Testing one, two.
Test one, two.
Testing one, two.
Test one, two.
My name is Dr. Andrew Molden.
I'm an MD-PhD physician scientist here in Canada.
And July 1st of last year, 2008, I took all these years of my academic training and realized that the system within which I'm working is causing more harm than good.
And I realized this training I could no longer use to go out and provide the health care that I've been trained to do.
because I recognize the means by which we are doing it as causing more harm than good.
Western-based medical practices is now the number one cause of death and disease amongst our population, and all the physicians know this.
My background training has been quite eclectic.
I attended six different academic institutions and universities across Canada, Natural Sciences, Engineering, Research Council of Canada Scholar, Ontario Mental Health Foundation Scholar, Ontario Graduate Scholar, 27 awards for academic and research excellence over the course of all these years of academia to arrive at the point where I truly was seeking to help understand what causes disease.
So consider the analogy by a car dealer analogy.
Say, for example, your grandmother who develops cancer and she ends up passing away despite the best efforts of Western medicine.
You will say that it's unfortunate for grandma.
We did all that Western medicine could do.
You did the cut, the surgery, you did the burn, the radiotherapy, and you did the poison, the drugs, and she still did not survive.
But then you can walk away figuring that you did all that you could.
But did you really?
Because what has evolved here is kind of like car sales relative to monopolizing the medical model that we have.
So you have many different people out there who sell cars.
You can drive down a street, you can see Chrysler dealer on one side, a Saturn on another, a Ford on this side, a Chevrolet on the other side, and you have all these options.
And options are good in society because you can choose which option best fits your style and your choice and your driving needs.
But when the healthcare system over the course of the last hundred years or so has become progressively and progressively more monopolized,
The American Medical Association, in league with the Pharmaceutical Advertising Board, has serially taken out its competition.
Eclectics, herbologists, naturopaths, chiropractors, they've all been single-handedly targeted by this system, which now has you driving down the streets.
And all you have a choice of buying today are Mustangs.
And when you only can buy a Mustang and you don't have access or paid access to these alternatives, then all you really know is that Mustangs is all you ever have to go
solve your problems.
But if you take that Mustang four-wheeling and you come back and it starts falling apart, you'll say, oh, well, it's too bad.
I did all that I could with my Mustang, but it fell apart.
That's no different from the analogy with your grandmother who passed away because all you knew is that you had asked us Mustangs and you gave a Mustang when you needed an SUV.
And when they take all the SUVs away, you never know what you're missing.
So this is where you've ended up at.
And this is where we're headed.
And this is a serious problem, because the right to choose what goes in your body, to direct your own health care, belongs to the citizens of the state.
The state has no right, in the name of whatever sort of greater good they want to say, to dictate what goes into an individual's body.
And that same logic rationale is what's made you all sick, because the state, by saying, in order to be a member of society, our science says you have to have these vaccines.
Well now we've created for you conclusively to see that this whole science that they used was a lie across the planet for everybody, incontrovertible.
They will sink them in court and now we have the evidence available for you to see for yourself and make your own conclusion because they have used science now as a method and a means to go tell you, leave the science to scientists.
So I wanted to pause that there.
I'm not totally happy with this.
I'm not totally happy with this little interview here, this little, this thing that goes on with Dr. Andrew Molden.
And I'll tell you why I'm not very happy with it.
I'm not very happy with it because he's talking about the same stuff that these people that are in front of us now are talking about.
How we can beat them in court, but not really saying how.
And about how the mandates are the thing to worry about.
They can't mandate it.
It's our right.
You can't mandate it.
It's not the right fight.
If these things have no value other than poison.
And so it's weird, right?
All those words that he used, all those words he used, he didn't say that intramuscular injection is just plain dumb and they lied to us about it.
He did say that they have bad science and that they could win in court, but why?
And I think that the strategy probably that will win, if we can convince our children of it, is that intramuscular injection is dumb.
It's just as dumb as arguing for the correct, you know, amount of pressure on the head of a young child with a baseball bat is a good way to augment their immune system.
Or their intelligence.
or their ability to make good decisions.
And yet somehow or another, we are talking about mandating these things and that mandating them is encroaching on our freedom and choice and how many different cars should I get to buy?
It's not a car.
It's not a good analogy if choice is what you're arguing for.
As if, you know, the state's gonna pay for one kind of medicine, but not pay for another kind of medicine.
That's not very fair.
If one of them is not medicine by definition, someone should have said it by now.
If this guy was saying this, almost exactly what CHD says in 2009, apparently he got killed by pharma.
I know that a lot of people don't like this message.
I don't know what to say other than I feel compelled to say it.
Because no one else will say it.
He could have been mistaken.
He could have been meddled with.
He could have just been doing his best.
But this is 2009.
This is 20 years ago.
And between him and us are Brandy Vaughn and Tony Bark and all these people who are in front of us now.
as if they haven't been fumbling the ball for decades already.
If Andrew Molden was able to say it like this in 2009, and we haven't gotten farther, it's a problem.
And the resemblance of what he's saying to what they've said is kind of frightening to me.
Because I've also not heard that much about Andrew Molden from any of these people.
That's the reality.
But there are videos, aren't there?
Lots of videos are definitely available of Andrew Molden.
So somehow or another, despite them thinking that his information was so dangerous, they killed him.
There are videos of him out there still.
Oops, that's the wrong one.
Hello, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the show.
This is Giga Ohm Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
Today is another New Biology 101.
It is a discussion that builds on Wednesday's show.
I apologize for missing the day yesterday.
I will try to make up for it with a succinct presentation today.
Life is a Pattern Integrity with a Trajectory Across Time is the idea that I want to put at the center of a new Biology 101 that I'd like to help you teach your kids and teach your family and friends if they are so willing to learn.
In case you don't know who I am, my name is Jonathan Cooey and I come to you from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I am actually the unacknowledged source of most of the content that is posted by Panda and by this sub stack called Woodhouse76 that also seems to have some interesting dialogues with Claire Craig and with Pierre Cory.
and also writes several articles with a guy by the name of Jonathan Engler.
And most of the content of these articles are taken directly from streams that I've done or conversations and tweets that I've made.
It's really kind of pathetic, but in a way you can predict now that they're gonna have to find their own material at this point because none of the new biology one is really gonna be coverable by them.
I used to work for Children's Health Defense.
My name is available on PubMed if you want to see what I did as an academic.
I also helped Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, write the book The Wuhan Cover-Up.
And I also became friends with the now NIH Director,
Jayanta Bhattacharya.
And so Dr. Jayanta is actually now trying to become Dr. Jay.
But it's okay.
I also have this really, probably my super fan is a guy in, he's a UK guy who claims to live in Japan.
I'm not really sure where he lives, but his name is Kevin McCairn.
And since the beginning of the pandemic, somebody's been paying him
to follow me around and pay attention to what I'm doing, but really now with Jonathan Engler and Nick Hudson and
and Jessica Hockett regularly trying to take any and all useful ideas from the stream.
It's really quite remarkable to watch the truth slowly leak out.
But at this point, they're not going to be able to let anything else out because this is really, you know, the biology that breaks things.
And I want to explain why that is.
pretty succinctly today.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is for all the marbles, this is for the grandchildren of Earth, and that explains why there is a fake anti-vaccine movement in America.
If you are seeing me for the first time and you haven't heard that said, make sure you understand what I'm trying to say there with the idea of a fake anti-vaccine movement.
The Trump administration
used or was assisted by a fake anti-vaccine movement that was set up years earlier with people put in place in groups like ICANN and Children's Health Defense forming around this loosely organized group of angry moms that in reality was always a sabotaged movement.
where they would get these little gatherings together and the really genuine people would also be able to present alongside these other less than genuine people.
And those less than genuine people are the ones that are still pushing the exact same message they began with a decade ago.
And again, that fake anti-vaccine movement is a crucial thing to understand if you want to get a grasp on the predicament that America is in right now.
And reality, that anti-vaccine movement, that fake anti-vaccine movement, is primarily responsible for this illusion of consensus about a novel virus which killed millions of people but millions more were saved from and could come again because it was gain-of-function research.
And that illusion of consensus exclusively rules out the idea that there's a loud background that they just used and misconstrued as spread.
That anti-vaccine movement has one of its players at the head of Health and Human Services and another player at the head of NIH.
America is in trouble.
And if we as Americans can understand it, we might be able to extricate ourselves from the situation.
That's the message.
And the way to do it is to start to learn that we are trapped, essentially all of us, inside of a bad biology 101 that's so bad that you can teach it on the PBS NewsHour to people that have no interest in and have no special background in biology.
The scary thing is, is they've been doing it to us since we were kids.
They've been doing it to us in the first two minutes of every movie since who knows when.
but we can think our way out.
We can together seek the truth.
It's gonna be hard though, because everybody's gonna have to swallow the pill of murder and lies.
You're gonna have to accept the fact that this graph that's behind me is not possible without murder and lies, because we've had this under control.
The only thing there is is an anticipated rise in all-cause mortality that was misconstrued as spread using very basic molecular biological techniques.
So let's think our way out by replacing and putting over and putting the murder and lies behind us and learning a new biology 101 where life is a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time.
And our children understand it so well that they start to get up every morning excited about optimizing their trajectory through time, excited about what they're going to use their, their 12 hours of waking time to do with their body and with their mind.
Because this bad biology 101 evolution, because DNA takes us out of the equation, makes us the product of our genes.
And you know, just a small portion of everything else comes from your bad parents or whatever.
It's mostly systemic.
And so the last couple days, a couple days ago, we talked first about these basic ideas, which again, as I said, are so stupid, complicated, or dumb simple, that they can be presented on PBS NewsHour and result in the enchantment of millions of people.
DNA equals genes.
Genes being a concept, a concept that was put forward in books, books that were written by people that you think are famous for other things.
these books.
And once DNA was found as a chemical, these people have gone on to assume that this means that all of their presuppositions are going to eventually also be edified by evidence.
And we might as well move forward thinking that evolution is real, because we called it.
We said there was going to be genes.
Mendel's peas showed us there was going to be genes.
And now we found DNA.
You know, we win.
But that's not right.
And this has gone on over the course of the Human Genome Project to bamboozle everybody to think now we need to look for genes, because genes are what set us up for failure.
Genes are what cause disease.
And the small examples, the low-hanging fruit examples,
where the encoding of a protein results in a phenotype that can be described as a disease, this means that their entire model of genes being consequent and primary to everything else is all based on a couple examples.
You know, like, I don't know, what would we say, sickle cell anemia, or no, the better one would be the one that,
that Tony Fauci, not Tony Fauci, Francis Collins is the guy, cystic fibrosis.
How about that?
And so genes code for proteins that then the whole thing starts to break down if you really think about it, because they don't have an explanation for how this is sufficient.
How is it that we only need the code for proteins and then that's it, here we are?
In other words, if we had all those proteins and whatever consequent, you know, ratios they were necessary, could we stir them up in a blender and then suddenly we would have a living person or a baby or even a developing embryo?
And yet we are taught as young biologists all the way through college that DNA equals genes.
Genes essentially cause disease.
The examples being all the proteins that when they are not encoded correctly result in disease.
And that means that we can go all the way back up there and say we understand evolution through mutation of genes, genes being proteins.
but they haven't explained anything about the trajectory through time and how it occurs.
Nothing, none of that information is available to us at all.
And so instead, they just put it under this rubric called nurture, nature versus nurture.
And since we have so much information about our nature and so many examples about how our nature, our genes,
Even the use of the word nature versus nurture has been made to be dumb simple when we go so far as to call genes are the nature in nature versus nurtured.
Joshua Lederberg never thought that way, but these oversimplifications have taken over our biology 101 and disarmed us as thinking and responsible adults since we were kids.
So I'm gonna put those over there.
make myself a little smaller, and just talk about some of the consequences here.
So that means that most DNA is not even necessary.
They think it's redundant.
You know, it's ribosomal RNA, who cares about that?
There's an endless list of examples of why it is that, you know, well, we sequence the whole genome, but not really, because we don't really need to.
Genes cause disease.
So what diseases are caused by nurture?
Have you ever thought about that?
What diseases are caused by your environment?
Your exposure to toxins, your interaction with your microbiome, your interaction with the microbiome.
What diseases are caused by that?
So what codes for the trajectory through time?
We've already asked this question.
Of course, they don't have any clue about that.
They don't want you to think about that.
They want you to think about self-assembly.
So which one of these do we need to understand more, nature or nurture?
I guess that needs to have a little thingy there.
Which one of these do we need to understand more, nature versus nurture?
These are all questions I think we should ask.
Let's go back to starting to pivot to the new biology, which is life is a pie with a tat, and think about the implications of these ideas in the context of life is a pie with a tat.
Most DNA is probably then not understood.
And maybe that's where this, if, if, if, if, if, if gigantic I F, if DNA and, and that material is consequentially the thing which encodes the pattern integrity, holds the information and, and perpetuates it through time across generations.
then one of the first admissions they would need to make is that this is, we have no fricking idea how this is all encoded in there.
But we can see some protein sequences that appear to be consequential.
But they don't represent it that way at all.
And so you know that they are lying to you.
Number two, protein sequences does not make a pattern integrity.
If you have all the protein sequences and you can make them, and even if you just give them all the folding,
You still don't have the pattern integrity.
You don't have the maintenance schedule.
You don't have the development schedule.
It's all missing.
And so genes, if they are anything, if DNA is anything to do with heredity and plans and architecture and structure and function, then genes at best can create or limit the possibilities, the palette.
How many different colors of ink do you have available?
That's about all we got so far because we can't describe any other aspect of the pattern integrity other than its components and some of the components seem to be encoded in DNA, which is a monumental achievement if that ends up to be a true observation going forward.
But self-assembly of these proteins is not the answer.
Even special assembly of these proteins is not the answer if we cannot find out how it occurs with such regularity and perfection, needing no coercion at all.
Thinking of your little kids.
Thinking of your little kids, there's a word that my friend Joshua Lederberg, many words he came up with.
One of the coolest ones he came up with is euphenics.
And in comparison here, we're going to do euphenics versus eugenics.
And eugenics, I think everyone is very familiar with it, is the optimization of a germline.
Typically, this is thought to as selective breeding.
But it could also, in theory, be some kind of transgenic thing where we know everything about our biology and we can make it better, you know, skip these natural processes.
But if you just think of eugenics using natural processes, it's still, you know, breeding people with the intention of making people better in the coming generations.
And for many, many people in many previous generations and the current one, these ideas are not crazy.
They're just, you know, not
They're not something that we can talk about on TV, but you know, when the smart people get together, they all admit that this isn't a terrible idea.
Now, what Joshua Lederberg argued, and I think this comes into play with regard to the nature versus nurture argument, is he introduced the idea of euphenics.
And so I'm going to go over here for a second, and I got a sniper analogy for you.
Let's think about a guy who comes over to my house and we set up a target in the backyard about 300 yards back on an oak tree and we're given a rifle and we start shooting it.
Let's say he starts shooting it because we're going to think hypothetically of him.
This sniper guy comes over and he's shooting the rifle, but he keeps shooting it into the ground.
Now, we could make several different assumptions about where to start troubleshooting it, right?
We could troubleshoot the scope.
Maybe the scope is off X, Y, Z, up and down, whatever.
Maybe he's just not a very good shot.
Maybe the barrel is bent.
Maybe we need a different gun.
Now, I want you to think about the analogy where if the genes are fine, but we're not hitting the target because we haven't optimized our development, because we haven't optimized our adolescence, because we haven't optimized anything about what comes after conception.
then we have not adequately identified the potential encoded in the genes.
The genes, whatever they are, whatever these people believe they are, the potential that is inherent in the pattern integrity, we are not, as humans, even familiar with what that maximum potential is.
And I don't think anybody on this planet would argue that we haven't done very much to optimize the potential of our children.
Maybe some people do.
but our whole society isn't focused on that as a primary goal like it probably should be if we had a multi-generational time horizon in our mind in the right way.
If our kids were having that time horizon in their mind, then we wouldn't even need to worry about it.
If we raised our children to understand themselves as along on that trajectory and an active part in finding and optimizing that optimal trajectory through time and what is required to obtain it and maintain it, now we're talking about health.
Now we're talking about well-being.
And so it would be very, very bad, right, to assume that the gun is wrong.
Fix the gun, fix the gun, fix the gun, fix the gun, change the gun, move the sight, whatever, blah, blah, blah.
If the sniper himself is terrible, the gun might have been perfect.
And so in this analogy, you can think of the gun as the genes and the sniper as the nurture, if you want to simplify it down, which I still think is a very dangerous thing to do.
And we have been convinced through the Human Genome Project and for 20 years of active persuasion that eugenics, the genes, are ultimately the most important.
to the extent to which that our society functions to hold back people with certain genes.
Promote other people with certain genes.
And we shouldn't worry at all, even think about or consider the possibility that we don't even know our own potential yet.
And what that means is that they have fooled us into believing that they can learn anything here, right?
If you understand that these are undivorceable concepts, they work hand in hand.
We can't possibly understand our genetics.
I still will use the slave speak.
We cannot understand that.
from a biological perspective, if we spend no time at all understanding the optimal trajectory through time and what it is and how to achieve it, only then can we understand what genetic potential, what heredity, what inherited potential, maybe that's how we should talk about it, what inherited potential we were gifted from the previous generation.
And so in fact, because we have so much more control over optimizing our trajectory through time, as opposed to optimizing what we inherit from the previous generation, our entire lives should be bent on euphenics, not on eugenics.
And yet our entire culture focuses on emphasizing and blaming and scapegoating our genes.
And I think that's bad biology 101.
That's bad biology 101.
And so bad biology 101 broke the other day when we started thinking about there are no diseases blamed on bacteriophages, and that bacteriophages are free to pass the gut barrier.
Let's break it a little more by using mitochondria.
And I'd love it if we can see if I have to see what's happening here.
If we can, uh,
Why is that not working?
I have to just check one thing here.
Sorry about that.
Why is that?
Oh, yeah, it should work now.
Remove that.
So life is a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time.
Life is a pie with a tat.
Life is a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time.
And let's just start with there are no bacteriophage diseases, which is an interesting observation.
I'm sure you find that interesting.
There are also bacteriophages are free to move past the gut barrier.
And I guess they interact with the immune system.
The question is, is what happens then?
Now, there are two things that we know for sure.
From Lynn Margulis, we know that mitochondria are probably endosymbionts.
Now, in that insect video we watched the other day, they called them primary symbionts and secondary symbionts, which is interesting because, again, part of this enchantment, almost exclusively, is semantic.
It's getting biologists and doctors to all use different vocabulary, which overlaps in very unuseful ways and the gears never mesh.
And so somebody like Lynn Margulis would need people to step in front of the work in order to make sure that this endosymbiotic theory didn't get out of control, you know, because somebody like Joshua Lederberg was already debating during his lifetime, where do we draw
Where do we draw the edges of an individual?
And Joshua Lederberg already knew that we couldn't draw the edges of an individual at the epithelial barrier if they had a symbiosis with bacteria.
Especially if that symbiosis extended through the gut, into the payer's patches,
allowed phages to move freely through the body so that the immune system could favor bacteria and work against other bacteria by interfering with their phage communication.
And since mitochondria are endosymbionts, I want you to think about the possibility that why are those phages allowed to go throughout your body and could they also be interacting with the endosymbionts
the remnants of ancient bacteria that are in every cell of your body.
A kind of intracellular communication between the ectosymbionts in your gut and the endosymbionts in every cell.
Maybe hunger is just a symbiotic signaling mechanism.
Now, the reason why I had that echo on is because I want you to see that these ideas are nuts.
but they were right there in front of us all along.
Pears patches and antibodies would be a wonderful way for your body to select which bacterial subtypes they want to assist and which ones they would like to hinder.
The fact of the matter is that some people are really nice to kiss and other people are not.
And maybe that has something to do with a very complex interaction between how our body
is in a symbiosis with a microbiome that's very different than someone else's microbiome.
And a combination of smell and taste can indicate incompatibility or compatibility.
And so here we are with a fake anti-vaccine movement that is dominated by gut biologists who show us rainbow pictures of all of the genomes of the things in the gut and claim to be optimizing it or that SARS-CoV-2 is right there with it.
It's right there in front of us, ladies and gentlemen.
Some of this stuff is speculation.
But there is no speculation about the abundance of phages, their ubiquitous nature, ability to go everywhere.
And there is no debating that this endosymbiosis and this ectosymbiosis occurs throughout nature.
And there is no pattern integrity with a trajectory across time that does not exist exclusively because they are at an interface.
between decomposition and composition, between breakdown and synthesis.
And it is only that orchestrated balance that can allow such a beautiful thing as a pattern integrity as your child to exist.
And so what is a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time is the most important question that we can ask as far as I'm concerned going forward and it's going to be the motivation of most of my work.
I want to just point out quick here that although this is dim I want you to see that in the insect video
There were a wide variety of insect and bacterial symbioses and there were primary symbionts and there were secondary symbionts.
The primary symbionts had very reduced genomes and they were more organelle-like.
You could think of these as mitochondria-like.
And the secondary symbionts had a much more dynamic genome
They even exchange genes and acquire genes and, you know, kind of, it seems like an interplay between the host and the ectosymbiont.
And that's what I would say.
Primary symbiont is really an endosymbiont that's inside the cell, ectosymbiont.
And those two come from Lynn Margulis, who had these ideas a long time ago.
And so I just want to play this for a little while to point out to you a few things that should have caught your eye had you gone into that article or had you finished watching this video without me.
And then we'll wrap it up.
What the genomes look like.
So these are largely gut bacteria that could be in other host locations as well.
And for the last decade or so, this has been really the main system I worked on, and I'll talk more about it tomorrow at the Lambda lunch, but we've especially looked in the honey bee, and it has a very specialized microbiome, and we've concentrated on this community that's in the ileum, this one part of the hindgut, and specifically where this part of the hindgut is dominated by two species, Snagressella, which lives right on the ileum wall, and Guillemella apicola, which kind of
Notice the word biofilm here.
Biofilm is something that during COVID they were talking a lot about as possibly something that was unleashed on us, that was being used as bad guy stuff.
It's like part of their bioweapons are biofilms.
But biofilms are everywhere.
And chances are very good we are reliant on one inside of our gut as well.
This is the illusion that they are sustaining, that there is not any parallel here.
And in fact, there's parallel between rhizophagy and between the guts of every higher animal that's ever been on Earth has required any pattern integrity requires this interface to exist.
layered on top of it in clusters.
So these are found only in social bees.
They've evolved with bees based on a lot of different work for over 80 million years based on the age of these bees.
They're socially transmitted in the hive, but it's not strictly maternal.
It's just going among individuals just like our gut microbes do.
And the nice thing here is they're all culturable, so finally can do different kinds of experiments.
And we're developing genetic tools, which are getting more streamlined and more possibilities just by the week almost.
So they acquire this just after emerging from the pupil stage.
What she really means there is that they can clone these things.
They can't culture them, so they have to find another way to make them.
in the hive, and they get them from their sisters.
And the full community is established by about day four.
And that gives us this advantage that if we take the pupae before they meet their sisters and let them emerge in a sterile environment, they will be microbiota free.
So they won't have any of the microbes that are the characteristic ones that take over the microbiota in the gut.
And so normally these specialized microbes will be 95 to 99% of what... So are there phages in breast milk?
Are there phages in breast milk that can set up an environment where only certain bacteria can compete successfully?
These are all questions that should be asked if we were really in the right frame of reference, if we were really thinking about our biology in the correct way.
And I think that's why it's so easy.
You can just pause here and ask questions that are like, whoa, because it's all going to fall in place.
It's going to fall in place for each one of you as you start to be able to hold these ideas in your head.
All things clear up very quickly.
in the bee or in the gut of the bee.
We can basically prevent those from establishing and then we can do experiments where we can control what bacteria are in the bee.
And so this is one naturally exposed showing Snagrasella in purple.
Now be careful, there's a little bait and switch going on here.
They can't keep a bee free of Mycobryota forever or it would be dead.
But what they can do is show by removing the bees early that they acquire their microbiota through social interaction.
That's all this proves.
It doesn't prove that bees don't need it.
It just proves that they acquire it that way.
Be careful.
Don't read too much into this.
Well, this is one exposed to a single inoculation in the lab after four days and you see very robust colonization.
So we know a lot about what these do, and one thing they do, especially this one, Gilumella, is break down recalcitrant polysaccharides that are in the pollen husks.
So the bee has already extracted the good nutrients, the sugar, the protein, but these pollen husks that have plant cell wall components and all kinds of complicated molecules, Gilumella has collected genes, and all the strains differ, it's very diverse.
So how much do you understand about what you can just suck out of your food and what you need the bacteria to first kind of, you know, chop up before you can absorb?
How much do you know about that?
Exactly.
How much does your doctor know about that?
Oh, wow.
I wonder how much Sabine Hazan knows about that.
Now you're getting the picture.
...tenases and different glycosyl hydrolases and so on for breaking down these molecules and using the sugars, fermenting the sugars that come out.
And possibly, we know that at least some of the resulting short-chain fatty acids are absorbed by the host, because you can look in the hemolymph, the blood of the bee, and find them there.
So there's some nutritional role.
You don't know how important it is quantitatively.
One thing we started to get into is the, it turns out that there's a lot of strain variation.
I thought this would be a simple system.
There's your... One thing to understand is that bugs have hemolymph.
It's just kind of this yellow goo and that's it.
We have this very special circulatory system made of blood specifically for oxygen.
Yeah, sure.
It gives sugar and stuff like that.
That's fine.
but its primary goal and function is oxygen because a lot of the nutrients that are primarily lipid soluble are not in the blood by definition.
Be careful here and understand how important it is not to see your guts as just a tube that then the good stuff goes into your blood and gets carried where it needs to go and then that's digestion with some acid in your stomach or something like that.
It is a
impossibly complex symphony where we are symbiotic with a whole bouquet of bacteria.
And those bacteria are symbiotic with us in the sense that they provide optimal trade-offs and we provide optimal trade-offs for them, which are mutually beneficial.
And this relationship has apparently either
been honed over millions of years, or is part of a irreducible complexity that we will only scratch the surface of as we attempt to understand it.
But neither way, it is something that they are lying to us about.
Lying, lying, lying about being able to augment
It's awful.
five species.
But each of those species, of course, has all these strains, just like in the human gut.
And it turns out in Gilumella, sometimes those strains are really bona fide species.
So Gilumella apicola and Apis, they're both very closely related.
But one of them, Gilumella apis, lives in this forward part of the gut, right where the nitrogen waste is coming into the bee.
And it's able to use urea and basically ammonia for
making amino acids, whereas Guillemela apicola cannot use urea, but it's got the specialization on all of these polys.
So in an insect whose gut is about four, like what is that, half a centimeter there?
So it's like two centimeters long, has its gut microbiota organized by region.
And our 24-foot hose that our food goes through, ah, who cares?
These glycosyl hydrolases and pectinase and so on.
They also have different pH optima, and we've measured the pH.
Think about what that says if Sabine Hazan shows you a picture of all these different colored bands and claims that she knows all the bacteria that aren't in your gut, but can't tell you their distribution.
knowing what we know about bees.
Come on, guys.
Stop lying!
It's higher in this forward part and lower back here where this fermentation is going on.
So they seem to have diverged in their ecology within a single host.
So every bee has both of these, every honeybee worker.
But they're having this different metabolism and different niches within the gut.
And Snagressella colonizes along the whole gut.
But the main thing that bacteria do in the bee gut is protect against pathogens.
At least that's what I think is the main thing.
There have been a lot of studies from us.
Protect against pathogens.
They select
and maintain the symbiosis.
The bacteria that are not in symbiosis with us are by definition pathogens in this model.
But if you don't think of them that way, but you think of them as bacteria not in symbiosis with us, that would like to occupy that niche and potentially could
And that our immune system, if you will, our recognition system, our molecular cellular system that interacts with this on a molecular basis, it would work to remember that.
And that could cause problems, dysregulation, and an inability to maintain a fine balance between decomposition and composition, resulting in a disease state.
us and other labs showing that they protect against opportunistic bacteria, try panosomatids.
They're opportunistic.
Opportunistic bacteria is much better.
And so protecting against is not, it's more maintaining.
Once that balance is set up early in life, there is a maintenance process and disturbing it might disturb the trajectory through time of the entire pattern integrity.
You could kill the bee.
You could disrupt the development of a child.
And different RNA viruses that are known B pathogens.
It has some implications even just in beekeeping because.
And again, that's just an illusion that goes through everybody's assumptions.
She is a biologist who's not in a position in her mind to question whether those RNA viruses are
a consequence of the microbiota or they just are replicating in the bee.
And she has no biology to believe that they are bee pathogens except for what these RNA virologists have told her in their books and papers.
In reality, they're probably all genetic signaling of the symbionts, the ectosymbionts.
We've done work and others also showing that common beekeeping practices such as giving antibiotics to the bee colony or just agricultural practices such as herbicides that target pathways that are present in
Another terrible way to disrupt the microbiota is to use a product called Miralax.
Miralax is often prescribed to kids that have some kind of bowel disorder, because it helps them to pass.
But what it actually does is it removes all the water.
And how it works is it
It sucks all the water out of everything.
And what that does is basically completely depletes the microbiome if it's used too long.
And it can be devastating, like ridiculous.
Kids go nuts on this stuff.
And there's lots of testimony.
There's a Facebook group about it.
And so again, this is the devastating reality
that ourselves as a pattern integrity needs to be understood as a fine balance and it's a symbiosis.
That's a beautiful word.
because it means so very much.
They disrupt the microbiota.
They cause the in-hive mortality to be higher.
So we can see, we can do mark recapture in the hives and look at mortality in their natural habitat.
So I mean, if you just wanted to reduce population or reduce life expectancy or increase, you know, bad health, it would just disrupt the microbiome.
because bees come back home, that's where they live.
And so we can see how long they persist.
And in lab challenges, we can show that disrupting with these compounds will cause them to... Here you can see the biofilm barrier right here, right?
They're showing you the stuff that they were talking about in COVID as some kind of bioweapon.
And oh my goodness, biofilms.
Look at these pictures and look at these patents and look at these papers about biofilms.
It's all biofilms.
That's all part of the same illusion that is clinging desperately to make sure that we pass on to our kids this bad biology about genes and evolution and bad guys being pathogens.
Everything in the world's out to kill us.
Be more susceptible to pathogens.
So the microbiota is probably most important in protecting against pathogens.
And what a spectacularly dumb answer that is when she just got through saying that they are metabolically required for the bee to thrive.
I mean, that's all you needed to hear.
This is a basic intro to the fact that we are pattern integrities with a trajectory across time.
And the evidence has been right in our face ever since Lynn Margolis really described it best
It has been right in our face with payers patches.
And it's been right in our face with rhizophagy and with the gut of insects.
And this is for all the marbles, ladies and gentlemen.
That's why there's an anti-vaccine movement that's fake in America.
If you want to save America's children, you've got to save them from these fake anti-vaxxers because if we seek the truth together, we can come to a biology that reveals that background.
and reveals this as just a joke, makes everything go back to green.
And I think situation is actually very green right now if we understand this new biology as a pattern integrity and think about how we've been bamboozled, how we haven't considered some very prime ideas.
like the intercommunication between our mitochondria and our ectosymbionts, even the possibility that we have endosymbionts that we're not aware of or ectosymbionts that pass the gut barrier, for all I know.
Certainly, they go into Peyer's patches at night and interact with the immune system in a way that is grossly underestimated to be central, rather, I think, central to our very existence as a pattern integrity with a tat.
Because we exist at the interface of composition and decomposition and we are the definition of multi-layered symbiosis from our multi-cellular body with endosymbionts all the way to the ectosymbionts in our gut.
Ladies and gentlemen, remember this biology frees us from this lie.
This biology explains the background that they lied about.
And there are two.
The first one is how people die and how many people were expected to die.
And the second one is if they murdered a few people to get some peaks and then modeled on those peaks, then all it would require is a succinct list.
And we've had that succinct list for years.
At the top of that list is the lack of antibiotic use because antibiotics don't work on viruses.
At the top of that list is the absolute
Ridiculous use of ventilators and supplementary oxygen in combination or sequentially to cause ARDS.
Also remdesivir, midazolam, all kinds of ways that they poisoned people.
Opioid deaths on the street contributed to the falling in life expectancy.
And then fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud.
And fraud is lying.
So we can summarize it very, very well.
And we have been doing it for a few years.
And this new biology, it actually supports this idea.
I don't know why that's stalling out here.
We're crashing.
We're getting attacked.
It's got to be attacking.
No, I'm just kidding.
I don't know what's up.
The murder and lies can be replaced, though.
We can do something else.
We can offer an alternative to our children.
That alternative is that RNA could never pandemic.
That intramuscular injection is really not a way of administering medicine to healthy kids.
or even healthy adults, that transfection was a methodology that they always knew would result in all of this damage, and that's why they tried to blame the spike as being fancy in the beginning of the pandemic, to make sure that we could confuse the effects of a virus with a gain-of-function spike, with the spike that's now integrating into people's cancers and this kind of thing, with the primary signal being SV40.
one of the most widely produced molecular biological signals in industry and academia for the last 20 years.
Probably the most widely produced DNA sequence on Earth.
And yet now we're supposed to blame the presence of that sequence exclusively on Pfizer.
This is the illusion, ladies and gentlemen.
The population pyramid was a problem that needed solving and all it takes is placebos and non-specific PCR tests for them to lie about a background and for us to teach a mythology to our children.
Please don't do it, ladies and gentlemen.
If you like this work, please share it.
It's at stream.gigaohm.bio.
If you want to support the work, please go to gigaohm.bio.
gigaohmbiological.com, excuse me, and find a way to do that.
We need every little bit we can get.
Thank you very much.
I'll be here again soon, probably sometime over the weekend to try and make up for Thursday.
But if I don't make it over the weekend, don't be mad.
I do have some work to do.
It's not a day job, but it is extra money that we definitely need.
And I made some promises that I need to keep.
Thank you very much.
I'll see you again soon.