Thanks for watching!
Neptune, eighth planet from the sun.
A mystery now.
We hope to have close-up photos from Voyager 2 in 1989.
We do have them!
They're my home screen.
Miss Hoover, once again, the lesson plan I prepared would have covered this topic much better.
But I can see... Miss Hoover?
It's Tuesday, Lisa.
Taco Tuesday.
Oh!
Run into the tunnel.
You have to go as fast as you can.
You can trust me.
It's real.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
You know, I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
Specialization should make you suspicious, because it's gotten harder to evaluate what's going on.
And it's presumably gotten easier for people to lie and to exaggerate.
And then one should be a little bit suspicious.
And that's, that's, that's sort of my starting my starting bias.
Ha ha.
Testing 1, 2.
Test 1, 2.
Trying to figure out how to get this.
Why is that not working there?
Hey, there we go.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the show.
This is GigaOM Biological.
A high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist trying to bring you a little hope in this dark world.
A little hope about the fact that nobody's going to be able to avoid us in the near future.
Everyone's going to hear this message in one form or another.
The question is, will they hear it clear enough for it to ring a bell?
Will they hear it clear enough for them to see that biology is the way?
Not to want to sound too militant about it, but we need to start teaching our kids right now.
We need to start getting our kids off of social media right now.
We need to start getting our kids to see
social media for what it is right now.
Even if they're still on it, they need to understand how much is in their hands in terms of the responsibility to curate who they follow and who they listen to, who they read, because you only have about 35,000 thoughts
You only have about 35,000 thoughts that can go through your mind every day.
And if you think of those 35,000 thoughts as a garden that you're curating, and it's kind of like a juggling act, and over the course of the day, you're responsible for taking care of what thoughts go through your head and how long they spend any reasonable amount of time there.
And without active curation, and instead with a lot of scrolling, your children... Your children are going to become enslaved.
They're gonna inherit a system much in the same way that we've inherited this system from our parents.
It is remarkable... Why is that... What the heck?
For some reason... Oh, I didn't turn either of these on.
You know, see, again, it's one of those things where if you don't have, if you don't have someone to play along, let me see if this works.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the show.
Boy, oh boy.
I don't know what's up with that lighting.
Maybe I just have coffee all over my teeth.
That could be the problem.
I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna blow all the, blow all the illusion out of the water here.
And just let you see how the, how the, how the donuts are made here.
Let me just, or do they say sausage now?
Do the kids say sausage or donuts?
How the donuts are made is how I'm gonna say it.
Cut over here.
That should have been the writing thing.
So I got to turn that on too.
Good morning, everybody.
It's Taco Tuesday.
It's 15th of April, 2025.
You are here at the Gigaohm Biological High Resistance Low Noise Information Brief coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I don't have a crew of any kind.
And so occasionally some of the cameras aren't on.
Some of them are out of focus.
These wires are under my...
chair And the desk is low or my seat is high.
I guess it can be either of those two things That's a coffee cup.
That is just Zev Zelenko.
I'm just trying to see if there's any Incriminating evidence on camera.
No, there's not.
Thank you very much for joining me this morning.
Ladies and gentlemen It is wonderful to be here this morning Taco Tuesday is an interesting experiment that is ongoing where
I come to you live with a cup of coffee and a large bottle of water in some kind of preparatory act for the rest of the week where I'm going to attempt to put out a journal club and a biology 101, a new biology 101 each week.
Those are a lot of work, especially now that people are throwing things at me from all directions.
It is remarkable the effect that first substack about new biology 101 has had.
both from the perspective of people who decided that the contents of it were irrelevant and instead my sub-high school level ability to write and to spellcheck is apparently so appalling that almost no communication at all really occurs because my writing is so bad.
Irrespective of that, I really appreciate the positive feedback that I've gotten as well.
If you want to look at this work that's been done over the last year and a half or so, you can go to stream.gigaohm.bio.com.
You can find all of that stuff archived on our own website that we are actually paying for in collaboration now with my friend Mark Kulak from Boston.
He puts in like
Really, the reality of it is like a third of the total costs of me maintaining PeerTube and Soapbox.
And so, yes, he's putting his videos up there, but yes, he's also really helping substantially.
We're actually trying to make some changes to the way that that website works so that the costs are going to go down quite significantly.
I hope that's going to help me a little bit.
But as you can hear from the numbers, running a website like that is like $300 a month.
It's not really that big of a deal.
If you've got somebody with the know-how to help you set it up, then it's kind of trivial, actually.
And there's no excuse for anybody with a podcast or some kind of...
let's say, significant following, there's really no excuse for them not to be building an infrastructure that is essentially independent of mainstream media.
That would be really, in my mind, one of the primary signals that somebody is really willing and able and trying to get something out there and has a real message.
If they're either, one, plastering it all over the place, or they have spontaneously inspired other people to plaster it all over the place, or if
Some way or another they're trying to wholly establish something outside of of mainstream media by hosting something themselves preferably for free That that's really I think a sign of something good and I don't see very many signs of that around the universe So anyway streamed out giga or giga ohm bio there is a soapbox where we do a lot of communicating and a lot of people
talk very harshly to one another, but it's a good place to hash things out.
And if you want to be on the mailing list, I'm not sure that Fearless sent a mail out today because she wasn't sure I was going to go on stream.
Since writing of that Biology 101, there's been a lot of phone calls and emails in the background.
unlike any other period in in recent memory and so it's uh we're moving forward with a little caution and a little um a little more preparation than normal maybe let's say it like that so let me see if this works oh no i'm sure it won't work because i haven't done this yet um i'm gonna cut in a second over to the desk oh really now that's strange what
really okay i'm not even going to worry about that right now let's see if we can do this one we got some minor minor technical glitches here i apologize again there we go this is a um
This is a one-man show, and so I got a lot of little tricks up my sleeve, but these tricks require some pretty Craigslist-style technology that's all got to communicate, and when NVIDIA drops a new driver, guess what screws up everything?
So I've been down here today trying to get the setup to work, but it is working.
It's just one little thing out there that's not out there.
So it's again, let me see if this trick works.
This should work.
Yes.
Taco Tuesday is not for everyone, but it is for anyone who likes tacos.
And by tacos, I mean truth.
Truth Tuesday.
And the truth is different kinds of meat.
It's different kinds of concoctions, which, you know, if they're made authentically, taste very good.
And I am not Mexican, but I do very, very much love tacos.
Actually, like my friend Greg Glassman really likes tacos.
I am seeking the truth, and this is the plural version of let's start with the truth, or let's begin with the truth.
As far as the Latin teacher at Bethel Park Community School System tells me that is, and she is a genius.
So I'm going with that one.
I don't necessarily want to pronounce it out loud, but this is our new background theme here.
We are really trying to seek the truth.
Taco Tuesday is really about the truth, because this is about the grandchildren of Earth.
And I'm trying to start to get people on both sides of the equation, so to speak.
Both sides is what is already slave speak.
I'm already speaking in the language that people who watch television or use social media skillfully are using with each other.
when I say both sides.
And we have been purposefully divided into what can be generalized as two sides, but those two sides overlap in a very contradictory way, so that those two sides, if they were well understood, would be contradictory holes.
And yet, that's part of the magic of social media.
And it's part of the
the sort of magnificence of the position that human people, that the people of earth are in right now, the children of earth are in right now.
The situation that the children of earth are in right now is one that I have never, only recently come to understand.
It's remarkable.
And the only way that people in my own family
in the Netherlands and in America, in my own social circle, in the Netherlands and in America could be so separated in their understanding of reality is because of skilled social media use and engagement with that 35,000 thoughts a day and allowing social media to put a significant, determine what a significant number of those thoughts are.
So many,
that a lot of the consequences of acquiescing to those thoughts, being occupied by those ideas, is that you are unable to devote enough of your remaining ideas per day to something useful, which will accumulate into something useful for you, for your family, for your community.
And that is such a remarkable effect where, like any other real military exercise, you wouldn't want to kill everybody.
You just want to incapacitate them.
And social media has incapacitated skilled users to an extent to which I never imagined possible.
And I think that's what was happening when I lost my mind, so to speak, at the University of Pittsburgh and I was trying to go from lab to lab to try and find somebody who agreed with me that this wasn't all just a cut and dried, you know, understanding that there was just an inevitability coming over the horizon from China.
Certainly I thought I could find somebody that would understand that
What we have been using, the methodologies that we have been using are not appropriate to be called a countermeasure or an investigational vaccine when we already have names for them and we already understand the limits of their use in mice and monkeys.
And yet the same thing happened.
And it's because of skilled social media use, skilled engagement that these people were unable, but it's also the twisted way that academics, the twisted ladder that academics climb result in their positioning themselves to be intellectually impotent in all places except their tiny little expertise.
If you were a carpenter, you would need to be an expert in a one particular kind of dovetail joint made in one particular kind of cabinet, in one particular kind of house, in one region of America.
That's how you would get tenure as a carpenter in an American university.
Think about that, and you would never be able to tell anybody anything about how their joints are less strong than your joint.
You would just have to make the argument that if every joint was a dovetail joint, the consequences of this would be tremendous.
And maybe we would be able to understand why some of these IKEA cabinets tip over.
Certainly it contributes to IKEA cabinets tipping over and so that's why I work on dovetail joints.
That's how malevolent the position that we are in is because we have been put here on purpose.
We have been made to feel confused.
We have been made to feel powerless and even the people in academia essentially are victims of this same system where
Their salary depends on them becoming hypnotized by it or acquiescing to it.
I keep using the same word, but I don't have a better one.
And that's what this fake anti-vaccine movement in America is, why it's so dangerous.
Because they are there to misrepresent a position which is actually valid.
So that both sides of the... Both sides, in slave speak again, are unable to find the exit.
And once the left sees that the right is being played, they might be able to have some talking points, but it will also require them to understand that they have indeed been exactly as bamboozled as a lot of these Trump voters have tried to tell them they are.
That this nonsense about a gender spectrum or not a gender spectrum is also a trap and both the right and the left need to understand that.
because it's all about trying to subconsciously reinforce this bad biology where evolution because DNA.
That's it.
And that's the reason why nobody on the right or the left is able to so succinctly say that the effect that we saw and were shown on television that we're told was a novel virus called SARS-CoV-2 that caused a series of symptoms called COVID
was a lie.
They took advantage of an anticipated rise in all-cause mortality.
How's that?
Why don't you make a meme of that?
An anticipated rise in all-cause mortality.
and sculpted it with a little murder and lies.
Some of those murders and lies go around the use of pure oxygen, both with masks and also with ventilation.
It goes with PCR not being a useful diagnostic tool then or now.
Although it is being used to find measles now, it couldn't be used to find measles when Wakefield was using it.
And Wakefield was, you know, using it right all along, right?
And so now we're supposed to be arguing about that?
It's not by accident.
Nobody is in this narrative by chance.
That is the hardest truth that a lot of people who use skill, skillfully use social media will have to accept.
And of course, perhaps the largest elephant in the room is that not using antibiotics for pneumonia or for sepsis or for urinary tract infection is a crime.
And there were people on the internet saying that for a viral syndrome, antibiotics are not appropriate and using antibiotics when they're not needed is dangerous because you can create antibiotic resistant bacteria.
this is an exact narrative that you may have forgotten just like you forgot about 15 days or 14 days or two weeks to stop the spread or two weeks to flatten the curve?
Have you already forgotten that they actually said that for like two weeks straight?
Five and a half years ago?
Five and a half years ago.
So you've got to keep the memory of 2020 alive, the memory of 2021 alive.
You've got to work to archive it.
And any of your heroes, you need to double check, triple check and triple archive everything they said.
And if it lines up with somebody who's learning and figuring things out and ultimately fighting against something that makes sense, then fine, follow them.
But if it's not, you've got to be honest.
and you've got to do something about it.
Because the whole tariff thing and the way that all of these podcasts are focused on it and the way that all of these people are suddenly experts in it because it's just common sense, the way these things work, it is a divided narrative.
I'm not an economist, I'm a biologist and I can still see that it's a contradictory narrative.
If you say that tariffs are a way to protect American jobs and American manufacturing, then they are permanent.
If you talk like it's a deal-making opportunity and it's something that can be negotiated, then you don't believe in the first idea.
If you believe that tariffs are a great thing and they protect American jobs and manufacturing and American interests, then they should be permanent.
And yet he's talking at the same, out the same side of his mouth as if, no, it's the art of the deal.
I was just bullshitting.
I was just bluffing.
So you lied about the ideal of it in order to make a deal with it.
And then everybody's arguing about it now.
It's almost similar to like the argument about a lab leak or a natural virus or whether it's a cover-up or not.
Or whether the diffuse proposal supports one side.
You know, it's weird, right?
Because again, all they have to do is get these people on the internet to go with it.
And now no matter where you go with your scroll, it just seems there's this illusion of consensus that the tariffs are something really important.
And wow, he's really tanked the economy.
And now the dollar is going down and gold is going up and Bitcoin.
And this is all an elaborate theater, which gets this running the clock out on this obvious murder and lies.
Running the clock out on the obvious murder and lies.
And so it's a hard message, but if you see the light at the end of the tunnel, you see that if you start with the truth, then there's a lot of fear that's gone.
There's a lot of uncertainty that's gone.
And instead, these people start to identify themselves by the way that they stick to the narrative, the way that they keep pushing this thing up the hill.
even though it's been debunked and written off and all of the lies and the stories and the exaggeration are supposedly exposed, nobody's still at the truth.
Nobody's still gotten to the point where they can say transfection in healthy people is a crime because these people have agreed not to use the word.
Nobody has gotten to RNA cannot pandemic because people have agreed
to stick to the narrative that there was a novel virus, something very strange.
I know I had something strange, right?
I had it three times, say some of these people.
Intramuscular injection is dumb as something that Brandy Vaughn
would have loved to put on a billboard that all of these people have met.
Ingestion versus injection was the way that Brandy Vaughn said it.
And yet, despite this magically wonderful way to teach people the biology, and despite the fact that all of these people know exactly who you'd be talking about if you mentioned Brandy Vaughn and that idea,
None of these people have decided to adopt these words to help save children.
They believe that they are fighting against an apocalyptic moment in human history because children are being killed, I guess.
But, you know, the most drastic thing they're gonna do is move to the United States and buy a ranch in Austin and be in a couple movies.
and put themselves on billboards in a bra and fight for better jobs for autistic kids for 10 years before they come to America and start all over.
And even if in a year they say the old vaccine schedule's bad, they're still not actually gonna say that intramuscular injection is dumb.
I can guarantee it.
And that's how you will know they are frauds because this biology is real.
And that's why no one will talk about it.
No one's gonna ridicule this.
You're never gonna hear Kevin McKernan go on a podcast and say that, you know, I heard somewhere on the internet that people were saying that intramuscular injection is dumb.
Well, here's a whole list of situations where intramuscular injection is the best way to administer a medical product.
Robert Malone's not going to do it either.
Robert F. Kennedy's not going to do it either, even though by September, he's going to tell you the cause of autism.
That's not enough time to finish any science.
So they already knew the answer.
These people are playing an extremely malevolent game for people that I often generalize as calling the slavers.
I don't know who they are.
They work for weaponized piles of money.
They own weaponized piles of money.
They manage weaponized piles of money.
I don't know what the right words are to use, but we are being dominated.
Our consciousness is being occupied by the military programs called social media and the thoughts that they put in our head that are not these, these truths, the truth that the,
vaccine schedule in America is a criminal enterprise.
I mean, we've been saying this for two and a half years now.
Brandy Vaughn was saying it for a couple of years before the pandemic on stage with these people and they didn't adopt the language.
They didn't hat tip to Brandy for this.
You know, this is a real best way to understand it.
You know, that's how you see that Susan Humphreys is a fraud.
She still can't say it succinctly.
She's written books.
She's been on movies.
She's been in movies.
And she is a doctor.
And she's still not convinced that intramuscular injection is dumb.
She thinks it's a combination of things that include antibiotics, which may be true.
But it is not being honest.
when you say it's genetics and food and toxins in the environment, when you know that any exposure to a toxin on the outside of our body or on a spoon is not the same as injecting it intramuscularly.
And as a doctor, she should know that if these vaccines were okay for you, then they could also inject them in the blood.
That's where the immune cells are anyway, right?
But they don't inject them in the blood.
They inject them in the muscles so that the administration of these combinations of toxins is least likely to be temporarily connected to whatever bad things happen.
And those bad things can be smeared across a much, much longer timescale.
This is the worst kind of malevolence.
It's very hard to believe that our parents
bequeathed us this system, gave us this system, whatever the right word is.
They passed it down to us without even knowing it because when I was a child, I'm 53 years old, when I was a child, there were a couple shots.
And if I'm damaged by them, I'm damaged by them.
But there were a couple shots and they were given much later than this schedule that the kids are on right now.
And if Polly Tommy already 10 years ago thought that this was an apocalyptic war or a once in a lifetime, super bad thing, the children were being injured.
She didn't fight very hard to say it.
Even after she heard Brandy Vaughn, who doesn't have a damaged child, say it because she felt so guilty about having an undamaged, unvaccinated child, felt so blessed to have an undamaged, unvaccinated, undamaged child, that she made it her life's work and dedicated her life savings to trying to get the message out.
And it is remarkable how much she was able to accomplish in her short time of being awake.
And it is remarkable how little these people were able to take on this fake anti-vaccine movement that still can't say the U.S.
vaccine schedule is a criminal enterprise.
We have at the Health and Human Services Secretary position a lawyer who hired me for a year and a half.
who has heard my arguments about what clones are and what they are not.
My arguments about what virology is and what it isn't and why no virus is an illusion.
It's a trap.
that made no logical progress for five years, even if they suddenly make logical progress now, there's no way to explain how Tom Cowan has a book in 2018 with Chelsea Green that doesn't say it then, and then for seven years of the pandemic, he didn't say it yet.
2018 until now, think about Tom Cowan's lack of progress in succinctly saying that this is a criminal enterprise.
Think about all of those people who have failed to say that the U.S.
vaccine schedule, when compared to any other schedule on earth, is a criminal enterprise.
Polly could say it.
She's from over there.
Any Dutch person that wanted to figure it out could research it.
Anyone from Norway could figure it out, research it.
And then all of our allies should be going like, oh my gosh, Americans are under attack by their own government or by some weird, traitorous infiltration of their government, because this doesn't make any sense.
Those kids are getting so many more shots than our kids are getting, and yet that's not happening.
Nobody at heart is saying that.
Nobody at Panda is saying that.
Nobody at any of these organizations like Brownstone is saying that.
They're not establishing Brownstone Spain in order to show everybody in Spain how bad it is in America and ask for help.
Nobody like Jikki Leaks is pointing out that, wow, the American vaccine schedule is pretty dubious.
They're not saying it at all because part of the reason why this fake anti-vaccine movement, these fake resistors of the pandemic are out there is to make sure that the US vaccine schedule is not globally revealed to be the criminal enterprise that it is.
That the American public doesn't wake up to the fact that it's not about race, it's about class.
And if you're going to public school and you have to go to public school, chances are you're on the schedule.
And so it's not about white versus black.
It's about the fact that these people lied to us.
These people in the government, these people in this bureaucracy, these people in these international organizations have lied to us together.
And these people at Children's Health Defense like Meryl Nass and Mary Holland have lied to us with those same organizations about their relevance and about their role in this.
When in reality, it's up to us
to realize that it's a lie, up to us to realize that common sense can tell you that this is a lie, that comparing to other vaccine schedules, you can see it's a lie.
Comparing our children to their children, you can see it's a lie.
And if it takes these people who have been in the spotlight and on billboards and in movies another 10 years to be able to say that, they are not on our team.
And so if you learn the biology, you can say it right to their face.
You can tweet it back to them.
You can see them in person and say, hey, what the hell is going on?
Why don't you just say that intramuscular injection is dumb and make a doctor correct you?
Why don't you just put that out there?
Because that's why that phrase is so powerful and why these people are such chicken shits.
Why it's so obvious.
If intramuscular injection isn't dumb, then somebody should have corrected me by now.
Anyone, please shut this guy up already.
Imagine if one of these people, you know, like Brian Hooker had the courage to say that, you know, Jonathan Cooley of GigaOM Biological is a real hothead.
But I really admire his courage.
And he has this phrase, intramuscular injection is dumb.
And I don't think any MD has corrected him on this.
And I think it's weird.
You know, what'd be really cool is that Brian Hooker could just say that, I met this lady named Brandy Vaughn, and she used to challenge people to think about the difference between ingestion and injection.
And there's actually precedents in US law to strike laws and mandates and all these other things, you know, if the foundation of the assumption of the thing is not good.
I mean, you can't mandate something if the foundation of the mandate is dumb, you know, like it doesn't make any sense.
If the foundation of the mandate is that hitting you with a baseball bat in the head before you're age six is good for you, and so all children before the age of six must be hit with a baseball bat, then you could, that law could be struck by a court just on the basis that it's illogical.
It doesn't make the precedence of the law or the presumptions of the law are dumb.
Whatever you want to say it.
I don't know the legal language.
I'm not a lawyer.
But that's absolutely for sure.
And what these people are doing is avoiding saying those things.
Avoiding saying things that would make the vaccine schedule criminal.
Because it's dumb.
Because it doesn't make sense.
Because there's no biological
rationale for intramuscularly injecting a combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system.
There is no biological rationale for that.
That's a grant application.
That's a story that people like Robert Malone and Mark Lander and Kevin McKernan have been telling people for a long time, but that's not real biology.
That's what Peter Thiel was talking about when we say the specialization should make people suspicious.
Because the specialization allows people to exaggerate and to lie.
And encourages people, more importantly, not to call each other out.
And so if Kevin McKernan bullies everybody on everybody's podcast with, I have more credentials than you and I can say more big words in combination than you can,
then if he says there's a virus and he says the PCR tests work, then for five years, people believe it.
And now suddenly that's where we are with him in front of the Senate, telling people there's DNA in something that they knew already a long time ago, they'd never be able to get the DNA out of.
And if you learn the biology, you will be able to understand that.
And the next time you see Kevin McKernan in person, you can say, but in 2020, when you knew what they were gonna make for an investigational vaccine, didn't you already know how they were gonna manufacture it?
Didn't you already know that they wouldn't be able to get the endotoxins out?
Didn't you already know that DNA and RNA would make a triple helix?
Didn't you already know that they couldn't separate the DNA from the RNA because
anion exchange chromatography wasn't going to be used?
I mean, are you are you saying that you just figured this out over the course of the COVID pandemic despite the fact that you've been already selling genetic sequencing tools since you were like 25?
And so I really think it's important because it's for all the marbles that we start actively pursuing, confronting these people with these biological truths that they cannot deny.
Kevin McKernan had to know that anything prepared using standard biologics procedure, the recombinant bacterial, recombinant DNA,
Manufacturing techniques would never be pure.
He knew that from 2020.
And yet for some reason, only now in 2025, after everybody's decided how many they're gonna take and has gotten their fill, does he come out with a limited spectrum of debate?
That's not the truth at all.
Because the truth would be that I knew these would be bad for all this list of reasons.
And then now we're arguing about the list only number nine.
That would be the truth that Kevin McKernan would tell if he was playing for our grandchildren and his.
Oh wait, maybe he doesn't even have grandchildren.
That's why there's a fake anti-vax movement in America that includes Kevin McKernan, former Human Genome Project Research and Development Director.
That's why the fake anti-vax movement stands in front of and co-opted Brian Hooker all like many years ago.
Because in 2013, Brian Hooker was able to say it right.
Autism's a bullshit word.
These people are vaccine injured.
And a lot of times, vaccine injury has huge neurological effects.
Huge gastrointestinal effects.
And so it's not Rain Man.
Where the hell did Rain Man go?
The anti-vaxxers, these people that have been at it since 1999, they are traitors to our grandkids.
They have not made any progress.
Mary Holland hasn't made any progress.
Meryl Nass hasn't made any progress since she spoke out about the old anthrax vaccines in favor of the new anthrax vaccines.
These are fake anti-vax traitors that have been acting out roles for several decades now in the hopes that this narrative could be co-opted and used to herd the cats, the citizens of America.
It's really that simple.
There is a fake anti-vaccine movement that has captured a lot of people on the right.
And it is a really dangerous position that we're in.
Some of these people have been around since 2013, like Brian Hooker.
And then in 2020, what was he doing?
He was talking about, he was talking about the PCR test being okay.
And that, you know, antibodies aren't a very good model of immunity.
And there is definitely a novel virus and they haven't tested these vaccines enough yet.
Then the signal is pretty low.
And in 2021, he was building that health freedom, big top tent of health freedom.
We just wanna be able to say and choose what we wanna do.
So we're not actually interested in saving anybody or teaching anyone the truth so that they can save themselves.
We're just interested in making sure that there's health freedom.
And that means like, you know, freedom to say whatever we want to.
And in 2022, after all the murder was over, that's still where they were.
I'm still building a big top tent for health freedom.
And that's actually when they hired me.
And so, you know, it's, it's remarkable, ladies and gentlemen, it's 2025.
And we're still playing the same game where nobody but me and Mark can say ingestion versus injection.
Like, like the mom of that unvaccinated child.
What's her name again?
Brandy Vaughn.
That's right.
And that's remarkable, remember, because she was around for Vaxxed and Vaxxed 2 and trying to get on stage and putting her arm around everybody, calling them heroes and having them go, oh no, I'm nobody's hero, I'm not a hero.
Ladies and gentlemen, this man with a vaccine-injured son named Brian Hooker,
questioned the rationale of vaccination in general in 2013 did not use the word autism on purpose in 2013 because his child was neurologically injured by multiple vaccinations and he had 16 years of experience genetically modifying plants which means he knew what transformation and transfection was
what it meant and why those words were absolutely appropriate for the adenovirus and the mRNA respectively.
And Brian Hooker in 2020 was talking about the health freedom anti-mandate movement, talking about not giving kids vaccines when they have ear infections, talking about COVID having asymptomatic spread and confirming that it could be as long as five days, that antibodies aren't immunity, that the vaccine studies are underpowered, but doesn't say or explain that these are not investigational vaccines.
These are already a known combination of substances.
We know exactly what it will do.
And from a biologist perspective, I know exactly the limitat- No, nothing like that at all.
Instead, he was doing a back and forth calling with a Dr. Kendra about B-cells and T-cells and laughing!
Two weeks after Brandy died.
You know, Brandy Vaughn, have I mentioned her before?
She's the one who did injection versus ingestion already in 2016.
And then all these people met her and got on stage with her and took pictures with her and then wrote her out of the narrative.
So this fake anti-vaccine movement is who's behind Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
could be being played.
And if he's being played, then he's just kind of a,
He's not rescuable.
I mean, I've already said it in an email.
I've already said it in a Zoom meeting.
I've already had the conversation and sent the mails too many times.
He cannot be not aware of the fact that Robert Malone and Meryl Nass and Jessica Rose are some kind of performance team, test lorry, that is controlling or mitigating the
the narrative that is on this side that ultimately is behind Bobby Kennedy.
It's a very malevolent game that these people are playing.
And that's why they don't say intramuscular injection is dumb or RNA cannot pandemic.
They say things like people over profits, truce over lies, and courage over fear.
And this is because this is about the Human Genome Project.
The Human Genome Project is the largest, most expensive, multi-generational effort ever done by humankind to try and take advantage of
the limited opportunity, limited on that time frame, on that time horizon, the limited number of these generations where there will be so many billion people on the planet, so many games of Go, so many games of chess to be collected over a lifetime.
That opportunity is not going to exist forever.
And on my website under the link stuff, I have this McKinsey report that talks about how the population pyramid data from the West indicates that there is going to be a population collapse, which means that this generation or the generation of our grandkids might be the last big giant data set that is available for collection.
And so they are now going through iterative
introductions of and testing of various systems that will collect that data.
They're building the server net, the infrastructure to collect that data.
Remember, in order to pull off the same thing that they did with Go, but to pull it off on the human genome,
they are going to have to hold a lot more data in a server and have it be accessible to a central machine learning algorithm that infrastructure has been imagined but it needs to be scaled up and then scaled up again and so you might think it's for surveillance and it is but it is also ultimately to perform that
final, you know, nested calculation where okay, now we have all the data and all those people are gone.
And now we need to start the thing churning and it's not going to come.
It's not going to come to, you know, figure out the human genome in a few hours.
That's the trick to see that this is a one time in history when they can get the data.
But that one time in history is like a couple generation window.
the population of the world in a hundred years is gonna be very different.
In fact, in a hundred years, and this is something you really need to get your head around, in a hundred years, everyone, everyone living on this planet will be dead.
In a hundred years, everyone living on this planet will be dead.
It's an absolute certainty.
Well, maybe not a certainty.
Maybe 15 of those people will be alive.
Now, why is that important?
It's important because the people who are in control of the largest piles of money in the world, who I'm not going to try to name here, but there are big piles of money and those piles of money have enormous potential to influence people.
And it is used very well, I assure you.
They've been practicing for generations.
So these weaponized piles of money understand this.
They don't think on three week social media timescales or three day social media timescales.
They think on generational timescales.
And so even a hundred years is quite short.
But if you start to see that in a hundred years, everyone who was living on this planet will be dead.
And if you were thinking wisely for your kids, you would be taking more of that into account in the way that you spent your time and energy trying to build things for your kids.
And these people have been thinking that way for decades, for hundreds of years.
You see the difference?
And they think and see themselves rightfully superior to us because of that.
The only thing you have to realize is that we've been raised to think incorrectly, raised that way by them.
Despite the best efforts of some of the best parents on the planet, I know some people who had great parents.
These people in recent memory were put in place, and if you want to know why, it's because of the Human Genome Project.
That's why he's there, she's there, she's there, she's there, he's there.
They're all connected to that directly.
None of them have an indirect connection to these illusions.
They are
Direct connections to these illusions and some of them may be still unwittingly participating kind of just agreeing not to care or not pay attention and Allow them to use their substack and represent themselves or you know, maybe them and their twin are going around.
I don't know But I do know for sure that I've had a conversation with some people and I think it's worth revisiting these conversations One
I mean the greatest technology in the world is cups that don't get cold.
If there's anything more disappointing than trying to get that last swig of coffee and finding it cold and when it's warm or even hot, it's spectacular.
Just one reminder, very humbly, GigaOM Biological is supported only by viewers like you.
If you go to GigaOMBiological.com, you can find everything from a P.O.
box to a PayPal address.
And any donations would be appreciated.
And anybody that sets up a monthly kind of thing, wow, I mean,
I don't know how to thank you other than to say that you are supporting some seriously, I think what I think is, I don't know, I'm either losing my mind, which is I guess very possible, or I'm fighting for my life and the rest.
Who, what?
Wow, that's weird.
series recording me and talking to me in a weird voice.
I am going to watch a video of myself interviewing Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
You may be familiar with him because he is actually the current NIH director, Dr. Jayant Bhattacharya, MD, PhD.
I interviewed him on November 20th, 2023.
And you will notice, although I won't show really what's here,
You will notice some very familiar names in the chat.
One interesting one that is in the chat constantly for this hour and a half is one Jessica Hockett using her full name.
No ambiguity.
It's Jessica Hockett, 1976 or something like that.
It's remarkable, actually, if you think about it.
Anybody that was going in my chat, who's ever gone in my chat, has not used their full name.
I know nobody has used their full name in my chat.
It is strange when anyone would go into any sort of chat situation and just put Jonathan Cooey, PhD, or even worse, Jonathan J. Cooey, but Jessica Hockett, not Jay Hockett, not
Jess Hock, not, you know, Woodhouse 76, but Jessica Hockett, full name.
And I have to say, the full video is on PeerTube.
And it's in the Batcave, you can find that channel and it's there available to watch.
I'm actually starting at about 40 minutes into the video.
You can see the calendar there.
We're in 2023.
It's November 2023.
That's where the red line is.
The murder has already ended for about a year and a half.
And I'm actually have entertained.
Dr. Bhattacharya for 40 minutes here already and listened to him talk about censorship and you know asked him legitimate questions about what he thinks about the censorship and how it happened and you know what he thought about it how he experienced it because at this time I'm still really thinking that this is my friend and this is a guy who really wants to get to the truth and I've met him a couple times in person already by this time because we are we're both part of a group and
that Greg Glassman put together called the Broken Science Initiative.
And so, you know, I see him as a friend in this video.
And at this stage in the video, we are just transitioning to talk about why it is that the university system in America and the way that science is done is broken.
And what he will start with is the idea that
Controlled speech is a part of the university system.
And he just didn't realize that it was also part of biomedicine and that it was in those departments too.
And that he's surprised that those departments are willing to censor their faculty, something to that effect.
And before I start the video playing, I would like to suggest that
I will pause it before we move on to my question to him in order to discuss why I think what he says about this problem is fundamentally incorrect, or at least it is a limited spectrum of question that doesn't really get at the heart of why academia is broken the way that it's broken.
So let's just start this, see if we can get this going.
I have to be honest, I did not see it before the pandemic.
I felt it a little bit, I mean, in various areas, like, oh, I don't want to work on that because I don't want to, you know, step on people's toes or whatever.
But I didn't think it was like at the heart of biomedical sciences.
And I think a lot of people now in the biomedical sciences have started to see that it's there.
And now the only question is, how can we structure the institutions of biomedical sciences so that people will feel free to speak?
I think most scientists now understand that that's not there, and most scientists want that.
And so we have an opportunity for reform, like an unprecedented, once-in-a-generation opportunity for reform, if we can just figure out how to get the right levers in place to do that.
That's what I've been focused on trying to work on.
I think the key thing for me, my role has been to try to
Come up with reforms that are very broad number of scientists and other the populace at large can agree on Would be would be and try to build a coalition around that because it's you know science we think of is like this like
thing that's separate from the society.
It's not.
It's part of society.
Everyone now knows that.
It's science itself that has been part of the very fabric of how we run our society the last three and a half years, right?
And everyone sees that it's power.
And that means now everyone has an interest in reforming it so that it can function the way it's supposed to function, not the way it did as a tool for authoritarian power.
And so it was a tool for authoritarian power over the last three years.
This is in November of 2023.
So he's already being imprecise because it was the last four years.
And actually before that, because a lot of the gears in the bureaucracy of the US government and the WHO and a lot of these other organizations with the gears were turning because of this, this
scientific consensus about something, a scientific consensus about a pending crisis or a biological certainty, and yet he's talking something very different.
He's talking about bringing, you know, academics together under a agreed on set of reforms that will be very amorphous and sort of ambiguous in terms of speech and, you know, what people are allowed to say or not say.
And it doesn't sound at all like a genuine attempt to reverse the problem.
And the problem is very succinctly what, the problem is very succinctly what
what Peter Thiel says in my introductory slide, that the specialization should make you suspicious.
No, the specialization has ruined biology because the specialization has created people that are so specialized as carpenters that they actually can't
evaluate the work of other carpenters.
Now, I want you to imagine how specialized a carpenter would need to be before he would be not be able to or feel uncomfortable criticizing someone's bookcase because he doesn't work on bookcases.
He works on dovetail joints in drawers of bankers vaults.
That's it.
Nothing else.
Or sorry, not bankers vaults, but roll top desks.
And so he only does dovetail joints and roll top desks.
And so he can't criticize that bookcase.
You know what I mean?
He's a wonderful bookcase maker.
I really respect all bookcase makers.
They work on things that I can't possibly, I don't know how you would ever use wood to hold books up.
This is actually how biologists engage in biomedical research.
They are so trained not
to try and understand where their work fits in, what they know about other people's work, to be able to usefully think about other people's work, because that would create the possibility that any wasted time would be pruned and wasted time would be saved.
It is remarkable how often in neuroscience alone,
this would occur during my 20 year career.
Sitting in a room with people like Jay Bhattacharya and asking a question that everybody else in the room just turns around and goes like, who the hell is that?
Why is he asking that question?
What do you know?
And it's like, well, I'm sorry, were we not supposed to learn in Biology 101?
Was I not supposed to listen to what I was told and process it and try to make it mesh together?
Because right now what you're saying isn't meshing with what I understand, and so I want you to help me make it mesh.
People hate that.
People really, really hate that.
And so when the no-virus people
and the lab leak people, the gears never even come close to each other.
So you can never ever see that they won't mesh because these people have agreed never to bring their gears together.
And so you never know that this is not even a functional transmission.
It's not even a, these people don't matter because their wheels are just spinning by themselves.
And I think that for a long time, I think it's possible
that a lot of these people have been knowing that they are a wheel spinning all by themselves and they've taken that role because they know that's a good paying job and it's going to get them a lot of free trips and a lot of fame and sell a lot of substacks because otherwise I can't explain it.
Because any intellectual worth
Any intellectual that claims to have integrity would be constantly trying to make sure that their gears meshed with their understanding of everything else.
And so this guy is talking about trying to bring people together under common ground.
He's auditioning for the NIH director position right here.
He's testing out the language on me.
But this is nonsense.
This has nothing to do with what's really broken in academia, which is the specialization.
Exactly what Peter Thiel talked about.
The specialization is what should make you suspicious because it allows people to exaggerate and to lie.
It actually encourages people to exaggerate and to lie and to say things like, you know, I work on the most important aspect of carpentry because dovetail joints are found in roll-top desks and dovetail joints are some of the oldest joints ever used in
in carpentry.
But I can't tell you anything about bookshelves because I don't do that.
And I certainly don't know how to make a campfire.
What about just the legal aspect of the pandemic?
You talked a little bit about these people making all kinds of money.
Um, some lawyers would argue, I think a lot of lawyers would argue that the only reason why that money can be made is because there's no strict liability for many of these classes of, of pharmaceutical products.
And be that as it may, um, that's compounded by this ability for them to declare an emergency.
And then basically, apparently a lot of these people are,
more or less acting without consequence.
So it's hard to ask these people to reflect on what they did and then change their behavior, whereas it almost demands that we have to take these people out of the driver's seats that they're sitting in and put other people there.
I mean, how do we solve this problem?
I mean, the power of pharma on our social structures is almost unimaginably great.
And I think the United States in particular
where you have direct-to-consumer advertising that's legal and possible.
What that means is that pharma controls the purse strings of our media companies, our largest media companies.
they have, as you said, they have a liability shield, especially for vaccines, that was put in place.
What the argument for it being put in place was you don't want frivolous suits against the pharmaceutical companies that then send a signal to people to not be vaccinated.
But the flip side of that is a commitment to responsible behavior by pharma, which we didn't have during the pandemic.
And so you have essentially social contracts that have been broken all over the place regarding these things.
And that's why I think it is a moment for reform.
You talk about legal action.
Actually, one major legal action I've been involved with is this Missouri versus Biden case, which is a case aimed at the Biden administration's, I call it the Ministry of Truth, their censorship industrial complex.
That case, which is now sitting in front of the Supreme Court, it's revealed essentially a vast enterprise by federal government bureaucrats that will go to social media companies.
And when I say bureaucrats, I mean like FBI,
the CDC, the Surgeon General's office, the NIH will go to, and the White House itself will go to social media companies and say, here are the people I want censored.
Here are the people, here are the ideas I want censored.
This is probably why you were on Twitch.
I mean, if you probably, I'm sure, I think I saw you on YouTube once upon a time.
It was probably impossible on YouTube.
You can't do this on YouTube.
At least maybe not, definitely not back then.
I had to move.
Yeah.
I mean, I think you were on the list.
I know I was on the list.
I was put on a Twitter blacklist the day I joined Twitter.
That is not consistent with the American First Amendment.
Like that is, and it's, and even more.
I didn't get put on any blacklists until like 2023 when I was, or maybe it was 20, beginning of 2023 when I was very briefly off of Twitter.
And I think that was actually a stunt because the real censorship didn't really, you know, they censored real people that they wanted to promote as being censored.
Alec Berenson is the best example of a guy who was allowed
to make something of his censorship in order to make something of Twitter censorship and eventually something of Elon Musk buying Twitter and saving it.
This is all part of the same stunt.
I assure you, it's all part of the same stunt.
That's why all of these people agreed from Kevin McKernan all the way to Jay Bhattacharya.
They agreed.
that the mystery was being solved on Twitter, that the censorship on Twitter was crucial to fight against, that Elon Musk is saving the town square as free by buying Twitter.
This is the reality of these people.
That's part of the script that Jay Bhattacharya was absolutely on, and he's saying it right here.
It's a violation of our basic civil rights.
And for science, it is anathema.
You cannot have science without free discussion of ideas.
We're going to have ideas that we disagree with happen in science.
And sometimes those ideas will be misinterpreted by others.
The way that you deal with that is by free speech.
So I think legal action is very, very important.
If you'd asked me before the pandemic whether legal action and political action was important for science, I would have said, well, those are important maybe, but they're secondary.
Now I think
They're pretty much at the center.
If you really want to reform things, you're going to need political action for reform.
We're going to need legal action to constrain the excesses of, yes, pharmaceutical companies, but also governments and other entities that have ... I mean, I'll just take one that I still can't wrap my mind around.
Universities mandated vaccines for young people at scale, even after credible evidence came out that young men especially had faced, I would call unacceptably high rates of myocarditis from this vaccine.
And so here we are talking about mandating it for college kids, but not going all the way to the touchdown, which is that intramuscular injection of a transfection
is not a useful way to augment the immune system of an otherwise healthy college adult.
And it would be absurd to allow that to happen.
And he did not speak out about that.
He did not speak out in a useful way about that.
CHD did not speak out in a useful way about that.
If you fight the mandate
You're not saying that a baseball bat to the head before you go to college is not only a bad idea, but definitely shouldn't be mandated.
I mean, what?
It is remarkable to see it in retrospect, and it is going to require a lot of work for everybody to see it in retrospect, but you got to do the work if you want to save your kids.
If you want to build the courage inside of you, if you want to edify your belief in the truth and understanding of it and grasp of it and ability to share it, then you got to learn it.
And learning it is going to require you to see how adept they are at sticking to the script.
And yet they mandated it in order to go to school.
The idea that there's no liability shield, that applies to pharmaceutical companies, it doesn't apply to universities.
And many of them did it without, they weren't mandated to mandate it, they just did it.
I think that there's going to be legal action at scale.
Wow, that's exciting in a way.
I mean, it's dark, but legal action at scale.
Okay, now that I like to hear, but what are we gonna say?
Are we gonna say that it was a transfection and it should never have been used in healthy college kids so that every one of those kids gets a free ride to those colleges?
Does that ruin a lot of colleges in America in four years?
Does it bankrupt them?
Interesting.
Interesting thing to put down on your notebook.
I think there's a lot of peripheral malfeasance that went on in universities that could also catch into this, like the selling of the remnants of tests and this kind of thing.
If this kind of suit were to catch momentum, it would also be a really wonderful opening for us to
Readdress this age group because I do think that there's a purposefully They're purposefully disconnected from us I don't want to make any parallels to to too many other historical times when these these things happened But it does feel as though these college kids were really challenged To stand up for themselves and they were really beat down pretty hard by these universities in a coercive manner I mean in a coordinated manner
I mean, my view is we basically robbed the younger generation with the idea that we're going to protect older generation, middle-aged people.
It's a generational theft, and I don't think that the young people are going to treat us very kindly in how they think about us, and we deserve it.
Almost by design, we deserve it.
So he's interested in bringing science together under reforms that everybody agrees on.
And you know, this bigger problem where we've lost the respect of our young adults, you know, that's no big deal.
Perfect.
Yeah, we deserve it, he says.
Look at that face.
We don't have time to right the ship, I feel like.
My view is we basically robbed the younger generation with the idea that we're gonna protect older generation, middle-aged people.
It was a generational theft, and I don't think that the young people are gonna- A generational theft of what?
A good year of college?
A generational theft of what?
Can you see it?
How ambiguous that statement is?
And now he's gonna get right around the corner just to say that, well, you know, they don't trust us and they shouldn't.
Treat us very kindly in their, in how they think about us.
And you know, we deserve it.
Yeah, it's a, well, if we can, we still have time to write the ship, I feel like.
I still feel like we have time.
He's not nodding.
I still feel like we have time to right the ship.
Of course, I'm talking about get the college kids back, get the young adults back, get their trust back, start to make them part of us again.
You know, not fracturing America along age lines and generational lines and also along racial lines.
It's like we're being put through some great big giant sieve.
I mean, but people are all going to have to take their responsibility for what they did and how long it took them to realize that we were being herded and rushed and coerced.
I mean, I have to, I've been, like, I'm by nature optimistic, Jay, but I have to say, like, I've been watching the UK COVID inquiry.
I don't know if you've been watching it at all.
Not directly, no.
It's a whitewash.
And you have, like, these people who basically were the architects of the lockdowns, giving themselves awards.
You know, Tony Fauci's a professor at Georgetown now.
You've got, you have all these, like, people who are,
basically created an unprecedented authoritarian approach to the pandemic and caused harm at such scale.
And they're essentially trying to pretend... Caused harm at such scale from the lockdowns, apparently.
It wasn't the use of midazolam, starving people.
The Scottish inquiry deserves a lot more attention because it has really exposed the fact that a country
with an already inverted population pyramid took the opportunity of COVID to kill a bunch of old people.
That's what happened in Scotland.
And nobody's still, nobody's talking about it.
They've starved people.
They didn't give them antibiotics.
They died of cold.
They died of thirst.
And they died alone.
And that's the only death spike that there is in Scotland.
murder.
And this epidemiologist isn't aware of it.
He's not saying anything about it.
That same thing happened in America.
Of course, it's easier to hide it in a country of 35, 350 million people where between 50 and 70,000 people die every week.
The basic premise of the UK COVID inquiry thus far seems to be that if we'd only locked down harder and earlier, it all would have been fine.
See, China did it in January 2020.
We could have done it.
That, I think, is rapidly becoming the standard playbook for managing pandemics.
Is he yawning?
Is this the second time he almost yawned?
The next time anything like this happens, we will do this again, and we will lock down.
The Biden administration has a plan in place that says, in the next pandemic, we will have a vaccine available at scale within 130 days.
How do you test a vaccine for long-term consequences within 130 days?
Well, they've already done it, right?
They've already tested it in 5 billion people.
So all future vaccines using mRNA are safe by their rationale.
I mean, I just saw, Alex Berenson highlighted this, a report that there was a
Alex Berenson highlighted this.
This is the guy who started a substack called Illusion of Consensus with a Canadian kid who was first introduced to the world on the intellectual dark web stage of the Dark Horse podcast.
Not with me, not with some student or a postdoc at Stanford, not with a fellow professor at Stanford.
No, he started a podcast with some Canadian kid and a sub stack with some Canadian kid.
That makes sense, doesn't it?
Not with his friend from the broken science meetings that is barely making a living with a
a family of five that he knows personally has lost his job at a University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine faculty position.
He knows all of that.
He's now the head of NIH.
And I guess he still hasn't gotten around to calling me, but I'm sure he's going to call me in a few days and change is going to happen.
It's coming.
what was the mRNA platform vaccine for EBV, Epstein-Barr virus, that caused myocarditis in an early trial in a young man.
And they stopped the trial.
This is Moderna.
And of course, now what we're discussing is myocarditis as a singular outcome or side effect
of an investigational vaccine, completely in the slave speak, reinforcing the slave speak, repeating the slave speak, instead of calling it a transfection, instead of saying intramuscular injection is dumb, instead of saying they murdered people, we are still just kind of going along with the debate on television and he's happy to do it.
I think, so I think that the idea that we... And he's looking down a lot.
to both the left and the right.
So maybe he's got things on both sides of his laptop.
The plan is for future pandemics, we have a rapid vaccine.
The consequence of that then is, like, just if you take it back one step, is what will we do for those 130 days while we're waiting for the test of the vaccine?
Lock down, of course.
We'll lock down.
Essentially, that's the plan.
That is the current template.
So I think we need a political movement.
We need a legal movement to undo that.
And of course, the World Health Organization is creating this new pandemic treaty.
It's an opportunity actually in 2024 to put that front and center in the presidential debate.
Oh, so the who and its proposal should be front and center in the presidential debate.
That's interestingly and very parallel to Meryl Nass' now very irrelevant door to freedom nonprofit that she started on her own with the help of Mary Holland to fight the who.
And once you look backwards on this five-year theater scam, and you see how all of their actions and bullshit stories line up to make sure that the WHO is always seen as a problem and a bad guy, then you see that this whole theater is just, it is a theater.
The WHO is irrelevant.
The UN is irrelevant unless, you know, we go along with whatever they say.
Unless we use it as an excuse that we have to do what they tell us to do.
Unless we pretend that if the WHO passes a law that I guess it supersedes our Constitution because the United States signed the WHO treaty and every treaty is part of United States law, yada yada yada.
That's all part of the same script that guy is on, just like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
seems to be held on.
The same script that Robert Malone promotes on his silly sub stack and on every podcast he's ever on.
It's the same script that is the sole reason for the non-profit Door to Freedom of Merrill Nass.
It is absurdity.
America is a sovereign nation until we stop believing in its sovereignty and stop defending it.
Do we want that?
If the United States says no to it, it'll send a powerful signal around the world.
Do we want that?
Let's make that into a political issue.
Interesting.
I'm going to shift back to data for a second, but I just drew some data and I want to ask you a question.
because I've been trying to figure this out and whether it means anything or not, but maybe you can help me.
So if I reverse this over here and put myself down here, this is my really bad drawing.
Can you see that, of an age pyramid?
So on the- Doesn't look like that anymore, Bob, nowadays.
On the X-axis.
It doesn't look like that now anymore, nowadays.
So he knows already that the population pyramid has a funny bump on top.
He's aware that this was coming.
Did you hear it?
He just said it.
Oh, duh.
Going up is age.
I mean, I have a- Oh, wait.
A distribution means anything or not, but maybe you can help me.
So if I reverse this over here and put myself down here, this is my really bad drawing.
Can you see that of an age pyramid?
Yes.
Doesn't look like that anymore, Bob, nowadays.
on the on the the x-axis going up is age and then this is males and females and so you here you see a population where there's fewer old people than there are babies and it kind of goes up with a uh a more or less pyramidal distribution.
What role do you think if any a distribution different than that whatever it would be but with a top heavy distribution could have been
Seen coming and used as part of the way to create the panic that would you know?
Exaggerate any exercise like this.
Do you do you see that as a possibility?
I've never seen anybody really look into this and because that could really explain an age vulnerability or it could explain a vulnerability to protocols or Or any number of things this could be used against us that couldn't necessarily wouldn't be present in a country like Peru or a country like
Or maybe it is in Peru, I don't know off the top of my head what they look like.
But I think you understand the question I'm asking.
Yeah, so that's a really great question.
And I don't think I've heard anyone, no one's asked me this in that way.
And so it's a really interesting question.
So I think, so first of all, that pyramid you had on the left, the age pyramid you had on the left,
That is the traditional age pyramid that we had through much of the 20th century.
Yeah, right.
Exactly.
It's not a surprise that we didn't lock down for a century respiratory virus pandemics, given that age pyramid.
Right?
We essentially like during in 1968, there was a massive flu pandemic in the United States.
He's going to say that because we have a funny age pyramid with a lot of old people, we should have locked him down.
Oh, I can hear it coming.
Whoa.
states and we had we had uh... woodstock happened during it right now in nineteen sixty eight nineteen fifty seven nineteen seventy six units even two thousand nine we we uh... the idea was develop uh... i was looking down treatment over there you try to repurpose drugs that they're they're already there focus protection on the most vulnerable people which were that little tiny group at the top
And for the rest of the population, the idea of a lockdown would be unthinkable.
Of course, also the other thing that played into that is like Zoom and this kind of technology actually allowed a certain class of people to think that they could escape the harms of a lockdown.
So now let's go to the pyramid on the right.
It doesn't quite look like that, but in the United States, but it looks a little bit like that where it's top heavy.
You have a large group of people in the older population and actually a much smaller, younger population.
The political power of that population is enormous.
The orientation of public health toward that group up at the top is enormous.
Oh, so public health is oriented around those old people.
And so public health, wow, is that a crock of bullshit.
Whoa.
not particularly surprising that you would see public health make decisions with aiming at trying to protect that population at the expense of the young population because it's small this is just it's divide and conquer baby the old people took the vaccine do you do you remember oh my gosh
Do you remember?
I'm gonna look it up right now and put it on.
It's exactly the same thing.
They divided us on this.
Look, SNL, what was it called?
Most people, remember, now have some degree of protection.
Remember getting vaccines into their older population.
The majority of baby boomers have been vaccinated, have been vaccinated, have been vaccinated, vaccinated, vaccinated, vaccinated.
baby boomers greatest generation got all the money now we got the vaccination crash the economy three whole times when it comes to the facts we the first in line got a job out of college no student debt retirement funded a hundred percent voted for trump but just for the taxes don't believe in covid still got the vaccine
I never noticed it before.
I never noticed that.
I was too focused on the part of this song where he says immunity is antibody.
to realize how much of this was very divisive about old people getting easy jobs, making easy money, having five houses.
Oh my gosh.
And Jay Bhattacharya is making the argument in the 20th of November, 2023, that it is that generation
which has biased public health policy to protect itself at the expense of young people.
Holy shit.
I gotta play this out.
♪ Stopping me, never gonna die, drain your social security ♪ ♪ The boomers got the facts ♪ ♪ No rumors, just facts, yeah ♪ ♪ Give it up if you're 70 plus ♪ ♪ Everyone else getting jealous of us, jealous of us ♪ ♪ Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-baby boomer ♪ ♪ Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-baby boomer ♪
Ow!
COVID can't touch me now.
Lone mask and a sore nose poking out.
When it's time to pay, I whip the coupons out.
Even though I got to send me in the bank account.
Y'all can't see.
Let me give you a clear sense.
We out here spending your inheritance.
You in the parking lot eating by the trash right.
We in the booth reading menus with the flashlight.
So it's funny that they say the climate denier.
They say the princess again to make sure you remember that part of the narrative.
The boomers got the backs.
Everyone else get to the back.
This is why I like it.
Now you can't forget this.
Not only did Saturday Night Live sing a scripted song about how boomers are assholes, and the whole system is rigged for them, is what Jay Bhattacharya said a couple years later on my podcast, who's now the head of NIH, is not by accident.
Nobody's trying to unite anything.
And Jay Bhattacharya saying that he wants to unite science on agreed upon reforms is such a flat tire compared to addressing the real problems in America that include this multi-generational schism that was created on purpose using the pandemic, exacerbated on purpose using the acquiescence to social media, which was created by the pandemic.
smaller and less powerful.
I do think that it's, I mean, the irony is that it ended up, they ended up harming old people too.
Like there's data that came out in 2020 suggesting that there was a... This is not irony, okay?
Don't listen to this.
It's not irony that the system that was rigged to save the boomers actually also hurt the boomers.
That is such bullshit.
It's such a nonsense way to look at what happened when there was an anticipated rise in all cause mortality that we just got done talking about.
And he is trying to obfuscate as a primary biological signal.
No, actually the population pyramid is something that they could lie about and create exactly this.
This murder and lies right here with a little help from protocols, a little help from lying.
That's it, nothing more.
And this continued increase in all cause mortality that's seen around the world in the West that Denny Rancor is on the fringe podcasts telling everybody about is due to the shot is an anticipated rise in all cause mortality that's been coming for decades.
That our population pyramids showed everybody working at every institution, including insurance companies for decades.
And that's why he talked his way right around that.
I asked him a question, could the population pyramid contain a signal, a rise in all cause mortality that could be misconstrued as a crisis?
And he said, no, but the population pyramid is in fact a bunch of old people taking advantage of their political power and rigging the system against the young or something like that.
He's NIH director right now.
Like a huge increase in deaths from dementia because you isolate old people, you cause all kinds of harm to them.
A huge increase in dementia because there's a huge increase in old people.
That's it.
An anticipated rise in dementia that's not due
Then I think the irony is like by trying to protect older people via a lockdown, via these draconian measures, you ended up harming them.
And- We did not want to protect old people by locking down.
We wanted to flatten the curve.
We wanted to stop the spread of a novel respiratory pathogen.
He's got it all mixed up.
The guy who's the NIH director can't even explain the basic premise of the pandemic.
The basic premise of the lockdown was to stop spread.
Bret Weinstein argued for three years that we should try to get to zero COVID and even made the argument that if we just force drugged everybody with ivermectin and silicoxib for 60 days, that zero COVID was achievable.
The lockdown wasn't to protect people.
It was to end the disease, to end the biological phenomenon.
also alienating and harming the huge numbers of young people.
That population pyramid, you're absolutely right.
I hadn't thought about bringing that together, but I think that played a big role, especially when you connect it with political power over the various generations.
Big role in... Not when you connect it to the political power, when you connect it to the anticipated change in numbers.
Change in the abundance of ill people.
Change in the effect of how you treat those ill people.
A sculpting using murder and lies.
So he's right there, very close to saying it, but he thinks it's mostly political power, you know, because there's a lot of them.
In the strategies that we follow and the policies that we follow during COVID.
And potentially the outcome, right?
If we could see that pyramid accurately and could expect a two or three year brief increase in all cause mortality because these old people are getting past expected age of death, then that could have been... Okay, I'll play along with the chat because I think it's important to recognize that.
I'm gonna turn that on quick to see if I can get that on screen.
There it is.
And if I unlock it, I might be able to move it around a little bit and put it right here.
So somebody asks, doesn't he have a point?
Congress is all boomers and they all shit their pants.
That is absolutely true.
And I'm not discounting that part of the ability to trigger it.
And the fact of it is that the bureaucracy and everybody in it, the older they are, the more likely they are to believe it because they were there while the narrative was being seeded over the last 30 years.
And so you're absolutely right.
In order to get the theater to go, the place that the boomers were at and the power that they had, the influence they had over companies and things like that,
It made it easy to enact these measures.
It made it easy to put this pressure on people.
You're absolutely right.
But I think it is a distortion to say that those people were thinking that they were acting in their own interest.
They were just acting like dum-dums.
They were acting like people who were doing their jobs.
They knew that when the emergency light goes on, that they had a list of things that they were supposed to do and say, and they did that.
I don't think it's much simpler, much more complicated than that.
But you're right.
I just want you to see that when those old people are available, and those old people are expected to be going to the hospital normally anyway, here's the here is the, you know, 2014 data, right between 60,000 and 50,000 people every year are going and dying.
And a lot of them in red down here are pneumonia deaths.
And so the pneumonia deaths at the start of the pandemic skyrocketed because they changed the way that they treated bacterial pneumonia.
Simple and efficient.
Changing the way that they treated
bacterial pneumonia, changing the way that they used ventilation, the way that they used supplementary oxygen, the way that they applied remdesivir or midazolam or isolated people, it all had an effect.
And because the population pyramid had the shape that it did, the predominant deaths were in the old people, but not all of them.
Letting an opioid crisis go bananas also reduced life expectancy in America, and this guy doesn't appear to be aware of that at all.
But maybe I'll bring it up in a minute.
Empowering, or what's the right word?
It could have facilitated this in terms of their ability to exaggerate it as much as possible.
I want to try and formulate this right, but is there any
combination of data and testimony or a specific data set that you would need to see where you would start to consider the possibility that there was no more significant spread in 2020 than there was back in 2002 where
10,000 people were supposedly infected and 700 people died.
And so if we had the data to show that actually just by scaring everybody, which we've already acknowledged has a huge effect, and also adding that up, right, because you
In my mind, one has to factor in not just that we were misled about ventilators and not just that they went crazy on our constitutional rights, but that that all occurred at the same.
They decided that all of these things were a good idea at the same time, including the lying.
And so the question becomes then at what point are we obligated to take their word or
How do we verify that a real bona fide pandemic occurred as opposed to a flash in the pan that they knew already would only be a flash in the pan or a background signal that they knew they could take advantage of?
Maybe even they put it there.
I mean, that's obviously crazy, but it
In light of what we know about how we're governed on all other aspects of our reality, how often they will lie about political things and funding for highways and whatever else, it just seems to me very difficult to dismiss the possibility that, as I said before, that
that we are not doing an accurate accounting.
And if we did an accurate accounting, especially from the epidemiological perspective, we might find that none of these models will fit if you had the real data.
I mean, I question, for example, we go back to that, that the model, you know, as you extend the variables and change it to fit things,
One has to do that in every separate geography then in order to fit an SIR model to every outbreak that occurred.
So you can do that in an isolated place.
But if you take into account all the timing of those isolated fits, then there's no spread between them.
And there's no additive effect.
And there are none of these things that would be expected from, again, what is supposed to be a relatively uniform pathogen that started at a point.
And those are the kinds of things that it seems to me aren't accurately reflected on anymore with the idea of just saying, well, it happened.
Obviously it happened.
And obviously something happened, but I wonder if we're giving them too much benefit of the doubt with regard to, did they get it right or not?
I mean, I guess, so a couple, there's a few elements of that.
So, like, first, the scientific element, right?
So, you're asking, if I can rephrase it a little bit, you're asking what would lead to a rejection of an SIR kind of framework?
what data set would one need to reject an SIR kind of framework?
I mean, I do think that's possible.
I don't think that the SIR model has zero empirical content.
Like you can see... I see in the chat, it says, Jessica Hawk in 1976 says, JJ is doing well.
Interesting.
He is about to say now that what we're talking about is this SRI model.
It's like the one where people are infected and not infected, and then it spreads around, and it's only got three variables.
I don't even know.
I can't explain it off the top of my head, but it's a ridiculously sort of exponential model of spread, this kind of thing.
And it's also the basis, I think, for the R0 idea.
or partially the basis for it.
Anyway, it's a very simple model of epidemiological spread and you can tweak the numbers, the variables in that model to basically map any kind of bump in cases and to make any kind of prediction that you want to.
And he is rephrasing my question to say, I think it's a reasonable rephrasing of the question,
what data would be required in order to reject that model.
And by rejecting that model, then you would be essentially saying that it's not a spreading pathogen because the model is of spreading pathogen spread.
And when pathogen spread in a
in a naive population.
And so if that data isn't there, then it's not spreading in a naive population, then we can start to back up and say, okay, maybe was this a background signal?
Was it released?
Whatever.
And so I'm trying to get him to think about that without putting him directly on the spot.
And he seems to understand the question to a certain extent.
Take the rise of obesity in a population.
It's really hard to fit that in an SIR framework.
It doesn't look like an infectious idea.
It's not that the SIR framework is devoid of empirical content, but it is a very broad model so that you can get
very large, very diverse phenomena that fit under some parameterization of an SRM.
Of course, that's different from saying it's true.
It just means it survived an attack on it based on a falsification test.
Let's make sure that we go back to the rudimentary model understanding to make sure that we're all on the same page.
I can make a model of
For example, I could make a model of day and night, and I could make that model in a box.
And if that box had a hole in the top, and then in the top of the box I put a ball, and that ball could spin.
And then half the ball was dark and half the ball was light.
And that ball spins inside the box.
I don't know.
I'm not really drawing it very well because I don't know how to draw a ball in that box.
But anyway, you can imagine, right?
There's a ball in the box.
the ball extends in here and then you can spin the ball and you can simulate night and day by just spinning this ball at every 24 hours and the amount of light versus dark is visible is kind of you know proportional to the total amount of daylight and it won't recapitulate everything about night and day but it will recapitulate a lot
And the test, testing it and falsifying it is somewhat obvious.
But the more flexible a mathematical model is, the much more, it's much more difficult to say, okay, this model, it doesn't work anymore.
It doesn't recapitulate reality.
I can come up with a better model.
The SRI model, or SIR model, or whatever it is, this very simple model of epidemics that all these epidemiologists stick to, and Sandra Gupta is an expert in, this is a model that is so mathematically flexible that it can be made to seem to explain, as he said, a whole bouquet of phenomena.
It doesn't mean that it results in explanation.
And that is the key point to understand here.
And it's an irrelevant discussion in the end for what we're trying to get at.
I think, you know, like social science phenomena are funny in this way, right?
It's not like physics.
They're often multiple stories.
that explain something that's happening in a social science setting.
And I mean, I guess with my background, I kind of have become very comfortable with the existence of multiple stories.
And it's, but I also become, I also understand like how challenging it is to try to decompose the phenomena that you see.
As you said, we saw, we saw what we saw, it happened.
How much each,
explanation for the various things that led to that thing that we saw happen are responsible.
Like we're still arguing over the Great Depression, you know, 80 years later as to the particular, like the various things that we think caused it.
I think the one, trying to come up with some analogy and the one that keeps coming back to me, which is falling short always, but it's the best one I got,
is can you imagine a scenario where they convinced us that before the pandemic there were no cars?
And then they told us, but there's a real easy test.
We can sell you a test.
And when you swab your garage and you find rubber and it's in the round shape, you've got a car.
And not everybody's going to have, you know, not everybody's going to smell like gasoline.
Not everybody's going to be driving in a car.
Some people can have a car and be asymptomatic and they take their bike to work all the time.
But you've got a car in your garage, and they could convince us that this is spreading around the world, when in fact it was in the background all the time.
All they have to do is never have any data about cars before this.
And they don't have any data about SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses before this.
He's typing.
From a global perspective, they have it from a few hundred bats and a few other places.
He's typing.
Wherever they look, they kind of find a signal.
And so I'm really and I'm not trying to beat a dead horse or push you in a direction You don't want to discuss.
No.
No, this is I think it's really just I feel I feel that there's also this extra portion which we talked about before we turned on the the stream that that They are especially out on a limb when they imply that this phenomenon is being driven by an RNA molecule I would actually have a lot harder time biologically
discussing this if somehow or another there was a high-fidelity DNA molecule at the center of this with a whole host of enzymes that we've never seen before and other attributes which could explain how something that was released at a point could then Result in a high-fidelity spread that you know that if you do some of the funny calculations like how many viruses would be in the wet market and then how many are there now and there's this many cases and
It's an extraordinary biological phenomenon that they claim happened.
And with no precedence in previous biology, there's no evidence of an RNA molecule that's capable of copying itself to this degree.
We've never seen a background signal with this degree of fidelity before.
So it begs the question of whether that was always there.
So a couple of notes I made for what you said.
So one is, it's not without precedent that there would be a test-demic, if you will.
It has happened, even in the recent past.
It was like 2008 in Dartmouth.
There was a huge number of people that were diagnosed with pertussis, which should be pretty rare.
And especially since so many people have had the DPT vaccine at scale, that you shouldn't have seen such a massive outbreak of pertussis in a place.
I just said RNA cannot pandemic.
There's no precedence in biology for an RNA virus doing this, an RNA molecule going from a point and spreading everywhere.
And he is ignoring it.
I mean,
full-on ignoring it.
Notice it clearly, please.
A place like Dartmouth, New Hampshire.
It has happened in many cases.
It's an extraordinary biological phenomenon that they claim happened.
And with no precedence in previous biology, there's no evidence of an RNA molecule that's capable of copying itself to this degree.
We've never seen a background signal with this degree of fidelity before.
So it begs the question of whether that was always there.
Sorry, I keep hitting the wrong one.
So a couple of notes for what you said.
So one is, it's not without precedent that there would be a testdemic, if you will.
That has happened, even in the recent past.
It was like 2008 in Dartmouth.
There was a huge number of people that were diagnosed with pertussis, which should be pretty rare.
And especially since so many people have had the DPT vaccine at scale, that you shouldn't have seen such a massive outbreak of pertussis in a place like Dartmouth, New Hampshire.
I think it was 2008.
I'm blanking on the date.
If you type in pertussis Dartmouth, New York Times, you'll find the New York Times story about this.
It turned out that it was based on a faulty test.
that in fact the pertussis diagnosis, which was made on the base of the test and then just some coughing symptoms, was actually a false diagnosis.
The test itself was picking up pertussis that wasn't there.
There was a false positive, pure false positive.
And that the outbreak then was not actually pertussis, but people had panicked around this sort of dangerous disease spreading around because of the test.
So I'm not saying that that's not possible.
It certainly is possible.
There, what happened was that people found out that the test was faulty, and so faulty that it, and then they go back and do a correlation.
It's like, okay, yeah, we were misdiagnosing this.
So at the end of 2020, just to put a put a an anecdotal data point on the field, at the end of 2020, the FDA had approved 226 different EUA test products.
So it wasn't one faulty test, there was a possibly over 200 tests with various
faulted properties and that all had to be false.
I think that so like I mean you're the expert on the biology of this I don't know how to speak to the RNA fidelity about but I will say like I think I don't know how to speak to the RNA fidelity
That's pretty bad.
We didn't talk at all about the population pyramid, really, honestly.
And he just got through explaining how there can be a test-demic.
But I guess it wasn't this one, even though we have 200 EUA approved tests on the market.
I'm not sure how to, I don't know how to talk about that.
I don't think we've ever tested a virus spreading or a disease spreading at scale the way we tested this thing.
Huge, just, I mean, unimaginable numbers of tests.
And not just tests, but like genetic sequencing of the viruses.
And I wonder if we did this to,
It's fabulous.
It's absolutely fabulous.
Every single virus, what we would find, we probably haven't, not probably, we haven't looked.
Like our systems, even for flu, for instance, are the- We haven't looked and think if the most abundant signal in the background is actually bacteriophages, and we haven't looked.
Oh boy, ladies and gentlemen, there is some serious, oh my goodness, you're the biologist indeed.
He's like Sentinel Labs, very little sequencing.
There's some sequencing, but not nearly as much.
I want to throw one thing in there just because I feel like it's something you might not be aware of given the discussion we're having now.
Prior to 2020, if you go back to all these papers where they're looking at coronaviruses,
The main strategy using PCR was to target a 350 base pair amplicon of the RNA dependent RNA polymerase, the most conserved region of the most vital protein in the viral genome.
And indeed, depending on the country and depending on the
The test you're looking at, there was an RNA-dependent polymerase amplicon.
There was also an N-protein or an E-protein amplicon.
The interesting thing about N and E are also, these are proteins that are relatively homologous across coronaviruses.
One of the things that I think we have to somehow or another get all the way to the finish line is to resolve this idea that the PCR was specific enough to be used in the way it was used and that's also part of this conflated background signal.
You were searching for RNA noise and there's always RNA noise there so you're going to get a certain percentage
of positive signal, this is also why I believe it's dangerous to focus exclusively on the overcycling of the PCR because that dismisses and it limits the debate to where this malfeasance could occur.
And it doesn't have to be with overcycling.
It could be that there is a conflated background signal and all of these people wittingly or unwittingly took advantage of that.
BAM!
HOLY COW!
I ACTUALLY SAID IT EXACTLY RIGHT!
EXACTLY RIGHT!
So how is the NIH director going to respond to that?
I think we should play that back a little bit again, because it's that good.
It's confusion with the positive signal.
This is also why I believe it's dangerous to focus exclusively on the overcycling of the PCR, because that dismisses and it limits the debate.
to where this malfeasance could occur.
And it doesn't have to be with overcycling.
It could be that there is a conflated background signal and all of these people, wittingly or unwittingly, took advantage of that.
It's confusion, frustration, and doubt, but it is something that the precedence of the biology of coronaviruses before the pandemic is that they lamented that there wasn't a pan-coronavirus
primer set so that they could just find them easier.
That Mark von Ranzke has a paper from 2008 or 2009 where he is specifically trying to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine and makes the argument that it's easy because there's so many homologous proteins.
So there's a lot of precedence for the possibility and a lot of biological
possibility there with regard to how much is homologous.
And if they just pull the bait and switch, sometimes it could be really specific and other times it might not be.
And I'm afraid we've lost this huge history of, of all of these EUA products, many of which are not even available anymore.
They're totally gone.
Just like, I mean, a lot of these sequencing labs are totally gone.
Oh,
Oh, and all were the purview of the FDA that these guys are in place to destroy right now, to blame it on the FDA.
Oh, here it comes.
And so it becomes very, very tricky now because...
I feel like we have a lot of assumptions that we need to re-question, and I think that's what this lack of spread also has spurred me on to do.
I'm sorry, there's no question there.
No, don't worry.
Actually, that is interesting, because I remember when Omicron came, the way that they originally diagnosed Omicron at scale versus Delta was that, now you please correct me, Jay, because you're the biologist, not me.
So there, you're the biologist, not me.
Oh, ships.
And that's really important to hear him say, because let me get that back.
Shoot, I hope we're close.
There's no evidence of an RNA molecule that's capable of copying itself to this degree.
We've never seen a background signal with this degree of fidelity before.
So it begs the question of whether that was always there.
So, a couple of notes, Anid, for what you said.
So, one is... He was about to say a couple of notes I made, but he didn't make any notes.
He wasn't writing anything down.
It's a couple text messages he got on his side screen.
It's not without precedent that there would be a test-demic, if you will.
It has happened, even in the recent past.
It was like 2008 in Dartmouth, there was a vaccine, coughing symptoms.
The outbreak then was not actually pertussis.
Correlation is like, okay, yeah, we were misdiagnosing this.
disease spreading around, it was a false positive, pure false positive.
And that the outbreak then was not actually pertussis, but people had panicked around this, you know, sort of dangerous disease spreading around because of the test.
So I'm not saying that that's not possible.
It certainly is possible.
There, what happened was that people found out that the test was faulty, and so faulty that it, and then they go back and do a correlation.
It's like, okay, yeah, we were misdiagnosing this.
So, at the end of 2020, just to put an anecdotal data point on the field, at the end of 2020, the FDA had approved 226 different EUA test products.
So, it wasn't one faulty test.
There was a possibly over 200 tests with various
faulty properties.
Not all of them had to be false.
I mean, you're the expert on the biology of this.
I don't know how to speak to the RNA fidelity.
But I will say, I don't think we've ever tested a virus spreading or a disease spreading at scale the way we tested this thing.
huge just I mean unimaginable numbers of tests and not just tests but like genetic sequencing of the viruses and I wonder if we did this to every single virus what we would find.
We probably haven't, not probably, we haven't looked like our systems, even for flu, for instance.
The most abundant molecular entity in the human body and on earth are bacteriophages.
They compromise a nearly endless, inestimable background of genetic signals.
And they are probably a vital part of who we are as a biological entity, as a pattern integrity, as I'm going to try to teach over the next few months.
This guy is not able to evaluate my biology.
He's not even a biologist, according to him.
Are these like sentinel labs?
Very little sequencing.
There's some sequencing, but not nearly as much.
I want to throw one thing in there, just because I feel like it's something you might not be aware of, given the discussion we're having now.
Prior to 2020, if you go back to all these papers where they're looking at coronaviruses, the main strategy using PCR was to target a 350 base pair amplicon of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, the most conserved region of the most vital
protein in the viral genome and Indeed, but he has an MD and a PhD and something related to biology So for him to say he's not a biologist, but he's an MD PhD Who seeks the NIH position?
He better frickin be a biologist You know you you can be a carpenter and just make really shitty things out of wood and you're still a carpenter and
You know, I built the world's worst chicken coop.
I still kind of understand something about using hammer and nails and screws and drills.
So for him to say he's not a biologist is to like say, I don't, I don't, I've never picked up a drill.
I've never tried to put a hammer and a nail and use it to connect two pieces.
I don't know what that, how that works.
I'm, I'm not a carpenter.
I've never done any carpentry.
I've never used a table saw.
I haven't taken wood shop with Mr. Post in Cadotte, Wisconsin.
You see, that's why when he says he's not a biologist, it's a pretty big red flag when he's talking to me because he's a professor at Stanford.
And I'm a guy who lost his job as a faculty member of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and supposed to be his friend who he's known over the last couple of years as a fellow concerned citizen and a part of the movement called Broken Science Initiative.
Think about how extraordinary that is.
Depending on the country and depending on the
The test you're looking at, there was an RNA-dependent polymerase amplicon.
There was also an N-protein or an E-protein amplicon.
The interesting thing about N and E are also, these are proteins that are relatively homologous across coronaviruses.
One of the things that I think we have to somehow or another get all the way to the finish line is to resolve this idea that the PCR was specific enough to be used in the way it was used.
And that's also part of this conflated background signal.
If you were searching for RNA noise, and there's always RNA noise there, so you're going to get a certain percentage.
of positive signal.
This is also why I believe, this is before I understood where that RNA and DNA noise would have come from.
I was still not understanding the breadth and the depth of Joshua Lederberg's vision for what an
What a real individual was, a Joshua if you will.
The real individual that you are is the compromise, the composition of all of the bacteria on your skin and in your microbiome inside of your body.
The compost heap that you carry around in your guts.
This is all one contiguous organism.
It is an individual that I would like to argue might be called a Joshua or an Esther depending on whether you are a male or a female.
And if you talk about your Joshua or your Esther in honor of Joshua and Esther Lederberg, you're talking about the whole pattern integrity, the most intricate symphony of
symbiosis between both the cells of your own body and those of the bacteria that you are in symbiotic relationship with internally and externally.
Endosymbionts and ectosymbionts, to borrow the words of, sorry, of Lynn Margulis and, you know, the real thinker behind these ideas.
These aren't my ideas.
These are just me being a biology student and a biology coach with you.
It's dangerous to focus exclusively on the overcycling of the PCR because that dismisses and it limits the debate to where this malfeasance could occur.
And it doesn't have to be with overcycling.
It could be that there is a conflated background signal and all of these people, wittingly or unwittingly, took advantage of that.
It's confusion, frustration, and doubt, but it is something that the precedence of the biology of coronaviruses before the pandemic is that they lamented that there wasn't a pan-coronavirus primer set so that they could just find them easier.
That Mark von Ranzke has a paper from 2008 or 2009 where
He is specifically trying to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine and makes the argument that it's easy because there's so many homologous proteins.
So there's a lot.
In a way, I'm kind of doing what Kevin McKernan does to people.
I'm doing it to him.
I'm trying to bombard him with facts that he could check if he wanted to and that the readers and listeners can check if they want to and they're totally right.
But what I'm trying to do is push him backwards a little bit on his heels to see how he tries to push backwards and what he does is remarkable.
A lot of precedence for the possibility and a lot of biological
possibility there with regard to how much is homologous.
And if they just pull the bait and switch, sometimes it could be really specific and other times it might not be.
And I'm afraid we've lost this huge history of all of these EUA products, many of which are not even available anymore.
They're totally gone, just like, I mean, a lot of these sequencing labs are totally gone.
And so it becomes very, very tricky now because
we, I feel like we have a lot of assumptions that we need to re, re-question.
And I think that's what this, you know, lack of spread also has spurred me on to do.
I'm sorry, there's no question there.
No, don't worry.
Actually, that is interesting because I remember when Omicron came,
the way that they originally diagnosed Omicron at scale versus Delta was that uh you know there's I get my now you please correct me uh Jay because you're you're the you're the biologist not me uh but I should really clip I I really should start my stream with that clip right there there was three primers that are used and you needed to have uh matching of all three primers to diagnose COVID uh no that's three primers unless you're talking about the probe but I mean
This is the NIH director trying to explain the basics of a COVID PCR test, and he used the phrase three primers, not three amplicons, that each have two primers and a probe.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
It's really unbelievable.
diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 virus.
When Omicron came, the problem was only two of the three primers matched Omicron.
And so they inferred Omicron from matching just two of the three primers.
I mean, you would fail a PhD exam if you use these words consistently wrong like this.
The primers aren't there.
The primers are in the reaction.
The primers are amplifying an amplicon.
The amplicon is supposedly a part of a larger sequence that represents a larger protein and the RNA for it.
This guy can't, couldn't draw it on a whiteboard.
And he is NIH director.
Which strikes me as funny, right?
And I hear your point about the existence of so many PCRs.
I should say, for me, the cycling problem is such a huge problem.
I take your point that there's... It is not such a huge problem if the whole test is not specific for a background signal.
He's ignoring my argument.
And then he pivots to reinforce their narrative that PCR overcycling actually is a problem.
It's just a problem in addition to what you've just brought up.
Stop lying.
Holy cow.
It's not sufficient for what you want, but for me, it was sufficient to make me wonder about the use of the testing the way they had it.
No, because it doesn't make you ask the right question, Jay.
Jayonta.
Dr. Jayonta does not want to ask the real question, which is, is there something to find in the first place?
He is still working under the presumption that there is something to find.
It's only a question of whether the PCR, in any of its many forms, was sufficiently accurate to track it.
which is very, very similar to what Kevin McKernan was arguing from the very beginning of his performance in 2020 with regard to objecting to the Corman-Jorston version of the WHO PCR test.
Make sure that you argue about the details of the test so that the actual presumption that we need a test is never questioned, and in fact is reinforced by the presuppositions of the debate.
That's exactly what he's doing here.
We are not debating what I want to ask, which is, was there a need?
Was there really something to test for, or were they lying about a background?
No.
There was definitely something to test for, and overcycling was the problem, even though I just explained to him why, that would be ridiculous.
If you have, like I remember there was a Center for Evidence-Based Medicine report by Carl Hunnigan and Tom Jefferson on the cycling problem.
And what they did was like a literature review, pretty high quality literature review, looking at... This is about baking cakes.
This is about expertise in how PCR works and doesn't work, and how easily you can use it to show something is present or not present.
And unfortunately for a lot of these posers, I have actually used quantitative PCR in single neurons to try and detect the presence of individual subunits, or the RNA, for individual nicotinic receptor subunits.
That was my PhD work.
So I know exactly the limitations of quantitative PCR.
I know how easy it is to tweak up a false positive.
I know how easy it is to overcycle and what overcycling does and doesn't do when there's something there or not there.
This guy apparently doesn't have the requisite knowledge.
He just has a given script and he is following it.
And it is very obvious to me now in retrospect that he is doing that.
There is no other explanation for what's going on because I'm not being obtuse here.
I'm not inaccurately or I'm not being, I'm very clear.
My questions, my comments are very clear.
the correlation between the number of cycles you needed to get a positive signal and whether the original sample was infectious in vitro.
And so the original thing being infectious was actually something else that none other than Kevin McKernan, the former research and development director for the Human Genome Project, acolyte of Mark Lander,
And Francis Collins has been saying since the beginning of the pandemic, please listen carefully because this is script for word for word.
What you see is this like just the correlation between the number of cycles you needed to get a positive signal and whether the original sample was infectious.
See, we're not arguing about what infectious means.
We're not arguing about those assays.
We're actually accepting virology for what it is and all of the proxy tests that are easily undermined by the no virus people.
And so we're walking this ridiculous fence line of a trap.
Never actually trying to climb over the fence or look at what's on the other side, but just looking at what's in the middle of the trap and then over here and then turning around and turning around and we're never trying to get out.
In vitro.
And you know, what you see is this like, just this like, you know, 20 cycles, it's 100% in fact, 100% of the samples are infectious.
By like 27 cycles, it's like 50.
He's never done any of these experiments.
He has no idea what he's talking about, but he has this script down.
And he is very willing to accept that these papers are evidence of biological facts that earlier he said he's not in a position to evaluate because he's not the biologist, I am.
But now he's very certain that these couple papers that Kevin McKernan and Jessica Rose and all these other people were out promoting are evidence that there is a novel virus that occasionally is infectious, but often isn't.
And that also explains the asymptomatic spread.
Stop lying!
percent and by 30 cycles it's like you know pretty low by 40 cycles at zero right that has huge implications for the epidemiological policy and clinical use which is my my no it has it has nothing no no
He is now making us assume that the PCR works, it finds something, and therefore it has political and socioeconomic implications.
And that is just ignoring everything that I said.
That should have it should have told people You don't you don't quarantine people if it takes 40 40 cycles to like find a positive In fact, you could have even done like look I didn't understand why people weren't doing this like they could have done if they're really serious They said they said they want to say okay is the virus replicating in the human
Well, you could do a PCR test one day, and let's say it takes 30 cycles to be positive, and then the next day, it takes 26 cycles to be positive.
Well, I mean, now you have some evidence that you have two to the fourth doublings that have happened, right, in the person.
So you could have used serial PCRs, again, leaving aside the false positives, which we can talk about.
So he's saying that why don't we use PCR to quantify the amount of virus and to watch it replicate and to see it replicate and to measure it replicating.
But of course, he's not gonna get to the point to realize that that question could have been asked 20 years ago in 2002, when everybody was all up in arms about SARS and when all this funding began.
It's interesting, right?
Because there's no data like that from, for example, the enrichment of flu in Raoul, in Fauchier's lab in the Netherlands, or in the Japanese guy's lab at the University of Wisconsin in 2012.
No actual measurement of the amount of virus in each successive ferret.
No measurement of what changed in order to aerosolize the flu in Rotterdam in 2012.
No detailed understanding of the dynamics of what goes on as that evolution occurs.
No step-by-step mutation.
Just anecdotal evidence that some of these ferrets are getting sick and they're only connected by a vent.
And so once again, you have a very adept reinforcement of the scratch your head narrative because again, I'm not an expert in that stuff.
I'm not in a position to question them.
What I've heard is X, Y, and Z. And so there's no learning going on.
There's no intentional discovery.
There's no, you know what?
I'm frustrated.
I'm just gonna figure this out myself because I'm a Stanford professor, damn it.
but you know more about than me.
But like the serial false positive, like the serial test to like see with just the cyclings whether someone is actually becoming infectious or not.
And so it's almost like he knows.
It's almost like he can kind of see it.
He can kind of follow along.
And now he's asking questions that I guarantee as NIH director, he's never gonna ask again.
use that information epidemiologically with recommendations to quarantine or not, whereas someone who's like 30 cycles, 30 cycles, 30 cycles, let them out of quarantine.
There are students.
But what would it mean if somebody was 30 cycles, 30 cycles, 30 cycles versus going from 8 to 12 to 22 to 30?
You see, he's still arguing for the usefulness of PCR.
He's still protecting the work of Kevin McKernan.
He's still reinforcing and edifying the narrative that the PCR test can work in general, but you know, it all depends on how it's used and what it targets and the details are very complicated.
I'm gonna leave it up to somebody like Kevin McKernan or maybe you because you're a biologist, I'm not.
This is a cop-out.
And it is by design because he doesn't want to attack the premise of the pandemic, which is that the PCR test picks up a novel virus that wasn't there before, but it was spreading now.
at Stanford that were like athletes that were tested over and over again that were just positive all the time.
Are you sure that there's not a time-lapse acute PCR paper?
Because if there isn't, that's actually a really huge insight that you just made there.
I haven't seen one.
I mean, I made a case like this in a court document for a couple of places where I was an expert witness.
Interesting.
So he's made the argument before, but I bet you he's not making that argument anymore.
I bet you as NIH director, he's never going to fund a grant application where they're going to definitively see if PCR is a legitimate way to track anything and how it's being tracked and what it's tracking.
You know, because you could do that.
You could set up a animal model with cages that are connected by air, and you could follow the evolution of a coronavirus from one mouse to another with all these high-fidelity sequencing tools that Kevin McKernan developed when he was in high school, but they're not doing it.
Kevin McKernan's not arguing for it.
Mr. Transfecting Plants for 16 years, Brian Hooker's not pointing that out.
He's not pointing out that, yeah, well, Jonathan Cooley was right when he called the transfection when he still worked for seed.
None of these people are doing that.
And this guy, as NIH director, is playing the same game that the rest of them are.
I guess we have to wait.
The change is coming really soon.
When Robert F. Kennedy gets around to it, or when this guy gets around to it, the change will happen.
suggesting that this would be a reasonable use of the PCR test.
But the lab folks on the other side were just very dismissive of me.
My chat is correcting you.
You're actually a biologist because you're also a professor of medicine.
Sorry.
Well, I mean, my background is fringe epidemiology and economics.
Hey, so I want to do one more PCR thing just so that you have it on your radar.
So in talking to the head of the PCR testing in Canada, that's the guy with the stutter that I talked to in a couple meetings, Zoom meetings, and he told me the truth.
I don't remember his name off the top of my head.
His name is Specter, I believe.
to listen, I very much apologize.
They did not use nested primers in Canada across the entire country.
which which I and I just want to give you this for from the perspective of cocktail parties or anytime you get to talk to another academic biologist who insists that PCR is highly accurate like insanely accurate.
It is very much my understanding that academic biologists are making this assumption that like they do
There are positive and negative controls, both of which use nested primers.
And in reality, none of the EUA products use nested primers.
And none of the products that were approved in Canada were using nested primers, which makes it orders of magnitude easier to have a false positive, because remember, they're reading fluorescence.
So with qPCR, I'm just going to say it in case you're not aware of it, but I'm assuming my listeners aren't.
qPCR is a reaction that occurs with some kind of understood reaction dynamics.
And those reaction dynamics can tell you
a little bit about how well the PCR primers match.
Because the better that they match, the more complete each cycle will be in doubling.
If they don't match as well, then the doubling will not fit the exponential growth curve and it will be more linear.
And that linear signal in any of these products that just goes on the fluorescence won't be visible to anybody that's reading them.
And so a lot of these products almost have this built in possibility that if you're not
Really trying to use them for accuracy, but you're trying to use them for mass measurement.
It will go really terribly wrong And so I this is almost two years ago This is when I was still employed by CHD and a staff scientist working under Brian Hooker and Mary Holland I Was fired about a month later Maybe it was for this
I've had a lot of conversations with my former academic colleagues where they're very surprised and actually completely incredulous that of course they use nested primers.
And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but they didn't.
I mean, I think from a policy point of view, I mean, actually just from a clinical point of view, let's say, like what I learned in medical school was that you should never
treat a number or a test, you treat a patient.
Like you want to have a full clinical picture.
I mean, this guy's like somebody in the, what's his name?
He's like Neo in the Matrix.
He's just, he's like dodging all.
It's crazy what he's doing.
It's amazing.
Picture before you make real decisions about what the right thing to do is.
The epidemiologists that were like the architects of the policy, I think the way they were reasoning was, well, it doesn't matter if you get a false positive.
What matters is a false negative.
That's actually true.
They probably did convince a lot of people with that argument.
Yes.
Yeah, and I think that that's, I mean- Which makes it more malevolent, right?
It makes, again, the ease with which they could take advantage of an existing signal and distort it using social media into something else, maybe the evidence of an ongoing crisis, it's even easier now.
And it's still not really sinking in to Dr. Jayanta.
That's my best reading of what happened.
Like they just said there was a virtue to minimize the false negatives to zero.
And we've had false positives at scale.
It doesn't matter.
Nothing that we're doing.
As far as they're concerned, none of the policies they were implementing were costly or harmful in any way that was worth taking into account.
And so that's an interesting little little chat observation there.
I like that one.
If you impose it on somebody on a false basis of a false positive, that's not a big deal.
It doesn't matter.
Whereas if you have a false negative, well, that person might spread the disease to grandma and thinking that they're actually negative when they're actually positive.
So, I think that that's really the underlying dynamic we saw here with all of the decisions.
Because every single one of these decisions about testing is a, there's a lot of technical language, but the key thing is, what does it do to the sensitivity and specificity of the test?
How should we interpret the test?
What's the prevalence of the disease?
These are like,
basic epidemiological ideas that were just essentially tuned to create panic, tuned to create, you see each of these decisions dismissing the possibility of false positives, because the idea is like, well, it's just a virtue to have almost no false negatives.
He's almost there.
It's really remarkable.
He almost says it, but he's not willing to do the whole thing.
He's not willing to put it all on the whiteboard, which is remarkable.
Yeah, that really makes a lot of sense.
I didn't think I got him that far clarity that it sets to that too, because I always make this argument on my stream that so much can be done in a closed meeting to convince people to behave in concert.
If you make them feel important that this is a national security question and we don't know what's going to happen and we need your help.
There's lots of ways where I think people could have been influenced to kind of at least keep their head down for a while.
And again, if you put your head up and you encountered what you encountered or what I encountered, then you probably kept your head down too.
We have been talking for one hour and 46 minutes.
I don't want to take too much more of your time.
I want to say thank you.
I want to give a shout out to Greg Glassman and Emily Kaplan of the Broken Science Initiative that serendipitously brought us together at their gatherings.
I have them to thank you for your friendship.
And I can't thank you enough for taking the time to argue with me and discuss this stuff with me.
It has been great.
Jay, I've learned a lot from you, not just from this podcast, but from over the whole last three years.
I'm grateful for you as well, my friend.
That's really way too much praise for me.
Thank you very much, though.
So I don't do this podcast for fun.
I'm not calling my friend, Dr. Jayanta out for nothing.
I'm calling him out because I think this is for the grandchildren of earth.
I think that this is actually for my children's children that I'm doing this.
And so it's okay to risk a friendship.
It's okay to risk a high paying position or whatever I might've gotten had I played their game for the last few years.
Maybe I could be like Emily Kopp or like Alex Washburn and I could get on some big podcasts.
Maybe I could get on Tucker Carlson.
But I don't think that this is about building a little dollar wealth for my kids.
I think this is about what system that they inherit from me.
what understanding of the world they inherit from me, what understanding of the adults that they are going to be surrounded by that they inherit from me that's the most important.
And so I'm going to risk it all to make sure that my children understand how social media has been weaponized against us to put these false people in positions of power.
Unwittingly or wittingly, it may just be that Jay Bhattacharya doesn't see any other way for him to win for his family.
and that being offered something like NIH director is an impossible thing to turn down.
I don't know, no one's ever offered me that job.
But if I was told that I had to play along and that my kids would be safe and their kids would be safe, it would be a pretty tempting thing to believe.
But I don't think it's the truth, ladies and gentlemen.
You're welcome to come back.
I'm very pessimistic.
I think these people are on stage together and some of them are sticking to a script that they've been given by people like Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan.
I think these are two of the
the people that you need to most understand because they are playing these roles of narrative curation and absorption of whatever talking points that they can in order to stall and control where this narrative goes so that no one ever really usefully questions the vaccine schedule and the idea of intramuscular injection being dumb.
I don't think they're ever going to stop.
And I think that's what this slide is about.
I used to live in the Netherlands.
My wife is Dutch and I used to make fun of them because they don't seem to understand that Amsterdam is like three and a half meters under sea level.
And that is by definition unsustainable because there is a crap ton of water on earth.
And you can't hold it back with a bunch of dirt piles and diesel pumps.
In fact, that's how the Netherlands exists right now, is the constant running of diesel pumps.
And if it wasn't for the running of diesel pumps, Amsterdam and much of the Netherlands would be underwater.
That's the reality.
But the Dutch don't give a shit.
Most of the people who live in Holland don't even think about that reality.
But eventually, if it's 100 years from now or 400 years from now, that reality will no longer be sustainable with diesel pumps and dikes.
It just won't happen.
Eventually, that place is going to have to accept that it is under sea level and therefore should be underwater.
And very much in the same way, I am suggesting to you that the ideas of Desjardins, like the noosphere and the ability to govern the entire Earth as one consciousness, to direct the evolution of the species as one species from a technocratic guidepost, is an illusion, a model.
It is a project.
It is a thing.
that they are never going to abandon.
Ray Kurzweiler is never going to stop selling the idea that just over the hill, every single disease is going to be cured and you're going to be able to upload your consciousness into a computer and live forever.
He's never going to stop saying that.
He's just going to keep kicking the can down the road.
And nobody that is ever going to get elected in Holland is ever going to say, you know what, we got to turn off these pumps and let the water come in and deal with it.
Because they all benefit from it.
And it's not a perfect analogy, but ladies and gentlemen, these people can orchestrate and predict the societal failures.
They can even tell you that it's Donald Trump is out of our control and his tariffs are going to bankrupt America.
stop lying and they can tell you in unison and agree that that's the real issue that everybody should talk about and as long as pbs news hour and brett weinstein and tucker carlson all have guests on that agree that way then the vu the view is going to argue about it too
And these are militarized social media representations.
They are primarily composed of groups of liars supported by anonymous bots and sock puppets that create the effect of a Truman Show for everybody that wants to scroll.
The illusion of consensus that is present on your phone is an illusion created by militarized social media representations of these ideas that will never allow you to escape.
And one of the primary weapons is being used right now against a lot of the people on the right in America, if you use the slave speak and describe it as a two sides of a coin thing.
is a fake anti-vax movement.
That fake anti-vax movement is not saying that the only thing that they had before the pandemic and now is the ability to use synthetic recombinant genetics to make a lot of DNA or RNA.
They are not explaining to you that the only thing they can actually do is make pure quantities of RNA and DNA and then use those in applications like transfection or transformation.
And that there's this huge background of bacteriophages that is indescribably dense and part of a background that could very easily be misconstrued as a novel spreading pathogen if there was even an ounce of malevolence combined with greed on earth.
And so PCR as a diagnostic is a fraud and our current director of the NIH does not seem to understand all of the nuance involved in this statement and why it's still true and why the FDA could go back and figure this out and enforce its mandate on it.
These were all medical devices.
They were all fraudulent and they remain fraudulent to today.
Only thing they had to do was release a synthetic pure quantity and use PCR to claim to have found it.
Maybe they even had an agent in Wuhan that had been paid for years to be ready for this.
Ladies and gentlemen, nobody says it better than gigaohm biological transfection is a crime.
And Brian Hooker could have told you that these investigational vaccines were transfections and transformations just like I tried to do and lost my job doing because he knew already in 2013 what they were.
He already had 16 years experience transforming plants to produce medicine.
Curiously, very parallel to what Kevin McKernan would like to do in the coming years with marijuana.
Ladies and gentlemen, transfection was always a crime and they got away with it because they rolled out of a lot of placebos.
It's probably the way that the current childhood vaccine schedule gets away with what it gets away with because there's a lot of placebos and placebos are really, really profitable.
I mean, really profitable if you can sell vaccines and sell placebos and call them vaccines.
Holy shit, can you make a lot of money?
And it's funny, after everybody talks about all the money, nobody talks about how the money is made.
Ladies and gentlemen, the biggest delusion is endemicity.
Don't use this word, this is slave speak.
This whole concept is slave speak.
We're gonna get it out of Biology 101 with the new Biology 101,
The journal club will be tomorrow.
The lecture will be Thursday.
Friday will be another interesting week summary.
Ladies and gentlemen, RNA cannot pandemic.
Nonspecific PTR tests are all the thing they need if there's a background.
And there definitely is.
Intramuscular injection is dumb.
Transfecting healthy people is a crime in the population pyramids is a real problem that apparently the NIH director of America is not really well versed in its implications.
Sorry if that was too loud for your ears.
Thank you very much for joining me.
I'll see you again soon.