It is much more likely it's a lab leak.
Viral phylogenists and molecular virologists would disagree with you.
I believe it's a lab leak.
In case you missed it, ladies and gentlemen, I was on Kim Iverson's show last night, which, when I woke up this morning, had 137,000 views, which doesn't really even seem to be possible.
We're talking about several orders of magnitude more people have heard some of our work than probably have ever heard it before in the last four years.
There's reason for hope.
There's reason to get excited.
The voice that you hear is that of Jonathan J. Cooey.
I'm a biologist out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I'm coming to you live out of the back of my garage.
Occasionally, you'll hear a little blower in the background.
That's because there's still a heater in here, and it's actually cold this morning.
You can find my academic work on the National Library of Medicine's website, PubMed, by using my last name and my first two initials, J and J.
Dr. J can also be found in a whole list of papers having to do with COVID-19 because I was part of this group called drastic at the beginning of the pandemic and played a lot of
played a large role in me going with the Lab League for so long.
I've presented my understanding to Panda no less than three times, once to NCI, once to that group in Germany, once to the trustees of the wellness company.
I was a staff scientist under Brian Hooker and Mary Holland at Children's Health Defense in 2023.
And from 2022 and 2023, I was the scientific advisor for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the United States of America.
And I helped him complete this book, The Wuhan Cover-Up.
You can see a pretty good representation of the kind of stunned state that my family and I find myself in from the Red Pill Expo that I gave, the presentation that I gave on June 16th, 2024.
And I am producing a biology basketball show in the background right now.
It's one of the things that's really keeping me excited.
If you like what you see and you want to see more, go to stream.gigaohm.bio.com You can also find my good friend Mark Kulak's work there under the Housatonic channel.
If you want to communicate with us or start communicating with the viewers, you can go to GigaOM.bio.
My wife, Phila, is about to be on that there as well, just kind of helping out with communicating.
And finally, we do have a headquarters at GigaOMBiological.com where you can kind of span out and find all of this stuff, although those links are also available on GigaOM.bio.
And we may transition slowly to GigaOM.bio being the headquarters headquarters.
Good to see everybody.
I'll be here in a minute.
I don't care how you get there.
I don't care what you do to get there.
The goal is to win.
What time is it?
Game time!
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the show.
A spectacular commitment to lies is all that's required.
I'm going to explain to you why this one slide is probably enough to understand all the things that I was trying to tell Kim Iverson on her show and many times stumbled around and failed to do because what I'm trying to relay
to people who are not in academic biology, were never in academic biology chasing tenure, is how few people would be required in order for this magic trick to be pulled off.
I think we're really close to a critical breaking point.
And so I want to keep working and keep working on trying to bring people to understand the big picture.
Also because I've been encouraged to do this by some of my closest advisors.
People that I trust have given me some tips and I'm going to go forward with those tips right now today.
Because I think it's really important to separate myself from these charlatans and keep focused on that biology.
We always go through this same reiteration on this show where we talk about people and then we talk about their ideas and then we focus on their ideas and then we have to remind you that these people are the people that
that lied to us about these ideas and so I think this time could be different because they have enlisted people who are unwittingly participating and so the whole thing could shatter based on the idea that a lot of these people really didn't expect it to be this long and so I have a lot of hope that we can crack this by simply breaking some of these people but on the other hand
Maybe we don't even need to worry about that.
Maybe we can focus on history and biology and the truth and loving your neighbor.
And that will result in the exact same thing that we all agree is the goal, which is people learning biology and the people who should have known better being held responsible.
And so again, let's seek truth together so that we can dispel the illusion that actually requires our participation.
Remember that intramuscular injection is dumb.
Remember that transfection in healthy people would have been a crime five to ten years ago.
An RNA cannot pandemic.
This three-word phrase is the one that all the academic biologists that happen to stumble upon this stream need to consider deeply.
If they had asked you this on your oral exam, can an RNA molecule go from a mud puddle to all of the white-tailed deer in North America?
and all the lungs of all of the primates on earth?
The answer would be no, of course.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think the truth is available, and it's a scary one.
The truth is the U.S.
vaccine schedule is a criminal enterprise, and they've known that for a long time.
And maybe they were never intending on this kind of knowledge to become general, but I think it's about to.
It's about to become well understood by the world
that actually a huge con, a long con has been running for some time.
I'm really excited to see everybody in the chat.
I'm really, really happy to be here.
This is GigaOM Biological.
Let me switch over here to the desk.
Whoa, I don't need you.
Good morning, everybody.
It's Gagoan Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by Biologists.
It's the 21st of March, 2025.
First and foremost, to my sister from another mother, I'm sorry you're not here to see this stream, but happy birthday, Brandy Vaughn.
I'm sure we would have been best friends had we ever been able to meet in person and
Yeah, anyway, happy birthday to Brandy Vaughn.
This is for all the marbles.
It's for your grandchildren.
And so I know this is a hard message.
It's not a message for everyone, but it is a message of hope.
And it is a message for anyone that's willing to
open their mind long enough to understand.
A friend of mine expressed it very aptly by saying that when you're in a maze and you keep finding the same ends, you really only have one choice but to move backwards toward the beginning and try to start all over.
And in this case, I think there's a lot of people, there are a lot of people who have been
led to run into the maze, headlong and blind, and have now found themselves in a very nasty little trap of dead ends.
And if you continue to search these dead ends, you will be in this maze forever, and more importantly, your kids will be.
And it's important that we go back to the beginning, go back to the beginning where these ideas came from, where these impetuses came from, and to understand them on timescales that are far, far longer than social media wants you to focus on.
That's why I say it's about the grandchildren of Earth.
We need to be focused, for example, in my humble opinion, on making sure that our grandchildren do not know what social media is or understand it as something that was really ridiculous.
And thank goodness our parents got rid of it.
Or our grandparents did.
So the murder and lies part of this story, I'm going to switch down here to the bottom.
Pardon me for a second.
Do this and this.
The murder and lies part of this, which I try to summarize very succinctly as saying that pure oxygen causes ARDS.
So from the very beginning of the pandemic, even when we didn't have testing, we were already running out of ventilators and we were already supplying New York City with as much oxygen as the oxygen plant on the ship Comfort could provide.
And this oxygen was being applied very willy-nilly, as adequately described by Kyle Seidel in his videos on YouTube.
60 liters a minute were applied.
And so pure oxygen can cause acute damage, lung damage, called acute respiratory distress syndrome, which is also the exact same set of symptoms that is often associated with the SARS-1 virus and now the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The second thing to understand is that PCR as applied in 2020, 21, 22 was never a useful diagnostic tool and very well could have been a legitimate thing picking up a legitimate background signal that was always there.
And that would have been enough to provide all of the necessary background signal to enact what has now become an absolute disaster.
And the basis of that was, and can be found on the 2020 and 2021 TWIV streams with Dr. Griffin and Dr. Vincent Racaniello, because those two guys talk regularly for almost two years straight about how antibiotics are very inappropriate for a viral syndrome.
And so anybody with COVID, if they have
a urinary tract infection or pneumonia should not be willy-nilly treated with antibiotics, but instead should be treated with things that are antivirals, like Remdesivir or any of these other drugs that they were testing.
And so the debate about the repression of early treatment and this kind of thing was part of this hamster wheel.
And all of the questions that we were asking, all of the debates we were having about the toxicity of the spike protein, or whether or not this was a lab leak, and they were covering it up completely did not ask any of the most relevant questions like, why are people really dying in hospitals?
And so why murder and lies is actually the big question here, right?
Because I've been focused mostly on trying to get you to see the monster, try to get you to see the malfeasance, try to understand why these people are liars and showing you all examples of how they've lied to me.
And it comes off very much like to a lot of people, like I'm whining.
But for me, it's kind of just processing the amount of betrayal and also regularly reassuring myself that I'm not crazy.
But what's interesting about this is that the sort of goal has already been there in the background.
It's always in my intro.
And I sometimes feel as though it goes without saying that you must understand why they are murdering and lying about it.
But apparently it's not.
And so because I think it's something that maybe Kim would also wanna know or her viewers would also wanna know, I will point out again that in the beginning of all of my
shows for a very long time now, I've had this slide which kind of graphically depicts world population.
And it suggests that there is only one chance in history to collect the data they need for their God to solve all of humanity's problems.
And then the slide pivots to their AI.
Now, I use the term AI here, the abbreviation for artificial intelligence, loosely here.
I do not think it is an appropriate set of words to describe
machine learning algorithms.
Instead, I think it is one of these kinds of semantic enchantments that is also ubiquitous throughout public health and this whole impetus for world health initiatives.
So the main trick to understand is that they bamboozle us with the language that they choose.
And I've done a few shows where I've stolen other people's words to describe it and called it slave speak.
AI is slave speak.
If you use the term artificial intelligence, you're essentially accepting the idea
that somewhere in the future there will be a thing worthy of calling artificial intelligence or even better general artificial intelligence.
And so that's important to hear.
I think that just like solving the game of Go, in fact that's why they spent so much time and so much energy describing to you
the idea that they solved the game of chess by making chess computers play each other, and then they had enough games they could actually solve the problem.
They could make an algorithm that was better than a human.
Then they did it with the game Go, kind of, sort of.
But what they're doing there is they're showing you, they're teaching you, they're telling our kids, what is the plan?
And the only thing that they leave unspoken, because they say that in their private meetings and their private dinners while they're smoking cigars, is what the ultimate goal of such an AI, such a machine learning algorithm application would be.
What's the ultimate goal there in the sense of, you can climb a big hill, you can climb a mountain, or you could climb the largest mountain on Jupiter,
So you could put a machine learning algorithm on chess, or you could put it on Go.
Go has got so many more permutations.
It's a much harder game to solve.
And wow, we solved it.
Maybe we could put machine learning algorithms on the protein folding problem.
And then when we solve that problem, we could give the guys who solved it using artificial intelligence a Nobel prize.
And slowly but surely, the population of the world is starting to be convinced that AI is a really useful tool that can do all kinds of crazy things, you know, like read MRIs better than doctors can, or read x-ray scans better than doctors can.
And this is all part of the enchantment to get people to accept the fact that the AI is so powerful and so wonderful and such a great resource that we should just surrender to it.
That we should give all of our information and data to these people who will then turn around and use it for all of us.
Use it for all future generations.
Now, the important thing to understand here that I would never understand as well as I do if it wasn't for my collaboration with Mark Kulak is that these ideas and Uwe Altschner and a lot of other people through this run that have pointed out how long these ideas have been discussed in books like The Phenomenon of Man or The Survival of the Wisest or Man and His Future.
And so you can see a direct mentor chain through these people as they've formulated a plan of action where eventually they would, as a ruling intelligent class, the survival of the wisest, as our friend Jonas Salk so eloquently states, would have control of and be the stewards of human evolution.
Because up until now, we've just been kind of rambling through space and time, you know, with not any real good focus.
You could almost hear in some of these books how they believe that selecting people and breeding people together to make smart, strong people, why would that be crazy?
And these are the same mentors of the people who mentored the people who are in front of us now.
And it isn't by coincidence, this direct lineage of ideas and mythologies requires this unbroken lineage, this unbroken mentorship.
And so it's very important.
What are the murder and lies for?
They are part, they are for one of the largest, maybe the largest and most continuous human project imagined.
Because people have been working on this human genome project for a couple generations now.
Because before they knew what the genetic material was, they already knew they were going to find it.
They already knew they were going to find it.
And when they found it, they already knew what they were going to do with it.
They already knew what they had to do with it.
They imagined that they could learn a lot about DNA in the 50s if they just irradiated flies.
They also imagined they could accelerate evolution because evolution was just mutation, right?
These people haven't always known
Except for the fact that they've always known that they want it all That they need it all That they need the control of the world of the species.
Okay the species That's maybe the best way to say it they don't want control the world they want control of the species and so let's just
Recall, this is a geneticist.
This is a geneticist.
This is a HIV virologist.
This is a bioweapons expert.
This is a vaccinologist.
That is a computer scientist and glyphosate expert.
Geneticist, geneticist, kinda geneticist, geneticist.
descended from, I mean, direct descendant, direct descendant of the Human Genome Project.
And they are both now kind of controlling this maha right.
The genetic testing company 23andMe went from biotech superstar to the brink of collapse.
Its most valuable asset might be its DNA data.
NPR's Bobbie Allen reports on what might happen to the genetic information of millions of people.
It was an idea that caught on.
Pay about 100 bucks for a saliva kit, and weeks later, learn all about your ancestry.
The company behind this, 23andMe, was a hit.
It was worth billions, Oprah raved about it, and countless people took to social media to share their experience, like TikToker Danielle Edwards.
Okay, I did it, y'all.
I finally took my 23andMe kit.
Don't forget, also, Joe Rogan talked about it all the time, and this was like a Google the sister of the YouTube person.
in this tube.
More than 14 million people spit in a 23andme tube.
14 million spit parties.
The company was part of the zeitgeist.
But there was one big business problem.
Nobody needed to do a 23andme test twice.
It was one and done.
And now 23andme's stock is worth pennies.
Financial news networks like CNBC have been blaring the news.
It has since lost 99.9% of its value from its $6 billion market cap peak.
Then there were two other big blows.
Last year, the company was hit with a major data breach of customer passwords.
And last week, its entire board of directors resigned.
Some analysts say 23andMe could go out of business by next year, which raises the question.
What's going to happen with the genetic data it has from millions of people?
Even if the company goes under, that data could change hands.
That may surprise some customers.
They might believe that the information is more protected than it actually is.
That's Anya Price.
She's a law professor at the University of Iowa's College of Law who focuses on genetic privacy.
She says federal health privacy protections like HIPAA don't apply here, since 23andMe is outside of the health care realm.
What the company does depends on what customers agreed to when they signed up for the service.
Some states, like California and Florida, do give consumers rights over their genetic data.
If customers are really worried, they could ask for their samples to be withdrawn from these databases under those laws.
When I asked 23andMe what it plans to do with all the genetic data if it goes out of business, a spokesman wouldn't say.
But he did mention a partnership with pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, or GSK, which has been analyzing the data to try to find medical breakthroughs.
23andMe says 80% of customers opted into this kind of research when they signed up.
Company says the data is anonymous.
Prince thinks if people now are second guessing that decision, they might be out of luck.
I couldn't go to GSK and say, hey, my sample was given to you.
I want that taken out if it was anonymized, right?
Because they're not going to reidentify it just to pull it out of the database.
The 23andMe spokesman said the company is committed to being transparent with whatever happens to customer data, saying its core value is, quote, behind every data point is a human being.
Bobby Allen, NPR News.
So that I find very interesting.
It's kind of mainstream understanding now that as much as 13 million genomes and the data associated with them is now free to use and available, maybe even already being shared.
Or maybe Glasgow SmithKline is keeping it all to itself and selling it to the highest bidder behind the scenes.
Or maybe part of the deal was to give it to the Human Genome Project anyway.
Maybe the whole thing was just a scam.
to get all those genomes, and as they said, when people stopped spitting in tubes, they just crashed the stock.
And now what have they got?
They got all their data.
Now, this might seem like a trivial example, and it is.
But I need you to understand from the perspective of what's actually trying to be accomplished and why the Human Genome Project actually goes on for as long as it does, why it extends all the way back to this.
Because the whole premise was already understood, in my humble opinion, by a guy by the name of Joshua Lederberg.
Joshua Lederberg already understood
the complexity of the problem and already understood that the only way a pattern would be found is if all that data could be seen much like the only way that you can see a protein is if you make it pure and then allow it to crystallize in a perfect matrix so that you have so much of it arranged so perfectly that the signal is loud enough to see it.
It's very similar to how they sequence DNA.
Of course, there can be a pure sequence of a single molecule in a reaction, and you can sequence it, but the way that you sequence it is what?
You make a lot of it.
The whole impetus for PCR, from the perspective of these people early on, like Carey Mullis, was to make enough of a pure DNA molecule so that one could sequence it.
They understood that a single molecule was not something they were ever going to invent a microscope big enough or a detector long enough to be able to read it accurately and go along it and record it.
But they did know from proteins and from other experiments like crystals, that if they had enough of a pure molecule, then there might be signals there that would rise above the noise and create patterns that they could discern.
And so now we are at a stage, ladies and gentlemen, understand we are at a stage where they need the data.
They need to even understand how big is a genome?
How much genome data is there really?
How much do we want to store?
That's one of the questions that the Human Genome Project was trying to answer.
How do we store it?
How do we collect it?
How do we know?
How do we verify?
That's all part of this PCR application to sequencing.
Almost all of this technology is PCR-based.
Sequencing is.
The PCR diagnostic is.
Any kind of reconstruction of a genetic plasmid uses PCR.
There are so many ways that PCR is used.
in commercial and academic settings to do all these genetic tricks that you could almost say that a lot of what molecular biology is is just renaming PCR.
Now, they need to store it.
They need to store the data somewhere so that the computer, the machine learning algorithm here can access it.
So depending on how big the database is, you know, the number of games of Go and how do you store that, its moves and its positions,
You have to store that data, you have to store it in a uniform way, and then it has to be able to go through the machine learning.
That problem has been solved numerous times with progressively larger problems.
And now, for a long time already, they have been applying it to the human genome.
I'm trying to understand how can we organize the data of a human genome so that we can compare it to another human genome.
And to what extent is that possible?
What kinds of things do we have to watch?
This is not a trivial problem.
This is a problem that's taken a couple decades to seize.
And now, once you have that data, you can start to make predictions that can be validated.
But we are nowhere near this stage because we don't even have the data stored in a way so that a machine learning algorithm can adequately access it and replay it.
Because first, we need to collect the genetic data and learn how to interface it with medical data.
And of course, that's going to be a huge waste of resources.
It would be a lot better if our babies would just be sequenced at birth, and then all of their electronic medical data would always be correlated with their genetic data from birth to death.
And that is the model that would be ideal in order to collect the data
that they need to store and feed through the machine learning algorithm that will eventually make predictions that can be validated and we can start to work the magic that Joshua Lederberg predicted we'd be able to do when he formulated this idea a long time ago.
So murder and lies for what?
I really think it's for the data.
Because only together can we seize the moment to defeat cancer.
So today is about you, the fighters and the survivors.
2016.
The caretakers and the researchers, the philanthropists and the patient advocates.
It's about the millions of Americans, their loved ones and all those around the world who are confronting cancer.
It's about hope, but ultimately it's about action.
Because of all of you and many others watching at home, we've made incredible progress this year, progress that Joe will talk about in detail.
So now it's my pleasure to introduce a man of action, the man President
Now, remember, we're not talking about whether this is the real Joe Biden or not.
But I think this is definitely the real Joe Biden.
That's the real Jill.
And I think we've always had the real Jill.
But when I listen to this, but it's funny.
But don't worry about that now.
What I want you to worry about is what he says about four minutes in.
Gina McCarthy, EPA, Dr. Francis Collins, NIH director and the guy who
is most responsible for the Human Genome Project, an incredible achievement all by itself.
The National Cancer Institute Director, Doug Lowery, who has been a great, great ally and educator of mine.
FDA Administrator, Robert Califf.
Anne McCarthy, EPA.
My husband, our Vice President, Joe Biden.
Gina McCarthy, EPA, Dr. Francis Collins, NIH director and the guy who is most responsible for the Human Genome Project.
Incredible achievement all by itself.
The National Cancer Institute director, Doug Lowey, who has
has been a great, great ally and educator of mine.
FDA Administrator, Robert Califf, and Acting Administrator for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Andy Slavitt, and Tyler Jacks, Elizabeth Jaffe, the co-chairs of the Blue Ribbon Commission.
I wish I could, and the public deserves to know every one of you in this room.
And I mean every one of you, because you're the ones that have done such remarkable work to date, and you're the ones that are going to be responsible for what I believe will be an enormous amount of progress we'll make soon.
First of all, when Barack Obama asked me to head up this moonshot, there were some skeptics out there that said, well, here we go again.
Nixon declared a war on cancer in 1971.
There's a big difference.
In 1971, President Nixon's interest and concern was real and genuine, but he had no army.
He had no resources.
No clear strategy existed to win.
But 45 years later, after decades and decades of funding, new research, training scientists and physicians, treating millions of patients because of so many of you,
We now have a powerful new technology.
This is in 2016 when he's vice president.
This is in 2016, a few months after Vaxxed came out.
This is in 2016, in the same month where Brandy Vaughn brags about her first billboard on the San Francisco Bridge.
Technologies and tools, we have an army.
And with this moonshot, a clear strategy and road ahead.
The moonshot does two things.
One, first, it injects, and because of all of you, an incredible sense of urgency back into this fight.
Part of it is that what I said to the president when I walked out in the Rose Garden that day and said, I regret, it was spontaneous, I said, the only thing I regret announcing I'm not running for president, I'd like to preside over the end of cancer as we know it.
Not we'd solve it all, but the end of cancer as we know it.
And some wags, particularly in some of your professions, said, you know, like, here we go again.
Here we go again.
But you know what?
What happened is that because of you, there is a fundamental new sense of urgency.
I think you all can feel it.
You've generated it.
It's not only here, but it's around the world.
And the second thing is, back in 1971,
when there was no army, there was not all this, we didn't even know then there were 200 different cancers.
What's happened is- 200 different cancers, okay.
Is that we had a set of rules, a culture that was established for research and cooperation that is not applicable to 2016.
The change in the cultural system that's needed to win this fight is kind of what we're all about.
The change in the cultural system, I think, is code for, you people are too sovereign.
You people got too many privacy rights.
Jill and I, as Jill mentioned, every family is facing, everybody knows someone, if not their own family, facing cancer.
And we know what it does to a family.
Our family learned as much as we could, which all of you do, and some of you who are in the profession are survivors and or you've lost someone.
And what do you do even if you have no background in cancer?
It's your child, your husband, your wife.
You try to learn everything you can, everything you can about the disease, both for purposes of hope and deciding on what you can do.
What is it you can do?
Is there anything you can do that speeds the progress?
Because the one thing that every single cancer patient needs is a little bit of hope, hope.
My mother used to say, where there's life, there's hope.
What we learned from the world's best nurses, physicians, and researchers is that even if we couldn't save our son, the science, the medicine, the technology are progressing faster than ever.
So we'll be able to save countless sons and daughters.
As I've been saying repeatedly, I didn't realize this until Bo was diagnosed with stage four glioblastoma.
We knew it was the death sentence.
We're not slow.
He knew.
We all knew.
But there was hope.
We just thought there was hope because cancer in the last six years reached an inflection point that didn't exist seven, eight, 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago.
By inflection point, we find there's a recognition that the cancer system established five decades ago needs to be re-imaged for the 21st century.
That too often our cancer culture and system still plays by the rules of 71, not 2016.
But so much has changed.
Let me explain.
Five years ago, oncologists weren't routinely working with immunologists.
Immunology was sort of a voodoo science 10, 15 years ago.
No, I'm not joking.
I'm a bit pejorative, but truly, truly.
Engaging.
He knows all about the history of immunology, I'm sure.
Immune system to kill cancers.
There were three things that were done routinely.
Find the tumor, excise it.
What you couldn't get out, make sure you radiate the margins.
And number three, which kills a lot of healthy parts of your brain or your body,
and then engage in significant doses, depending on the seriousness of the cancer, of chemotherapy, which kills an awful lot of those cells that we need to engage those T-cells to kill.
Oh, so cancer therapy kills the T-cells, but we need to engage the T-cells in order to kill the cancer.
Are you hearing yet?
It's coming.
The cancer.
So with immunologists and virologists, geneticists, chemical engineers, and others, they're now all working together.
Why would we have virologists?
I thought, are we saying that Bob Gallo was right, that cancer's caused by viruses?
What in the hell?
Working together and beginning to work even more closely together.
It's becoming more routine than the exception now.
Today, there's recognition that by aggregating
and sharing data from millions of patients, genomics, family histories, lifestyles, treatment outcomes.
We have now what we didn't have before.
How would we ever get lifestyles and treatment differences and genomic data?
How would we ever do that in 2016?
We have a super computing capacity.
We can actually do a million billion, a million, you all know it, but the press, a million billion calculations per second.
Oh, wow.
That's crazy.
We finally have the computers to do it.
Now that we have the computers to do it, Peter, I mean, Joshua Lederberg told us we would need the computer.
Now that we have the computers, I mean, how can we not do it?
We can't take time for everybody to understand why.
It's for cancer, it's for autism, it's for all the genetic diseases that Kurtzweiler said we're gonna cure in 10 years.
We're almost there.
us, at least theoretically, if we aggregate enough data to be able to find new patterns and causes and successful treatments of cancer.
Why does one treatment work on you and not on me?
We have the same cancer.
Because of technological advances and analyzing cancer genes and other genes in the body, we're closer than ever before to understanding what causes specific cancers, how to attack them.
A few years ago, it took more than $2.7 billion to sequence the first human genome, as the doc knows.
Now it takes less than a day and costs under $1,000.
This is the exact selling point that these people do.
He's just doing it from a politician's podium.
This has been the selling point for decades, ladies and gentlemen.
They have been preparing for this for decades.
They didn't start collecting your genomes when they didn't have the computers.
They didn't even bother talking about it when they didn't have the computers.
Once they understood the task, then they focused on the computers first and the storage first.
Do you really think that they're floating ships out in the ocean to store all the YouTube videos?
To make sure that all the YouTube videos are available and are streaming all the time?
They've got all those servers docked in boats?
Because you know, we never have enough videos on a server.
Is that really why we put so much effort into the internet, so much effort into all the storage on the internet?
Really?
Because content providers and content creators need storage space, you know, like I need my peer tube.
New technologies, new therapies.
as I said, like immunology, targeting cancer cells.
I'm going to move forward because I think you need to understand that these pharmaceutical companies are in on it because they too stand to benefit from a database like that.
These global pharmaceutical companies are in it with the social media companies, because of course, part of the data they need is your behavior.
Your consumer behavior tells them, of course, how to sell things to you, but it also tells them what you consume.
And they can use that as data as well.
And this is not a joke.
If they are going to use the current world population's next generation of kids and the one that comes after it, our grandkids, and use them to the fullest extent that the Human Genome Project requires.
then they need us to acquiesce to social media, to digital enslavement, to digital monitoring, and also to genetic and epigenetic monitoring.
Anything, everything you can imagine, they need all the data with a capital D.
And that's why all of these front groups are sabotaged because they are part of this.
The idea is to run out the clock slowly so that our children just walk in blindly while they're looking down at their phones and scrolling and wake up one day under a vaccine passport where they can't go anywhere unless they meet the requirements and submit.
And that, I believe, is why this, what I call loosely a lollapalooza of liars, was put in place to control the dissident movement, the skepticism of the pandemic, to make sure that that skepticism was neutered in a way that would never come to the right conclusion.
The easy one, you know, the Brandy Vaughn biology.
Happy birthday, Brandy.
Instead, we have this fake populist movement that I think somewhere near the helm sits Steve Bannon, simply because he's the one who gave us Li Min Yan.
He's the one who gave us Stephen Hatfield.
He's the one who gave us Miles Guo.
And he's the one who suggested that this guy should be vice president, just like this guy said he should be vice president.
And he's definitely part of this team, who the former,
Research and Development Director of the Human Genome Project has been helping to advise from whenever, but certainly from the beginning of the pandemic.
This is the guy that helps write the script that keeps people off of the important things like the real scrutiny of PCR or the real scrutiny of how they treated pneumonia or the real scrutiny of the use of supplementary oxygen and stay focused on the sequences or the DNA contamination, etc, etc.
Maybe it even integrates.
While Bobby is focused on ending the corporate capture of our regulatory agencies, I am going to assemble the best technologists and scientists in the world, and we will use the latest in AI and computation to examine the health records databases of our nation and those other nations who are also on a quest to solve chronic disease.
Do I need to say any more?
It's not like they're lying to you.
It's not like they're hiding it.
It's just that the fire hose is so thick.
There's so much water being sprayed in your face that you can just miss it.
But in reality, this is the trap, the limited spectrum of debate.
Both sides were ready and willing
and telling us this is a video from March 29th, 2024.
I don't even know what to say.
Should I play it again?
I mean, really, what do I say here?
While Bobby is focused on ending the corporate capture of our regulatory agencies, I am going to assemble the best technologists and scientists in the world, and we will use the latest in AI and computation to examine the health records databases of our nation and those other nations who are also on a quest to solve chronic disease.
So it's a global project.
They're gonna get the databases or maybe from the UK where, you know, Claire Craig was already collecting a hundred thousand genomes to do pathology on.
Nobody's in this narrative by chance.
That's the part that hurts me the most.
Everyone has a timeline.
I have a timeline where it took me a very long time to figure it out because there were just so many meddlers, ladies and gentlemen, so many people trying to keep you off center.
But I can tell you from listening to 2013 Brian Hooker, that Brian Hooker in 2013 actually understood something.
I might just escape out of here for a second and restart the slide deck just to make sure that we're okay here.
In 2013, Brian understood very well that he says that doesn't say autism.
He calls his son vaccine injured.
He doesn't like the term autism in 2013.
He questions the entire idea of vaccination, the whole principle in 2013.
And he says, it's many shots.
It's not just the MMR.
And so it's very curious what we found the other day when we went to 2020.
Let's just do a timeline.
Happy birthday, Brandy.
Now the reason why I like Brandy so darn much is because Brandy was the one that said it best in 2016.
I've never found anyone else who's said it like this except for myself, which is that you have to just do the thought experiment of comparing injection of a pharmaceutical versus ingestion.
And if you understand how much more dangerous and ridiculous it is to inject anything versus ingest it,
or wipe it on your skin or inhale it, then you understand the basic biology of why intramuscular injection is dumb.
And certainly intramuscular injection with the intention of augmenting the immune system of a perfectly healthy child is absurd.
It's malevolent.
And Brandy was able to say it in 2016.
Brandy was running in the same circles as Mary Holland, as Judy Mickiewicz, as Del Bigtree, as Polly Tommy, and as Andrew Wakefield.
She is contemporary to them in 2016 and is as is her organization founded in 2015 called Learn the Risk.
And here she is excited about a billboard that she got up on the street in San Francisco.
CHD doesn't make billboards that say all vaccines are dangerous or all vaccines do harm.
Or what does she say here?
Vaccines do more harm than good.
Every shot contains toxic chemicals.
There is no such thing that CHD does.
ICAN does not do that.
Brian Hooker doesn't have any billboards that say all shots do more harm than good, even though 2013 Brian Hooker understood that.
And three years later in May, 2019, there's a photograph of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and Del Bigtree and Brandy Vaughn and James Lyon Weiner and Judy Mickiewicz.
And so they all know that for three years, she has been putting up billboards in many states around the United States, has been on the news for her anti-vaccine billboards showing dead babies
They know.
That's why they're standing in this picture with her.
They know how she says it.
They know that she says it very differently than they do.
It's not just about the MMR like it is with Wakefield.
It's not just about, you know, an adjuvant like it is with Mary Holland or with Pauly Tommy or with all, sorry, with James Lyons Wyler.
And we've found evidence that Pauly Tommy was coming onto the side of Brandy, understanding that, you know what?
The real important message is the unvaccinated kids.
Brandy had an unvaccinated kid because she had her kid in France and breastfed her kid and never gave him shots and really never even thought about it until she came back to California during these mandates being put in.
It was lucky because this is not an autism mom.
Why does she have to risk anything?
She could have just moved out of California.
She could have just homeschooled her kid.
Instead, she risked everything to put it on billboards because she didn't want other kids to be injured.
She had a vaccine-free kid.
I don't have that.
You don't have that.
She had it.
And she felt that it was so important that she dedicated her entire life and her savings
to putting it on billboards, to raising the money to put it on more billboards, while these people talked about the MMR or adjuvants or choice.
And I'm frustrated because they played the same game with me, even after I figured it out.
So Brandy Vaughn died in December of 2020 on the 7th.
And we will listen to a video of 2020 Brian Hooker, who in 2013, I believe, would have understood exactly what Brandy was saying in 2015 and 16, and would have been totally gung-ho about the idea to simplify it down to intramuscular injection seems pretty dumb, especially in a healthy child.
Let's just stop doing that.
And here's Brian Hooker in 2020, of course.
It was so great, so great.
So my first stop after I finished seeing my patients today was to Costco.
I bought like six roasted chickens and a bunch of frozen vegetables.
And I was like, fuck it, we're going to be fine.
Lock it down.
That's right.
Lock it down.
I wasn't having this much fun in December 2020.
I had just lost my job.
I was actually on the phone with Scott, Dr. Scott Jensen a little bit ago.
He's actually... I'm not going to play this part of the video.
I just wanted you to see where it starts and where it goes.
I might just fast forward it a little bit here so you can see the whole picture of people.
So there's two people in this video this Dr. Kendra here that I think you can see me circling and then Dr. Brian Hooker.
Dr. Brian Hooker is the guy that I showed you in 2013 a couple days ago was totally down with the idea that vaccination itself was pretty
pretty dubious, pretty dodgy, and would have definitely agreed with 2015 or 2016 Brandy Vaughn when she explained the difference between injection versus ingestion and explained how many different things are in these shots that nobody cares about.
And that all shots are bad.
And I think Brian Hooker and Brandy would have been very, very active and good colleagues on those ideas.
Despite the fact that Brian Hooker in 2013 had 16 years of experience as a geneticist manipulating plants, genetically modifying plants with transformation and transfection.
2020 Brian Hooker doesn't say anything about transformation and transfection.
Put together over a period of 10 to 14 weeks.
So we really have no long-term safety studies.
We don't know what happens when you take messenger RNA, you know, that they're using in these formulations and you put it into human bodies.
We do know that there's a higher propensity of things like Bell's palsy.
and other neurological diseases.
So what I'm suggesting here, number one, is that Brian is absolutely positively more technically advanced than what he's explaining here.
And he does not need to recite the script that he's given.
which said there might be a higher propensity for Bell's palsy.
What he could say right now is that I have 16 years in biotechnology where I was transforming and transfecting plants.
And I quite frankly can't understand the rationale where we think that we have a grip on this and our own biology well enough to start using these things willy nilly in healthy people.
This just seems absurd, but he's not saying that.
He's reading a script that he was given that says the safety studies were too short
Meaning that if the safety studies were longer, and then he's going to say something absolutely remarkable, which is his vaccines were given to his son during an ear infection.
Which kind of sort of implies that if you give vaccines when you don't have an ear infection, maybe you won't get autism.
And then he's going to go on to get interrupted by Dr. Kendra, who's going to say that, you know, there's fifth generation warfare around already.
She's not going to use those words, but she's going to say the same thing.
And then he's going to come back and fill in the rest of the biology that they've been given on a script in order to enact some kind of limited spectrum of debate in front of these people that think that a spontaneous conversation is happening instead of a carefully scripted, uh, uh,
catch and return conversation that they are engaged in right now.
It's absolutely positively a national security exercise.
I died from these vaccines.
And, you know, I went through the clinical trial data directly when it became available for the FDA.
And what I saw was that, you know, they're supposed to be giving these vaccines to seniors in nursing homes.
And these are already chronically ill individuals.
You're not supposed to vaccinate six people, even under.
Oh, so maybe it's okay for younger people then, but just not old people.
Again, this is a guy who in 2013 was questioning the whole idea of injecting anyone.
This is a guy that between 2013 and 2020, absolutely positively met Brandy Vaughn and heard her speak several times, maybe even shared a stage with her, was in the same movie as her and is in an organization that definitely knows who she is because those people are on stage together.
You know, a very, very flawed system of medical care.
You're not supposed to do that.
That's what happened to my son.
He was vaccinated when he had an active ear infection.
And that sent him tremendously downhill very, very quickly.
And so it really seems to suggest that as long as you don't vaccinate with an ear infection, maybe things will be okay.
That's not 2013 that Brian, that would, I think, say the vaccine schedule needs to end.
If I'm allowed to say that, I would like to say it on the radio right now.
These people aren't there by accident.
They have been co-opted.
They've been offered, you know, you're either going to go along or we're going to get somebody else to go along.
I'm not saying Brian's a bad guy, but I'm saying Brian could tell us the truth and this would end in a moment.
Intramuscular injection of medicine is the most ridiculous rationale.
There is none.
There's no biological basis for that idea.
And it comes from these kind of old men that had no idea what they were talking about, just had an idea that they were given and were dreaming about.
And so, you know, I think this is a great way to clear out nursing home beds.
You're going to kill people.
You are absolutely going to kill people with these vaccines.
The population that was most underrepresented was the geriatric population.
Wouldn't it be crazy if they rolled out placebo and then Brian turned out to be wrong from the perspective of most people in America who took it?
Wouldn't that be crazy?
It's going to be catastrophic.
And then it turns out not to be catastrophic.
Wouldn't that be nuts?
In fact, the phase 2 clinical trials where they did safety data, they literally had 22 individuals that they tested that were above 68 years of age.
And this is the primary.
Now they're sending out millions of vaccinations across the United States for people who are on long-term care.
And it's a disaster.
It's an absolute disaster waiting to happen.
It's already happening in the UK.
And I know it will only be worse here.
Yeah, it is scary.
And it's amazing how many people are willing to just jump in line and take this vaccine that, I mean, you're basically a guinea pig for it.
There's been no... This is a man who has 16 years of experience transforming and transfecting plants.
So he could point out right now that putting mRNA into a human is called transfection.
And actually, I know colleagues who do it in academia all the time, in mice, in rats, and in monkeys.
And it would be ridiculous to do this in healthy humans.
I'm an expert in it.
He could say that because he started out his 2013 interview by saying he has 16 years of experience in biotechnology, working on genetically modified plants to make medicine.
He worked for a government laboratory for the Department of Energy.
And he was an expert, self-declared expert in the FDA approval process in 2013.
And now this guy is reading a script where the safety studies are too short and the vaccine during, what?
Trials on it, no long-term trials.
There's no peer review studies, nothing.
and yet you literally are a part of the study.
You are the study, because you're getting the vaccine first.
Dr. Kendra Becker, would you like to expand on some of the- Here we go.
Sure.
I'm actually giving a lecture on the different COVID vaccines that are being released on the 21st, which I think- If you're giving a lecture on the vaccines, then you are either an absolutely bamboozled person who just wants to be in the spotlight,
or you are a malevolent actor because anybody that was humble enough to read before they gave a lecture would not be calling them vaccines.
Anybody that was humble enough to read before they gave a lecture would be calling these things not vaccines.
And already right now in 2020,
In December of 2020, yours truly, Jonathan Cooey, still research assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, not yet off the list until October in, or sorry, July in 2021, was already saying that these were transfections, was already thrown out of DRASTIC because DRASTIC is focused on the origin of the virus and we're not gonna talk about the shots.
While I was pleading with them, hey, we got so much media coverage right now, we could tell everybody that these are not vaccines, that they are transfections and that we could expect autoimmunity, that this is gonna be a disaster.
Nada, zippo, zilch.
While the 16 years of experience biotechnologist is on a stream talking about the vaccines and telling us the limitations of them.
Maybe we shouldn't give them to old people.
Maybe we shouldn't give them to kids with ear infections.
Maybe they'll fade.
It's Monday in Dunedin, Florida.
So if anybody wants that information, I can pass that flyer around.
And specifically, you know, speaking to what Brian said, you're absolutely correct.
I mean, the studies on these were so flimsy and any vaccine going forward, the phase three
Phase three trials start when they start dispensing it into the general public.
In this case, this vaccine was rushed.
Understand what I'm trying to point out here.
There is no previous skepticism of the previous vaccine schedule.
There's no good biological skepticism of the previous vaccine schedule upon which these two actors are building.
That would be normal if you were Brian Hooker and had been fighting this fight against the vaccine schedule lie since 2013.
You'd probably open with that.
But instead, they are opening with a carefully scripted back and forth where they only cover the same talking points that Robert Malone would cover.
Only the same talking points that Kevin McKernan has covered on the Vance Crowe podcast three times.
so quickly using state-of-the-art technology that's never been used before.
We know- It's not state-of-the-art technology that's never been used before.
It is state, it is technology that was used to produce biologics before the pandemic.
And now they don't have to go through the final step of purifying the protein.
They can stop at the DNA and use an enzymatic reaction to convert that DNA to RNA.
And then who cares?
It's not a new process.
and it's not a new technology, and Brian knows that.
The important thing that one of my friends pointed out to me is that my description of what happened during the pandemic basically requires previously existing technologies to be renamed, maybe with a little malevolent intent.
That's it.
No magic tricks, no, you know, oh my gosh, they have all this new technology that they've unleashed, like nanoparticles and nanomachines, and they're monitoring us with 5G.
Maybe someday.
But for now, all they're doing is renaming old technology.
Essentially, transfection and transformation have become both virology and medicine.
And Brian is 100% down with it, apparently.
even by the small number of clinical trials that they've done, that it ramps up autoimmunity, that it causes anaphylactic reactions, and that it really kind of amplifies and ramps up the immune system.
So in a country where, you know, 50% of our children carry a chronic medical diagnosis, we're going to go ahead and continue to amplify what's going on in their immune system.
I think it's dangerous and unsafe.
And furthermore,
The amount of, and we've talked a lot about predictive programming and fear-based, you quote, education and things that have been going on in the mainstream media.
But furthermore, we have a vaccine that's 90% effective for a virus that is 99.99% curable.
I mean, I just, survivable, I- So what they are agreeing on is that the questions being asked in the mainstream media are the right questions to ask.
We should be asking who dies of the virus.
We should be asking about how old are they.
We should be asking about whether they have comorbidities or not.
And all these questions presuppose the existence of the virus, presuppose the need for a vaccine, accept the idea that there is a crisis in the works.
And I believe that it is impossible for Brian and this Kendra person to be on this script by accident.
This is not just because they've been reading the wrong newspapers.
The thinking on all of this is a far greater problem than the vaccine.
You know, I'm a capitalist.
People want to put out a crappy product and people want to buy that crappy product.
That's up to them.
That is not up to me.
If the government wants to tell children's parents that they need to be hit in the head with a baseball bat three times before they're 12 years old and two times before they're six months, well, you know, I don't care.
It's fine with me.
I'm just not going to do it to my kids.
I think this is the most, this is the shittiest attitude and exactly the opposite of my friend, happy birthday, Brandy Vaughn.
Brandy Vaughn had a perfectly healthy kid that never been injected once and she could have just gone off on an island and lived happily ever after because Merck would have loved it if she'd have shut up.
Seeing as Merck, her former employer owns a majority of the childhood vaccine schedule, that she was now telling you was bullshit.
But when the government starts mandating and dispensing what they're calling health care for no apparent reason, without any sound scientific backing, that's when we start talking about tyranny.
And that's the conversation I think we need to have.
We're in a very, very scary predicament at this point.
Can I just ask a question about the efficacy?
Because as I understand it, and this is claimed efficacy, because when Bill Gates was talking about this in April, these Moderna vaccinations and the trials, they said 50% efficacy.
They're all doing it.
None of these people are using the right words.
They're using the slave speak.
By using the word vaccine, you're already using the slave speak.
By talking about mandates or choice, you're already using the slave speak.
And Brian must know that.
Certainly 2013 Brian knew that was bullshit.
He wouldn't even use the slave speak of autism.
Can you please see the significance of this?
Because if we can break this cycle of using slave speak, using the words and their definitions, you're not going to get out of this maze if you keep running down the dead end of autism.
You're not going to get through this maze if you keep running down the dead end of no mandates and choice.
You're not going to get out of this maze if you keep running down to the dead end of maybe it's an adjuvant.
And yet those are the dead ends that it appears that Brian Hooker and Mary Holland and CHD and Andrew Wakefield and Del Bigtree are all happy to run us back and forth between free speech, adjuvants, free speech, adjuvants, choice, free speech, adjuvants, autism, when the truth is right there.
Intramuscular injection is dumb.
It's not medicine.
It is complete loss of sovereignty.
As I understand that the efficacy is not an infection rate, it is producing these antibodies that they claim will be there.
So they don't know whether you can be infected or it's going to lower the infection or even mortality rate.
So really with this efficacy, when they say it's 90% effective, that's not from getting you infected.
Do you think that Brian is not capable of saying that their model of immunity is nonsense?
that I've been a biologist for my whole life and I have 16 years of biotech knowledge to know that this whole model of an antibody is just dumb and they shouldn't be talking about it.
It's just a very simple marker that they can point to and claim efficacy.
Why wouldn't he explain that right now?
Why would he instead say this?
As I understand it or even lowering a mortality rate that
if you believe the World Health Organization, we've played the video many times, it is a 99.4% survivable virus, probably better than that.
So you guys as doctors, please talk about when, when they talk about efficacy, they're not talking about infection or mortality rates.
They are only talking about the antibodies, correct?
Well, the whole thing is, is all, it's just a big word soup and it's a bunch of blobby blobby blobs.
I mean, it's the same kind of ridiculous predictive programming they use with the measles vaccine.
Brian, you can speak to that.
I mean, don't you remember the marketing that went on with Merck?
They saved 21 million children with the MMR vaccine?
I mean, come on.
These numbers are... This is not random that she's bringing up the MMR vaccine.
This is a multi-year script that also includes a Rolling Stone article about the MMR vaccine in Samoa with a certain character in it.
And this is a part of that narrative that will later on appear in 2025 as a measles outbreak in Texas with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
as Health and Human Services Secretary instead of Vice President.
Don't make any sense whatsoever.
And they don't even have to because vaccines are 100 percent liability free.
So they can put whatever they want on the outside of that label.
It doesn't matter what's inside your little microchip, your little nanos.
We could talk about all the different ingredients in there, which are equivalently scary.
And not to mention the fact that now it's a double jab, right?
You got to go and then you have to be back on day 28.
That's what they're.
So this is really stupid, complicated.
If you could just say that intramuscular injection is dumb, right.
And teach people about how their immune system is organized and why that makes perfect sense and why they can think, you know, bad food's bad, but at least you're eating it.
Um,
And yet they can't.
And the reason why they can't and why they have to stick to the stupid, complicated model is because that's how this fifth generation warfare works in a broad perspective.
They either get you to accept a stupid, simple explanation,
antibodies equals immunity, or they get you to accept a, sorry, that's dumb simple.
Otherwise, they get you to accept a stupid, complicated version of the story that you yourself feel lacks a level of sophistication to scrutinize it.
And that's what somebody like Kevin McKernan can do to almost anyone as he talks about first his long lineage of mentors all the way back to Mark Lander and Tony Fauci and Francis Collins.
And then he talks about all the things that he invented and all the patents he has and all the companies he spun off.
And before you know it, he's said so many things that you don't understand that when he says that PCR is fine to detect a coronavirus, you're like, oh yeah, I guess so.
And so what's happening here is that these people that aren't on script or helping the people on script are passively absorbing what appears to be people agreeing about what the most important questions to ask are.
And one of those questions is definitely not, is intramuscular injection a good way to administer medicine at all?
That would be a question that would make all of these questions irrelevant.
They're saying for the Pfizer vaccine, you better be back on day 28 or you're
immunity, quote unquote, is going to win.
So that is correct.
And, and the immunity, um, itself, you know, if you look at the presence of what they call neutralizing antibodies, which were, are the ones that supposedly are going to go after COVID-19, um, you, you can see that one booster is not going to be enough.
This is, this is a quite a business enterprise because they're going to come back in three months and say, you know what, you have to get the vaccine again.
and then you have to get two doses of the vaccine again.
You can tell.
It's okay for him to say that, right?
Because again, this is the script.
They want you to understand this is coming.
They want you to understand this is gonna be the argument.
He said three months, because now it's six or a year, so that seems more reasonable.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is that malevolent.
And you know he's reading a script when he brings up T-cells in a moment, and the way that she helps him bring it up.
already just by the documentation that was submitted to the FDA that yeah you do produce some neutralizing antibodies to that the immune system does work absolutely fine and they've proven that but that because it's such a horribly imperfect imperfect
immunity, then the antibody titers drop off precipitously.
And so you're back.
So the imperfect immunity in Brian's mind is defined in exactly the same way as the immunity itself.
It's the presence or absence of antibodies.
He's actually teaching these people in this Zoom meeting the slave speak.
The slave speak is
that immunity can be measured by antibody titers and neutralizing antibody titers in particular.
And the fact is, is that these new vaccines aren't as good, what's in the back of your mind, as old vaccines because the antibodies fade away.
You don't hear him say it, but I guarantee you the subconscious of all these people's minds is hearing that.
because this is skepticism that's being applied specifically to the antibodies for this virus.
Nobody's saying that this is the model for all vaccines and they don't give a shit, even though this guy could say it, right?
He's been at it since at least 2013.
Back at square one, you're basically just getting poisoned in a vial with perhaps some type of short-term immunity that they don't know whether it's going to reverse severe,
prevent severe cases.
They don't know if they're going to create a- Why is it poison?
I don't understand.
You didn't say that it was poison.
Why is it poison?
asymptomatic carriers with this particular vaccine.
Asymptomatic carriers.
It's completely a crapshoot and they're gambling.
So by saying that we don't know if we're going to create asymptomatic carriers, he's reinforcing the idea that that is a possibility.
And in effect, reinforcing the idea that's been around already for a whole year.
That is, the reason why we have to lock down, the reason why this dangerous virus can be described as a honey badger, is because it's asymptomatic for so long.
Some people are only asymptomatic.
I mean, if the vaccines make asymptomatic carriers more prevalent, then this could be even a bigger disaster, and we'd have to call in somebody like Geert Vanden Bosch to explain to us what's going on.
with the United States population.
And 58% of the United States population has already said, yeah, they will get the COVID-19 vaccine.
So this is a cataclysm that we've never seen medically.
So I also want to point out today, Santa Clara County is doing door to door virus testing.
Now,
they are targeting lower income populations, in my opinion, because they are less likely to have the resources to fight back.
It'd be crazy if they were doing door to door genome collection, right?
Wouldn't that be nuts?
Now, my question is, they're going to do this virus testing.
And if this vaccine is only producing these antibodies, then why aren't they testing the people that may have been infected and produce the antibodies in the first place to see if they even need the vaccine?
So another great question to ask is why don't we test people for antibodies after they've had it?
Maybe we can put somebody who worked for pharmaceutical companies in front of people on social media in 2020 to make that exact claim.
And his name is Mike, that's right, Mike Eden.
We're gonna bring in Mike Eden in your starting lineup and he's gonna talk all about natural immunity and how we already have antibodies.
And if we were infected, we'd have antibodies.
And these people should be testing for natural immunity.
That's not even talked about, correct?
Of course it's not even talked about.
And even Trump has said multiple times, once you get it, then you're, you're immune for life.
Now, I don't know that that's the case.
I know that I had COVID in February.
And I tested positive for antibodies in May.
And so she's sure that the tests work, and the tests work because the antibodies showed up.
And so here we are.
It really requires only Kendra and Brian to know that they're reading a script.
It only requires those two.
Everybody else is now, wow, I guess there is something going around.
I mean, she says it, he says it.
They're taking tests.
The tests work.
She's got antibodies.
I mean, crazy, right?
And now think about all the podcasts that these people did.
All the podcasts they did, all the stub stacks they wrote, all the tweets they tweeted.
It's all one national security operation.
And it is the longest, most expensive science project ever in reality.
The Human Genome Project.
I have not retested since May, but I know that I had them three months after and that at the time.
was the research that was, they said that that was the sweet spot as far as seeing antibodies.
So the other thing is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Hooker, but isn't it- Correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Hooker, as she looks down and to her right at the script.
It's the B cells that actually create the antibodies in our, in our... That's the hilarious part.
She knows so little about immunology that she can't even give you a, you know, dendritic cell to T cell to B cell to antibody kind of thing.
She had to look down to make sure she said it right.
Is it B or T that I have to say and then Brian's going to say T and which one's which and what do they do?
She aware of how many different kinds of T-cells there are depending on who you talk to?
Of course not.
She's reading a script, so is Brian.
Immune system, but this vaccine targets T-cells, correct?
This vaccine also targets T-cells.
The absurdity of Brian Hooker saying that intramuscular injection of a lipid nanoparticle filled with RNA targets anything makes him malevolent.
The fact that Robert Malone said that Peter Cullis told him that they'd fix the targeting problem makes him malevolent.
Anyone that got in front of Byram Bridle, who was trying to tell the world that they cannot target this lipid nanoparticle to any tissue, and that depending on how unlucky you get, it could go to your bone marrow, or to your ovaries, or to your testes, or to your heart lining, or to your brain.
There is no other conclusion to come to because I worked for this guy for a half of a year and he pretended to be the first time he'd ever heard transfection.
Wow, we should do a whole podcast about this, Jay, and you can explain how it's always been transfection.
Because I didn't do it when I could have done it and saved all of the college kids in America.
That's what Brian Hooker should have told me when I did my podcast for CHD before they fired me for talking about Robert Malone.
We could have avoided all of this if it wasn't for the coordinated effort of people who asked the wrong questions consistently in groups of people to convince them of the existence of the virus, the problem, the crisis, and the choices that needed to be made.
Nobody is in this narrative by chance because
Social media allows it.
They can make it seem like it's all big random argument, but it's not little happy accidents.
It is all by design, by military programming.
understand, ladies and gentlemen, that testing has become a remnant stream.
They sell remnants.
In America, there is still the impetus to circumcise young baby males in order to get their foreskin and use it for culture, to sell it to the highest bidder.
There is still ongoing the sale of cesarean section placentas because they are sterile.
And this is going on in the same hospitals that are now testing everyone and everyone and everyone all the time under the pretense that PCR is a great medical standard, despite the fact that the FDA is now toothless.
under an emergency till 2029, and the person that is in office at the HHS is not interested in ending this remnant stream, but as his running mate in 2024 declared, he would be interested in combining this data just like
2016 Joe Biden wanted to do the genomic data and the habits and the consumer and the behavior and the medical data all together from all these countries says Shanahan.
Because we all want to solve the problem of chronic disease.
We all want to solve the problem of cancer.
No, we don't.
We all want to solve the problem of the human genome.
The vaccine schedule is the inversion of your sovereignty so that your children accept the next step, which is all of your data.
And more importantly, all of what gets injected into you will be designed and tracked and monitored in real time.
You know, they actually tried to do this with the homeless people in Austin, you know, where Pauly Tommy and Andrew Wakefield have their big ranches.
In Austin, they tried to do it with blockchain to track all the medical and financial data of homeless people during the pandemic.
They're going to do it to our kids, ladies and gentlemen.
It's the Human Genome Project.
That's why there's no epidemiological evidence of spread and nobody tells you about it except for some actor like Denny Rancourt.
No one in America, no actuary is going to tell you that there was an anticipated rise in all-cause mortality that even Ted Turner was worried about back when he looked young.
that all of these Western nations were gonna have to deal with.
Let me make myself micro for a second and look at this data.
That's not a biological phenomenon over there.
That's murder.
That's lies.
And it's on the back of an anticipated rise in all-cause mortality, which makes it even more malevolent, as Kim Iverson so eloquently said, because that means they knew.
They did just, what?
But the data's right there.
You can see it in this graph.
Moving up, they knew that the hospitals were gonna be full of old people, that we were gonna need more old folks homes.
And old people die of pneumonia.
It has a little bump every winter.
See, it's every winter there's a little bump.
It's okay, it's fine.
You don't need to explain that to understand that what's happening during the pandemic is not this.
And what's happening now seems to be this again.
This is how they sculpted the murder with sophisticated.
This is how they sculpted this anticipated rise.
They neglected the opioid crisis to get the decrease in life expectancy.
They use supplementary oxygen at the door in hospitals and attributed any symptomatic progression to COVID.
That's how simple it is because supplementary oxygen is toxic and causes acute respiratory distress syndrome.
And so any doctor that hears this message and understands that in 2020 or 2021, they were using supplementary oxygen without understanding it, they need to understand that they may be guilty of manslaughter or murder.
Maybe it's manslaughter, I don't know what it is, but you're guilty of something.
And the only reason, the only excuse you have is that they, in a military style, precision, they put people on social media to make sure that you didn't understand, including the supplementary oxygen part.
They probably put people on the administration or made sure that the administrators of hospitals understood that under no circumstances should you talk about this, that we need to have more supplementary oxygen.
And they might not have had the sophistication to understand it.
And then they sent the old, the old attendings home and they let the residents run the hospital.
And then here we are.
And what I'm suggesting is that they put people on the internet, a team of performers that pretended that something else was going on and argued about it very, very vigorously.
And those are the people that I came into contact with.
Those are the people that I think are controlling people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
controlling him with an illusion of consensus.
No matter who he talks to in this picture, they're all gonna tell him, oh yeah, definitely a virus.
That Jonathan Cooey guy's nuts.
Even though I think we almost got there.
We almost broke it.
That's why it's in the book.
So remember on my website, you can download the McKinsey Global Institute PDF of the dependency and depopulation.
You can see why this problem is ongoing and coming along and has been anticipated and what the consequences might be.
Our children are going to inherit a different earth than we grew up on, and certainly our grandkids will.
And so we need to send them into that future with the knowledge and understanding that we have been able to
together during the last five years and make sure that the illusion of consensus created by these actors is not something that they inherit as an understanding of the world, but instead understand American history as having dodged a bullet with regard to this operation, whatever it is, that's supposed to invert our sovereignty on a global level to experimental animal status.
These people have put themselves in front of us, and so they're easy to see.
All you have to do is look at their time frames.
I'm being told by people that I trust that Edward Bernays and that Noam Chomsky might not be good guys, that they might be on the same team as this impetus to control the species.
But nevertheless, I would like to point out that the words that they use to describe what's going on can help people to understand what is happening.
I do think that Edward Bernays' words are worth reading and understanding, even if there's a darker part of them that is not codified here.
that this is the bleached or safe message of Edward Bernays and the much more malevolent version of it that he would say in the presence of the overclass is different.
Same with Noam Chomsky.
Maybe he could say it even better.
when he's with his cigar-smoking Epstein Island friends.
I don't know.
But I do think for somebody who doesn't understand what's going on, these are an interesting way to start thinking about it and realize that it's all been out there.
They've been telling us for generations already that this is how we would be governed.
And social media has allowed this governance by limited spectrum of debate to become very, very weaponized.
Very, very, very dangerous.
And that's why I think terms like Lollapalooza of liars or team worst case scenario can provoke the right idea of how bad it is if these people are willing to lie to us in concert.
That's why it's important, again, to realize who said what when, who brought out who when, and who has ties to what with whose dad, and whose dad's worked for what, and who's made millions doing what, because these all line up in the wrong way, all the way to Shanahan and her statement about how we're gonna use AI to solve all of humanity's problems.
Transfecting healthy people is nuts.
Brian Hooker in 2013 might've said that.
Brandy Vaughn, happy birthday, might've said that.
Brandy Vaughn said injection versus ingestion was the comparison that you needed to do in order to understand how malevolent the vaccine schedule was.
Brian Hooker was a contemporary of hers, so I have no doubt that he's heard that argument.
But in 2020, he chose not to offer it.
not to tell people that it was transfection, not to even question PCR as a diagnostic, even though as a 16-year veteran of transforming and transfecting plants, he most certainly used PCR on an almost daily basis, if only to find out which plants took up his gene.
And so he could have told you why PCR as a diagnostic is a fraud or why overcycling was not the point.
He could have told you that the only thing that these people have is synthetic recombinant genetics.
They can make a lot of DNA.
That's all he knew for sure and could have told you in 2020, I know.
He could have told me that he knew this when I worked for him, but he didn't.
He just plays dumb because he's just building a big top tent of health freedom.
He's not trying to save or stop anything.
Save anyone or stop anything.
So they can make pure quantities of DNA.
If they wanted to find it anywhere, they could put it there.
That's the bottom line.
We can talk about all the different ways that that could manifest itself.
But if you have Brian Hooker in 2020 calling transfection a vaccine, that makes Brian
culpable.
It makes Brian part of it because he was sophisticated enough.
He has the experience to know that he should have called it transfection or transformation.
He had the experience like I did to know that there was a difference between the adenovirus transformation and the lipid nanoparticle transfection.
And I think that it's terrible that he didn't tell us.
because during that same year, I was trying to tell everybody.
I think the only way they got away with it is with a placebo.
I think that maybe is the way they've always got away with it.
I think they get away with it because they even use endemic as a word that you can describe like the culture at work has racism kind of endemic to it.
The culture of Congress has corruption.
It's like endemic to Congress.
This is a mythology.
It is a enchantment.
It is a semantic enchantment.
A molecule cannot go from a mud puddle to endemicity.
RNA cannot pandemic.
But a background could be misconstrued as a pandemic just using nonspecific PCR tests, especially if the goal was to just get everybody to submit to medical and genetic testing in perpetuity.
You know, like the Human Genome Project has wanted for like 25 years.
Thank you very much for joining me, everybody.
See you again very soon.
I don't know if I'm taking the weekend off yet or not.
I probably am, but I don't know.
We'll see how the wave of stuff comes from Kim's show.
Please share that one far and wide and share this one as well.
Thanks for being here.
See you again soon.