Early, what I want is high morbidity.
I want people to complain.
So what do I do?
I go to Des Moines.
Ladies and gentlemen and people on the screen, I have nothing against Des Moines, I live
there for four years.
I go to Des Moines, I infect a couple of sentinel cases in Des Moines.
I go to Seattle, I infect a couple of cases there.
I go to North Carolina, I go to Wisconsin.
What I'm doing is I'm using a dispersion methodology to be able to infect sentinel cases with a
highly morbid condition.
These individuals complain.
Again, this is a central nervous system condition, so they're complaining of whatever the bug
may do.
It'll produce some cascade of neurological and neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms.
And then what I do, the real bug that I use is the internet.
I take attribution for that.
Yes, I'm a terrorist group.
And I have done this by infecting with a highly little agent and the first signs and symptoms
of lethality are X, Y, and Z.
These people are really sick with this.
But then I say, others who are also infected will show subdramal, predramal signs of lethality
and what that will be is anxiety, sleeplessness, agitation.
What I've now done is I've got every individual who is diagnostically hypochondriacal and I've
got every individual who's worried well, flooding the public health system, banging
on the door.
The CDC comes back and says, nonsense, that's not real.
I come back and say, that's fake news.
And as a consequence of doing that, what I do is I create a schism between the polis
and the public health system.
I fracture the integrity of trust and reliance upon the population and its government.
January 28, 2024.
Welcome to Giga Own Biological.
Glad all of you can join me.
I'm trying to do a little early one and then maybe I can also do one later with a little
more meat on it.
I don't know.
This one might be already a couple hours.
We'll see what we do.
I've got a basketball game this afternoon, I need to attend, and so I'll let you know
what's up.
We might have to stop this one a little early, but I think we're going to be able to make
a good point here.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worse case
scenario.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worse case
scenario.
The schedule for 16 minutes next is going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
The rules, protect yourself at all times, follow my instructions, keep it clean, touch
gloves if you wish, let's do it.
20 pounds.
This is so crazy.
Like these bumps.
This is so crazy.
I feel so nervous.
Like what in the world, man?
We have been challenged lately in the public square that is Twitter X, to be able to see
you try and more formalize our challenge to virology and I think we would be wise to
move forward with caution because lots of people have tread this water before and so
I'm pretty excited.
Wow.
Somebody lost a 42 year old friend to a brain and you're just, well, there's a downer.
I'm not really sure what to say about that other than we're going to keep this fight
up for everybody who's lost a friend and obviously it's still happening.
I'm afraid Colin, I'm afraid it's going to get worse, not better.
That's the issue here.
That's the issue I feel is that that's where we are.
They have manipulated us and we need to be the people that can hold the light to the
truth.
It's about the history.
It's also about what's happening right now.
It's about our recent history and our deep history and about things that some people just
will not, will refuse to see.
It's all about their God, AI and solving humanity's futuristic problems and they feel
like they only have one chance in history.
They've been bamboozled by themselves.
They've been, they're bamboozling each other about this stuff.
I got, I got called out on Twitter the other day because I don't call anybody out in big
pharma.
I don't call anybody out in the who or anywhere else.
My goodness, the kind of thing that passes for debate on that platform is absolutely
laughable.
If you can't see the brick wall right now, I think we're in big trouble.
Hopefully everybody here can see the brick wall of course, but that's 46 of you, 47 counting
me.
That's not a lot and we need to share this just a little bit more if you don't mind.
This is a stream brought to you by a patch clamp physiologist.
GigaOM is a resistance measurement, a value of resistance that you want to achieve when
you're making these recordings and so I named this stream GigaOM biological and you can
find that at dot com, you can also find us at GigaOM dot bio, which is a area placed
in chat.
You can support me with one time donation at the support GigaOM and then there's also
a way to subscribe and I would really strongly encourage anybody who's been sitting on their
hands about this to get on board right now because this, we've got about two months to
see if we can push this boat out or if we're going to have to make some drastic changes
to how we move forward.
Right now the people that are helping us, helping my family try to push this boat out
are listed here and it's not the only people.
There's also some people who've made some single donations that I haven't been able
to get onto the board yet and so you've got to apologize to me or I got to apologize
to you for that.
My wife and I, my wife has started to actually work for GigaOM biological in that respect
and so communication should get a little better and so hopefully that's the case.
So where are we?
We are pushing back pretty hard now against the traditional idea of a pandemic, the idea
that either a laboratory leak or a bat cave virus started somewhere in late 2019 and then
circulated around the globe with pretty high fidelity, changing color as it went and that
we're in the fifth year of it.
We're pushing very hard against this faith in a novel virus but we can't stop now.
We've got to clean up the mess.
We've got to clean up the recent history mess before it becomes a lie that becomes
the truth because they don't understand that it could have been a background signal, they
don't understand that it could have been clones, they don't understand that it could have been
a combination of many of these things.
And I think it's really important that these ideas are always at the front because they're
going to try and make it seem like, you know, the details of the story.
Taking home gets all the details wrong, he doesn't know all the details.
While they ignore the big messages and the big messages are the ones that we need to
get to our kids, the big messages about this being an illusion, about this being a mythology
that all of these people have somehow or another collectively agreed not to challenge and that
they don't talk about there being no spread in New York City infectious clones, placebo
batches or transfection, they don't talk about the protocols or gain a function being
a mythology and they don't talk about us being fooled in dissolving this mystery because
they are committed to this and they have a spectacular commitment to this lie.
That's what I'm talking about, congratulations on Substack, thank you very much.
It's taken me a little while to get that rolling and now I figured it out in Premiere and so
making the transcript and the subtitles is not a ridiculous task anymore and so that's
pretty fun.
I'm really, really happy about that so thanks very much for noticing that I got that rolling.
Hold on a second, let me get over here.
Thank you very much for joining me, it is 2:40 in the afternoon here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
USA.
I'm coming to you from the back of my garage, this is Gigoland Biological, hey, high resistance
low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
My name is Jonathan Couey and as I said, it's the 28th of January and I don't know, I guess
you can steal my identity now that you know that this is my birthday and I'm 52 but anyway,
this is your 52 year old biologist who's put four hard years of his life into this, it's
pretty crazy.
I have a little plan here and I want to stick to it, oh, there's the secret, I didn't want
that to show up yet, anyway, we will save that, that's fine.
And then I'm going to pull up a new slide deck, it's a quick one and then we're going
to get right to this movie which is actually session five of a gain of function research
meeting from 2016 and I just wanted to do a brief introduction to it to make sure that
we're all on the same page, especially of those of you who might be lucky enough to
join us for the first time.
We are trying to do the honorable thing and tell the truth to the young.
In so doing, we need to dispel this idea which was first most adequately summarized by Edward
Bernays in the early 20th century that the conscious and intelligent manipulation of
the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element of democratic society.
And now I want you to think about the fact that this guy came up with this idea in the
20s when there were just newspapers and town criers and bulletins and things like that.
And maybe soon after radio and telegram, but now we're talking about social media and think
about what this statement means in the context of social media, in the context of algorithms
in the context of amplification and whatever they call it, throttling or think about all
of these things which are definitely real, definitely at play so that we get a very distorted
view of the world.
If we look through this particular window, we're going to have a very distorted view of
the world and yet most of us are looking through that window.
Some of us are looking at me through that window right now.
And so in effect, right, in effect, the principal of informed consent has been ignored for the
duration of the pandemic because we've been, you know, scrolling up and down and following
all these people on Twitter and trying to figure out the truth by getting involved in
different DM groups on Twitter and different signal chats and different telegram groups
and different GAB and following locals videos that no one else pays to watch so you have
the inside story.
This is all the same surrendering basically of your informed consent just by overwhelming,
overwhelming you, overwhelming your family and then isolating you as well.
Look at that little girl on the couch.
And so I firmly believe that this is the best American version of the deception that
occurred.
I'm sure it occurred everywhere around the world that they tricked the average TV watching
social media surfing person to think that they were witnessing a sort of bad coverup
of what turns out to be with a result of whistleblowers and leaks.
More or less, a US funded gain of function program in Wuhan that ended up causing this
calamity and we have been led to believe that we solved this problem.
And I've given you this list of things to help you think about how the pandemic was
created, which starts with seeding the gain of function narrative with scientific programs
and peer reviewed publications for years before the pandemic.
And then also remember that there were regular upper level exercises in the government, international
exercises in the government, which drilled these, the response to such a pandemic potential
actually emerging.
And then we seeded mass casualty events with expected outcomes of transfection, at least
let's just say that we didn't do anything to stop that.
And more importantly, what we did was we had a bunch of actors in all different levels
of social media and on mainstream media that we're prepared to, that were set up to were
directed to, were encouraged to seed the narrative of the gain of function, the lab leak and
attributes of the infection, the bad parts of the attributes that go all the way from
heart attacks and myocarditis all the way up to amyloidosis and prion disease as a
way of putting forth ideas which could then be confounded at the time when some of these
symptomologies would emerge as a result of the transfection.
And I believe that these people knew that some of these expected outcomes of mass transfecting
the population could have been known and then could have been purposefully seeded into the
virus narrative early on as the worst case scenario was being pushed behind the scenes
and and off camera.
And you could have participants that were involved in this, that were involved in a national
security priority response, even like people at news, like producers at news programs,
for example, could be could have been briefed secretly to say, Hey, you know, we have to
talk these talking points and the entire news program and the entire all the newscasters
would be clueless as to why their lines were the way that they were there.
It's not a whole, you know, the whole channel 11 is not in on it.
It only has to be one person at the top or near the top for this to have been flawlessly
executed at every level of media.
And so in the end, we have this virus and this transfection and it's their effects
confounded and so that we're still arguing about whether it and they added to it.
Of course, they've added this, this contamination and I believe they added this contamination
because the spike protein toxicity narrative didn't take hold.
It wasn't powerful enough.
Maybe the dissident movement didn't bite it as hard as they wanted them to bite it.
And so I have been putting up pictures of all kinds of people that I follow on Twitter
and making the argument that it's the spread of these worst case scenario bad ideas that
allowed this narrative to tumble forward out of control and allowed them to steer it right
toward the need for transfection.
And so a lot of people were just on board.
They're just unwitting.
They didn't know.
And so we've talked about these guys before.
We've talked about these guys before, you know, these guys are the ones who are arguing
now.
I've talked, I've found something very interesting with regard to Sasha Latypova.
I've always wondered, I've been wondering about her, I've had her on my stream before
with regard to the, to the shots and their, and their different batches.
And then since then, she was on stage with Robert Malone and, and Meryl Nast and it's
just been kind of a hands off situation at this stage.
I don't need, I don't think a lot of us need to cooperate and have phone calls and,
and, and have secret meetings all the time if we are all fighting the same thing that
it's going to be fine.
And I think what I see here is evidence of that.
Now, I don't know, but it sure seems kind of cool.
I didn't notice it until now, but this is January 17th, 2024, how to fake pandemics
in four easy steps, due diligence and art is Sasha Latypova's SubStack.
And here she said, she gives a shout out to, to, uh, John Beaudoin, who I consider to
be a really hard working guy who's got a great signal with regard to where the mortality
came from and didn't come from during the entire pandemic.
And he's got a lot of good information about the fact that the protocols were likely murder.
And I love that.
And I love John's work.
And so her, um, saying that that's the case is, uh, is also really cool.
Then down here, she's saying that the Spanish flu is also a fake pandemic.
So that's something that I know my friend, Mark Kulacz would agree with wholeheartedly.
So I mean, two, two, whoops, so so far, she's digging all the bells.
I mean, this is great.
Pandemics are also not possible via science in what is called gain of function research,
which amounts to mostly ridiculous attempts at software enabled sorcery, making soups
of chemical mix with literally shit.
As I discussed you in my previous article, yes, toxic chemicals and shit cause poisoning,
but this does not spread itself.
Of course, these labs should be shut down a waste of money and hazard thanks to Merrill
Nass for this new, um, bulletin of atomic scientists where they talk about lab leaks
and stuff like that.
So here we go again.
One way to look at this is that, that lab leaks mean that we're in trouble and there's
going to be another, uh, pandemic or another way to look at it is is that the background
is much richer.
The background is much hotter in terms of PCR and in terms of coronavirus sequences and
coronavirus diversity than any of these people want to admit, especially because our actual
surveillance of the nine billion people on the planet is ridiculously low and has always
been except for these last two or three years from 2020 onward.
And so this is cool.
This is a shout out to Merrill Nass, Merrill Nass being, um, a woman who has her own new
nonprofit called doors to freedom or something like that.
And also was a longtime advisor to CHD, uh, an organization that you and I both know
that I really, really admire.
So this is still, I mean, now we're on page two and we're, we're still just, you know,
so hey, I mean, work hard, die rich, I guess is working out for her.
And all pandemics to date have been faked by the military industrial globalist cabal,
which sounds kind of like what we've come to the conclusion of over the last year or
so.
Um, sorry, JFK, RFK, despite your desire to appear middle ground, um, by including a
lie with a majorly true majority truthful statement, COVID pandemic was also faked using
the same basic script actors and funding.
So that's interesting.
I wonder what that video is.
I won't play that now.
But again, here she is kind of criticizing, uh, Bobby Kennedy for not going far enough,
um, to say that the pandemic is fake, which is very, very interesting because again, remember,
if they used enough clones, then from a molecular biological perspective, the pandemic doesn't
need to be faked.
And I think what we're dealing with here now is just realizing that there is a way to apply
these techniques with the proper investment, the proper, the proper, whatever.
I mean, you can call it Keystone cop if you want to, but moving viruses around is quite
a bit easier than moving WMDs or, or missiles or things like that.
I mean, we're talking about very small quantities being able to do in theory, very big things,
especially if the only thing you want to do is have a PCR or a sequencing signal.
Because the DNA could be put on people's clothes.
It could be contaminated on swabs.
It could be put purposefully in tests.
There are a million ways to make enough DNA for this signal to go all around the world
for sure, not by itself.
And that's the point.
That's the argument we're making.
So this is okay.
I mean, that's not bad.
And then whoa, hey, look, what is the pandemic script?
Let's hear it from the horse's mouth.
And she shows James Giordano and the actual video that I've been using for almost three
years now.
It's hard to believe that she didn't see it on our work.
And it's, you know, okay, I don't care because these ideas are getting out.
If she never attributes this to me, but more people through her Substack come to realize
that the pandemic could have been.
And it's a really good possibility that it was almost exclusively a lie, a coordinated
spectacular commitment to lies.
And that lie being the worst case scenario, then this is great.
You have to see if this is worst case scenario, this is imitation, which is flattery, right?
This case scenario, it's just, I guess, great minds think alike or something like that.
But this is good.
This is good.
I consider it kind of, I don't know, I didn't see it until now, so I can call it a little
birthday present.
Anyway, I think the most important thing to see is that as everybody makes and fans the
flames of hatred and frustration over Cooey being a divider or Cooey being out of his
lane or whatever Cooey is doing six hour Scooby-Doo's instead of doing sequence searches
on NCBI, we don't talk about these messages, which I think are the most important ones.
If we can pass on to our children the immunology and general biology and appreciation for the
sacred to understand that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent
of augmenting the immune system is dumb, then our children and more importantly, our grandchildren
will be fine.
If we can teach our college age kids the transfection and healthy humans should be considered
criminally negligent, we can turn those college age kids on their college faculty.
Because it is their college faculty and I would go so far as to say specifically their
natural sciences faculty, their chemistry faculty, their biochemistry faculty, their
biology faculty, their medical school faculties, they should all be turned on.
They should not necessarily be forced to kneel in the hallway or something like that,
but every one of them should be forced to collectively admit as a faculty that they
made a huge mistake by not stepping in front of this train.
Everybody at the University of Pittsburgh should be sending me a card saying sorry dude
were you right, I know they won't.
But I'm saying that if we teach our college kids these truths, then that possibility becomes
closer to reality, we're not going to make that happen, we can't make that happen because
we aren't the ones this battle is about, we aren't the conscious that they're fighting
for, they're fighting for our kids consciousness.
And so in order to help for this, I think that I went back to that list, oh no I guess
I didn't, I thought I did, and this is the first thing on the list, seeding the gain
of function narrative with scientific programs and peer reviewed publications for years before
the pandemic.
Yesterday we watched a video from 2007, which was a bad video lecture of Ralph Baric,
which again I was, I'm still, I still assume it's a sketchy video because it was put up
too late is put up by a weird account that I think is kind of associated maybe possibly
with George Webb.
And it had audio that was edited.
The video was really poor.
And so I'm not sure whether the video is just poor and then people thought you wouldn't
be able to get anything from it.
And they needed to edit those two parts out early because they said something crucial
about his understanding of the infectious cycle.
I'm not really sure.
But I'm assuming that that video in some way or another was make meant to make us Scooby-Doo,
remove the mask of Barrick and say, wow, it's really true.
Now that you remind me, I forgot how incriminating these videos were.
And I think this could be actually an instructive way to push that farther because last night
I think our conclusion was is that Barrick had a number of ideas on how to attenuate
viruses to make vaccines, how to prevent de-attentuation in coronaviruses was big on his radar.
And he was looking to harness what I think he saw as a more ubiquitous signal in nature
and use it as a biotechnology.
And I proposed this three years ago already when I was starting to kind of understand
what was going on with coronavirus and had listened to a lot of what he said and had
listened to this particular symposium.
But now I would like to revisit it because I think it's a really important symposium
and I noticed that my friend Mark Kulacz at Housatonic ITS had built a webpage around
it.
Here, let me clip that out and send it to you on the chat so that everybody can find
it.
If you're not familiar, his website and show are one of the only advertisements that
I have in the beginning of my stream.
And this website has all of the videos there.
It has some of the brochures.
That's where I got this little thing from.
And I didn't peruse the whole thing.
I just queued this thing up.
So this is actually queued up on YouTube.
It's not, I queued it up directly on YouTube, but it's also, the link is also available
on Mark's website.
And I can't stress enough how important it is, this work that Mark does, all this archiving
and all of this, you know, putting everything in one place is so important in light of the
fact that a lot of times I think some of this stuff is just not really archived on purpose.
It's not that it's not out there, but nobody's making an extra effort to be sure that it's
available.
And I think Mark has done just a absolutely breathtaking job of collating some of this
stuff together so that when you follow people through their career or you follow people
through their education or through the development of their ideas, you can really, you know,
link to link to link all on one site.
I mean, it's really a master work.
So kudos to Mark.
Here we go.
Um, an excellent session on the potential.
I do have it at normal speed because they have, they're speaking a lot.
They say a mouthful.
So we'll see how far we can get before I have to go to the game.
I got at least an hour.
So let me ask the four panelists to come up now and we can so get settled in and get
comfortable.
There is King clone.
And that's a dort murder, Dortmer.
He's the guy from Norvartis that makes synthetic flu viruses for vaccines.
And then the third guy is, um, who's that dude?
And then this is denizen.
This is the remdesivir guy and this is, um, the coronavirus editing guy speaking for
for about five minutes and then we'll have a little crush discussion.
So this is going to be kind of cool.
These two dudes are like hardcore.
This guy makes flu virus every year for the vaccine.
So he's like, he knows all about clones.
Trust me.
I'll make this quick.
Um, maybe the next slide, please.
So I'm going to basically present just a little vignette on how gain of function research
and the regulation around research affects a real world case of trying to apply some
virology to Jeffrey.
How are you?
Good to see you, man.
So just a historical reminder that I think most of you are well aware of.
And that is that in 2009, we had the fastest vaccine response in history, but the vaccine
came to market and substantial quantities after the disease peak.
You can see in the brown curve, a peak occurring about October, no substantial quantity
of vaccine was really in the market until probably getting towards December.
So that's not what you want.
In fact, there is an estimate from Boris et al published in EID emerging infectious diseases
that for every week of acceleration vaccine supply in the US, and this is US centric because
that's where the statistics are, would have been an additional 300,000 to 430,000 US cases.
So while in research, you may think in terms of years, in terms of outbreak and pandemic
response, you have to think in terms of days.
And so here, I think it's important to point out that they really are talking in what I
considered to be at least an honest broker way.
What they're arguing is is that if they don't get the vaccine done till here and the peak
of the epidemic is here, then they're not really saving very many people with this vaccine.
And so ideally, we'd be able to make the vaccine back here and then avoid this peak.
So the assumption is, is that if they had gotten this vaccine into these people that
died or whatever, I guess number of cases per week.
So these cases could have been prevented if they'd gotten the vaccine here earlier.
And that's a, that's a pretty bold statement.
But it's an easy statement to make because according to the scheme that they currently
run, they never have the vaccine ready for the peak.
And so there's no peak to avoid.
And they can just say, well, yeah, look, there's no more flu anymore.
Do you see what I'm saying?
It's a little, it's nice to make this argument, but in making this argument, what they are
admitting is that what they do is worthless.
And in fact, no matter how often they do it, they're always behind.
And so it can't really help.
It might, it might as well leave it.
But then you're not going to make these products.
You're not going to make any money.
You're not going to have this warm base of manufacturing as Robert Malone described it
ready and waiting for when the really big one comes, which is what the argument is.
That also Robert F Kennedy Jr. so eloquently explained on his own podcast when I was there.
So they all have this idea that there is a worst case scenario and we do need to be
prepared for it.
And that's legitimate.
Robert Malone has been saying that for many years now.
Robert F Kennedy Jr. will say that Tony Fauci has said that David Holness said that
Sina Bavari said that they all say that and they all say that vaccines come too late.
And so this is the exact same story.
Now what I want you to make note of is that the same blog that put out the video that
we watched last night that I said was, well, it's okay, it's a little, it's nice.
But what it showed to me was that Berwick was really in earnest working on the biological
potential for good that this coronavirus signal represented to him rather than working on
gain a function dual research kind of crap.
That wasn't even in that story.
Now interestingly, that was from 2007 and now that will blog, the same blog that's written
with, is his name, Leak, and then also with Dr. McCulloch has put up a more recent video
from 2018, which we've watched before, which is Ralph Baric giving another talk about
chimeric coronavirus, but very, very dubiously starting with a 10 minute or 15 minute lecture
about planet wide catastrophes and how often they occur, everything from Carrington events
to tidal waves and super volcanoes.
And then of course he's trying to put pandemics into that category of super cataclysmic events
equivalent to a meteor strike or a solar windstorm, a pole reversal or a pandemic.
So that's a pretty huge change in sales pitch from the 2007, which was, you know,
I work on SARS viruses, SARS went around last year and we're working on trying to understand
it.
Here we go.
Instead, he had this 10 or 15 minute pitch about all the worst case scenarios on the planet
in order to frame his research has aimed precisely at one of these worst case scenario targets.
It's extraordinary.
And so this is 2016 and I would go so far as to say, I don't hear it here yet either.
But that we haven't watched the whole six hours of videos or anything like that.
So this is really about responding to a pandemic.
So I'll let it run again.
I apologize.
I just thought I would point that out that that that video is also there, but I chose
not to watch it because I'm not, I'm not convinced that that's the real Ralph Baric.
I'm not convinced that the real Ralph Baric would open his talk with a 15 minute introduction
into, you know, really, he was kind of, he was kind of speculating about some of these
things.
You know, he doesn't know how how devastating a meteor would be or how the geotechnics works
after a meteor strike.
I mean, what's he talking about?
But he did.
I mean, if I was a neuroscientist, I would never start with that.
Even if I worked on pre-on disease and thought that pre-on disease could wipe out the planet
like some people do, I wouldn't start my talk with, well, there are Carington events and
big meteors and pole reversals and tidal waves and, and, and then my stuff, pre-ons.
I mean, that's just crazy anyway.
Here we go.
Next slide.
All in response to that in 2009 event, we worked with the synthetic genomics vaccines
Inc.
One of Craig Viner's organizations and BARDA, part of the U.S. government.
BARDA and the synthetic vaccine or synthetic genome, what did he say?
So they're basically synthesizing, look, they're assembling oligos into flu gene segments
enzymatically, rescuing flu viruses, they're designing and synthesizing.
So they're doing, what I'm talking about, they're manufacturing viruses and they're
making viral stocks using recombinant DNA and RNA technology in order to create viral
stocks that are more homogenous than can be made with traditional culturing methods.
That's my argument.
It's not that I know the fine details.
It's just that I know this is fundamental.
It is a fundamental mythology of all RNA virology.
That's what it is.
And so here you hear him kind of talking around the fact that they are making synthetic clones
of flu viruses.
I'm going to back it up for a couple.
Come up with the scenes, so while in research you may think in terms of years, in terms
of outbreak and pandemic response, you have to think in terms of days.
Next slide.
In response to that in 2009 event, we worked with the Synthetic Genomics Vaccines Inc.,
one of Craig Vintner's organizations, and Bardev, I'm sorry, who Craig Vintner?
Craig Vintner's organizations?
I didn't hear that.
Did I hear that correctly?
Is that what he said?
Hold on.
Whoa.
Ah.
In response to that in 2009 event, we worked with the Synthetic Genomics Vaccines Inc.,
one of Craig Vintner's organizations, and Bardev, part of the U.S. government, to come
up with the Citizen Inc. 2009 event, we worked with the Synthetic Genomics Vaccines Inc.,
one of Craig Vintner's organizations, and Bardev, part of the U.S. government, to come
up with the system to make vaccine viruses much faster.
We synthesize the genes based on sequence available, the synthetic Genomics Vaccines
Inc., one of Craig Vintner's organizations, and Bardev, the U.S. government, to come up
with a system to make vaccine viruses much faster.
We synthesize the genes based on sequence available, basically, on the web, and we use
those to generate the viruses that we would use to make a vaccine.
Did you hear what he just said?
The system was based on genes that were synthesized from sequences found on the web.
I mean, we synthesize the genes based on sequence available, basically, on the web,
and we use those to generate the viruses that we would use to make a vaccine.
We use those to generate the viruses.
So I think what you're missing here, and I think this is what Kevin and everybody on
that side wants us to miss, is that packaging viruses is just transfecting things.
That's what they do when they are transfected with these genomes.
They make exosomes.
They package stuff up.
Sometimes the whole genome gets out, sometimes some garbage RNA from these subgenomic gets
packaged.
It doesn't matter because in the end, they're looking for a collective signal.
If you...
Do I have that on?
Yeah.
If you look at how they sequence something and you see, okay, here's the whole genome.
And then when they do a sequencing reaction, and you'll see this in any paper that you
look at, including the one where they sequence the first SARS genome, they'll have all kinds
of fragments.
And I get it.
They overlap.
And so when they overlap, then you can have all these sequences.
In some places, they'll have lots of coverage, like here, when the end protein, they'll have
lots of coverage of the end, very small coverage here, and maybe there's more coverage
on this end of the genome, something like that, but they're all little tiny fragments.
And then what they're doing is they're taking an average here.
So here, they get this base a lot, right?
So then they assume that this is a really good read.
And then over here, this would be a really low read.
And so they might have also a graph over here that looks like a confidence interval, and
it'll get lower over here.
And then they'll say that they're really sure about this part of the genome, and not
so sure about this part of the genome.
But then they'll still tell you that this is the sequence of the virus.
They'll still tell you that this is the sequence of the virus, and this is the clone RNA that
they will make with a coronavirus.
And with flu, it's a bit more difficult because with flu, I believe there are eight segments
of the genome that are thought to be circular and need to be regulated and copied separately.
And so with flu virus, it's a little more complicated.
And they're also flu viruses, um, bring their RNA into the nucleus, which is also really
interesting because I don't think the coronaviruses do anything with the nucleus.
So that's also a big difference between coronavirus and flu virus, but it's important to understand
that what Dortmer at Mercer, or whatever his name is saying here, is that they worked
with a company called Synthetic Genomics Vaccines, Incorporated.
And that's with Venner.
I might know if I'm spelling his name right, Craig Venner is the guy who wanted to build
a whole database of full human genomes and then sell it back to the pharmaceutical companies.
And so you could give him your, or he would sequence your whole genome for like $3,000
and then also use that as data that he could then, as a database sell back to, he's a really
creepy dude.
And he has been in really a trans human activist for a very, very long time.
I have no doubt in my mind that anybody that worked on the Human Genome Project would have
met Craig Venner at some point.
Anyway, the BARDA partnered up with Novartis and with this company from Venner to synthesize
the genes and make the viruses that they were going to make in the vaccines.
And so, yeah, let's go back and see if we can keep this going.
In theory, it would take about four and a half days.
In fact, we had a test in which we did.
In four and a half days, we went from genes being transmitted to us to a vaccine virus.
Next slide.
And we had a chance to be in three and a half days.
In fact, make a vaccine is much faster.
We synthesize the genes based on sequence available, basically on the web.
And we use those to generate the viruses that we would use to make a vaccine.
In theory, it would take about four and a half days.
In fact, we went from four and a half days.
In four and a half days, we went from genes being transmitted to us to a vaccine virus.
Next slide.
And we had a chance to actually implement that.
In 2013, we went on April 1, Easter.
We got a call saying that, in fact, there was this new H7N9 strain out in China, had
caused fatalities.
The Chinese CDC in a very far-thinking move put the sequence out on the web.
By Monday, the genes were being synthesized, the gene synthesis in California completed
by Tuesday.
The genes synthesized, received in California for viral rescue on Wednesday and sent to
the Centers for Disease Control for their response as well.
By Saturday, we had the vaccine virus confirmed at any by the start of the next week.
It was really fast.
And then the next part starts.
Next slide.
All that activity is at the very beginning of that timeline you see there.
This is the timeline from that same starting point when the sequences were posted on the
web to where we started inoculating our first large-scale fermenter to make clinical trial
material.
It took months.
It was not the science.
It was, predominantly, the regulation.
We couldn't do the work in the United States.
Why?
We couldn't get a USDA permit out of concerns at this virus, which actually doesn't cause
disease and chickens might infect chickens.
We had a lot of other issues as well.
So we actually ended up doing this work primarily in Germany and then taking the vaccine back
to the United States so that we could actually do the clinical trial.
Germany is an interesting place to do it now, isn't it?
Germany has not been on the sidelines of this pandemic narrative, not on the sidelines of
the Western world's pandemic response in pandemic theater.
Germany has been very high up there with regard to the games.
Very high up there, sitting at the table very early.
I find that very curious looking back from this perspective.
Next slide.
So why am I bringing all this stuff up and what's the relationship to gain a function
research?
In fact, there are little lessons scattered throughout this story.
First, in those initial days when we got the sequence, did we use sequence motif data
to guide what we were going to do to actually make a vaccine?
The answer is yes.
Now we certainly didn't use the transmissibility data because there is non-forage 7 and 9
and those data are complicated and at this point difficult to apply.
But we did certainly look for a polybasic cleavage site and had there been one, we would have
gotten rid of it.
So there's a mention of a polybasic cleavage site and I do believe it is this actual talk
oftentimes that is referenced by Charles Rixey as them admitting that fear and cleavage
site is dangerous and that if they have it in a vaccine they remove it and this is some
kind of big deal.
I don't really think it is.
It might make some for some reason or another, it might make the vaccine virus more toxic
or more infectious or more difficult to attenuate or it might make it too immunogenic.
I don't know but I don't think that it's some kind of up fear and cleavage site.
Now it's a pandemic like a Carrington event.
So be careful with that but it is here and he's going to say it again in a second.
We also looked in the neuraminidase gene for markers of oseltamivir resistance and some
of them we found them and we either did not synthesize those strains or we mutated those
genes to eliminate the oseltamivir resistance in the vaccine strains that we made.
So we did use genetic markers for phenotypic traits to affect what we actually made as
the vaccine.
Now the fact that in this case we're really slowed by very well intentioned regulations
to protect basically the food supply in the United States.
However that really meant that we could not in a timely way make the vaccine in the United
States.
Now no one who passed those regulations and forced them had the intention we're going
to slow down human vaccine development however that was the effect.
Had that been a high pathogenetic avian influenza strain we couldn't have done any
of this work.
Why?
Regulations passed for the very good reasons they want to prevent people who have ill
intention from doing bad things with the viruses basically select agent or regulations.
What it meant we couldn't have synthesized this virus.
Now you can't really put an entire manufacturing facility under select agent conditions and
still have a factory that can produce seasonal vaccines in an economically competitive way.
As a result we would have had to wait probably months to start the work, at least a month
maybe more to start the work.
Had it been a more severe strain had that poly basic cleavage site actually been present
instead of absent.
Again nobody who passed the select agent regulations that my goal is to endanger Americans and
prevent the vaccines coming forward in a timely way.
Is that the effect?
Well we haven't had one of those yet but I can tell you from my company I couldn't do
any of this technology if it were a high pathogenetic avian strain clearly counterproductive.
If it were a high pathogen that would be solid.
Thank you very much.
Hey.
Thank you.
Thank you baby.
Alright I got a little warm brownie and some coffee here.
I wanted to say something about this.
What did I want to say?
What he's what he's explaining here is that the flu vaccine if it were to be aimed or
be required to be aimed at a flu that had a poly basic cleavage site in it they would
not be able to engineer that poly basic cleavage site into the vaccine strain because it wouldn't
be allowed.
So isn't that a strange isn't I really think we're hearing that correctly and I find that
a very strange attitude because I thought that having a the poly basic cleavage site there
would be terrible and that's why they would take it out.
But what he's saying is that if they needed to put it in because a vaccine against a strain
with a poly basic cleavage site was needed they wouldn't be able to do it and that would
be a severe handicap to responding to a particularly virulent flu.
I really think that's what we're hearing here which is really very very interesting.
It's exactly wow that's that's funny 300,000 who pass the select agent regulations that
my goal is to endanger Americans and prevent the vaccines coming forward in a timely way.
Is that the effect?
Well we haven't had one of those yet but I can tell you from my company I couldn't do
any I couldn't apply any of this technology if it were a high pathogenicity, avian strain
clearly counterproductive.
If we were a high path even outbreak you saw there was 300,000 to 430,000 infections per
week are prevented by every week of acceleration of vaccine supply if you got a 10 percent.
Now that's a model right he's modeled if we got the vaccine out earlier than we could
project that we would save this many lives that assumes probably a 100 percent of activity
I mean it's our effectiveness of the vaccine it's really scary how he's talking right here
because it's it's in a room full of virologists that are all buying into this as being pretty
much okay when it's really just a lot of it's a lot of big talk that's it oh it's warm
sweet.
And to 50 percent mortality rate you can project that to the number of US deaths that would
occur and you can extrapolate that to the rest of the world.
So when I look at the gain of function debate I have a lot of sympathy for the notion that
we there are certain experiments that are very very dangerous to do.
I also know from a really practical pragmatic experience of trying to get vaccines out in
real time that very well intentioned regulation has unintended consequences that can be quite
severe.
So if adaptation of vaccine viruses to increase growth in HA yield or the more modern synthetic
equivalents of doing that in manufacturing when it captured by gain of function regulations
or other precautions additional unintended impediments to the timely vaccine supply could
be created.
And I'll stop there.
Okay thank you.
Our next speaker is Ralph Baric from University of North Carolina kind of the first slide.
I'd like to start off by saying that no approved vaccines are therapeutics for SARS or MERS
Coronavirus and we are currently in midst of an ongoing outbreak with about 950 cases
and a 40 percent mortality rate.
Next slide.
I really want to focus on two stories one is how restrictions are reduced public health
preparedness to respond to future SARS outbreaks and then I want to talk about how restrictions
in animal model development will influence vaccine outcomes specifically noting the example
of the vaccine it is to immune pathology associated with the SARS vaccine.
And in the process I want to sort of debunk the idea that there are safe and alternative
experiment approaches sometimes they give the wrong answers next slide.
Whoa.
Two stories.
Restrictions will reduce public health preparedness.
This is restrictions on gain of function.
Functions on animal model development increases risk of vaccine induced immune pathology
and mortality in human populations.
So he thinks that he can save vaccine injuries by first using animal models to develop them.
And finally he wants to debunk the concept that ethical and safe alternative experimental
approaches exist that provide equivalent information is gain of function studies.
That's cool.
Everyone's here.
So during the SARS outbreak of 2002, 2004 there are 8,000 cases and a 10 percent mortality
rate and the original vaccine target included CIVIT and human strains that are about 99 percent
identical and they're shown here on this sort of phylogenetic tree.
Next slide.
Since 2004 there's been no cases of SARS.
Most of them think the viruses extinct in the wild.
But as metagenomic sequencing has been applied, it's fairly clear that there are a large
pool of related bad coronaviruses with 5 to 30 percent sequence difference in the spike
like a protein which are shown right here.
And there's been recognition in the field that vaccines and therapeutics not only need
to target the epidemic strains, but they also have to be prepared to deal with pre-pandemic
strains that might emerge in the future.
And so the central question is are there other SARS-like strains that have pre-pandemic
potential?
And if so, we'll have vaccines and drugs.
Here it's called pre-pandemic potential and it sounds like they dropped that P at some
point.
Let's work.
Next slide.
So we and others have synthesized the spikes of these genes shown here with the red arrows
and then applied two different assays to ask questions about the pre-pandemic potential.
Next slide.
The first is using pseudotypes and so this is a safe ethical alternative approach that
basically coats the virus and the spike and then you can ask whether any of these bad
coronaviruses can use the humanase-2 receptor for entry.
And if you look at the top part of that panel, you can see that the WIV-1 and the SARS coronavirus.
I like how ethical alternative up there is in quotes, that's pretty funny.
So you make a pseudovirus, I think they actually make pseudoviruses of the HIV virus or something
which is comically ethical.
I don't think that that's dangerous.
I'm just saying how it appears to the lay person, it doesn't read better, that's for
sure.
Our strains both can use the humanase-2 receptor.
WIV-1 is a bad coronavirus.
It encodes three of the five contact interface sites that engage the ACE receptor so the
data makes perfect sense.
The other bad strains have much more variation and so it makes sense that they can't use
the ACE-2 receptor.
When you make chimeric viruses that encode these spike like a protein, this is part of
the virus particle, notice that the SHCO-1-4 strain can now replicate efficiently in cells
expressing the humanase-2 receptor.
These data clearly indicate that pseudotypes and structure guided predictions, in which
this case SHCO-1-4 contains the SHCO-1-4 strain can now...
So this is the strain that he supposedly engineered to be lethal in mice.
This is the lethal mouse strain.
I think there's a paper about him doing this in B-L-B, bulb in a B-A-L-B mice and this
is the strain here.
And I believe that after that they took this and they...
Yeah I can't remember anymore but this is definitely one of those that they played around
with, that they got the idea, they got the spike from Wuhan and then they put it.
They only had the spike.
See is the chimeric virus recombinant virus and remember that a lot of these are incomplete
sequences.
So here's where it becomes very interesting.
Let me just give you this little tidbit to think about.
And we're just going to keep doing our work, we're not paying attention to these other
clown cars behind us, we're in the cave all by ourselves here, because we're caverns
ahead of these people.
If you realize that when they sequence a virus in cell culture, they sequence a virus
from a bronchial lavage that they get amplicons that sort like this hundreds and hundreds
of them that are short amplicons over the 30,000 foot genome, 30,000 nucleotide genome.
And so they never...
They don't get full reads by any stretch of the imagination.
When you're doing Sanger sequencing it could be between 300 and 1,000, maybe Kevin can
correct me but it's not thousands.
And indeed they need overlap on these amplicons so that they get multiple reads.
And so these are amplified by PCR and the reason why they get more copies of some than
the other ones is because these are more abundant and therefore they start amplifying earlier.
That's the assumption that these people make and I don't think it's a terrible assumption.
But then when they get a partial sequence, now this is the trick, if they get a partial
sequence in the wild, the normal hot signal that you see here has just cut off at some
arbitrary number where they don't have any coverage at these places.
And so where you don't have coverage like here and from here to here and from here to
here, then you're just missing those genomes.
You're just missing that part of the genome.
And with respect to the paper that he's talking about with this SHCO14S, he is assuming that
because he has found in the wild a new coronavirus spike protein sequence, that that means that
the entire coronavirus is a new one.
It doesn't mean that it's part of a swarm, some of which have this spike protein.
But he's assuming is that it's a whole new instance of this signal.
And that's where they get all of these, these family trees and phylogenies from is that
every time they find a new unique RNA signal for any of these 31 genes, it is very easy
for them to say, wow, we found a new one.
And assume again that just because it's so hard to find these, so hard to find these
signals very robustly in nature and it's very hard to culture them because often time
you only get a sample right here.
You don't get any of these full genomes, they're rare.
And so you can see what would happen if you started by transfecting or by losing or by
creating your virus stock from a genomic RNA that was pure.
Because then all of the clouds of incomplete genomes and subgenomic RNAs will start from
a common ancestor.
That's a very different scenario than a viral swarm that you would get from mother nature
and a very much more infectious one.
You can even imagine where it would decay exponentially from the first clone in clone
transfection to maybe even a couple family members as that person shed self replicating
full transcript RNAs.
But the point to remember here is that when what they're talking about with regard to
this paper is a sequence that the Wuhan lab found that was actually just a partial sequence
that they found in the wild and they guessed that it looks like it's related, it looks
like it's a SARS virus.
And so with his technology, they were able to resurrect a laboratory version of it using
a consensus coronavirus genome plus that spike.
And that's where they got crazy with it.
And that's where everybody went bananas in that 2015 paper.
So here we go.
They replicate efficiently in cells expressing the human ACE2 receptor.
These data clearly indicate that pseudotypes and structure guided predictions in which
this case, SHCl1.4 contains no conserved residues at the interface with any other known strain
would have actually predicted the potential threat.
It was actually a chimeric gain-of-function virus that did.
And the SHCl1.4 and the WIV viruses grow equivalently to SARS and human airway epithelial cells.
So there's no real gain of function in that phenotype.
Next slide.
If you look at virulence, these two bat SARS-like coronaviruses are attenuated.
So you lose function.
Vaccines, especially in the age models, do not protect against infection with these viruses.
And there are four broadly cross-neutralizing human monoclonal antibodies that have been
identified that neutralize all SARS and CIVIT strains.
And none of them actually work against the SHCl1.4 virus.
So what I hear here, and I hope you hear it here, is that he's making the argument that
some of these viruses have no solution.
And a live attenuated virus vaccine does not protect the animals.
And a cocktail of monoclonal antibodies, like he described in 2007, very clear competitor
intellectually, if you will, for the Z map product that was in Plumber's lab in Canada
with that Chinese lady whose name I can't remember, but I'm sure Mark Koolack knows
right off the top of his head.
The point being here now, again, we're discussing the worst case scenario without actually saying
it out loud.
Because, again, we have something that vaccines won't work for, and a monoclonal antibody
cocktail won't work for.
And it's lethal.
So human monoclonal antibodies that exist on a shelf will fail.
We have no information on the transmissibility of these isolates.
Next slide.
So if you look at this phylogenetic tree, they fall into two clusters, that cluster with
high risk strains, some of which, WIV1 and SHCl1.4, which actually are representative of about
12 to 15 viruses, different viruses each.
Yes, that lady, Jeff.
There are no vaccines at therapeutics that will really work well against them, and so we're vulnerable.
And I also want to mention that many of the chimeric viruses here, the definition implied
in gain of function, is much too broad and must be redefined.
Next slide.
There are some public health implications to this research.
On equivalently, it establishes that there are SARS-like viruses that are pre-positioned
to jump and use human receptors and normal targets for infection, and so they have pre-pandemic
potential.
The results are generalizable to other coronaviruses and other zoonotic viruses, and there's a
platform framework that you can use to tease those associations apart.
And you can inform policymakers in terms of SARS-like outbreaks are possible and likely
in the future, and that existing therapeutics and vaccines most likely will fail, and so
we're unprepared.
And advantage is that we have reagents now to derive effective interventions.
Next slide.
The second part I want to mention is the importance of animal model development in
vaccine design.
SARS replicates very poorly in mice.
There's no weight loss or clinical disease and very little pathology.
This is because the virus poorly engages the mouse ACE2 receptor.
It doesn't use it very well.
Every vaccine that I know of that's been tested in this replication model works.
And then Kanta and her group at NIH developed some mouse-adapted strains, which have six
to ten mutations that enhance the usage of the mouse ACE2 receptor.
Next slide.
This results in models that capture most of the human disease phenotypes, which are shown
in yellow.
And so I can't stress how it important it is to see what they are doing here is by establishing
animal models, then they are going directly against that old adage that Robert Malone
introduced us to or reminded us of way back when, which is mice lie, monkeys deceive
and the only way to know the truth is humans.
And in this scenario, what we are doing is setting ourselves up for a disaster by funding
grant calls or rather writing grant calls and funding research proposals that look for
development of animal models of disease.
Animal models of disease being wholly inappropriate for studying viral replication, viral disease
in humans.
Because of the way that they do it, they use clones, they start with pure stocks and they
apply it in crazy ways.
Like really high concentrations in the nose or even worse, they inject it in the brain
or somewhere in the heart muscle or in the interperitoneal cavity.
And so these animal models are part of the voodoo part of the enchantment that has been
cast on academia because he just said it in the previous slide that that unequivocally
established that some natural SARS-like coronavirus strains are pre-pandemic potential.
Unequivocally established.
Now how is that any different than what I was saying right here with this early, but
I want is that we're seeding the gain of function narrative with scientific programs
in peer reviewed publications for years before the pandemic that what unequivocally, unequivocally
established that some natural SARS-like coronavirus bad strains represent pre-pandemic potential.
It's done, case closed.
And now we need this warm base of manufacturing forever.
Now we need to fund these programs forever.
Now you can't argue anymore.
You see what his job was?
That's why they're throwing him under the bus now because that's what his job was.
His job was established the worst case scenario and do your own thing alongside.
And so he argued for what he thought was the legitimate best way.
Had live attenuated viruses working on molecular solutions to de attenuation.
These are all laudable pursuits.
This is not the Scooby-Doo villain that we're looking for.
Was he involved?
Does he know who they are?
I'm with almost without a doubt, he does.
But the relentless focus on this man by people on social media, by people on the intellectual
dark web, by people writing books is a mistake.
It's a mistake because he's not JS Bach of coronaviruses because he used restriction
enzymes to build a long DNA molecule.
I mean, building a long DNA molecule with restriction enzymes was something that had
already been done.
Maybe not as long as a coronavirus genome, maybe.
But it's not some kind of, you know, it's like adding a trailer to a semi-truck, you
know, hey, you know what, you could hook up another trailer to the back of that.
Really?
I never thought about that.
Holy cow.
Does it work?
You can hook another one up.
Oh, wow.
They call that a train.
And so for this guy to be held up as some, you know, virtuoso, because he came up with
the idea of using restriction enzymes to make a long DNA molecule, it's just ridiculous.
But that's what they want, right?
That's where we are.
That's what they want.
Rob's capyptor.
It doesn't use it very well.
Every vaccine that I know of that's been tested in this replication model works.
And then Kanta and her group at NIH developed some mouse-adapted strains, which have six
to ten mutations that enhance the usage of the mouse ACE2 receptor.
Next slide.
This results in models that capture most of the human disease phenotypes, which are shown
in yellow.
And a continual theme from these studies in terms of vaccines is that the Envivo core
list of protection vary depending on the model.
Next slide.
Corillis of protection.
The immediate vaccine was developed, purchased by NIH early in the epidemic.
It protected mice and primates in a replication model.
So what happens, although they did notice low levels of eosinophils in the animals, what
happens after the lethal challenge strain is used?
The vaccine fails to protect in the elderly, and it induces a TH2 immune pathology with
a large number of eosinophils shown here by the column sort of in the middle, with all
the blue cells surrounding the airways and the vesicles.
And you can see that the number of eosinophils increased tenfold as a consequence of challenge.
This is not a good thing.
But it is an inbred model.
What about outbred models?
Next slide.
So that's very similar to the paper that we looked at on the bike, actually, already
in 2020, where they inoculated macaque monkeys and then exposed them to the virus, and they
had a much more severe reaction to the virus, destroyed their lungs.
This is exactly what he's describing here.
It's very difficult to vaccinate against a coronavirus because inevitably what you've
done is screw up the memory to the coronavirus and make your immune system prone to overreact
to what it actually tries to ignore.
It's actually pretty spectacular.
So we use the collaborative cross mouse resource, which encodes the three substrains of mice.
We took the eight founder lines and made 64 F1 dialyol combinations.
We aged them for a year, vaccinated half of them, and then challenged the virus.
This is about 2,400 mice total in this experiment.
Next slide.
When you look at the results in yellow, it means that the vaccine protected from lethal
infection.
Green is the vaccine protected either from lethal infection or pathology or disease.
Black means that the vaccine really had little impact, and red means that the vaccine resulted
in increased immune pathology and mortality in the animals.
So in this case, in an outbred population, the prediction would be that that vaccine would
have caused increased mortality in some individuals.
This is seen with other vaccine formulations for SARS, this TH2 immune pathology.
It demonstrates quite clearly the importance of animal model development in evaluating
vaccine and drug performance.
Last slide.
Now in that sense, I agree with them.
If the mice can already uncover massive failure of the vaccine product, then that's great.
But if they would have survived, it wouldn't necessarily prove that it's going to work
in humans.
The pathology could have still developed in humans, or it could have been less obvious
in the mice, et cetera.
Remember, these mouse studies are always going to be ended early because they need to sacrifice
the mouse in order to look at the tissue that they show those pictures of.
So if the mouse model at six weeks would have shown no problems after re-infection or challenge,
that wouldn't necessarily have proved definitively there wasn't going to be autoimmunity in the
future.
So that's another key thing to keep in mind.
But where are we with MERS?
MERS was not replicated mice or in any small animals, and vivo passage has failed in multiple
laboratories.
We'll talk about the reason for that tomorrow.
Transgenic mice have been developed, expressing the human DPP4 receptor.
This results in a replication model without serious disease.
Passage of virus has been done in two laboratories, both of which, to our surprise, was halted
in the midst of an ongoing epidemic.
And so in our opinion, the public health vaccine development has been compromised by this decision.
Without a robust small animal models, the testings of vaccines and drugs have been delayed
and there's a backlog.
So I think it's critical that MERS coronavirus restrictions be lifted immediately, at least
in terms of animal model development.
Last slide.
So I'd just like to summarize where in dangerous times, there's four highly pathogenic viruses
sort of sampling the human population.
International travel allows for instantaneous, almost worldwide dissemination, and it's only
going to get faster.
And the response times, which are so critical for treating human disease, are being compressed.
And being a function represents one of those approaches that is a crucial tool for public
health preparedness and response.
So that's an interesting place for Ralph Baric to be when, again, and I think this is really
important to see, where is it here?
Is it here?
Come on now.
What the heck?
I had it all queued up now.
I don't see it tonight.
Oh, yeah, here.
Sorry, got it.
Got it.
Let's just watch this one really quick.
Okay.
And then I'm only going to watch the beginning and then I'm going to hang out because I got
to go to my son's basketball game.
Check this out.
Thank you, Andy.
Just listen to the beginning of this because the beginning is hysterical.
That was really nice.
As an now person, I really admire at the school.
Ralph Baric.
He's the most accomplished and prolific scientist anywhere and he's really brought tremendous
creativity, persistence, and innovation to the study of viruses.
I've had the opportunity to tour his lab.
So we watched the 2007 video yesterday and then we just watched the 2016 video and now
we're going to watch him talk two years later.
Okay.
And microbiology and immunology.
Two years later.
No.
The NIN.
How bad could the next pandemic be?
What might it look like?
And will we be ready?
Well, I have to admit, I'm a little worried about giving this talk partially because as
Yogi Barris said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.
So there's a good chance I could be wrong.
I study coronaviruses, noroviruses, flaviviruses, and do some influenza virus research just to
give you some background of what I do.
The other reason that I'm a little bit worried is being labeled as a harbinger of doom.
This is not me.
I'm not one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
So he's choosing to do this, right?
Or is he implying that someone else is making him give this talk from this perspective as
one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the plague?
It's a very curious talk to me because it is not a typical scientific talk.
The typical lecture from a biologist has a 30,000 foot view directly over the target
and then you zoom in.
You don't start from the, you know, wow, I mean, from worst case scenario.
Even if you think that Alzheimer's disease is really important or you think that autism
is a really devastating disease, you don't start with worst case scenario.
And yet here he is, and it's extraordinary.
And I want you to let you know that I'm really kind of a nice guy.
So please come talk to me after this talk.
I will mention that viruses are certainly in the pockets of all of the four horsemen and
they can be used in all of these scenarios.
So I'd like to start off by taking a step back and talk about how infectious diseases
ranks or stacks up against other natural disasters that in terms of frequency and relative risk.
So if you step back and every three to 400 million years or so, there's a danger of
a gamma radiation burst.
These occur when black holes and neutron stars collide.
It shoots out this burst of gamma radiation which can strip away the ozone layer.
It's acid rain, resulting high UV radiation levels to plant an animal life on the planet
and will result in global warming.
And this can occur as far as 6,500 light years away.
Fortunately, it doesn't happen so often.
So I'm not, don't really lose sleep about this at night.
A little bit more likely to cause an issue as an asteroid strike.
The earth runs into about 3,700 to about 7,800 tons of debris.
As it flows through space, occasionally some of these are big rocks.
When a really big rock hits the planet, this can result in an extinction level event like
what happened to the dinosaurs.
The good news is that mammals became dominant and so we are here today.
Otherwise we'd probably be lunch.
The U.S. takes this threat fairly seriously so NASA has a near earth object program that
tracks satellites that are large enough to cause damage to the planet.
One problem that they face is they can only track them for about 100 years and the accuracy
falls off.
But fortunately Bruce Willis, our mom, get it in here.
I just want to point out that he is also a Pensberg boy.
We actually went to school together.
It's a little town in New Jersey, 3,500 of us.
A clear epicenter of planetary defense, so remember that, please.
Anyway, moving up on the list, we have supervolcanoes.
I do like Bruce Willis.
We went there about every million years.
We watched Die Harder the other day with my boys.
That was pretty funny.
These are volcanoes that are large enough to co-continent with about a half an inch of
ash or more.
Supervolcanoes, which was in Indonesia, resulted in ice age and knocked the...
And look at that, that's Yellowstone right there.
About 20 of these of concern on the planet, and this is ours, this is Yellowstone, obviously.
Please go to the caldera and spend some time at that hotel.
It's quite a treat.
Finally, we have Carrington-level events, which probably some of you may have heard
of.
Most people, not these are geomagnetic storms.
When solar flares throw off a lot of coronal mass, they can hit our electromagnetic waves
that are around the earth and this can result in magnetic storms.
The biggest one occurred in 1859.
It wasn't much electronics at the time, but it caused fires and telegraph offices.
It shocked our electrocuted telegraph workers.
Much smaller ones occurred in the 60s and 70s at knockout power grids in the U.S. and
Canada.
Lloyd's of London says that they can cause about $23 million in damage and potentially
knock out the power grid for one to five years.
So this is not insignificant.
And what's a little bit scary is that much larger flares are possible.
So NASA has taken this pretty seriously, and if the first solar probe is going to go around
the sun, it's going to be launched in the summer, and they are going to take a look
at this.
But this can certainly knock out GPS, cell phone, internet, and power grid for several years.
Okay, so now we're back into infectious diseases.
Here we are.
From my perspective, though, since I've been on the planet, there's been an epidemic
virus every decade starting with Asian flu in 1960.
So do you see Asian flu?
And then...
In Hong Kong in 1967 or 1968, H1N1 came back in the 70s, followed by HIV, followed by
West Nile, and then we got to the 21st century.
And thanks, Spada.
SARS was the first epidemic virus of the 20...
Now here he doesn't actually mention the Spanish flu, but he did mention it in the talk
from 2007, and said how many people had killed.
So here we again are starting with this idea of worst case scenario, we're starting with
the idea of pandemic potential, but extraordinarily, he is doing something that I think a lot of
these gain-of-function people have done, especially since the start of the pandemic,
and start to make equivalences with very, very planet-wide devastating events, rather
than bring it down to a nuclear weapon, or bring it down to a few thousand people, we
have to bring it up into orders of magnitude more impactual, like a meteor, or a Carrington
event that would knock out the entire power grid of the Northern Hemisphere for five years.
And so I cannot stress enough how important it is for you to see that this slide, describing
what we are witnessing here, is so real.
They definitely seeded the gain-of-function narrative with scientific programs.
They knew what they were doing, and they co-opted people like Ralph Baric with lots and lots
of funding to do whatever the heck he wanted with translation regulatory sequences and trying
to make attenuated viruses that couldn't de-attenduate.
They let him do everything he wanted with that, as long as they also got the stitching
thing to go.
Got synthetic viruses and coronaviruses to go, and in fact, it's even possible that these
things are just, they're just testing self-replicating RNA on us and calling them coronaviruses and
normal viruses and flavoviruses and all this other stuff.
None of these have perhaps have a significant natural signature, but the signature that
we are told to pay attention to, the signature that they wave around all the time, could actually
be always generated from a laboratory-created manufactured clone RNA.
That's the reality.
It could be.
The reality is not that it could be that there are millions of viruses out there in
the wild and that there are pandemics happening and avoided all the time.
That's at least the idea that we are using clones all the time and making clones and
that that's the only danger is at least as equally likely as the opposite.
This worst-case scenario narrative, which I'm sure in my heart of hearts, it really feels
like it doesn't have a firm foundation in biology.
Again, you can find the entire gain of function symposium on usatonicits.com's website under
the gain of function symposium 2016.
All of those are also hosted on a YouTube channel, and then the individual video that
we watched is also right there.
So we have been...
What I want is time morbidity.
I want people to complain.
By these people.
And I think it is the best.
It's really fabulous that Sacha Latopova has found James Giordano and realizes how pivotal
this lecture is.
I'm so happy that she's also trying to call out Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to make sure that
we try to keep pushing him forward, to keep retrospectively looking at the pandemic
for evidence from other fields and evidence from other data sets to prove or disprove
the spread of a risk-additive pathogen in 2020.
And I think we can get him over the edge to understand that infectious RNA clones is
the only real threat in modern RNA virology.
And again, that's because infectious material is very hard to come by by any other means.
And we have been bamboozled by a spectacular commitment to this lie.
Some people have been coerced, some people have been wittingly and unwittingly...
Oh yeah, I wanted to show you that.
I mean, isn't that crazy?
Have you ever heard this language before, anywhere else, besides...
Let me see if it's here.
Did I copy it or did I wittingly or unwittingly?
Here it is right here at the top.
All pandemics to date have been faked by the military industrial globalist cabal with numerous
witting and unwitting participants.
I mean, I'm not...
I don't care.
I really don't.
But I'm just wondering if anybody else that's watching the show right now sees any striking
resemblance to the message that I've been sending for the last year, year and a half or so.
Four ways to fake the...
Easy ways to fake the pandemic, Spanish-fluous fake, John Beaudoin's good, Meryl Nasse and
Lab Leaks, then witting and unwitting participants.
RFK doesn't have it quite right yet.
I actually have that in his book.
And then also James Giordano.
It's really interesting to me.
But witting and unwitting participants is...
I guess it's a pretty common phrase in English.
I guess that's possible.
I don't know.
Anyway, here we are, ladies and gentlemen.
It's been a fun, fun, fun time and it is only just starting.
My 52nd year, the entire year is probably going to be spent trying to make sure that
your kids and mine do not get on this train.
The your kids and mine learned the truth that Alex Berenson said live on Joe Rogan that,
you know, if you had to invest in one thing, it would be in sewage and in water treatment
in sanitation because that's where we got the most gains.
He's not going to go so far as to say that we didn't need vaccines, that we wouldn't
have needed vaccines to have that huge reduction in polio and measles and other transmissible
disease when we got nutrition up and we got water treatment up and we got sewage treatment
up and we got water purity up.
Hello.
And they definitely don't want us to understand the extent of the coronavirus illusion.
How little fidelity that they really have, how over exaggerated this signal has been
and how unmonitored it was before the pandemic.
So we can free our college kids.
We can free our children and prevent our grandchildren from ever getting on this train in the first
place.
We have to teach our children the way out.
We have to teach them the biology that will free them to make sure that this lie never
becomes the truth.
They must learn the biology because then it can't happen.
And that biology describes this as a Scooby-Doo.
We were fooled into believing that something leaked in 2009 by all the lies and the redacted
emails and the arguing in front of the Senate.
And for five years, we've been fooled by this illusion of consensus that people think
that this is the right question to ask, that it's either a lab leak or a natural virus
and getting mad about it and this faith that there was a virus, this faith that millions
of people died, this is the danger, this is the mythology.
We cannot pass on to our children or they will be lost forever and more importantly,
our grandchildren will be.
This faith is a lie.
It was a background.
It was an amplified noise.
It was a signal that was planted there.
It was not a natural occurrence.
It was not a natural occurrence, like the spilling of a signal in one place and spreading from
a point.
That's not how it happened.
And yet that's what we are told.
That's what every one of these people believes.
That's what every one of these people is defending, including Kevin McKernan.
Because the clone chemtrail hypothesis is, it's chemtrail retarded.
The biology is the way out cause first call for a stop to the childhood vaccine schedule
in America by simply advocating for it to be compared to other Western countries and
acknowledge that it's too early and too many and therefore it has to be criminal advocate
for strict liability for these products because that's the way that we fix this problem.
Investigate the use of deadly protocols to cause mass casualty events.
That's Jessica Hockett, that's Jonathan Engler, that's Martin Neil.
Investigate the use of mass casualty events and transfection to create the illusion of
a pandemic.
And that we can talk to Pierre Corey and Nurse Aaron and all these other people that were
supposedly there during the worst time but actually weren't and we're not really sure
what they were doing.
So we need to claim sovereignty over our children's bodies again, we need to get out
of the who, we need to get out of the UN, we need to close our CDC.
And you can see these people because they won't say these things.
Pierre Corey said that all childhood vaccinations were bad at some point on Jimmy Dorr.
So I think we should watch that video to see what else he says.
But they won't advocate for strict liability.
You won't hear any of these lawyers at ICANN like, like Siri say, we should just advocate
for strict liability.
You won't hear Siri say that we should go against this from the Seventh Amendment perspective
and try to get it struck in federal court.
You won't hear them say that because it's maybe not the right time or something.
I don't know.
You're not going to hear them talk about the deadly protocols.
They're always going to now going forward.
They're always going to focus on the vaccine.
And that's what you saw when they co-opted Denis Rancourt's data.
They exclusively focused on the 17 million number.
Now you have people calling out Brett Weinstein is saying that 17 million number, the 17
million number is dumb.
And you have Brett Weinstein say, well, I didn't say 17 million.
I was just quoting somebody else.
And all the while everybody ignores the John Beaudoin and Denis Rancourt and Jessica Hockett
and Jonathan Engler all have data from all around the world that shows there was no spreading
pathogen.
They don't use the word clone because it's going to reveal the fact that RNA virology
in and of itself is foundationally dependent on this methodology and therefore is overextended
is exaggerated and likely most are all of the objections laid out by Stefan Lanka and the
Bailey's and all these people are likely true.
And so you're damn right I was taken.
And so as I admit this, they make fun of it as I admit this people are coming on.
Well, why didn't you just vaccinate your kids?
Yeah, I did.
I admitted it.
I lied about it and I'll do it again.
Cry about it, that is.
It's these other people who say I just made honest mistakes.
I don't have anything to apologize for just because I advocated for masks for two years,
just because I advocated for lockdown for two years, just because I said it was a gain
a function virus for two years.
I don't have any obligation to learn virology for myself so that I don't make a mistake
to my hundreds of thousands of viewers.
That's what these people think.
That's not what we're doing here though.
We're teaching this biology now and we're going to keep teaching it as we try to do study
halls to figure it out together.
We're going to try and summarize across the entire show and we're going to attack ideas
instead of people.
That's how we're going to get out of this because they are trying to reduce the population
and they are going to do it by just not letting our kids think it's a cool thing to
have have kids to show you commercials on YouTube about being a single woman with
no kids and how great it is or on rumble because they don't want us to have kids.
They want the population to go down.
They really do but as it goes down, they also want you to surrender.
They want our kids to surrender.
More importantly, more importantly, the way to say it is they want us to surrender our
children because they think that the artificial general intelligence is just right around
the corner.
So they got to collect this data so that they can feed it and so that it can figure
out how the genome works.
It can figure out all the irreducible complexity that we've never been able to penetrate.
Ladies and gentlemen, stop all transfections in humans because they are trying to eliminate
the control group by any means necessary intramuscular injection of any combination of substances
with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent and viruses are not patterned integrity.
Thank you very much guys, thank you very much for joining me and thanks for the birthday
wishes.
I will have a good time.
I'm going to watch this game.
I coached already this morning early and came back and I did the stream and I got the eighth
graders, the eighth grade boy he plays but I'm not his coach.
If you would like to support the stream, please go to gigglehomebiological.com.
If you'd like to communicate with me there, you can find a telephone number, you can
also find an email, you can find me at gigglehome.bio which is kind of like a Twitter alternative.
You can support Gigglehome there at the green, you can find this link at the watch and then
of course there's a schedule and then down at the bottom there's places to subscribe.
I can't thank everybody enough for jumping on board.
I will not let you down this year.
These subscribers are contributing to what I think is going to be the most important
or one of the most important independent news streams on the internet in the coming year
and I think Mark Housatonic.Live and myself and a few other people are starting
to form what is a loose, you know, intellectual bright web on the internet and I'm really
excited and I really have these people and more to thank for that.
So thank you very much for joining me and if you have the means and the opportunity
I have a drink for me, please, 52 years old, see you tomorrow.