Oh, the next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and 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.
He can't help when he's happy, he looks insane
Oh yeah!
Living far between all illegal, all the same.
He even calls, but the road like butterflies.
Oh, he don't know, so he chases them away.
He chases them away, yeah.
Oh, I just wanna thank him.
He'll begin his life again.
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.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Good morning from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where 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 because viruses are not pattern integrities.
Welcome to the show, everybody.
Coming to you live again about this mystery virus that doesn't equal excess deaths because it really is just a long list of
Lies.
Lies and murder and lies and liars and murder and lies and some lies and some financial incentives to commit fraud and lies.
And that's the reason why there's no epidemiological evidence of spread and why the lawyers involved in this won't use the word strict liability to mean one idea and definitely won't say anything that resembles anything to do with the 7th Amendment violation.
uh murder and lies ladies and gentlemen i really believe i believe with my whole heart and soul that we need a new consensus about transfection always having been criminally negligent in healthy humans that the vaccine schedule in the usa was a criminal enterprise before the pandemic and rna can't do that
There is definitely a reason why these people have created an illusion of consensus and how they did it was sticking to a limited spectrum of debate.
That's the reality of things.
I know it's sometimes very hard to accept that social media is really not
The free speech, I'm gonna escape here for just one second and then start it again.
Free speech is not what they sold us.
At least free speech on the internet is not what they sold us.
And fighting against one team or the other team is really just sitting in that chair.
And so it is, whoa, yeah.
That is funky fast.
It is really a new kind of totalitarianism.
It's something where to get your head around it, you need to see this as a continuation of a theater that was in place before the pandemic.
And the only difference now is that the highly trained acolytes have a much greater access to our consciousness, much, much greater access to our attention, because we have willfully given it to them via social media.
That's the reason why, no matter how hard you run in the hamster wheel, it's these people who are going to be in front, these people who are going to be
the pseudo-heroes that the narrative is telling you are coming to the rescue, or the bad guys that are trying to trap you, or vice versa, and these are all part of the same show that really would like you to argue about which one of these people is more significant than the other.
Who are we going to vote for is always a question, but I'm becoming pretty pessimistic about that because the same weaponized piles of money seem to be using the same acolytes on social media to convince us what to argue about and with whom to argue.
And the latest iteration of that seems to be the Rescue the Republic, Join the Resistance nonsense, where many of the same pseudo-patriots are pretending to come to our rescue.
Heck, even Russell Brand will be there to lead the opening prayer, I'm sure.
Ladies and gentlemen, after they convinced us what to argue about and with whom to argue, we basically accepted the premise of their narrative by default.
And that's how we are being governed.
That's one thing I've come to learn during the pandemic, that this isn't just about marital affairs and stock trading and lying about those things.
This is about lying about everything.
And for decades now, the Human Genome Project, something that I based my understanding of biology on for a very long time and approached
my investigations in neurobiology based on the idea that the Human Genome Project represented something that was done.
Gigaohm Biological comes from the gigaohm seal that was used in the methodology to make high resistance, low noise recordings from neurons in the brain and that's why I
very not cleverly took those words and applied them to a news program.
That's where we are now.
If you want to see the stain of my AkataMagic work, you can look on PubMed for my last name and find all the papers that I participated in producing.
If you want a list of reasons why you might want to listen to me, why I saw the alien,
Number 11 and number 12 and number 13 on this list are pretty interesting.
Anyway, welcome to the show.
It's the 20th of September of September 2024.
This is Gigaohm Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
I'm coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the back of my garage.
I'm very happy to be here.
It's been a few days off because we had a sudden transition to homeschooling with my middle son and not that that necessarily is a big deal, but it did throw a little wrench in my morning preparation time and my morning sort of schedule and being able to focus on me.
And the stream between, you know, let's say pre-sunrise and 10 a.m.
Which I wasn't better able to do today.
So although I am late, I am here.
So good to see everybody.
Thanks very much for being here.
I'm going to fade this out and make that go away.
Let me see.
How does this work?
Is this going to work?
I'm going to try and pull off a new trick here.
I don't know if it's a good trick or a bad trick or what.
Does that work?
Oh, I almost did it.
Welcome to the show.
My voice feels terrible.
I've also taken a couple of days off because of that.
I still have pain in my throat.
I'm still gonna occasionally haze out, but hopefully you can tolerate it.
As I said, it is the 20th of September, 2024.
It's Friday, thank goodness, but since I'm so behind on my schedule and on my output, a whole week of class missed.
I have a lot of work to do so it's Friday for you and Friday for your family and and I hope that that means that you can look forward to a weekend where a lot of you will still get sun and a lot of you will still have warm weather so please go out and enjoy it.
All of our young chickens have started to lay eggs now and so it's become unbelievably loud out there as they tell everybody that they've completed their work for the morning so it's a
Try to if you can hear that in the background or they start to stand in front of the door again Make sure you understand that it's okay.
Everything is fine.
There's not a fox in the backyard.
They're just happy with their progress We're gonna keep doing this work.
I do Next week want to get back to biology 101 and back to my friend Matt's
probability class, uncertainty class, if you will, and I definitely will do that.
But it has become obvious to me, especially because of the steadfast work of Mark Kulak at Housatonic ITS, Housatonic Live, that there is a lot of repetition to be done.
There's a lot of repeating to be done, because making sure that everybody understands how these ideas have descended from person to person until we are here, and why the people who are most responsible for this sort of chain of mentors and ideas are the people that we're not really talking about.
Even both sides of the debate agree that we shouldn't talk about those people.
Even the people within this narrative are not questioning each other's omission of those people.
And in fact, it seems as though without Mark,
Nobody would be talking about these people.
No one would be talking about Joshua Lederberg and his seminal role in the formation of these ideas.
Nobody would be talking about Hilary Kaprowski and what he brought to our vaccine schedule.
Nobody would be talking about anybody beyond Stanley Plotkin and Bill Gates.
And that's an extraordinary thing to figure out when you realize that Robert Malone is DITRA, and DITRA is nukes, and nukes is the Department of Energy, and the Human Genome Project is the Department of Energy, and if the Nunn-Lugar program was to form DITRA and now DITRA were to be involved in biological weapons, it would be very,
Very bizarre, wouldn't it?
If Robert Malone was the guy who came out in 2021 and said, hey, I'm Ditra and I'm here to save you.
Domain, domain.
I'm Robert Malone.
I invented the thing.
It's a very, very odd narrative when you start to look back with scrutiny and objectivity at 2020 and 2021 to see where we are in 2020.
That's the part of this that makes it so extraordinary.
We can actually do an exercise in recent human history in a way that no one would have ever been able to do before.
Think about how many sources and how many videos would have been available to you if in your teenage years, in let's say 1982, you decided that you wanted to research the last five years.
You wanted to go back to 1976, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and really figure out how we got to 1982.
How many resources would be readily available to that citizen?
How many sources of information?
How much could you bring back from the public library after an afternoon of running the copy machine?
Because now, in an unprecedented way,
You can, from 2024, look back to 2020 and objectively ask, what were these people really saying?
And how were they saying it?
What words did they use?
And if you do it, I guarantee you, I promise you, you will find the truth.
And the truth will be in the patterns.
The truth will be in the patterns, the words that they chose,
the certainty that they had or did not have.
And these things will feel different from the context of 2024.
As you remember very distinctly how you were uncertain about things in 2020 and uncertain about things in 2021.
There were some people who were extremely certain in 2020 that they knew exactly what was going on and exactly where we were going.
And I think that's pretty significant.
I think it's pretty significant that a lot of those people over there are people that fall into this category of curiously certain, curiously focused, curiously aware of certain things, but not other things.
And that pattern holds true for almost everybody on that red team over there.
Don't talk about 2020, the COVID shots are bad team.
There are few things more dishonorable than misleading the young, and a lot of these people are misleading the young right now.
And we're at a crucial time because we, in this chaos, may be able to take back power from these charlatans, may be able to make it common knowledge that we have been under the spell of these charlatans for generations.
It's possible.
and in a way that has never been possible before.
Breaking this would not have been possible, even in 2015, it would not have been breakable.
But right now, by their own design, the level of uncertainty and doubt is so high that although they have control right now, they have the guy and the cruise ship is going where they want it to go, nobody is technically at the wheel right now.
And so it's only by the sheer momentum of where we're going that we're still going in the direction they want us to go.
We are not actually on their script anymore.
On their script would have been far more people having taken the shot in a far less of a debate than we're having right now.
And that is the reason why there are so many people out there right now helping to curate the debate.
That's the reason why X has to play such a prominent role, why the podcasts and streams on YouTube have to play such a prominent role right now, because we are in a place with a level of dissonance that they never really intended us to get to.
And of course, they can't allow you to see that.
They can only toggle in more people and toggle in more sub narratives that allow the control necessarily of more people.
Because the alternative is, is that all these people who understand that the main narrative being curated by these people is a lie, the same lie that these people are curating.
Once that starts to happen, you need different compartments for these people, or they all come together and realize that, wow, we are being enslaved.
And so that's the reason why you see an unprecedented amount of noise on the internet.
It's not because they wanted this necessarily, but it's because it's been necessary given the level of compliance that they have not been able to maintain.
But I assure you, without a doubt,
that within this plan, there are plenty of things built in and plenty of knobs built in.
They just need to keep the current system in play and the vast majority of the people are still engaged.
As long as we've been out of the system, I mean, it's not...
This illusion of consensus, of course, expands from, you know, dissidents like these two that wrote a paper in 2020, which I'll talk about in a minute.
George Webb and Jessica Rose, same thing.
And Robert Malone and Paul Cuttrell, who at one point in 2021 were streaming together a few times.
And I think you can learn something very interesting about the narrative and the breakdown and how far they are off narrative if you go to YouTube and see what Paul Cuttrell has been putting out for the last few weeks.
It is extraordinary.
Look at his views.
Listen to the content.
Watch the chats.
And this is someone that in 2020 was promoted as a hero by George Webb and lots of other people, reported to get a whistleblower phone call from Taiwan saying that Remdesivir was working in February or March of 2020, and streamed with Robert Malone in his first months of publicity, right after and before the Brett Weinstein appearance.
This guy, some random dude who works for a Catholic charity or something like that, claiming that he was a doctor when he wasn't, still calling himself Dr. Paul Cottrell when he's not an MD.
He claims to have completed two years of medical school, but I'm skeptical.
And of all the people on the internet, Robert Malone practiced his schtick with him first, like very early on.
It is on Paul Cottrell's podcast that Robert Malone said that they were using dexamethasone as a hammer on the immune system to be able to put people back out of the hospital and back to care homes.
I wonder if they put them back in care homes with supplementary oxygen, the perfect combination to get people to die of COVID
The only person at the beginning of the pandemic to call COVID, COVID, is Robert Malone.
Oh yeah, there's one more guy I'm gonna show you in a second.
And so it is with great displeasure
that I admit to you that for three or four years, I really thought I was not sitting in a chair with goggles on holding a joystick, but I was engaged in an ongoing debate about how to get the truth out and about what the truth was.
And the primary place that this was going on was on Twitter.
and on places like the Panda Slack group or something like that, or Signal Chats, and all of these things were an illusion.
That's the reason why after almost two years straight of having these same biological principles, repeating them over and over again, all of these people have decided not to adopt any of these ideas, not to take them for themselves even.
but instead have tried to create this limited spectrum of debate about who I play for or whose government I'm working against or who I'm taking money from as we barely are able to pay rent every month.
I'm still losing subscribers.
I have lost more paid subscribers this month than any other month.
And I guess it's because I'm not putting out the right shows or not saying the right things or going against too many people.
I don't know.
But the reality is, is when the truth is here and everyone ignores it, I don't know what else to do other than repeat it or to show it from many different angles.
And so that's what we're going to do.
We're going to keep doing this because the murder and lies are about to be forgotten.
That's the goal.
They're running out the clock.
I should have wound up my watch so that that ticking is in the background because really that's what this is.
They are running out the clock so that this history is lost.
And the history of 2020 and 2021 is a history that we really need to understand and understand well.
And I think some of the ways to understand this history are to understand that there are good explanations for some of the phenomenon that apparently no one else but GigaOM viewers can see the limited spectrum of debate that's been created, like the limited spectrum of debate about PCR.
It is extraordinary how well understood the PCR reaction is
in the context of an academic bench setting and how it can be used to show a protein is here or an RNA is there or whatever they want to do.
And yet they know exactly how to use it well, but those same academics are unaware that none of those optimizing, none of those controls were used in the context of PCR as a diagnostic for COVID.
but the TV is never gonna tell you that.
And more curiously, Robert Malone, Merrill Nass, Jessica Rose, Matthew Crawford, James Lyons Weiler, Mary Holland.
I mean, all of these people aren't gonna explain to you that there are all kinds of ways to make PCR highly accurate and it's been used on the academic bench successfully for decades to do that.
but in a diagnostic setting with only one amplicon that's not necessarily been shown to be specific, with primers not necessarily shown to be specific, is not really the same as how PCR is used in an academic context to high fidelity detection.
And even there, there are caveats.
But nobody's explained that to you but us here at Gigaohm Biological, me and the chickens.
So how virology can be a lie, but transfection and transformation can be misconstrued as virology.
This is what, after being asked to send a letter on behalf of CHD to the no-virus crew, this is precisely what I told them.
I said that I think I have a biological explanation how both sides can be right.
and we can become a unified front about this stuff, about this fraud of virology and it comes from infectious clones.
And instead there became this thing where they tried really hard to make it seem like they wanted nothing to do with me and that I must be an idiot if I'm working with CHD and they needed to have papers to understand what these infectious clones were because otherwise they weren't going to debate anything with me.
And it was around that same time that I was on Bobby's podcast with five other people that I got no time and they got all the time.
And that same time when five no virus people got together all at once to talk about how dumb my ideas were.
Around that same time is when the Human Genome Project prodigy Kevin McKernan also called the idea of infectious clones being a chemtrail retarded idea.
And so again, there's not going to be anybody who's going to explain why Cooey is wrong about virology basically being an exaggeration.
But transfection and transformation in cell culture in animals can be misconstrued as virology, and they do that all the time.
The reason why they're able to do that is because cells naturally package RNA and DNA and send it around.
It's not unusual.
You're not making a cuckoo clock make toast.
You're just kind of encouraging a cell to do what it would otherwise probably have a propensity to do if there was RNA just floating around that didn't belong there or was extra.
or whatever the case may be.
I don't need to know that biology.
You just need to know that they have misconstrued these things as virology and not told you anything about exosomes and extracellular vesicles.
And finally, the population pyramid provided a booming opportunity.
I have become convinced in the last few days off that actually this
Part of my presentation is one of the things that they really needed me to stop saying, and that's the reason why we chased around clones for so long.
And they allowed McKernan and other people to pay a lot of attention to clones.
Even Sasha was paying a lot of attention to clones.
Even Jiki said, yeah, it could be clones.
And why?
Because at that time, I had already started saying that Denny Rancourt's data was interesting and the population pyramid could be an added part of this.
And so I got an email from Joe Marshall of the Liberty Perspective.
He had already done all kinds of research and links and highlighted stuff about this idea.
And whether or not they had talked about it during the pandemic.
So shout out to Joe for having my back on that one.
I want to start out with a more general part of this just so everybody can see it.
Let me get myself a little tinier.
Oops.
A little tinier over here.
Let's see if I can do this quick without screwing anything up.
So that you can see there, that's a
Hey, look at that.
That's a pyramid there.
And these are population pyramids for the United States, 2000, 2010, and 2020.
Now remember what these population pyramids represent, right?
The light blue here are males.
The dark blue are the females.
This is in the year 2000.
And then this is the distribution.
What you have over here at the top are a hundred year olds.
And then going down all the way to the bottom, you have kids under five.
And then, so it's every one of these bars is five years of age.
Okay.
So in 2000, we had a certain number of old people.
And in 2010, we had a certain number of old people.
In 2020, we had a certain number of old people.
And it might not really look like that much, but I want you to pay close attention to this bump here.
This bump represents roughly the baby boomer generation.
And if we look at where that bump is, and then we follow it every 10 years, we can watch it move up.
it moves up the population pyramid and behind it are other bumps, but they're not as big as this bump.
And more importantly, at the same time here, it's very important that you figure this into your model of understanding that end of life care is becoming better and better.
triage medicine is becoming better and better, and we're just getting better at taking care of people, right?
Now, at the same time, of course, people are becoming less healthy, but we can save them from dying better and better in this 20 years, and so people are gonna get older.
And so you can watch this bump go up, right?
You can see it going up, but then people are also dying.
So it's not going to be a perfect thing.
It doesn't move up like this.
It's got to shrink as it goes up because it's, it, people die, right?
That's what happens.
That, that age group is never going to stay the same from age five, all the way to age 50, because even between then and there, people are killed, people die, whatever.
So you need to watch this and think about how this would move.
If you can animate this in your head, you can go back, you know,
Hundred years here and you can imagine that this population pyramid looked like this a hundred years ago And now it's kind of changing and it's morphing into this thing That is not a pyramid anymore.
And that's we just don't we understand this what I'm suggesting to you is is That the people who wrote these books understood it to Writing books right after World War two they understood that so as they reduced
As they reduced the population size and growth by reducing family size, which they most certainly did after World War II.
I mean, in the 60s, people were still having 10 kids or eight kids.
My father's family is a small family of six kids.
Now we are a relatively large family with three kids.
And so this trend is known.
These people who have presumed to govern us, I assure you, know that this trend exists and know that there is potential here.
Why let an opportunity go to waste?
Let's look carefully at one particular group.
the group that's about to retire.
And let's draw a red line here to see about how many people that are about to retire, about to go on Medicaid and Medicare, about to put all of their expenses off of their employer and onto the government.
About half of the budget of the U.S.
government every year goes to these people and the poor that are on Medicaid and Medicare.
So let's look.
Drop a line in.
In 2000, the number of people that were about to retire here are around 7 million.
In the year 2010, it's now 10 million.
And in the year 2020, it's beyond that now.
This was 9 million, now it's like 11 or 12 million.
And so this is happening everywhere around the world in the Western world, anywhere where they've developed in the developed world, this is happening.
And so there is going to be a natural increase in all-cause mortality.
And all you need to do is take a few of those people and sweep them together and you can get pretty good peaks.
pretty good numbers to report on the PBS NewsHour if you start from zero and then say a few thousand people died, knowing that you're expecting that rise and knowing that the military industrial complex is going to take advantage of that rise and sweep a few of them together to create the illusion of a crisis.
And if you're on the governing team,
If you play for them and you've been playing for them, then you're not that worried about this because you know what's going to happen in four years.
You know that they're going to be telling a story about more people dying.
It's not going to surprise you that some of them are coming from the shot.
and cancer from the shot.
These are all things that will obviously be on the script if you knew already five years before the pandemic that there was going to be a play by the military industrial complex that runs the Western world to use this trend across all of these countries to invert national sovereignty to a global governance system.
to invert individual sovereignty to some kind of neocommunism.
This is exactly what they don't want to talk about, and would be happy to have us argue about infectious clones and virology for the next three years.
Because once the clock runs out,
Once the kids have accepted it, once the college kids that we abandoned in 2020 are adults and have accepted that this phenomenon doesn't exist, this phenomenon's not real, we may be lost.
So please, anybody that wants to, find the numbers, check the numbers, look for the numbers that suggest that this is wrong.
Because what's much more likely is that even the official numbers have been doctored to hide the significance of this.
Because what if they just shaved a little bit off of here and shaved a little bit off of here?
How much more money that represents?
How much more potential catastrophe?
And on the flip side, how much bigger of an opportunity does that present to this 30, 40, 50 year plan?
where before they even knew anything about the genome, they already knew that we were going to be taking over our evolution.
We were going to be pulling on our big boy pants as a species and taking over our evolution because that's what our destiny is, to become gods.
And this is where these ideas come from.
That's why we had a pandemic now.
That's the reason why Tony Fauci knew we'd have a pandemic now, because 10 years before this, they knew we would have a pandemic now.
Not all of them, but I bet you Henry Kissinger knew.
I bet Joshua Lederberg knew.
I bet a lot of these people have known for a long time that they've been preparing for this.
Maybe even that 9-11 was kind of a rehearsal, you know, all of those things are getting things into place.
You know, lots of people have told you that a lot of these laws are kind of already there.
Yeah.
Because they have been planning, planning for this.
planning to tell this story and planning to create this limited spectrum of debate where they could essentially cover up the fact that the vaccine schedule in America has always been a criminal enterprise, that this transfection thing is always the place that they were going to take us and they were gonna use the old vaccine schedule and this as a repair.
Imagine if all of us had taken the transfection, how easy it would be for them to tell a story
that the old vaccine schedule was kind of bad, but this one's really, really good.
Or at least the one without the DNA contamination in it is going to be really, really good.
And it's going to be like a plug and play thing where we don't even really need the FDA anymore.
And so RNA cannot pandemic, ladies and gentlemen, I can't say it any simpler than that.
And that's the reason why they can't do anything but ignore that.
Um,
There would be more biological refute of that simple statement if there was any, and it would be all over Twitter, hand-dunking on me all the time, but it's not.
Instead, these people have blocked me, tried to get you to argue about something else.
That's the reason why Jimmy Dore only was on Twitter.
on Joe Rogan in 2021, like the rest of them were.
And that's the reason why now Jimmy Dore can have somebody like Nurse Campbell on his show in 2023, or somebody from Panda in 2023.
That's why in 2024, now we even have somebody like Vinay Prasad coming around to some idea that maybe the shots, vaccines still, not transfections, hurt people, even though, of course, they're sophisticated enough to know.
And now
Only now is Robert F. Kennedy jr.
Becoming a mainstream dude and the whole idea of vaccine skepticism is starting to become okay And the reason why that is is because that was always part of the plan part of the controlled demolition of America Is to have these heroes in place that can say well, you know we we did really screw up a lot of stuff and we've known it was screwed up for a long time and
And so all these people are parachuting in to save us.
And it is insane to think that any of these people have ever been playing for us.
They have been part of this governing elite, the
the acolytes on social media for a very long time.
And that's the reason why it's not new people.
It's not grassroots people.
It's the same people getting moved around on the board and reappearing for years and years and years with the exact same claims.
And that's why it's really important to look backwards.
It's important to go back to 2020 and see what these people were doing.
Ask yourself what Claire Craig was doing before the pandemic and you find out that she was involved in a 100,000 Genomes Project and sampling genomes just in the same way that a lot of these other people are interested in, like James Lyons-Weiler in 2019.
Here he is in this video talking about how vaccines hurt a subset of genetically vulnerable that can only be identified by canvassing the whole population.
And that's how we will make the vaccine schedule safe and vaccine preventable diseases are spreading asymptomatically among the vaccinated.
And so we have to be aware of that as well.
What an interesting thing to say a few months before a pandemic where asymptomatic transmission is central to people's belief in the biological phenomenon in the first place.
They have to believe that it's for a time undetectable.
And that's extraordinary because he already was seeding that narrative before the pandemic and not saying that vaccines are bad and that vaccines shouldn't be given to kids, but there are some kids who can be vulnerable to them or hurt by them.
It's so absurd to not see the truth for what it is because this same guy
at the beginning of the pandemic already knew all kinds of things that he shouldn't know and should not have known.
This guy has been on stage for CHD like six or eight times in the last few years.
This is one of the most prominent voices that CHD promotes.
other than Merrill Nass, which again, here you go.
You have a person who was involved in a limited spectrum of debate about vaccines that was not an objection to them, just a plea to make them safer and a hope that the government would.
not that dissimilar from James Lyons Weiler, who although he claims to be this guy who's fighting on that side, is actually advocating just like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
for safe vaccines, for tested vaccines, and for incidentally, the
the sampling of the population to find out why some people are especially vulnerable to vaccines.
And maybe it's aluminum, or maybe it's thimerosal, and that's the same narrative that Mary Holland came out with in 2017 on Democracy Now, opposite of Paul Offit, which if you see that video, it would just shock you.
Thank you very much for that.
And so let's watch this.
This is from, as you can see from the pink line, in case you haven't figured out my coding here, it's from early 2020.
And here he is talking to an Australian because of course we've got to get the word out about what's happening in America to make sure that Australia understands that their lockdown is working.
And this video is freely available on YouTube.
It was never canceled.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Under the Wire.
I'm sorry for the late start this morning, but we have an amazing program for you today.
We have one of the few scientists, real scientists in the world, with us, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, and I'm hoping I'm pronouncing his name right.
I hope he'll correct me if I'm not.
And he is joining us today to talk about the, not only the COVID-19 outbreak, but also a study that he's doing on vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.
And also he's done amazing work into the toxicity of aluminium when it comes to vaccinations.
And we're going to talk about a whole range of things.
So I'm hoping that we can cover a lot of stuff.
And you guys, I'm just lowering this volume down because I think I'm blowing your eardrums out.
And I'm going to, without further ado, switch over to James.
James, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
Welcome.
Thank you so much, Meryl.
Okay, so obviously you're in the United States and the U.S.
is having the same sort of problems with COVID-19 that we're having in Australia, perhaps on a grander scale because you have 330 million people versus our 24 million people.
So that's a lot more people to actually get sick.
But I wanted to speak with you
about your impression.
You have done some work into coronavirus and the spike proteins, especially in coronavirus.
Now, first of all, I want to speak with you about what your impression is about where we're going with this right now, with the lockdown, with the whole situation with people being told that they have to stay at home and they
are at risk if they go out of the house.
Perhaps I'm going ahead of myself.
You start with what you think is most important to begin with.
All right, well, thank you.
Well, I wanted to back up a little bit and say that the reason why things are as bad as they are in the United States, the United States having probably now a third of the world's cases of coronavirus, New York State alone having more deaths than any other country.
Yeah, so we're in dire straits, and how did we get there so fast?
We got there so fast because the CDC declined to use that test that was offered to them by Germany.
On January 16th, Germany had a test that was already validated.
141 other countries had already adopted it, and CDC said no.
The U.S.
CDC said we need to make our own test because our job
is to be the most important lab on the planet.
Our job is to validate everybody else's test, so we can't use Germany's test.
Now the funny thing is, the funny thing about this is, is that this narrative in retrospect is very strange.
Because here's James Lyons-Weiler saying that we didn't want to use the WHO test because we wanted to use our own and that the CDC wanted to make their own.
Now, if you recall the entire narrative, you will recall that in December or November of 2020, a group of authors headed by people like Kevin McKernan and Claire Craig of Heart,
wrote an objection to the WHO PCR test, the Corman-Dwarston PCR test.
And the objection was like a 10-point objection to the design of it and the quick approval of it and the 24-hour peer review of it.
And Mike Yeadon and Thomas Binder were also on that paper.
And it's a very curious assembly of authors in 2020 that says that a WHO test wasn't actually very good.
And it was crap in late 2020 that here, James Lyons-Weiler is sure that the reason why we're having so much trouble in America is because we didn't use the test that the WHO and Germany offered us.
which a few months later we're going to have Kevin McKernan and Claire Craig and Mike Yeadon and Thomas Binder publish a paper saying that that who test was crap and that Joristan is shady and that the primers make dimers and that that thing is full of false positives.
What an interesting
year 2020 was?
Are you interesting debate between these people about the PCR tests and whether they're useful and why they would be and why they're not useful and what were the results of selecting one or not selecting one and who got in the way?
Was it the FDA or the CDC?
I see a limited spectrum of debate being curated here and interestingly curated across national borders, across Five Eyes countries.
This is a guy doing a podcast in Australia.
No one from Australia has ever asked me to do a podcast.
Looks like another egg got laid.
We have to, you know, be the great one and we have to validate everyone's tests.
They made a test.
They shipped the test out.
This is when the people on the Princess cruise ship that were on lockdown there, they tested a lot of people and their tests came back saying, this person has it, this person doesn't.
And then they released people that they said that the test was negative.
Now they were under observation, but they released them.
And some people just left and went their very way.
And it turned out that their test was flawed.
They had made a mistake.
And because of the errors in the test, people were reusing that test and relying on the test and still testing with that test.
Then they said, well, wait a minute, this person died of COVID-19.
And the pathologist says it's COVID-19.
The pulmonologist says it's COVID-19.
The molecular test that we run says that the virus is there, but your test doesn't.
They contacted CDC.
This took a week and a half before they figured out there was something wrong with the test.
And so they wasted that precious time where they could have done real testing with real contact tracing with the test from Germany.
And we have basically no contact tracing in the United States whatsoever.
No, no meaningful.
And the CDC then changed the rules on how to use the test rather than use three of the primer probe sets, just use two of them.
And basically, Anthony Fauci, he's on the, Tony Fauci, he's on the news every day.
He turned to the companies and said, the corporations and said, well, can you guys help us out?
Well, it turned out that the FDA wasn't giving company tests or emergency use approval to give the CDC a heads up, a leg up on testing.
How can the US CDC possibly validate other people's tests if they can't make their own tests?
And I'm confused as towards why they,
can't make an accurate test, I personally right now could teach everybody on the call how to make an RT-PCR test in about three days.
With three days instruction online, I could say this is how you make an RT-PCR test.
I don't think you'd need three days.
It's very funny that he says that.
And it's also very funny that he predicts already that he's, I mean, he always mentions that he's teaching.
He did say COVID.
He repeated COVID often, and here it is already.
The debate is how do the PCR tests work or not?
Remember, at the exact same time, Kevin McKernan is going on the Vance Crowe podcast to talk about how he's using the PCR test to test weed for COVID.
Kevin McKernan says kovat.
He doesn't say covered like Robert Malone and James Lyons.
Why a Wyler say It's very very interesting video it's on YouTube if you want to watch it So again, you know, I keep going back to Robert Malone because I like I think these people are team Robert Malone I think that if anybody You know
Whitney Webb doesn't mention DITRA.
The only person who mentions DITRA is 2020 Robert Malone.
The only one who mentions the domain program is 2020 Robert Malone, 2021 Robert Malone, nobody else.
He's almost forgotten about the domain program now.
and almost forgotten that DITRA did all the sequencing of the virus for everybody for at least the first year of the pandemic.
Why does nobody care about that?
It wasn't, you know, people sequencing the virus on their bench.
It requires hundreds of primers.
It requires like,
a lab at DITRA to do it.
That's how they did it.
I don't care if you can do it in other places.
The reality is, is that DITRA controlled all the sequences and all of that, you know, because it was a national security thing.
DITRA, the same group that supposedly Robert Malone had spun up his DITRA team at the beginning of the pandemic because Michael Callahan called him from Wuhan and told him to.
And so COVID shots are bad, don't talk about 2020 is the strategy that somebody like Kevin McKernan is using now because he doesn't want you to look back and see what he was doing in 2020.
And that's why I think it's very curious that his co-author, Dr. Claire Craig, can also be seen in 2021 doing some pretty sketchy videos where there's not really any useful skepticism, but who own an acceptance.
Wow.
Why did that Dutch word come out?
Just an acceptance of the narrative.
Listen carefully.
you
Now the truth is that we don't fully understand the transmission of this disease.
And we don't fully understand the transmission of other respiratory viruses either.
So it's important we talk about that first.
I'm going to talk about the lack of evidence for asymptomatic transmission.
I believe there is a link on Housatonic Live's website where you can see that actually there is a newspaper report that DITRA was doing all the sequencing at the beginning of the pandemic.
If Mark is not on his ladder listening to us in his headphones, then maybe he'll drop in a link, but I don't expect that to happen.
He's got better things to do.
And then the importance of hospital spread.
Now, all of the modeling has been done on the basis that SARS-CoV-2 spreads like measles.
Measles spreads person to person.
There's a continuous chain of transmission that happens throughout.
Now, remember, Claire Craig, before the pandemic, was a cancer person and a clinical pathologist, which means she does a lot of testing and looking at things under a microscope and works in a clinical laboratory.
And she was part of a 100,000 Genomes Project.
She's not just some doctor, you know, like Meryl Nass is just some doctor in the Northern part of Maine.
This is a person who already had a long professional career as a tester, a sampler, and a enthusiast of using genetics to track down causes of diseases.
Whether or not that biology is robust or not is not the point here.
The point is, is that that is the biology and the idea set that is fueling this mythology that all these people have bought into and have accepted foisting on our children.
They have to know they're lying.
And if they don't, then they are capable of learning what they have unwittingly foisted on our children.
And so this can't be by accident.
This is definitely not by accident.
She's got a book.
Her hair is going gray in a weird way.
She wears these funny pointed glasses.
They always make her kind of seem like this little old lady that she's not.
It's horrible, I know.
to be this skeptical of somebody that a lot of people think is a hero, but she's not a hero.
There's no way that she is a hero.
She is exactly the same as Robert Malone.
She just plays a little bit different role because she has a little bit different set of attributes.
but she's no different than Jessica Rose.
She's no different than Pierre Corey.
She's no different than any of these other people that as long as they stick to their little show, they feel pretty comfortable because they don't really have to lie if they do that.
And that's the trick.
year and somebody who's infected will go into an environment, home or school, where there are susceptible people who will then catch it and you will have more secondary cases than that primary case.
An alternative model would be influenza.
Now, we don't fully understand influenza.
It does spread person-to-person, there is evidence of that, but it's not the whole story, because in influenza, it disappears over the summer, and then it comes back in winter as a surge.
And those surges happen at the same latitudes across the world, simultaneously with the same genetic profile.
And that can't be explained by person-to-person transmission, and it happened well before we had international travel the way we do now.
with influenza.
So it's a really curious assembly of pseudo-skepticism and certainty, right?
Because at the same time as she tells you how the flu is a biological phenomenon that cannot be explained by person-to-person spread, she's now going to go on to tell you that we have to understand all of these phenomenon as person-to-person spread.
This is a magic spell that's so full of contradiction that the only way you can listen to her is to accept each premise on its own without evaluating them as a whole.
And so no matter how incongruous the ideas are, she keeps just listing them.
And as long as you only see the blonde hair and the pointy glasses and the charming accent, then you don't realize that you are being told a mythology, a set of lies that don't work together.
that don't mechanistically explain anything and a model that doesn't stand up to validation, but she doesn't care because she's going to tell you that is the truth.
That this model doesn't stand up to validation, but I'm going to explain it to you first.
Then I'm going to tell you that a lot of this is bullshit because the government is lying to you, but first understand it and that is how they get you.
Because with that amount of contradiction, there is no combination that leads to understanding where a light bulb goes on.
And now I get it, except for that there is a novel virus that millions of people died from, that millions more could be saved from, and that will definitely come again because these phenomenon are all out there, even though we don't really understand them.
And if you look carefully at what these people have done over the last five years, you will see that all of them have performed a version of this, where none of them have ever been willing to go all the way and say, we have to stop.
And the first time I ever said stop was May 2021, when I finally released a review that wasn't right.
still available on my website because it's Scooby.
It's evidence of how bamboozled I'd become that I was so sure there was a virus that it was mutating because we had decided to arrogantly transfect people against a particular protein and caused a huge change, evolutionary rate of change in that protein because the shot was working.
And so we had to stop.
The only thing that was right in that whole text was that it was transfection and we should have done it to nobody.
that it could cause autoimmunity.
But everything else in there fully accepted the limited spectrum of debate of a novel virus and the consequences that might come if it was from a laboratory or it was special or somehow or another we didn't understand the biology well enough to know what to do.
And we made a rash decision and transfected people against a protein that we shouldn't have done it because the virus was changing and yada, yada, yada.
I'm arguing in that limited spectrum of debate that was reinforced by people like Claire.
and reinforced by people like Jonathan Engler, who just recently this year wrote a virology review that was supposed to be some kind of crucial move in this game of chess.
And remember, I was supposed to be a co-author on that because Jessica Hockett really, really trusts these guys.
And they, of course, gave themselves away partially because they wouldn't criticize Claire.
And no matter what kind of silly things she said, nah, you know, I got to leave her alone.
Claire's a good guy.
There's lots of different opinions.
Nick Hudson defended her like that.
J Jonathan Engler defended her like that.
And all of them did.
And it became instantly apparent to me what these people were doing.
They weren't sharing my work.
They weren't saying where they got their ideas.
They were diluting them, and they were limiting them, just like Kevin McCarran has done, just like Charles Rixey has done, just like Robert F. Kennedy did with my work in his book.
The parts of my work that fit into this mystery of a novel virus are there.
The skepticism that fits in is there.
But the statement, the unequivocal statement that RNA cannot pandemic did not make it into the book, because as in RFK's own words, this is not the book for that.
This is a historical document of what people said during the pandemic, and I accepted it.
But that doesn't change the fact that we have the truth at our fingertips.
It is right here for the taking.
Anybody that wants to go on the internet and assemble it can do it.
And whatever you assemble, even if it has different pieces, will result in the same picture.
Because once you're shining your light in the right cave, then wherever you point the flashlight is good.
That's where we are right now, ladies and gentlemen, as I titled this stream, Friday Restart.
I feel better than ever, because I know that we are hovering around the target now, that there's almost no, we can't miss anymore, as long as we are not distracted by the show.
And of course, the show needs to get more and more exciting.
Of course, there's gonna be more fireworks.
Of course, there will be new characters.
Of course, there will be new plot twists.
But the biology is never going to change.
The truth of 2020 and 2021 is never going to change.
It can only disappear.
It can only be altered.
It can only be burnt down.
And so while it's available, we need to disseminate it.
We need it to become common knowledge that these people collaborated with global powers
in a governance scheme that has been going on, a covert lie mythology governance scheme that has been used against us for decades now, was used against our parents already.
The primary case does not result in a huge number of secondary cases in the household the way it does with measles.
We know it's spread through aerosols.
And in fact, in winter, in indoor environments, after an hour, you will have had an effective dose of influenza.
if you're in a public indoor environment.
So it's not about the environment, it's about the susceptibility of the person who's in that environment.
And what we've also seen for hundreds of years is that people who are out at sea with no contact with anyone else can have outbreaks of influenza.
So what's the evidence for COVID?
Well, we have seen these surges, which cannot be entirely accounted for by behavioral change.
With the measles model, when you reduce restrictions, there should be a rebound in infections.
And in the summer in the UK, we didn't see that with the V celebrations, the packed beaches, the marches, there was no rebound.
And more recently in the USA, sorry,
More recently in the USA, we had Biden calling the governors of Texas and Mississippi's Neanderthals when they released all their restrictions.
And there was no negative consequence.
And the trajectory continued.
Now, you have to see that this this use of data from around the world is part of the illusion.
I don't believe that that's necessary.
I don't believe in a non-theater, grassroots, normal sort of way that anybody in the UK would be worried about what's happening in America, never mind saying what Biden recently said.
That's ridiculous.
And if this was a real biological phenomenon, or this was real opposition to the murder and lying about it in the UK, she would be focused on the murder in the UK.
But it's not about that.
She hasn't questioned why people have died or how they died in the UK at all at this time, even though we know already from many reports that they were killing people in the UK.
People were dying of cold and thirst and starving.
Are we to believe that Claire Craig is unaware of that and that she's really just decided to read up on PCR and on epidemiology and on the history of measles and flu?
The clinical pathologist that was working on cancer in the 100,000 Genomes Project in the UK is now an expert on infectious disease, epidemiology, and COVID.
She didn't say that, but I'm saying it.
as it did for all the states that had strict restrictions throughout.
COVID has low household transmission, like influenza, only about 8 to 15% of contacts end up catching it.
Like influenza, we had an Argentinian fishing vessel where everybody tested negative before they set sail, and 35 days later, there was an outbreak of COVID.
Like influenza, COVID spreads through aerosols.
We've seen quarantine hotels where patients have caught the same genetic virus as somebody elsewhere in the hotel that they have never met.
We've seen it filling the air filtration systems of hospitals.
And not with SARS-CoV-2, but with other coronaviruses, people have taken air and managed to grow virus in cell culture 10 miles away from where they were infected farm animals.
Now, Canada have been quite open with their data.
They've shared data on test and tracing, which shows that they only found a source of infection in half of their patients.
And that was true during their winter peak, but it was actually also true recently when case numbers have not been very high.
And it's been true despite lockdowns.
So lockdowns do reduce human contact.
And what you can see in this top graph is data from emergency attendances.
And the top graph is for gastroenteritis.
So we have the beginning of 2020 up until now.
And the blue line shows the Google mobility data.
So as people locked down and as mobility increased, the correlation with gastroenteritis cases is really, really tight.
Now, you wouldn't expect that to be an epidemic-type spread, but you can see that it did have an impact on that disease up until recently.
COVID's in the bottom graph, and you see that as we increased mobility in the summer, there was no rebound.
We didn't have much change in mobility and then saw a rebound.
So we don't have the relationship in the same way.
Why are we told that behaviour is what's driving spread?
The evidence does not support that, and this measles model has failed.
Now, is there anything else we could learn from influenza?
Well, I think there might be.
I think we need to look back to 1957.
So I think important to realize here is that in no way, shape, or form does this limited spectrum of debate contain the possibility that a national security state or some global set of interests would lie about pandemic potential and lie about the spread of a coronavirus, despite all of the lack of correlation that would otherwise be congruent with all the other biological phenomenon that she purports we understand at a higher fidelity.
In other words, we're supposedly we understand measles and we well she says we don't understand flu, but we can use it as a model somehow because she keeps referring to it.
When the COVID data does not have a viable biological model behind it, she doesn't care.
That's not a problem.
That just means that we don't understand it yet.
There's definitely a novel virus.
It's definitely killing millions of people.
It could definitely be here forever.
These are all absolute certainties in this presentation in 2021.
And I guarantee you, she's as certain as she was then, now.
There was a novel flu virus, and there was huge concern because it was believed that everybody was going to be susceptible.
And then they had a bad winter that year.
At the end of it, they tested people to see who had had an infection.
And 8% of the population had antibodies.
it then went away for the summer.
And then it came back as a variant the following winter, and another 7% developed antibodies, and so on, not every single year, there are some years it missed out, but it was 11 seasons before it was done.
So was it a coincidence that in May 2020, 7% of us had antibodies to COVID?
Or is that actually exactly what we should have expected based on influenza?
Now, some people who avoided that first pass and weren't susceptible then seem to have become susceptible later.
And it seems to me that you could put a hypothesis
Now remember, she just told us that influenza does things that aren't explainable by person to person spread.
Influenza does things that don't have a working model that has been validated yet.
She told us that five minutes ago, but now she's saying that COVID is the same.
Holy shit, I don't understand.
How is it possible that these people have gotten away with this for so long?
Now, some people who avoided that first pass and weren't susceptible then seem to have become susceptible later.
And it seems to me that you could put a hypothesis that this susceptibility will stretch over years.
And it's quite unreasonable to take a decade's worth of susceptibility and assume it's all going to come at once, but that is what was done.
Now I think we're all familiar with this assertion from the government that one in three of us had no symptoms but were passing it on.
And there really is no evidence to support that.
Healthy people can and have tested positive.
They could have been immune, it could have been a testing error.
And evidence of positivity is not evidence of spreading a disease.
So these studies that have been done, which show a percentage of people have no symptoms, have shown really different figures.
Some studies showed 4% had no symptoms, and it's gone right up to 76%.
Now, a range that big makes no sense.
It does make perfect sense because there were many, many products that were used as equivalent diagnostics.
There were many different places where these diagnostics were produced, many different manufacturing techniques, many different bases for the detection method.
And so it's absolutely ridiculous that one of the certainties that underlies this fake presentation is that all testing is basically equivalent because, you know, PCR is PCR is PCR.
And once you see it for what it is, you can see that in 2020, there is no way she's helping anyone here.
And there's no way she's the expert she claims to be.
Someone told her to say this stuff because if she knew what she was talking about, she wouldn't say this stuff.
She would have said that PCR could easily be used to create a vast amount of pulse positives, that there are 200 plus ways that we're trying to do this right now that have been given EUA approval in America.
And so these numbers are very hard to interpret, but instead she talks in very simple terms about all tests being kind of the same, you know, vulnerable to falseness and for whatever and whatever.
It is disgusting.
During a symptom, like a cough, you'd expect a constant percentage.
What you're actually seeing there is not a function of the disease, it's a function of the testing.
The more tests you do, the more asymptomatic positives you find.
So where's the evidence of asymptomatic spread?
Well, what people tend to reference are modeling studies.
Now, what these modeling studies do is they make an assumption that asymptomatic spread occurs.
They then do lots of complicated mathematics and make beautiful graphs which show the effect that that would have on an epidemic, and they conclude that it's really important.
But the whole thing is a fairy tale based on that initial assumption that it occurs.
Where's the real-world evidence that it occurs?
So there are reports in the literature of it having occurred.
Now, a lot of these reports are of people who have tested positive with no symptom.
The assumption that it occurs, it can make beautiful graphs, is they make an assumption that asymptomatic spread occurs.
They then do lots of complicated mathematics.
But don't forget that James Lyons Weiler told us in 2019 that asymptomatic spread of all vaccinated
diseases occurs.
And it's one of the reasons why we need to canvas the population to find and identify those genotypes which are vulnerable to certain components of vaccines so that we can make the vaccine schedule a safer thing for everybody.
and make beautiful graphs which show the effect that that would have on an epidemic, and they conclude that it's really important.
But the whole thing is a fairy tale based on that initial assumption that it occurs.
Where's the real world evidence that it occurs?
And so she is unable to, and will not, because she is defining a limited spectrum of debate where there are novel viruses.
They do spread around.
They do kill lots of people.
you do need treatment for them.
But we don't really know how they work, or we kind of do.
Well, when I say flu, I mean, we don't really know, but it's kind of like flu.
And so maybe measles and flu can help us understand this.
It's wrong.
So there are reports in the literature of it having occurred.
Now, a lot of these reports are of people who have tested positive with no symptoms having been in contact with someone else who tested positive with no symptoms.
And that is being described as the transmission of a disease.
There are a couple of situations where people had symptoms.
There was a mum with a runny nose for a day.
There was a baby with a cough.
But there were no cases of a severe acute respiratory syndrome or pneumonia or somebody needing medical care because they caught it from somebody who had no symptoms.
Let's just talk briefly about.
Okay.
As somebody who never has any notes and never had any notes, any, any lecture I've ever given any presentation I've ever given, I've never had notes.
Um, I actually had more notes on my bike rides on YouTube than I have ever done on a stream or something like this.
And this woman is giving a presentation with note cards for like a high schooler.
Note cards.
She needs to be told to get back in the light.
Traitors, ladies and gentlemen.
Traitors to our children.
Hospital transmission.
This graph shows patients in English hospitals across the winter.
In red, you see patients with COVID.
In black, no COVID.
And in green, here are the empty beds.
Now, the empty beds were pretty constant.
So were these non-COVID patients kindly clearing the way to make room for the COVID patients?
Well, no.
And SAGE have included in their report an estimate that in spring 2020, there could have been 40% transmission through hospitals.
And this is what we saw with SARS-1 and with MERS.
So focusing on the community, on pubs and on schools, is detracting from this, and this is really important.
We could do something about this.
NHS has been below capacity throughout, but ITU capacity was exceeded in spring and in winter.
And it does seem that COVID... Now we're talking about capacity in hospitals?
Again, nowhere near questioning the actual premise of this biology.
Nowhere near.
In fact, we're a few months away from her probably saying this was a lab leak, right?
produces higher morbidity.
So people are more sick with COVID than they are with respiratory viruses from previous winters.
But it's worth bearing in mind that the UK has less than half the IT capacity per head of the USA and Germany.
So we could be acting on this.
We could be increasing our IT capacity.
We could be sort of- Intensive care, I think, is IT, right?
This is terrible.
We're talking about making more possibility to get people on pure oxygen.
We're talking about getting more possibility of killing people.
You know, this inconveniently large generation of old people that's going to be a common and unquestionable burden on the governments and societies that they are members of.
And they knew this was coming for two decades or more already, ladies and gentlemen, and they knew what they were going to use it for.
Putting out air filtering in hospitals, putting UVC into the filtering systems.
So overall, we do not fully understand transmission of respiratory viruses and we need some humility about that.
Stop lying!
Policy's been based on assumptions around transmission that the evidence does not support and we could be acting now to improve ventilation and ITU capacity and stop pretending that lockdowns can affect a virus that is spread through the air.
Stop!
Wow!
And so the second half of that talk is over diagnosis where she explains to you that testing in a clinical setting is a trade-off just like a food is at a restaurant where you can have fast and tasty but then it's expensive or you can have fast and cheap but then it's not very good or you can have
cheap and tasty and then I guess it's also very slow and not fast or something like that and it is absurd it is absolutely absurd that these people are still the only people that anybody that has any skepticism at all runs into
If anybody from the mainstream is deciding to look into something, they're gonna run into Del Bigtree, and they're gonna run into Bobby Kennedy, and they're gonna run into Mary Holland, and Meryl Nass, and Robert Malone, and Pierre Cory, and all of these people.
They're the only ones that you're gonna find if you go off of the mainstream narrative, which is what?
Which is what?
Harris or Trump?
Harris, Trump, and J.D.
Vance, and Harrison, and Oprah last night?
That's why it's important to understand that Robert Malone is a red thread that you can pull and pull and pull and pull until this whole thing unravels.
It's the only way to explain why he's going to Japan this month with Meryl Nass and all these other people who are in front of the Senate.
Even some of the people from Romania and Canada are now there with him in Japan.
Because this is a traveling show that is continuously reinforcing this limited spectrum of debate around the world for the few people who think they're awake.
For the few people who still believe that some combination of a unity party will save America.
Nobody's riding in on a white horse.
They are gonna take our guns, they're gonna test vaccines and tell us they're safe, and they're gonna take away our sovereignty and put us on a digital ID to save our kids from predators on the internet.
That's what's coming, and they all know it.
And it's part of this use of this increase in all-cause mortality that was expected and is continued to be expected to happen into the future.
And they are just using it to orchestrate the changes that they want to make.
All right, Kevin Esvelt, who the hell is that?
I want to watch a video with you as a study hall today to kind of restart this thing and to refocus us on the hard questions that nobody's asking and to move forward in directions that we need to move forward and with ideas that we need to teach our kids.
So who the hell is Kevin Esvelt?
Let's watch a movie together and see if we can figure that out.
This is a, this is a, why aren't you showing up?
This is a TED Talk, so get ready.
It's from before the pandemic.
Earthrise.
I love this photo because it shows that we are all fellow passengers on a tiny world ship journeying through the void.
Our vessel is beautiful, but we are a heavy burden.
As you all know, we use many more resources than it can sustainably provide.
In other words, our beautiful little world ship is damaged and slowly sinking.
Our best hope of repair is with science.
We must continually invent new ways of fixing our problems.
We can do this.
We will have the technology.
We may also have technology that will inevitably sink it.
The fate of our voyage will be determined by how well we can answer a single question.
Which technologies should we develop?
In the last three minutes, a thousand people were infected with malaria.
Two of those, both children, will die.
If you could invent a technology that would eradicate malaria forever, would you do it?
Come on, it's okay to show compassion in public.
Everyone who would eradicate malaria, raise your hand.
That's more like it.
How about a local problem?
How many of you here have been bitten by a tick?
Raise your hand.
That's a lot.
Well, here in New England, the iconic image of American childhood, that of kids running freely through the woods, is increasingly threatened by the prevalence of Lyme disease and other tick-borne pathogens.
If you could invent a technology to prevent tick-borne disease and let the kids run free again, would you do it?
Raise your hands.
Yeah, tick-borne diseases come from where again, Mr. Speaker?
But of course, it's easy to say yes to the benefits.
One of the things you should know about Kevin Esvelt is he is a member of the MIT Media Lab.
You ever heard of that before?
The question is, what are the risks?
How would we go about doing these things?
Well, both of these are biological problems.
So the answer must involve CRISPR.
Now, CRISPR is a molecular scalpel that can be programmed to precisely cut and therefore edit just about any DNA sequence in any organism.
And it's so easy that you can do it in your kitchen, at least in microbes, using a mail-order kit.
Now don't worry about it.
Does that sound a little bit like Robert Malone's pitch for how nowadays, you know, you can mail order from eBay all the equipment you need to make a gain-of-function virus in your garage?
He said that to the UK Parliament in a public meeting in 2023.
In fact, you can drink everything in that kit and be perfectly fine.
It's totally safe.
In fact,
Each of us has billions of copies of CRISPR within us already, because it's used as a defense system by the microbes that live within us.
We've simply adapted it for genome editing.
Here's how it works.
Introduce into the cell the DNA that you want to insert, as well as the CRISPR system and instructions telling it where to cut.
CRISPR will cut the original sequence, and to repair the damage, the cell will insert your new DNA sequence.
It's that easy.
If biology is written in the language of DNA, and it is, CRISPR is our pencil.
And now that we have it, we should be teaching kids to use CRISPR to edit genomes in middle school biology class, right?
I mean, we encourage kids to learn how to program and to tinker in their garages.
Why not extend that to living systems?
I'm seeing a handful of dubious looks out there.
Perhaps you're concerned that we might inadvertently damage the ecosystems that we all rely on.
Those are really the life support systems of our world, Chip.
I think we can all agree you should be careful when you're tinkering with life support.
But keep in mind that when we alter an organism, we're tinkering with something that has evolved to optimize reproduction in its natural habitat.
And while our changes might be good for us, they're generally not good for the organism.
So natural selection eliminates them.
To give an example, we spent many years reshaping the wolf into many different breeds of dogs.
But are any of you worried that your pet is going to escape and out-compete the wolves in Yellowstone?
Of course not.
Out there, dogs fail against wolves, and engineered traits fail in the wild.
But what if we could change that?
Suppose that you could invent a technology that would let anyone who can alter a large organism using CRISPR.
I'm not really sure how to approach that, but I'm not sure that that generalization that he just made is real and right.
I can think of several scenarios where maybe
the, a wild dog introduced could change a population or whatever.
I mean, I, I think what he just said there was kind of a bit of a magic spell, but I'm, I, I'm, I'm not really seeing any equivalence there.
I mean, one of the people in the chat just said it like, it's not the same.
Dog breeding is not the same as using CRISPR.
And, and it would, if
a wild dog got out into the wild and then bred with wolves, you would have introduction of those genes in some way or another into that wild population and potentially in future.
That's, that's not impossible.
That's real.
You're not worried about it because again, the odds of a dog going out there and integrating with a wild wolf population is not very high.
But he's talking about it in a very disingenuous way for an audience, I think, who's probably not quite sophisticated enough to hear it for the bullshit equivalents that he's using it as.
That is a living thing that you can see.
To cause that change to spread over generations through the wild population.
So anyone who could make a yellow fruit fly in the laboratory could release it and eventually
turn all the fruit flies yellow.
What would that do to the ecosystem?
Almost certainly nothing.
And that's true of most changes, but certainly not all.
Suppose you tried to turn them all into males.
Apart from the obvious downsides, the population would crash and possibly go extinct.
And while initially only very few people would be able to use your technology,
This is CRISPR, so that would inevitably change.
So, a technology to alter entire wild populations and engineer ecosystems single-handedly.
Good idea?
Bad idea.
Raise your hand if you would invent this one.
Not many takers.
He already did.
It's called a gene drive.
And this guy was called in front of the United States Senate or the United States House of Representatives, along with Richard Ebright, to testify about the dangers of gain of function coronavirus.
And that we should have strict regulations on what these people can do.
all the while knowing that what he does, what he designed, the kinds of molecular tools that he's designed, that any pharmaceutical company could make in giant quantities because that's what they can do.
The same way they can make biologics like a, I don't know, RNA dependent lipid nanoparticle transfection to be rolled out in millions of doses, they could make gene drives
using the same recombinant DNA technology and make them as pure and as large a quantity as desired.
And we're talking about gain-of-function coronaviruses as being scary.
We're solving mysteries about who's responsible for gain-of-function coronaviruses being sprayed into bat caves by people like Peter Daszak in the Diffuse proposal.
And already before the pandemic, someone from MIT who was later in the pandemic a witness about how dangerous gain-of-function viruses is, is explaining to you the ludicrous nature of taking CRISPR and combining it with a series of methodological and molecular tweaks so that it becomes essentially like a super dominant gene.
that overwrites itself anywhere it is and passes on as into future generations in a almost super dominant way.
I don't even know if he's gonna explain how bad it is right now, but listen carefully because this is before the pandemic.
What if I told you it was the same technology that could let us eradicate malaria and prevent tick-borne disease?
It's a way of using CRISPR to duplicate a natural phenomenon known as gene drive.
And not only does it already exist, it's been independently reinvented, which means it was probably inevitable.
But scientists are morally responsible for the consequences of our work.
And that means that someone bears the burden of responsibility for CRISPR-based gene drive.
And if you must know who, well,
Funny.
Why?
Why do that, given that so many of you have reservations?
Well, let's put that aside for the moment and look at how it works.
Introduced into the cell, not just your edited DNA sequence, but also the instruction.
I would just like to say in a very broad sense that one of the things that we know genetically about dogs and about dog breeds versus some other dog breeds, and this is something very interesting.
I wonder if Ruby's here.
Probably not.
Anyway, some dog breeds are outbred by genetic background and other dog breeds are not.
The best example of outbred dogs are
the sled dogs in Alaska.
If you look at their genome, it's like they're mutts.
If you look at Lienbergers, they also qualify as mutts.
They are outbred.
The selection and the arrangement of their genes is not
the same homogeny that you would find in a breed like Golden Retrievers or a breed like, oh I'm trying to think of a really old breed, but some of these breeds essentially qualify as inbred because their traits have become so selected for they almost have nothing different to pass on to their progeny if they are mated with another one of them.
And so that's not what happens with Liam burgers.
That's not what happens with Alaskan sled dogs.
You get a lot of variety in the offspring because they are by definition, their genome is not inbred.
They haven't been crossbred, you know, rebred enough for that to occur.
And the extreme example of this, of course, are the mice that are in a laboratory where they are all essentially genetically equivalent, almost twins.
If you put those mice out in the wild, they don't stand a chance because they don't have any variation in their genes.
And so they have no ability to modulate and no ability to
There's nothing to select against.
I mean, select for, because you're just left with one alternative.
And so this idea has been understood for a very long time and only in the broadest sense, but I just wanted to address that in the chat.
Sorry to interrupt.
For making and using the pencil.
So CRISPR will erase the original sequence and write in the new one, plus the instructions for making and using the pencil.
Once one copy goes in, it will produce the pencil and use it to erase the other copy of the original version and write in the new one.
So now the organism has two copies.
So this is a lot like a self-replicating RNA, but now on the DNA form.
And so this is CRISPR.
Once you put it in, then it looks for itself and it makes itself and it goes, yikes.
So this is not, this is not natural biology.
This is just a bad idea.
And it only really happens if you do it.
It can only be done with intention.
And the crazy part is, is that we have the technology to make it at high levels of purity and in giant quantities, thanks to very standard recombinant molecular biological techniques that are descended from the original human genome project.
And here's where the magic happens.
When that organism mates with a wild counterpart, all of the offspring are guaranteed to inherit the new version, the gene drive construct.
And in those offspring, editing happens again, which means that all of those organisms' offspring are guaranteed to inherit the new version.
And in those organisms, erase, rewrite.
Holy shit.
Erase, rewrite.
on and on through the generations until, if you've done it right, you've altered every version in the local population.
And very possibly, every- Were they putting it in the jabs?
I don't know, but could they once the entire population has accepted mRNA transfection as the way?
Absolutely.
Without a doubt.
I don't know if they would.
But they most certainly could, once you give up your sovereignty and accept the fact that transfection is personalized or precision medicine, as James Lyons Weiler described it in 2019, as Robert Malone has described it for years, as Fauci has described it for years, and Collins has described it for years.
The Human Genome Project, the goal is that.
Come on, ladies and gentlemen, wake up!
The biology is available, the real biology is available, and the shiny objects like virology and pandemics, they wanted us to argue about that stuff.
That's why no virus was a thing for five years, and none of those no virus people have ever done anything about gene drives in five years.
I was telling you about Kevin Esvelt and Gene Drives in 2021, ladies and gentlemen.
Come on.
Repopulation of that species in the world.
What might we do with this?
We could start with the deadliest animal in the world, the mosquito.
But that's unfair to the mosquitoes, because there are 3,500 species, and just six are responsible for nearly all mosquito-borne disease.
Six species that could be altered or suppressed to block transmission.
Imagine a world without malaria, without dengue, or yellow fever, or chikungunya, or Zika, and with no risk of the next mosquito-borne virus to emerge from the jungle.
We could use gene drive to immunize the mice that infect ticks with the pathogens that cause Lyme and other diseases.
No infected ticks, no infected kids.
And that's just a couple of applications in human health.
What about the environment?
Right now, if we have a problem with a species, say, an insect pest eating our crops, we spray insecticides to kill it, and in the process, kill many others.
Imagine if we could program that pest to be uniquely susceptible, the only one affected.
Or better yet, if we could tweak it so that it simply didn't like the taste of our crop and could otherwise go about its ecological role.
We could save endangered species by controlling or removing populations of invasive ones.
200 years ago, there were no mosquitoes in Hawaii.
and there were lots of beautiful native birds.
We introduced mosquitoes to Hawaii, and eventually, with them came bird malaria, which proceeded to wipe out a lot of the birds.
Of the ones left, we're going to lose most of them in the next few decades, unless we remove those mosquitoes from Hawaii.
Overall, gene drive is a way.
It's hard for me to imagine that the birds in Hawaii are dying because of mosquito.
Couldn't be loss of habitat.
No, that's not possible.
To solve ecological problems using biology, not bulldozers.
What if something goes wrong?
Might seem a bit much to suggest that the same technology that caused a problem could also be used to fix it.
But in this case, a pencil is a pencil.
Erase the sequence that causes the damage and write in a corrected version or the original version.
That's not to say that this will always work.
Oh, so we could do it.
And if it doesn't work, we can just put the original one back in.
Stop lying.
Holy cow.
Is that dumb?
Certainly not to say that there aren't any ecological risks.
Of course there are, but if,
We are careful and cautious and humble because we are just learning how these systems work.
We can usually find out what might go wrong and make an informed decision.
For example, before we consider using a drive system to alter a wild population, we should release lots of organisms that have the alteration, but not the drive system.
Is that what Bill Gates is doing with the genetically altered mosquitoes right now?
Are we on stage one where we're releasing genetically altered mosquitoes to see if it screws anything up?
And if it doesn't, maybe we can just do it with a gene drive next time.
This is very, very bad, ladies and gentlemen, because this is before the pandemic.
He's telling you that maybe we should just release some first.
They're doing it right now.
And if you can't see,
with just this little backing up, how big this is.
With just a little bit of backing up and you still can't see the top of it, you've got to realize that starting from the Human Genome Project, we have a massive illusion being created about the fidelity of our understanding of our own biology and our command of it.
because the only way to roll these technologies out en masse and figure out how they could possibly work is to turn humans into experimental animals because you can't figure these questions out in mice and in cell cultures.
Into the local environment where it won't spread and see what happens.
Based on that knowledge, we can then decide whether it's worth proceeding.
Of course,
that requires us to be careful and cautious and humble.
And right now, there is nothing stopping me or any other scientist from building any gene drive system that we want.
Imagine a well-meaning scientist who wants to solve an ecological problem.
they want to spur on the ecologists to run those tests, to make sure that it's a good idea.
Now remember, what we're supposed to believe during the pandemic, according to Charles Rixey and Kevin McCairn and Kevin McKernan and Tony Fauci and Peter Daszak and all these people, is that there is an RNA with a particular set of furin cleavage sites encoded in the protein that it codes for, and that makes this RNA really good at spreading itself around the world.
and that we should be really concerned about people who would have the audacity of putting fear and cleavage sites into viruses and then spraying them into bat caves.
What a bunch of shitheads.
And for four years, people like me and you and everybody else have been arguing about these fake mythologies, these false biological phenomenon, when all the while in the background, these people knew what was going on.
They know what they're planning, they know what they need to do, and they know what they want to do.
and they know what the real molecular biology is that you need to be afraid of.
And that's why they use none other than Kevin Esvelt in front of the United States government and alongside Richard Ebright to say that, yeah, gain-of-function viruses are real and they need real regulation.
So they build a gene drive system in the laboratory.
They're confident that it's a good idea.
we'd certainly find out if any of their gene drive organisms escaped into the wild.
I'm sorry, Free Rain, but you do understand, right?
That the bat narrative was seeded all the way back in this man and his future book from 1950, 19 what?
And the guy who wrote that chapter is Hilary Kaprowski.
And we wouldn't know shit about Hilary Koprowski if it wasn't for Mark.
This book was written in 1963.
Hilary Koprowski who went through the Vatican and then the Rockefeller Institute in Brazil and is responsible for a yellow fever vaccine or some other shit.
And his wife is a cell culture master.
That guy wrote a book, a chapter in this book, the introduction and first chapter written by Aldous Huxley or Julian Huxley.
Hilary Koprowski wrote a chapter about viruses coming from bat caves.
And exactly the same kind of chapter was written in 2019 by the last postdoc of Ralph Baric and Sina Bavari.
Alison Totura and Sina Bavari wrote a review about how there would be a coronavirus pandemic and that Remdesivir would work really well for it.
It's all the same story they've been telling and planning to use in this time when the population pyramid gave them the opportunity to whine about a crisis.
And they knew already, they've been tweaking this story for 30 years and finding the right people to represent it for 30 years.
That's why Tony Fauci is still representing it.
That's why somebody like Robert Malone is representing it to somebody like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who's probably been under their bamboozlement since he was 14 years old and became the most dangerous American alive.
And so yeah, he's been surrounded by liars for a very long time.
And he's about to bring all of those liars into the Trump administration and we need to stop it.
Even if Trump's not a good guy, it's possible.
I think it's actually more possible that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
could become a bad guy than Donald Trump could become a bad guy.
Because I think it's possible that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
could actually realize that these people have been lying to him.
Even people like Jeffrey Sachs, and Robert Malone, and Meryl Nass, and Mary Holland.
So that the message of someone simple like Brian Hooker would be lost in that.
Somebody as humble as Brian Hooker could be crowded out by that.
James Lyons Wyler also can get in contact with Bobby whenever he wants to, and that guy has got to be a meddler.
There's no other way to explain his lack of understanding and progress in this biology.
Only takes one.
Oops, they might say.
Terribly sorry.
I didn't mean to unleash a technology that could ultimately impact the lives of billions of people.
I mean, I know our ancestors fought and died for the right to self-governance, but it was an honest mistake.
You'd forgive them, I'm sure.
You're compassionate, remember?
You wouldn't let a single mistake by a single scientist seriously damage your trust in science.
And it certainly wouldn't prompt you or anyone else to impose harsh restrictions on what scientists can do, would it?
Science and one mistake is how this pandemic now everyone has concluded.
After solving the mystery, how the pandemic started is one mistake.
Think about this, ladies and gentlemen.
Because we're trying to fix the sinking world ship here, right?
And if that's not bad enough... The sinking world ship.
My children are not inheriting that narrative.
They are not.
Even though their teachers believe it, they are not inheriting it because they're growing up in this house.
Consider, scientists might build a gene drive system using CRISPR without even understanding that that's what they're doing.
In fact, it's already happened.
Another group hadn't read our work, any warnings or recommended safeguards,
and built a CRISPR-based gene drive in the lab to solve a lab-specific problem, nothing to do with wild populations.
But they were good and careful scientists, so they did what they were supposed to do, they ran it by their biosafety committee, which also didn't see a problem.
And in fact, they were only two days from publishing their work as a method to be used by other laboratories without mentioning safeguards, even those that they themselves had used.
That was a near miss.
But it was an incredibly useful one, because it highlighted the problems with the current system.
That is, we scientists don't tell other scientists what we're planning to do in the laboratory, let alone the general populace.
Scientists are typically not so great
at anticipating the consequences of our work.
The world is too vast on our own, and regulations will always be playing catch-up.
I mean, there are teleprompters at TED Talks.
I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but they're at the floor level.
So he's just reading.
He's reading word for word.
That's why he's talking like this.
For example, just yesterday, the National Academy released recommendations for gene drive research.
Mind you, recommendations, not restrictions, recommendations.
23 months after we first described how you could use CRISPR to build a gene drive system.
And then to top it all off,
There is no universal requirement that any scientist building something like a gene drive system tell people what they're doing, no matter how dramatic and shared the consequences of a mistake.
Speaking as a scientist and an inventor, this is both wrong
and dangerous.
What exactly was that?
It's wrong.
Because in medical research, we demand informed consent, recommendations, not restrictions.
Okay, I want to listen carefully here.
23 months after we first described how you could use CRISPR to build a gene drive system.
And then to top it all off, there is no universal requirement that any scientist
building something like a gene drive system, tell people what they're doing, no matter how dramatic and shared the consequences of a mistake.
Speaking as a scientist and an inventor, this is both wrong and dangerous.
So he's begging for regulation and begging for oversight.
Interesting.
It's wrong because in medical research, we demand informed consent before experiments can begin.
And yet, we allow scientists to build gene drive systems capable of single-handedly altering entire ecosystems.
It's almost like he's seeding a narrative that a gain-of-function virus could be kind of like you being exposed to something without informed consent, huh?
I know that that's not where we are, but this is a couple years before the pandemic, so it's interesting.
Without telling people what they're doing.
It's dangerous because there are technologies out there more perilous than gene drive.
Robert Oppenheimer said, when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it.
And you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success.
That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.
To me, that sounds a lot like saying that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, even when you're building nuclear weapons or dangerous viruses.
or gene drive systems.
Yes.
He said it.
He said dangerous viruses.
I, my gosh, I must, I didn't expect it.
Wow.
But it's worse than that because right now the scientific ecosystem actively punishes us for telling people what we are planning to do in the laboratory.
There is no good reason for that to be the case.
In fact, there's every reason for just the opposite.
Closed door science is incredibly inefficient.
We waste time unknowingly duplicating the efforts of others.
And it makes it really hard to find the other person who has the missing piece of that puzzle when everyone's doing their work behind closed doors.
But even though no rational person would design the current scientific enterprise,
It's the one we have, because we started doing science well before we had the communication technologies that could solve this problem, that could let us communicate what we're doing.
And science evolved.
So now he's framing the problem of science as the compartmentalization of it, and that we don't communicate and we're not open enough.
And so we need open science.
Maybe we should publish using blockchain or something like McKernan as a suggestion.
This is all,
hilarious diversion from the horrible use of null hypotheses and p-values to create the illusion of knowledge generation, which is what he really ought to be talking about, but is not because that's not what he's supposed to talk about.
Traditions are hard to change.
So it's not secrecy.
Just beware that the reason why science is handicapped is not because of secrecy.
It's because of the use of null hypotheses and p-values to generate the illusion of knowledge.
So why did we tell the world about CRISPR-based gene drive?
Because we wanted to describe capabilities, consequences, and detail available safeguards
as well as to call for openness and community guidance before we or anyone ran experiments in the laboratory, because we wanted to set an example that technologies like this should always be developed in the light of day.
We were professionally punished for it, but it was worth it.
Sadly.
We were professionally punished for it, but it was worth it.
He works at MIT Media Labs where everybody becomes a postdoc and then they just kind of disappear.
Very few people go through MIT Media Labs and then go to another faculty, you know, like become a professor somewhere.
They all disappear into the system and go work for industry or the military or something like that.
That's not enough.
It's hard to change the system.
especially from within, and it still favors secrecy.
Right now, it's easier to engineer biology than culture.
But we must change the culture, because people deserve a voice in decisions that will affect them.
Because there are technologies out there more perilous than gene drive, waiting to be discovered.
But most of all, because our world ship is slowly sinking.
And here we are, tinkering with its systems, with the lights off.
This has to change.
You can see, right, that this is a limited spectrum of debate that has been carefully crafted by this choice of language and this presentation style.
And it's really weak and it's annoying for us.
But see what he's attempting to do and what probably happened in most people's minds that listen to this.
He's telling you what questions to ask and how to argue about them and what the most plausible moral answers are to those questions.
And they're not even the right questions.
He's telling you that there are more dangerous things out there.
You don't even need to worry about me.
There's viruses.
Change.
And GeneDrive is the key, the lever, the rallying point, the battle flag.
Because GeneDrive, more than any other technology we have right now,
demands a new approach.
And if we can ensure that gene drive research is open and responsive, then that model could spread to the rest of science.
But hold on a minute.
You're probably thinking, is democracy really the system we want to govern technology?
Do you really expect the typical citizen to have the time and inclination to become well-versed in the technical details necessary to offer an informed opinion on this subject?
Well, as Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
And it comes to a question of trust.
Do you trust me with the power to single-handedly engineer ecosystems?
Do you trust a scientist who has not spent a lot of time thinking about the consequences, or one that doesn't really understand what they are doing?
I'll tell you who I trust.
Local communities coming together to solve problems that affect them.
You said that you wanted to solve malaria and prevent tick-borne disease.
Thankfully, we're not affected by malaria, so I don't think we get any say in that.
But Lyme disease is right here in our backyards.
Many of you may have grown up in this area, running carefree through the woods,
But my son will never do that unless we intervene.
I trust you to decide whether we should.
So he's not letting his sons run in the woods.
I let my sons run in the woods.
They've been bit by ticks.
I'm not bragging that, oh, I don't care about lambs.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that it's crazy.
The kinds of ideas that are thrown out on stage, it's crazy.
And to see that this was before the pandemic, it must be a little rung on the ladder that you can use to help yourself climb out.
Because this is the real biology that you need to be worried about, not gain-of-function viruses.
Yet not even a year after or two years after this talk, we are exclusively focused on gain-of-function viruses and to the tune that he actually testified in front of our government.
that gain-of-function viruses needed regulation.
And how?
Imagine if local communities came together with scientists in New England town halls to make all the key decisions about whether and how to alter those local populations of mice that infect ticks.
And if it works on a small scale, without a gene drive system.
What about the ticks that feed off of the deer?
I don't understand.
What is he talking about?
Are mice the only thing that ticks feed off of?
What kind of, wow.
Then we can start having discussions about scaling it up.
It would be a grassroots local community.
I mean, rats, squirrels, chipmunks.
There's lots of different squirrels too.
You could think of small red squirrels or bigger gray squirrels, black squirrels.
You could think of raccoons and opossum.
It's, what is he talking about?
Driven model of technology development.
One that could be emulated by communities around the world.
That is how we should do responsive science.
But what about the open part?
How can we ensure that gene drive technology is developed in the open?
We can start by recognizing scientists who do things differently, who do share what they're going to do.
But at the end of the day, you have to follow the money, because science is expensive.
And that means that if we can successfully pressure funders, including our own governments,
to require that gene drive research be open, then it will be.
And we should do it soon.
Because we need increasingly powerful technologies.
We will find them.
And with closed door science, we are mostly blind to the consequences.
The blind pursuit of power brings only grief.
It's true that it's easier to engineer biology than culture, but some technologies may be able to do both.
So let's use GeneDrive to engineer an ecosystem, the scientific ecosystem.
Let's use it to throw open the doors, to turn on the lights, and to repair our world.
Thank you.
Obviously that was gross but you need to see those things because Kevin Esvelt is one of the real people in the background working on the real technologies that they intend to incorporate into this inversion where once you give them the opportunity to use precision medicine that's based in RNA and call this the vaccination schedule or call this precision medicine or
or personalized medicine, you're done.
At any point in time, they can put a gene drive in that will, I don't know, just make you passive.
I don't know what they will do, but I'm telling you that giving them access to your biology will inevitably lead to you being used as an experimental animal, your children and your grandchildren.
And they won't use their kids.
That's the point.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's been murder and lies, and it's been an expected amount of increased all-cause mortality that these people have been covering it up.
That's why they talk about no evidence of spread, or they talk about protocols, but they won't tell you that they expected a lot of people to die in the coming years.
There are good explanations for how PCR can be accurate, but also a complete lie.
How the population pyramid provided this booming opportunity for them to create this illusion
and how virology can be a lie, but transformation and transfection and cell culture and animals can be misconstrued as virology.
We need a new consensus about these things, ladies and gentlemen.
RNA cannot pandemic, and they've been lying to us about vaccines for decades.
And they would definitely murder and lie in order to cover that up.
Definitely, definitely, definitely.
Thank you very much for joining me.
I will see you again tomorrow.
And there is a very,
slim but not zero chance that i will stream this afternoon again because i really do owe you some shows and uh i really do need new subscribers so if you if you can um feel free to go to gigahomebiological.com and find a way to support the stream with a one-time donation of
of tiny amount of money or $100,000 if you've got it, because my family and I would like to keep this going in perpetuity until this illusion is permanently broken.
Thank you very much for joining me and I'll see you again tomorrow.
Stop lying.
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
Thanks guys for your patience.
I'll see you tomorrow.