfected, then this won't be very dangerous.
But then you take a second injection
And now in your blood you already have antibodies to the spike protein going around.
And one of the things that antibodies can do is bring in the complement system.
Sukrit Bhakti's expertise.
And so if you have antibodies that are depositing on endothelial cells that are expressing a spike protein for which those antibodies are specific, you could have complement deposition.
Not only that, but you could call in cytotoxic T cells that recognize the antibody signal that's there because that's another way that T cells respond.
antibody dependent cytotoxicity is that it's the it's a T cell response.
And also, I believe that for sure, it's a it's a complement system response.
So you have this catastrophic situation, you know, every subsequent successful transfection.
And so it becomes even more important to understand how it is that some people have gotten to five shots.
because it's a very random process.
It's a very random process that could go in many different timescales.
We don't know for sure if it's five years from now that this autoimmunity will hit exponentiality.
We don't know for sure if it's on the third shot or the fifth shot that you start to climb that exponential.
And we don't know if it's different for every person or different whether it goes into different tissues or not.
And so we're still talking theoretical here.
We're still talking about what are the cartoon ways of understanding what this is going on.
When we start talking about the noise in the system, the noise in the transfection, and we start to talk about the noise in the protein production, then you'll see why it's really a disaster idea.
And there are problems there, and we will discuss about that.
Yeah, so why don't we start with the first one?
Yes.
When the mRNA platform vaccine is injected into your body, it goes into your cell.
Is there a lot of control over how many copies of the protein is produced?
If I was interjecting the protein from the outside, I can tell you, you know, whatever.
Nanogram or microgram or milligram or kilogram, yes.
Here, with RNA, the only thing we know is the amount of RNA.
But this is irrelevant because it's not what affects our body.
So if I give X amount of RNA, 60 nanogram or 60 microgram, it doesn't give me the output in protein because this is not linear.
Wow, that means that you have no control dose.
Then you can say, we could calibrate that.
Yes, you could calibrate that, but it wasn't done.
So essentially, I'm sad to say that, but the FDA has a rule.
Medication needs a dose that is reproducible with a standard.
But here, the dose of the medication is respected because it's a message.
It's a message.
It's not a product.
And the product will be produced by own cell, and there is start, if I may say.
the amount of protein per unit mass depend on metabolism.
You know, if you're young and have a lot of metabolically active cells, the same amount of RNA will yield more protein.
If you're old, you know, not senile, but with less muscle mass, it will be less, depending on the time of the day.
You know, cell cycle, if the cell are more awake, the cell are more sleepy, depend if the cell is divided or not, dividing or not, I mean.
So essentially, you have a lot of interfering factor that unless you control them, you have no idea of the amount of antigen that you produce.
which is quite surprising because without pathology, you have a problem of reproducibility.
Define that term.
Pathology is the dose that is given of a medication vaccine to exert a certain measurable effect.
It's a dose.
It's a dose effect relationship.
So a pathology is like when you get an antibiotic box, you have a dosage, 500 milligrams, and we know how it translates in microgram per liter in your body for a certain amount of time.
because too much of it may not be good, not enough may not kill the bacteria.
So the dose is the pathology, it's the dose given to the patient.
Okay, so let's stop there for a second, go back down here.
So first issue is dosage.
He says that we know the amount of RNA and we could calibrate it.
That's definitely not true.
We've seen from Kevin McKernan's own data that he's presented on my show more than two or three years now that the mRNA was a smear.
And that means they're not putting one piece of RNA in there.
They're putting a lot of fragments in there.
And those fragments could have lots of consequences that are not limited to the protein fragment that they would result in were they faithfully translated.
They could also result in fragments that aren't equivalent to what they should be if they are faithfully translated because they are chemically altered mRNAs.
The other problem is that the smaller the mRNA gets, the more likely it is to interfere with some of these micro RNA, small interfering RNA processes.
these regulatory RNA processes of micro RNAs that are going on inside all of our cells all the time that very, very few molecular biologists want to acknowledge.
But the ones that study it understand that it's a lot more complicated than a unidirectional DNA to RNA to protein.
And some of the most intricate ways that RNA is regulated at a molecular level aren't understood because they involve these micro RNAs.
And so, he then goes on to say that, yeah, we know the amount of RNA.
Again, I'm saying that's wrong because again, for storage reasons, for prep reasons, for different production line reasons, for impurity reasons, for all the reasons above, right?
And yet he says, we could have calibrated if we wanted to, but we didn't.
And so, we rushed it.
The amount of protein depends on metabolism, but neither of these guys is immediately gonna say, oh, that makes sense then why somebody with an incredibly high metabolism, oh, I don't know, like an athlete might be even more dangerous to transfect.
And instead, he's just going to say that little kids have a high metabolism.
And so they might be more, they might make more spike protein than an old person, but how much spike protein you make depends on, depends on your metabolism.
So he's also suggesting, and he's gonna probably say it very soon, I can almost feel it, that the effectiveness for old people might be less simply because they make less spike protein, but he's never, ever gonna talk about how the inappropriateness of this and what it means, and it's just brutal.
Just to put this together, what you're saying is that I can give you a certain dose of the mRNA,
however many micrograms, the Moderna had a higher dose of the mRNA than Pfizer did, for instance, right?
And the doses for the children's vaccines were less than, right?
But that's of the mRNA.
That is not what we care about.
What we care about is how much protein- How much spike was produced.
Spike protein is produced in the cells of your body as a consequence of
giving you that dose.
Yes, and therefore for exit possible.
And it has been published.
We knew that beforehand from the literature, but they were in 2022, at the end of 2022, a certain Uganda published paper because it's not easy to measure spike produced by the vaccine in vivo.
So the methodology to produce and to control the production doesn't exist.
So like what you're saying is that they did these experiments in cells in Petri dishes or labs or whatever.
And they figured out, OK, if I give it this much dose in the petri dish, and then they took that and said, well, that's likely what will happen when we inject it in a human body.
Yeah, but the human is not the other.
One is not the other.
You know, we have different body shape, different metabolism, different genetics.
So what happens?
And it has been shown in two or three papers, you have people for which you have no production, zero.
Okay, no side effect, no effect.
You have people when you... So some people get the dose of the mRNA.
And have no spike.
And for whatever reason, their cells do not actually get tricked into producing the spike protein.
Barely detectable amount.
So, okay.
So the idea of a placebo batch never crosses their mind.
never even crosses their mind, even though we've been talking about it for three years.
And it is so crucial to understand how easily we could have been manipulated with the use of placebo batches.
It also really creates a wonderful way to avoid any kind of contamination problem or anything, because those can be clean.
And you got thousands of people who've taken a shot.
They didn't even feel anything, not even a tingle.
But that would not be effective, right?
There are other people who have like, just write the amount, you know, because the technology may work.
You cannot exclude success.
So essentially, some people produce what's expected, and then you have a trigger and it might work.
Some other people have too much, but how much is too much, it depends on them.
So they have side effects.
Some people have so much that they have toxicity of the spike.
That is spectacular.
And so here we are right now talking about the spike protein as being faithfully produced by a high purity RNA that we could measure, could have calibrated.
And now the problem is, is that some people produce no spike.
Some people produce just enough.
Some people produce too much and then some people produce so much that they get sick exactly like Kevin McCairn and Walter Chestnut and Jessica Rose have been complaining that the spike protein would do since they realized it was a gain-of-function virus in 2021.
Wow.
Because then it overflow and it goes everywhere in the body.
Is it possible to predict in advance, before you get the injection, which of those kinds of people are going to be?
I think that's a very important question.
The only thing that I can think of is the HLA haplotype.
We know that the reaction and or body react depending on.
He said HLA haplotype, which is basically a descriptor that talks about what your MHC2 molecule, MHC1 molecule looks like.
HLA is the human lymphocyte antigen, human lymphocyte, human,
It doesn't matter.
It's the equivalent to MHC.
MHC is not really used in the context of humans.
It's used in the context of other animals.
And then in
in humans, I think they call it the HLA.
And it's the same, they're just bamboozling you.
They're just making it harder for you to understand that there is a general mechanism by which every cell in your body communicates with signals to the immune system to say, hey, this is what I'm doing right now.
And that presentation process is happening all the time around your body.
And that is how tissues are regularly being patrolled
and licensed to do things and licensed to grow and licensed to send signals is because the immune system permits it.
And I don't know where I was going, but yeah, he was saying that HLA subtype might be a way of predicting whether you make a lot or a little, but I don't think that's right because what he's suggesting
I don't think that has anything to do with how much protein someone produces when they are transfected.
I think what has much more to do with it is whether or not there's RNA present or not.
And that's what I find so extraordinary.
This guy's a molecular biologist, yet he thinks it's possible.
that the same transfection agent carried by the same lipid nanoparticle with the same quantity and purity of RNA could be injected into one person and you would have no protein produced and inject it into another person and have all kinds of protein produced to the point of toxicity after weeks.
and that there's a reasonable biological explanation that could go back to HLA receptors.
Stop lying!
I mean, it would have to be much more simple than that.
Like, you know, it went all out their liver or there was no RNA.
It's extraordinary, quite frankly, that this so quickly has, in my humble opinion, really devolved into something very strange, unless
unless he's hinting at the fact that the spike protein itself is made specific for certain HLA subtypes and therefore will be highly immunogenic to some people and not highly immunogenic to other people.
So then there's a real Venn diagram, because first your body has to produce a lot of protein and then you have to know whether or not your HLA subtype makes the spike protein particularly toxic to you or not, which again goes back to
the same interesting scooby-doo, which is that, oh, maybe this is a racial spike protein.
Maybe it's a racial gain-of-function virus.
They aimed it at white people, or they aimed it at Jews.
And that's what this is.
Wow.
Weird.
standards.
And they are, so youth, age, metabolism, as I mentioned, gender, hormonal status, HLA platype, all these are variation.
And if we want to use this technology, you could calibrate all this, but you need to have measurement possible.
I mean, this is not something that they did for the COVID vaccine.
And so he's actually arguing for an immunoscreening of everybody that uses a vaccine in order to see which HLA subtype they are.
Maybe we're even going to have to make vaccines special for each HLA subtype, otherwise this will never work.
Oh, I'm starting to smell a rat here.
They just they didn't ask what your HLA type was.
They just injected everybody.
It should work.
And the FDA was blindsided because, oh, we have 30 microgram or 60 microgram depending on the company.
Keep in mind that the HLA subtype and HLA-specific subtype epitopes is exactly what Epivax worked on.
Epivax being that Rhode Island company that Brzozowski and Malone and some other people were a part of.
Like, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh.
Here we go, it's getting good.
Just to flesh this out, the range of possibilities that you've given where you don't produce any protein at all.
It's a scale of one to 200.
One to 200.
So that means you can have with the same dose of RNA between one or near zero and 200.
Each RNA molecule.
produces how many proteins?
No, no, no, no, it's not that.
It's in total, in vivo, when you inject it, X amount of RNA that can give you a production of spike variation.
So the spread of the spike production can be between one or zero and 200.
Because like the same mRNA can produce more than one protein.
Yes, yes.
Usually the ribosome are daisy chained, but in some cells they're not.
So essentially, when you don't have a pathology, that's a point I would like the people to understand.
It is illegal, because a medication needs a pathology.
Because you need to know the dose that you're delivering.
Yes.
OK.
So I'm not going to stay away from illegal, because I'm not a lawyer.
No, no, me neither.
But you understand.
But it seems irresponsible not to know the dosing you're giving, right?
Not the dose of a factor.
And I want the people to understand two things.
Normal vaccine, I already mentioned, you need a dose, and it needs to be inserted.
So let's talk about that.
These weren't the only vaccines that were given or produced during the COVID crisis to people.
Like there are other vaccines, like the Novavax used a more traditional classical technology.
A protein vaccine, a split protein.
And then there's also another kind of vaccines, the adenovirus vector vaccines that were used in the J&J vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine.
The interesting thing is, is that with Novavax, I think they still had an adjuvant.
And with Novavax, they produced it in moth
cells, which may mean that it's folded kind of different.
So that's, you know, that's also just something to consider.
Okay.
So how does the mRNA differ on the posology that, you know, the dose that's delivered, the variation of the dose that's delivered versus those other vaccine technologies?
Okay.
In the RNA vaccine, we already discussed in the adenoviral vector, because an RNA needs to be carried inside a cell.
So either you have a kind of a
Gallinic mean a kind of a vehicle called a liposome with other things in it and you deliver hoping that it enters the right cell Targeting will be a problem.
There will be a second topic But yeah, but the thing is adenovirus they can get their way to sell because our receptors are
Adam Barth says it's another cold virus.
Yes.
And so it's very effective at finding its way to cells.
Yes.
But you have to kill the virus.
That means you have to make it defective unable to reproduce itself.
And then you put the DNA there instead of RNA and the virus will go infect a cell.
The DNA would be translated into mRNA and the mRNA would generate the protein also.
So there he said that you put DNA into the adenovirus.
And so I think that's a goal for us because we've been waiting for someone to at least explain the difference between adenovirus and the lipid nanoparticle transfections successfully.
And I think he did that.
He didn't specifically say that that's transformation, but I have said before that the adenovirus was transformation.
and that the mRNA and lipid nanoparticles are transfections.
And so again, he could be saying that right now.
They could be saying that right now.
At least Jay knows for sure that we would be advocating to say that right now.
And I think that saying that right now would educate a hell of a lot more people than what they are saying right now.
Both of these people potentially could speak to a lot of academicians who are also should be keenly aware of what transfection and transformation means and then maybe have a light bulb moment go on and say, oh my gosh, I can't believe that I told Grammy to take these.
It's like you'd have the same pathology problem.
Yes, totally.
Totally same pathology, but you have a bit of a lie.
Because I've seen in the site of these companies, it's funny, they say, we're not delivering a vaccine.
We use adenovirus, we're less dangerous because you know, those companies vie for the same market, so there's competition.
And it's equally bad.
At the beginning of the pandemic, I told my friend to take J&J because number one, it was in a viral particle that I had used before.
And number two, it was a single shot.
And fortunately for me, my friend has not gotten a booster or anything like that.
And so I hope that he's going to be okay and live a long, healthy life.
At the time, I was also thinking kind of like what he's explaining, that maybe this is safer or better.
And I don't think it is.
But one claimed to be safer than the other.
OK, but that's a matter for epidemiology, not a matter for microbiology.
So it's a matter for epidemiology, not for molecular biology.
You see, there's no understanding of the immune system that could allow you to decide whether or not these technologies are any good.
That's up to the peer-reviewed journals.
That's up to epidemiology.
Stop lying!
I mean, he's an epidemiologist.
And that guy said he was an epidemiologist in the beginning.
And he said that he was an epidemiologist in the beginning.
So if it's up to epidemiology, why can't we talk about that now?
It's 2024.
It's funny.
They say, we're not delivering a vaccine.
use adenovirus, we're less dangerous because, you know, those companies vie for the same market, so there's competition.
And it's equally bad, but one claims to be safer than the other.
That's... Okay, but that's a matter for epidemiology, not a matter for molecular biology.
But okay, so maybe we can talk about that toward the end, because that's been the theme of many of the
of the conversations I've had with my guests over the course of the pandemic.
But here I just want to focus on molecular biology because I think people need to understand exactly the nature of the technology.
What about the classical vaccines?
The classical vaccine
control the dose because you generate the protein, whether it's from a culture or from molecular biology tools.
I mean, we can transform a cell like E. coli in a sex cell and leading them to produce the amount and the quality of the epitope or the full gene that we have.
We can purify that.
We can make it into a product vaccine.
We don't need any liposome.
We don't need any vector.
We inject the protein directly
in the interstitium?
I would answer PMC, Dana in the chat and say, I think the short answer is yes.
It's more likely to stay localized, in my humble opinion, yes.
If you injected it in the blood, then no.
But if you wanted to keep it in a place like the skin, or intramuscularly, if you did it,
right, I think that the lipid nanoparticle just size-wise and sort of
chemical attribute-wise, it feels like, my gut tells me, the lipid nanoparticle has a much higher propensity for wide distribution than the adenovirus particle does, but that's kind of just going on my gut.
In between the cells and the white blood cell, they will roam around, and because our cells are a specialized fragment alien thing, they will capture and then we'll process the antigen and start the immunization process.
So that's not really being completely genuine because we often conjugate a recombinant protein to a metal.
We conjugate a recombinant protein to a known immunogen, like a diphtheria toxin derivative.
So there are ways to do it that involve adjuvanting a protein.
And so to just say that it's looking for alien things is not completely right.
You have to annoy the immune system.
The immune system is not going to react and form memory unless you give it an alarming reason to do it.
And oftentimes they use toxins to do that.
Those are called adjuvants in vaccine technology.
That's the big things for the people who use it.
So you can control the dose.
And the location.
And the plasma.
Right, so it's in the plasma.
So it's in the plasma.
Yeah, you're intramuscular, but it goes around a bit.
OK.
So let's come back to the biodiesel.
I still have a few more questions about the dosing.
Yes.
So why was there, this seems like such an obvious point, right?
So you're essentially turning, with the mRNA technology and the adenovirus technologies, your body into a factory of uncertain fidelity.
Yes, that's exactly right.
Whereas with the traditional vaccines, the fidelity is controlled because you produce it outside.
You control and you inject a known quantity.
So you have a definite pathology.
And then if you don't mind, we can jump to cancer vaccine because people are lost and this is cancer vaccine.
So actually, that's a really important topic.
And the reason to explore it is because the mRNA technology, the platforms, were not originally used or tried for vaccines.
In fact, this is the first vaccine technology, mRNA application technologies that actually worked.
Before that, there had been no vaccines that had used this mRNA technology for delivery.
The very, very first one was the COVID one.
They've gotten the mRNA technology to work on specific examples of immune-modulated immune cells that attack a cancer.
That's really amazing.
He said the COVID vaccine worked.
Stop lying!
Whoa!
used or tried for vaccines.
In fact, this is the first vaccine technology, mRNA application technologies that actually worked, right?
Before that, there had been no vaccines that had used this mRNA technology.
It's the very, very first one was the COVID one.
They are tried in animals.
They are tried in humans.
For humans, that was the first.
Okay, so how could this technology be used for cancer?
Okay, it's time from work done in Brussels in the Rockefeller
30 years ago already.
Cancer cells have different surface antigens, so they can be recognized by the immune system like a bacteria, but you have to define.
So if you have a platform able to transform the cell and trigger the immune system to recognize the label, oh, this is cancer label, they will attack the cancer cell and then you fight.
The concept is very clean.
It has a tremendous application and it worked.
some extent because there are a lot of studies but never work massive scale.
But here again, pathology is controlled.
How do we do a cancer vaccine with RNA?
Well, we take your own cells of cancer, we analyze them or we make tests, we know the antigen to target.
So we take your white blood cell, a certain type of cell called dendritic cell, which are the presenting
cell.
You know, in the white blood cell, we have many types.
Some subset of cells are there to present the antigen to other white blood cells to immunize.
So there is a cell type in your body that capture the alien and say, here, attack this.
But don't attack that at the same time, because they are ores.
You have to attack the intruders, the external antigens, the intruders, and you have to protect your own physiology.
So this APC, antigen-presenting cell, and there are a few, and dendritic cells are the main, we capture them from your blood, we purify them, we transfer them with the gene, we give them, we train them, by we're saying, with the cancer antigen, we purify them, and then we control, oh, they produce the antigen, they present it, everything works, and then we re-inject them in your body.
And then your body recognizes them as foreign?
No, the body... See?
What is he, is he even following along?
Maybe, maybe he's telling the truth that he doesn't have the...
the sophistication to understand my biology.
Maybe it's true.
Holy balls.
They took the cells out of the patient and then trained the dendritic cells.
Maybe they even transformed or transfected them in order to get them to present, in order to get them to be reactive to this particular protein.
And then they put those dendritic cells back in the people
And then if you knew anything about immunology, those dendritic cells could go and activate T cells that recognize those epitopes.
It's kind of an interesting mythology that they can take your cancer cells out, they can look for a specific marker, but it's not a mythology.
It's totally real.
And they've done it with lots of people.
There are also kinds of cancers that have similar signals on the outside, so very easy to derive an immunotherapy that's specific for them.
Because when cells go into a cancerous state, they start to express proteins in ways that are aberrant.
And sometimes that overexpression results in surface expression.
Sometimes that overexpression results in changes in expression of proteins that would normally not be expressed because they're not dividing anymore.
And so when a tissue reverts to division again, then the presentation profile that the immune system would see would be different.
And there's two parts of that.
There's the proteins that are on the outside, and then there are the proteins that are specifically presented on MHC1, on HLA proteins.
And that's why I think it is so important for us to really understand this molecular biology at that level where we can hear that these people are not being precise enough to be imparting any real knowledge.
And even this guy is not really teaching Jay anything because Jay almost completely fell out of the cart there.
And so then they recognize it as foreign, what?
with the APC, with the dendritic cell, the dendritic cell already transformed, and they present, so it's your own cell, which have already been trained into, and they present to their body cell, other white blood cell in the blood, hey guys, this is what you need to attack.
This is what you need to, so it trains the other white cells to go after the antigens, which are found not just on the presenting cell.
And an antigen presenting cell doesn't train
White blood cells, an antigen-presenting cell can activate them, and it has to be a dormant one, ones that are in lymph nodes.
It's so extraordinary.
On the tumor, and then the APC train the white blood cell, the lymphocyte, not to name them, and the lymphocyte can attack like crazy your cancer, and you can get rid of it.
We have some results in a very difficult tumor at the base of the brain of children.
We have some result in melanoma.
You know from this we have some results.
We don't had doesn't work It's not perfect, but we can tweak it so that we seem to get the results that we think we're getting but it's not Transfecting the kid it's a very careful bone marrow sample or lymph node sample that's then isolated and transformed and fooled around with and whatever and then they put it back in and that's a person that's gonna die and
So it's okay if it's imperfect.
It's okay if it only buys the kid 12 more months.
Or even 10 years.
It doesn't mean we understand anything about how to use transfection and transformation to augment a healthy human.
To use as a vaccine.
skin.
But they're not, you understand, it's precision medicine.
It's not only you make the medication for a patient.
It's precision medicine.
You cannot inject the same antigen to 10,000 people because your cancer is not mine.
So the technology is the basis for a fantastic revolution in medical science.
It's precision medicine.
Just so we're clear, so what you mean is
Precision medicine, he says.
Let's say you had a cancer.
I go identify the cell, the specific cell.
I've done a biopsy.
I specify the specific antigens that are unique to your cancer.
And then I modify, I create this mRNA messenger thing that then is used essentially to transform
the cell, the APCs, the antigen-presenting cells that are then re-injected into you, and now those train your immune system to go after your cells.
If they were injected into me, it might work or not, because there are some antigens that are common in all cancer, and there are some antigens that are specifics.
So the technology allows us to tailor the medication.
I mean, an imprint?
There he said it.
He's going to tailor the medication to your cancer, tailor it to you.
It's personalized medicine.
It's exactly why the vaccine schedule failed because they just said it earlier.
It's got to be specific for your HLA subtype.
He even hypothesized that maybe that's the reason why some people make a lot of spike.
Some people make a little spike because it's your HLA subtype or maybe it's because when they make a lot of spike and their HLSA subtype is really sensitive to the spike.
And so we should have made a vaccine that was specific for each person's HLA subtype.
And then here we go.
Now we need to screen everybody for their entire genetic immunogenic proteomic background in order to tailor make a transfection just for you.
Holy man, can't you just see the very, very, very, very slippery slope that leads right down to, okay, we're gonna take a blood sample from your baby and we're gonna give it to the AI and then we'll have your complimentary suite of mRNA vaccines in about 45 minutes.
It'll come off the molecular printer and once you hear the bell, we'll come back into the room and there will be six nurses and we'll just do six injections and your kid will be done for the first six months and it'll be great.
You want something that's unique to you, right?
Because you don't want other parts of your body attacked.
You don't want, and if you and I have common proteins, presumably there are other parts of your body that have those proteins, you minimize the side effects.
This is, for the people to understand, this assures what we call the precision medicine.
We're precise.
With RNA, we can be precise.
It's like a surgical instrument.
I can tailor a medication for you or for a group.
But that's not what was done with the COVID vaccine.
No.
It's a single thing for the whole planet.
Oh, wow.
The COVID vaccine should have been more specific.
It should have been more specific.
It should have been based on our own biology.
It should have been more precision medicine.
There's a contradiction between the basic tenet of precision.
Just to defend it a little bit.
Remember, this guy is a self-reported bioweapons expert, just like Robert Malone is a self-reported bioweapons expert, just like Merrill Nass is a self-reported bioweapons expert.
Again, for purposes of steel manning, you have a virus.
that has a sequence.
It's not a different sequence for you or a different sequence for me, although that's technically not true, but let's just say for the same.
In that case, you would want one antigen presented.
But you want a dose to stimulate, a pathology to stimulate the immune system the right way, which we do in cancer therapy, which we didn't do here because we didn't control the expression, the fabrication of the protein that we want it to be fabricated.
Right.
But you do it in cancer therapy, because you do all of this stuff in ex vivo.
And then you put some of these cells that pass your screening test back into the patient.
And you do this all in the context of a patient that's gonna die.
Not in the context of an athlete who's 16 years old, who has dreams of getting an NCAA contract, even if it's division three.
division, it would be NCAA scholarship.
And even if it's division three, and they're not making any, any effort to differentiate between a cancer vaccine, which is again, being applied to somebody who's going to die.
And a 16 year old that's totally healthy.
that they are also coercing into thinking that, you know, this COVID vaccine worked.
Stop lying!
So it's different.
So this technology application for SARS or for others, because other vaccines are coming against virus and bacteria, is essentially a misnomer and something that's not yet ripe.
Because in cancer therapy, we have a protocol, and these are experimental, experimental medicine.
And in the classical vaccination, we have standard protocol for the past two centuries.
Here we come with a new platform that's not yet ready for big leagues, just on the first
approach in terms of production of what needs to be effective.
That's a huge thing.
And I want the people to understand.
And the tools to control that are not yet invented.
He said that like three times now.
The tools to control it are not invented yet.
It's just annoying.
2022, to have the first paper to having fine methodology to have measured the production in vivo.
But not control.
It's still not control.
No, it's not control.
We can measure how bad it is.
Yeah.
So there's a variance in the amount of protein you produce per unit of vaccines.
So for instance, let's just take the dosing, the big fight over dosing for children.
Oh, that's totally stupid because, oh, we will decrease by weight.
It's meaningless.
Because depending on the child, the metabolist did not... Maybe a child will produce 100 copies per... Or more mass.
Let's look at the effector, the protein, the end product.
A child might produce with the same dose, but a different child might produce different... And the child will produce more because they're metabolists.
in overdrive.
OK, let me let me just step back.
Yes.
Just to cover the finish, just to put a lid on this part of the conversation, because it seems to me that the idea of using our bodies as an antigen factory.
Why did you say antigen factory now?
You said vaccine factory the first five times you said it is a challenge you don't need.
Right.
In principle, you could use
out other processes, molecular biological processes outside the body, and then introduce the antigen you want at exactly the dose you want.
Why take on, and you could even use the mRNA.
Why?
Because alone, a protein will not cause an immune reaction, unless you put a little designer epitope in it, like something that EpiVax might've identified, which will activate multiple HLA subtypes all by itself.
Because that's exactly what Epivax was looking for.
They were looking for technologies that they could use.
Little epitopes.
That's where we met very, very first time.
I'm looking skinny in that picture.
That was the first time we met.
And then the first picture I showed you was a couple years after that.
So this is all just a really frustrating, imprecise discussion about what I think are very tractable subject areas that can be described very succinctly and very precisely so that lots of people with a broad background can understand the breadth and the depth of the
lies that were told in order to coerce us into accepting transformation and transfection, which they still haven't said out loud, as new ideas instead of already very old ideas that have been used in limited context with people that are going to die for a long time.
Yes.
Just to finish, just to put a lid on this part of the conversation, because it seems to me
that the idea of using our bodies as an antigen factory is a challenge you don't need, right?
In principle, you could use other processes, molecular biological processes outside the body, and then introduce the antigen you want at exactly the dose you want.
And see, so this either is him
really dropping his pants and showing his backside to everybody in the sense of, I didn't understand vaccines well enough since I met Jonathan Cui to know that it's not just proteins, but it's also adjuvants and that the adjuvants a lot of times are activating your immune system in a way that the proteins couldn't.
Does he really expect us to believe?
is, on the other hand, Martin.
Is Martin going to allow him to just say that traditional vaccines are this protein?
We just make the protein and put it in.
That's not how it works.
They need to be adjuvanted, either with a co-injected toxin, adjuvant, annoying thing, chemicals or chemicals, chemical or chemicals.
Or it's got to be adjuvanted, like really stuck to, conjugated to, a protein that's already known to be irritating to the immune system, like diphtheria toxin.
Why take on, and you could even use the mRNA technology for that, right?
So you could induce, I don't know, E. coli or something to produce the thing you want.
Oh, so you could use E. coli to produce the thing you want.
So is he really, is he really suggesting that he doesn't understand my biology when he's able to say that?
that he could use recombinant molecular biological techniques, you know, the ones that they use to make venom, the ones that they use to make monoclonal antibodies and polyclonal antibodies.
Ladies and gentlemen, all of these people are circumlocuting the truth, which is that there are known molecular biological techniques that are used by pharmaceutical companies around the world to produce all of the protein biologics that are currently in use.
And those techniques include using recombinant DNA to transform bacterial cultures so that those bacterial cultures will translate that DNA into RNA and then translate that RNA into protein.
Then those cultures are lysed.
The protein is purified and that protein is then sold as a pharmaceutical biologic.
And so it would be very trivial for these two high level professionals to explain how universal this molecular biological suite of methodologies is, how widely it is used around the world, what applications it has, and how mRNA is actually stopping short of producing a protein.
And it's one of the reasons why, you know, if you're producing a protein and you can screen for the protein by weight, and you can do all those things that all the other protein that's made doesn't matter so much.
You can separate it out.
But when you're making RNA, you don't have that possibility.
You don't have the possibility of separating DNA out.
You don't have the possibility of separating big and little and all these other RNAs out.
It's too expensive.
It's too much of a high loss prospect.
They're not explaining it adequately at all.
This is really sad.
That's what's done.
Some molecular biology vaccines were done since the 80s and the 90s, like the hepatitis B vaccine.
I cannot name a name, but it was a genetically engineered vaccine that was produced by molecular biology technologies, but pure protein.
Hepatitis B also has adjuvants in it.
Hepatitis B vaccine, crazy enough, I didn't say this earlier, when I went to the clinic, they asked me if I was up to date on my tetanus shot.
They asked me if I take the flu shot and the COVID shot.
When I went to CVS to pick up my antibiotics, the lady said, when you feel better, you can come back here for your hepatitis B and your flu shot whenever you're ready.
Thanks for coming.
So why take the additional step?
I mean, you could still use the MRI technology, just don't inject it into humans.
I told you, my guess, which may be true, may not be true, it decreased production costs.
Less footprint, less production plant, because a single line can produce any big issue.
One, that's a first.
And second, the big payoff.
is not the vaccine against COVID.
There have been in the past 10, 15 years, a lot of products based on mRNA for cancer and other disease, orphan disease, et cetera, that were not allowed by the FDA because they were experimental.
So my interpretation, but there I have to be careful because I don't want to levy a negotiation, is that some people use the COVID vaccine as a demonstrator
to get clearance for the technological platform as a whole.
It works so well with COVID that you should miss this FDA.
But Jay just said it worked.
You guys are agreeing that it worked.
So FDA, grant us the clearance for all the products we have in the pipeline.
We're already seeing this with the mRNA vaccine product that's apparently been produced or is being offered for the avian flu.
Yes, but that's vaccine, but you have also other things that are
But that's vaccine.
Oh, I see.
Wait, he's going to do other therapeutics.
I'm not vaccine.
There is a product to target cholesterol in the liver.
That's also a marinade base.
And it's also already actually.
And so all he's going to argue is, is that, yeah, these are also going to be imperfect until we make them precision.
until we make them precise for each person's HLA subtype, there will still be a fundamental flaw in this generation of this technology, which mean in 10 years could solve every problem.
So what you're saying is, it was, in a sense, a marketing idea, like in order to get people used to thinking about it.
And so is Jay Bhattacharya actually pretending that he never heard that from me?
Not when we met outside of Santa Cruz.
Not when we met in Arizona.
Because that's very disappointing, Dr. Bhattacharya.
Because you know that's exactly what my message has been for a very long time now.
And all of these people have known that that's been my message for a very long time now.
Since the end of 2020, I have been saying that.
Since the article in Nature came out with RNA understanding on one side and lipid nanoparticles on the other, I knew right away what they were trying to sell.
They were trying to tell us that this technology was just waiting for the pandemic to come to maturity.
And we are lucky, we should thank our lucky stars that guys like Tony Fauci and Barney at the Vaccine Research Center for NIAID, that these guys had the foresight to invest in this crucial technology that this guy says can do everything eventually once we make it precise.
Stop lying!
It's a fair word, because as I said, I use the word demonstration.
In technology, you want to make a demonstrator, a minimally viable product to get to the real product.
And here, we make a plural in products, because you have a vaccine here for COVID.
He never lost his job at Stanford.
Are you kidding me?
I can assure you there were like 110 products in the pipeline blocked because the regulators say we don't know we have to know more.
Oh, here it works for mRNA technology.
It works fantastically for COVID.
We saved the planet.
Uh-huh.
So please pay attention to the other products.
So are they questioning that narrative?
Not at all.
They're just telling you what's happening.
So I tell you, there is a business opportunity here that I think was driving the whole effort because you have not only a business opportunity for vaccine against COVID, but you have 10, 50 times that over for the rest of medical, what we call precision medicine.
And that's incentive enough to push that at all costs.
That's my reading.
Okay.
Topic two.
Yeah, yeah.
That's only the first one.
Yes.
Topic two is the biodistribution of this vaccine.
Yes.
Right?
So everyone was told.
Are they going to mention Byron Bridle burning his career to try to get this message out?
Both.
When the vaccine first came out, you get an injection, and it stays in your deltoid muscle.
Yes.
Right?
Yes.
And all of the immune reaction that happens in the training happens
roughly around the area where... Yeah, for a couple of days.
So, was that true?
Well, it turns out that it wasn't.
And I have to step back and have the audience of your podcast understanding something else.
When I need to produce a molecule with a message, it's not a random cell that can do it.
I need to target the cell that will be effective at doing that, not only in term of production, but in term of function.
So if I have a muscle cell producing the antigen and presenting, it won't work because the muscle
as no known immunity function.
It's the dendritic cell.
So essentially, the fact that I can target a specific cell for a specific effect is of critical relevance.
And you can control the literature.
Everyone would like to
Interesting.
He just said that if a muscle cell gets transfected, it won't really do anything because a muscle cell doesn't have an immune function.
So, the only thing that could happen if you transfect a muscle is that your immune system is going to have to come and clean those cells up.
And best case scenario is they don't make a mistake.
Worst case scenario is they make a mistake and then you have a problem because you have autoimmunity.
I hope my leg starting to itch is a good thing.
Shit.
Oops.
potentially, the fact that I can target a specific cell for a specific effect is of critical relevance.
And you can control the literature.
Everyone would like to read a bit.
They can look at molecular targeting, mRNA targeting.
As we discussed, the vaccinologist
are this debating or to best target the dc the genetic cell the apc and then they can't and they say well it's good enough because it worked 90 of the time in biology 90 of the time or 80 or 75 it's not good enough because wow he's making all kinds of claims like it worked a lot it saved the world it worked this was the first time it worked as a vaccine all of these things are being said right now and it's super frustrating because
Jay Bhattacharya claims to be my friend.
He claims to have known me for three years now.
We met in 2022.
I think it's really time.
He's been on my show and he wouldn't talk about the fact that what if it's just murder and lies?
He was on my show before we knew anything about supplementary oxygen and what it could do in a few hours.
He was on my show when I could explain to him what clones were and why RNA virology is essentially just synthetic.
It's just synthetic biology.
It's just clones.
It's just DNA and RNA being manufactured using standard recombinant biological techniques, using the machinery of bacteria to do it.
And you can make any quantity you want to, including enough to make a pharmaceutical product.
Frustrating, frustrating, frustrating.
What about the 25 others?
Where do they end up?
And then you have severe side effects.
So essentially, this localization is important.
Yeah, so let's unpack this.
So what you're saying is that if it does actually just stay in the muscle cells, it's not particularly effective as an immune training kind of operation.
Hi, everyone.
A quick word from our first and exciting sponsor, Alchemy Elements.
That dude can't even wear a normal shirt anymore to do the little advertisements that he's got to do.
Look at this guy.
Wow.
Alchemy Elements is a powerful adaptogenic supplement.
For those of you who don't know, adaptogens are a class of plant compounds
primarily herbs and mushrooms, which can help build the mind and body's resistance to stress.
Alchemy Elements contains a very unique and carefully selected blend of nine adaptogens, such as Lion's Mane, Cordyceps, Polygalorute, and Shilajit, and they can help boost energy, boost your immunity, and increase focus and overall stabilize your mood.
You can have a wide array of effects, which can often depend from individual to individual.
okay i'm sorry i had to i had to watch line uh i'll subscribe get recommend the apc i can get your discount and you won't regret it no because the muscle doesn't present the antigen it has to die and then my blood cell inflammation have to come and by chains and randomness the energetic cell has to gobble the antigen and then presenting it but
They try to target the APC directly.
I remember discussion before even COVID when people say, oh, they have the vaccine COVID in preparation.
They initially thought to inject the vaccine directly in a ganglion.
But it's not easy to do.
Imagine where you have ganglion that are accessible.
So ganglion, those are like lymph cells where the antigen-presenting cells and all the other cells and T cells are.
So they were thinking about injecting directly into lymph node ganglia?
What?
That's, that's just ridiculous.
And it's not any dissimilar to the cartoon that we used to play over the credits where they showed the mRNA going into the blood and then hitting a dendritic cell and then the dendritic cell, because it gets, when it gets transfected, I guess it presents the protein that it's transfected to.
Oh my gosh, it's just crazy.
pretty a nest of deceit.
A ganglion is a nest of deceit.
It's the best immunostimulation you can have.
Dendritic cells.
Yes.
So essentially, you have ganglion here, you have there in the fold between your legs, you have them here.
I mean, this is not an easy thing to do.
Right.
So like, it's not just a matter of like sticking it into your arm, you have to like, know where the where the lymph nodes are.
Yes.
And stick it into those lymph nodes specifically.
I mean, that's not something you do at scale.
No, exactly.
So the location of the production is relevant.
The muscle is not the best location.
OK, so but that, but now it.
And it has a side effect.
I was going to say, just hold on, we're getting to that.
So if we could tell the story slowly, you know, I'm not I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm very slow man.
So you got to you got to like.
Oh, yeah.
You work at Stanford.
Exactly.
I understand.
OK, so so let's just let's just take this one step at a time.
So I thought they both worked at Stanford.
I thought he was down the hall from him.
What is going on?
you inject it.
Yes.
And according to you, and actually according to a lot of the literature now I've seen subsequent to this, it doesn't just stay there.
It might get in.
That's a third problem.
Okay.
So like, where does it end up in your body?
Well, a bit everywhere, depending on the dose.
But may I finish something on the location first?
Please.
Because this localization is critical.
If a non-immune cell present an antigen to, so the spike protein, to immune cell, like lymphocyte, and they're not dendritic cell, you will open the door to autoimmune disease because my muscle are not equipped to give the message to white blood cell, attack this guy while protect me.
Only the dendritic cell have this dual function.
We call that in immunology a context.
The context is important.
A DC can trigger the immune system, attack this little guy, and don't attack the cell that looks like me.
And this avoids autoimmunity.
So if the wrong cell presents the antigen, you open the door to problem with muscle, chronic problem, inflammation, because the immune system will start to attack your muscle.
And then if this protein production goes into your epithelial cell, for example, in the blood vessel, they can be attacked too, because they're not professional antigen-presenting cell.
So if your mRNA goes in liver cell, they end up being attacked too, so you understand.
So you're, in a sense, because the wrong cell is presenting the antigen, you're training your body to attack that wrong cell.
At the same time you're talking energy.
See, we're not being precise enough because again, what happens is more complicated than that.
What is being presented and how is it being presented?
You need to be more precise because it can be the overexpression of the protein.
If there's an overexpression of the protein, then again, I want to be precise here.
I want them to be precise.
Then on the outside of the cell, on the out, wow, come on.
Hello.
I didn't leave it open.
What in the hell?
I definitely didn't leave it open.
Well, I'm just going to switch pens because that's annoying.
If you have overexpression of a protein,
then on the outside of the cell, or in the membrane, or outside the membrane, you're going to have that protein show up.
And so we've been talking about the idea that the more of this protein that gets produced, the more likely it is it will also bud off in the form of exosomes, and then the protein will be shed this way.
So overexpression of a protein by transfection is often the way that it kills
experimental animal cells.
So when you transfect the brain of a mouse and you transfect it even with just a fluorescent protein, eventually the continued expression of that protein results at a toxic level of that protein.
It overwhelms the interior of the cell.
If you transfect a cell with the spike protein and you're successful at getting, making lots and lots of copies of it, there could be so much
of that protein in the cell that its normal protein and RNA functioning things can't move around anymore.
They can't do anything.
They can't be regulated in the correct way.
They're not being broken down in the correct way.
The whole physiology of the cell could go wrong.
And that has nothing to do with the fact that in addition to that, the making of that protein is going to result in the presentation of some part of it
on MHC1.
And so there are two ways that the immune system could recognize that this cell needs to be destroyed.
One is it could recognize this as foreign and non-self.
And then a signal that goes through here will result in apoptosis.
I don't mean it goes through MHC2, but a combination of trying to dock with MHC2 and a couple other helper receptors over here and a cytotoxic T cell or a natural killer cell will be able to say, hey, you're up to something you shouldn't be up to.
We better apoptose you.
That would be very different than the immune system coming along and having either antibodies, which recognize this, or a cytotoxic T cell that recognizes this.
Because again, a cytotoxic T cell can't recognize the protein on the outside.
The cytotoxic T cell is also looking for a presentation.
T cells are looking for a presentation.
They're not looking for a protein that's just sticking out and they happen to bump into it.
that's a very important distinction between what's going on here.
And so a cytotoxic T cell could come along and find antibodies stuck to these.
And then that would cause the cytotoxic T cell to cause this cell to get disrupted.
An NK cell or a cytotoxic T cell could read that this cell is manufacturing the incorrect protein and then cause it to
go into apoptosis.
It could recognize that it's making a non-self protein that the cytotoxic T cell recognizes and cause apoptosis.
The imprecision that we're listening to here is very frustrating because it's partially good in that he's trying to say that you need to be specific.
And when we say presentation in immunology, we mean antigen presenting cells, dendritic cells, APCs.
We're not talking about the way that
healthy tissues present to the immune system because they do.
And that's key to understanding.
It's not this process that leads to autoimmunity.
It's this process or when this cell is destroyed, if an antigen presenting cell is activated by the macrophages that clean it up,
then potentially some of the self-antigens from this cell might be led to be presented by this cell.
And then you have a different route to antigen presentation of auto-epitopes.
And so it's crazy that, I'm sorry, this is such a bad drawing, but there are very specific mechanisms by which the
standard understanding of immunology could describe this, and they're not doing it.
They're not doing it at all.
And then even worse, these two guys, both of whom presumably stand in front of classrooms all the time, are not using one single slide.
They don't think they need any illustrations.
They didn't bother to have, why would they get any illustrations?
That would be crazy.
I mean, what do we need illustrations for?
Jay understands all the biology.
Martijn understands all the biology.
What do we need illustrations for?
This is known by clinician.
To remind my colleague, because we're doctors, diabetes one, the juvenile diabetes, the physiology of it, when it starts, it's iteration of viral infection in the beta cell of the pancreas that produce too much antigen of the virus that goes on the surface of the beta
And then your antibodies attack the beta cells themselves.
Which after years and years, after 5-10 years, you don't have enough beta cells and insulin production stops and you end up diabetic.
So it's not like we don't know this process.
When the beta cell of the pancreas express the antigen of virus, they get attacked.
Okay, so just hold on a second.
Wow, so people get diabetes because viruses infect your pancreas?
I didn't know that.
It's common, though, for normal vaccines that use a different technology to inject in the arm.
Yes.
And it doesn't automatically induce autoimmune for every condition.
Absolutely not because it isn't plasma because the cell doesn't produce and doesn't present it itself.
When I inject something, let's say some of my injections go in plasma, some go in the cell, muscle cell, the cell will digest and destroy it because it doesn't belong there and never will present it.
to stimulate the immune system.
Until you put enough toxin next to it, that's called an adjuvant.
Please explain that to Jay, because apparently he hasn't learned it from me yet.
On the contrary, the cell will digest and what's in the plasma will be captured by APCs, etc.
So in other words, if I inject a traditional vaccine, the proteins, the stuff that goes into the cells, it's not relevant.
But the stuff that goes into your blood cell,
it ends up in the lymph nodes, the APCs, grab them, present them, say this is foreign.
And you're immunized.
Right.
And so this is different because it's not doing that.
It's causing your cells to actually produce the antigen.
To produce and present it.
Right.
And now let's get to the question of bio-distribution.
It's not just the muscle cells that are doing that.
No, exactly.
Because it has been shown by literature, numerous papers, that when we inject the liposome, targeting a cell type needs to have molecular recognition.
So I've like, my liposome needs a little label to recognize, for example, only the muscle, only the DC, etc.
And those technologies still are not ripe.
We're studying that.
We try to improve.
a location of injection, but also type of other molecule that we stick inside the liposome to target cell A and not cell B. Those methods are still being unraveled and studied.
So while we don't have that, we have black liposome, we inject in the muscle, but the overflow goes anywhere with the bloodstream.
And it goes to the epithelial lining, like we said.
So all the cells in the blood vessels, it can go liver because the blood flow in the end end up into the portal system into the liver.
And then after the liver goes through the heart in the lung.
So essentially, it's like... And then everywhere else.
Yeah, everywhere.
Because as soon as the heart pumps it out, if you still have production, you can be anywhere.
I mean, this sounds very, very scary, of course.
But
I want to put this in context, like the correlation between the epidemiological studies, they're not finding vast amounts of autoimmune conditions.
This can happen, but it doesn't happen every time, not even most times.
No, no, because as I said, it depends on the pathology that is not controlled.
If you have no production, you will not get the effect.
But if you have small
If you have the right amount, because as I said, I'm not anti-vax.
None of us is anti- conceptually against vaccination.
We know it worked.
But the thing is, we have to control.
I mean, there they say it.
They know it worked against vaccination.
It just was imperfect.
I don't even know what to say.
I mean, it's just, this is just terrible.
We haven't learned anything yet worth writing down.
I stopped writing down when he said he doesn't see that having high activity athletes transfected is funny.
Amount of protein depends on metabolism.
So for the last hour, I haven't bothered to write anything down because it's not enlightening.
We're not learning anything from these two guys.
The medication we give, if you cannot control, if you have the right dose by chance,
Still talking about dose.
Like, I got it on normal speed.
That's 40 minutes in.
it's okay, only when you have overflow hyperproduction, then the spike itself, not the RNA, but the spike itself can enter the bloodstream.
So you may see, which is I think what we do see, that there's some set of people that were really, really, really harmed.
Yes.
And they're still getting harmed, like still, even after long after they took it, are harmed.
Even as the vast majority of the people that took it, your body's produced, you process it and it's gone.
Yes.
The vast majority of people did not get hurt.
In fact, the vast majority of people derive some benefit.
I'm tempted to stop right now because I'm sorry.
We need a new consensus about the fact that transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent.
Almost everybody, I mean, everybody that got a hot dose produced something that probably injured them.
And the production, the actual result of the transfection is that your cells were doing things they weren't supposed to do and your immune system had to deal with it.
And whether it happens now or in 5 or 10 years, you will probably discover that something is not optimal in your life anymore because of you taking the transfections.
That's the real truth.
And the people that don't think that they were injured by the vaccine, think that they were injured by the multiple times that they've gotten COVID since they took the vaccine.
That is very, very clear.
And we will watch a couple of videos tomorrow that will show you that.
There are lots of people in our world that believe that COVID was just as dangerous as the vaccine.
in the sense of the vaccine was safer because that was just the spike protein.
They have completely inverted their understanding and they have bamboozled them into believing that RNA can pandemic.
And they have bamboozled them into believing just what Jay and Martin said, the vaccine schedule in the USA is great.
And it's a criminal enterprise, ladies and gentlemen.
You can't make a cuckoo clock make toast and you cannot make yourselves do something that they don't already do.
That's why an RNA can't pandemic, but transfection is dangerous as hell.
Ladies and gentlemen, please remember intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic.
weaponized piles of money are still controlling us.
They're still leading us around by our nose on social media because you won't log off.
You gotta log off, ladies and gentlemen.
Oh, man.
You got to log off, ladies and gentlemen.
If you want to share the stream, please share stream.gigaohm.bio.
If you have any problems with stream.gigaohm.bio, please report them to me at gigaohm.bio.
Starting to sound like John Cullen here.
And if you want to support the stream, please go to gigaohmbiological.com, where you can find lots of different links.
I am in the process of making a page on my website that gives credit to all the people that have supported the stream.
First name and last initial only.
And we're going to get rid of that slide in the deck from now on because it doesn't really do anybody any good.
Everybody's always complaining because it's not all the people.
And so I can put all the people if I don't just list subscribers, but make a living list.
I'm going to try and move around, take care of my
get another pill in me, make some dinner, take the dog for a walk if she'll go for a walk with me.
Thank you very much for having the patience to wait for me to come back.
It is Monday, I'll be on all week and thank goodness my family comes back on Friday so my productivity will shoot after that because let's face it, I'm a lot better when my wife and my kids are back.
So thanks very much guys, I'll see you again tomorrow.