taking Brett Weinstein, Chris Martinson, Laura Loomer, Masako has been down, I don't know, a dozen, 15 times.
We spend months at a time.
We've taken so many people down there.
We put that on the map.
And the reason that you see Elon Musk going to the border was because
We specifically, we took our team Operation Burning Edge, we went to SpaceX, and we just kept reporting, hey, they're coming across.
We didn't even ask to talk with Elon Musk.
We didn't ask to talk with anybody at SpaceX.
We just went to SpaceX, and we were right there on the border.
And as people that have been to SpaceX know, you can drive right beside the launch pad.
weirdly close.
Like you can literally put your hand on the truck that's downloading LOX to the ground tanks.
Literally, they're loading down liquid oxygen and nitrogen and all that.
You can put your hand on those trucks.
It's weird.
But anyway, we focused on
on SpaceX and we were intentionally prodding Elon Musk to start paying attention to the border.
So when you see when we were there and then he started paying attention, they overlapped.
You see the big lawsuits now for Colony Ridge?
We did that.
I got some congressmen and a bunch of media, and I got the helicopter, and I took them up over with Todd Bensman, and took them over Colony Ridge, you know, did it multiple trips.
And the next thing you know, you end up with these big lawsuits.
For those who know what Colony Ridge is, it's a big city, let's say a medium-sized city for 200,000 illegal invaders north of Houston, right?
North of Houston, right?
So it was our team that put that on the map and started all, got all this.
It's extraordinary what you're doing.
My hat's off to you, as they say, but you're going to give Trump the biggest media ever, if I can hear it, in history, based on what you're saying.
I'm exaggerating like Trump does, but I'll give him great media.
My pen will flow with beautiful ink for Trump if he closes the Darien gap.
And we have also simulcasting on X. So Elon, if you're listening, we're simulcasting on X through the Red Pill Expo.
My personal account, askRSB.
We've got it going on everywhere right now.
So this presentation should be shared.
You guys, you know who you are out there watching right now.
Share what you've seen here.
We're gonna make this available for everywhere, everywhere and everyone to maybe we can shut this thing down.
So Michael Yan, thank you so much for presenting what you've done.
and in a very profound way, no mystery about it.
So thank you for clearing that up.
No mystery.
I just wish we had five hours.
Uh, and come down to dairy and come on down.
As you know, this is a comprehensive war.
There's many weapons being used.
Biggest weapon is information war.
Uh, and which is something you guys are fighting very hard and the economic you're, you're hitting it on full spectrum.
I mean, you see all these different ways that they're hitting us and you're actually addressing them.
Most people can't see all these different weapons that are being used.
Well, Michael, we're spreading the news and thank you for sharing it here with us on the Red Pill Expo stage virtually because we are reaching more people than we've ever reached before.
Thank you all for being here.
Thank you, Michael Yan.
And we'll look forward to talking with you some more and get you on my show.
Make sure to read it in Japanese.
I love it.
Thanks, Michael.
I appreciate you.
All right, we got more to do.
That was pretty extraordinary.
I was watching the videos that he's brought about from being on site there.
A lot of times you hear these stories and you see it visually and viscerally.
So thank you, Michael.
We're gonna go deep here with our next speaker.
And he's spoken at the Red Pill Expo before.
I met him at the last one for the first time.
Very impressed, very impressed.
I've been in holistic medicine, natural medicine, homeopathic medicine for 30 years.
I've talked about the law of the terrain versus germs, the germ theory, all of that.
He knows all of that, kind of where the bodies are buried too.
So if germs and viruses don't cause disease, then what does?
We need to go deeper on this as well, and I'm grateful that Jonathan Cooey, PhD, is with us again here on the Red Pill Expo virtual stage.
Jonathan Cooey, are you on?
Want to make sure?
I am here.
Can you hear me?
Yes, good to see you.
You're looking great, my friend, and I'm glad you're here and back to deliver even more.
Well, we'll see what we get done, but I hope something good comes out of it.
I'm really happy to be here.
I'm really grateful for the chance to have the podium again.
Well, everybody pay close attention to what Jonathan Cooley is delivering.
It could be challenging, but that's what we're here for.
The challenge to say, hey, what do we perceive about life itself?
That's why we take that red pill and Jonathan Cooley is gonna deliver.
Thank you, Jonathan, take it away.
Wow, thanks very much.
I'm just going to switch over here.
I think everybody should be able to follow this pretty good.
It's an interesting place that we're in.
The title of my talk almost felt like a little bit of a joke.
And so when G. Edward Griffin asked me to do the talk, I took it very much with a grain of salt that I wasn't going to be able to tell you
what causes disease.
I'm certainly not, I don't have the professional qualifications to answer that question in a home run sort of presentation in an hour or so.
I do know for sure that leaving off with my last Red Pill presentation and trying to dovetail from it, I do know it's very important for all the adults in the audience to acknowledge that the repeated message that we are hearing from every presenter at Red Pill
is that there is something like a charlatan that has control over us or a group of charlatans.
And it is important to realize that a lot of these red pill prisoners have indirectly or directly said that these charlatans have had power for more than one generation.
And that's important because it's important to see that taking the power back from these charlatans is almost taking the power back from them from our parents as well, because our parents were under the same spell.
that we are under.
In our parents' time, a lot of the enchantment was promises of what was to come.
The Walt Disney, what was it called?
The Epcot Center is all about the world of tomorrow.
And so all of these ideas are actually predictions made before any biological principles that supported them were even there to edify them.
So it's a really interesting place that we're in because actually,
I am just a guy who was chasing tenure for almost 20 years, taking very low salary, dragging my family around the world as it grew, all for a, you know, no job security at all, and just the possibility of maybe getting on the runway that was tenure, but you never know if you're going to get it.
And so this whole
enterprise that I was involved in had to do with me accepting a sort of biology 101, which is a world where germs and viruses cause disease and where genes can cause disease.
And in fact, I had to absorb that and all the details that
that it was based on, all the ideas and presumptions that it was based on.
And you can find that work on PubMed to this day with my last name.
And in fact, the news program that I do now that's called GigaOM Biologicals derived from that work that I did.
And so, you know, I was a microscope jockey.
I wrote grant applications, not very well,
But I already came to understand that everybody was doing a little bit of exaggeration, making big promises about the big problems that their research would solve, even if they knew that it was a really little tiny, tiny piece of the big problem that they thought they were solving.
I do have my own website.
I'm just gonna plug it here one time because it's not YouTube.
It's not anything other than a website that I use the PeerTube clone of.
PeerTube is like a kind of a clone of YouTube in the sense of,
Everybody can have one and then I could link to yours and you could link to mine And it would be a decentralized version of YouTube that nobody could control and although I'm all alone There are other people doing this and so we could all do this.
It's trying to lead by example I don't know how well it's working But my views are slowly growing and it's a place where you can find things without having to log in You can download them and watch them without using the internet.
You can download the audio all that stuff.
It's all there and
That's like the only thing that I provide my viewers with.
So this whole thing started for me as a university professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, where, same as you, at the start of the pandemic, we were told that we needed to have lockdown.
I was actually riding my bike to and from the University of Pittsburgh when the
The streets were completely empty in the morning and at night because of the lockdown and doing a little podcast on my bike on YouTube that I had started originally for my classes.
And so like you, when people rescued us, when picked us up on the side of the road, I met people on the internet that told me that they had answers and that I was asking the right questions.
we all came to the conclusion that there was a novel virus that potentially millions of people have died from.
But we did save a lot of people because we locked down or because we didn't or because we wore masks or we didn't.
And so this was the story that I told the last time I was at Red Pill.
And it's a story that matters because if you wanna understand why we get sick, then we're gonna have to really reorient ourselves, essentially have a new model
of biology because the old model of biology is worth explaining so that you can see why it's an insufficient model.
It's a model that we could actually be trapped by if we allow this mythology to be inherited by our children.
And so intramuscular injection, that's when you squirt something into your muscle with a needle of any combination of substances.
So you can just imagine, you know, salt and sugar and whatever with the intent of augmenting your immune system.
So protecting you from disease is dumb.
And I think it's really important to start finding succinct ways of expressing big ideas so that we can start to have useful conversations about those big ideas.
And people can correct me.
And so one of the reasons why I feel it's imperative to repeat this message, even though the general idea of the red pill is not to repeat your previous messages, I think we're at a stage now where the red pill and the ideas of it are starting to need repeating because they have become so sharp that there's no reason to dance around them anymore.
We need to get them farther and farther out.
So I want this to be challenged.
Very similarly, transfection was a kind of product before the pandemic.
And that's one of the reasons why I lost my career in neurobiology, because I was speaking out about the fact that, hey, we're all using transfection and transformation in our mice and monkeys.
Why are we allowing them to call this an investigational vaccine?
It turns out that was always criminal.
It turns out they probably did it just because they're recycling old technology as new technology so they can reset the patent clock, the IP clock.
And finally, RNA cannot pandemic.
This is another one of those statements that at first you might think, wow, that's weird.
But a coronavirus is just a little fat bubble with a really long RNA molecule in it.
And they say that if you make the right combination of that, you know, with like a 19 base insert with some magic fear and cleavage sites and maybe some HIV homologies.
that this RNA could go around the world from a mud puddle wherever it was spilled and be in all the white-tailed deer of North America and all of the hominids, the upright homo sapiens on earth.
And it's still going now, perpetuated perpetually.
It's just there.
And it's weird because that's RNA, not DNA, but RNA.
And I'm telling you, RNA can't do that.
But I think the way to think about it is that viruses are not pattern integrities.
And that pattern integrity idea I dropped in the last one, but I think is gonna be central to this because if you understand yourself has a pattern integrity, then you can start to think about how and why we might become sick.
And so that's gonna be a recurring theme as we go through this.
So again, just to remind you, they told you that a mystery virus was responsible for excess deaths.
And in my last talk, I tried to list all the ways that they actually probably murdered people and then lied about it in order to get us to believe that was true.
I also pointed out that there was no epidemiological evidence of spread.
But what I didn't really point out very well in that talk, and I should have, is that actually they knew this problem was coming for quite some time.
And if you search your memory and think about your gut feeling here,
You know that when you were a kid, when I was a kid, I'm 53 years old, when I was a kid, there were bigger families.
And my dad is from a bigger family than I have had, that's for sure.
And that was a consistent pattern across the Western world, especially in America.
And that family size has gradually reduced as we've gone from being the kids to being the parents.
Now soon, some of us are lucky enough to be grandparents, not me.
And that to me is extraordinary because what that means is that for a few decades now, Ted Turner and these other people have been complaining about what's gonna happen when all of these people end up to be so old that we have to start spending government money to take care of them.
And now you might be aware, maybe you're not aware, but America's budget is very significantly, almost half is taken up by Medicaid and Medicare spent on these, primarily these retired old people in the last half year or year and a half of their life.
And so that was a problem that actually needed managing across many Western nations.
And that is the best explanation for why there was this multinational media campaign that was so on point, because they all agreed that we got to do something about this.
And so we might as well have a long list of agreed ways that we can take care of it.
And we'll just call it spreading pathogen.
Now, it's important to understand that not only did they do this, not only is this certain, but nobody's talking about it.
Lots of people will say that there's no epidemiological evidence of spread, but they can't explain why they can still say there's excess deaths.
And the reason why becomes a bit more obvious if you take a look at this joke, kind of not really a joke, but this is a population pyramid from the villages metropolitan area in Florida.
And what you can see is the influx of retirees.
And so if you told the young people in this area of Florida that, man, something's going around because more people are dying now than were dying in the year 2000, this is a terrible place to live.
It would be pretty easy to debunk that.
There's no epidemiological evidence of spread.
The only thing that's happening is old people are moving there and then they're dying.
But the average
a number of people dying every year would definitely go up if this was the phenomenon.
And it's very easy for you to intuitively debunk that, but it's a little more difficult to do when presented with this thought experiment.
But the way to do it and the way to get this concept able to express to your family and friends is to just have people recall that you went to high school with people that had 12 kids in their family.
Your dad might've had six kids in his family.
Your mom might've had 12.
Maybe, you know, this is the kind of thing that can wake people up to realize that this depopulation, this scary thing that they're talking about, they're killing us.
No, they're managing us.
And so it's not the same scary malevolent thing.
It's something that in certain rooms and on certain tables, you can talk about very scientifically, even when there's no epidemiological evidence of spread.
So we need a new consensus here.
I'm just gonna end this little introduction with the fact that the vaccine schedule in America, if you compare it to any other country in the world, is criminal.
And you can see it just by comparing it.
It's available on the internet.
Go ahead and do it.
It's homework number one.
Transfection, find out the fact that it's a, it's a product.
It was a product and RNA cannot pandemic is what we're going to talk about today.
So this was the title, right?
Germs and viruses don't cause disease.
But I'm going to argue that we can think our way out of this.
We can understand the trap we're in by just
critically thinking.
And it requires a little bit.
It requires a lot of love from family and friends.
It requires clean water, clean food, a clean environment, and exercise, preferably outdoors.
Although I like basketball, so I can't really say that that's totally my recommendation and what I follow.
I'm calling myself a biological coach, a coach of biology, a biology coach.
Because I don't know really what I am anymore.
I'm more than a teacher.
I'm different than a teacher.
I'm not a professor anymore.
I'm not affiliated with anything.
I'm working and I'm actually presenting to you right now from my garage.
My family has put everything on the line because they believe, as I believe, that this fundamental idea needs to get out there.
So if I start with this answer, I hope you don't find this a cop-out.
Healthy people do not get sick.
People that have the love of family and friends that have clean water, clean food, a clean environment and exercise regularly their whole lives, they don't get sick.
And unfortunately, most of us, all of us in the audience can't say that we've had clean water, clean food, a clean environment, exercising regularly.
And many of us, unfortunately, don't have the love of family and friends that we need to thrive.
And so there's lots of reasons why people get sick, but healthy people don't get sick.
Now, what I can tell you, though I don't have the expertise to sum it all up, I can tell you that the old biology 101, which can be best summarized as evolution because DNA, is how they fooled us into not understanding this simple thing that people knew back in the 1900s and the 1800s, that maybe you might add sleep here.
These are fundamental truths that no one in the Red Pill Expo would ever disagree with.
And yet somehow or another, we've orbited farther and farther away from this because of the old biology 101, that evolution because of DNA.
And there's a million ways to tackle this problem, but I really feel as though as a biology coach, this is the kind of thing I'm trying to coach people through.
Another coaching example might be gunshot wounds versus deaths.
You can use that as an example of how to think about these things differently.
If Chicago has,
2,000 gunshot deaths every year.
And then next year they have zero gunshot deaths.
That doesn't mean they don't have 3,000 gunshot wounds.
It could just mean that the doctors have become very good at triage of gunshot wounds.
And so there are lots of weird examples of like this in biology where false truths and false sets of knowledge have been created by very simple inflection of reality that can be seen in examples like this, can be seen in examples like that Florida example, but can't be seen if they are presented with an illusion of consensus on social media where everybody agrees that the phenomenon is a novel virus and it has nothing to do with us managing a population problem
who are managing an aging problem, who are managing a welfare problem.
Another example of how to coach people in biology is why isn't the water part of every protein model?
We've just gotten all these Nobel Prizes given away for the modeling of protein.
Some guys apparently program some Google model and now we can make relatively good predictions about how proteins will fold.
But
only really what we're making predictions of is how proteins will crystallize and the structure that they take when they crystallize.
But that might be very different than when they are in the presence of water, water being a polar solvent, water having a very specific geometry and a very specific polarity that is never involved in many of these protein models.
And so thinking about the limitations of those models would require a little discussion about how water fits in there.
So what I'm trying to get in and
blow you away with a little bit with a little freight train here is to try and get you to understand that the title of this talk, Germs and Viruses Don't Cause Disease, So Then What Does, was an impossible task.
There's no way for me to tackle that.
But what there is a way for me to do is try to give you little tiny glimpses of the cave that we're in, little tiny glimpses of how
how high fidelity understanding has been implied when actually they barely understand anything at all.
And they've done this so often and so repeatedly because the Epcot Center, because in the future we will know.
So we might as well tell everybody that now.
we might as well tell everybody where we're going and what we plan to discover.
And that, if you see it, is a lot more apt way of trying to probe these ideas.
Optogenetics is not a bioweapon.
I think I've seen optogenetics on the internet now in the last two years, more than I ever did when I was using it in my lab on my bench as a neuroscientist.
And it is now being used as one of these fancy words that
that people can make up elaborate stories about how it can be a bioweapon, but this is just nonsense.
But we can coach through this because we can actually talk about the science and figure that out.
And so that's my thing right now.
I think the most important thing now for me is to try and find a way to teach high school kids or freshmen going into biology to think not of evolution because DNA,
but to think that life is a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time.
A pattern integrity is an idea applied to life originally by Buckminster Fuller.
He is the best guy to have articulated that.
Almost all the ideas that I'm going to present today are not mine.
None of them are mine.
This is an ongoing evolution, and I hate that word for this context, but it's an ongoing, ever-changing understanding of ourselves that, like it or not, by malevolence or accident or happenstance,
We have become greatly misguided and we are greatly off course.
And somewhere in the 20s or the 30s, we lost all direction in terms of trying to understand ourselves as individuals and understand ourselves as a society.
And that was probably not done by accident.
And so as we move forward, I think this new biology 101 is the way we need a whole new model for the world.
So as a biology coach, how would I do that in an hour?
What opportunities would I take here?
I'm just gonna test this one time to see if this works, it does.
The Human Genome Project, HGP.
The Human Genome Project is ongoing.
It's not over.
There was a Nature paper in 2005, where they claimed that they had finally finished it.
But if you read the fine details, what you will see is that the Human Genome Project, at best, what was achieved is that some perspective had been established to how great the task would be.
Every time they add a new species to the list of species that have been sequenced, what you're essentially looking at is a landmark map being made of that organism.
A landmark map that has some pattern across organisms that they can generalize with and use as a way to probe
an otherwise unprovable complexity.
But they don't know anything beyond that.
The Human Genome Project doesn't know anything beyond that.
In fact, the greatest and most lauded achievement of the Human Genome Project is the ever-decreasing cost of making synthetic DNA and synthetic RNA, which can be used to make biologics, to make proteins that they can then study, can be used for transfection and transformation of laboratory animals.
And so in trying to understand the biology of DNA and RNA, the one thing that the Human Genome Project did achieve is it achieved many different technologies which enable us to make DNA, sequence DNA.
And that's essential because studying a single molecule or a molecule that's singly present in a cell is incredibly difficult.
And in fact,
probably not being done with the fidelity that has been implied by the Human Genome Project.
We understand very little.
And so that's the first idea.
These ideas actually started out as predictions.
I think what's really funny is there is a book from the 1963, I think it's from,
where a guy by the name of Herman Muller, it's 1963, Man and His Future, a guy by the name of Herman Muller writes an article in here about the, let's say, choosing to breed humanity
in certain directions.
In the same book where Hilary Koprowski talks about viruses coming out of bat caves before we really knew about viruses and bat caves.
And Julian Huxley talks about the evolution of the human species and how we have to put our big boy pants on and take control of it.
And so these ideas all started as predictions and the finding of DNA allowed these kinds of people and the ideas that they were perpetuating
to be doubled down on, in a sense, to be able to say that, well, therefore, evolution is true.
Therefore, we can understand ourselves as chemistry and physics, which is, again, these are not my ideas.
These are ideas that have been talked about for decades.
This is Erwin Schrodinger's book, What is Life?
And in this book, he says something very, very interesting, which will also help reveal why the Human Genome Project is far from done.
If I just slide over here and show you this little book here, he's talking about the hereditary mechanism, and we would be talking about that too if we're talking about DNA and the Human Genome Project.
But the term codescript, of course, is too narrow.
The chromosome structures are at the same time instrumental in bringing about the development they foreshadow.
They are law, code, and executive power.
Or to use another simile, they are the architect's plan and the builder's craft in one.
Now, I wonder if that makes any impression on anyone in the audience, because the central dogma of biology 101 is DNA to RNA to protein.
We've talked about this, they talk about this, everybody, every student learns that this is the central dogma.
This is how we understand ourselves.
And this is why people like Erwin Schrodinger said, there's no reason to doubt that we can't, we will eventually be able to explain all of life as the consequence of physical and chemical laws.
And I don't think that that is true at all.
I'm sure as a biologist,
that there are emergent properties of life, of pattern integrities that exist on top of the physical and chemical laws that govern their properties.
So for me, this simplification here reveals a lot about what's going on, because at the center of evolution is, and our understanding of it is that DNA has special properties.
DNA is magic.
The understanding of humans requires human experiments.
This is also a truth that the Human Genome Project realized.
The Human Genome Project realized that, yes, you could sequence inbred mice, and that would help you to study inbred mice.
But the reality is that the genes as we see them,
in the human genome, they're sufficiently more complicated, there's more of them, there's more material there, that in order to understand that, we're going to have to understand humans.
Now, what's important about that to see is the idea that pea plants, that these inbred mice that we're studying, these are all highly purified genetic
variants that don't exist in higher mammals.
You can't breed inbred monkeys the way that you can breed inbred pea plants so that you get very clear signals of dominance.
And only very rarely do you get those kinds of things like polydactyly in little dogs.
But then you got to remember that those dogs are also very purebred.
And so these genetic anomalies that are easily visible that give this, you know, Jedi mind trick kind of thing where genes explain everything is an illusion.
And it's an illusion that has been sustained for a few decades now by people like Tony Fauci.
People like Francis Collins, who they want you to believe are just bad guys because of COVID, because of the gain-of-function virus.
But actually, the gain-of-function virus also plays right into this idea that the Human Genome Project was already done, already finished.
Boy, are we really good at sequencing things.
Boy, are we really good at following all these genetic signals.
We've been good at it for so long that we can now just apply these technologies to monitor an RNA as it spreads from a mud puddle to every corner of the planet over five years.
And that is an illusion in the same way that the Human Genome Project paper in 2005 was an illusion.
And so this is probably the most important part is remnants then and now.
Remnants are medical remnants, and you might not be aware of it, but those are very valuable things because they can be de-identified and then they can be sold to third parties who are interested in using them for whatever purpose, making cosmetics, doing experiments, genetic sequencing.
And so as the technology of genetic sequencing became cheaper,
and higher fidelity.
And as the ability to store this data on computer drives becomes ever cheaper and can be stored at ever more density so that it can be accessed quicker, now is the time where we need to start collecting people's genomes because we actually have the computer capabilities of storing that data and maybe even processing it soon.
This wasn't possible in the 70s, so there would have been no reason to collect the data.
But they saw that there was an opportunity of a large bump in the population that once those people were gone, we might not ever have this many people again.
There might not be this many examples of the human genome to collect, to measure, to store and feed into the AI that will eventually crack the human genome.
That's the story that the Human Genome Project is based upon and was told before it started.
And the technology that they use, the secrecy that surrounds it, descends from the Manhattan Project.
And a lot of the techniques and the physicists that are involved in the Human Genome Project and this early stuff are descended from those same programs.
And so there's not for nothing that there's a lot of physics in it, a lot of modeling in it, a lot of math in it.
And so the remnants that we had then, you know, when I was a kid, they were taking
foreskin and probably taking the placenta after birth, probably taking the placenta from caesarean section because that would be more valuable because it's more likely to be sterile or maybe it is sterile.
You get pluripotent stem cells from that material, also very valuable.
It's probably why they clip the cord because it's much more valuable if they keep those cells from being pumped into the fetus.
And so remnants have always been very valuable.
Remnants have probably always been feeding back into the Human Genome Project and data collection.
But again, it would have been limited 10 years ago by the computing power available, the computing storage available, but now we have it.
And more importantly, after COVID, we now have an excuse to swab people several times, all the time, anytime we want to, under the pretense of PCR as a diagnostic.
PCR being, of course, and the use of it as a diagnostic directly descends from Human Genome Project patents and methodologies.
And so what we have here again is the problem that healthy people do not get sick.
And so how do we really explain what's going on here?
I think it's very, very easy.
It's easy to explain.
Intramuscular injection is the single worst way to be exposed to a toxin.
Now, I'm not at all saying that clean water, clean food, clean environment, exercise, love of family and friends are not important.
Of course, I'm saying that these are vital.
This is the center of good health.
But what I am suggesting is that we are about to embark on
on what could be the greatest transformation of our society and our understanding of ourselves in our recent history, or we could become trapped inside of a mythology of viruses and disease and genes.
And that could be several generations.
And I think that the way out is close to this.
Intramuscular injection is the single worst way to be exposed to a toxin.
So you really have to have a good excuse to do it.
It's bad to put creams on your skin.
Everybody agrees with that.
Of course it's bad.
Everybody agrees that eating bad food, like going to McDonald's, that would be terrible.
Eating food that's depleted of minerals would be terrible.
Nobody is willing and willing to say, I mean, maybe they are willing to say it, but they're not willing to accept this truth.
that your body is kind of designed to protect yourself from eating bad things.
It's kind of, it's got some barriers there.
It's got some, you know, already prelaid mechanisms.
The skin is, you know, sensitive, but it's also an armor.
And so there's a whole, you know, microbiome and stuff that's working in symbiotic relationship with us to help set up that barrier.
But intramuscular injection bypasses all of that.
And we, as inherited from our parents, have come to accept this as a legitimate methodology for administering medicine.
And that's really not, there's really no biology for this.
And it's really only because of the pandemic that I've come to this conclusion.
And I think it's because now what I'm seeing happening here as we move in and people think that we're about to be rescued by the Make America Healthy Again movement, I want to be sure that you see very clearly what I see happening.
And in case you don't remember,
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and I have taken some selfies together.
So I find it very important that I try to get this message out as much as I can.
So a number of people that are in the Trump administration right now will still agree that vaccines are the most important medical advance of the 20th century.
And I want to be sure that you understand that I am saying that that's probably wrong.
I am saying that before the pandemic there were people like Susan Humphreys, there were people like Brian Hooker, there were people who knew this but probably couldn't say it as well, probably didn't have the biological background to say it or the ego to say it.
It takes a little bit of ego to say something like this, but also, I don't know, it's like kind of jumping out of a plane.
Someone correct me.
Explain to me why this is not such a bad statement or why this is a dumb statement because I think it's a spectacular statement because it's real.
This could be the worst way because if you injected it in your vein,
and it was a poison, you'd know in a few minutes that it was a poison.
And whatever effect it was going to have on you, it would happen in a few minutes to cross the blood brain barrier or whatever.
But if you inject it in your muscle, maybe it'll leak out over the course of weeks and it will build up in your brain over the course of weeks.
And so then temporarily you'll never associate the effects with it.
Maybe you'll never even notice them because they come on so slow, like a boiling frog until suddenly you realize you have an autoimmune disease.
And so we don't need to be mealy-mouthed about this.
We can be very succinct about it.
We don't need to say that they're an important advance.
We don't have any good evidence for it.
And people like Susan Humphreys or this guy, J.B.
Handley can explain why.
And so we've saved countless lives from diseases like smallpox, measles.
Those are all addressed by other people's books already.
We just haven't allowed those books to become common knowledge.
They were sent to me.
I read them and now I know.
There's no evidence for this.
It's clean water.
It's clean food, nutritional food.
It's exercise.
That's why those things went away.
We don't have a vaccine for anthrax.
Vaccines contain unmentioned toxins called adjuvants.
They're actually planning to talk about this, but talk about it in such a way as to not challenge the methodology, but challenge the toxins that are put in with it.
just like they're about to say that the mRNA vaccines are contaminated.
Otherwise they would have worked great.
They were always transfections.
They're not gene therapies.
They are old technologies that are being recycled.
So vaccines are untested and exempt from liability.
And so we have to change that.
Does not acknowledge that intramuscular injection of a combination of substances is generally doesn't fit.
It doesn't make sense.
These new vaccines are also, this is a non-issue because the biological idea is wrong.
And that's why the component argument, that's why the contaminant argument is so dangerous because it will not teach our children the biology they need to learn.
The FDA is corrupt, but it could be fixed by the right people is a frightening, frightening proposition.
because it is very, very similar to how we've been governed over the last 40 years.
Bad guy, good guy, good guy, bad guy, always doing the same thing together.
The food is bad in the USA is something that's really starting to bother me right now.
The water is dirty too.
Of course it is, it's always been.
They've been putting fluoride in the water for a long time.
They've been having bad pipes for a long time.
People have been complaining about it for a long time.
Nobody's doing anything about it.
But there's a problem with the vaccine schedule that's not being acknowledged.
And I have the possibility to get his attention.
I have the possibility to talk about intramuscular injection.
It's the single worst way to be exposed to a toxin.
And I have an opportunity to explain why it is.
And so I would like to take another shot at that now.
And hopefully this shot will be a little better than the last time that I did it.
The last time that I did it, I explained the immune system as an inside-out oriented system.
And so injecting on the inside in order to orient something, or sorry, to augment something that's oriented out is quite silly.
And I drew a picture like this where there was some tube going through.
And then on the outside, you know, there was, there was an outside
like this and then there was also a lungs over here, right?
And so we drew some picture and we said that, you know, injecting here is silly because here you have the skin and it's oriented out.
Here you have the epithelium of the gut and it's oriented out and this is actually outside too because your gut is outside and your lung is outside.
And so this argument of intramuscular injection, this exposure to a toxin being the worst thing, has a number of arguments that have to do with the immune system.
But I also want to make another argument about it from the perspective of the American population.
Vaccine schedule because apparently and I'm just an amateur biologist at this stage not a prof I guess I kind of remember a professional one because I do have subscribers and I do pay the bills with it Apparently we start out as a sperm in an egg And then at this after the sperm in the egg, um, you get a lot of cells And then at some point you have some kind of fetus thing and then pretty soon you have a baby Right.
I I'm not an artist.
So this is just a baby um with some arms and whatever
And so that whole developmental process takes about nine months.
That's what I'm told.
I've got a couple of kids.
I can't remember because we were counting it in days.
So nine months, right?
And during this nine months, we were told before the pandemic, you know, you could not, and there's no sushi.
and definitely no smoking unless you really wanted, oh, what's happening there?
Unless you wanted to reduce your birth weight or something like that.
All jokes aside, as a neuroscientist, as a neurobiologist,
the development of the brain is something that a lot of biologists work on.
And in that context, they understand that if you think of a pattern integrity as a trajectory through time, the pattern integrity being that rope thing that we talked about last time, but I could explain it again.
If you take a
This is, again, Buckminster Fuller's idea.
If you take a rope that's made of three different kinds of rope, and you weave them together, and then up here you tie a knot in that rope, and then you slide that knot down, and it goes from, let's say, a hemp rope to a cotton rope, then the pattern integrity is the knot.
And as the knot moves down the rope, the rope allows you to see the pattern integrity, but it can be hemp or cotton or nylon down here.
And that very simple analogy for what a pattern integrity in can be expanded all the way to the idea of what these human genome project guys tell us, which is that there's a DNA molecule and that DNA molecule after development leads to us.
And so they want us to believe that evolution occurred just because there's DNA and DNA leads to us.
And they want us to believe that they understand all of it, but they actually don't because they only have the builder's code.
They don't have the architect's plan because somewhere inside of this DNA is the plan to get from an egg cell to a full grown human that takes about 18 to 22 years.
And yet the Human Genome Project and Biology 101 will tell us that, in fact, Biology 101 tells us that DNA is the reason why evolution occurred.
We know that now, and genes are everything.
But that's not true at all.
That's the illusion that they need you to accept in order to invert us to
to experimental animals in order to actually use us for the Human Genome Project itself.
And so there are also legal ways and legal arguments that we can make.
And we can ask Bobby Kennedy, excuse me, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
to make these arguments.
We can ask Aaron Seary to make these arguments because essentially the government should be held to strict liability in America when depriving citizens of fundamental rights.
But at the declaration of an emergency in the PREP Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is only held to the rational basis test, which means it could be hypothetical.
It could mean that he has a feeling something bad is going to happen, so he's declaring an emergency.
And there would be really no way
to challenge that in court.
And that means that the PrEP Act is probably unconstitutional on its face.
And so we could sort of try to find lawmakers and advocates that are working toward holding the government to strict liability, strict scrutiny in that scenario, in that maybe even strike the PrEP Act on its face.
So there are ways out because also the vaccine schedule can be argued biologically, fundamentally wrong.
It doesn't make mechanistic sense.
And so another way to attack this would be to attack the actual science of it, which is actually supported by the previous laws, which say that there's no way to avoid the toxicity.
Now, the question is, where is that?
Why is that toxicity there?
The toxicity is there because intramuscular injection is the single worst way to be exposed to a toxin.
And so we are in a situation where the biology can get us out.
One of the other things that I hope I'm going to become known for at some point is this statement.
I hope that you will hear this statement as exactly important as it is.
RNA cannot pandemic.
A coronavirus is said to be a long RNA molecule inside of a fat bubble with some proteins on the outside.
And it's supposed to be sufficient.
I guess you can spill paint in your backyard and eventually the whole world will be blue.
that is as preposterous as RNA causing a pandemic is.
Now that I understand the biology, one of the best ways to think about it is the Human Genome Project and DNA.
DNA is special because it's double-stranded, because errors stick out, because the bases don't match, because there are all kinds of enzymes and proteins that are designed to help stabilize double-stranded DNA, because double-stranded DNA is double-stranded, so it's chemically stable.
But the RNA in coronaviruses is a single strand.
And yet somehow or another, it's capable of doing things that DNA can't do.
What do I mean by that?
Well, you need to know about telomeres or telomeres, whichever way you say it.
These are these ends of the chromosomes that supposedly shorten as we age and lead to senescence, lead to Hayflick limits in cell culture, where cells can only divide a certain number of times before they go through senescence and don't divide anymore.
This is a limitation that is set forth because DNA can't be copied all the way to the end.
What'd you say?
DNA can't be copied all the way to the end.
But how come an RNA doesn't have that problem?
The whole magic of evolution is because DNA is so stable, because DNA is a mirror, because it can be copied with high fidelity, because you get two copies when you open it, and then four copies when you copy it.
That's the whole reason why PCR works.
The reason why you can detect a coronavirus is because the first step of detecting the coronavirus is to convert the RNA that you find to DNA so that you can run a PCR reaction on the DNA.
So the entire fidelity of RNA pandemicing is so beyond preposterous for the simple fact that none of the special qualities of DNA are present in RNA.
And I could go on for hours about this, but one of the best reasons and things to think about is all of the Nobel prizes and big ideas about telomeres and aging.
and the limits that are supposedly ascribed to cells that have shortened telomeres, the significance of telomeres in cancer and all these other things, suggest to me that DNA has special properties and DNA with telomeres has special properties to overcome the limits of those special properties.
And RNA can't have any of those things because it's single-stranded.
The RNA replication problem is something that they won't talk about at all, even though, no matter which and what books you look at from the 70s or 80s or 90s, you can't find full genomes of these viruses anywhere, no matter what you do, even if you make a large quantity of the RNA or the DNA and throw it on a cell culture.
And you can talk to Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman and a lot of these other guys that have been dedicated five years of the pandemic to debunking this, this virology model.
They've all done a very good job.
I mean,
It's just unfortunate, you know, Tom Collin is a guy who had a book already in 2017 about autoimmunity and vaccines, but still hasn't gotten far enough and succinct enough to just tell people that intramuscular injection of a combination of substances without liability with the idea of augmenting you medically is pretty dumb.
It doesn't make a lot of sense.
You don't need to write a very thick book to explain that because it's common sense once it's said correctly.
And RNA cannot pandemic should be common sense to any academic biologist once it's explained correctly.
especially if it's explained in the context of telomeres and Hayflick limits, and the idea of the RNA replication problem, which is, okay, you get this RNA, it goes into your cells, it makes some proteins that are supposed to copy itself.
How does it know where the viral mRNA is that it's supposed to copy?
Why wouldn't it also copy all the mRNA that's already present in the cell?
Because mRNA is mRNA, right?
But the virologists don't have to explain any of that to you.
And they don't want to because then they would have to explain to you that RNA virology is just based on transfection.
It's based on synthetic DNA and RNA being applied to cell culture.
And so I think the most important thing to think about as I end the talk is if I'm right about these things, the consequences are gigantic.
If I'm right that RNA cannot pandemic and no one will usefully discuss it because they know they can't,
then we're very close to escape.
If I'm right in saying that intramuscular injection is the single worst way to be exposed to a toxin, and so we can start to reject the idea of intramuscular vaccination, there's no legal liability protection there if the whole idea is dumb.
If we can start to make that common knowledge, then there is no more important thing to do than make sure our kids understand that RNA cannot pandemic, even if DNA is special.
And the Human Genome Project has just begun, meaning that they are just now starting to collect the data.
They are just now starting to take away the sovereignty so that they can use our children as experimental animals and our grandchildren as experimental animals.
It's a multi-generational war.
It's a multi-generational inversion of our sovereignty.
And now is the time when these technologies have come together where sequencing is cheap, where we have the remnant supply from the testing to start doing it.
And we have the medical databases like Epic in America and these corporate owned hospitals with data that they can use to interface with those de-identified remnants.
And so it may have started with foreskin in the 70s, it may have started with stem cells in the 70s and fetuses and whatever, but now we are at the stage where we are also able to, and probably sampling from the entire population,
through the medical remnants being generated.
And so if this is true, we need to make sure that our children don't inherit this.
Remember, Edward Bernays told us this already in 1924, the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element of democratic society.
And those that manipulate this unseen mechanism, you know, like Elon Musk and the owners of Facebook and the owners of Locals and the owners of Rumble, they all have a knob to turn
And they all have an algorithm that can elevate ideas and censor ideas.
It's not random.
It is people programs and military programs that are doing this to us.
And Noam Chomsky said it differently, but the same smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit that spectrum of acceptable opinion.
and allow a very lively debate within that spectrum.
I think one of the best ways that I can coach you out of this is to see that even the transgender debate is a biology 101 trap.
Because if you get into that debate and take the obvious answer, which is that Leah Thompson is a boy, and that was just a boy swimming in a woman's race, and that's why he won by a whole length,
and you shouldn't let boys compete with girls, then what you're essentially doing is starting down that slope of genes determine everything by saying that it's XX or XY.
when sex is a very strict example of how genes determine a phenotype.
But it is not a sufficient example to say that now we understand the physics and chemistry of life.
We just have to collect all the data to figure it out.
That's the illusion that they want you to believe.
That's the trap of the transgender argument.
And I'm not saying that I think that we should start doing this or that the left is right.
I'm saying that both of those are extremes.
And both of those do not adequately acknowledge how little we actually understand.
And in fact, that XXXY argument is very, very close to the Biology 101 that evolution because of DNA.
So be careful.
Again, I can't thank Edward and his staff and his family enough for the opportunity to talk.
I apologize if there's any disappointment that I didn't explain why we get sick.
More importantly, I hope I gave you some ideas as to how to reorient your model of your own biology so that you're not asking questions like, how do I get sick?
But you're starting with premises like, healthy people don't get sick.
And again, Gigome Biological is the name of my little thing.
It's hard to remember, but that's the way it is.
And I'm open for questions.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, thanks, thanks.
Jonathan, you brought it as I knew you would.
It was an amazing presentation.
And I was sitting with G. Edward.
He was in awe as well.
So hats off to you.
Ed is just like, yeah, Jonathan has brought it and elevated the discussion again here at the Red Pill Expo.
So thank you so much for your insight and your willingness to share and the clarity with which you share very complex subjects, which is the hardest thing to do.
Well, thank you very much.
I've had a lot of practice, I guess.
I really liked teaching at the university level.
It was the funnest thing we do.
Unfortunately, it's not very, you can't get tenure for teaching.
So yeah, it's, I love it.
I also love it because it's really just an expression of my love for creation and our creator.
I grew up as a bird watcher and a snake collector and,
My grandma got me there real early.
And ever since I just see it everywhere I look.
So I want my kids and our kids and our grandkids to see this beauty as well.
So hopefully we can get there.
Yeah.
Your help, Jonathan.
I think we are.
Thank you, my friend.
Thank you so much.
Yep.
All right.
That's Jonathan Couey, Ph.D.
Amazing.
And thrilled that we're able to bring this kind of information to you.
I know some of you are saying, can we do this every day?
Some of you are going, it's too much.
It's not enough.
It's never enough.
But grateful for everybody's participation out there.
You know who you are watching from all over planet Earth.
We've got world record levels of attendance now for the Red Pill Expo.
Maybe because it's free, but if it's free, there is a cost to that.
What is that cost?
You share it.
Let other people know there's good news out there.
There are people that are thinking clearly outside the box.
and providing a pathway out of the mess that some of us have recognized we're in and we don't necessarily want to be in.
So what else can we do?
Well, there's the VIP upgrades.
There's a Q&A upgrades you can do.
There's also some of you are... I don't know.
I hope that went okay.
I feel as though... How do I say it?
It's a hard presentation to do.
I juggled a million different ways to tackle it.
I didn't know how to think about it.
So I tried to stay very positive and tried to just throw a bunch out there.
It was a hard one.
And I will be very honest with you, I was making slides right up until about four o'clock because the ideas didn't really gel until then.
Um, I, I'm happy that everybody was here.
It looks like we had 58, um, and we have just under an hour.
So that's really great.
I'm going to go try to get some food in my belly and, uh, take the rest of this, uh, Sunday.
Um, thanks very much for being here and I will see you guys again tomorrow for a couple of shows.
I think pretty should, should be at least one.
Thank you.