Testing one, two, test one, two.
You schedule for 60 minutes next is going on French.
British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
Don't stand by the wind.
Stand by the wind.
That's one best story no one will believe.
Well, good evening. Thanks for joining us, Vin Dicty.
I'm glad you found me through Mark. That's about the best way you can find me.
That really makes me very happy.
So here we are, Gigo and biological Ohio resistance.
Low noise information brought to you by a biologist.
It is the 14th of November, 2023.
We are still basically working through the same noise and I'm going to be singing the same songs tonight.
Because we're still just kind of running on this gift here, you know.
It feels like we're just barely getting out of the cave as it collapses.
But somehow we're not making as much progress as I should because I think we're still trapped in this limited spectrum of debate.
So we've got to do something about that.
Sorry I had a little music problem there for a second.
I wasn't really sure what I was going to do, but of course I'm going to put on my favorite tune.
We need to learn our history.
That's what Mark has been helping us out with a lot.
It's always great to have somebody digging in the background as you try to sort out the cutting edge biology yourself and have no time at all to look back at the history of these charlatans.
But actually so much of what I've learned about the biology, about the immunomythology that these guys are pushing.
I have learned by following the links in their history.
And a lot of those links are provided by my friend Mark Gulak of his atomic life.
And so shout out to him.
I think he's in the chat right now.
See Albert in the chat and Christy.
A lot of people that I'm really happy are coming here every night to help study the brick wall that's visible.
I guess that's what we're really doing.
We're studying the brick wall and we're trying to make sure that people can see it easier.
We're trying to describe the brick wall in simpler terms.
You know, like Jessica Hawkins idea of explaining it by saying there was no spread in New York City.
Denny Rankor is also very, very astutely used math to say that there was no spread of a dangerous virus.
Infectious clones are the only real threat in explaining the role of infectious clones.
We're going to work on that during this holiday season.
The role of placebo batches, I think, you know, I give credit where credits do.
You know, this is something that mathematically speaking Matthew Crawford put forward very early and how this would be useful.
Hum-transfection and healthy mammals is dumb.
I think that's a pretty simple way of putting things too.
Protocols were murdered, gained a function as a mythology.
The Scooby-Doo, the mystery that you've been led to solve, is also real.
And the players are committed to the lies that form that Scooby-Doo.
I think that's really important to understand.
It's really this faith in a novel virus, this faith that millions died, but millions more were saved.
And the gain of functions is actually real.
It's so real that people lie about it and a virus will come again.
So that's what Gigo and Biological is all about right now.
We're going to keep singing this song day after day, night after night.
It's a late streak tonight.
Basketball practice went a little late.
It kind of goes like this.
Sometimes there's this like really vigilant janitor that's standing at the door at 859 with a mop and keys.
And saying coach, coach, let's go.
And then sometimes you're at this gym and it seems like nobody cares that you're there.
And the kids want to play and they start scrimmaging.
And before you know you're talking to a parent and now I'm starting at 10-21.
So you're going to have to forgive me for that.
But like lots of people have noticed at least the streak is alive.
Give me a chance to get up to speed and get back into shape.
I ran my first set of horses tonight in many, many years in my lifetime.
Trying to run some of the calisthenics and exercises that the boys do, but not all of them.
Let's get to work.
I'm very excited because, whoa, that was DJ, Jazzy J, not so Jazzy.
Yeah, so it's not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true.
And I've been telling this story relative to the intellectual dark web and some pieces on the board have moved today.
And I want to just take some snapshots and take a look at them and discuss what they mean to me.
Given my experience during the last three years.
And then basically just do a rocket summary introduction and closure around that.
Because yesterday was a really long stream and I'm starting late tonight.
It'd be nice if I could be done in an hour. I don't think it's really possible.
But we've been trying to work on this language, this language that doesn't really seem like a lot of people want to adopt or even really consider touching.
I don't think it's because of the toxicity of what these words mean.
I think it's more about how many people are participating in the controlling of the narrative and how many of those people have a.
Invested interest or a an obligation not to really amplify my work and the work of others like Mark Koolak.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
And transfection and healthy humans is actually criminally negligent.
The people that were involved in the classification of these transfections as investigational vaccines.
So that they could be rolled out as countermeasures during the pandemic.
Are guilty of something and I don't know if it's up to me to really determine what they're guilty of because I'm not a lawyer.
But the bottom line is that there's no biological excuse for assuming that transfection would be a useful way of augmenting the immune system.
And I think that's the basis from which all of these investigations into criminal, whatever's should be done.
It is my the gremlins that whisper in my ear suggest to me that unless the lawyers that are here are.
Stating the statute that is being violated, it's hard to take some of these people seriously.
So with grains of salt, watch the bait on, you know, watch the bait on social media, but do not take it.
There's a lot of pomp and circumstance and a lot of bluster right now.
And all of that bluster and all of those people standing on stage and all of those people talking, they don't seem to be able to get the messaging down to a few things other than informed consent.
But then, you know, informed consent requires understanding.
So if you're going to start with informed consent, at some point you're going to have to say something about this biology that's on the screen here.
I recently, you know, yesterday decided that, you know, to try out some other combinations of words. And so let's keep doing that.
So that we can learn how to communicate crisply and precisely, maybe even before Thanksgiving and try it out on some of our family and friends over that holiday.
Again, I wanted to say that this stream in particular, I want to focus a little bit on the intellectual dark web and the idea of how we've been governed over the last three years.
It is very tempting to believe that it is this, you know, push and pull between, I guess, the DOD, DARPA and NIH and NIAID and CDC and FDA and the rest of the executive branch and countries around the world and the who and GAVI and all these different organizations working together
to respond to the pandemic are sort of kind of responsible for the decision making and for the interpretation of the narrative and the control of the narrative.
And so the dissidents that are fighting against those entities are necessarily good guys.
But in reality, I'm going to try and stop doing that. I know that's really annoying.
In reality, the, the dissident side of the narrative is also composed of people that are as participating as those people in Congress has participating as those people that work for DARPA as participating has those people that work for the CDC and the FDA ACIP community.
All of these people are playing a role in making sure that this Scooby-Doo was adopted by everyone, that everyone on the left, everyone on the right was invested in trying to figure out what happened.
And the premise that most people have been fooled into believing is that there was a novel virus.
And the intellectual dark web was really crucial in seeding that narrative and particularly crucial in seeding the worst case scenario possibility space.
What is the worst case scenario here that included a lab leak?
And now the idea is that these people are pretending to be legitimate dissidents while actually if you look at the history of their record, if you listen to their podcasts from 2019 through 2020 and that transition into the pandemic, you don't hear dissidents.
You hear submissive completely on narrative people. You hear people that are just starting their podcast on their eighth podcast on their fourth podcast talking about the relevance of, you know, following directives.
And, you know, when there's a real emergency, and these are not by accident. This is by design.
And so now the question is, how can we see this? How can we see the reality of these people in real time?
It has been very useful to go back into their record of 2019, 2020, 2021 and see that although we've been led to believe that these people are the leaders of the dissident movement, the only ones that spoke up.
When we go back in time, actually, they are really far removed from 2020 when speaking up would have been useful.
When Knut Wieckowski was speaking up, when Wolfgang Woda was speaking up, when Michael Yeden was speaking up, when, when really Pierre Corey and Peter McCullough were speaking up.
And very cleverly, other people have been inserted in front of and ahead of these early dissidents and taken control of the narrative in such a way so that we were almost guaranteed not to write that, not to ask the right question early enough to avoid this disaster.
Where the confusion and frustration and doubt has almost fractured our country irrevocably, irrevocably, irrevocably, I can't even speak, fractured our country.
And so I really want to understand how it is that on all levels of the internet, there were medlers.
On all levels of social media, there were medlers that were given different parts of the narrative to push, different pieces of evidence had different times were released to very questionable characters, very
important. Books were sold, narratives were pushed, people were sued, and these were all orchestrated ways of getting us to imagine that we were paying attention to an ongoing struggle for the truth, when we were really paying attention to an ongoing theater of struggle.
A controlled spectrum of debate, as Noam Chomsky so eloquently said, and within that controlled spectrum of debate, there's been a very vigorous argument between Brett Weinstein and Sam Harris.
And that vigorous argument represents the state of the art of our society trying to figure out what happened with the pandemic and come to a real realization of what to do next.
And quite a few people have fallen into the trap of believing that quite a few people in our government believe that.
And that's the work that we're now trying to do to try and show people that it's impossible that a paper by and a group and the head of the vaccine chief of vaccine research for the cancer wing of the NIH are writing an editorial about from genome to vaccine.
And that they say the silent part out loud.
Following the events of September 11th, 2021 is in the text here.
Bioterrorism and several years of sustained increases in government funding have had a stimulatory effect on vaccine development.
AIDS has also driven vaccine research primarily because of a well-deserved infusion of funding in that field.
This immunomythology has been laid piece by piece for decades with the idea of basically tricking us into thinking we solved a mystery about a virus so that we would our children would come to believe that pandemics are real fact of life.
And that it's man's hubris sometimes, but it's also mother nature's cruelty sometimes.
And these books have made it very obvious, at least to me, that I have been unaware of how we have been governed for so long.
And in reality, the intellectual class, the bureaucrats in government, they've been governed by similar mythology, just not based in public health, not directly.
And now it's been rolled on on a global scale.
This theater has been used to bamboozle the globe.
So I'm just discussed.
Mark has been playing this video and I think it's really worth watching again.
And the thing to get from this video is to understand the yellow text.
Vaccination is a methodology that will work on everything.
And this pivot is a game that they are playing so that they can call basically anything that's genetic, any type of genetic therapy will essentially be called a vaccine.
And that's exactly what they've done with regard to COVID and with regard to this SARS-CoV-2 virus that supposedly started trampling the earth in 2020.
And we need to see this as the final push for that cognitive dissonance to be set in place for the next generation.
And we need to break it because we can't let our children grow up thinking that we have transitioned to a time when using adenovirus or using a lipid nanoparticle to carry modified RNA into ourselves and augment our immune system is something that we do now.
Even if the TV says it, even if social media says it, we can't let them grow up thinking that that's okay.
And we need to educate doctors one by one, nurses one by one, moms one by one, teachers one by one or 30 by 30.
But we've got to find a way to do it.
Because what this man says in this video is extremely on point.
This is the plan.
It is an enchantment.
Vaccines cure diseases because the best cures that we have are vaccines.
And every disease has a cure. You're not going to argue with that. Are you?
We have heard Tony Fauci say these exact words and I apologize, but because I got back from the basketball practice so late, I couldn't get this video.
It would take me a little while. I know I know what it is and where the the interview is.
It's a BBC interview where he's talking to a woman with short hair and Fauci says basically the same thing that our immune response to HIV is not as robust as it is for some other viruses.
Therefore, the vaccine has to be better than the infection at activating your immune system.
So this logic and this concept is very tightly.
I mean, they say almost exactly the same words. I don't know how locked in time they are.
This is 2014. I'm pretty sure that the video that was in 2011 with Fauci.
Over three years earlier, they were already using almost identical language.
So let's just listen to him again. He's going to explain how previously we used live attenuated vaccines made from the viruses that we were trying to protect from.
And antigenically speaking, these are also viruses, measles, polio that don't really antigenically evolve that rapidly.
Unlike a lot of the other viruses that we tend to think of as circulating an endemic like coronaviruses, human papilloma viruses, etc.
It's a long arduous road for us to teach this stuff, but we got to do it.
We need to do now, and I agree wholeheartedly that this is important, that we need to have elevator pitch talking points about this stuff.
And the idea that vaccination is a methodology that will work on everything is one that needs breaking.
We cannot allow them to call these vaccines unless we are also going to very explicitly say that legally speaking everything that you inject with a needle should be held to strict liability.
Is that the right word? Strict liability? I'm always, I mean...
Where is my message that I want to look up here?
Yes, strict liability. So if you hold, you know, the reason why that you see pharma commercials on TV with all these warnings afterward is because these compounds are being held to strict liability.
The example that was given to me earlier today was if the latter company doesn't warn you that you could fall or it's dangerous to climb the ladder or do it with a partner or don't supervise or whatever, potentially if you get hurt, they can be liable.
And if the drug, you know, doesn't warn you that you hair loss or lack of sexual dysfunction is a side effect of this drug and then you use it and you have this happen, potentially that strict liability you could be sued for that.
Loss of hair, whatever.
So vaccines are not held to this standard.
And if we wanted to be legally pretty simple, this is how we would describe it that vaccination is a methodology that will work on everything is an enchantment.
It's an idea that is actually, it's incongruent with biology, but their goal is to avoid the strict liability that is associated with all other pharmaceuticals.
By trying to move genetic therapies into the vaccine space because the vaccine space is not held to strict liability.
And so if we can be simple, that's about as simple as we can be.
Any lawyer worth their salt should know what strict liability means and should be able to say that this is the goal that we want to hold vaccines to strict liability.
It's better to say that quite honestly than it is to say we want random randomized controlled trials with placebo.
Because still then you're saying that if they pass a randomized controlled trial with placebo, then it's okay for us to not hold them to strict liability.
In theory, a vaccine bottle should be covered in red labels, right, in warnings and all kinds of stuff, but they're not because they're not held to strict liability.
So that's what the bamboozlement is happening and it's already been happening.
This is 2014.
So we're talking at least 10 years ago and we know earlier than that people were trying to make this cognitive shift.
Within the academic community that we could think of genetic therapies as vaccines because we're using them to treat diseases, which, you know, like cancer diseases have cures and one of our best cures is vaccines.
And for academics, this is fine for, you know, funding and whatever and for prior health priorities and whatnot, but it is an actual move.
It is a move to avoid strict liability.
That's what they're avoiding.
It's not.
And it's to be precise.
That's what that's what you have to say strict liability.
I'm sorry.
I'm being so.
Two about it.
Well, I think, you know, the big problem in vaccines has been that while it's been possible in the past to make vaccines against viruses that cause acute self-limited infections, that's mostly been done
by making either an attenuated or killed virus, which induces an immune response that mimics the immune response that you get to the natural infection because the natural infection will give you lifelong or at least long-lasting immunity.
But now what's left are viruses that cause chronic infections or cancer that causes chronic disease where the disease itself does not induce an adequate response to get protection.
So now the vaccine has to be better than the virus or the cancer itself.
It's really word for word what Fauci said in that video.
I'm going to find chronic infections like HIV or hepatitis C, for example.
And I think more and more strategies are being developed to target those very similar to the ones I just talked about for cancer vaccines.
And I think hopefully within the next five to 10 years, we will have vaccines for those diseases.
I mean, you know, we're going to have a vaccine for laziness.
We're going to have a vaccine for for ugliness.
We're going to have a vaccine for unhappiness or depression.
That's what they want.
This idea, they want this idea to start leaking out into the average person's consciousness, you know, and it's terrifying.
Because it is really just what they laughed about yesterday on Twiv.
Why don't we just, you know, change the definition of ecology, change the definition of ecosystem, change the definition of niche.
Why don't we just change the definition and expand the definition of vaccine to cover also everything that that modifies genes.
And this is where we are.
This magic trick of imprecise language.
And a bunch of yes men and yes women.
Trying to climb the ladder of prestige and and perceived fame and honor and power.
All the while barely even learning the biology they're doing because why do they need to learn it?
I mean, just need to learn how to do it.
And don't ask any questions.
You've just discussed.
If you could take 10 players off the map.
Right. If you simply reran the pandemic, but.
Robert alone, Peter McCullough, Joe Rogan.
You know, if you took 10 players off the map, including you and me, the pandemic unfolds totally differently.
Right. The story never breaks.
People probably at this point will have just simply accepted that the reason that we can now all go back to life is that these marvelous vaccines have saved the day they will accept the phony data that suggests that, you know, they've probably been kept out of the hospital by these things.
And, you know, they would be inserted into the the childhood vaccine schedule and everybody would do to fully be getting their kids vaccinated with them despite the fact that that never made the slightest bit of sense.
So again, if all you did was take out.
The 10 people who most impacted the public discourse in a way that went against the mainstream narrative, then you wouldn't have to mess with everybody else.
It doesn't matter that there would be people who were noticing things, people who had, you know, lost loved ones in the immediate aftermath of being vaccinated, they would be, you know, shouted down by an angry public that didn't want conspiracy theories being circulated.
Right. The calamari clots that the the morticians were finding would become just a rumor.
It's not hard to imagine that, you know, messing with 10 people would have been enough.
And the problem then is the idea that it had even happened would be effectively invisible because anybody who said, Hey, you have no idea what happened to us why we were disappeared from the Internet at this moment.
I mean, all of the people you mentioned were messed with. We did get messed with. We just didn't get completely obliterated. Right. The fact is we.
I think a very important point is happening here. I think what's becoming obvious to me is that Heather actually doesn't know.
I'm just speculating for fun because it's late night and, you know, I'm tired.
But I don't think she knows that her husband is in cahoots with his brother and Peter Teal and the rest of the intellectual dark web to control the narrative around the doubt side to make sure that the wrong questions are always asked.
And that simple forthright biology is never really presented.
He's never taught immunology 101 not once on his stream, even though he said at the beginning of the pandemic that he would do it.
He's never explained. He's never had graphics. He doesn't do papers.
They're both PhD's. They barely they barely do anything useful for three years.
And in the first year of the pandemic, they did not doubt anything.
In the first year of the pandemic, they did not doubt anything.
From masks to lockdowns to distancing, they doubted nothing.
And in fact, they believed very much in the usefulness of Ivermectin prophylactic use.
They believed very much in hybrid immunity with people who had been infected and also getting the the the Moderna or other shots.
We are talking about some very, very serious.
I don't know what's what to call it, but it's it's very dubious statements to be making given the actual video podcast record on YouTube of what he said and did.
There was no reason to censor him in 2020.
There was no reason to censor him in 2020. There was no reason to censor Joe Rogan in 2020.
There was no reason to censor his brother or anybody else on that list in 2020, except for Peter McCullough, Pierre Corey, who he's stepping in front of now.
He considers himself kind of the the the leader of that group, the best example of that group.
It's very, very, it can be very frustrating if you allow this bait to get to you.
But what you need to see is that this is obviously part of the governance structure that they use to orchestrate this pandemic.
This cannot be explained by arrogance and and ego alone.
There's no way.
It's impossible.
And the disconnect that's on display right now between Brett and her.
And if you don't see it, maybe you haven't watched him enough and then good for you, you know, you don't need to watch him. So you see it. But for me, I see it.
And I, without wanting to sound too confident, I really feel like I can tell when people are lying. And right now, she is in love with Brett and fully unaware of the fact that he's lying about this stuff.
And I think I've recorded a little bit to which I, but this podcast is extraordinary. You really got to watch it.
Because he, he makes a lot of references that I just, I don't think he could make for any other reason than the work that Mark and I have done together and separately with regard to this, this subject and the stuff we did with regular guy.
As a, as a trio.
It's really extraordinary. Here we go.
Survived. We paid.
Heavy cost.
But the fact that we remained.
Important nodes in the discussion.
And staunch.
And staunch did not.
Did not give in to.
True speaker. Why can't you didn't give in to truth speak. You didn't give in to bandanas. You didn't give in to lockdowns for the first year. Yes, you did.
You didn't give into the narrative of bush meat and market release. Yes, you did.
You didn't perpetuate the idea that this is a lab leak. So we better. Maybe we should stay home longer. Yes, you did.
You didn't have Yuri Dagan, the guy who knew about the fear and cleavage site and how infectious it would make the virus already in January of 2020 on your podcast and like February already or March.
Yeah, you did.
And so the legend that you're supposed to believe is that his speaking out about that stuff was all really brave, you know, who I was, I was way ahead on the lab leak.
No, but you were way behind on the biology because you never taught people that actually they should have overlapping immunity to previous RNA viruses that would make them pretty invulnerable to a novel coronavirus that can't actually circulate the globe for three years in a consistent pattern of waves and colors.
But again, remember, Brett Weinstein was on a signal chat with me for almost nine months where I taught him all the immunology I could.
And at some point I asked him, you know, he was just getting frustrated. He didn't understand what I was trying to explain with transfection.
And he didn't think it would be useful to be on a zoom chat with me.
Just for a half an hour to see if I could explain it.
Same guy who interviewed Robert F Kennedy Jr. in 2021 and didn't release it until 2023 because, you know, archive and stuff is now saying that he's really one of the 10 people that the only you could have stopped this, all this resistance and the resistance
would have meant nothing if it wasn't you could just take out these 10 people me and you included him and his wife are the 10 of the 10 most important.
Incidents in the movement.
That's the poster of the intellectual dark web.
This is exactly the cognitive game that's being played with you and our families and our friends and everybody that watches everybody that listens everybody that argues about Brett Weinstein.
Because Tim Poole argues for Brett Weinstein and Sam Sader argues against Brett Weinstein and together they make a whole two or three million people debate about whether Brett Weinstein is a good guy and speaks up or is a crazy anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist.
And so there's this whole pyramid of performances going on here, whether they willingly provide or winningly participate or unwittingly participate.
That's what is being created with Brett Weinstein and intellectual dark web and Joe Rogan at the top.
And then all these little podcasts underneath it that are slightly less popular, you know, like Huberman and Lex Friedman.
And then underneath that you have Tim Poole and Sam Seder and all these other weird ones.
And this is the kind of network that's left over after the careful crafting and censorship of three years and amplification over three years of these people that they wanted to rise.
And the ones that have locked horns or ended up trying to manipulate Mark and myself have been the ones that haven't really risen.
Presumably because the truth and the sunlight that comes along with trying to influence Mark and I is pretty hard to stand in.
And that's why people like Brett Weinstein went from loving to have a signal chat with me to not wanting to listen to me anymore and not mentioning me anymore.
And the reason why he never really mentioned me on his stream is again because this is a fight that very few people are actually fighting.
Most of the people wittingly or unwittingly are participating in the sustaining of this faith in a novel virus that millions of people died from but also millions of people were saved from likely originated and gain a function which is certainly a real thing.
And therefore virus could come again.
That is the job of these people from the very beginning to make sure that the worst case scenario was believed and the faith was never questioned.
And now he's taking credit for being a questioner to prefer being a doubter for being a guy who who otherwise the pandemic would have just rolled over us.
And Heather's Heather's definitely along with that idea of course we were we were staunch.
This review come through.
Just discussed at this moment.
I mean, all of the people you mentioned were messed with.
We did get messed with we just didn't get completely obliterated.
Right. The fact is we survived.
We paid.
Heavy cost.
But the fact that we.
Oh, come on.
No.
I'm going to get this right.
I very apologize here.
Let's do it.
Just discussed.
At this moment.
I mean, all of the people you have caused.
I mean, they had.
We just didn't get completely obliterated.
Right. The fact is we survived.
We paid.
Heavy cost.
But the fact that we remained.
Important nodes in the discussion.
And staunch.
Didn't did not.
Did not give in to.
Unreal.
Why can't I think of the writer.
Unreal.
Newspeak.
Yeah.
Did not.
Continued to assess what we thought was what the evidence suggested.
So true for everyone you mentioned and many more.
The list I've given is not complete much.
There are lots of people who played an important role in that.
So I want to just rescue two terms.
One, I would say the prediction implied by the concept of surgical totalitarianism is now clearly true.
Renee Darest is talking about surgical totalitarianism in terms designed to make it sound.
Surgical totalitarianism.
Not to be confused with the phenomenon of mass psychosis.
Something something or other.
I don't remember what the other one was.
It could be best described as worst case scenario.
Team worst case scenario.
But it's also just kind of like stupid complicated.
Brett is extraordinarily bad at making things simple.
He's extraordinarily bad at using simple word combinations so that everybody understands what he means.
And he has this propensity to really enjoy repeating these kinds of things like he just did surgical totalitarianism.
Wow, I love that combination of words.
That guy's really smart.
But if you say something like transfection is not immunization, he wants, I don't really understand what you mean.
And I don't think 30 minutes on a Zoom would ever help me understand what you mean.
This is the kind of magnificent controlled op that Brett Weinstein is.
He actually told Dan Cohen, a man with four years of experience in Gaza, that he wasn't the right guy to discuss
anything to do with Israel because he's an evolutionary biologist.
And so the two of them look at the situation differently, even though he's happy to tweet about anything to do with it and very politically so.
We really have to work on these pressure points because actually this is one of the weakest ones.
And when this one falls, lots of other ones will fall.
And as long as they're going to keep extending themselves further and further out on this precipice of lies, we need to make sure that we don't allow it to happen.
And so listen carefully as this continues because this is no joke.
Nonetheless, it's obviously a real thing.
She is well aware as a person who is a central node in the censorship industrial complex that it doesn't make sense to censor everybody who says stuff that violates the mainstream narrative, which you really just need to do is decapitate the emerging sense making
capacity and then people are free to talk among themselves.
They can have whatever beliefs they like.
It just doesn't threaten power.
So that's one thing.
Surgical totalitarianism turns out.
So why are we talking about surgical totalitarianism when, when Noam Chomsky explained it much simpler as a limited spectrum of debate that doesn't threaten the actual, the actual truth.
And then encouraging a lively debate within that spectrum so that people see this as, wow, that's pretty cool.
Like Fox and MSNBC.
Why does it have to be more complicated than that?
Why aren't we citing Noam Chomsky?
Why are we citing a new person and so surgical totalitarianism when it's really just a spectacular commitment to lies?
There are two or three groups of people that are spectacularly committed to the lies that they tell and that's how this is done.
It's not surgical totalitarianism.
If it is, that's a more complicated word for something that can be much more simply described as a spectacular commitment to lies.
That's what you're seeing here right now.
Improvisational acting about the importance of lies.
So in later in the podcast, they pull this stunt where Heather says that she's bringing up a review an anonymous review.
And they're going to talk about it.
And then in the anonymous review, they are accused of a few things and then they will address those few things.
And I think that this is a stunt.
I don't think this is a real review.
I think this is, you know, their clever way of saying, well, how could we address this idea that we're not really controlled by Peter Teal?
How can we really address these conspiracy theories without, without, without giving much credence to them?
How can we really ignore the real conspiracy while feigning that we're addressing it?
And that's how they do it.
Here it comes.
This review come through this week about the podcast.
Dangerously stupid.
This podcast kills people.
One star.
People have literally died because of the misinformation on vaccines and Ivermectin spread by this podcast.
Apple needs to remove it.
Call Brett what you will.
Chaos agent.
Peter Teal's puppet.
Sociopath.
Massad agent.
Wow.
What is absolutely clear is the man has an unwell mind and he wants to influence yours.
Run.
Yeah.
So.
I just found that.
I mean, honestly, delightful at one level because it so encapsulates the.
Inanity.
Like, I don't even know.
Maybe this isn't doing a real person, right?
Or it's a real person, but it's someone who's been paid to put this sort of thing out there and all of the.
All of the people's platforms who are.
He's stuck.
It they snuck in snuck in the little, you know, Zionist bit there, right?
Massad agent.
Yeah.
That's a good one.
I will point out there was an exchange on Twitter in which.
Somebody had also said something incredibly stupid about me and.
Gator, our friend.
Who is not in fact an animated crocodile.
We don't know that.
You do.
Yeah.
I do too.
Yeah.
Well, not animated cartoon cartoon.
Cartoon.
Yeah.
But anyway, he pointed out.
Their son runs their stream.
Writing this scathing declaration about me was obviously a moron.
At least he spelled my name correctly.
To which Alexandra's marinos pointed out that that actually likely implied that it was a bot and then on looking at the profile of the person.
It was pretty clear.
It was not a real honest to goodness person.
This also contained a correct spelling of my name.
That may have been automated having just copied my name from whatever it was that triggered the scaling review.
But anyway, that it fits with both.
You know, both what we were talking about with regard to what we're named arrest is up to.
The kinds of things the FCC is trying to get its.
Into with regard to the powers that it would grant itself.
And then.
I'm only giving you a little brief, brief clips of this it.
We could have probably watched it for 20 minutes or so, but.
I didn't want to spend too much time on it.
But here this was also pretty funny.
Oh, no, this is a full conspiracy theory.
Unfalsifiable in fact.
That somehow connects my family to the.
Your natal family, not this family here.
Correct.
To the Robert Kennedy assassination.
Oh, on the basis that my dad.
Oh, she says, ha, ha, ha, so this is really acting right.
And now remember.
The connection is not to the Kennedy assassination.
The connection is to the Kennedy administration.
The connection is to the litemite case that basically defined what the FDA does.
The connection was to the intellectual property space that is defined by the FDA and how long his dad's been swimming in it.
The discussion was about the idea that he sat down with with Bobby Kennedy in his house for three hours and they didn't bother to broach that subject at all.
And now he starts out by saying that this is about the Kennedy assassination and somehow he's involved or that he hates Kennedy.
What?
That's not anything that we ever reported.
It's not anything I ever asked him over signal.
That's right.
I'm not afraid to say it.
When we learned about Brett Weinstein's dad and Eric Weinstein's dad.
I sent him a signal message and just asked him about it.
And his response was what's with all the interrogation.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are witnessing something here.
I don't know if you can call it.
Bearing false witness or what this is.
But this story is made up.
This rumor of him being involved in the JFK assassination is made up out of whole cloth.
The only rumors about him and JFK are the JFK appointed his father to RFK's Department of Justice.
The first patent lawyer to ever have been appointed to the Department of Justice.
He was involved in the thalidomide case that had a real foundational role in defining the FRDAs role in the American economy.
And listen to him twist this around and make it seem like it's not about any of that.
It's not about intellectual property law.
It's not about his dad being involved in biotech for like 20 years.
It's not his dad being involved in the antibody patent paradox or being involved in advising Eric Weinstein on how to advise Peter Thiel and where to put his money.
Couldn't possibly be that Peter Thiel was in absolera because of something that Les Weinstein would have told him about the intellectual property space of and monoclonal antibodies changing in 2019 or 20 or a 16 or all the times that it changed up to and approaching the pandemic.
Course not.
It's about the Kennedy assassination.
Worked for Bobby Kennedy in the Justice Department and I'm not sure how that.
Yeah.
Now working for with it on behalf of the man definitely means that you hate him.
Right.
That's the leap.
Yeah.
And in fact, at one point I was going to see Bobby and the younger.
Yes.
And yes, I was born a year after Bobby Kennedy senior was killed.
But anyway, I introduced my dad to Bobby Kennedy Jr. and they talked about the fact that my dad had worked for for Bobby's father.
And so anyway, the idea that any connection at all, any for Bobby's father that my dad had worked.
But anyway, I introduced my dad to Bobby Kennedy Jr. and they talked about the fact that my dad had worked for for Bobby's father.
So anyway, the idea that any connection at all, any wisp of some ancient connection is going to be turned into some obviously conspiratorial something is obviously a bad instinct that people have.
Yeah.
No, it sure is.
I did.
I don't want to spend much time on it.
I mean, that's some pretty extraordinary that's a pretty extraordinary point about the normalization.
That's some pretty extraordinary obfuscation of the truth.
And it's, it's bald face storytelling.
It's bald face storytelling because he's talking about my signal chat with him. He's talking about the private message I sent to him about his dad.
And about the stuff that Mark has done and the stuff that I've done and the stuff that we talked about with regular guy.
There is no other rumor. There is no other story on the Internet.
They're making this up. Otherwise, they'd show the tweet.
Otherwise, he'd show the tweet where he dunked on him about it where they'd show the Reddit thread where they dunked on him or they'd show the comments from this.
This is just ridiculous.
What you have to see is this is absolute and this podcast is absolute confirmation that one of the major players, one of the major groups.
It's functioning as part of our governance structure is this Peter Teal, Elon Musk, Weinstein, Rogan intellectual dark web group that includes Shapiro and.
Oh my gosh, do you see it?
Once we shed this layer and all the sub layers of it, all the fakers of it, all the people that are just going along because it's great to be a podcast that gets kickdowns from Rogan.
It's great to be a podcast that gets kickdowns from Lex Friedman.
It's great to get kickdowns and have your own podcast and that's what all these people do.
All sponsored by Element, the salt drink or sponsored by some other.
Once you see this network for what it is, once you see the performance for what it is, you can't unsee it.
Hi everyone, Megan Cohen, director of the CDC and I'm here with Senator Schumer, but it's an important message for you about vaccines.
And what's many good things about our director, one of whom she's from Baldwin, New York, we're urging everybody to get their flu shot and their updated COVID booster.
They don't hurt these shots don't hurt anymore like they used to when I was a kid and they do you a lot of good. Please get your shot.
It'll avoid a lot of pain later.
Thanks, Senator.
If people are willing to go on television with the spectacular commitment to these lies, what are we going to do about that?
That's the task we have at hand.
A discussion today at our weekly urgent care provider meeting and actually was talking to one of our oncologists who's on our P&T committee locally.
At this point, we have seen hundreds of thousands, millions of doses. I think Pfizer was saying they've released 2.3 million doses of vaccine already.
We're not seeing issues. So we're really kind of moving a little bit of a decision making to just millions of doses of RSV vaccine for our folks, older folks getting the RSV vaccines.
And as we mentioned with the NERSEVA MAM shortage, really trying to get pregnant women in that last trimester, the protection that they can then transfer to their to their children for this upcoming season.
Daniel, we have a text from CDC VSA. Remember that program where you'd?
Yes, yes.
Now they say it's open for 60 plus adults who get an RSV vaccine.
Okay. Yeah. And so they say register and tell us how you feel after RSV vaccine. How do they know I got one?
Did you get your RSV vaccine, Vincent? Yeah, I did. I got RSV COVID and flu all at once.
Okay, that's fantastic. Well, let's talk about that for a second. So the way I think he's got to be not telling the truth.
I don't I don't I don't know what else to say. I don't I don't believe that he did it.
I don't think he's talking like he did it.
Did you did you get your RSV vaccine, Vincent? Yeah, I did. I got RSV COVID and flu all at once.
Okay, that's that's fantastic. And what we should well, let's talk about that for a second. So the way they know, and this is nice.
A lot of states actually have a centralized place where, you know, for instance, my patient comes and sees me that that gets uploaded to the state.
And there's a nice system where I see that a person has covered their recommended vaccinations, other health maintenance things.
So it's really a great resource. And what you did is really what we recommend.
You know, there was there was a little bit in the media that came out recently about, oh, I don't know if people showed RSV and flu at the same time.
Because there was one study where we looked at a specific age group over 85 and and there was a slight minimal statistically significant increase in strokes.
You know, that that's getting to the point of data mining when you start like looking for something like that.
Because we have lots of other studies, you know, you really decrease your risk.
Interesting enough with the flu vaccine, you're decreasing your risk of having heart attacks of strokes of getting hospitalized for even non flu related issues.
So the recommendation for the board is don't miss an opportunity to do that.
That's a new one.
Just like, you know, Vincent, you're a role model there, probably because you're aware of the cape and the spike t-shirt.
But yeah, yeah, let's let's get everyone protected so that this becomes the year when we say what happened with RSV.
So I got mine at a CVS would.
Would they work?
You got GSK.
I got GSK.
Yeah.
You know how I know that is that's actually why GSK is winning over Pfizer.
They got the CVS contract on RSV vaccines, but they would they report it to CDC?
They report to the state.
I see.
Yeah, so it's a state state thing.
I don't even know what to say, but apparently, Vincent got his three shots.
I thought I had one more video of him where he says that he got his COVID in one arm and this one and the other and he had no pain from all of them.
And anyway, that I know that that's part of that that podcast to it doesn't really matter.
I really, I really am going to push this idea of a orchestrated illusion of consensus that was really set up from very early on and even set in motion before the pandemic actually started.
These people were all put in place.
And at some point in 2021, we went extraordinarily.
Maybe even in 2020 we went extraordinarily off narrative.
And they had to really course correct and that's why so many people through their head in the ring at the same time.
It's not for nothing that Steve Kersch, Robert Malone and and Brett Weinstein were all on the same broadcast when when this illusion of consensus was really solidified and the leaders of it were really established.
It's not for nothing that there are areas that had massive spikes of the virus the same as let's say Northern Italy.
It's more important even to say that that how many of these people just absolutely positively abjectly ignore Denny Rancor.
Robert Malone ignores him.
Steve Kersch ignores him.
Steve Kersch is promoting his own debate about vaccine effectiveness and a $10 million challenge.
It's always promoting himself.
Nobody talks about Denny Rancor.
He's got like four different analyses on all cause mortality that seem to make an argument about the fact that you can only really see a reliable signal when you look for correlations with massive rollouts of transfection or transformation.
There's no evidence of the spread of a contagious respiratory virus.
And even after appearing on the Kim Iverson show he didn't really have any momentum nobody really cared.
It's not like Robert Malone tweeted this video out to his 1.10 million followers.
I mean if you think about the list of people that Brett Weinstein said you know are the 10 people that had to be stopped and the pandemic would have been completely different.
None of those people have even said Denny Rancor's name out loud.
It's magical.
In New York who did not use any of those treatment protocols but stuck with the tried and true of how you deal with the respiratory illness.
And that's interesting.
Yeah.
Okay, so that spike that initial spike you caused it due to the virus.
You understand I'm arguing it's not due to a virus at all.
It's due to the what with the measures that were applied.
That's what killed people.
People could come in.
But we did see a spot.
I mean are you.
I guess we have to ask.
Do you believe that COVID-19 as a virus exists at all that SARS-CoV-2 exists.
I think that question is irrelevant. What I'm trying to say is all the data.
That is a firm hard all cause mortality data is inconsistent with the idea of a particularly virulent at the gym that spreads.
It's inconsistent with that.
So you can believe that there's a whole spectrum of viruses and bacteria and whatever you want.
But there was nothing special or new in terms of these pathogens that did anything that spreads that the data is inconsistent with that.
So you don't have to get into the question of whether or not viruses exist and all these all these exotic things.
I don't even want to touch that. I'm just saying my view of the data is that this is not a spreading pathogen period.
It's inconsistent with that is disproved by the data.
But you asked the question well were there places where they weren't applying these these very horrendous protocols and that still had spikes.
Well our data we've done studies about this and for example Germany did not apply these fancy protocols.
Germany did business as usual and had zero peak at the beginning of the pandemic.
There is no signal there whatsoever in the entire territory of Germany.
So when you make a map of Europe and you put colors on for the intensity of that peak.
It's red in northern France for example around London around Madrid.
There's these horrible red spots and it does not cross the border into Germany whatsoever Germany stays white on the map if you like.
But I guess what I'm saying is that what I'm saying is that you know as they were tracking the virus itself and the spread of the virus.
They were saying then that the answer to that would be well because Germany had taken all these measures that they weren't getting the virus into their country yet that it hadn't spread into Germany.
So if it was spreading in Italy.
I see spreading spreading spreading tracking tracking tracking when they were tracking the virus listen to how vigorously Kim Iris and defends the faith in a novel virus that spread and killed millions about millions were saved from.
It's a very vigorous debate a very vigorous defense of the spread we saw the spread of the virus the virus spread the spread virus and spreading virus in the tracking of the spread virus.
It's red in northern France for example around London around Madrid.
There's these horrible red spots and it does not cross the border into Germany whatsoever Germany stays white on the map if you like.
But I guess what I'm saying is that what I'm saying is that you know as they were tracking the virus itself and the spread of the virus they were saying then that the answer to that would be well because Germany had taken all these measures that they weren't
getting the virus into their country yet that they're it hadn't spread into Germany so if it was spreading in Italy but not in Germany spreading.
You can wave your hand like that. Okay, first of all, I don't believe that they were.
They weren't tracking mortality. They may have been tracking something that they call.
The cases of COVID or whatever with these very suspicious tests that they were using and so on they can they can do all of that and they can count cases.
I put all that aside and I look at mortality, because it's the only thing that I'm sure of, and it's something you can measure and be certain of and all the all the jurisdictions do it.
And when I look at mortality, there is no evidence of any spread.
You have bursts of mortality when you start doing something.
So, right, right at the beginning when you started applying these aggressive protocols you had certain hotspots that had peaks that mortality did not spread. It didn't then.
So you're saying it doesn't matter if there was a virus or not circulating because you're not even looking at that you're looking at deaths and only deaths.
You look at mortality and the deaths in areas you're not seeing deaths spread from one region to a next to a next that would indicate that something was spreading around killing people.
That's right. Now, Kim, in fact, I see the opposite. That's what's important. I see the opposite. I see the US, which has a very large number of very vulnerable people that did die.
In the US, the excess mortality during the COVID period correlates perfectly with the poverty, the number of people living in poverty in the state. You get this incredible correlation line that goes through the origin of Pearson correlation
of the coefficient of 0.86, which is unheard of. And so it was poor people who died, and especially in the southern states.
Now, you cross this thousand kilometers of border between Canada and the US and there were no deaths in Canada in that whole period.
Virtually none. You can hardly detect the excess mortality in Canada compared to the United States. That's impossible. These are two of the biggest trading partners in the world.
The highways were open. It's impossible that a virus that is said to have been spreading did not want to cross the border to Canada.
Same thing. I think that we've heard people on our side say that was the most infectious virus the earth has ever seen.
Like the most infectious virus ever.
You'll have the Trudeau's of the world and all the Trudeau's supporters saying, well, that's because we implemented some serious protocols that prevented people from traveling.
You couldn't even travel in Canada. You guys were in major lockdown unlike what we were here in the United States. The lockdown levels that you guys experienced was much harsher.
So they would say, I would think that you can always wave your hands and say that kind of thing.
But if you believe that it's that it is a pandemic causing virus, you cannot believe that it will refuse to cross the border like that. That's just that's just incredible.
There's no science that makes any sense if you want to believe that. But also, we in one of our studies, which I co-authored the lead author was John Johnson from Harvard University.
And we authored a paper where we looked at states in the United States and we compared neighboring states that share a border, one that locked down and the other didn't.
And they were comparable otherwise. We found 12 pairs of states like that that you could directly compare. And we found unambiguously that the lockdowns that states have these large excess mortalities, which were not present in the non lockdown neighbor that shared a border with it.
Okay, so that makes sense to me, except how do you explain that, you know, my guess is the hospitals were not overwhelmed in Canada, right? So it's like the people still have to show up.
I mean, they don't magically, you know, they can't magically use a ventilator, right?
And that has large cities and large hospitals. And they were claiming the same kinds of problems of overwork and over this and over that in Canada as anywhere, any other major city in the world, they were all screaming that.
Okay. So just because it's a big country and a relatively small population doesn't mean.
Well, you can see why why he's not getting attention. You can see why I've got him in the green here and you can see why he needs to be cordoned off.
Because he's threatening this idea that there was a novel virus that millions of people died from a novel virus that millions of people were saved from a novel virus that gain a function is real and it was spreading like that because it was gain a function.
This could come again.
And you can hear Kim Iverson fighting desperately to preserve this faith.
This tunnel of mythology that we are trapped in by people like Brett Weinstein and Steve Kirsch and Joe Rogan and everyone on this screen.
Because none of these people on this screen either have the insight or the courage to question these fundamental mis truths, these fundamental pillars of this mythology that they want to govern our children by.
Because they know this is true.
And I have been kind of up on these guys because number one, they blocked me and number two, they are pushing this DNA contamination as being some kind of very significant thing that otherwise everything would be fine.
And that's a particular critique of Phillip Buckholtz because Phillip Buckholtz is the guy who spoke in front of the South Carolina Senate.
And after he spoke in front of the South Carolina Senate he answered some questions and in that question and answer he said that as the shots stand right now he would still recommend them for his parents but he might not recommend them for his daughter
and he himself wouldn't take them unless they could show that this DNA wasn't in there anymore.
Otherwise he thinks that the technology is great.
And yes he said that.
And I respectfully disagree with him as a biologist and as a father and as a.
Yeah.
The reason why I disagree with him I need to explain this again really quick because.
When I explained it yesterday I was a little imprecise about where these small interfering RNAs might come from and I think I made a little bit of a misstatement so I just want to clear it up here.
So a transfection in its purest form is wholly inappropriate for healthy humans.
The analogy that I've been using lately is your grandma's apple pie and if you ask grandma to make 10,000 or 100,000 or even a million of her pies.
He would have a whole host of issues with regard to scaling up that process in order to make those pies in any reasonable length of time.
And that challenge was of course present in this scaling up of a transfection which would typically be manufactured on a bench and a nanogram scales instead to manufacture similar quantities.
Sorry similar quality but in kilograms.
And many people including Michael Eden very early on predicted that this was something that they were kind of glossing over as not being a big deal.
But actually it was.
And I actually think it was clear to some people already in 2020 that the.
The lipid nanoparticles and the RNA that were used in the trial were produced in a different way than the.
Mass production process to I do think that people were saying it but I haven't really.
In my notes I don't really have who was saying I don't know where I heard it so I can't really claim that that was something that was out there but it did come out earlier this year now.
So the RNA was impure is something we've known from the very beginning because when they submitted their documents to the EU and to the FDA there was not a single band on the RNA gel but it was a smear and that smear means.
All this fragmented RNA or or or what we don't know because they didn't sequence it but there are many many many many tiny RNAs.
And so that means that there's impurities in that RNA that can result in.
You know not perfect production of the spike protein obviously but also.
All of these RNAs can have many many unknown consequences especially given the.
Huge overlap in many of the sequences of the spike protein.
With our own endogenous sequences they're small short overlaps but they're still important relative from an epitome perspective and they're more they also are also important from the perspective of any of these RNA fragments that were produced.
In this process too and then not can't remove them so they're in these lipid nanoparticles as well.
And interestingly one thing to say about that is that by talking about the DNA and the contamination of the DNA they are in a way distracting from the fact that the RNA was definitely impure.
And it is possible that double stranded DNA is less dangerous than small interfering RNAs that might be the consequence of this horrible production method of these RNAs having a lot of short transcripts in that.
That could actually be a bigger problem than the double stranded DNA from from a molecular perspective simply because maybe this is just a hypothesis.
Maybe the immune system and our cellular machinery is much more capable of rejecting double stranded DNA fragments than it would be capable of rejecting small interfering RNAs or modulatory RNAs or RNAs that would otherwise mess with the endogenous RNAs present in our cells.
If double stranded DNA is more immunogenic then it'll be cleared easier.
And so the potential here for the focus on double stranded DNA to be really an actual orchestrated attempt to distract us from all these other sources of danger and reasons to believe that they are criminally negligent is number one first of all that even in its purest form they had to know
that it was bad for healthy humans. They had to know they had to know they had to know.
And so you don't need to go all the way down the list until you get to the double stranded DNA fragments that they recently found because you can start with number one then you go down to number two and you know that for sure that resulted in a lot of problems which yes include double stranded DNA.
They include endotoxins from the bacteria for sure.
But the RNA was in pure from the beginning so we knew it wasn't going to produce spike only but it was going to produce all kinds of protein fragments and those fragmented RNAs were all packaged up in the in the lipid nanoparticle as well.
So the RNA was code on optimize that means that there's going to be misfolding that means that whatever whatever epitopes are created are not necessarily the same epitopes would be would be created when the real viral coding of the spike was sent through the same
ribosome. Very similar problems result from the chemical alteration of the modified RNA.
Two main important ones are that the pseudoyiridine can cause premature stop codons which will then again give you truncated proteins and also can be effectively a wobble base so that many different substitutions in that amino acid chain and that therefore the complex
the 3D construction of the protein that gets that results that this is also just going to add variability to the epitopes that are available after this transfection and challenge the immune system further.
Not to overreact. It's just all added variability that you don't want if your goal is to usefully augment the immune system which obviously that's their goal.
So the protein produces on characterizing highly variable for the reasons 3, 4, and 5.
That means that your immune system is not given a a perfect set of epitopes but a huge bouquet of variability that it's supposed to sort through and somehow produce a useful immune response which is a pretty pretty ridiculous statement.
So the LNP was never tested this is very important and we have of course you know right from the horse's mouth Peter Cullis thanks to Robert Malone's recommendation in his sub stack the day after the Nobel Prize was awarded.
We watched a video with Peter Cullis and at the end during the question and answer he said that he burnt the lives of four five postdocs on the task of trying to target lipid nanoparticles to a particular region or a particular tissue and they failed and were probably 40 years away from ever achieving that.
So we already knew that the lipid nanoparticles wouldn't stay where we put them.
We already knew that there was this huge variability in where they would go and what that would do because we already knew that tissues have their own special ribosomes and so if you express the same RNA and different tissues you probably are going to get different proteins
and definitely going to get different you know different lengths of their lifetimes of the RNA different regulation of the RNA based on the particular cell type that you express it in all of these things were known.
All of these things were known.
None of these things are a surprise.
Like Robert Malone said on on on Brett Weinstein's podcast that I just assumed that they fixed all these problems.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
No, that doesn't even make sense.
Because all of these things are known. I'm not I'm not some.
I had to learn this.
I had to make this list over many months of study, but not Robert Malone.
Not Berzowski, not Fauci, not David Baltimore, not Vincent Rancin yellow.
They don't need they didn't need they knew this.
Not Annie DeGroat, not not Peter Teal, not Eric Weinstein.
These people knew this stuff and if they didn't know it then people that they knew knew it.
They've known it for decades.
They've known that endotoxins are highly immunogenic.
They know that. Why do they know that?
If they make a protein bio.
If they make a protein product.
Which is a biologic.
They can use anion exchange chromatography to remove all of the nucleic acids DNA and RNA.
And in fact monoclonal antibodies are held to a standard of zero nucleic acids.
It's one of the most expensive parts of the process of developing monoclonal and producing monoclonal antibodies so much so that entire batches can be thrown away if they don't pass the testing for purity after they are subject to anion exchange chromatography.
Because it's so expensive to run the batch through that process again would lose all the profit of the batch and maybe even cost more money and can be recouped by the sale.
And this is also a well understood part of the process of making monoclonal antibodies and of the regulatory process and structure that protects these as products as pure products.
Anybody that was involved in arbitration of these biological ideas, these biological products like monoclonal antibodies would definitely understand some or all of these sort of production requirements.
Surely Robert Malone would understand these production requirements surely the vaccine center of the NIH and Barney and all these people would definitely know the limitations of transfection.
The limitations of lipid nanoparticles, the limitations of mass manufacturing using a bacterial basis of plasma replication, they know, they can't not know because these are not new technologies ladies and gentlemen.
And so yeah, there are double stranded DNA fragments from process to their sure are and you know what we were told for almost two years that we had to be concerned because the spike was toxic.
The spike from the back from the vaccine is actually sometimes causing myocarditis but man oh man the spike from the back from the virus did cause a lot more myocarditis.
And there were lots of people in our movement that spent many, many months, many, many podcasts, many, many sub stacks talking about the spike and how it might have been the wrong protein.
The source said maybe we should have used the end protein, Brett Weinstein and Robert Malone discussed how maybe we shouldn't have used this extremely toxic protein maybe we should have taken some of the epitopes out.
Maybe we should have just used the receptor binding domain.
The conversation occurred over over a year and a half ladies and gentlemen do not forget how long no one said anything about RNA and purity codon optimization chemically altered your stop codons or the protein being uncharacterized in highly variable.
People and talked about the lipid nanoparticle going everywhere in the body as being a significant thing except for very few people and somehow or another these leading dissidents these 10 people who saved the world have never been able to put all these things together in a single presentation.
They've never been able to summarize all the dangers while they're on stage.
People can only talk about Ivermectin other people can only talk about informed consent other people can only talk about a lab leak other people can only talk about myocarditis.
But nobody seems to be able to summarize it all together at once as lying except for Mike Eden and Nick Hudson and me.
Get no amplification on social media.
None.
And no amplification from any of these really you know people that suffered sacrificed a lot for our dissident movement.
These guys I mean these guys who've talked about them all.
This is where we are.
They want your kids data they want to make it normal for children to believe in pandemics and believe in public health and take the word of the doctors and more vaccines the better.
Take your recommended vaccines and the way out is to explain this lie.
This faith in a novel virus and the ability to detect it with high fidelity.
National security plan that was already there and the only way they could have done it with any sort of honesty.
Is that they used a clone and they seeded it in multiple places so that the people that they tried to culture would be pretty successful and they would definitely get a sequence that would match other sequences in the world.
And remove any shadow of a doubt from anybody that was looking for proof of a pandemic.
That would be it.
And without the sophisticated understanding of what RNA and DNA can and can't do.
Without a pretty sophisticated understanding of how exaggerated the fidelity of our understanding and the infectious cycle is without a sophisticated understanding of how the immune system works and doesn't work.
It's very easy for somebody to be shown that data has a bureaucrat a high paid diplomat bureaucrat and say that okay you remember that thing we drilled.
You remember that plan we had well it's time to put that plan into motion.
And that's what they did.
And that plan that is in motion includes the inversion of our sovereignty to permissions it includes that so as soon as there was a pandemic.
All of these government bureaucrats understand that okay we're moving to digital ID no.
Okay we're moving to lockdown and digital ID they knew that already that's something you need to understand a lot of these people know where this is going and have known where it's going for a long time.
That's why they've been so confident that they're right.
That's why even people on the dissident side are actually walking a very fine line between warning you and announcing it.
And if you listen carefully you can hear that a lot of times people are just more or less announcing it.
The who has power.
The who if they pass a treaty you lose.
Is that warning you or is that just telling you what's going to happen and announcing the thing you're supposed to accept.
Be very wary of people who purport to be warning you and actually are only announcing what's going to happen.
And so this all revolves around of course this idea of pandemic potential being available in bat caves being accessible through cell culture being accessible through animal passage or being successful through genetic stitch work.
And again the worst case scenario is this story that Brett Weinstein and Sam Harris and and Rand Paul and Tony Fauci and.
And the the proximal origins authors and all of these people that were emailing with Tony Fauci early on they all created this illusion of a cover up of a gain of function virus leak.
And the illusion of a cover up is still going on now Paul off it and the same podcast that I cited earlier also said that it's just ridiculous that people are still talking about this as a lab leak of course it wasn't a lab leak it was a leak.
It was a jump and they happen and that's how this stuff works.
The bat cave potential is all you need for Paul off it.
The stitching together a viruses is all you need to condemn equal health alliance and you can fight about either of these as potential and you agree with the premise that there are pandemic potential viruses that we need public health to protect us from.
And that we need cures for the best cures are vaccines.
That's the illusion of consensus that there was a novel virus killed millions of people that millions of people were saved.
Can a function is real and therefore the virus will come again and they will they do this by again not doing the math of excess deaths and many people on our side are not doing the math of excess deaths.
They're still attributing way too many deaths to a novel virus that didn't kill anybody.
A novel virus that only exists in the context of PCR tests novel virus that only exists in the context of PCR tests and lateral flow tests.
It's just absurd at this stage.
The do not resuscitate orders in New York City the ventilators that were used the lack of antibiotics the poor use of steroids remdesivir madazalam opioid deaths on top of that and death certificate fraud because it was financially encouraged.
None of this is ever they don't ever do this equation. They don't ever subtract this stuff.
More importantly they avoid the discussion of the PCR fraud the idea that you know that we were even testing for anything.
The lateral flow test fraud was the similar thing done in the UK.
The variance in the sequences are just taken on face value RNA infectious clones basically caused everybody to block me everybody to attack me.
People worth millions of dollars decided that Jay was worth tweeting about all because I tried to teach people that RNA infectious clones are the only technology that allow them to study any form of an RNA virus.
They can't study RNA viruses without making clones of them.
And it's just absurd how people reacted to this revelation this description as well it doesn't matter.
So much so that you know we have to ignore Jay now.
The same basic thing happened when I started to explore quasi species genetics but it I think that was an it was an easier concept for them to fend off because it is more complicated and it's more mathematical it's more theoretical.
The RNA infectious clone thing is really like making cakes.
And once you explain that making cakes can only go a certain way it's pretty easy for everybody to understand it once you do the mixtape is pretty easy to understand once you explain mp3s versus flak files it makes sense.
And so you know incompetent fraction all the stuff about virology we don't talk about any of it they don't teach any of it because it questions the very principle of a novel virus it questions the very principle of pandemic potential and gain a function and all this stuff.
And they don't want that they need that they want your kids to believe that this virus was created by evil people that didn't have respect for mother nature.
They want you to believe that it's becoming ever more easy to do this because all these tools are so we're going to be using CRISPR to make make viruses that are 10 times worse than this one.
They want your children they want our our college age kids they want young people to believe this so that they grow up in a world where they accept this as true.
Then they'll be the easiest to govern citizens that have ever walked the earth.
That's the goal.
All the information about this mythology is available on their phone.
The latest updates on the mythology come in on the phone the images and the facts and figures of the mythology come in on the phone.
And so if they want you to jump through hoops because people are shooting each other on the other side of the planet they can make that happen if they want you to stay at home they can make that happen.
They want you to think that there was an attack in another city they can make that happen with this little device right here it's a window to the world.
An illusion of consensus is created by the last four people that you read that all agreed.
Obviously I don't need to think about it then.
I mean if Robert Malone and Brett Weinstein and Steve Kirsch all agree who am I to argue with these three successful men.
We worked together to create this illusion of a Scooby-Doo mystery that we had to solve about people covering up a laboratory leak and whether or not that's plausible biology or not.
And what's not plausible about it is the the presumptive the presumptions that are required in order for this theory to work which is depicted by the green earth.
Before 2019 there was no SARS-CoV-2 and so therefore we were all vulnerable to it when it leaked from the laboratory and then it changed over the years as it went around the world until here we are in 2023 with yet another set of variants
of evidence in previous literature experience or recordings of tracking a coronavirus with this fidelity.
It's just absurd.
And this illusion of consensus has trapped most of us into thinking that there's a Scooby-Doo mystery to solve.
And while we solved that Scooby-Doo mystery of where is that virus come from and how they killed people with the protocols and then blamed it on the virus so that we kept believing that there was a mystery to solve.
And so there are a lot of doctors who are guilty guilty of criminal negligence guilty of being stupid.
That's what they are.
That's what Doc Malek is saying now.
That's what a lot of people need to really admit.
They were dumb.
That they believed that, you know,
intramuscularly injecting a child with 36 different things in its first two years of life is totally normal.
Because you didn't take the time to learn yourself the biology that they purport to base these schedules on.
Every nurse who didn't learn the biology and come to the conclusion that something was off his guilty guilty of negligence guilty of being dumb.
And they use fear, frustration, confusion in the beginning and they used an illusion of consensus to take advantage of people to scare them into being dumb.
And so we don't want to condemn any of these people.
We want them to confess.
We want them to seek with some remorse.
That's what we want.
And then we welcome them home with open arms.
But these people have to admit that they made some pretty gigantic mistakes when it counted.
When it was an emergency and they did not have principles.
As Alexandra Smerino said so eloquently.
It only matters when there's an emergency whether you have principles.
That's when it counts.
And Brett Weinstein did not have principles when it counted.
He did not have the biological knowledge or the forthright studious commitment to learning it.
In order to save anybody meaningfully he didn't save a single college kid from taking the shot.
Not one.
I tried.
But not one college kid was saved by any of these people on this screen.
Not one college kid was saved from taking a mandated vaccine on a campus by any of these people.
Not one even spoke out.
Richard Ebright tweeted in 2020 that if we open colleges this fall will kill a quarter million people by Christmas.
A quarter million people would die on college campuses if we opened them said Richard Ebright and none of these people said anything.
None of these people argued with him.
I think I tweeted I'll take that bet.
That's what we're talking about here.
This illusion of consensus didn't save a single college kid from getting this injection not one.
And every one of these people should be ashamed of themselves because every one of these people should have spoke out and said no we're not going to do that to these guys.
Come on.
Old people may be.
And we should of course not said maybe to the old people but I'm just trying to illustrate how ridiculous it is that none of these people stood up and said we shouldn't be transfecting college age children.
College age young adults should not be taking this shot to go back to campus.
But colleges encourage the HPV shot as well.
Colleges encourage the RSV shot and the flu shot and masks and we just didn't speak out against them.
And so this illusion of consensus was really created on purpose.
It's a faith in a novel virus and in order to beat it you've got to call the faith alive.
You've got to call it what it is.
It's a lie.
It's a lie about a background signal.
It's a lie about fidelity.
It's a lie about something.
And it's a criminal investigation so we better figure it out.
You're going to call it in endemic background.
That's fine.
Protocols were murder and transfection is not medicine.
And you want to think that they released infectious clones to make it really clean?
I think it's a really good bet.
But it still doesn't change the fact that the protocols were murder.
That's how they got this to happen and transfection is not medicine.
And none of these people spoke out usefully to save anybody from taking that shot.
The ones that really, really needed saving.
You want to say that they released transfection agents or they're doing it right now and we're shedding and that's also a problem.
That's totally okay with me too.
Protocols were murder, transfection isn't medicine.
And none of those people saved any college kids.
None of these people saved any college kids either.
The reality is that maybe they did because they didn't believe in anything but these people didn't help us get out.
If anything, they just made it harder for us to figure out what was going wrong.
It's a conflated background signal of some kind and the faith in the novel virus is a lie.
This is a lie.
And that's all you got to know.
By looking at what they don't talk about, consistently don't talk about and consistently won't challenge, you can definitely see them for who they are.
If they're making grand statements about what they did and what they role they played in it, but they've never mentioned any of this stuff, bingo.
If they're selling a book that's focused on bio weapons or focused on one particular aspect of the pandemic, it's almost a bingo.
If they have a sub stack where they started out on one single idea, like VAERS or one single idea, like a fear and cleavage site or one single idea.
It's a pretty big red flag.
If you didn't talk about natural immunity and in like the first two years of the pandemic, even though you were supposedly a biologist, this is, this is not acceptable.
Anybody that didn't roll up their sleeves and teach themselves immunology 101 in 2020 while they were supposed to be a pro biologist.
I'm sorry, but no.
Like what else was there to do?
You have to get in shape, I guess.
But I mean, if you wanted to figure your way out of this, if you really wanted to understand this so that you couldn't be lied to, there was only one answer.
Read every immunology book you could find, get rid of the contradictions, boil it down to the basics, make sure that you could confirm everything and whatever you can confirm.
You better at least make sure that the people on TV at least acknowledge those principles and guess what? They didn't.
And they want your day to please stop transfections in humans full stop.
I'm sorry that this wasn't such a great stream, you know, but at least I was here.
We're getting this streak going a little bit again, so we got to get the momentum.
And so I'm practicing, practicing, practicing, staying under two hours, I guess, but that's not really a feat.
It would be nice if I could get this down to like 45 minutes, but I'm going to start cutting clips in the near future.
I'm going to go on peer tube as soon as Ted gets that done.
We're going to start trying to have our own private streaming independent platform that also simultaneously streams to Twitch and maybe other places depending on what we can organize.
So there's a lot of things in the works, and I hope that, how come that explosion doesn't go?
It cannot play media.
Something's wrong with my memory or something like that, I guess we're overloading here.
So intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system of healthy humans, including transfection and transformation, is criminally negligent.
Thanks very much for joining me this evening.
I'm glad that all of you guys were here.
This is Gigaohm Biological.
You can find me at GigaohmBiological.com and you can also wrap with me at gigaohm.bio.
gigaohm.bio.
It's probably going to be like stream . gigaohm.bio where we're going to set up the peer tube.
More on that as it gets developed.
Boy, I need a drink and I need to go to bed.
JFK was definitely killed by the bankers for Executive Order 110, which was when he started tying $5 bills to the silver standard, I believe.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks very much for joining me, guys.
I'm going to see you again tomorrow.
I had a cancellation for a morning show, so it's going to probably be an afternoon show again tomorrow.
I'm hoping to get a special guest this week yet, but I don't want to announce his name in case it doesn't work out.
We've got a couple in the barrel and otherwise we'll just do an impromptu stream like we did tonight.
Thank you very much. See you tomorrow.
Oh, I should have come over here.
That was better.