Looks like Shaggy wants to try it for the eight-man role in the picture.
Arise!
But there's Scooby doing the other chair.
Surprise! It's the Scooby head the eight-man was wearing.
Now there's real talent.
We sure fooled him Scooby. We ought to be in the movies.
Spare!
Show me who we go!
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, this is Giga Home Biological.
It's a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
It is Friday the 13th of October, 2023.
Lots of threes today.
What to say about that?
Not the wrong with free.
Let's go!
Trying to figure out a way to get Joey in the door.
You see that? That was nice.
That was nice.
Oh, I ran out of music. What happened there?
It was a little weird.
I might just...
Might just do something like this.
Because it's just funny, I don't know.
There was no spread in New York.
Infectious clones are the only real threat.
Placebo batches were likely distributed and
in healthy mammals is dumb.
To put it another way, protocols were murdered, gain of function is a mythology.
The Scooby-Doo mystery that you are fooled into solving is real.
And the players are committed to the lies.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Giga Home Biological.
And we are here every night trying to
excavate ourselves from the cave.
And so we're keeping our flashlights forward.
We're keeping our arms straight.
And we are not surrendering to the fear and confusion and doubt.
And that's where we are.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the show coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, dropping zero frames.
I assume that my lips and the picture are roughly or the lips of my sound are roughly locked.
That could be good.
I paid this out before I get a copyright strike there.
As usual, you know, not a lot of any different frames or different slides set tonight.
Just get right to the show.
Thanks to everybody for supporting the stream for these last three years.
Thank you very much for sharing it.
And if you can do so with this one as well, don't take the bait on TV and social media
because there's a lot of it right now.
The mystery is still being solved.
We are still unmasking the bad guys.
And we keep circling the block all the time, coming back to Berwick and EcoHealth Alliance
and Tony Fauci and America and lying and USAID and the CIA.
And we've got to wake up from this.
We've got to wake up from it, and we're not going to wake up from it
if you keep listening to the same storytellers.
We're not going to wake up from it.
If we keep listening to the same storytellers, it's not going to happen.
But the same storytellers are telling stories to the other people
and then the other people and then the other people.
And this is where we are.
where we are. And so we've been trying to figure out this map of people you're gonna
have to apologize, I have to apologize, my hoodies a little magic on the green screen.
But this illusion of consensus can be broken if we see it, if we can start to show it to
people that this agreement doesn't make any sense between these people.
And if we are honest, there aren't that many people that have been very consistent throughout
the pandemic. But one of them is definitely Nick Hudson. And he just gave a talk a couple
days ago, which I have been recommended to watch. I'm not, I have not watched it yet.
My plan is to take notes and stop it as minimally as possible to make this about an eight on
hour long show. So let's roll the dice and see how long I can keep my mouth shut. By the
way, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting
the immune system is likely silly. And for sure, transmission is not immunization. So
we can stop all of those. We'll talk about that later. This show is about the perception
of what is true, the lights that are going by your head right now. If I scoot out of the
way a little bit, those lights that make it seem like that you're going through a tunnel,
obviously, you know, you're really not going through a tunnel with other side tunnels that
are lit by other lights. But it looks like you are. And if this goes fast enough, and there's
enough physical stimulation or or distraction, for example, a lockdown or economic pain or
TV fear or social media hype, then a pandemic can seem very, very real, just like this tunnel
can seem really real, especially if the only window to the outside world is a two dimensional
screen. These people are spectacularly committed to the lies. And Nick Hudson brings his a game
as he presents the data as we know it. And I think it's going to be a pretty good talk. Although,
I haven't seen it. It's title actuarial and statistical problems around the COVID phenomenon.
I have very high hopes. I consider Nick a pandemic friend. I met him through Panda,
obviously, and I feel like although Panda is an organization full of a variety of individuals,
I believe Nick to be a man of good faith and a man of seeking the truth. I do really feel like
he's one of these few. And that's why he's one of those green squares in my current people map.
So let's get this on. I'll string my head as soon as I hit play.
Didn't I hit play? Well, come back. We continue now with our 50th annual convention and the 75th
birthday celebration of the actuarial society of South Africa. If we're just meeting for the first
time, my name is Inkramila Andrew. I'm going to be your host for the rest of the day.
So it's been just over three years since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
And so allowing us time to reflect and analyze and review different perspectives, to better
understand things, and hopefully learn lessons from past events in order to improve for the future.
In these next two separate presentations that follow, we'll hear from presenters who will
highlight the importance of actually in such a pandemic event, as well as sharing processes
and technical research. Can we do the South African accent on 1.5? Is that okay with everybody?
If you have to, if I have to slow it down one more now, just tell me.
Findings when analyzing the COVID-19 pandemic. I think it'll be easier.
You're able to engage with the technical context and research findings of the
presentations during the Q&A session at the end of each presentation. In this first session,
we have Nikaxanja to deliver his presentation entitled actuarial and statistical problems
around the COVID-19 phenomenon. Thank you very much. I'm going to start by claiming
a first. My sister, who's much more interesting than I am, is on stage next door at the same time
that I'm on stage here. She's not an actuary. She's a radio presenter, but there you have it.
How often does that happen at the convention? Family affair, really. Most of us are old enough
to remember how bad COVID, sorry, bad models were so implicated in the 2008 financial crisis.
The dawn of the COVID phenomenon was greeted by a plethora of models predicting doom
of strikingly similar scale. And without exception, I'd be failing to bear even a vague
resemblance to its reality. Those models generally assumed that there was a deadly virus and that
lockdowns would slow the spread of it, resulting in less dying. One would call the results
comical if their impact on society had not been so tragic. When Sweden famously rejected the
lockdown idea, the models who facilitated the locking down of the world rejected that it would
experience in a few short weeks a whole year's worth of extra death, translating into a weekly
mortality rate some six times normal levels. That would leave them at the end of the year
with twice the level of normal deaths. What actually emerged was that Sweden had a year of
mortality in line with its tenure average. Now, in our actuarial studies, we learn about a little
thing called the actuarial control cycle, which amongst others entails testing our models against
emergent evidence in commercial settings failing to employ the control cycle after a signal as
loud as this one. I think he's saying too much important to go so fast.
Just going to slow it down one tick so everybody catches it a little bit. He's a very smart guy.
He speaks very well. There's nothing to do with him. It has to do with my desire for you to hear
Nick and what he's got to say. He's going to roll it back. The impact on society had not been so
tragic. When Sweden famously rejected the lockdown idea, the models who facilitated the locking down
of the world projected that it would experience in a few short weeks a whole year's worth of
extra death, translating into a weak immortality rate some six times normal levels. That would leave
them at the end of the year with twice the level of normal deaths. What actually emerged was that
Sweden had a year of mortality in line with its tenure average. Now, in our actuarial studies,
we learn about a little thing called the actuarial control cycle, which amongst others entails testing
our models against emergent evidence. In commercial settings failing to employ the control cycle
after a signal as loud as this one would likely result in the responsible actuary
facing some very difficult questions, if not being fired. Now, the evidence that those models
called SIR models or susceptible infected recovered models were not merely incorrectly calibrated,
but wholly inappropriate for application to the COVID phenomenon and that the ensuing policy
recommendations was wrong, was available abundantly and available decisively within weeks of the
onset of the COVID hysteria, but it was all ignored. It was as if the actuarial control cycle had never
been invented. At Panda, the organisation I co-founded along with a group of multidisciplinary
professionals to push back against the catastrophic hysteria, we could see, for example, that completely
different places with similar population characteristics experienced completely different mortality
outcomes, and that these differences could not be explained by viral dynamics, something else was
at work. This observation led us to adopt an empirical modeling approach capable of subsuming
all factors, not merely the theory of a novel daily virus. And despite not being perfect,
that model was very accurate. As the South African coronavirus modding consortium and the
actuarial society continued to deploy SIR models, we uttered their inaccuracy by making various
predictions that were strongly validated by emergent evidence. For example, at the time of release of
SACMA's revised model, we predicted that it would breach the lower bound of its
comically broad confidence intervals in 10 weeks. We were out by one day. Similarly,
we predicted that hospital bed demand would be just 5% of what they projected, and again,
correctly, in the Western Cape, our model predicted peak utilization of hospital beds to the digit.
In December of 2020, we engaged with the premier of the Western Cape. We asked him what had made
him spend hundreds of millions building two field hospitals. He said that was what the models
told them they would need. We described the inaccuracy of the SACMA models to him,
and he said he wasn't using them. He mistakenly, as it turns out, said that he was using the
NASA model. He then astonished us by saying that he was investing in a third facility.
Now, as it turns out, it seems it was not NASA who was advising him, but a consulting firm
using one of the varied but consistently wrong scenarios from the second iteration of the
NASA model. I hope that his claim about this will be investigated and that the failure of,
you know, by whatever consulting firm that was to comply with the normal
arterial control cycle will have some consequences because the public interest was definitely not
protected in that scenario. But building pointless facilities was the least of the travesties,
unleashed upon the public by woefully advised and highly pressurized governments.
The financial and humanitarian consequences of lockdowns have been quite staggering.
The established NGO, Action Against Hunger, finds as follows. Before COVID lockdowns,
the number of people at risk of starvation was 135 million worldwide. By the end of 2021,
that had increased by another 135 million people, and in 2022, it then increased by a further 67
million people. The result is that we currently experience about 10 million new deaths a year
from starvation, three million of them among children. It's a staggering, staggering
consequence of lockdown. On top of that, about $4 trillion of wealth has been siphoned off
from the middle classes to the benefit of a coterie of billionaires, the number of whom
swelled by a quarter over the lockdown period. Now, numbers take time to be updated, but charts
like this one tell a story of the haves benefiting at the expense of the have-nots.
And this is precisely the kind of outcome that Panda had warned of in our first paper,
which stirred up so much breastfeeding range and anxiety amid people swept up by the false
narrative of the COVID phenomenon. If you're not,
May 2020, Panda's contention that the COVID policy response would trigger 30 times as much
loss of life as COVID stood stood to was a dramatic underestimate.
May 2020. That's that's some impressive, impressive stuff.
Convinced that such people were engaged in acts of immense folly, we have an interesting tidbit
for you. Let's, for a moment, suspend judgment on that whole suite of SIR models. Let's assume
for a minute that they were actually appropriate. And we ask the question, what happens when you
deploy such models reflecting one of the clearest and earliest available empirical results under
the COVID phenomenon, namely that COVID exhibited intense age-graduated mortality with deaths,
among even vaguely healthy under-70s being negligible? What happens if you incorporate
differential mobility for the at-risk elderly? Now, at this website, we have a model you can
play with showing that reducing the mobility of the non-vulnerable by locking down causes her
immunity to be attained with higher prevalence among the vulnerable. Let that sink in for a minute.
What it means is that in terms of the very logic of SIR models themselves,
lockdowns can clearly be predicted to shift disease burden onto the people most likely to die,
causing total deaths to increase. This is a stunning reality and I invite you to look at
this website and verify it for yourself. Okay, having argued that the application of SIR models
is invalid. I think what's important to note here, I'm not sure if this is the model,
it would have been one of the models, but there are a couple old guys in Panda that are old
ecologists. Believe it or not, ecologists are really good at making models. A lot of their stuff
is based on, you know, you make a sample across an ecosystem and then you make a sample across
an ecosystem and then you make a sample across an ecosystem and then you make a model of what's
happening based on those repeated samples over seasons. And so making a model of people getting
infected and it's spreading and so that's easy for them. Maybe they can do that and it's the same
kind of map, it's the same programming. And so Panda's website had a number of these models
at one point that you could play with, which I think is pretty extraordinary. It's not something
that the American or the Dutch or the your any European CDC had where scroll up and down on the
R knot. So you can see what it does or scroll up and down on our predictions. So you can see what
they do. So you can see how absurd our predictions are. Or you can see what our predictions will look
like over years and why these models aren't right because they don't really. And you can play around
with this, the idea of changing the age dependency of the of the potential for lethality
and changing the way that that affects, you know, there are ways to do it. And there are ways that
they could have brought us to understand these models better. But if they would have done that,
they wouldn't have been able to make the claims that they wanted to make. We would understand the
limits of their model. And the whole charade would have been over. We would have seen the two-dimensional
scenery trees for what they were, because we would have turned them on their side like this and go
wait, that's not a real tree. And that's what these models are. From the front, they're painted
beautiful and they look like a great thing like, wow, we really understand this biology. Look,
we can even adjust some parameters and the biology responds. Ooh. But even Nick will admit
that this is a model that is dumb because it's still just these real basic epidemiology models
based on infection and immunity and blah, blah, blah, like three variables. But if they're going to
use it, then at least we might as well show them how they're not using it very well. Because if you
add one more variable like age dependence, your model makes some pretty dark predictions.
It's gorgeous, Nick. Congratulations, keep going. We need to get back to some reliable findings.
We now have hundreds of studies validating this one from Panda's paper in mid 2020.
This will be familiar to a great number of you who have ever done numerical and technical work,
which I imagine will be quite a few. Lockdown students, he was entirely uncorrelated with
official mortality data. On the x-axis, we have lockdown, stringency, on the y-axis,
official COVID mortality. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a pain splat. No correlation.
Now, we can return to the point I mentioned earlier, that one of our first and earliest
conclusions was that something else was going on other than viral spread and that it had to do
with where you were. Before exploring what that something is, let's explore the theoretical
framework for this. A syndemic is the aggregation of two epidemics that exacerbate disease burden,
where two processes are present, statistical methods can be used to assess which is the
more important and how much it contributes. And one of those methods is a type of Bayesian analysis.
You look at which of these two factors elicits a differentiation in the objective population.
And we get some very clear and for some people quite startling findings when we do that.
When the presence of COVID or a PCR test, for example, is used as a flag, what we find is that
the characteristics of COVID deaths are identical to the characteristics of non-COVID deaths among
multiple dimensions. So age, gender, income, and comorbidity prevalence. And this strongly
suggests, very strongly suggests that COVID is not a cause of age. See what I mean by starting
outcome. But if you flag people for where they were, when they died, the proportion of deaths
varies spectacularly by that flag. The virus would seem to obey political borders at a very
granular level, which is, of course, impossible. Death attributed to COVID emerged to be very
heavily determined by political boundaries at multiple levels of granularity. The combination
of those two results, the failure of COVID to divide deaths into differential populations
and the very strong tendency of geographic flags to divide them very strongly suggests that
variation in clinical and public health practices is a major culprit where excess mortality is
involved. So does everybody understand that? If it was a disease, it should, it should separate
on age, it should separate on the same morbidity, prevalences,
sorry, and it doesn't. So in other words, it's not sorting by what you would expect it to sort
if it was a respiratory disease with a certain set of of vulnerabilities in a certain vulnerable
population. Instead, instead, as Denny has told us a couple days in a row now and even told Kim
Iverson, it respects municipalities, it respects hospital regions, and it, it respects the protocols
that were present. And so if the deaths don't cross borders, then they have something to do
with what the people are doing inside of those borders rather than the biology, which, of course,
crosses borders, and the biology that affects certain people more than other people,
certain vulnerable people more than certain healthy people. But we actually didn't see that,
which is really in some ways pretty striking. I think we should listen to him say it again
because he says it better himself. Two results, the failure of COVID to divide deaths into
differential populations and the very strong tendency of geographic flags to divide them very
strongly suggests that variation in clinical and public health practices is a major culprit
where excess mortality is involved. A second syndemic phenomenon was indeed operating in the
background beyond the reach of media attention. Now, if this strikes you as something that's
difficult to digest, I invite you to indulge in something of a thought experiment. Imagine that
one day when no particular virus or bacterium or fungus was in circulation, you woke up to find
that your local hospital administrator was announcing on television that certain changes
would be made to his hospital's policies. Henceforth, patients with flu-like symptoms
would be isolated. They would receive massively reduced attendance by healthcare workers.
They would no longer receive antibiotics to suppress secondary infections.
Crucial patient advocacy provided by the hospital visitation system would be terminated.
The hospital's would administer a new drug called remdesivir, a drug of no demonstrated
efficacy and associated with multiple organ failure. The patients would be put on ventilators.
Even when they had no kinetic difficulty breathing, party to prevent the suspected
aerosolization of viral particles that might endanger hospital staff and even though the
ventilator mortality rate was running at well above 90%. Now, I put it to you that if that
announcement happened under normal circumstances, there would be an immediate public outcry.
And everybody would be abundantly, it would be abundantly clear to everybody
that such moves would result in countless deaths. And there is your syndemic because that is exactly
what transpired under COVID. There you go. In a nutshell,
I want to hear it again because it's just so damn good. I'm going to turn it up.
That was impressive. That's impressive. This is the thought experiment that I tried to get Peter
to do that actually, actually, I think Danny Rancor helped me make Peter do this thought experiment
in his hand. Listen to the thought experiment that Nick describes this, this, this syndemic,
it's a systemic epidemic of behavior. And if you changed all the behavior and across the board,
the policy change of how we're going to treat respiratory disease and the changes weren't good.
That's what happens.
Now, if this strikes you as something that's difficult to digest, I invite you to indulge
in something of a thought experiment. Imagine that one day when no particular virus or
bacteria or fungus was in circulation, you woke up to find that your local hospital
administrator was announcing on television that certain changes would be made to his hospital's
policies. Henceforth, patients with flu-like symptoms would be isolated. They would receive
massively reduced attendance by healthcare workers. They would no longer receive antibiotics to
suppress secondary infections. Crucial patient advocacy provided by the hospital visitation
system would be terminated. The hospital's would administer a new drug called Remdesivir,
a drug of no demonstrated efficacy, and associated with multiple organ failure.
The patients would be put on ventilators. Even when they had no kinetic difficulty breathing,
partly to prevent the suspected aerosolization of viral particles that might endanger hospital
staff, and even though the ventilator mortality rate was running at well above 90%.
Now, I'd put it to you that if that announcement happened under normal circumstances, there would
be an immediate public outcry. And everybody would be abundantly clear to everybody
that such moves would result in countless deaths. And there is your syndemic because that is exactly
what transpired under COVID. Such practices were taken up more enthusiastically in certain hospitals
than in others and in certain districts than in others, explaining the stock geospatial
differentials among other deaths. And that also why it correlated with the lockdowns,
because essentially either you had a top down administration from the governor to the state
health administrator or whatever the hell they're called in your state down to the school boards
and the county and whatever. In Pennsylvania, that's the way it was. You just had somebody at
the top saying we're going to follow all the rules. And once that person says that, it's all the way
down the chain. And if you have that, then you also have more likely hospital administrators
that are just going to say no holds barred, follow the protocols. And there were other places
where they just weren't that strict. And when you weren't that strict, then doctors did what
they should have done done and just treated like they treat all the time the symptoms said they
see in front of them. And that's why there was no spread of the deaths. The mortality didn't
spread. It respected borders. And that's why it respected borders because it was human behavior.
Top down orchestrated human behavior. Just like this thought experiment that Nick just described,
Nick is killing it. We're going to have to come up with a good name for him. If Mike Eden is
Mr. Sparkle, then who's this? Can we call him Mr. Clean? Because I don't want to,
it could be Mr. Clean, but Mr. Clean's bald, so I don't want to say that.
In terms of the hypothesis known as the healthcare fragility hypothesis, which has
a rapidly increasing number of adherence due to the multiple data points supporting it,
the COVID phenomenon is best viewed as a mass casualty event rather than as a viral pandemic.
Right. So far, the contents of this presentation have been quite bland and controversial.
He's a little bit like a Sean Connery from South Africa, though. What would that, what could we
call him then? Is there a, if you use Sean Connery, is that a clue for a new nickname?
So before I turn to the hot button of the injections, I'd like to have an opportunity to
loosen you up with some salient facts. The following statements are all true and presented
in approximately temporal order. Number one, governance signed draconian contracts,
committing them to acquiring billions of injection doses prior to the dissemination of any evidence
regarding their safety and efficacy. Number two, the results of randomized trials run by
the manufacturers of those injections were released. These trials were underpowered,
were not double blinded, and groups vulnerable to severe COVID outcomes were underrepresented.
Analysis of those trials demonstrated using the trial data that the intervention arm of the study
exhibited worse all cause experience and that all relevant clinical outcomes.
Worse all cause experience under all relevant clinical outcomes than the placebo arm.
The intervention arm suffered higher all cause deaths, higher all cause hospitalization rates,
more serious adverse events, and higher all cause severe morbidity, and many people are
astonished to find out. Even higher occurrence of COVID symptoms as defined by the study itself.
Media claims of 95% efficacy for these products were premised on one non-clinical finding from
the study that of higher incidence of COVID symptoms in conjunction with a positive PCR test.
It's a non-clinical finding. It's of no use to man or beast. Analysts found that the propensity to
apply PCR tests to those with COVID symptoms in the placebo arm was multiple higher than the
similar propensity for the intervention arm suggesting profound crossing of the blind and
invalidating that sole non-clinical result. So start. Number three, a legal case was brought
by a whistleblower from a company called Ventavia citing multiple serious irregularities at labs
to whom administration of the Pfizer trial had been outsourced. Quite astonishingly Pfizer's
defense in that case was not that no fraud had been committed but essentially that it had served
up the fraud demanded of it by the US military. The Fifth Circuit judge did not accept this
defense but ruled that while those irregularities were problematic they were not evidence of commercial
fraud because the contracts had been signed prior to commission of the scientific fraud
and that the fact that the FDA hadn't done its job in that it authorized rather than
approved the vaccines left the matter out of the court's hands. Number four and perhaps most
significantly of all Pfizer then performed a bait and switch. It distributed to the world a
product fundamentally different from the one that had fraudulently tested in crucial regards.
Number five, it's this list is long. Pfizer and the FDA went to court in an attempt to prevent
the exchange of data between them from becoming public for 75 years. Now it's important to note
that Pfizer never responded to the allegations regarding the clinical findings of the trials
even though a central and early voice and primary author in the whole fracar was a respected and
long-serving editor of the British medical journal itself. This is stunning because the
implication is that anyone who has ever recommended that anybody be vaccinated with the Pfizer
product is wittingly or unwittingly arguing that even though the product is expected to make you
more likely to become sick, to experience severe illness, to be hospitalized or to die,
you should take it so that we can have fewer positive PCOS and that quite clearly is a ridiculous
proposition. With these facts in mind, that was all preamble, I invite you to put aside
your judgments to forget about what the man on the TV may have told you and to consider some data
about these injections. Much of the evidence presented in favor of the injections outside of
the fraudulent Pfizer Phase 3 trials is classed as observational, as distinct from arising from
a randomized control trial. Now this is sketchy at best because of the very large difficulty in
designing observational studies so as to eliminate confounding factors and because of the extremely
low fatality rate of COVID. The single most relied upon analysis regarding these injections is
arguably that emanating from the UK's ONS or Office for National Statistics. Based on aggregate data,
it claimed that the vaccines had high efficacy going even beyond the all-cause result arising
from the Pfizer trial. After much, much foot dragging, the underlying data was released,
this took for your requests and constant harassment and badgering and researchers immediately
demonstrated significant problems visible in the underlying data. For example, if you look at this
chart, this analysis of age classified non-COVID mortality comes from that data. The gray line
superimposes injection uptake on this rather strange non-COVID mortality line for the unvaccinated,
which is depicted in orange. And once you've seen that, all credibility you may ever took to
that study should evaporate immediately. Absent a coherent explanation for how the act of injecting
grandpa over here causes a grandpa over there to drop dead. It's actually unfortunate that this
graph is in a little better because this gray line telling you how many doses were taken up,
it's on a scale from 0 to 100%. Now, if it was a numbers and you have deaths per thousand,
you might even get a better idea of how related they are. I understand that this still shows you
something temporally, but it would be interesting to know at what scale we're at because it looks to
me, you know, you'd hope that it would happen within two weeks and then that would be the two
week shift, right? Because everybody's unvaccinated for two weeks. And so if it just shifted all the
people that were taking the shot to a more likely attesting positive and getting whatever,
then this rise here should be related to these shots, but then it'll be farther in time.
And then they would have been vaccinated. So it's interesting. It's interesting to think that
maybe that these people that were vaccinated are giving it to the unvaccinated people,
but I don't, I'm not saying that. I'm just, I wonder what Nick will say.
So spend all credibility to this analysis. It's, there's clearly something going
deeply wrong with the methodology of the study. This is just one of multiple problems from the
study. And it's a distinct issue, for example, from the canard of categorizing people as unvaccinated
for the first however many weeks after their vaccination. Now, no act, you should have any
problem spotting the immediate problem with that canard because, and it's very easy to demonstrate
this, this will mathematically artificially induce almost arbitrarily high efficacy signals,
even if an observational study is unwittingly structured to compare one placebo with another.
Doesn't require a live medication. Just a placebo versus placebo study with that methodology will
give a false, obviously a false efficacy signal. This is what it looks like.
On a, obviously if there's exactly the same methodology for the two arms, no, no exclusion
period in either of the arms, then the results are going to be the same because we've got a
placebo versus a placebo. But if you introduce just a two week exclusion period, you get an
artificial efficacy for placebo versus placebo of 60%. And if you extend it to three weeks,
that boosts the signal to around 80%. Remember, this is entirely of the artificial structure,
manufactured example. And they were studies that have gone as far as seven weeks of exclusion.
It's fraud. It's scientific fraud. And of course, the other thing that happens here is after so many
weeks, 10, 12 weeks, whatever, what happens? Trials terminated before this effect can disappear.
And yet this scam, because that's what it is, is an almost uniform feature of investigations
into injection consequences. Pointing out that.
So you want me to explain this one, Ali Maria or the one before this?
Otherwise, I'll just keep going the one before it.
So this is unvaccinated mortality. This is vaccinated mortality. He's saying that it's not
it's not consistent with the idea that this dose uptake here. And this rise in unvaccinated
mortality shouldn't be so temporarily related to one another. Vaccinated should be higher or equal,
but this plot is consistently below life table rate. So I think he's here talking about
these people aren't even dying at the normal rate that their age group should die. So that's
also weird. There's a number of things that he's pointing out here. I'm going to go forward a
little bit. So this one is just showing you that when you use that two week exclusion for a brief
window of six or eight weeks, it's really an amazing false impression that you have efficacy.
And Crawford actually showed those two on three months. It's very easy to think about it.
It's very easy to think about it just from the perspective of measuring the number of days.
So if you just do the imaginary study where
the stuff that I spray on my feet keeps my keeps me from getting from getting bug bites on my feet.
But it's only effective after 14 days of use. So before I've used it for 14 days, I still have
unsprayed feet. So if you compare my sprayed feet to a bunch of people that don't spray their feet
for 28 days, and actually there's only 14 days of that 28 days where you're going to be looking at
me and whether I get my bug bites, because before that, I'm actually contributing to the other group.
And if anybody gets bit in the first 14 days of their before the 14th day of their spraying,
then you're going to move them to the unvaccinated group. That's what they did in all these studies.
And so by the end of the study, when you've moved anybody in the first 14 days that got bit
by a bug over to the other side, and then you said, see the people that sprayed their feet
didn't get bit. It's very deceptive because you've actually
excluded half of the time period of the 28 days and put it in the other group.
And even though they extended this out, if you think of the vulnerability as being an exponentially
decreasing curve, then they're shifting a lot of things over to the other group.
And then you get this slight but solid signal of effectiveness that they could parade around
with relative risk. It's extraordinary. It's fraud. It's scientific fraud. It's fraud.
And of course, the other thing that happens here is after so many weeks, 10, 12 weeks, whatever,
what happens? Trials terminated before this effect can disappear.
And yet, this scam, because that's what it is, is an almost uniform feature of investigations
into injection consequences, pointing out that creator scare hospital was deploying it,
elicited what was perhaps the greatest and most coordinated media smear campaign that
I faced since I started speaking out against the madness. All of it, of course, based on complete
fabrications. Now, as a rule of thumb, categorical studies relying on accurate placement and
control for all material confounding variables are as scarce as hence teeth.
And you have to ask the question, what can we do about that?
For our money, the most reliable form of investigation plausible is to conduct
temporal correlation assessments for causality of all cause mortality.
It's not something we study in the actual syllabus, the Bradford Hill criteria for assessing
temporal causation are well known in public else. Lots of people now need to utilize them.
They're not, they're well within the capacity of most actors to understand.
And you can apply it to data like this. This is data from the Netherlands.
And that data is crucially important because, and uniquely valuable, because that country
conducted its vaccine rollout in a strictly age-based fashion. Each and every age group
produces a chart like this. Now, just, I just want, oh, sorry, skip the page, there we go.
I just want to, you know, maybe just make sure you're reading the lines correctly.
The blue is the summer and spring vaccination program, number of doses.
And the gray on the right there that's, that hump is the autumn vaccination process.
Red is excess mortality for this age group.
Yeah, no challenge. Bradford Hill, tick, tick, tick, all the way to the bank.
The vaccinologist, doctor, Theo, Theo Chittis, who did this work,
infers from this work, an accrued vaccine dose fatality rate of about 2,000 per million doses,
making it even more fatal than the purported fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2.
It's very serious stuff and very hard to look at without scratching your head.
Other analyses are beginning to emerge. This one I have not time had time to study.
It was the degree of rigor I'd like. I know the author, he's a reliable guy.
And he deploys a methodologically sophisticated approach to test for what's going on.
This is Danny Rancor's work. You can see his name right there.
For temporal regime change and to assess data from near tropical countries where mortality
exhibits very weak seasonality, so it doesn't produce a big noisy effect in your data.
It estimates a crude vaccine dose fatality rate of 1,260 per million doses, so a little bit low,
but pretty much in line from an order of magnitude perspective with Theo Chittis' work.
Notably, in this analysis, South Africa produces...
Theo Skitters is what he should be saying.
Theo Skitters, he's saying it a bit funny because he's South African and they speak Dutch too.
The worst estimate I've come, so perhaps we should be grateful that the vast majority
of our population declined the opportunity to be vaccinated.
Despite the fact that attempts to coerce them, we're in clear violations of multiple
codes of public health and human rights. An important note with regards to both these investigations is
that... That's a nice way of saying it in violation of multiple codes of human rights.
That's a pretty good way of saying it. Vaccine dose fatality rate exhibits a very strong
age graduation, so it's a feature which ought to be explored for the same reasons I outlined
earlier with respect to COVID mortality in the discussion on syndemicity.
Now, it takes a while for research like this to come to light, not least of all,
because it's clearly funded and because we often have to undertake the costly step of deploying
freedom of information requests to obtain data that should never have been out of the public domain
in the first place. But there were early warning systems in place and they had been,
for a couple of years, sounding an unprecedented alarm. Look at this.
This is the VAERS system in the US. It's a signaling system for adverse events,
which the FDA is justly very proud of, not to mention legally obliged to maintain
a good working order, and in respect of which it is a felony to input false records.
And that VAERS system, vaccine adverse event reporting system, was signing out a signal orders
of magnitude higher than any ever seen for any product ever before.
And what the response was after this absolutely flawed because I began hearing people spectacularly
committed to lying, trying to make up that these vaccine records were input by anti-vaxx
mainly comes was after this absolutely flawed because I began hearing people spectacularly
committed to lying trying to make up that these vaccine records were input by anti-vaxx
members of the general public. It's a claim which doesn't even stand up to very modest
scrutiny. That's just an impossibility. Even worse is the claims that these injuries were
really long COVID. Of course, that's obviously long COVID. A condition for which there is no
sound clinical definition and which has failed to evidence of existence in any sound statistical
test. They claim this even to explain the massively elevated rates of cancer and heart
deaths being witnessed the world over. And the worst thing is that they know that we know that
they're lying. When it comes to claims regarding the impact of the vaccines on COVID transmission,
the warning signs came far earlier than this by decades, in fact. Research into the question
of whether serum antibodies are sufficient to elicit mucosal immune response necessary to
prevent infection and transmission has been consistent and clear. There was no sign of such an effect.
And when it came to the COVID injections, among the earliest findings admitted to even by the
sanctity faulty himself was that there was no difference in viral titers between infected vaccinated
and infected unvaccinated people. Yet, despite the non-existence of any plausible mechanism for
transmission suppression and interface of abundant evidence that there actually wasn't any,
the lie of transmission reduction pulled forth from the miles not just a faulty,
but of diverse characters such as Rachel Maddow and Albert Boula, the CEO of Pfizer and Bill Gates.
Given that transmission reduction was the prime and virtually the sole motive behind vaccine
mandates, this was for me a particularly disgusting turn of events. A somewhat depressing reality to
acknowledge is the sheer lack of commerciality entailed in accepting the received narrative
around the COVID phenomenon. By day, I run a successful private equity fund. Private equity
management firms suffer one of the highest mortality rates in the world, principally because
very few people are able to sustain the degree of skepticism that is necessary in an environment
that's characterized by very intense information asymmetries. The lesson that every would be private
equity transactor has to learn in order to avoid obliteration is that claims made by people
whose financial well-being entails making those claims are to be assigned very low
credibility. Simple little principle. Sorry, wait a second.
The uncomfortable reality is that all of our media, our universities, our institutions of
public health and all relevant regulators are deeply in the pockets of pharmaceutical stakeholders
very deeply. This chart just shows the funding from the largest family foundation that happens
to be also one of the largest investors in vaccines. Funding just for South Africa and I would just
point out that there are some aggregations that need to be done there to work out the true scale
of the funding at some of these institutions. They're neatly pocketed them into different divisions
and mark them as if they're going to different places. But officers of these institutions,
all of them, are able to speak out only if they are willing to see their careers destroyed.
Therefore, anything they do say about the COVID narrative must logically be ignored.
Victims such as follow the science and appeals to authority of such creatures
should bring hollow to anybody who hears them. In a similar vein, common sense dictates that
under such conditions it is wise to look at who is trying to censor whom. Throughout history,
censorship has never been the objective of the good guys. I've been reminded so many times
during this saga of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's great work, the Gulag Archipelago. His notions
of the banality of evil and how the line between good and evil runs through every human heart
have never rung to her for me than in the last few years. It is the rule, not the exception,
that people who commit evil acts are generally sincerely convinced of their own good intentions.
And an episode of evil that I would say surpasses any event in world history has befallen us
these past few years. And it continues to befall us. Wait, what I mean continues to befall us.
As we speak, South Africa and many other nations are set to sign up to a World Health Organization,
a court and a subsidiary set of international health regulations that make the outrages of the
COVID period pale into complete insignificance. In terms of these agreements, countries agree
whenever a public health emergency has been declared to regard all the whose health recommendations
as compulsory, including but not limited to mass mandated vaccination, mandated medical
examinations, boarded closures, incarceration or quarantine of the unvaccinated and mandatory
censorship regimes. In short, whenever a health emergency is declared, the sovereignty of any
nation and all civil liberties would be suspended for as long as the World Health Organization demands
it to be. No condition is imposed on this other than the declaration of a threat, regardless of
whether there is any demonstrated harm or mortality rate. And it can be imposed at the
sole behest of the Director General with no obligation upon him to follow any sort of democratic or
consultative process. And I'll remind you that the person sitting in that chair right now
is a former terrorist with a long history of human rights abuses.
Now, agreeing to do this may well be contrary to our Constitution and there's a legal
fight to be had there. But what the Bretton Woods organizations did throughout COVID and clearly
signaled they were enthusiastic to do some more, is that non-compliance with World Health Organization
dictates resulted in exclusion from the global financing system. And there are only a handful
of nations on the whole planet who are sufficiently autarkic to survive that.
The accord also expands the scope of the very perverse One Health System. It's a creepy philosophy
that extends the definition of health outcomes to include all sorts of non-human priorities.
If you haven't heard of it before, I really suggest you read up on it. Both of these documents
set up a requirement as well for a very intensive and continuous surveillance for viruses and
their so-called variants. Now, they will definitely find some of these as they exist in nature all
the time, all the time, always around us. And next time, they will not have to fabricate a story
about a pangolin and a bat in the bar. And this can then be used, the discovery of any kind of
novel sequence for the inception of further lockdowns of populations potentially all over the planet.
And what waits in the wings is the thing called the CEPI 100 Day Vax Initiative,
which is then anticipated to deliver a new mRNA vaccine which will be profit as the only path out
of lockdown, under peril of financial isolation. To make matters worse, taxpayers will fund all
of this nonsense, but the profits will go to the pharmaceutical industry. The surveillance
set up and the bureaucracy behind it make it inevitable that we will have recurrent threats
declared and acted upon. The funding involved here is nose bleeding, far higher than for any
endemic disease on the planet. The World Bank says about $3.1.5 billion a year. But that's
a small fraction of the profits that stand to be made by the pharmaceutical industry in this
process. And all of this is true despite the fact that no broad recirculating virus has produced
even a miniscule fraction of the disease burden of major infectious and non-communicable diseases.
It's all perfectly bananas. And unless you're entirely brainwashed, a recipe for disaster for
everyone except the soon-to-be-minted trillionaires who sit at the top of this epic food chain.
It should worry you. That is so brilliant. This epic food chain. I mean, what he just said there
was just genius. It produced even a miniscule fraction of the disease burden of major infectious
and non-communicable diseases. It's all perfectly bananas. And unless you're entirely brainwashed,
a recipe for disaster for everyone except the soon-to-be-minted trillionaires who sit at the top
of this epic food chain. It's perfectly bananas. Perfectly bananas. There's two words that I would
never put together myself in Nick's accent from his tongue. It is the sharpest of sharp knives.
It is perfectly bananas what we've done. It's perfectly bananas that we've let them do it.
And it's perfectly bananas that we aren't already having heads on pikes.
It should worry you that not have worded this has been spoken in our parliament or any parliament
anywhere in the world and that the mainstream media have been completely mute on any of the
significant aspects of this whole arrangement. You will appreciate why I am choosing to end
by saying that I hope that this period during which we have accepted the refusal of people
promoting the most damaging and extreme actions the world has ever encountered to submit their
ideas to the scrutiny of their peers and to engage with their critics in public forums
will come to an end very soon. Maybe our discussions together now can signal the beginning of the
end of that blind acceptance. A sign of this would be one of the injection promoters accepting our
long-standing invitation to submit their sanitized data and methodology to us full of you. It's
perfectly standard scientific process. And above all as the fog of the COVID hysteria lifts it's my
hope that many more members of this profession will recover the common sense and the commerciality
that should be their pride and joy and see the evil for what it has been that they will recover
their courage and take a firm stand alongside me against the spectacular commitment to line
and say no more of this abject nonsense. Thank you. He said it twice, baby. He said it twice, baby.
Thank you, Nick. Are there any questions from the floor?
No, I know he's quoting me because he sent me a message about five days ago saying he thinks that's
his new favorite phrase of mine is the spectacular commitment to lie.
It's great. I don't see anybody with microphones. Why did you just stand up and shout out on
Yes, he said it twice. One of the four papers that we obtained was the work of the behavioral
science teams in the UK, the nudge units. If we run out of questions, I'm going to talk to you a
little bit about that because it's fascinating. Carry on, Nick. Your base data, the presentation
you showed. Have you, okay, first of all, we have to acknowledge that there were a lot of vaccines
that were administered during the pandemic. So have you adjusted your slide with the actual
vaccines at minister to people? Because obviously, if you look at the absolute number of address
events, it would look great. Yeah, surprisingly, it doesn't make much difference. I mean,
I've heard this quote as I actually made that quote as in months before, but what I was shocked
to find out is how many vaccines I administered in America. It makes no difference to the broad
findings. So the incidence rate here is orders of magnitude higher. You just think through it,
you have 26 vaccines administered to every child born in America and a very high percentage of
the population take flu vaccines every year. So there's billions of doses being handed out.
It doesn't take away this money. I think it's actually helpful to show those stats because
when you present a slide like that without the exposure, it is not helpful at all. It is not
objective. And when you say it like that, how are we supposed to know that there is a real
difference? There are all sorts of things going on in that data. They're changing attention rates,
changing age groups and everything. It's a signaling system, not an observational study,
so it's not meant to infer a death rate. Only somewhere between 1% and 10% of vaccine injuries
and deaths respectively end up on the system. They know that. That's been documented.
So it's an early warning signal, and I'm not making a claim that this is something that you
can infer a mortality rate from. Nobody can make that claim. But the point is that that signal,
which is designed to be reacted to immediately as you get something like that, was completely
ignored. That's the problem now. Well done. Nick, two just quick things. So you started
commenting on the Sweden mortality and the 10-year average. So I just went into a quick
check on a couple of sites. And the numbers don't seem to tie up with what I heard you say.
So perhaps I got that wrong. If you would follow that up with a written confirmation,
that would be great. And the second thing was you had attributed the source to www.sars2acir.org,
which is a website that doesn't exist. So again, if you could just provide some of the source
material there, because I was worried that some of the comments you made about things being
fantastical and all the rest of it might be well applied here, too.
Yeah, that's no problem. I must have made a typo in the reference there. So I was just
seeing it. Yeah, there should be an S on the end of that. Sorry. Yeah, what I will do for
everybody's benefit is interested. I'm going to assemble a list of all the sources in this
presentation, and just so you can kind of click and read two hearts content. I promise you, I'm not
making anything up. I didn't quite hear the rest of your question. I'm sorry. It's very
boomy. The sound up here was something that's unanswered there. No. Okay.
Further questions? There we go.
Hi. It's Rosanna Harris. Mine is not so much a question as a comment.
So I guess I feel quite sad, actually, listening to this in a platform here and quite
professionally disheartened. While some may have been locked away in their ivory towers trawling
three secondary data and evidence, trying to desperately support an ill-conceived initial
stance, I've been fortunate enough to be working with dedicated teams who have approached this
problem with integrity and rigor and scientific curiosity to unpack the evidence and contribute
to saving lives and saving the economy. I work for Discovery Health, and we administered just
over six, just under six percent of the population on the schemes that we are under our administration.
And for us, COVID was real. Our team was dealing with real world primary data. People who were sick,
people who died, people who lost loved ones. There were 16,500 confirmed COVID deaths in our
population, and we recorded a case fatality of two and a half percent, just under two and a half
percent, and a hospital mortality rate of 15 and a half percent. That's one death for every six
and a half admissions. Just under 82,000 of our members were admitted to hospital during COVID,
and I assure you that there was not a conspiracy of doctors. There is no evidence in our data to
support any conclusion that vaccines did more harm than good, quite the opposite, in fact.
And transmission reduction was a valuable side effect of a program that was intended to protect
people from severe illness and death. These are real numbers, and I can't help but feel the need
to apologise to the many health professionals and everyone who worked tirelessly and selflessly
during COVID, and to everyone who was affected themselves or their loved ones. Oh, he's getting
ready. Oh, and there's clapping. Get him, Nick. Needless to say, this is not the first time I've
heard such a speech, prepared, never responding to any of the analysis performed. Just to stop,
apply your minds to the data. That is what actually is meant to do. How do we explain that in multiple
regions around the planet, 2020 ended with very high zero positivity and no excess mortality?
How can you explain that if we have a deadly virus on the loose and not an epidemic of catastrophic
iterating standards of care? It's very hard. Germany ends up with 10 or 20% upwards in some areas
and zero excess mortality at the end of 2020. Zero. And there are entire swathes of the planet
that had exactly this outcome. And I take incredible exception to the idea that some are a volunteer
organisation of academics who are forced to work in private because the cancel culture led by
organisations such as Discovery is so intense that they cannot do honest work in their own
organisations. Those people are working for no pay and tirelessly and putting themselves at
great risk. There is no question in my mind. And this is not about a conspiracy theory,
an immature approach to take towards a person who sits there presenting statistics. It's not
a conspiracy theory. It's an alternative view. And we can engage. I'd love to engage on your data
methodology, but you don't share it. An alternative view. Thank you so much, Nick. A wonderful
plus for our presenters. It looks like this is all the time we have. Thank you so much, Nick.
I think that's pretty good. I think Nick did really, really well.
Congratulations to Nick Hudson, aka Mr. Spectacular. And I had tipped to Nick for using my phrase.
Um, you know, just, I'll just show you because, you know, I can do that, I think.
Just pull this out over here. I'll see if I can find, uh, messages. Nick.
It's a spectacular commitment to lying. May turn out to be your best contribution to this saga so far.
And you should not find that disappointing. It's a great phrase. That's what Nick said to me on
October 3rd. And then he gave this talk, I think, on October 12th. So there you go. Um, there's no
question that it's, that it's, uh, that it's, uh, that it's a, that it's a hat tip. And that's
that it's, uh, that it's a hat tip. And that's really nice of him. And it's really,
again, what are we talking about here? I put it on the bottom. I gave it the title, subtitle.
And Nick Hudson brought his A game dog on it. Mr. Spectacular. I mean, he didn't let me down
at all. Way to go, Nick. So this illusion of consensus is starting to break. That's what I think.
I think this illusion of consensus is starting to break. And even though the illusion of consensus
was about this mystery disease down here in red, we're starting to understand that with bad
protocols and with bad tests, you can rope in, you can create the bursts of excess mortality,
the appearance of excess mortality that you need in order to tell the story that you want to tell.
And smeared around the map a little bit. And now nobody notices until Denny or Nick or anybody
else crunches the numbers and realizes that the death and the disease didn't spread across borders
that it had more to do with people's income had more to do with so many other things other than
their symptomology. And that's really the problem because they declared the who declared a dangerous
novel virus pandemic that everybody was vulnerable to. A guy that he said was guilty of human rights
violations. I got to look that up that I just recorded an old video of him today for a future
show in my archive. I didn't know he was a bad guy like that. Anyway, a clone could have been used.
I see Jiki still on the clone kick. He's still figuring out that really all RNA virology is cloning
and all RNA virology would collapse if we didn't have recombinant DNA to use to make RNA infectious
clones of all these things. It's really a standard methodology and the only source
of a pandemic that is blamed on a single sequence. The surrender of individual sovereignty and the
enforcement of an inversion from basic human rights to basic granted permissions is the goal
of this little charade. The way that they're going to do it is they fooled you, of course,
about the pandemic potential that's in nature. And there's a consensus that we could even,
you know, sew things together and make more pandemic potential than Mother Nature can herself.
Again, it's to invert your kid's minds. Invert the way that your kids think about their role
in nature, their place in nature. It is to invert the way that their your kids should think about
their immune system and should think about the temple that is their body. It doesn't need augmenting
willy-nilly. We tell our kids that they shouldn't smoke marijuana or they shouldn't, you know,
drink beer, but it's fine to inject a random combination of substances made by a pharmaceutical
company into your muscle to augment your immune system. That'll be fine.
And this illusion of consensus spread to the point where they created this orchestrated
argument across nations and across languages and across cultures about who's responsible for
leaking this virus. Who's responsible for lying? Who funded it? Where did it come from? Was it
leaked in Ukraine? Or did it leak in China? Or did somebody spread it all around the earth?
What a crazy thing we've had to solve for the last three years.
And while we were solving that, we didn't realize that they changed the way we fundamentally thought
about our immune system, disease, how it spreads, the potential for pandemic, what vaccination means,
what it should do. And they just glossed over everything with either stupid, complicated,
or dumb, simple. And in so doing, this enchantment of this Scooby-Doo allowed people to be killed by
ventilators, medazolam, remdesivir, all the things that Nick talked about perfectly. Way to go,
Mr. Spectacular. And so the general gist of the Scooby-Doo is that you're supposed to be thinking about a
laboratory leak or a laboratory leak that was originally from a bad cave or a bad cave virus
that had the potential for a pandemic all by itself, or the possibility that a lab leak of a virus
that was sewn together could have even more pandemic potential than a bad virus would. You're
just not supposed to think about the fact that they could make a lot of a clone and spread it around
the world. And that'd be a real easy way for this to happen, especially if there was a background
signal of RNA all over the place that this PCR test would be confused by. I think that's what
they did. It's mostly lying. It's a background signal and lying. And that's why the protocols
are murder and transfection is in medicine, you can call it an infectious clone release,
you can call it a transfection agent, you can call whatever you want to. Just don't say that
there are no viruses because that's ridiculous. There are definitely infectious clones. And so
called a conflated background signal that was confounded by a infectious clone release. And now
you have the perfect scenario where all the molecular biology lines up, all the PCR can be
explained, all the symptomology goes away, and all of the deaths are murder.
And the reason why we're here is because they really want to in birth the way that our kids think
about their, their, what is the right word? What they owe to society, I can't think of their,
their, why is my brain blank on that? But we are trying to change the way that our children think
about our obligations to society. And the idea that we should feel obligated to be clean,
the obligated to follow public health measures that keep everybody else safe, and that our
safety is dependent on one another. That's a fundamental inversion of how we usually would think
about disease and health in a free society. It's a fundamental inversion of what freedom means,
because essentially it means that even if the technocrats get it wrong, you have to follow the
rules until we get it right. That's not freedom. And we cannot lie to our children, we cannot let
these TV people lie to our children about what's at stake, because this is the last 50 years,
or last 70 years of 10 billion humans. And then it's going to start going down pretty fast.
And it's going to be pretty rough ride, because there's going to be a lot of old people and not
enough young people to support them all. So a lot of these countries that have an inverted population
pyramid are in big trouble over the next 50 years, and they kind of know it. And so they need to
take advantage of the crisis that's coming, they need to take advantage of the shift that's coming,
and the crisis is also financial. As JC in the woods said so eloquently March 11th 2020,
we watched that yesterday. Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances,
as I said, transfection is not immunization. Please stop all transfections in humans. And that's
really full stop. Now I'm going to try and eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
Still, I'm trying to plug the broken science initiative. I want to get a few of them on. I'm
going to have map rigs on, and I'm going to have a few. Maybe I can get great to come on. Who knows?
Yeah, this has been good going biological. It's a weird ending, I guess. But you know, it's
I'm not going to lie to you. I'm getting tired. I don't know how many days in a row this is. We're
approaching 35 or 36. I'm getting a little tired. So I'm hoping that moving the streams earlier
in the night so that I can get in bed and get to sleep and then get up earlier was going to help.
I hope that playing basketball more is going to help my voice. I don't know, we're just going
to keep working. I'm going to keep trying to come every day because this is really
I think good for me and good for you guys. But thanks for joining me. And like I said, I'll see you tomorrow.