don't worry Mike I'm gonna let you out in a second don't worry I promise I just want to just want to get this going here relax buddy relax
Earlier this month, a Trump administration plan to cut the National Institutes of Health budget by more than 40% was leaked to the press.
The preliminary budget sent shockwaves through the nation's health agency, but also the wider scientific community that relies on the NIH to fund research.
Since January, 1,300 NIH employees have been fired and more than $2 billion in research grants canceled.
It's all part of the administration's effort to shrink the federal government, an effort led by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
Tonight, you will hear from an NIH insider about the immediate impact of the cuts on research and patients.
But we begin with Dr. Francis Collins, the longtime director of the agency.
He told us why he abruptly left the NIH and why he fears aggressive downsizing could impact the health of Americans for generations.
The story will continue in a moment.
When you're talking about medical research, when you're talking about people's lives, when you're talking about clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease or cancer that may take three or four years, you can't just go in and decide, I'm going to shut those down and maybe I'll try something else.
Those are people's lives at risk.
Dr. Francis Collins spent 32 years at the National Institutes of Health, serving as the agency's director for 12 years under three presidential administrations.
But he says even he was unprepared for the speed and severity of budget cuts at the NIH.
Give me a sense of what it was like inside the NIH as these cuts started rolling out.
Almost immediately after inauguration, there were statements made that you were not allowed, for instance, to start any new projects.
The ability to order supplies was cut off.
Eventually, it was started back up again, but then they put a $1 limit on what you could order.
There's not much you can order for $1.
Today we celebrate a major landmark in biology and medicine.
Collins joined the NIH in 1993 to lead the Human Genome Project and later directed the agency's development of new tests, therapeutics, and vaccines during the pandemic.
Good morning, everybody.
Welcome to the show.
This is Get Going Biological.
I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that actually Francis Collins
was appointed the head of the Human Genome Project, yada, yada, yada.
And his primary deal was, thank you, this leash is right in here.
He was just, I just had to show him.
That he actually first, his claim to fame was that he had found the gene behind cystic fibrosis.
And cystic fibrosis is a really, it's a really interesting,
It's a really interesting medical condition that has to do, one of the primary problems with it is an excess of mucus.
And mucus, of course, is this sort of rather oddly ubiquitous substance in nature that often forms the
physiological barrier or marks the physiological barrier between the outside world and the inside world.
And what happens inside of mucus as a substrate is actually quite extraordinary in a very parallel way from coral to anemones to fish to the mucus of our own lungs and gut.
And so it's very curious that a guy who found a gene related to mucus production gets appointed to the Human Genome Project.
I think it's a little bit more subtle than that.
And that's part of what we're trying to
I'm trying to get over the finish line here, and I'm hoping that you are following along well enough to see the red thread.
So here he is holding up a coronavirus.
Of course, we know all about the guitar-playing folk singer and NIH director Francis Collins.
Of course, he is the mentor of people like Mark Lander and our friend Kevin McKernan.
So I'll just let this play.
This is 60 minutes from like a couple days ago.
Still, he says, even after COVID, most people don't know what the NIH does.
The National Institutes of Health, NIH, is the largest supporter of biomedical research in the world.
What are some of the medical breakthroughs that people might not be aware of that came through the NIH?
Deaths from heart disease are down by 75% in the last 40 years.
That's NIH.
Deaths from stroke are down about 75%.
That's NIH.
HIV, AIDS, where that was a death sentence.
Now, if you have access to those antiretrovirals, NIH and drug companies came up with that, you have a normal lifespan.
The NIH is headquartered on the sprawling 300-acre campus in Bethesda, Maryland.
It's home to the largest clinical research hospital in the world and 27 research institutes and centers.
The leaked budget draft includes a plan to consolidate those 27 institutes and centers into eight and eliminate four, including the Institutes of Nursing Research and Minority Health.
If approved by Congress, it would be the largest budget cut by an administration to the health agency, but not the first.
Most recently, Presidents Bush and Obama made smaller cuts to the NIH, which currently has a $47 billion budget.
But Collins says the bulk of that budget, more than 80 percent, goes to researchers off campus.
Most of that goes out to the universities and institutes all over the country.
They're the ones that do the work, but they get the funds from NIH by writing very compelling grant applications that go through the most rigorous peer review system in the world.
Some of those researchers' work lines America's medicine cabinets, such as statins, antidepressants, and new forms of insulin.
Wow.
I mean, two out of the three of those are going to be proven to be completely dumb in like five years or less.
Statins already has been accepted as ridiculous.
The idea of lowering cholesterol is biologically ridiculous.
And just the whole concept that, oh, wow, it is remarkable.
Only one of the things in that list, antidepressants, statins, and insulin.
Like, wow, that's remarkable.
A Journal of the American Medical Association study found that between 2010 and 2019, 99 percent of FDA-approved drugs had ties to research funded by the NIH.
Every dollar that NIH gave out in 2024 to a grant is estimated to have returned $2.46 just in a year.
That's a pretty darn good return.
These kinds of return on investment calculations are such an enchantment.
It's a ridiculous assertion.
that neither that journalist nor this guy can adequately either verify or back up with calculations that make any sense.
That's really, it is really, it's just gross.
But not good enough to escape the crosshairs of the Trump administration's sweeping budget cuts.
In February, Dr. Collins decided to leave the NIH.
It just became untenable.
I was, as every other scientist in that circumstance, not allowed to speak in any kind of scientific meeting or public setting.
You don't think if you would have stayed there, you would have been in a better position to fight for the scientists and the work?
I don't think it would have helped.
I would have been pretty much in a circumstance of not being able to speak about it.
I'm still trying to decide whether they're going to have Jay Bhattacharya do something culturally relevant to his own background in order to contribute similarly to how Francis Collins did to the mission of the NIH.
It seems like one of Francis Collins' big thing was to sing at inaugurations and to sing at special events.
And that shtick can't really be given up at this point.
You're kind of replacing a guy, right?
So I wonder if Jay Bhattacharya has the requisite musical talent to really fill these shoes.
With the exception of a series of rallies, most scientists connected to the NIH have remained quiet.
I'm just going to say something super controversial here to see if I can cause anybody to get mad.
But in April 2025, with all of the amazing social media that we have, I am no longer convinced that protesting in a particular place in America other than where you live
is a very useful way of using your resources.
And those resources include time, but they also include money.
They also include risking travel, this kind of thing.
Not to say that travel's bad, but if you're traveling, you better be doing it to gain the maximum positivity from it.
You shouldn't be traveling
in order to exercise some kind of political freedom that couldn't otherwise be better exercised on a daily basis by establishing an email network, or on a daily basis by getting in touch with your neighbors, or on a daily basis by attending a church, or by a daily basis of doing community service like leading a Cub Scout group.
I don't know.
But the idea that people are being encouraged to travel around the United States and carry around signs in hopes that they might be able to make some impact, this is, oh my goodness, it's terrible.
The reason why it worked in the past was because there was only one front page in each town to get on.
And you knew what photographer was likely taking that picture.
This is a very different media landscape.
The vast majority of people are way, way, way, way past that.
And so if we want to wake people up to the trap that they're in, we want to wake young people up to the trap that they're in, first thing to do is for them to understand how to better, how to better use their resources.
I just hate to see all these people traveling to D.C.
to hold signs.
I mean the whole rescue the republic thing to go to D.C.
and listen to Brett Weinstein speak from behind a plexiglass barrier is just absurd.
You would be better off buying a four-wheeler and keeping it in your garage in hopes that maybe there will be a zombie apocalypse than to use that same amount of money to go to D.C.
and stand behind a metal traffic barrier and listen to Bret Weinstein on stage.
That was so absurd.
Like this physician scientist who still works at the agency, fear their jobs or research may be targeted for speaking up.
He asked us to conceal his identity.
I guess I should have given it a little bit more context here, but this 60 Minutes is in the same week that they do this 60 Minutes about the bird flu and the lady saying worst case scenario.
We want to avoid worst case scenario.
And now we're also talking about the just defunding of science in America and the undermining of everything that's, you know, I guess important.
I mean, what are we really talking about here?
It's such a drama.
over nothing.
They just casually throw in there that Obama made cuts, Bush made cuts, Clinton made cuts, but these are even bigger cuts.
Seeing the morale of an institution or any place change so abruptly to where we feel fear.
It began, he says, in February, when more than 1,000 probationary employees were placed on leave.
When that happened, that first hit, what was the reaction like immediately and in the office the next Monday?
Tears.
Everybody trying to assess damage, who's been fired, who hasn't been fired, what do we do?
And then an immediate sort of assessment in the clinical center, OK, can we still take care of patients?
And our research participants, is it still safe?
No one thought before they fired the people that dealt with the patients that maybe they shouldn't be fired.
This didn't come from within NIH.
It came from outside.
They don't know what these people... And so we're talking about institutions, for example, universities that pay their entire bureaucracy of deans and associate deans and head department heads from $500,000 a year and up.
They pay their entire athletic staff $500,000 a year and up.
The head of departments that are entirely funded by NIH are getting half a million dollars a year as salary.
That is more than a house a year in equivalent value.
for being really good at writing grants or assembling a department of scholars that is very good at writing grants.
That's essentially what we've created as a system in America.
And now these people are whining about it.
Oh, these grants are all running out.
Well, they're just gonna have to justify their work even more, right?
They're just gonna have to, the whole system is gonna fall apart.
And the wonderful thing about it is, ladies and gentlemen, is that it doesn't really matter because they're running out of grad students.
They're going to run out of undergraduates.
We're running out of elementary school students.
In another 10 years, we're not going to be filling football stadiums full of young 19 to 22-year-olds anymore.
There's a reality coming that a lot of people don't understand, but 60 Minutes will tell you about it.
Don't worry.
This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.
As DOGE dismantled parts of the agency, employees told us work on child cancer therapies, dementia, and stroke slowed or stopped because critical lab and support staff were let go.
NIH employees shared these photos.
They say even after a six-week spending freeze at the agency was lifted, some shelves and refrigerators that held supplies for trials and patients remained empty because much of the staff that procured those supplies was fired.
You can't run an organization as complicated as NIH without a support system.
Doctors and nurses and scientists can't function without a lot of other resources.
So this is what the other side of the country, if you will, is watching, right?
We're supposed to believe that Jay Bhattacharya's got everything under control.
I mean, he just gotten the job.
How much could he have really done?
Yet the Trump administration has apparently just cut everything and changed stuff and they're already gonna rename stuff and consolidate different parts of the organization under different names.
So is it not Jay Bhattacharya?
Jay Bhattacharya is talking to Dr. Drew.
In front of a White House symbol.
The hell's going on here?
It sure seems like the media, the mainstream media and social media is harmonizing in a very malevolent way to make it seem like America is, wow, what is going on?
They need an entire support infrastructure and that has now been decimated.
Some of the fired employees have been brought back.
Others are still being paid, but not allowed to work.
This doesn't feel like a strategic plan to reorganize and make the NIH better and more efficient.
It feels like a wrecking ball.
Typically, when a company has layoffs, they talk about restructuring.
There'll be a new structure, and this is how it's going to work.
Is there a structure in place right now for the NIH?
Not that anybody shared with no idea.
you know, making the organization better.
Everybody is for that.
There's no question.
But again, this is not more efficient.
It is infinitely less efficient right now because you can't get anything done.
The confusion in Bethesda has also paralyzed many of the 2,500 universities and institutes that rely on the NIH to help fund their research.
So far, nearly 800 grants have been terminated, some on HIV and AIDS, trans health and COVID-19, after researchers were told their work was no longer an agency priority.
And last week, the NIH signaled that more cuts could be coming.
It announced that any university with a DEI program or that boycotts an Israeli company might not be awarded new NIH grants for medical research and that existing grants could be terminated.
Without NIH funding, I would not be where I am today.
Kristen Weinstein is a wife, mother, and PhD candidate at the University of Washington.
She hoped to continue her research on cancer and autoimmunity after graduation.
And now, what are you thinking about your future?
Yeah, it's in some ways bleak.
It's really hard for me to imagine and not get just absolutely gutted, frustrated by the idea that they're making some kind of big deal about what every
person that's tried to climb the academic ladder goes through to now make it seem as though this girl or some other people are suffering even more than before because there are even less jobs.
There are going to be less jobs because there are going to be less college students.
We don't need more tenure track professors at universities that aren't teaching because there are going to be even less students.
And so I don't really understand what's gonna happen to the university system, but it's slowly going to die.
It has to, because we won't have the requisite number of people to support it.
Even if we allow all this immigration, and even if all these people learn English and pick a pro team and start buying hats, it ain't gonna matter.
That's the point.
The population pyramid is a real issue.
It is a real certainty that is coming.
And these people behind the scenes, the overclass that sit at the control panel of weaponized piles of money, they've known that this is coming for a long time.
And they're maximizing its usefulness.
Maximizing its usefulness to ruin our cultures, to ruin our sense of ourselves, to homogenate
the human population on social media into thinking that somehow or another they know what's going on.
It's a military social control program, that's all it is.
And every time you get on there and scroll, you are wasting your thoughts.
And if anybody thinks that I'm on X trying to make a difference, you're crazy.
I'm trying to illustrate how awful a platform it is in hopes that people will see it and leave.
I don't want you to read my X. If you're not using X or Twitter, then definitely don't go there.
but that's how I got sucked into this was thinking that the truth was being told or given away on X and that these direct message groups were solving a mystery and they needed my help.
We're now in April, 2025, almost in May and 60 Minutes has again turned on the narrative curation
not that dissimilar to how they did in February of 2020 or January of 2020 or end of 2019 from Peter Daszak all the way to George Webb.
And so I do think it's relevant to watch 60 Minutes because 60 Minutes is the is is what people are trapped on their couch watching.
It's what the the over 50 people are often watching.
This sound
This sound is a very trusted sound.
They really like this sound a lot.
They really like the sound of ticking.
Every time they hear it, it makes them sink a little bit further into their recliner and bring the covers up to their shoulders and relax because they know they're about to be told the truth.
The truth is available, but you have to be able to see that what you see on television is the inversion of it.
What you see on social media is often the direct inversion of it.
Or else it's just there's something right there that everybody just talks around.
Some crucial biological fact that everybody just talks around.
And as long as they do it with a little bit of skill and a little
a little nuance, it's virtually impossible for any individual person to see through the act.
And 60 Minutes is just a very, very well-produced version of this.
Nationwide, there is a hiring freeze at virtually every major academic university.
And even if I did happen to secure a position, now the funding is so uncertain.
I don't know if I would have funding to actually do the research that I was hired on to do in whatever lab I join.
We're very seriously considering at this point leaving the United States.
Don't let the door hit you on the ass.
Oh my goodness, it's brain drain.
All of our grad students are going to go to China.
Oh no.
Weinstein has met with faculty at universities in Europe and spoke in the labs in Canada.
She's not alone.
A survey of 1,600 scientists and graduate students reported 75% are considering leaving the U.S.
to work.
Australia, Europe and China have already boosted recruitment efforts, hoping to capitalize on the potential brain drain.
I grew up with this notion that if I studied hard, I would be able to pursue whatever my interest was.
But now America is letting me down.
Can you see the weaponry here?
Can you see the nonsense, the psychological warfare that's going on here?
There's no reason to be talking to this girl.
Couldn't they at least talk to us with somebody on a visa who came to America trying to live the American dream and get their PhD?
Couldn't they at least talk about that?
No.
Now they're starting to accelerate, or the script is starting to change to Act 25.
And it's about smart Americans leaving because the NIH is collapsing and there's no more guarantee I'm gonna have a job.
Boy, I love it.
I love it.
I really do.
I love this.
I love this narrative a lot.
I believe in the American dream when I would have to leave my own country to pursue my career.
The uncertainty has also created concern for Beth Humphrey and her daughter, Laura.
Beth was diagnosed with Alzheimer's last year.
It was devastating.
There is no successful treatment and it is ultimately terminal.
Where is the llama?
The 68-year-old grandmother joined an NIH-funded Alzheimer's study run by Duke University and the University of North Carolina.
Now, the Trump administration wants to restrict how much universities are reimbursed for overhead costs.
which critics argue act as a slush fund for schools.
22 states, including North Carolina, are suing.
Universities warn that policy could lead to billions in losses and would have a dire impact on life-saving trials and research.
If the funding is cut, what does that mean to you?
What's next?
That would be very disappointing to me.
This is not a partisan issue.
Disease doesn't know your party affiliation or your socioeconomic status.
And everyone in America knows someone who has been affected by Alzheimer's.
Actually, the spike protein accelerates Alzheimer's, according to Peter McCollum.
This month, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya took office as the new director of the NIH.
Yeah, Jay!
Bhattacharya, a former Stanford professor whose research focused on the economics of healthcare, has said he was smeared by other academics after he argued against broad mask mandates and lockdowns during the pandemic.
I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives.
Dr. Bhattacharya declined our request for an interview.
But at his Senate confirmation hearing, he outlined his plan for the agency.
If confirmed, I will carry out President Trump and Secretary Kennedy's agenda of committing the NIH to address the dire chronic health needs of the country with gold standard science and innovation.
One way the NIH will carry out that agenda, Bhattacharya says, is by creating a new database to study chronic disease.
The NIH will also invest $50 million to study autism in response to a request by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has clashed with scientists on the topic for years.
What was that?
Was that autism?
Sorry, I missed that.
I didn't do that.
What the hell?
Doesn't want me to replay that one.
Sketchy.
Earlier this month, a Trump administration planned to cut the National Institute.
This past week, Dr. Bhattacharya told agency advisors he's working hard to undo some of the recent, quote, disruptions at the NIH, and called that draft proposal to cut its budget by 40 percent the beginning of a negotiation.
The beginning of a negotiation, hmm, interesting.
Hold on one second, let me get back on that.
I will carry out President Trump and Secretary Kennedy's agenda of committing the NIH to address the dire chronic health needs of the country with gold standard science and innovation.
One way the NIH will carry out that agenda, Bhattacharya says, is by creating a new database to study chronic disease.
The NIH will also invest $50 million to study autism, in response to a request by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has clashed with scientists on the topic for years.
This past week, Dr. Bhattacharya told agency advisers he's working hard to undo some of the recent, quote, disruptions at the NIH, and called that draft proposal to cut its budget by 40 percent the beginning of a negotiation.
Interesting.
Okay, now I heard it.
That's very good.
Okay, I'll be back in one second and then we will do our little read-through.
Thank you very much for being here.
Good to see everybody.
The voice that you hear is that of Jonathan Cooey.
If you want to support this work, please go to gigaohmbiological.com and find a way to do so.
If you want to share it, go to stream.gigaohm.bio.
There you can download the videos, cut them up however you want to, and make your own channel.
Somewhere spreading the word would be great.
Thank you very much for being here.
If you want to send something to me, send it to P.O.
Box 802 Bethel Park, Pennsylvania 15102.
Thank you very much for being here again and I'll see you again shortly.
so
do
Should have done that button first and then this button.
There we go.
Good morning everybody.
Welcome to the show.
This is GigaOM Biological.
The new Biology 101 can be summarized as a life is a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time.
My name is, again, Jonathan Cui.
You can find my work on PubMed by using my last name C-O-U-E-Y.
I presented to Panda three times, but Nick lost those presentations.
But you can find a lot of my work on the Woodhouse 76 substack where Jonathan Engler and Jessica Hockett regularly take my work and pretend to argue with people like Claire Craig.
or Pierre Cory, or that these ideas are just their wonderful insight into the pandemic, they're so clever.
Anyway, I also was staff scientist for CHD for about half a year, and before that a scientific advisor for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
on this book over here.
the Wuhan cover-up.
I'm in the index in the cast of characters.
There's a few quotes in the book and there's a few papers in the book that I don't think otherwise would be in there.
Suffice it to say that they're not working very hard to sell that book, but we'll keep selling it here.
I'm also friends with Jay Bhattacharya, at least I was before he got NIH director.
I understand that
things change when you start to get invited to those meetings.
So I'm not, there's no sore feelings here, no hard feelings here.
Biology is the way I'm happy to be able to teach biology online.
People speculate a lot about how in the world can I do it, I have so few subscribers.
But actually, I have a couple angel subscribers, that's the way it works.
I have a couple people, a couple families that trust what I'm doing, believe in what I'm doing, and they make it possible.
And then I have about 130 other people
who give more than I have given to anybody else by giving me sort of like $10 a month or I think there's one plan that I had at some point that was like $20 every three months or something, I don't know.
That wasn't really well thought out when I did it.
We just didn't really know where we were going with this.
We just wanted to make it possible that this didn't seem like, yeah, that we could sell those PDFs of those, of the, of the,
of the slides and produce a product.
And at some point in time, the whole virus and fighting and trying to figure out who's on whose team and it just all, my gosh, it's still really hard to believe that it's April 2025, almost May 2025.
The freshman year of my son at Bethel Park High School,
where the alleged shooter of Donald Trump went to high school is almost over.
And we started this in a different house at a different elementary school that matriculates into a different high school with a whole different set of neighbors.
And my family has been through a lot like a lot of other families in America where our
Ability to get by and how we managed to get by has changed very drastically over five years and I am very very blessed to be where I am where I have
pretty nice set of equipment and it allows me to make a really, really nice little stream.
But it has been a lot of hard work.
What you see here happening when I switch the screen to what's here on the desk or when I switch my screen to the green screen, this is a lot of work and troubleshooting and careful assembly of Craigslist.
items to make something happen in a similar way that I used to be working with a combination of a microscope and a few amplifiers and a few computers and a few lasers.
And so when people are fascinated by the end product here and see an extraordinarily well-produced live stream
that they can't really make sense of, all they should make sense of it is, is that the NIH used to give me funding to build half a million dollar setups, and they worked.
And many of them are still in use today.
And so, the idea that I'm doing something that I shouldn't be doing, I mean, I've been a photographer since I was a young kid in my mind, and the first time I had a chance to buy a camera, I did when I was in college, and I still have it.
I still have it.
That's what this is right here.
This Nikon is a camera that I bought when I was still a bartender.
Still trying to figure out what the heck I was gonna do with my life.
And I still have it.
This thing still turns on.
And so I didn't bring nothing to the table here.
I helped my brother live stream some cooking shows in Texas at the end of 2020 and help him set up a business that brought him and his wife a lot of income for a few years during the pandemic.
And that technical knowledge and experience, I brought back to this.
And with my imagination,
been able to come up with a combination of things that really combines very well.
I don't think very many people have ever thought of what happens when you put black magic, when you put black magic equipment in series.
No one's ever thought about that, but that's how I get a lot of these things to happen that a lot of people don't really think about, but it's just a very easy tricks.
And it's a very,
It's very unfortunate that the reality of it is, is that this is probably the best show on the internet, save Housatonic ITS's live stream.
And we have only 3,000 followers on Twitch.
We have only a few people watching us on YouTube.
It is a very under promoted stream because we don't have anybody promoting us.
It's just us.
There is no algorithmic promotion.
We're not buying promotion on YouTube or anywhere else.
It's just whatever happens by word of mouth.
And in reality,
because these social media platforms are military programs, there is no virality.
Nobody goes viral on the internet anymore.
Everybody that's going viral is going viral because somebody adjusted this knob and adjusted that knob, and that is the result of those adjustments.
And it's not pessimism here.
What you hear here is realism.
And what that means is if we're gonna win, every person that sees value in this message is gonna need to actively share it, almost in a sort of annoying and militant style.
Like just have your clipboard full and click on every blank where you're allowed to put it and plaster it all over all the time.
until somebody calls you a troll and then change your account name and do the same again.
Because the reality is that they have the ability to do that.
in a way that doesn't even look like trolls.
They have the ability to do that just by adjusting the knobs on social media.
We've got to constantly remind ourselves that social media is an illusion.
It is a hamster wheel.
That's why these same questions and these same arguments keep coming back.
That's the only explanation for Angela Rasmussen being on 60 Minutes this week.
It's the only explanation for Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, being on 60 Minutes this week.
Because these are some of the few people that can sustain this illusion over this length of time.
They are
going to fail.
They definitely are going to fail.
This is about our grandchildren, and that's why I know they're going to fail.
They are definitely, definitely going to fail.
And it's just a question of time and how it actually happens.
But the background
of this illusion.
Once the background is properly understood, we can think our way out.
The background is really only understood if you can get yourself out of this trap, the bad biology 101 or evolution because DNA.
When you accept all that nonsense, then it's very hard to argue your way out of this trap where there is no background.
We just have PCR and it's very, very high fidelity.
So we gotta seek the truth, and by seeking the truth, I think it's also important to go back in time and make sure that we're reading real things and we're not reading what the internet gives us.
Darn it, I gotta unplug for a second.
This got all underneath my, all kinds of underneath my stool here.
So we,
I have been exploring the depths of eBay in a way that I never did before the pandemic.
I love eBay now, and I have no stock in eBay.
But I do, in a way, not want anyone else to use eBay, because there are lots of books on eBay that are really cheap, and I haven't bought them yet.
So don't worry about eBay.
eBay's dumb.
But evolution, because DNA, can be dispelled in any number of ways.
But the cardinal principle consequences of thinking this bad biology are, number one, the DNA equals genes.
And genes is already an enchantment.
It is a magic word that when you say it to people who don't understand it as an enchantment, it provokes a very safe, slave-speak thought.
And it's a pretty complex one, but it's a very powerful slave-speak thought.
When you say genes to your kids and the only thing that they have in their head is what they heard in school, it's a very dangerous word.
Genes cause disease is also a consequence of that concept.
And almost all the kids in high school biology would be able to explain to you what I mean when I say genes cause disease.
And of course, Francis Collins made his fame by saying that he found a gene that was associated with a disease, a genetic disorder that is termed cystic fibrosis.
So genes are the nature in nature versus nurture.
And nature versus nurture is already a bit of a trap, but suffice it to say that nature versus nurture is a broad enough use of language
so as to not be a closed trap and a useful thought to think about what you are born with versus what your experience and environment and trajectory across time, if you were to use my language, how those two things interplay to determine the individual that you observe in the trajectory across time, the pattern integrity that you observe in that trajectory across time.
And so the nature versus nurture thing, genes are the nature.
That's the whole idea.
If we understand that, then we understand at least half of that equation.
And since these people would argue that the start of the equation is the constant in the equation is the genes, then it's a pretty important thing in the equation, but is it a constant?
That's the question.
One of the many questions that one could ask.
So,
The reason why I tried to start here was because I want to read an article from Scientific American in July of the year 2000.
It's a special report, The Human Genome Business.
And I have contended, and I think it's largely due or thanks to influences by and a lot of information and knowledge that I gained from my friendship with and following of Mark Kulak of Housatonic ITS, that I understand that a very likely broad explanation for the pandemic is an elaborate theater that has allowed the establishment of a remnant stream
a medical sampling leftovers stream that would effectively allow the business of the Human Genome Project to get started, to get really going at a pace that reflects our ability to sequence and store the information.
Because we haven't always been able to sequence a long, large DNA molecule and then assemble it or make large quantities of it and then sequence.
These are all technologies that have taken time to develop.
And in fact, that's a lot of what the Human Genome Project was about.
Now, interestingly, I think it's cool to put this back into context.
That's why I want to go back to the year 2000 and read this article.
This is a Scientific American that I just took out of the wrapper, which is kind of cool.
And yeah, let's just, what did I do with this?
Did I make, yeah, that's what I did.
So I'm going to shovel over here.
So this is the, let me just,
Let me just show you the... Oh, I shouldn't put the name there.
I don't know who... That's not the guy that I bought it from.
Apparently, that's where it's sent.
Warrior, Alabama.
Anyway, ancient civilizations.
Where are they?
The Deadly Lakes in Cameroon.
The CERN Collider, which is interesting.
And then now the Human Genome Project business.
So, I just want to read the Human Genome Project business.
Because I think it's quite interesting.
So, I'm not really sure.
Here's the human genome business today.
Oh, I didn't read this part.
Shoot.
Okay.
I didn't see this article.
Darn it.
I was going too fast here.
I get a lot of stuff in the mail.
Let me just scan this really quick here.
This is layer two.
By the time this, yes, that's right.
Yeah, okay, so this is a lot of reading.
I don't know if I'm gonna do that.
I'm gonna do it.
So by the time this magazine hits your mailbox, you'll be able to read the entire genetic code of a human being over the internet.
It's not exactly light reading start to finish.
It's nothing but letters A, T, C, and G repeated over and over in varying order, long enough to fill more than 200 telephone books.
For biologists though, this code is a runaway bestseller.
The letters stand for the DNA chemicals that make up all your genes, influencing the way you walk, talk, think, and sleep.
We're talking about reading your own instruction book, Marvel's Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.
What could be more compelling than that?
So Francis Collins heads the Human Genome Project and so far a $250 million effort to write out a map of our genes.
The Human Genome Project is a publicly funded consortium that includes four large sequencing centers in the U.S.
as well as the Sanger Center near Cambridge, England, labs in Japan, France, Germany, and China.
Sounds like a fairly substantial investment.
Hmm.
And working together for more than a decade, over 1100 scientists have crafted a map of 3 billion DNA base pairs or units that make up the human genome.
And I've explained this before, it's essentially a restriction enzyme map where consensus
segments of the chromosomes of humans have been identified among the limited sample of genomes that they have mapped in this way.
And they have established some rudimentary landmarks around some commonly shared, let's say, already researched disorders.
So that they have some kind of general map
But it's nowhere what these guys are imagining, which is a phone book collection that is the base-by-base sequence of a particular, or of all, humans.
Of course, it can't be all humans, so then what are they really talking about?
And that's already, you can see, the nonsense here.
And they are not alone.
In April, a brash young company called Solara Genomics in Rockville, Maryland beat the public consortium to the punch announcing its own rough draft to the human genome.
Rough draft is what I mean by a restriction enzyme map.
So a restriction enzyme is the bacterial enzyme which will cut DNA at a particular sequence.
And it usually ends up to be like some kind of, you know,
weird weird combination of bases on the top and the bottom and then you're left with overhanging ends that kind of fit together like this and so if you cut two pieces of DNA with the same enzyme then they'll have ends that can come together and that's a it's the way that the bacterial genomes around us are rearranged all the time and we've taken these many different restriction enzymes and use them advantageously to
find locations in the genome and so a a suitable a suitable
Analogy for this would be, for example, to take a paper punch and go through this book, for example, and punch all of the pages where my last name is found and think about how that would express itself in this book.
Now think about go to another book and do the same thing and look for the same word and you might not ever punch a page.
Of course, none of these other books on this shelf you would punch a page.
These are all the books about vaccination and virology and viruses since around 1988.
And then I go all the way up till now all the sky horse books all the anti-vax books all the you know We said at first books.
I got them all right there.
This is not a Collection of I'm smart books.
This is a collection of history books right here history as portrayed by the bound word and So the only book on that shelf that will have my last name in it is this one I
But you could imagine a scenario where, let's say, take a different word, like spectacular, and now do a map of this book using the same hole punch, but now use the word spectacular.
And now you can imagine a scenario where any book, for example, that was the same book as this one, like let's say, for example, you found another book on there, but that book didn't have the cover on it, you know?
But you'd know immediately, oh yeah, look, these books aren't the same at all.
These two books aren't the same.
But if you started paging through them and you found out that on the same pages there was a hole punch for the word cooie, and it also worked for the word spectacular.
then you could almost bet, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these two books are the same book.
Because otherwise, the hole punches where Spectacular is, and the hole punches where Cooey is, would never have fallen on the same page, never even mined on the same part of the page.
Now if you can do that mental exercise in your head, then you kind of understand how they do it with regard to mapping the human genome.
Except they're using words like therefore, and purpose, and coordinated.
And so in any book, there are going to be holes where that works.
And as a result, you're going to have a lot of maps that don't really make a lot of sense.
You're gonna have a lot of maps that don't really compare to each other, just for the simple fact that things aren't found in the same place, but might be able to do the same job.
And so, it is a horribly limited place that these people have brought us to, as they try in 2002, or in the year 2000, to try and portray as something is done.
But it's not done.
They've barely been able to estimate the task at hand.
Never mind building an infrastructure of computer software and computer storage that could store that data even over a longer term period of time so that when we have stored enough of it, this is a very confounding problem that they've been working on for decades that they're nowhere near solving.
that the current iteration of requires the existence of a remnant stream of testing that they can produce more and more genomic data to feed into this existing network already not, it was not assembled for YouTube videos.
I assure you they are not building servers on container ships to store data for YouTube videos.
And so for a long time, there was a big misconception that with the DNA sequence was done, that we'd have total enlightenment.
That's it.
Maybe I should just make sure I read that bottom.
A young brash beat the public consortium to the punch announcing its own genome.
The rivalry has cast spotlight on the human genome, genetic code, and what exactly researchers now plan to do with it.
For a long time, there was a big misconception that the DNA sequencing was done, that we'd have total enlightenment.
Uh,
about who we were and why we get sick and why we are old.
Remarks geneticist Richard Wilson of Washington University, one partner in the public consortium.
I can't do this with my finger.
That's annoying me.
Maybe I can use this little ruler.
Because I don't think my mouse will show up on that.
If you, yeah, you won't see it.
I will see it.
But total enlightenment is decades away.
So now we're talking like Kurzweiler here, but then, you know, it's over the hill.
It's just over the hill.
But scientists can now imagine that day, what that day looks like.
Drug companies, for instance, are collecting the genetic know-how to make medicines tailored to specific genes.
Sounds like personalized medicine.
An effort called pharmacogenomics.
In the years to come, your pharmacist may hand you one version of a blood pressure drug based on your unique genetic profile, while the guy in line behind you gets a different version of the same medicine.
Boy, that sounds an awful lot like what Kevin McKernan and Francis Collins and Tony Fauci have been talking about for decades already.
sounds an awful lot like very similar to what James Lyons Wyler, the author of the Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism would say about vaccines.
That we might just need vaccines for different genetic backgrounds and that we might have to make special vaccines for people with particular genetic vulnerabilities.
But for sure we're going to have to start testing everybody's genetic background if we're going to make safe vaccines.
It is remarkable where we are.
Other companies are already cranking out blood tests that reveal telltale disease gene mutations and forecast your chance of coming down with conditions such as Huntington's disease.
Oh, and some scientists still hold out hope for gene therapy directly adding healthy genes to a patient's body.
That's pretty extraordinary.
Knowing the genome will change the way drug trials are done and kick off a whole new era of individualized medicine, predicts Craig Ventner, president of Celera.
Now you can find a lot of information on Celera on Heucytonics website.
If you go to the research page, then you go to the C's and then you scroll down past all the people, you'll find a link for Celera.
And you can find one of the interesting things I found on that website was that it was bought by Quest Diagnostics.
Quest Diagnostics controls an awful lot of medical remnants in America.
And all of those medical remnants could, in theory, be feeding into the infrastructure of Celera to do restriction enzyme mapping and targeted gene hunts and whatever other things they want to do.
Full genome sequencing and storage of the data.
Who knows?
Because the remnant streams are, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about them, nobody's talking about them, even though the remnant stream that now exists from PCR testing is heretofore never existed.
And in a country where they still circumcise tiny babies for fibroblasts, and they still sell cesarean section placentas at a much higher
Price.
There's no question that the remnant stream of the COVID-19 testing is not by accident the perfect, the perfect sampling device, the perfect sampling infrastructure for a population-wide genetic experiment.
And I don't mean expressing genes in people, although I think that's what they did when they used hot batches of the transfection or transformation.
I mean collecting data from people.
You know, like a strike force that comes in in the middle of the night and starts collecting data, like the lady said on 60 Minutes yesterday.
And even with the human code in hand, however, the genomic industry faces challenges.
Some are technical.
It's one thing to know a gene's chemical structure.
For instance, quite another to understand its actual function.
Other challenges are legal.
How much must you know about a gene in order to patent it?
And finally,
And finally, many dilemmas are social.
Do you really want to be diagnosed with a disease that can't be treated or won't affect you for another 20 years?
As scientists begin to unravel the genome, the endeavor may come to seem increasingly, well, human.
So the race, right?
This was all about the race.
And that was one of the main propaganda motivating narratives before the human genome was declared, sort of completed, was this idea that we were racing.
And I don't think that, I think rather that this has a very apt place in your understanding of the coronavirus pandemic, because I believe behind the scenes, there was an awful lot of talk
You can think of Giordano here if you want to, but I'm sure there are other people who can present like him, where there's a lot of talk about what the Chinese with their different cultural, moral standards is going to get ahead of us because they're not afraid.
They're gonna get ahead of us because they're willing to do
experiments that we're not willing to do.
And in fact, I heard a lot about this.
One of the most famous primate researchers in Germany before the pandemic moved to China because he was just having so much trouble with animal rights activists in Germany.
And it was so controversial that he couldn't do his research anymore.
So he said, screw it, I'm moving to China.
And so this narrative is real.
It's been ongoing for a while that they might get ahead of us because they are willing to let scientists do lots of things.
You know, the cloning thing, the sheep thing that wasn't also by accident.
That was a real part of this narrative because behind the scenes, they were telling bureaucrats with the requisite knowledge to understand that this meant that the Chinese were going to get way ahead of us in specifically the theater of biological weapons.
with the added advantage that they could make a biological weapon which they would be less vulnerable to because they are genetically more homogenous than our multicultural population, our multicultural armed forces.
It's a very easy story to hear.
And to hear someone like Robert Malone or Giordano tell that story behind closed doors, it's not even, it takes no imagination at all.
And so this imperative to talk about the DMED data and whether or not they're blah, blah, blah.
And they've been using the military as test subjects for, for years already to focus on the COVID shot is ridiculous.
And this is, of course, meant no disrespect to our servicemen.
It is to try to make them aware that irrespective of whether they see themselves as experimental animals for the COVID shot, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that most of them have given many other experimental vaccines that heretofore they are not really thinking about as also having had impact on their lives, but most assuredly they did.
So the all I's are on the first finish line of the genome, roughly a rough draft sequence of the 100,000 or so genes inside all of us.
So here we go.
Here's where the genes is already using small letters, like you already know what that means.
The human genome as a project approach has been described as painstaking and precise.
Beginning with blood and sperm cells, the team separated out the 23 pairs of chromosomes that hold human genes.
Scientists then clipped bits of DNA from every chromosome, identifying the sequence of DNA bases in each bit, and finally matched each snippet up to the DNA on either side of it in the chromosome.
And on they went, gradually crafting the sequence for individual gene segments, complete genes, whole chromosomes, and even eventually the entire genome.
Wilson compares this approach to taking out one page of an encyclopedia at a time and ripping it up and putting it together again.
I'm sure it's a real accurate process.
In contrast, Celera took a shorter route, shredding the encyclopedia all at once.
Solaris' so-called shotgun sequencing strategy tears all the genes into fragments simultaneously and then relies on computers to build the fragments into a whole genome.
The emphasis is on computer power, using algorithms to sequence the data, not that dissimilar to what Joshua Lederberg imagined many years ago.
Hence says J. Paul Gilman, Celera's Director of Policy Planning.
The advantage is efficiency and speed.
So it's kind of like, you know, who can get the footage of the moon together first and show it on TV?
The Human Genome Project and Celera teams disagree over what makes a finished genome.
Oh boy, here we go.
This spring, Celera announced that it had finished sequencing the rough draft of the genome with one anonymous person and that it would sort the data into a map in just six weeks.
But the public team immediately cried foul as Collins noted that Celera fell short of its original genome sequencing goals.
In 1998, when the company began, Celera scientists planned to sequence the full genome of several people
checking its consensus genome 10 times over.
So they're calling each other out on what they said they were going to do and what you need to understand is this idea of sequencing several people and checking the consensus is one of the things that absolutely failed.
Now I don't know how the details of that but rest assured that although we seem to all have a very similar pattern of chromosomes
The
homology across genomes is something that they don't understand and have not been able to adequately sample.
It's one of the reasons why we need to get into all of this because my multiracial background, having a Filipino Indian mom and some kind of Norwegian Dutch dad, French, whatever he is from Wisconsin, that's created a human genome that has never existed before and has very little homology to either of the
the ancestral lines that it descends from.
Not the least of which being that both my mother and father are significantly mixed background already.
And so we are being absolutely fooled into believing that our data is worth nothing when in fact my data is as valuable as any other genome that exists and they need them all.
Because the AI needs as many examples of the human genome as it can get so that some pattern, despite the variation that's present, some patterns can be found.
And yes, they have made progress.
But they still have no idea how the trajectory across time is encoded, if it is encoded at all, in this protein digest.
this list of ingredients that they seem to have found and are insisting are genes and not just a list of ingredients with no descriptive recipe with no
three panel diagram, you know, what do they call that?
Three, the thing you did, we drew in drafting class.
I mean, come on guys, this has gotta be obvious now.
They have not made much progress in the 25 years other than making sequencing in theory cheaper and two, making the data easier to store.
That's it.
Progress and understanding is almost nil and once you understand that then when we read as we read this it will become obvious what really happened during the pandemic is a conversion of Many populations on earth into full-blown experimental animals not that dissimilar to what was done in Israel with the shot but on a global scale and into the future extended now this system exists and they're only gonna add on to it now and
The emphasis is on computer power, blah, blah, blah.
The advantages, efficiencies.
The Human Genome Project and Celera disagree 10 times over.
Yes, that's right.
Celera declared that its rough genome sequencing was complete with just one person's genome sequenced only three times.
So that's crazy, right?
They're talking about checking the consensus genome 10 times over.
Because why?
Because when you re-sequence it, there are gonna be differences because it's just a model.
It's just a probabilistic model.
And so when do you declare the genome project done?
When they could take a picture from above and show Kevin McKernan with all these gels and this little assembly line, then it's done?
Or when they've sequenced 10 people?
Or when they sequence 10 people 10 times?
Well, why would that even be a...
an issue unless the whole concept of the finish line was never being reached by any of these landmarks.
And then, then you understand it.
So although many news accounts have characterized the Human Genome Project and Celera as competing in a race, the company has a decided advantage because the Human Genome Project is a public project.
The team routinely dumps all its genome data into the gene bank
a public database available through the internet.
And like everyone else, Celera has used that data in its case to help check and fill the gaps in the company's rough draft genome.
Essentially, Celera has used the public genome data to stay one step ahead of the sequencing effort.
It does stick in one's craw a bit," Wilson remarks.
But Gilman asserts that Solera's revised plan simply makes good business sense.
The point is not to sit around and sequence for the rest of our lives.
So, but that's exactly what they have to do.
They will have to sequence for the rest of their lives, every one possible.
So the faster it is, the better.
The cheaper it is, the better.
The less replicates they have to do, the better.
And so that's what this technology advance has been about for the last 25 years since this was published, nothing else.
So yes, we'll use our threefold coverage to order the public data and that will give us what we believe to be a very accurate picture of the human genome.
In early May, the Human Genome Project announced that it had completed its own working draft as well as finished sequence
a finished sequence for chromosome 21, which is involved in Down syndrome and many other diseases.
So think about what that statement says, because it doesn't say they're done.
It says that they have a well-finished draft of the whole sequence, and they have a finished sequence for one chromosome.
Jeez, it's so unclear exactly what they've accomplished.
Until now, the genome generators have focused on similarities among us all.
Scientists think that 99% of your genes perfectly match those of the person sitting beside you.
But the remaining 0.1% of your genes vary, and it is these variations that most interest drug companies.
Now, we're not talking at all about the difference in our microbiome.
We're not talking at all about how our immune system might be predisposed to having a different microbiome than someone else.
None of this is on the radar yet, even though already in this time, they know it's important.
Already at this time, the entire Human Genome Project and all of its technology would not exist without bacteria and bacteriophages.
Bacteria are doing the work here.
And so even a simple nucleotide polymorphism in one of your gene sequences where your neighbor has a C can spell trouble.
That's the problem.
It can even code for the same amino acid and still be the only genetic signal they have, which indicates the difference between this person who has a healthy phenotype and this person who has a catastrophic genetic disorder.
The silent mutations.
They have no idea how that works.
And of course, the reason why or why that works is because they have no idea what this code actually encodes.
They have been able to discern that proteins can be seen to be encoded in these nucleic acids, but that's it.
It doesn't mean that they can, they've cracked the code.
And that's really the trick here.
They start by announcing, and Francis Collins even made fun of himself in a video I watched a year or two ago, because they've had so many celebrations about the Human Genome Project and its accomplishments, he's not even really sure what they accomplished anymore.
So, let's go on here and see where we go.
So, two genome sequencing strategies here, Celera Genomics versus, this is nested shotgun, this is the whole shotgun.
So, either way, what are we doing here?
Wow.
So, you would hope, right, that these would have overlap and so you would, you know, this sentence matches that sentence and everything's going to be fine.
And it's nice that they can draw these pictures, but it really, really does not.
It does not reveal the amount of work that is being done by algorithmic assembly.
What other genomes are they sequencing here?
They talk about yeast and the fruit fly and the mouse and the worm.
The major players.
Celera Genomics, Human Genome Sciences by William Hastine, Insight Genomics with Roy Whitfield.
I haven't checked any of these as to whether they also have their, maybe Mark has already worked on these.
I don't know.
Here's the Human Genome Project with Francis Collins.
And you will know that the Whitehead Institute is where the Research and Development Director,
Kevin McKernan worked under Mark Lander and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.
Yeah, anyway.
patents have already uh testing testing testing wow look at this one i'm just gonna skip a little bit here patents have already led to more than seven and this is might be the second or is this still the same no this is the patents have already led to more than 740 genetic tests that are on the market or being developed according to the nih great
These tests, however, show how far genetics has to go.
Several years after the debut of the tests for BRCA and BRCA2, for instance, scientists are still trying to determine exactly to what degree those genes contribute to a woman's cancer risk.
But it sure generated a lot of interest in genes, didn't it?
It still perpetuated the mythology that we can learn something and predict something by the presence of a gene.
And that mythology is still central to the bad biology that the NIH work is largely based on and that billions of dollars are spent on, that people write books about the genetic causes of autism and get paid money to do it.
And even in the most informative, genetic tests leave plenty of questions suggest Wendy R. Ullman, president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.
In the case of Huntington's disease, we've got a terrific test.
We know precisely how the gene changes, but we can't tell you the age which your symptoms will start, the severity of your disease, or how it will progress.
Social issues can get in the way too.
After Kelly West falls,
A mother pad tested positive for Huntington's disease.
Westfall, age 30, immediately knew she would take the test as well.
I had made up my mind that if I had Huntington's, not Huntington's, if you had the gene, I didn't want to have kids.
Whoa, declares Westfall, lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
But one fear made her hesitate, genetic discrimination.
Westfall felt confident enough to approach her boss, who reassured her that her job was still safe.
Still, she worried about her insurance.
Finally, rather than inform her insurance about the test, Westall paid for it, some $450, including counseling out of pocket.
To her relief, she tested negative.
The Human Genome Project's Collins is among those calling for legislation to protect people like Westfall.
So there, he's already working on legal issues, right?
Holy balls.
A patchwork of federal and state laws are already in place to ban genetic discrimination by insurers or employers, but privacy advocates are lobbying Congress to pass a more comprehensive law.
Where did my little ruler go?
Oh.
Last February, President Clinton signed an executive order prohibiting all federal employees from hiring, promoting, or firing employees based on genetic information.
It remains to be seen whether private companies will follow suit.
In the meantime, Solera is now ready to hawk its human genome, complete with crib notes on all the genes, to online subscribers worldwide.
It's not owning the data, it's what you do with it, Ventnor remarks.
He envisions Solera's database akin to the Bloomberg Financial Database or LexisNexis News Archives only for the genetics set.
Which 300 genes are associated with hypertension?
What exactly does each gene do?
These are the kinds of queries Solera subscribers might pose for a price.
What 300 genes are associated with hypertension?
As a press of time, Solera planned to offer a free peek at the raw genome data online, but tapping into the community's online toolkit and full gene notes will cost corporate subscribers an estimated $5 million to $15 million a year, according to Gilman.
Academic labs will pay a discounted rate of $10,000 to $15,000 a year.
Internet servers can now visit GeneBank for free.
With all this information available, will scientists really pay Celera?
Venter thinks so.
We just have to have better tools, he says.
For genomics, that's becoming familiar terrain.
Maybe you should see if Palantir can help him with those special tools.
Oh my gosh, ladies and gentlemen, what can I say about this?
What is there to say about this?
I'm not really sure.
I do know that we can think our way out of it, though.
We've just got to read the right books, and we've got to stop listening to the wrong people.
There was an expected rise in... The world's population may have recently exceeded 8 billion, but it's a deceptive number.
Not only is growth unevenly distributed, but in so many countries, population is in decline.
In some cases, steep, deep decline.
Maybe most graphically and demographically, there's Japan, a country that since hitting a high of 128 million citizens in 2008 has lost population for 15 years running and is on pace to shrink by half by this century's end.
So what's going to happen to schools?
What will happen to universities?
What will happen to infrastructures?
If that happens, what if that's happening all around the world?
Well, first of all, I can tell you if that's happening all around the world, then it would have started with an expected rise in all cause mortality because you would have an excess of old people from a time when families were more successful and productive.
Because apparently if there is a decline in population, then families have become less productive.
And so preceding that will be an expected rise in all cause mortality.
And I am suggesting to you that around the developed world, there was an anticipated rise in inspected deaths that could be sculpted using a little murder and a lot of sophisticated lying.
lying about PCR, lying about testing, lying about the sequence of a novel virus, which is really just the distortion of an irreducibly complex background of DNA and RNA, mostly produced by the bacteria in which we are symbiotic or competitively in a relationship with.
And they did that to create the myth of an RNA pandemic that they can recycle as often as they want to, whether they call it flu or coronavirus or norovirus or, or, or anything else.
Now, the magnificent thing is, is that this is also 60 minutes from very, very recently, also telling us about how Japan's population is about to collapse.
But what's curious about that is that their 60 minutes extra was actually about the United States.
60 minutes overtime.
Our story this week on 60 Minutes is about Japan, the incredible shrinking country that is losing population at an alarming rate, some of which is for reasons specific to Japan.
In other ways, this is a real sort of canary in the coal mine.
This is a real barometer of what a number of countries, the United States included, is going to confront in terms of demographics.
The United States included?
I wonder if China has this problem due to a 20-year one-child policy.
I hope that you can see that this population is not a problem if you have effectively reduced the function of, reduced the resiliency of, and reduced the productivity of the family.
If you've gotten young people to decide not to have kids.
if you've put enough economic pressure on people so that they don't have a replacement number of kids, then you've already solved the problem.
You just have to be on a long enough time horizon.
You have to be thinking and governing on a long enough time horizon.
Now, combine that very, very clever governance with the impetus to collect as many human genomes as possible while they are available over the next 50 years or so.
With the idea, again, that you're thinking on a longer time horizon.
In some way or another, planting trees under whose shade you will never shelter.
But in a malevolent sense.
Planting seeds of fascism and technocracy under whose slavery you will never suffer.
That's what all these people are doing.
And whether he knows it or not, he is an announcer of what has been an orchestrated setup of humanity to make it as productive as possible, to get as much varied data as possible, to assemble data sets that will never be available again.
And all of these people understand it is a national security priority to collect as much as possible because the Chinese are doing it, the Russians are doing it, and the Indians are doing it.
And they're also a valuable resource that if they're not doing it, we should do it.
America may already be doing it in other countries in cooperation with their governments on purpose to get the data as part of a collective.
I don't know.
I do know that whatever's happening is not what's on TV and certainly not what's on social media.
In fact, it's closer to what's on 60 Minutes, I would argue, than on anything in social media.
in the next decades and even centuries.
Like Japan and many other countries, the United States is facing a low birth rate.
On Wednesday, the U.S.
announced a total fertility rate of 1.6 children per woman in the U.S.
That's less than a 1 percent increase from 2023, a year that's on historic low and still well below the rate of 2.1 births needed to maintain a population.
Americans are having less babies and they are delaying having baby to later on in life.
We spoke with Dr. Thuy Ngo, the chair of Columbia University's Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health.
He told us there are a few things that can explain this decline.
The big data story from the CDC data is that women under the age of 30 are having less babies.
There's a society-wide shift on how people value family, work, and personal fulfillment moving forward.
And I don't think people are not having family because they don't value family.
I think they are trying to navigate.
the dynamic environment for couples who are wanting babies.
Housing is extremely unaffordable.
Childcare is patchy or unaffordable.
So 60 Minutes is announcing it.
60 Minutes is announcing it with people with bad accents about what is coming.
And what is coming is a change in our population, which will change the socioeconomic landscape of our country.
As we run out of children, we have too many schools.
We have too many elementary schools in most places in America right now.
What's going to happen to those jobs?
What's going to happen to those people?
going to become useless earlier than we ever thought.
And that means that the number of consumers that are buying all of those goods that high school kids and college kids buy, all of that consumption is going to go down.
All of those football tickets are going to stop being valuable.
All of those
You see where this is going?
So the idea that the NIH is not funding universities anymore, there's going to be not enough grad students, is ridiculous.
It's exactly timed perfectly for a precipitous decline in the people enrolling.
But they're making a different theater out of it.
just the same way they made a different theater out of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Do not resuscitate orders, lack of antibiotic use, supplementary oxygen, ventilators, poor use of steroids, remdesivir, midazolam, the opioid crisis, death certificate fraud, financial incentives, track and trace masks, closure, and mandates, plus PCR fraud, lateral flow test fraud, and sequencing of whole virus fraud.
They misconstrued all this stuff as, wow, man, we really responded badly to this mystery virus.
Now they are going to continue to use social media to distort reality so that we don't understand it.
And the way they're doing it now is reinforcing this bad biology.
by pretending that they didn't know that this was a problem before the pandemic and that the pandemic wasn't actually a using of that, which it definitely, definitely was.
They used and anticipated rise in all cause mortality due to the shape of the population pyramid that they're happy to cover on 60 Minutes now, but never would tell you that that was the perfect opportunity.
In fact, it was actually
a financial danger because if we spared no expense in keeping this abundance of old people alive for as long as we possibly could, many of the healthcare systems in the West would go bankrupt over the next five to 10 years.
We don't have the resources, we don't have the hospital beds to keep all of these people alive and spend infinite amount of money on them.
Medicare, in the last six months of a Medicare patient's life is about a half a million dollars.
That's a lot of money to be saved and turned around into $35,000 if we could put them on a supplementary oxygen, not give them antibiotics for the pneumonia that we knew they would develop, and then characterize them as a COVID pandemic
death for $35,000 as opposed to keeping them alive for the last six months of their life in a hospital for whatever it is that they might die of in that scenario.
Of course, there are two main signals that they talk about with regard to the pandemic.
First is the number of COVID deaths, which is just a lie.
But more importantly, what they talk about is a drop in life expectancy, which is not been seen since the 1918 flu.
And that lie is only possible because all of these people that have any coverage at all are not speaking of the opioid epidemic and how that specifically is the number one killer of people under 40.
And that's the reason why life expectancy has dropped in America.
If life expectancy drops in America now as a result of the uptake of transfection and the repeated application of live doses of transfection, that is a compounding factor for sure.
Make no mistake about it.
There was an opportunity here and it didn't require much of this in order to get these little peaks that everybody could point at and say that the house is on fire.
when in reality it was just an anticipated opportunity to create this mess.
And it was a national security priority to create this mess.
That's why they put people in place to complain about mandates.
That's why a guy like Larry Cook would interfere with Brandy Vaughn's work to the extent to which he started and maintains a, a anti fake anti-vaccine website called stop the mandates.
Vaccines are a mythology.
So arguing about which ones work or arguing about which parts of them were tested is slave speak.
It's part of the trap.
Autism is a mythology.
It is a spectrum of disorders that is designed to get people to endlessly argue about the infinite possible causes and never come to the useful conclusion that it's just, you know, repeated intermuscular injection can really mess a person up.
Gain of function is also a mythology that is used to cover up the fact that all they can do is make a lot of pure DNA and put it in places and it does have biological effects when you do that.
They can make a lot of less than pure RNA and they can put it in places and it will have biological effects that include the expression of or the production of protein at that place.
And AI is a mythology.
This is just machine learning.
This is just brute force.
And because language is a bit of an illusion that people themselves don't understand, that language, if someone is very skilled as a liar, then you're going to have a hard time seeing through it.
And that is just language.
That is just emotion.
And those aren't really big tricks.
That's actually the power of language and why certain people are so effective with it.
And so they're using that weakness in our own cognition to fool us into believing that there's some artificial intelligence that's about to wake up and walk away, when it's really just our own built-in vulnerability to language, to what language is for us.
And especially what are now very limited or watered down, hampered, ruined language of American English and worldwide English is, if it's not used correctly.
Slave speak is English.
And if you're not very good at speaking precisely using the most precise English words available, then you're probably speaking slave speak without even knowing it.
And so virology is just applications using that synthetic DNA or RNA.
Autism is actually there as a biological mythology set to confuse the idea that intramuscular injection is dumb.
And vaccines are a myth because intramuscular injection is dumb.
You don't need to object to mandating poison.
You need to object to the giving of poison.
because giving poison to kids is not a good, sound biological idea.
And so the way that we're legally attacking this is incorrect.
The way that we are trying to argue biologically is incorrect because we are arguing within their little subset of ideas.
We're kicking their balls on their field.
instead of picking up the ball and going somewhere else, or more importantly, starting our own game with our own ball.
That's what we should be doing.
And that's what the new Biology 101 is.
It's a new model of biology assembled from a lot of different people's ideas that makes everything just fall into place a hell of a lot better than evolution because DNA does.
You can insist that it does, but that really doesn't explain very much at all.
It just is an insistence that all these assumptions must be accepted.
And so yesterday, I thought I did a really interesting little read of this article in the British Medical Journal from November 2000.
If you didn't see that, please watch it, The Importance of Injecting Vaccines into Muscle.
And in that program, I also drew another version of this little picture here that shows a very simplified version of who you are as a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time, and why it's so important to understand the oversimplified illusion that they have given to us that they gave to our parents.
RNA cannot pandemic.
Intramuscular injection is dumb.
Transfecting healthy people is a crime and the population pyramid is a real problem and they are actively managing it.
I assure you.
Thanks very much for being here.
I'll see you guys again tomorrow.
Holy cow, we're going to get to the gym really soon and start filming.
I'm really close to pulling that trigger on that one because once we start doing that we're going to have a lot of fun.
It's going to mean a little less live streaming because I have editing to do, but the stuff on the hardwood I think is going to be really the bomb.
I got a lot of good ideas, a lot of good tricks up my sleeve.
I've basically taken all of this and
and made a mobile little suitcase that I can bring to the gym and just set it up and and shoot and uh I think it's working out really well and I think I'm almost in a good enough shape to pull it off so we'll see um I think if this is having
trying to have a longer-term plan here and how we're going to fund the production of the book about COVID and the pandemic and also the book about Biology 101 or books.
I think we've got so much work to do and I'm looking forward to doing all of it.
Better and better every day, ladies and gentlemen.
Better and better every day.
I love you.
Team USA, baby!
Sorry, it's not that I don't like you guys in Canada or anywhere else, but
I'm fighting for Team USA.
I'm fighting for the future of America.
And I think America specifically is under attack because we have the Constitution that can save us.
Thank you very much for being here.
I'll see you again soon.