You
Welcome to the last American
I'm excited about the conversation today. I've invited on Jay Cooey PhD to discuss a lot of different things are surrounding the science and the conversations around the covert 19 injections, specifically in my mind as you guys have seen me talking about a lot lately is the nano the lipid nano particle nano technology overlap in that conversation, the platform itself, and a lot of different things that he's been studying a very intelligent person I'm excited to have the conversation today and see where it goes so Jay it's nice to see a man how are you welcome the show.
Hey, thank you very much for having me. I'm really excited. I'm doing okay. We could all be worse. I just didn't think we died. So as I said earlier, I didn't think we'd be here in 2024. But here we are.
Yeah, yeah, and indeed and really like like as I asked before like probed about what you meant by that is so many ways you could take that statement. I think we all collectively feel that one way or another like how are we actually here doing this living through that like it's, it's a crazy time. It really is.
And I kind of think in a large way that it's by design. And I think, you know, there's a lot of to that statement as well.
But yeah, thank you for joining me today. I really, I saw some work you'd recently done some conversations you were having about lipid nano particles and I'm just like, I need to talk to this guy. I need to get this person on.
You know, have, have, because it's such an interesting conversation. I'm not a scientist or a doctor or PhD, but I've been covering this from the, from the.
Really before COVID-19 conversation, but after this illusion began, I've been so I've immersed myself in this conversation to learn as much as I can about, you know, the technology behind it the lies that we've been told so far and, and there's just, it's just one thing after another.
The more you dive through this, it's incredible. That's why I'm so glad people are asking a lot of questions and work like yours is important.
So I actually like to start with, you know, before we get into one, one thing that I wanted to kind of go through that I saw you talking about this kind of a broad point about why people are kind of following along with the narrative and so on.
Why don't you give us an introduction about who you are your background and really, I guess, predominantly this conversation or focused on this why you started doing this work in regard to, you know, COVID-19 the science around all this the injections and so on.
I was back to this thing about not believing that we would be here so in 2020 I was trying very hard to become a successful academic.
I wanted to get my own R01 grant and I hoped to be at the University of Pittsburgh for the rest of my career, I guess.
I wasn't the most successful neuroscientist in the universe in the sense of some people are able to get grant after grant and start off with lots of momentum and it never goes away.
Other people have to go from university to university and start the tenure track a couple times I started the tenure track once in the Netherlands and didn't get enough grant money basically to sustain myself so then I moved to Pittsburgh and was lucky enough to get a position
in a research assistant professor position which is really one where you can focus exclusively on the research.
You usually get a student or two and so you've got a lot of time to get data and to write grants and so it was a good place for me to be.
I had a really supporting guy and I had started doing a YouTube channel to teach neurobiology to students that I had at Carnegie Mellon and also just as a way of using my bike commute in Pittsburgh.
I was really excited about where my career was going and how much support I had and how many friends I was making and then this pandemic started and I did a couple bike rides where I did a couple reviews about pandemic biology rather but coronavirus biology
and I started to attract attention which did not make the faculty and the University of Pittsburgh's School of Medicine I guess administration very happy and it struck me as more than just a little odd.
And at some point I was actually asked not to come in anymore and the University quietly paid out the last eight months of my salary and did not in any way necessarily disparage me but in a university setting if you want to move on from another job you can't just have all of your research
off and have no recommendations from your previous university and that's essentially where I was in 2021 and so after having this kind of I don't know moment of realization when they said not to come in anymore I had started just teaching biology
on the internet and lucky for me I had enough supporters to keep that going but it wasn't necessarily the best thing from a career perspective my wife wasn't necessarily kept very happy by the instability of it.
But at a certain moment I got very lucky and I attracted the attention of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and for about a year I helped him write the Wuhan cover up book which came out in December last year.
And then right after that half that little appointment was done I worked for a CHD for about six months children's health defense which is the nonprofit that he was the chair of until or right before he started running for president.
And then we parted ways in January and now I'm back on the internet teaching again and just trying to continue to I guess sort of reconcile what I'm pretty sure is basic foundational biology and immunology from before the pandemic with what
is now on television and social media portrayed as gain of function research and
investigational vaccines and all kinds of new therapeutics and promises of what's to come and these are all very distorted under this pandemic lens and it's become
kind of my life's obsession to try and bring
humanity back to the fundamental biology that I guess I grew up in love with and the reason why I found myself as a biologist as an adult.
But I hope that's a decent introduction I mean I didn't go through there's a couple other funny things that are in there but that's where I find myself right now and I find myself pushing back against right now.
The main thing that I've been looking at I guess is and what brought me to this from the very beginning is what you were kind of interested in is that I got in trouble at the University of Pittsburgh for using the word
Transfection.
One of the first things that I got in arguments about was the idea that Bill Gates was on PBS news and there were also cartoons in the New York Times about how these new vaccines were coming out and I was trying to tell everybody that I knew at work that you know we
would never expect our children.
We wouldn't expect our healthy grandma's like well you see that this is not a vaccine and lots and lots of people gave me pushback that was as simple as well they must have fixed it or they must not be using the same things we use.
But they were ignoring the fundamental principles of biology that are being not necessarily violated but are being encroached on when you transfect protein in an animal and we've known that academic biology has known that for 20 years because we have been
expanding animals to to perturb physiological systems to understand how they work.
It's a really fundamental tool that's been used on every academic biological bench for for more than a couple decades.
And so the idea that we were suddenly going to start calling these investigational vaccines was absurd.
And since then is when everything for me kind of beared off course because not only did the University of Pittsburgh and the more mainstream news sources not want you to talk about them as transfection but also a lot of people on the other side aren't willing to talk about them as transfection.
So that's if you want to talk about lipid nanoparticles that's where you should start. You should start with the idea that we have been using lipids and RNA to transfect on the lab bench for decades and we have been using electroporation
and we have been using adenoviruses and DNA to transform on the bench for decades and these two terms transfection and transformation were very common before 2020 and then suddenly there was this decision to stop using those words to describe the use of DNA and RNA respectively to change the protein expression in a cell in a culture in an animal or in a patient.
It's always been the same word.
Yeah, and so I definitely that it's so many questions I want to jump into right now the whole thing you laid out there's really interesting to me.
I want to take one quick step back but just comment on that.
You know the idea that that was such a central part of this entire manipulation that people other probably good intention people highly educated people made these choices to go well they must have a reason there must be some explanation.
And that's how a lot of these doctors and nurses are trained to think well you know they know better they're the academic elites and yet even if that's the truth they could still be wrong.
You know it's very weird that people fell into that trap and it kind of snowballed to where you had a lot of the industry.
And I'm speaking only to the people that might not know any better and the thought they were doing right there are people that truly manipulated but they fell into that trap or just kind of snowballed into their trusting the science which really was whatever the industry was saying and you know it's
fascinating you lay that out and the point about how crazy it is that you're in an academic setting which is supposed to be about research and you get you know except that one right there you can't research this topic so we're going to box you out.
It just it speaks to the reality I think behind academia today and how it's very manipulated which I mean if you have thoughts on them sure I do I think the thing to point out there is that my colleagues weren't so much saying that what I was saying was right or wrong.
It was that I'm a neurobiologist therefore it's not my place to say interesting.
So I've established myself with this expertise and so for me to go out of my lane and then to speak up as if you know I can know was already stepping out of the system that's not how this works you're not allowed to do that and that became very clear because that's also the
excuse that people use for saying well they must know it's not my expertise.
And rather than then demanding informed consent because you're an academic biologist and you know enough about biology to know that there better be a good explanation for this mechanism otherwise I don't believe it.
Instead they just completely abdicate that responsibility and that that's what I got in arguments about in the hallway in 2020 that nobody felt safe at some point apparently because all I did was yell at people.
But if you're telling me to read the New York Times for my immunology in the hallways of a top 10 medical school I'm sorry you lose a problem there for sure.
You trust the science here's what New York Times said.
Interesting but let's take a quick step back because like and I want to go into all of that around around the nano the lipid nanoparticle side of it the and I really want to get into like your what foundational aspects of these narratives you're now questioning
but I want to start with this clip that you just shared.
And I think this speaks to what we were just talking about and just kind of place this mindset because I've been I did a whole segment on this not too long ago.
You know about how interesting it is and how easy it is to manipulate like the society right people a mass of people because a lot of people were hurt animals ultimately and we follow along with cues and and people in power manipulate that so let's play this clip
and then we can comment on it and you just what you just recently shared.
All right on the left are actors they've been briefed to stand or sit when they hear this.
Everyone else that's brought in as a genuine shortlisted applicant they've been given no instructions other than to fill out their forms.
And I was secretly watching from another room.
The more socially compliant a person is the more they're likely to look to others for signs of how to behave.
This is going to be your spot.
And the more people the greater the pressure to join in in this case whether to stand or sit.
Those people that didn't follow the crowd.
It's interesting because I actually kind of blow it here.
And both Ryan and I miss it I don't hear this very well.
Hello hello hello welcome to the show hello that's better no that's still not very good hello why is that so low.
Wow that's weird that's low levels right sounded bad hello welcome hello louder.
I don't know why it's suddenly like that what's happening here.
Something strange I don't know why that is I'm going to have to turn everything else down I don't know why that's so loud.
We don't mention that in this video they kind of gloss over the fact that they eliminate all the people that don't follow along if they don't stand up.
And at the bell and sit down at the bell they're taken out and so because the other people can see those people being taken out when they're not standing and sitting.
It's more likely that you're going to assemble a group of people that stand and sit at the bell and that's not totally well explained here.
And so often a lot of people on the Internet were debunking this as you know like this doesn't really work but it actually does work if you realize that they are removing the people that don't conform until they have 10 people that are conforming.
We're removed.
I think you have to lose Amy sadly.
Once we had a full house we got rid of the actors.
I wonder if I have to do that.
Leaving us with a room full of compliant people standing up and sitting down even though nobody told them to do this.
That's just it's just wild.
It's very wild because a couple of things that people object to that because they say that it's not exactly the ash conformity experiment and if you try it it doesn't always work but this is this video I think was done in such a way that the people that are being duped are really interested in whatever job or part or auditioning whatever they're auditioning for.
So there's an extra motivation that has been placed there beyond just a random experiment with your friends.
The other thing to see is that not to apply this to everything this this happened with masking for example and it happened with lockdowns and and kind of the idea is more.
I just like to drop in here really quick to say that I have a subscriber and a supporter named Ted who helped put together the soapbox that we talked to each other on and Ted is in Melbourne Australia where they locked down.
Like where you could only go outside for an hour a day for a total of 265 days.
They were not allowed to like cross borders without vaccine passports and so if you didn't take the shot you had to work from home from nearly a year.
And it was like you know breaks in between the lockdown portions where the lockdown was on the lockdown was off.
And so these people were jerked around by a very nasty chain.
And so the other thing that we need to start focusing on and figuring into our equation is that not everyone in the world experienced the same sequence of events, not everyone in the world experienced the same sequence of events.
And what was most traumatic for some was not traumatic for anyone in those other places at different times was traumatic when other places it wasn't.
And that was done on purpose because each system each culture permitted a certain level of of a choke chain.
And whatever choke chain could be used in those different those different cultural systems was used.
And so it's really important to keep in focus here how we could get into arguments about people about what happened with people from other parts of the world and actually both be right.
Because in their part of the world something very different happened and they were also given a very different kind of illusion of consensus from their perspective on social media and their own mainstream media.
So it's very possible that somebody who experienced the lockdown and COVID from the perspective of inside Australia could have a very different interpretation of what happened in 2020 than somebody who was locked down quote unquote in America, or someone who was locked down in the Netherlands.
Because they're all looking at different reiterations of this media circus.
And the media circus that was done in Dutch on Dutch TV was very different than that was done in check Canada and that was that was done in the red and blue states of America that was done in New Zealand and Australia we have to understand this if we're going to start to come together as a globe
and start to process this experience because the temptation is to say that what happened in one place happened in another but that's definitely not what happened.
And in fact the more that they can use that disparity between experiences against us the better for them.
To think about what would happen if all of the people on television and all of the people that you saw or say the majority of the people that you saw on social media agreed about anything what would happen.
That's what this video should illustrate you don't want to take it too literally but just understand that so many of us can be very, very easily influenced if there were just a few people that were working against us.
And that's an example that I'm sure you've seen is this werewolf game where there's a couple people that can conspire.
And if there are people conspiring against you it is very difficult to figure it out simply because if they lie in coordination.
We have no way of finding the deception and there is very, very good reason to believe that governments have been governing us this way for quite some time.
And the question is to what how far does this really extend I think most people are willing to believe that it extends to marital affairs and this kind of thing but they're not willing to believe that it extends to mythologies about the biosecurity state but it might very well.
I agree and I actually think the first point you made is this makes it even more valid right in regard to the overlap to what we're talking about with COVID-19 is that people were pressured and you know your jobs were being threatened your families are being threatened so there's
a thousand more reasons that they're more willing or want to comply so they don't have these bent these negative negative aspects.
But what I just find so fascinating about it is you know that there are people that are so they're so insecure about where they're standing you know that they will simply like I think that first guy with the video can see he's acknowledging that it's strange.
But instead of just going which my mind said I'd first do I'd be like why are you doing that.
Like I'd be like why are you guys standing up and down let me understand it first but instead they just meekly kind of go along or the woman who just isn't even paying attention and it shows you that she's not even concerned with what they have to do or say.
I think that what we're seeing is that people in power understand that and so if there's two things that it's about trying to socially engineer people to care about what their neighbor thinks about them but also to you know in kind of put this kind of stuff out in the world
in a regular basis to try to coerce you whether or not you are you know care about your neighbor's thoughts but either way I think that's such an important thought about what I think.
The other thing that I can say that we should really add to that is that the in the real application of that to the world and how it's how the world is governed you also need to have have people that don't stand up and complain are actually also
being in on it so that so that both of the groups that doubt the standing and sitting from the bell and the those that conform have to both be in on it because that's what we really have going on here with regard to the red and blue in America.
It's not two different perspectives on how to run America it's two different perspectives on how not to do it and they collaborate somehow to fracture us on that and get us to argue about those things and so
it is it is at the heart of this that there is this illusion that everybody agrees on that the worst case scenario is that they make another gain a function virus it could be a billion people dead.
And this worst case scenario is agreed upon in secret meetings it's agreed upon in Congress it's agreed upon in mass media.
It's agreed upon in social media and it's agreed upon by the left and the right by the lab leakers and by the natural zoonotic people no one doubts the fact that worst case scenario is a gain a function virus that spreads around the world and kills billions
and that mythology is what they want us to teach our children and that's there's no biology to support them.
That's where I am right now.
So let's actually start with that before we begin to the platform I just wanted to include as well I'll include a great a great post from James Corbett from 2018.
And it's really about.
But he goes into the Milgram experiment and really the powerful what you need to understand about this and make sure you watch this and read it but realizing that if you know I'm speaking to the audience at large but you as well if you haven't seen it.
Overall that basically if one person stands up and goes why are we doing this.
Why do you have a right to tell me what to do or sit down or stand up.
What it does is it opens the mind of the other people to go oh I mean I didn't even realize we were allowed to push back.
You know so it starts that momentum and I think that's its old point is that you know be the one that stands up show people there's another choice there it's you know an interesting conversation.
But to that point you made.
So gain a function you pointed out more than once I want to hear your your thought about that in regard to what the point you just made why that's not backed up by the biology of the virology.
But on top of that what other aspects of kind of the foundational points are you now feeling are.
Or not backed up by data.
I think the first and most important thing to point out which I think you're already aware of is that if you want to believe that there's a new cause of death on earth cause.
Called SARS-CoV-2. There's really no evidence for it in all cause mortality around the world there are people who have looked at it and haven't really found a correlation with with spread.
There are localized events which last between three and four weeks and then they just stop and they don't spread cross borders or move across states or anything like that.
And that's most important for people to realize because early on in the pandemic we weren't given the information that we should have had because deaths weren't recorded on the right day or weren't reported correctly or.
COVID at non COVID deaths were all twisted around if we were being confused by PCR and no PCR do we have tests or not are these designated.
It was all done on purpose to create this illusion that the worst case scenario might actually happen and we just don't know.
And so that that uncertainty was extended for as long as possible and so if if anything one of the main operations that they they are doing now is to try and get us to forget all about 2020 when all of this was really happening and we were being fooled.
And I mean this very sincerely we were being fooled into believing that what happened between Rand Paul and Tony Fauci for example was real right that was actually a theater to get us all thinking wow there's a cover up happening.
I think this is a mystery that I need to solve and it might be a natural virus but it might be a lab.
And I actually was motivated more by that that I was by my understanding of natural immunity in the very very beginning because that that that possibility was put in front of me very early and I bid it.
And so for a long time not only was I telling everybody no natural immunity is more important and it's not a novel virus because we've seen coronavirus before.
But it is a lab leak.
And so I was saying it and and so in a lot of ways for anybody that that thought lab leak was crazy in 2020 then I was doubly nuts right I was I was I was even more nuts.
And so from the faculty's perspective in 2020 I was a guy who was saying was a lab leak when it wasn't okay to say it was a lab leak.
And that also is something that took me a long time to realize and here's where I realized it my friend working with Robert F. Kennedy junior on his book at some point he asked me flat out in an email.
He explained to me what infectious clones are and I had thought about it I'd read about them but I'd never I'd never bothered to try and teach them to anybody and so he asked me to do it so I had to really dig in.
The very short story is Ryan is that infectious clones are the way that RNA virology is done.
Essentially up until the use of infectious clones RNA virology was done with shadows and hints of RNA sequences that they could find evidence of and very occasionally might replicate for a short period of time.
In a cell culture but we're almost intractable and had to be described with indirect means like smears on a gel or or or psychopathic effects because not much else could be done with them.
In the late 80s it became possible to make DNA clones of this RNA and then use an RNA polymerase to just read the DNA into RNA and they found out that that RNA would essentially reproduce a lot of the basic experiments that they were only able to do sometimes when they got
RNA viruses in the past it could cause psychopathic effects and it could show the presence of this RNA in a culture.
It could make an animal have an immune response that included antibodies and so with the use of reverse genetics and infectious clones they are able to make RNAs that they can't otherwise recover from nature.
And they can't otherwise create infectious material from nature except in this synthetic means.
Now the reason why this is important is because up until the pandemic the potential for a coronavirus to do what they've now told us this one has done, which is starting from a point somewhere in China.
It has gone from being, let's give them a big number, a few billion molecules in a puddle to being countless molecules in every state and local district in the world.
Most lungs in the world supposedly have seen this novel virus which started out in Wuhan and went from that point around the world several times over the last four and a half years and that is.
There is no biology to support that the best story they have is from 2002 where 8,000 people were infected and 700 died and they were able to sequence it say I don't know 50 times.
Now they're telling us that they were able to sequence this one over 15 million times and they're still tracking it with high fidelity as it moves through its evolutionary path into the future and this is absurd.
There's no precedence.
Well, so what I think is interesting first is the idea of what I want to probe more on what you think is the actual reality but in regard to the clones themselves so if I'm understanding this correctly you're saying this this speaks to the idea about isolation as well right so what
they're the only thing they can do is making a rep like a clone that then is active they then use to argue this is what it's causing but it's not actually provable from its origin is that what is that I understand that correctly.
Yes, absolutely so even even in this in the sense of the original experiment that lots of people before me were able to see was was something was wrong with it where they isolated the virus or they found the virus in in Wuhan to to say that you're
finding a single sequence is already disingenuous you have to call it a consensus sequence and virology themselves admits that the consensus sequence may not actually exist as a molecule but is a kind of signal average of whatever RNA signal they
report to be in there but even worse it is a signal that they are sort of forcing into the form of a coronavirus by the very by the very primers that they use or by the very databases that they search through I can kind of give you an analogy if you want.
If you if you took a whole library and without fire but just with physical means blew it up into a million pieces and then went in there and searched for words to assemble into a book about yoga.
There could convince somebody that there was a book about yoga in that library with they're having only been books about ancient Christianity in that library.
That's it wouldn't be very difficult and so without much precedence we are taking the word of a very few people that this technology has the fidelity to find something new.
It was never there before even though they have no evidence for what was there before they just tell you nothing.
That actually speaks to even like the PCR concept right where the ideas you could find whatever you're looking for because you know like the idea like just picturing all the different letters that have been exploded for all these books and you can literally make whatever you want from that.
That's I think that will help explain that a lot for people that have never heard this before like how that can be done and even in a way that some other people without realizing might take that at face value even not even knowing they're being manipulated right there's a whole different layer that
I want to make that very clear because it is important to understand that if you wanted to take that physically disrupted library and prove that there was a yoga book there there would be genuine ways to do it.
And there would be tests that people could design you could imagine okay if we find a cover that says guide to yoga that's a good hint.
If we find a whole intact chapter that we can see is all illustrations of yoga positions well maybe that's a good sign.
But if you wanted to be disingenuous you could be easily disingenuous and say that well this assembly of sentences indicates well it says right here you know and this is a good indication it's a yoga book.
Now imagine the other hand where it's even worse because imagine I want to say that Bobby's book was in that library well that's pretty easy I'll go like this.
It's not a very good analogy I don't anywhere where we find the sentence the CIA created the office of secret intelligence.
Then that is an indication that this book was in the library now there only has to be one book in that library that has those words and we could make the argument that this book was in the library when it wasn't right right and so that's also part of this.
I don't think that's a good analogy I should have said something like I should have found the acknowledgments page and said that look this book's got an acknowledgments page in it.
So we'll use that as an indication of that this book was in the library and that's pretty disingenuous because lots of books have an acknowledgement page so that would have been a better analogy I kind of blew that one but I'm just shooting from the
that we have been strong armed into taking the word of the biosecurity state around the globe that the fidelity of this story is true.
And I after three years or more of working on this as an armchair biologist I just I find myself wanting to hand over to people like Stefan Lanka and
and Raznik and these other people who were doubting the fidelity of RNA virology already in the 90s.
And I was just lost in my own little niche of biology and just wasn't paying attention.
And I think a lot of us are very guilty of that that's why all my kids are vaccinated and I didn't see the movie vaxxed until 2022.
Because I was under a rock, you know, and I seen that movie in 2016 I would I probably wouldn't have made it as far as I did in academia because somehow or another I wouldn't have conducted myself in that way.
And so all of this has happened for whatever reason and here we are.
But I do think that there is a way out because they've overextended themselves on this now and there's a chance, you know, but they've really gotten our kids man.
I don't know what to say. I really think that the scary part is we're teaching this to our children by they got us.
One of the things that I talk about a lot of times with regard to we went back to this original video that you showed with masks.
One of the things that that did too was it showed kids that their parents don't get it.
So almost it, it put kids and parents on the same footing of you have to surrender and you don't know and there's no good explanation but you just got to do it because everybody else is doing it.
And so our kids either saw that or they heard their parents in the car saying this is stupid and we're going to do it and whatever but you know, I really.
Wow, I really think we need to focus very, very, very tightly on the young, like the college age kids that we abandoned in 2020 and didn't fight for them. I mean, more parents.
More parents should have probably told their kids to take the year off.
And more and and obviously the the financial decision to do that is is extraordinary but I didn't have as much gusto about that in 2020 as I should have I knew it.
But also people were saying if we open Richard Ebright, he tweeted in in in I believe it was like September of 2020.
If we open universities or maybe it's August, if we open universities were going to kill 250,000, which is just crazy.
It was 2020 was a time where, you know, I mean, even those of us that were historically skeptical of government narratives, you know, there were still a moment in there where everyone's like, well, who knows, you know, we've been working scenario, man.
I say that's so important because that's what put us all on our back.
Well, let's speak or whatever.
Yeah, yeah, but let's speak to that so what you're saying is ultimately that the original presentation is is is false and I think I think almost everybody don't come to the Fauci sell article about that explicitly.
Everyone sees that now, even though, weirdly, it's still sleep, sleep, walking forward, or not even sleep or rushing forward.
But so what do you think what's the reality then?
So what do you believe is the reality behind that?
What was actually happening?
Like even to the point to whether, you know, is there actually a SARS-CoV-2, that kind of concept?
So I want to be very careful here.
I'm trying to develop this response because it is important and I haven't had the right response lately and I think I'm going to try out one on you here.
I actually am adapting a response that is actually my good friend Michael Yeadon's response, which is that if we treat this as a crime scene, I don't think it's our responsibility to have an explanation.
And oftentimes the way that people will argue with me is to try and get me to commit to a particular explanation.
So let me just answer it in a different way.
I think we should have make sure that we consider a different set of possibilities.
The first one is, is the idea that whatever we are testing for existed before 2001.
And if that's the case, then simply turning on testing and depending on whether it's high fidelity or low fidelity testing.
Remember in the United States, there were more than 250 different EUA products for testing for the presence of this virus and all of them are gone now.
The ones that are on the market are different ones.
The ones that were introduced in 21 or 22.
So the whole narrative is built on a foundation of measurement that it's gone now.
We don't have any way of verifying whether these products were working or not.
And all of this is just taken for granted.
So the imagine, for example, it's not a, it's not a great analogy.
But if we were unaware that anybody had automobiles in their garage and then somebody suddenly told you that Toyota's were spreading everywhere and you could test for them by going in your garage and looking and see if you've got this.
There would be a spreading of Toyota's that would actually just be the measuring of Toyota's that around and then if they told you that it turned to Kia's and now you can test by looking for Kia's.
Now the spread is looking like evolution, but still it's just the same cars that were there all the time.
And biology, yeah, virology actually occupies this space where none of us can verify.
So we are always taking their word for it with with their tools to believe their mythology and I'm, I'm afraid that the trick is and here's as an academic biologist, I'm speaking to other academic biologists through you now.
I think that it's important for us to understand, just like with the, the analogy of the broken up library, there would be a legitimate way to look and see if there were yoga books in the library and find out and come to an answer, yes or no, or, or probably yes.
But with PCR in academia, when we do PCR, we do positive controls in triplet, we do negative controls in triplet and then our actual target is amplified by PCR with nested primers that we designed to be as specific as possible.
And PCR tests for coronavirus are done to be as wide ranging and a specific as possible by focusing on the genes that they most often find and the parts that are most conserved among them.
And so this already from the perspective of an academic biologist, they think, oh, they're using PCR so it must work because what I use it, it's a, it's a samurai sword and it, and it cuts right to the truth.
But actuality, the application of PCR depends on the application of it and, and academic biologists again because it's not their field or because it's a different field.
So they're going to stick their neck out and say, well, you know, PCR can be misused. Yes. And go ahead.
Oh, go ahead.
I'm just going to add the point about the cycle threshold, which my audience is well aware of and how that was abused on both sides of this to make it look.
And very deliberately, you know, I think it was 35 to 40 on the original testing and then went down to 28, it was post vaccination, which manipulated it.
There was even a point at which I think it might have been, I forget which variant they claim this was, but there was a point when they argued the testing was like the gene dropout was suddenly the indicative of how this is the new variant and all that really applied was.
And that was something tested before that was being seen as a negative.
So essentially ended up calling negative a new variant, you know, and it's like there's so many variations to how this was manipulated.
But that's a wonderful. This is the main, maybe the best example that's really tractable to everybody is if you realize that Omicron after it was declared found in these eight people that were in South Africa and then went to Belgium or something like that.
They sequenced it and they said it was found.
They started as a, as you said, they started allowing the previous PCR tests to be used, right, and they said that if the spike gene doesn't show up, this can be called spike gene target failure and it can be indicative of.
Omicron, but what that essentially means is is that from a certain date.
What was negative became positive, which means that from a certain date.
There was always that positivity, right, those who were all on the crime was always there.
But because we take their word for it.
It looks like on the crime is a variant that evolved from the previous one, but it was always there if he's just realized the logic.
Very fascinating. And that's the car analogy, right, the idea that it was already there. It wasn't, you know, it was, you know, whatever.
Well, I'm not actually at that point in general then. So are we arguing in that circumstance that the Omicron was a virus that was around that was mild, essentially, and that it was only just pointed to, or rather.
I think that's already trying again to explain too much because all we need to do is explain that a story was told about a virus.
Right.
That don't have that fidelity. And, and I think, again, I don't want to say that I know for sure that this is a signal that was in the background because there's lots of evidence from, from fungal and bacterial work that that.
If you, if you, I'm going to make a very general statement, if you had a certain amount of bacteria in your soil, and it was a certain, you know, ecosystem of that bacteria and you wanted to change it.
You wouldn't be able to just throw a little bacteria, a new bacterium in the corner and then expect that new bacterium to work its way into the into the ecosystem. You need to put the new bacterium in several, maybe all year round until finally you, you charged it up enough for that to happen.
If you think of whatever this combination of RNAs in the background is, if it's, if it's rhinoviruses and, and noroviruses and coronaviruses and whatever other things might be there.
If you wanted something to start at a point and then to, to sort of take up space inside of this all the way around the earth, all through all these people and all these cultures and all these communities.
It wouldn't be possible to do that from a single edition, even if you tell stories about who this one had if you're in cleavage site or this one has GP 120 inserts in it.
There is no biology to support the idea, even if you did have this spike protein with all these added, you know, little pieces to it, those pieces can't change the fidelity of copying RNA.
They can't change the spreadability of self replicating RNA. No matter what cartoons you draw, there's no explanation for how an RNA could jump from immune system to immune system millions of times and not run into a dead end, like any
other ever did in a few thousand, like the best scenario again is SARS. And that one, they tracked as best they could from a point.
And then it went away. And now we did it really go away or did it just go into the cloud that makes everybody sick every year and we stop testing for it.
And, and again, this is just another one of these things where if you just accept their cartoon, then SARS disappeared and everything was clean until mayors came around and then things got dirty again for a little while.
And now we let this really bad one out and everything's still there.
I mean, it just, it's a, it's almost a comical cartoon.
Yeah, in a very, yeah, you know, in a macabre sort of way, definitely. Right. I think that what's interesting there. And I really appreciate what you're like, I understand the, the way that you're discussing this because I, you know, right now, anyone trying to kind of honestly engage with the conversation
in all of it, but specifically even the overlap of, you know, horology and terrain theory and the kind of that I are, my opinion, I've said this from the beginning is that there's still something being fleshed out.
I don't feel, I don't feel personally that it want it. I think there's still questions to be answered in all of these sides of these conversations.
And so that gets, you want a negative attention from people who have been maybe the right to have decided that it's one or the other.
And I think that it's a fair statement to say that, you know, ultimately, to what you're kind of pointing out there is that to get to the crux of the crime, it's not even necessary to highlight that ultimately.
And I think David Martin made a great point in that saying, you know, look, like, he's not even, he doesn't even want to get into whether he thinks Vivers is a real or not, or because what he's trying to say is the argument is we're trying to expose the narrative from within their narrative
like you're showing they're arguing this is real. And here's how we can prove this isn't X, Y, and Z. Like my point is simply to highlight that, you know, it's an important conversation that should be had, but it doesn't have to be the shoehorned into every conversation within
what they're talking about because we can prove that there's manipulations whether or not that is believed or not. I hope that makes sense to people listening. I think it's important just to see how, you know, that conversation can be kind of a stop in the development of any new conversation
because people get stuck on that one point. And yes, it should be discussed, but I, so I understand we are coming from there. I think that's important.
So let's, let's talk about the conversation of the platform itself. Like going into the, not, not the hypothetical COVID-19 conversation, but the actual injection that was given, and I argue which is pretty much the crux of all of the problem.
And that's whether you think this was never there to begin with or was and was benign either way you look at it. I personally believe the injection is, you know, the only thing really hurting people at the end of the day.
And so this, this is a tweet that you shared, and I really want to go off your statement, but there is a national citizens inquiry post simply saying, could the present to 40 trillion M. R. N. A molecules in each code vaccine be altering the body's recognition of its own organs and, you know, going on, you're talking about the fallout from what you're doing
and you simply said, Oh, but Trump just rushed it, or they chose the wrong protein, or that impure, or those little nanoparticles, but transfection as medicine is obviously great.
The point you're making is it's really not, you know, the individual pieces which are, I argue also individually dangerous, but that it's actual that the makeup and the platform and the process. So is that what I'm getting from your statement?
Yes, yes, it's definitely what I'm trying to argue. And I think the, the sort of debate is going to be again to try and suggest that because of rushing it, or because of mistakes that were made, or because the Department of Defense doesn't know what
they're doing, or because Pfizer lied, or whatever it is, they didn't, they changed processes, or whatever, that this ended up hurting a lot of people. And what that does is that it, it overlooks the fact that transfection in its best form and its finest form was still inappropriate for healthy humans.
And we knew that already for a long time.
I think one of the things that might line this up, you're probably already aware of this. There's a boy by the name of Jesse Gelsinger, who was given a dentavirus gene therapy in, I believe, the late 90s.
And he was missing an enzyme. And so they thought, okay, we're going to use an adenavirus and we're going to replace the enzyme and then, and then he'll be fine. And if without the enzyme, he needed to do a very special diet, it was very terrible.
And so what they did was they transfected his liver to the enzyme, they had transfected that enzyme into his liver that was missing. Now what we, what basic biologists would know, but maybe they didn't understand is that if that protein wasn't present in,
in Jesse's body during development, then the T cells were not selected against it. And so he would have potentially T cells, which are aimed at epitopes that are found in that enzyme potentially, because that enzyme wasn't screened out as a self enzyme during the T cell selection when it was growing up.
That's a hard thing to explain if you don't get it now. But the point is that you develop your T cells are selected not to recognize you on purpose and that process goes throughout life, but especially during your young ages.
So if that gene's not present, that means that what you have T cells that could potentially recognize it.
They transfected him. And three weeks later, his, his auto immunity to his liver collapsed his liver and he died.
And that was a denovirus that was an adenovirus transformation. Now, they roll out a denovirus in the form of J&J and AstraZeneca, and then in a few months they pulled it under the pretense that well hey we're being really careful but RNA is much better RNA and a lipid nanoparticle does basically the same thing.
It's transfecting cells in your body to express this foreign, foreign protein. And the best case scenario there is that your body is challenged in every tissue that expresses the protein to clean up the protein without making the wrong immune response to itself.
The reason why this is dangerous is because the transfection is not going to stay in your muscle. We know that actually from the lipid nanoparticles actual designer. His name is Peter Cullis.
He is a molecular biologist and chemist from Canada.
Robert Malone himself actually argued that Peter should have shared in the Nobel Prize because of his seminal role in the development of the lipid nanoparticle technology over the last couple decades.
And in a lecture in 2022 when he is answering a question from the audience he just admits that he destroyed the lives of five postdocs as they tried to target lipid nanoparticles to a particular organ or organs.
And none of them were able to do it. And the fifth one demanded that she put on another project or she was going to quit.
And then he laughed that it might be 40 more years before we can target these things to a particular place in the body.
So that was a bald face lie that anybody would say and continues to say that the vast majority of them stay in your arm or that they don't go anywhere else they go everywhere.
And we've known this from very early on. That's the advantage of lipid nanoparticles.
And in fact they were originally marketed in the 90s as as liver targeting because that's where a lot of them end up but that's just by happenstance.
It's like if you said that I don't know anyway it doesn't matter I need an analogy for that.
It was really it's really disingenuous that they have portrayed this as something that they understand how it works.
They knew exactly how it didn't work. And they told us otherwise.
And the Pfizer's own documentation from the trial show that the lipid nanoparticle concentrations went like he pointed out all over the body.
And yet still somehow tried to argue for and still to this day some people still try to argue that it somehow stayed in your shoulder muscle which is completely ridiculous.
And remember for those that are listening that the lipid nanoparticles carry the instructions in regard to MRNA to create the spike protein so by logically you could argue as well that the spike protein would end up.
But we know that by I think the Salk Institute other studies showed that there was spike protein throughout the body.
But yeah so so ultimately.
The lipid nanoparticles what you asked about before I'm just in case if I forget it I want to say this now.
It has to be responsible for something I just I can't for me as an armchair biologist is hard for me to quantify what percentage or what you know what what fraction of of the damage would be done by the lipid nanoparticle but just understanding that number one the lipid nanoparticles are
prepared in such a way so that they have the chemical appearance of being inert.
Imagine for example a shotgun that if there's no shell in it and the chamber is broken and it's a pretty you know it's a relatively you can give it to your daughter she could carry it around over her shoulder would be fine.
But the moment you put a shell in and close it now you have some problem here this is a live thing.
And the the lipid nanoparticles are basically like this the cationic lipids that are present in there are are basically treated in such a way so that they're the extreme positive charge is neutralized in a in a temporary fashion.
And so that once they enter your cells and they are processed in an endosome and reach a different pH they resort they revert back to their original shape, which is a extremely cationic lipid which instead of being like this that can go into a ball they spread out like this.
Once they do that they release the RNA and then we're supposed to just think okay well they're just lipids so they go away, but they are lipids with an extreme.
They're they're they're so ionic that they can tear electrons away from other molecules and essentially create lots of reactive oxygen species.
And damage mitochondria and damage cellular machinery in ways that we can't really fully understand because these things have never been applied in humans before we don't know what they do.
But we do know that they they are they are I don't like the word lying but I don't know another word in the English language for what it is when you say something that isn't true they are telling us that chemically they are inert and they are
in the RNA to us but what they're not telling us is is that after the RNAs delivered they go from being chemically inert to be an extremely cationic indigenous.
So frustrating you know that so many you know this is the kind of stuff that would be.
I mean within the first year would have been fleshed out if there was an honest investigation and research on this but we're this far forward as you said in the beginning how are we here you know where this is.
It's just mind blowing to me but really quickly back to the first point about the adenovirus.
You know the the there's why we're here because even people like Peter colas believed that the worst case scenario was avoided partly because we decided to use lipid nanoparticles and transfect.
They actually still have in their general equation that there was a worst case scenario and we avoided it because of lockdowns masks and we we we transfected a billion people they believe this.
Yeah and and each everything you stated there as far as I'm concerned I don't think in my opinion I think it's provable is scientifically proven to not be the case I mean I think there's fear of you science all over the place that shows every one of those things
have been detrimental.
But so the point about the J&J vaccine is so are you discussing right there about the antibody dependent enhancement pathogenic priming that kind of concept where the self attack or was it something different scientifically like so I'm still stuck where.
At the very basics where a secret body was, which is that a foreign protein is expressed on the outside of a cell.
And the first time that happens the best case scenario is the the immune system will come along it will lice that cell destroy that cell and take it apart and present that protein to the immune system and you will make antibodies to that protein
that's the anti cell memory to that protein but the next time you get transfected and that protein is expressed there will be antibodies that stick to it.
And when antibodies stick to it then you can get compliment then you can get neutrophils then you can get the a specific response that can cause massive damage and also not necessarily more likely to to cause auto immunity but it won't matter at that point
because the it's the it's the antibodies and the cellular memory to the spike protein that's bringing in the it's not even the innate immune system it's the compliment system that will do it.
And the compliment system is just a series of it's a set of molecules that is involved in clotting but it's also involved in attacking bacteria and viruses anything that's in your body that's not supposed to be there because they are like little time bombs that self assemble
so they are proteins that float around in your blood and they they dock with membranes and if they dock with membranes and don't meet proteins that neutralize them.
Then they can self assemble and destroy whatever they're attached to so one of the the biggest dangers of for any virus that's in circulation is the compliment system because they don't have the necessary proteins to neutralize it so if a compliment
molecule starts to build on a virus it will very soon be degraded.
The compliment system is also really important for bacteria because again it it it essentially makes penetrate holes in bacteria and causes them to lice.
Just because the bacteria don't have the necessary proteins and some of the most dangerous bacteria nature actually do have proteins which mimic the neutralizing of.
So that's an interesting point in general I always point out in regard to that larger conversation is you know if there are proteins that you know like my point being is that those bacteria that can spread and get sick and cause symptoms and there's proteins
that you know it's end up it kind of ends up being a you know you call it what you want you know it's really people dismiss things under a certain name but you can see it applying and in all these categories.
So yeah so that's I mean I think that that's so interesting to see how it's you know I just don't see how that's happening.
At by accident right I think this this goes into the point about Fauci's recent article and I want to get into the point you just said they're about self assembling in regard to both natural and I think in ways that are not natural or organic.
And I just want to make this because we're talking about the platform itself at this point right and he wrote in his article entitled rethinking next generation vaccines for coronavirus is posted on cell.com.
Here's what he said at the end for people that don't know this despite the fact that this entire thing is still moving forward.
I'm sure you've seen this durably protected vaccines against non systemic mucosal respiratory viruses with high mortality rates have thus far in looted vaccine development efforts.
Challenges to developing next generation respiratory vaccines are many in complex.
We must better understand why multiple sequential mucosal infections with the same circulating respiratory viruses spread over out over decades of life.
We must protect the community, especially with viruses that lack significant engine and drift.
If we also if we are to rationally develop vaccines that prevent them.
And it says past unsuccessful attempts to elicit solid protection against mucosal respiratory viruses into control the deadly outbreaks and pandemics they caused have been a scientific and public health failure that must be urgently addressed and I'm glad you brought up Dr.
Lee.
I'll play a clip from him at the very end of the show today.
He is one of the few who spoke up right in the beginning and it's like right in the beginning and said these will fail they'll stay in your arm you coastal immunity brought up all this stuff.
And he's spot on and even pouch you can write an article but basically explaining why this didn't work.
And as far as I can tell you tell me if I'm wrong, they're moving forward with the exact same dynamic with no variations other than different changes like we'll get into like the different modified RNA concepts but it's the same platform as far as I can tell.
So I just find that crazy.
It might, you know, tell me what I'm if I'm misreading that.
Oh, you're not misreading that at all actually.
It's a, it's been part of a long kind of existing transition that they knew was going to come.
I think it goes back to something that a lot of people say in, in, you know, kind of passing that mice, what is it mice lie monkeys deceive and the only true only thing you learned the truth from as humans.
And at some moment we are not going to make any progress with this sort of pushing the our understanding of our own biology.
And for the last 20 years since the since the human genome project.
And it's been a concerted effort for them to convince us that that we are on the cusp of being able to rewrite our genetic code and that we have so much just it's just over the horizon or it's just over the next hill that all of these big, big problems are going to be solved
The main issues that was standing in the way of this was the simply collecting enough data having enough genomes having enough medical data and to be able to freely analyze it. And so the early human genome project pioneers learned this very, very quickly that they would have no chance of cracking
Without having every genome that they could possibly get their hands on to compare to one another because that's all they can really do. And that's all they've ever really been able to do is use machine learning and massive amounts of data to try and find patterns
And that is an issue for all of biology right now, at least in the public health space that we are being misled, you know, the statins idea how much how much consensus over there over them was there for 20 years and how was that generated
And there was barely any money behind that and there was no global governance initiative behind that there was no and what's behind this is much bigger
Yeah, and for those that don't know the statin point is just that these were roundly praised and used and you know the science even at the time show that they weren't even successful in the way they framed it as but it still was used
And it's kind of speaks to the original point we made is that what people just follow along some know another another very good story that a lot of people aren't aware of is I believe he was a Greek doctor but doctor in Greece I'm just going to tell the story and I apologize to him. He's gone now figured out that ulcers were bacterial
And it took nearly 10 years for them to stop cutting ulcers out of people's stomachs
Instead of just giving antibiotics that could handle the acid of the of the stomach and get rid of them and that is that's pretty extraordinary if you think about it that it took 10 years for ulcers that were bacterial to be to stop cutting it out like that that's extraordinary
But if we if we see infectious disease as something that could be possibly like this ulcer story that we have been misled about the prevalence of and the impending doom there of never mind the potential that can be generated in laboratories, then you can see how this is much better than terrorism for scaring people in the world
This is much better than terrorism for scaring people into governance. This is much more universal and it's much more amorphous and it makes a lot more products possible
We need IDs we need tests at all it all dovetails very well into a lot of the other things that I know you're well aware of that are on their list of wants
Yeah, yeah, well, I said you say that I just grabbed this article real quick Derek bros writer for key lab wrote an excellent article about this and I think it was 2020 and I don't know if you're familiar with parasite stress theory, but it was discussed in multiple studies. Oh, this link will be included with the show notes right on really what it basically
Goes over and there's these are government led studies that they there their overall finding was that if they don't the best thing that will drive people to essentially accept authoritarianism and can top down control over their lives removal of their rights. All these things were discussed is
The threat of a pair of a pathogen bacteria virus, whatever, and the point being they make it explicit. It doesn't even need to be real. The threat alone will drive people to tell on their neighbors to give up their rights.
I mean, they've studied this more than once. And so the we have to realize that there's a reason they're thinking like this, you know, and I think that's what the point you just laid out is very important in that regard.
So, so bringing this to the do you have a comment on that you want to say anything? No, no, I'm just I'm really happy. I'm really excited. This is a really great conversation.
I agree, man. I agree. I'm really glad to have you on. And I think this is this is now the point where I was my audience knows I've been really harping on this and I'm really, you know, and again, this is this this is limited knowledge for me.
I'm not a scientist. I'm a doctor. You know, these are things that I'm learning on the fly since the beginning of this. And I see a lot of things connecting that I hope you can connect even further.
So, I think this is a good nanoparticle modified gene, COVID injection is a nuclear bomb was the way I titled this in 2022. And this is about just again kind of a point about the platform.
But the part about the using the lipid nanoparticle gene delivery kind of system, which is essentially the same point, but I want to get into the show where I talk about the self assembling lipid nanoparticle point.
Now the reason this came up for me is because of something Bill Gates recently said I'll play this clip for you and you can tell me whether this is valid if there's truth to this.
And the point is that self assembling nanoparticles are very real or self assembly, which you recently mentioned, very real concepts. My worry, my question is about whether or not it is something that could already be.
I'm about to nail something here. I'm about to really nail something. I'm so excited is really easy and really cheap. And that's the magic of this thing.
There's no doubt in the next five years, we can, you know, we just need to mess around. There's a lot of lipid nanoparticles, and some are very self assembling there's no inherent reason it's not thermal stable it's not cheap.
And it's not scalable. And so, so the rest of me goes on to basically talk about, you know, why it's useful and so on, but the main point for me is, first of all, we just got to mess around like that's lovely right.
But that he mentioned self assembling lipid nanoparticles specifically so what are your thoughts on that.
I'm my gut feeling now remember I'm not a chemist so a lot of this is my gut feeling from my reading my gut feeling is he's actually using the wrong words there.
And nanoparticles are often assembled with the RNA using microfluidics that get certain kinds of fluid flow to occur it's often a spin.
That's required in order to assemble them into the light the right size droplets but then they do do it spontaneously when you create the right the right conditions or you create the right flow patterns.
Now, whether this is really self assembly or not I think when he's talking about messing around what he's talking about is the billions of dollars of IP that are involved in designing those microfluidics and producing them and then patenting those
ideas and selling them around that this is all just exploded in the last three years that didn't exist at all before because all of these previous platforms were basically biologics where you make a protein in a big bio reactor and then you purify it and that's that's your, that's your small molecule or that's your therapeutic that's your monoclonal antibody.
Now when we're making nucleic acids the whole concept of of what a pure product is is redefined because with this one you couldn't have zero when you're making a monoclonal antibody in a bio reactor and you're trying to pass inspection you can have zero none zero DNA or RNA present if it doesn't have as any it's gone they have to burn the whole batch and that's why monoclonal antibodies are so expensive they have to use
an ion, an ion exchange chromatography in order to prove that there's no DNA either they use it to prove there's no DNA or RNA or they use it to remove it and then to prove that there's no RNA or DNA from the original bio process in the
anybody because otherwise you can't inject it so previous biologics are required to have none and now suddenly because of the pandemic we've decided to pivot to biologics that are based on it like based on DNA and RNA and this is this is a really much more extraordinary step and I think most people are aware of
yeah and then we get into the point where that's such an interesting point so they go out of their way to make sure there's zero overlap there but now we're not only basing the actual treatment on that but then we're finding DNA contamination and
extra proteins and all this stuff which we can get into which I quite frankly think there's more to that that's kind of where this leads in my mind but so assuming that he would so you think he was trying to say what self replicating what do you think you might
think that's also part of it I was going to get there too and you reminded me so I'm glad I also think it's part of it I think most of Bill Gates's stuff is especially bad in this way and that he's trying to misdirect your attention to something else.
The real interesting thing is is self amplifying RNA or RNA that copies itself and that's actually what they are preparing right now the the self assembly lip and nanoparticles are Peter call us like that that we already have and we've already had virus like
that self assemble in the shape of even extended like the like the Ebola virus those are originally patented by people like Cina Bavari from from us Amrit so
there's no question that there are various ways to package RNA and DNA synthetically that we're already very well aware of and and I think just the patents on virus like particles by Cina Bavari is already
I mean that's a huge red flag Cina Bavari is somebody we never talk about and Cina Bavari actually with a postdoc a former postdoc of Ralph Berwick Allison Totura published a paper in 2019 that said there would be a corona virus pandemic that would come out of China that would come from a bat cave and that would require an antiviral like Remdesivir to be effective.
That's a pretty whopping set of predictions to make in August of 2019.
Like I'm near mathematically impossible exactly that's the point about like a vent to a one and the rest of them were at the same point where near exactly what ultimately is laid out is what ultimately happens.
I think we get back to that though just to round it off that it is the self replicating RNA.
This is the newer platform which is essentially a synthetic RNA virus right because if it can replicate itself.
The idea of course is that it's going to replicate itself inside of you so that they don't have to put as much of itself in there.
But it still begs the question of how in the world is it possible that something as advanced as self replicating transfection could be already rolled out in humans.
I mean, how is it even possible you would you would need decades of work in animals under any other pretenses other than this this complete bamboozlement that somehow the pandemic has proven this whole platform to be safe.
So clearly you feel that that's just not the case like that's that that's the manipulation right do you think it's possible that that was.
It did happen but it was just an experiment and they didn't care how many people hurt to see how they could progress by using it on the population in that way.
I mean if there's I think if there's any water held by some of these stories about different batches it's most likely that.
Again, I don't want to say I know but there are lots of other researchers who claim that there were hot batches and placebo batches visible in Denmark.
And if you think about rolling out a new technology one of the best ways to make it appear safe would be to roll out placebo batches that would be cost you nothing.
It would hurt no one. And in fact you would be giving a blessing to the people who weren't accidentally selected for the hot one.
This seems like it's something that crossed my mind already back in 2020 that one of the easiest ways to do this would be to fool people with a lot of sailing.
Yeah, yeah, well and so this this is where my concern comes from and to be very clear I've said every time I talk about this it's hype it's a hypothetical conversation and it's it's based on provable concepts.
I worry to exactly what you highlighted right there like how many times we've already proven that we've been lied to.
Like I mean like knowingly lied to about the process about what's in it, you know so it's not hard for people to wrap their minds around that we might be lied to it other ways to.
And so that's where I get into this concept.
So Bill Gates saying that was just a way that kind of just brought me back into this about, you know, could these self-assembling nanoparticle technology could already be utilized in something that was given.
You know, the way that this was done in the world I I'm I'm leaning more and more towards it was a massive experiment for multiple multifaceted experiment in fact.
And so I'll include these links I've already gone over for 2021 self assembled mRNA vaccines.
And now in these concepts again kind of overlap with what you pointed out in like natural kind of concepts but you know also gets into the idea of actual nano technology.
I think that's where I want to get your thoughts on like two years of quantum dot conversation that came out early right about the quantum dot self assembling nano tech that would be used in regard to the actual vaccine but also like the, to be able to track this, you know, the skin vaccination history, stuff like that.
And so I guess just in a broad sense, first of all, do you think that it's, you know, something that is even tech scientifically possible but this could have been something utilized will be able to notice that you think that would stand out.
What's your point about how it changes could this be something that's there that we don't know about hypothetical hypothetically of course yes it's possible but I think I think some of these, these more outlandish.
The right word but extreme versions of this kind of technology are probably still impossible now the picture you just show there in coding some information and nanodots on your skin that's definitely possible that's, that's just an invisible tattoo or or an invisible barcode
and I have no doubt that that's possible and making those manufacturing micro needles like that that's also possible I also think that if a vaccination is going to work.
If vaccination does work it works when you apply it at the barrier wherever the immune system is be it the lungs or the gut or the skin and so even from the perspective of arguing that well if we went back to vaccination to things in the skin
I would be a biologist that would say probably because that's where the immune system is but for me these kinds of stories that are going around now are all to confuse us into not considering what you've already said many times
is just that this is one big sort of operation to get us to accept testing and we have more or less accepted that vaccines for old people can just be rolled out as they're made now I mean that we don't we don't even need to worry about it
RSV pneumonia yearly vaccinations are being pressured on old people and this is not the biology of this is just not there they have no evidence for this any more than they did that flu did flu vaccine did anything for anyone
right and the point about Fauci's article again right so you're claiming that the actual process here is not working properly but now you're jumping to the point of like we're not even an eight mice territory anymore they're like we don't even need safety testing because we've already proven it with the model
before which is I mean that's not even scientific I don't even know how anybody is buying that argument but so where I want to go with this is the conversation that I think you know kind of in hypothetical
but I find it interesting to think about the idea of hypothetical self-assembling nanotechnology concepts and the idea that just simply this is discussing the idea of DNA used to program self-assembly nanoparticles and it's saying DNA is not just the stuff of our genetic code it's also means to
self design self-assembling materials crafting DNA to nano and micro particles can in principle program them with information that tells them exactly how to self-assemble so I just thought it was interesting this
seemingly coinciding when this is an old article 2016 the DNA contamination that we're finding you know do you think that would line up in an interesting way that might be you know if again hypothetically this was done that seems like
a way that that might be giving the materials to be able to build something like that is that scientifically possible accurate I don't feel that way so I think this paper that you're showing there there are also people that have worked with DNA as a structural material
to try and make very stable information structure so if you could make bucky balls out of DNA that also encoded information they would be a very stable chemical over 10,000 years and that would be really cool
so these things are very different than how DNA is thought to be used as genetic material in a cell and I think we are still extremely far away from understanding how DNA is used as genetic material in a cell I want you to believe that
when I was a kid and you were a kid growing up they used to tell us that there were introns and exons and the exons coated for proteins and the introns were just garbage left over from from you know millions of years of evolution
and we haven't come that much farther in our understanding except to accept that that wasn't good enough that there's a lot of other stuff that's present and so
it's now we know for sure right now we know right even though we just went
now we can just send some mRNA and augment the system exactly
well the last couple points I want to get into here I think is interesting is the idea of the protein side of this you know and this is just a biomedical engineering society writes that proteins once only linked to diseases are now the heart of developing advanced nanotech devices and biosensors
and this is the world that really begins to terrify me like where this is going the overlap of the actually just jumped to write right to this the overlap of where was it right here the things like this
you know this is the stuff directly from the conversations of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum the converging technologies the bio convergence they're talking about this is a document for 2002 that literally outlines how they're going to alter evolution their words with nanotechnology
and this overlap with the bio side of this you know and so again I'm trying to be understand this more to find out how this is possible how it can work I recently discussed this coming from the idea of I don't know if you looked into
a ferret nanoparticle vaccination and what they're doing with that there's a there's an article in the Guardian I'll just pull it up real quick okay that I think is really interesting that gets into the idea of
ferret nanoparticles to actually control the movements and you know thoughts and feelings of mice can I tell you a really crazy story about this please
so I worked in Norway in Trollnheim and while I was there I used optogenetics to use light to control some of the neurons in my brain slices and tried to use that to decide whether they were connected to each other or not
and so I would stimulate with the light and those neurons would start to signal and I would record from other neurons to see if they were connected
and in this way I tried to prove that a particular circuit in a particular part of the brain was dominated by inhibition or turning each other off I had a nice paper on that the guy who I collaborated with that made the adenovirus
to transfect or in this case transform the neurons to express the algal protein algae protein that was sensitive to blue light and let in sodium channel sodium ions when you shine blue light on it that's basically what optogenetics is
you take a plant protein and algae protein and you transform or transfect cells in this case neurons in the brain to express this protein no different than expressing the spike protein but it's now they're going to express this algal protein
and when it shine blue light on the algal protein sodium is able to go from the outside to the inside and this causes a neuron to start to signal and so when you turn on the blue light the neurons that are expressing this protein start to spike
and so you can use this to in a live animal you can use this to manipulate the animal's behavior or to change it you can use it to provoke fear when the animal shouldn't be afraid you can use it to provoke freezing
when the animal shouldn't freeze there's lots of ways that optogenetics have been used to hijack the point is where we're going
the guy that prepared this virus for me left the Moser lab after the same year that I did and went back to China to start his own lab and he was involved in a controversy where he went to the lab where this magneto protein was first published
and took the protein back to his lab cloned it, expressed it in neurons and claimed to be using it to cause neurons to spike and tried to publish this ahead of the guy who was about to publish the magneto protein in nature
so it's funny because this story of using magneto to control neurons was already debunked in my head when this former colleague of mine went back to China and tried to steal the idea because his paper was fake
and the resolution of the protein at the time and meaning the gating speed how fast it opens and closes in response to magnetic fields is not high
remember this is a protein that is supposedly cloned out of birds that are using it to navigate so it's supposed to be kind of an indication of compass direction but it's not really clear how this ion channel would be used to create
so in other words the biology that this protein plays in the bird is still not well understood so then to take it out and use it to control neurons was a really big exciting thing for this guy to do but it turned out that it wasn't as simple as taking the protein and expressing
so let's go that he had to fake the paper and he got caught and so okay so that this is actually real so you're so what just so I understand what you're arguing are you saying that this entire direction
it's probably not as scary as you think it is it's probably possible that they try to have created such a protein and they could get in effect very similar to optogenetics but with less temporal resolution optogenetics is really like millisecond
do all kinds of stuff in trouble as you can't get blue light into the brain very easy and the other problem is when you express these proteins and neurons eventually the immune system of the brain takes those neurons out
and that's again the reason why any academic biologist should have done known better because when we use transmission we have to sacrifice the animal early enough so that we can still see the anatomy of the circuit that we modified
otherwise the immune system will clear it out and when we try to do the anatomy and look where we made the manipulation there will be nothing left
this is such an interesting to me so it's an interesting coincidence that you have direct connection to this it's such a fact
so here's what I would like to ask further so it's really good news if you think this could
be a little positive here and just fill this in as long as you're here and watching you can might as well get a little extra
here is the paper this is the guy Sheng Jia and I call him Sheng Jia if I go back one click two clicks here's my paper in
is one of the papers overview that I was on this is also Sheng Jia if I go back here farther you can also see these on is he on that paper I thought he would have been on that paper because I also used it in that
paper but he's also here in this paper right there is that guy Sheng Jia and so if we then what did I just do?
screw it up
this is the Magneto stuff though right here you have remote non-invasive magnetic activation so this scientific bulletin in Beijing
I'm not sure if this is now the what happened afterward you see this is in 2015 but I can assure you that it originally started with him going to the other
guy's lab and then there being an argument about whether he actually gave him the protein or he didn't give him the protein and when Sheng Jia started to publish this paper the other guy said hey you didn't have permission to do that and it was quite a big scandal
this could now be the paper here you can see it I actually wrote I did a did some of my work with that guy in Toronto so now all the all the conspiracy theories can go out because obviously now I'm really involved in this wow that's crazy I didn't
but that's the way it is Sheng Jia if you see it in that paper too Sheng Jia put everybody over over a bench with that paper all of the notes that he took about the viruses that he prepared for my paper were in Chinese and he would not give us the methodologies of the paper until I agreed to share first off a ship with him on the paper and there was a lot of politics involved it was all my work all he did give me a couple tubes
and so it's really it was at the time it was a very painful thing for me because I've worked four years up in Toronto I had a great time up there but it was a lot of grindstone hard work that got diluted in a way because a guy who could decided to take co-op a ship and that actually cost me because as you're applying for grants based on your papers ideally you
are the first author and the only first author and every paper that you have where you're sharing first author there's always going to be some question of well how much of this work did you actually do and when you've done all of the work and somebody
gave you a reagent but they share first author that's when it really gets ugly and that's an exact example of that and it's interesting because it's a pattern because he went back to China and then engaged in this kind of less than optimal collaborative
behavior anyway that's where we are it's just a funny addition to the story that I couldn't add with with Ryan but I'll add here
my voice is really low and I don't understand why that is I don't I'm gonna I'm gonna try and figure that out I don't know what it is because this is a terrifying concept at the end of the day
but so what to what level do you think this is manipulated because because what we're talking about is stuff that's continued since then it goes all the way the I'm just I'm guess I'm just implying that okay I hope you're right
we can make we can make proteins that respond to to to magnetism and we can probably make proteins that will change confirmation and allow the passing of ions in response to magnetism
whether or not you can put those in places that will be useful in augmenting the brains function without a doubt is bullshit that's like saying that you can put buzzers on the chairs of random people in a in a symphony and then usefully augment the
concept that they put on that would be ridiculous and and this is no different than that I mean we use it now as a very blunt tool in in our research and looking how these systems function but you can't use it as a as a tool to to manipulate
the healthy life of an animal we've never even thought about using it for that we only have ever thought about manipulating the malfunctioning cancerous body of a of a patient with with
transfection and that can work and it can give them five useful years it can put the put the cancer into remission but you're not talking about augmenting a healthy human that you're talking about augmenting a really highly malfunctioning immune system and so that's a very different prospect
you know we know how to augment your chill your children because they don't yeah also this is what's interesting is so aside from the worry I had about this and you know because like my point would be that they're also working on
I think I've got the article pulled up here like lipid net like right here there there's all sorts of these ferret things in works right now lipid nanoparticle spike protein design the new mod RNA ferret nanoparticle universal flu injection I think there's even a hand coronavirus ferret and nanopar some I was like oh my god this is terrifying
so good news if you believe that they're not accomplishing at the level that they're presenting my other worry was about whether this was you know again at the same point about what happened during the COVID-19 illusion
is that if this is the stuff they were experimenting on and my point was you can connect this directly to the work of Charles Lieber Robert Langer right who's also the co-founder of Moderna and like here's a here's a study from Charles Lieber all the way to 2023 talking about stitching flexible electronics in the brain
you know overlaps with magnetogenetics optogenetics and the things we're discussing and I just so do you think that this might have been you know to what level do you think this is really happening in it again the experiment experiment concept whether this was an effort to actual experiment with things
during COVID-19 that kind of a concept I don't super theoretical and I'm not you know putting you on the spot if you don't want to get that kind of put yourself out there for those statements but I think this is concerning
I think so much of it is is red herring so much of it is is trying to keep us off the right track and I think that I find myself always coming back to to the concept that we are told
that exclusively and I'll say it in very physical terms when we the way that they find viruses is that they take a sucrose gradient which is just sugar from thick to thicker all the way down
and the the particles that they spin through here at very high speeds in a centrifuge sort out by weight and size through this gradient and at the very very bottom the very very smallest things we're told our viruses
now the problem with that is is that there's a whole separate field in biology that knows that all of our tissues communicate by RNA and DNA vesicle containing RNA and DNA they're called exosomes they can be called extracellular vesicles they can be called lots of different things
depending on who studies them but cancer biology has known about these for a long time because they look for signals RNA and DNA signals in the blood of people with cancer to find the cancer and to identify it
and the problem is that there is a whole field of biology that understands that healthy tissues signal in this same way and that in your blood if you spin this fraction down the vast majority of that fraction in that in that centrifuge
that's all endogenous signaling that's composed of RNA and DNA that if you chopped it up like the library we talked about you could pull almost anything you wanted out of that and you were careful
and this this area of biology is actually probably the part of the immune system we understand the least why do I say that because T cells dendritic cells
every cell that you can name in the immune system is somewhat autonomous the only way that they could possibly send useful signals to one another is with chemicals or with RNA and DNA
and so now imagine the scenario in the early 90s or 80s when they started making a hepatitis vaccine in a chimpanzee kidney or some other kind of primate cell culture
and that cell culture contained exosomes from that species because tissues also signal now if those exomes
whoa I don't know what just happened there oh oh holy crap what is this what just happened am I still live
well why did that end dude is it is it on the other side is it alive over there is anyone watching it on the other one what the tail just happened
I was just about to get into the really good part
oh no wait what why is this not where is this it's not there anymore
wait why did that end
whoa
what's happening here that was not the end of that conversation ships
so my hard drive filled up while I was recording that I can see at least what I've got
I mean I do have a lot of it but I have an hour why did that really just end right there that is extraordinary
okay let me get the hour that I do have out
oh my gosh can you believe it can you believe it can you believe it can you believe it
a lot of different things are surrounding the science and so he was cut on Instagram as well
typically in my mind if you guys are talking about okay so here I'm going to play that part I'm going to go back over here where
very special diet is very terrible and T cell memory to that protein but the next time
oh no it's not in this video either shit oh my god right and he wrote in his article entitled
rethinking next generation vaccine for coronavirus oh I didn't get it recorded oh my gosh you got to be kidding me
point two that's impressive he must have recorded it I will get him I'm gonna get a I'm gonna get a freaking
I'm gonna get the email out right now I'm sending it right now I'm sending it right now
I gotta I'm gonna send him up I'm gonna send him a message right now on my phone actually dude
do you have a recording it cut off at the exosome explanation I thought I nailed it what I basically said was
that if the immune system uses exosomes as communication if if healthy tissues use exosomes as communication
and you polluted our our system with exosomes from another species the odds of having a catastrophic
immune reaction would be pretty high and in fact I think that's actually possibly the explanation
for what these people found when they found reverse transcriptase what they were finding was a a
signaling mechanism of the immune system but they found it in a very negatively serendipitous
sort of way and by the time they figured it out they had to cover it up in the way that they did
and so RNA virology is based on a foundational fraud of exosomes and that being a fundamental
communicative mechanism in the immune system but being discovered having been misidentified as a
pathology and then they just stuck to it and of course that explains why the Nobel prize would be
given for reverse transcriptase why reverse transcriptase activity would be used as an
assay for the presence of an AIDS infection because they're looking for the activity of this
maladaptive signaling that gets triggered I think by Ryan just sent me a message saying he was watching
and he didn't see any issue do you mean it cut out or it cut off so yeah it ended before
the end maybe oh it was because I was going off and slow wasn't it and so maybe it cut the time off
does it stay up I paused it a couple times
that's what the problem is I was on Odyssey maybe I can go to rumble maybe it'll be up on rumble
we'll go to rumble let's go to rumble baby just use rumble people sorry I used Odyssey because that
was the thing I had open so let's go to rumble bumbles rumble and we will look for what
I'll look on rumble do you guys got a link for me on rumble there you go buddy that's what I'm
talking about Pamela working it okay let's play the end of that holy scrapola that was freaking me
out for a second chimpanzee kidney here we go sorry about that my bad and that cell culture
contain exosomes from that species because tissues also signal now if those exosomes are part of a
vaccine and then you look into it and you see wow you know these these exosomes are now coming out of
T cells from these guys and when we culture T cells we get more of this RNA signal it looks
like they're infected with a virus and when in reality what they have discovered is a fundamental
part of how the immune system functions and a fundamental reason why certain people reject organs
from certain people and why you never mix blood of animals with people because this doesn't work
because at this size scale there is a whole signaling regime that as biologists we are wholly
unaware of and most of that signaling regime is probably maintained by produced by or monitored
by the immune system so if you think about a huge communication highway that we are told by the
public health system to just completely ignore because it's only antibodies and it's only viruses
then you can really start from a biology perspective I just feel like there's a whole host of
possibilities that have never we've never been allowed to consider and instead we are really
supposed to focus on the idea that our somehow our cartoon bodies are clean and occasionally
they get dirty and that's what we call sickness and vaccines keep us clean and this is a terrible
mythology for us to pass on to our yeah well you know hopefully you know like the story from the
I think you said the pancreas discussion the bacterial thing maybe in ten years people will actually
listen to what you're saying right now and maybe we could see something change
Michael faster than that I don't know I mean Bobby Kennedy knows a lot of this stuff
you know I think that there are a lot of people who know a lot of this stuff and we just have to
people like you just have to keep giving people a voice and the truth will eventually take care of
itself we're still behind the eight ball and we're still you don't have as much reach as you
should and therefore everybody that's on your show doesn't and that goes all the way down because on
the other hand there are people who shouldn't have as much reach as they do and they're constantly
getting more and and that's also something that's very hard for us to quantify and fight
I agree I agree wholeheartedly man and I think you know this is a good I think it's a good place to
to wrap in general I was going to go to a couple more things but I would love to have you back on the
show I think both a couple more conversations yes I would love that but just when just to get
into but you know in the future I want to get into kind of the mod RNA M1 methyl pseudo uridine
modified concept and where it's going next which I find interesting this methyl cytosine
methyl cytosine modified and we can talk about that in the future about what that is the difference is
there and I also just wanted to give a shout out to you know you did get a great interview with
Denny Rancourt back in 2022 but I hadn't seen so I'm kind of like newly going through some of your
time and I just love that you know if this is you're talking with him about how you've altered your
opinion and you know the the foundational parts and also just to shout out to Denny Rancourt who
I've interviewed many times I think that his work is important in this and I wanted to share this one as
well which one wasn't I got this all in the wrong spot oh I forgot to close these this one here
this 2022 same point data proves COVID-19 is actually an illusion and and his work really kind of opened my mind to the
the bigger picture around how even if you know whether or not you believe there's a virus or not the point is the
data could have been falsified to make you think something was there that was not either way
and to go on with this stream make sure that you understand that there is there are proven known tested
methodologies that they could have made the created the illusion of a sequence that was found in Wuhan
found in Washington in the Swohomish County man and found in Italy and the sequences matched
exactly they could do that with three epidorf tubes in a mail and and all of this would have
occurred the PCR would have been positive the sequencing reaction would have worked great and the culturing would have
been successful and that would not have proved that something that started at a point is still
circulating four years later and that's that's where we got to keep hammering keep hammering
I think your analogies today are going to do a lot of good for people like even just you know it really laid it out in a simple way that makes it easy to picture
why you're saying makes perfect sense I think that's going to help a lot of people understand this even more
I'm really grateful wow thank you very much that's a huge compliment
absolutely and I look forward to talking to you hopefully again soon and is there anything else you want to leave us with today upcoming work you
have coming out any last points you want to make I'm I don't know I mean maybe somebody listening here will care about this
I plan very I take the you might be familiar with it this document farewell to virology I take that document pretty seriously and I have
I have acknowledged it in the past I don't think that that that document is some kind of crazy thing I think it's a very nice document in that it acknowledges that there were many people in the past
who've already had similar questions about similar phenomenon and I think more and more as we move forward it's important for all of us to be very humble that we were all at some point completely fooled
I led people the wrong way for a long time in 2020 and I've lost one of my best friends had an aneurysm in December of last year and left behind two beautiful daughters and a beautiful wife
and I know that it's because they took the transfection and I know it's because I didn't have enough understanding and enough courage to to to save them
and all of us were there and we all kind of have to to get to that state where we can you know admit that we were all fooled by this
and once that happens then even the the most ingrained and entrained doctors there there might be hope that they too can come to that humble realization
absolutely man well said and that's a great point to end on today so thank you for your time brother and I'm sure we'll talk again soon and as always everybody out there question everything coming to your own conclusions
all gene based vaccines independent of manufacturers produce the same result in the vaccine needs he has looked at 15 in the last four days the number has been increased to 70 individuals who died after vaccination
to people who died at home at work in the car during their sports etc etc etc there's no question now anymore about what is going on and the answer is in the organs of these people
90% he found clear evidence for autoimmune self-attack by killer imprecipes on the tissues
and that was the show I hope you enjoyed it I definitely enjoyed doing the interview I did have a show completely prepared but I have been trying so hard to convert to an afternoon show because it fits so much better into our family's position
and then unfortunately this week we had two extra days off so the boys and girl have been home today and yesterday so it made it even harder to do that but tomorrow we're back to a semi normal schedule and so I'm going to keep this one in the barrel and do it in the morning
anyway thank you very much for joining me and I will see you tomorrow this has been Giga Ohm biological I'm also going to put a couple more subtitled transcript videos up on sub stack that I have like sitting on my desktop and I just haven't done it because I need to log in
and it's always it's always some excuse I've got but the work is starting to flow a little bit better now and as we move into the spring I hope I can get closer and closer to a daily show but again that's that's more work than you might imagine it to be especially once you start thinking about 50 or 60 or 100 days in a row and so I'm trying to work that whole plan out
one of the plans will be of course that we have peer tube coming which means that we're going to be on a completely independent platform not on Twitch anymore and so I need to figure out how we're going to do that if we're going to do some of them over there we're going to read broadcast over there
maybe we're going to do someone one a week on Twitch and a bunch on peer tube I don't know how it's going to work and then also I do have a plan to be teaching one time a weekend on YouTube from the deck of the Starship Enterprise
I don't know for sure if I have all the collaborators lined up for that yet I don't need all of them but I have an idea that collaborators will be helpful on that
and so that's also coming that'll be to be Saturdays or Sundays so we have I don't know a lot of things in the works I know that it's not where we were supposed to be in the 20th of February 2024 but I'm working on it we're all working on it marks upgrading
He's added a roller coaster and a barbershop and a detective agency and a pool hall so I'm just trying to keep up with that guy you know that that's all I can really do is just try to keep up with that dude