.
Sorry that I am late.
Can you give me a sound check?
Make sure this is okay.
.
That was the most bizarre thing I've ever seen happen.
That was really crazy.
Let's try that again.
Whoa!
That was nuts.
It like advanced through 50 slides faster than I ever saw it possible.
That was nuts.
.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case scenario.
I think truth is good for kids. We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in this society.
We want everybody to feel good. That's not the way life is.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied. I'm sure I'll lie again. I don't want to lie, you know. I don't think I'm a liar. I try not to be a liar. I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
Stop lying!
Yes, it is. That was a random good call on that one.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the show.
You're joining us for the first time, you're a skilled TV watcher, or a skilled social media user.
You may be in danger of this wave overcoming you maybe it already has.
You've been here for a while, you're already staying focused, you already don't take the bait, and you already love your neighbor.
The way this works is that people share this stream, and more people find the biology and the people that can support it.
And other than that, share, share, share, please.
You can do so by sharing gigohombiological.com.
That's probably the most easiest way to do it, but you can also send a gigohomb bio and stream.
I think it's pretty handy now. We should be on three or four places if you want to go check those out for me,
and tell me that they are also working, YouTube, Rumble, and peer tube, it would be great.
I assume Twitch is working because you guys are in the chat.
The people that are helping gigohombiological are not just the people listed here,
but some of these people are being thanked for larger donations or for one-time donations.
These are the active subscribing supporters that are currently subscribed on my own website,
which is probably not necessarily the best way to do it.
You can also just give via PayPal by that link and probably do it in such a way that we give even less away.
It's difficult to do it.
I also have a P.O. box, so the most important thing is to share.
The independent bright web mark, myself, Jessica, anybody that you can see that's clearly trying to get the truth out,
irrespective of who's right or wrong, let's just get it out.
These people are the ones that need our help.
You've got to be very sensitive to what you're looking for in order to find these people,
because so many of these disguises are very effective.
So many of these disguises are very effective.
I don't really know how to express it any other way than to say that the disguises that have been used are so very effective.
And it's because the disguises actually extend across people.
If I help someone with their illusion, then their illusion will necessarily become more convincing to people on the outside.
Think of it like an audience member that's planted in a magician's performance.
Think about how amazing it is would be if there were people planted in the audience for this performance.
Much like a planted performer in a musician's, I mean, this is really where we are, ladies and gentlemen.
If we have the recipe for how this was done, we just don't really want to acknowledge that they would do it to us in this context.
And that's where the illusion is sustained only through your active participation before.
If we keep denying that it's possible, then yes, it will always be possible and we will be just like that walrus.
And that's what really United Noncompliance is about.
It's about stopping our participation in this discussion in the way that gives it legitimacy.
And instead, to start questioning the legitimacy of the discussion.
And to a certain extent, I'm really borrowing from the Novirus crew when I say that.
We need to force them to legitimize the grounds, the model that we're all arguing about.
We need to force them to legitimize that and they haven't thus far.
It has just been assumed in the questions that we've been fooled into answering.
Man, sometimes I really wonder if I'm just coughing out into space or if this is actually really getting anywhere.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the show.
This is Giga Home Biological, a high-resistance low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
I do feel sometimes like I'm broadcasting from an alien spaceship, but actually I'm just coming to you live from my garage in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
But the way that reality is so distorted right now and the way that people are in such a spectacular agreement about the need to commit to this distortion in reality in our social media landscape, but also in our mainstream media, it is extraordinary.
But what I find most compelling is how if you go across what are supposed to be different aspects of this debate about right and wrong and the pandemic, you're not going to find a broad spectrum discussion about what happened and the crime that might have been committed.
Instead, you are going to find a very limited spectrum of debate curated by people who were put in place right before the pandemic with preconceived notions about what could happen and what would happen and now what's happening and what happened.
And that can only be seen with accurate study so that you can take these things that don't really line up when you look at them from different angles, but when you put them in the right place, then all of these things line up.
And the farther we get down the timeline, then the more important it is to look back all the way to the beginning again so that you can accurately see and realize that there's no, there's no way that all of these things, these people, these preconceived notions,
these stories, these assumptions should all line up from 2019 and back and from 2019 and forward.
And the things that line up start to become extraordinary and if you can put them out on an imaginary cognitive map and imagine that it's almost like we didn't have to learn anything at all about certain ideas for a very, very long time.
Assumptions that we made about how certain things in biology work have been assumptions that are based on a long, long ago assumption that never really got tested.
But the way that we explored that biology and were told was it was being discovered, it really felt like we were, let's say, pushing that cutting edge.
But in reality, the model presumed by all those questions was never actually being tested or a lot of times was not directly being verified.
And that's really the argument that I'm trying to make or trying to adapt from the Broken Science Initiative is to try and start to more formally discuss how the questions that we are being asked to discuss, the questions that we are being asked to think about,
these suppose certain models of reality, and if those questions are worded cleverly, then the assumption of the model of reality might not actually be tested while at the same time implied and accepted by the people that go through the ritual of thinking about that question.
So I'm human just like you. I got taken by this in the beginning because of the illusion of consensus that was on television and social media about the danger or potential danger of the worst case scenario, if those Chinese were messing around with a virus, if the eco health alliance had sprayed
viruses into badcames, if they were lying about it, the worst case scenario was whoa.
And creating that narrative on all levels, whether it be the forward facing White House media and the lampooning of Donald Trump and the discussions about what he said and didn't say.
Or whether it was behind the scenes, the discussion of the supposed suppression of already previously approved FDA nutraceuticals.
And so we are at an extraordinary time point where for a little while longer, 20 year olds and 30 year olds are going to be able to look back in their own memory.
And if they can be carefully walked and focused, can look back in their own memory experience and see how ridiculous it is that all of these things line up.
And how important it is for all of us average people in America and indeed around the world to come to the new and reverent understanding that we have been spectacularly misled.
In order to govern us effectively. Now, if that's an excuse that some people tell each other because there's so many people on the planet. This is the only way.
Or because population is out of control. This is the only way. Whatever they tell themselves.
They aren't humans just like you and me. There's something else. They consider themselves a part of a different class of human.
And they think of our children as nothing more than resources to be used that have been to this date gone sorely to waste.
In a way that we shouldn't allow them to go to waste anymore.
And we shouldn't spend as much resources keeping these old people alive as we used to.
We should use human life more efficiently.
These are the kinds of ideas that are spreading in the background or at the at the dinner table or in the wine sellers of these of these elite governing people.
While they they're forward facing media social media podcasts that they support are all saying things that fame fighting for our grandchildren, but they're really not.
They're fighting for their continued membership in this club of of.
I don't know.
Weaponized piles of money and those people that have control over them.
Because I don't think there's there's there's any mistake to be made.
I think Giga on biological has been very clear that we believe that one of the fundamental things that's required that you need to understand is that we have been consciously and intelligently manipulated for decades.
And so our understanding of reality and how we are governed how the banking system works. This stuff is all very, very bad for the average person.
And so even if you just recently started thinking about whether fractional reserve banking was something that was safe.
You can recall and remember that that that was one of the first things that I started talking about in the JC on the woods series was the idea that fractional reserve banking was something you really needed to understand because it had been weaponized against us.
And it would be very difficult to look into the books of the bank to understand to the extent of the breadth and depth of how much they weaponized fractional reserve banking against us.
And the people that manipulate this unseen mechanism of manipulation that prevent us from this understanding prevent us from exercising informed consent in our daily lives economically socially in our education of our children.
And now they have moved to try and check made us by also making it that way with regard to public health that it's so overwhelming amount of information and imperatives that you have nothing that you can do other than to surrender to the dictates of the state.
That's where they would like it to go and they have manipulated us consciously and intelligently so that we would teach this imperative to our children.
That we would go limp so our kids would say, well, I guess I have to go limp. I guess there's nothing to fight for here because this is the way the community, the society, the government works.
Now make no mistake about it. I don't want to be a bad messenger here. I want to give you hope, but I also need everybody to be realistic.
What they want to achieve is not likely possible with an out of a lot of pain.
What they have already created as a situation where the system almost inevitably must collapse in some way and I don't know how that will work because I'm not an economist or a currency expert or anything like that.
But I do know that history suggests that the dollar is in in bad shape right now and that if enough countries were to decide to stop using the dollar.
You could have a problem.
When that reality comes home to roost is your guesses as good as mine follows somebody else, not me.
But what we need to do is wake the young people up and wake the sleepers up to the understanding that this is all part of the same big scheme rather than it being a bio weapon that was released on us a incapacitating agent.
And and and a secondary bio weapon in the in the form of the shot and the spike protein.
This is an elaborate theater to get us into a sufficiently chaotic and unstable state so that they can rearrange the way that we feel about the sovereignty over our bodies and where we feel about the sovereignty over our children.
And if they can't get it with the plan they have I suspect that they will increase the chaos and increase the pain in order for more of us to accept those those edicts.
That's where the digital ID on the internet will come from.
That will be probably through pain and suffering or through some kind of cyber attack where the internet crashes and in order to turn it back on we're going to need a digital ID.
Maybe something like that is is closer than we think.
And so we have to be aware that something of that nature something that gigantic could easily make us lose sight.
And our young people lose sight of this right now what is a fully aligned view if we look directly behind us back to January of 2020 or let's say August of 2019.
And then back a little bit farther into history to a few other sort of public health things like Zika and Ebola and AIDS.
You can see a whole set of data points that line up narrative points that suggest that there may be a great deal of exaggeration and lying going on with regard to bio weapons and the need for a biosecurity state.
And of course there are a whole host of industries and corporations and interests that have a vested, you know, to their great advantage for that potential to be as exaggerated as possible.
And the weird part about this is is that everyone everyone everyone that's in front of us right now and claiming to be fighting for our grandchildren will not consider that possibility at all.
The only possibility on the table for anyone is some degree of bio weapons some degree of mistakes some degree of absolute technocratic tragedy that has a foundation in real biology that may or may not have come under control yet.
Not one person with any reasonable social reach is interested in considering the possibility that this might be an elaborate theater with small working parts and the rest being a combination of exaggeration and outright fabrication.
Think about how remarkable it is that no one no one that we're really having to consider seriously that's getting in front of the US Senate that's that's that's talking to Jimmy door or Joe Rogan has even even remotely considered the possibility
that RNA virology as a whole is kind of an exaggerated thing and maybe maybe not even adequately understood by the by the general public as what it is, which is basically just an investigation and biochemical signaling under the disguise of of pandemics
and public health we don't know. That's how obscure and obfuscated this story is under this supreme and and and insistent certainty about certain things.
We must accept certain things and all of these people do.
And once you see that for the theater that it is starts to become quite macabre because you realize how many people are working together.
How many people are coordinating their behavior to a certain extent or to a great extent in order to make sure that our grandchildren are enslaved.
And also to ensure that just the general reproductive rate of average humans goes down.
These people do not consider themselves and do not want to be one of us.
And once you see it, you can really feel it you can hear it.
Just like that Tucker Carlson cut.
There's a cut like that for a lot of these people because they don't want to admit that they were taken and I definitely want to admit I was taken I want to admit it because I've had friends who died.
Because they took the shot because they thought that worst case scenario was possible still.
That a mutation in the virus could yet read results in the are not 14 and.
Yeah we're we're in really big trouble ladies and gentlemen because we're not acknowledging that this has been going on before the cell phone before the Internet it was already happening.
So what's happening now when we have no.
Rains on television there's no.
Legal reason for any of those broadcasts to be truthful anymore there used to be.
In case you aren't aware of it when we were kids I'm 52 years old when we were kids there used to be.
A law which prevented network news from saying things that were in that were untruthful.
That an obligation.
And I believe that now things like the loosely I love the words intellectual dark web because it really does suggest this.
Silly plan that actually worked very well it's not a silly plan it's a sinister plan.
To put a bunch of fake voices out there on the Internet that would kind of be shepherds for people that.
In addition to being out there would be very simply using very basic programming put in front of people by the algorithm.
And these people would get popular because they would get subscriptions and people would listen to them and they're not awful and it only takes that.
And the artificial putting it in front of enough people to get these ideas into the consciousness.
If you didn't see the movie circle in 2017 maybe you should go look look up trailer for that movie.
If you didn't see the beginning of the planet of the apes remake maybe you should see that.
Because the hints of what they were going to do have been placed in pop media and pop culture and songs and stories and comic books for decades.
Because this is a mythology that they have been governing us with for decades.
And at first I do think that it started out as kind of a genuine promise that in the very near future we expect to be able to cure childhood diseases with retroviruses in every hospital in America.
It's one of my favorite admissions of Robert Malone during the pandemic that he actually when he was in grad school thought that was the case and that's why he decided to go into what he went into.
Why he chose to study with who he studied with Murray Gardner.
That this mythology basically has its roots in David Baltimore.
It has its roots in in Gallo.
It has it has its roots in HIV and in retroviruses.
If those experiments and all the Nobel prizes associated with them are not testing the model that they purport to test if those experiments are ignoring predictions that this model makes.
And not testing them.
Then we have a problem.
And I suspect that David Baltimore is one of those people who wittingly or unwittingly gave up some of it because they're so arrogant.
They actually believe that because they have all agreed to tell the same story that there's no possible way that we could ever figure it out.
And that's why we're at the stage where Mandy Cohen is telling us the story and they really think that we're not going to figure it out.
And that's where I believe that it is the sacredness of this irreducible complexity and biology that is going to get us over the finish line that's going to unite us across all of these different backgrounds and all of these different levels of understanding.
If they if we can start to unite people on the idea that we've been oversold that they've been exaggerating and they've been doing that for a long time because they kept thinking they were going to make more progress than they have.
The human genome project is essentially that.
And while sequencing technologies have purported to become higher fidelity cheaper smaller yada yada yada yada.
Those technologies when applied to some of the models of public health.
And of human biology.
They don't hold up so well.
And we're not supposed to pay attention to that and and the fracturing and ever more specialized fields of biology make it very difficult for us to question that and make it very easy for people to exaggerate and to lie.
And if we don't wake up to the possibility that it might all be lies.
And at least make sure.
Then I don't think we're starting from the right starting point I think we're already giving them something that we should not give. We should not assume any of the cards in their hand.
We should assume they're in there and all five cards are a bluff.
Otherwise we're making a very giant mistake I believe.
The principle of informed consent is still not really discussed because informed consent implies a level of continued education and continued clarification and continued explanation that no one is engaged in.
It suggests a priority of something that no one talks about and no one engages in because again, informed consent implies informed.
Understanding.
And when you watch carefully to all these people that claim to be waving their arms and and trying to get you to understand what the real problem is none of them are trying to inform you they are trying to force feed you.
They can't summarize the biology they don't teach the biology they make you assume the biology they make you accept the biology by getting you to ask the wrong questions and debate about the wrong questions and answer and argue about the wrong questions
and that's really how often I've stumbled because I've been.
I've been to asking the wrong questions and arguing with the wrong people about those questions.
And so, let's be very clear.
Oops that's probably the wrong cut. Is that the wrong cut yeah it is sorry down here.
I believe there is an illusion of consensus right now in on all sides of the debate about the fact that there was a novel virus that started in 2019 here and spread throughout the world that has changed relatively uniformly from Delta to
etc.
That has several very interesting molecular motifs that we surprisingly pay little attention to with regard to all those variants.
Shall I say that again.
It's interesting that the spike protein was told to us already in 2020 to have a bunch of very interesting motifs in them, including a fear and cleavage site and especially high affinity for ACE2 and some HIV inserts and a.
A weird homology to staphylococcan and teratoxin B.
But for some reason or another all these super sleuths and heroes of the pandemic don't seem to keep track of any of those sequences that they were well aware of in 2020 as being highly significant and obviously indicative of a lab leak.
And very dangerous because right that's the whole point if they manipulated this thing and they made it more infectious by adding all this stuff to it.
Then we should have paid attention to that stuff as it necessarily evolved.
Did it get worse did it get better did those HIV inserts get better or worse.
For some reason none of us no one no one cares about that.
Which is just one facet of the extraordinary theater.
That should at this stage now be one of those things is starting to line up and you're like oh wow that doesn't make any sense how in the world could he have been saying that in 2020.
How in the world could all of those people been saying that in 2020.
Those are the questions you should be asking and nobody wants to think about 2020 anymore.
In fact no one really wants to think about 2021 anymore either.
Even though in those two years how where you can really see where the rubber hits the road what these people were really up to where they were putting their energy what they were spending their time on was not what they're doing now.
Whoa what happened there.
And so this faith in a novel virus has a number of aspects that you have to remember and recite.
It's an ongoing RNA viral pandemic of a novel RNA virus that wasn't around in 2019 and is now almost found everywhere on the planet in many species.
Not just white tail deer.
The variants are cultural supposedly at least some of them were.
It's trackable for sure.
And this tracking has provided us evidence of evolution in a molecule in a RNA virus unprecedented fidelity of this evolution we've never had more than let's say a handful of sequences from an outbreak before.
You can find a paper from Mark von Raunst in 2007 from Belgium or 2010 from Belgium where he tries to track what is now called NL67.
The fourth human coronavirus he tries to track it from an outbreak in like 27 children at a school.
Look at how many sequences they get in that paper.
How much he winds about how hard it is to track it.
Look at how he opens with the idea that we need a pan coronavirus detection system.
A tool that can allow us to track these very elusive things.
Yet now we have tracked a coronavirus with unprecedented fidelity continued to track it with unprecedented fidelity beyond 15 million sequences.
Nobody finds that remotely shocking or odd or impressive or nothing at all.
Yeah, we just spent a lot of money I guess.
The lockdowns were done correctly and they prevented spread.
That's what that's what Australia and New Zealand have learned.
That's what Australia and New Zealand citizens still believe to a large extent.
Brett Weinstein argued for harder lockdowns more focused lockdowns.
Paul Catrell argued vociferously for 60 days of lockdown absolutely has hardcore to avoid the red dragon event.
And without strict regulation pandemics will be worse that's Richard Ebright that's that's.
All these people that were speaking in front of Congress were ultimately advocating for some better control over this nonsense.
We must regulate gain a function research and the debate about that makes you accept its existence.
But thank heaven.
Transfection work better than expected.
We'll clean it up.
We'll get that DNA out of it.
We'll only use PCR and RNA printing.
For the the personalized medicine that we make and there will be no danger at all there being any DNA come on relax.
I mean we had to do this because it was an emergency response to a novel virus that here to four didn't it was like a blank slate.
Five years of this story have been told five years of this story have been told they're still telling the story now.
The story has gotten to be almost a faith in a novel biology again a function RNA went endemic.
So it's going to be there forever.
And we're supposed to really if you think very hard boil it right down you have to accept that it's because there was a fear and cleavage site in it that that happened.
That's why it was so infectious if it didn't have that fear and cleavage site it would have peered out like the other stars and the other mayors.
You see that right you see that that is something that you that the model of the pandemic.
And the model of most of these people that are supposedly fighting for our grandchildren have already accepted and the questions that they're asking force you to accept it yeah the fear and cleavage said I guess is one of the main reasons why this thing went endemic.
It would also be that there were HIV inserts or or staphylococcan and teratoxin B homologies or or any other mimicries that were in there and found identified.
What else could it explain its endemicity right that's the only that's what we're supposed to accept endemic being that it's everywhere it's all around the earth.
And we're supposed to accept that as opposed to a Betty Ben endemic already already a signal that was there that could be misconstrued as spread.
And that's an extraordinary assumption that we've been we've been made to assume and now are teaching to our children that we have no data to support non zero zip.
A defined pre on weapon is one of the more extreme stories it's going around the internet now.
And of course this presumes preons are a real phenomenon that human society needs to be afraid of.
Am I open to that possibility yes.
I think if you do a deep dive into the literature that supposedly substantiates it I think you'll be disappointed.
I'm not going no pre on yet.
But I assure you over the next couple days as we do a series of discussions about papers about preons you're going to be disappointed.
And with regard to specifically this thing being a pre on weapon.
It rests on the idea that the spike is special.
The Luke Montagnier paper is actually.
COVID and COVID vaccinations.
And any of the crowds felt Yacob papers that have to do with the spike protein have to do with transfection or with transformation they don't have to do with COVID infection.
And so we are again misconstruing effects of a gain of function protein with transfection expected transfection effects.
And the Luke Montagnier paper is used as an example of why this is happening or why it could happen.
But I tell you all of these people who are selling this story were selling this story based on the viral spike.
And we're there very early too early about the lab leak and about worst case scenario being a billion people dead.
And there are all these heart problems and all this other stuff associated specifically with the spike not the 31 other odd proteins that are in the virus.
Never mind the coronavirus biologist tell us that some of those proteins get translated into two or three sub variants and so it could be as many as 60 proteins that are produced.
And you have to worry about any of those except for the spike protein for the entire duration of their story.
And now you might say, Oh, no, sometimes they talk about the end protein. Yeah, great.
Great.
But they don't talk about the homology of the end protein with countless other RNA viruses they don't talk about the homology of what proteins with what viruses at all.
Because that would slowly lead them down the road of T cell immunity and what it's aimed at and, and the idea that overlapping T cell immunity was much more central to understanding if we understand anything at all we understand that that's most important.
And we've been misled that about that since 2020 and somehow or another, the people that are so focused on the spike protein and so focused on getting a function and so focused on lab leak have never ever in these five years been able to cough up the basic
immunology that yeah well we respond to RNA viruses as best we understand it very differently than what the people on TV have been telling us.
And that should, I guess put you in a situation where as Peter teal would say it. I think skepticism and doubt is kind of where I would start right.
And we are being told to ask questions that make us accept that this was a pre on accept that preons exist except that it's an open possibility and accept that it's a natural phenomenon that has been studied for a long time instead of something that
they've been studying specifically because they knew that transfection would cause misfolding disorders.
Mark and I and Jessica and other people are right about the idea that they want they knew they have been planning all along to in over a generation change the way we think about our sovereignty so that they could start to test genetic technologies
directly on us because you can't learn anything by testing genetic technologies on mice you can't learn anything by testing genetic technologies on rats or golden hamsters or macaques
except that as the truth which it most certainly is then you would have accepted the truth that all the way back during the first discussions about about reverse transcriptase and about AIDS and how in the world are we going to get these people to accept
that we need to test transfection out on them en masse while we also sequence them en masse and keep medical data en masse if we ever have any hope of having the data set that a eventual computer with enough power
could possibly use a neuronal network to kind of figure out what might be
this is one great big elaborate illusion designed to shift to the way that we think permanently
and coerce us into passing it on to our children and this needs to be broken this faith needs to be broken it wasn't it's not a debate anymore we need to first and foremost get the kids to understand this young people to understand this
parents to understand this so that they can at least be skeptical of the vaccine schedule in a way that is reasonable and based on biology
scientific questions I think are very hard to get a handle on and the reason for this is that in late modernity which we're living in there's simply too much knowledge for any individual human to understand all of it and so
you know and so the and so in this world of extreme hyper specialization where it's narrower and narrower subsets of experts policing themselves and talking about how great they are the string theorists talking about how
great string theories the cancer researchers talking about how they're just about to cure cancer the quantum computer researchers are just about to build you know quantum computer there will be a massive breakthrough
and then if you were to say that all these fields not much is happening people just don't have the authority for this is somehow a very different feel for science or knowledge than you would have had in 1800 or even in 1900
1800 Goethe could still understand just about everything 1900 Hilbert could still understand just about all of mathematics and so the sort of the sort of specialization I think has made it a much harder question to get a handle on
I don't disagree with them at all except for the way that he characterizes knowledge because knowledge in the days of Goethe was a understanding shared between people who were in direct communication with one another about that which were their understanding
what we have is this endless bookshelf of of falsification rituals that we're supposed to look at as knowledge and then try to use and build upon that.
It's basically like a four dimensional tower of Babel in a scientific sense because the echoings of these bad ideas and their falsification or or fake falsification rather than trying to verify any of the models that are in those questions
as resulted in a an absolute mammoth of a library of at PubMed and other places that is for the most part noise.
It's hard for a lot of people to accept. It's definitely hard for anybody that actively engages in the production of that noise because again their career is based on their successful production of that noise.
It's going to be hard to get those people to understand that what they are doing is for the most part creation of noise.
That's not where our hope lies. Our hope lies in the people that aren't making that noise but are under the yoke of it.
Understand it for the noise that it is and the probably what needs to happen is just a year or two of people deciding not to go to university would be enough to put that whole system out of business.
At least expose it for the scam that it is.
If we could get kids to stay home, start their own business, maybe take online courses from people like me.
We could sort of in a very efficient and active manner reverse the damage that has been done through this what he calls knowledge creation but it's really not it's noise creation.
And now that we have allies like the broken science initiative, we have allies like, I don't know, maybe some people at Children's Health Defense, maybe some people at ICANN, maybe some people at the National Vaccine, I see whatever they're called.
Maybe one of these, all these places has people, maybe people like John Bodewood, maybe we have a network of people now that can be the sort of springboard for people to know what books to read and what what
people to who what who to follow where to get your information from because there's no question they're misleading the young and I'm going to play this this Tucker Carlson clip again because I think it's really important to hear what he says with his arms
This is how the game has to be played. I have been thinking about this kind of thing since I was quite young since I was in college and a theme that runs through it from the very beginning is that all of these people who are governing us
the truth needs to be available. So they can lie. That's totally fine. But the truth has to be available somehow. There has to be an open door.
And you're still walking to the extermination showers. If that happens, then all of these people feel totally fine about it.
And if you think about that from a big perspective, they are really trying to trap the most of us, indeed, like a like a hog trap.
And so it takes patience. It takes time. It takes baiting. It takes habituation.
Before all of us will be in the trap and a sufficient number of us will be in the trap and it can be sprung. The question is, has that already happened during COVID? Is that what we've experienced once already is the closing of the trap.
And now there are some people on the outside of it. There are some people on the inside of it and we're talking through the fence and the people on the inside just don't want to acknowledge that the fence is there.
Now I can leave if I wanted to.
I'm not, I'm not in trouble.
And I think if you start to see it that way and imagine the hopeful situation where they closed the trap too early, there's too many of us on the outside.
And there's actually more hope than you think.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied. I'm sure I'll lie again. I don't want to lie. You know, I don't think I'm a liar. I try not to be a liar. I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
It's really important not to be a liar. I'm going to escape that and come back that again.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied. I'm sure I'll lie again. I don't want to lie. You know, I don't think I'm a liar. I try not to be a liar. I don't want to be a liar.
Now remember, really important not to be a liar.
And they're not, he's not not lying there. They can't always lie to you. So here's Peter Teal finishing that thought about how because there's such a hyperspecialization in science that it's become very easy for people to exaggerate and to lie.
And therefore he's very skeptical of a lot of things, including cancer and quantum physics and all this other stuff that he lists.
Now remember, that's very significant because he's saying this in 2019 and like September or October and one of the first Eric Weinstein podcast, Eric Weinstein, the guy who said it himself, set up the intellectual dark web with the idea of promoting voices that needed to be promoted.
And I would argue actually that was the, the weaponized pile of money that is Peter Teal and Elon Musk because their buddy since PayPal orchestrating a sort of set of voices on the Internet that would promote other sets of voices on the Internet
and essentially create a scaffolding which would appear like a spontaneous group of heterodox thinkers.
But in reality would be a carefully controlled group of people that was promoted only because of their unique connection to that weaponized pile of money and its objectives for ruling us.
That's where he is too.
And so listen carefully as he says it, it's exactly what I have the exact message that I am trying to send over the next few days as we move into doing journal clubs about preons and seeing what these papers really show and seeing what the, what the literature that that supports these
ideas supports and doesn't support and what they tested and didn't test.
The political cut I have on the specialization is always that that if you analyze the politics of science, the specialization should make you suspicious because it's gotten harder to evaluate what's going on.
And it's presumably gotten easier for people to lie and to exaggerate.
And then one should be a little bit suspicious and that's that's sort of my starting my starting bias.
Now you should be suspicious of decades of exaggeration and lies not suspicious of a few months.
I'm not talking about a few months of lying I'm talking about a bureaucracy embedded within which are a group of people who have a vested interest in lying.
But the shift from being governed by our government to being governed by these weaponized piles of money requires the weaponized piles of money to essentially take control of this unseen mechanism of governance so that they have a pivotal
chip to play with regard to the national security state.
They have to have an active relationship with them like let's say build rockets for them or put satellites up for them, or control social media for them.
It's hard to see that this is really an active role. It's a it's a it's an audition.
It's a proof of principle. What can you guys accomplish? Well, they've demonstrated what they can accomplish and if we don't see it for what it is, then they will get rewarded for it and it will be unleashed upon us again in a better way adjusted for the mistakes and for the weaknesses that they've
identified during this deployment of this strategy.
And that's why I think very succinct statements about the biology that get people to think about the biggest pictures and about the biggest questions are most important.
That's why I think intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
That's why I think transfection and healthy humans is criminally negligent.
And that's why I think viruses are not patterned integrity. These are all very useful phrases to get people thinking in the right direction about how to address the lack of informed consent that we have had.
And the lack of verification of any of the models that we have been that we have been coerced into accepting models of immunity models of of of of therapeutics and models of pathogens.
You see, these are all models. And these are all statements which question the heart of these models.
And that's what we need to do. We need to question the heart of these models and the verification of these models the predictions that can be made with these models will justify their their dismissal.
And the spread of bad ideas could in theory stop or at least be hampered because this bad ideas would be constantly questioned in an effective way.
Rather than in a there in a ritualistic way that doesn't actually test the model and verify it.
The model of immunity and antibodies is still not really under question by at least half of the working public in America, if not more.
Because no one besides me, no one besides me has taken the time to explain how ridiculous this is by talking about T cell memory to to the proteins that are produced by by the in the poly protein one AB.
The open reading frame one AB. No one wants to talk about any of those nature papers that we were talking about in 2020 which showed that that was really relevant, especially in like people that that just seemed to have had it already or don't show any symptoms,
which already was red flags for everyone thinking, well, wait a minute, does that mean that this is just something that was already there.
And that's when people started to lose their mind with me.
Because I was questioning the origin was not lab league.
And because I was instead going, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, they're going to transfect us to this protein that's ridiculous that that's also was completely out of the question you couldn't say that in 2020 or 2021 you had to stay focused on the origin and the debate about where it came from.
And I think that plastic was exclusively dedicated to that to the point where they threw me out because I wanted to dedicate much more time and messaging to transfection being a danger for healthy humans.
And a very similar tact was taken by many people many people ignored me them.
They rejected the idea that, okay, lab leak or not, it's irrelevant. I don't think we need to fear it like everybody wants us to fear it because our immune system is miraculous.
Nobody wanted to hear that. Nobody still wants to hear that.
They still want to talk about gain of function. They want to talk about pandemic viruses and bat caves. They want to talk about laboratory experiments that led to viruses that were sprayed in bat caves.
They want to talk about enrichment on humanized mouse backgrounds, and they want to talk about stitching things together that could otherwise never come together, and then their application to bat caves.
And they want you to believe that the insertion of a fear and cleavage site is something that's so dramatic and so dangerous that it led to the pandemic and that the diffuse proposal is evidence of that but they haven't been paying attention to the fear and cleavage site at all.
The pandemic and the sequinsings were available.
Why haven't be when warning everybody about okay this, the, the fear and cleavage site has gotten even better in the strain X, but it's gone and strain why so hopefully you'll get strain why why why didn't we ever say that.
Why did we track the step of cock and and tear talks and be whatever it's called homology.
Why aren't those people that think those motifs those epitopes are so important.
Why aren't they tracking them throughout this this this phylogenetic evolution of the virus why don't they care about that.
Isn't that quite shocking to you.
Why hasn't the affinity to ACE tube and measured since the start of the pandemic why don't we have a an update on the on the website somewhere about the current ACE to affinity and whether it's gone down.
Or not whether we should worry about because that was a really important thing for 2020 that all these people argued about.
Holy cow, it's got ACE to affinity like like that guy in Australia has never seen before.
Worst case scenario ladies and gentlemen it was one big theater.
And if you look backwards and start thinking about it how they all line up how these stories are all surprisingly overlapping and non exclusive like they don't step on each other's toes because they're stopping the train next to each other.
If they don't coordinate their their feigning of the stopping of the train if they don't coordinate their starting of the train, then they'll give each other away.
And it's only after four years that this elaborate theater is starting to become obvious because we put a strain on it why because there are too many pigs outside of the cage.
They pulled the trigger too early they closed the gate too early too many pigs were outside and now the pigs that are outside are telling the pigs on the inside you guys are in trouble.
And you better wake up or you're going to be dead.
It's kind of the truth of it.
You're inside of a narrative.
You're inside of a story.
Thank you and welcome.
Thank you.
It's your first time giving a public audience in the US in a couple years now.
Yeah since for two years I think and the world has changed a bit since then.
We'll get to that.
We'll start with your book Unstoppable Us I read it yesterday.
It's a children's book it still took me a couple hours.
The thing that I took away most directly when you're writing for kids about why life isn't fair is you're saying it's basically it's all about stories.
Explain what you mean by that.
Much of it is about stories.
Since I was a kid I was extremely concerned especially about the issue of war.
I live in Israel.
I live in the Middle East.
There is constantly war and you want to know why there are so many wars in the world.
And many people tell you that people fight, humans fight for the same reasons that other animals fight.
It's just natural.
You fight over territory.
You fight over food.
The same way that chimpanzees and wolves and lions fight.
And it took me many years of researching history to understand this is just not true.
Humans don't fight over territory and food.
They fight over imaginary stories in their minds.
If I look at the present terrible conflict tearing apart my region of the world.
It's not really about territory not objectively.
There is enough land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River to build houses and schools and hospitals for everybody.
There is no objective shortage of land.
And similarly there is no objective shortage of food.
There is enough food to feed everybody.
And this is true of other conflicts in the world.
You look at the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Russia doesn't like territory.
The last thing they need is more land.
And so why do they fight?
People fight over the stories in their mind.
Like I come, I work in Jerusalem in the Hebrew University.
And you know it's one of the most fault over places in human history.
It's hard to understand why.
It's not such a great place.
You know, I mean it's a very ordinary place.
You walk around, it's just you know you have stones and trees and cats and pigeons and people.
Just like any other place.
It's on the water. The land is pretty good.
The land is not good.
You can grow olives or something.
There are no oil fields. There are no gold mines.
Nothing.
But in their imagination people think this is not a stone.
This is a holy stone.
This is not just any place.
It's full of angels and gods and saints and prophets.
And they fight over this.
You know my husband just went two days ago here to the apple store and bought these new apple glasses.
You let him do that? Seriously?
It's the beginning of the end of your relationship obviously.
Well that's one prediction that we'll see what will happen with it.
But you know people invented it thousands of years ago this technology.
They just call it a different name. It's the holy book.
Like you walk around Jerusalem with this holy book and you see it's full of the augmented reality
of angels and gods.
And this is what people fight over.
I just read a couple of weeks ago a book that Sarin Useba, a Palestinian philosopher wrote a couple of years ago.
And he said that in context of the fight over Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock and the Holy Rock on the Dome of the Rock
and he wrote that Jews and Muslims armed with nuclear weapons are about to commit one of the worst massacres
of human beings ever over a rock.
Over a rock.
And it's absolutely true.
I listened to our Prime Minister Netanyahu and he says this is the Selah Qumen, the rock of our existence.
And of course the rock is just a rock.
But the stories that we tell about it make it so important that people are willing to be killed.
Do you understand now a little bit why the Israeli Palestinian problem is so important for it to be on the PBS NewsHour
and on Fox and on CNN all the time.
To have people on both sides be very engaged in the debate about it.
Because it is also an example that they want to use for the ludicrous nature of the way that humans behave.
The way that we are weak.
The way that we have this vulnerability.
And that we are governed by mythology is not something that they want you to apply to history.
It's not something that they want you to apply to public health.
It's something that they want you to apply to religion.
And to Jesus Christ and to Buddha.
To anything spiritual anything about the sacred no matter how you come to the sacred.
That's that's what they want you to dismiss.
Any doubt in the power of molecular biology to reprogram the human genome in a few years they don't want any of that.
They want you to get rid of all that doubt.
But they want you to doubt these what it is you use the holy book like you went around you have these glasses on.
These altered reality glasses.
The altered reality glasses are not the holy book the altered reality glasses is this.
Can you imagine that he said that out loud.
That we shouldn't read books.
That we shouldn't interact with spiritual teachers because those are all just.
Those are all just imaginary stories that we are governed by.
You see how they also tell the truth though.
The truth is right there for you the truth is being said if you parse the way he's talking you can hear him say it we are governed by mythologies we are governed by stories we are governed by lies is the right word.
And so to confound that with the sort of philosophical space occupied by religion is again to.
Take away something from us and more importantly get us to take away something from our children did not hand something down to our children that unfortunately we all weren't being very good about that myself included.
And we need to wake up to it now because this is the best example I have of the the enchantment that is being cast where a guy who is married to another guy is purporting to give us advice about how we should live and how we should think going forward
and dismissing whole faiths that are thousands of years old as having not a kernel of truth but just imaginary stories.
So let's listen to some imaginary stories.
Oh I thought I said this from micro TV this is beyond the noise episode number 34 recorded on March 20 2024.
Hopefully this isn't too fast I'm Vincent rack and yellow and join more stories to pull off it.
Hi Vincent.
This is the video version of Paul's column on sub stack called beyond the noise cutting to the chase on important health topics today we are going to cover two recent posts by Paul.
I was away last week so we didn't get to do one and they both have to do with the CDC changing its COVID policy.
And so the first one has CDC saying those with COVID can return to normal activities if symptoms are improving and fever if present has been gone for at least 24 hours so maybe you could step back and tell us what's the basis for that Paul.
So this makes a lot of sense and here's why there are COVID occurs in two stages.
In the first stage virus replication is king in the second stage the responses can.
So in the first stage the virus enters your body reproduces itself again and again and again and that's when you're most contagious you're usually your most contagious a day or two before you develop symptoms.
Then you're using some kicks in right B cells make antibodies to prevent the virus from attaching to an entering cells, send a toxic P cells kill virus infected cells before they can make a lot more new virus particles the war is on.
So now it's the the fight is against your immune system versus the virus.
And so as your immune system ramps up that's when you develop symptoms that's when your symptoms are the worst.
Now as your immune system begins to abate or lessen and in this case as you know you say you have fever and now you no longer have fever.
You can argue with that what the immune system is saying is that our job is done here which is also with the lone ranger set actually at the end of the lone ranger part.
And so at that point you can argue reasonably that virus replication is no longer an important part of the disease process and that you're much less likely to shed infectious virus or shed certainly less infectious virus.
So I think what I like about that recommendation is it tailors it to the individual because we're all different.
We all have different immune systems and a different capacity to rid ourselves of the virus.
And so those two stages the virus replication stage or the response stage will be different for different people.
So it doesn't make sense then to say that for the individual who's getting better and that therefore is less likely to shed virus that they can then make that decision.
And I think they added an extra level of safety if you will by saying that at that point then when you're you're better you're feeling better that you can then go out into the world as long as you wear a mask for an additional five days which I think is that sort of margin of safety.
So that was really fast but he did say a few things that I caught because this is the second time I've seen it.
He said B cells first which is obviously wrong you can't have a B cell response without a T cell response and even the cytotoxic T cells.
Arguably will probably respond as quick or quickly more quickly than the B cells because remember.
The B cells will be activated not by the T cell alone but they need to be activated by circulating antigen first so if there's no antigen in circulation to activate B cells.
Then even if T cells are activated the B cells won't T cells can be activated by the incoming macrophages that are presenting.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that any B cells are going to be activated by circulating antigen especially if there is no circulating antigen in circulation.
So again and a ridiculously oversimplified presentation of the immune system in one two three bang.
And it's the exact same presentation of the immune system that they did already in 2020 where they started and never stopped with this emphasis of antibodies being the primary response you needed to measure.
And that was indicative of any immunity and was actually the most important in terms of understanding how a investigational vaccine might work.
So this is a very deep illusion that is still being being repeated already five years into it by the same people but not just Paul of course but let's listen to the rest of this.
And then we'll move on to the next storyteller.
That makes sense because here's how I see this I think a reasonable recommendation would be if you're in a high risk group, you know over 75 million compromised have high risk medical conditions are pregnant and you have respiratory symptoms test yourself.
If you're if you're COVID positive treat yourself early with an anti viral if you're not in a high risk group don't test yourself assume that you have COVID or any of these other respiratory infections and stay home if you can.
While you're sick and then while you get better then you can go out and preferably wear a mask for a few days but I think that really makes the most sense I'll give you another example so I'm in Florida.
And last time I went back up to Philadelphia, I was in the airport and there was a man walking around who was sweeping up and along the aisles where people were waiting to get on the plane so Florida a lot of older people there and he had a bad goal.
He was coughing he was sneezing his nose was dripping he was wiping his nose on his sleeve and I was watching him sort of walk along the aisles and watching as he got closer and closer to someone that progressive heart on their face.
One woman surprisingly actually said to him did you test yourself and he said probably yes, and I was negative, which meant as far as he was concerned I can spread anything other viruses that I have among this population knowing that influenza kills as many as 60,000 people that you're preparing influenza causes 50,000 people to be hospitalized or respiratory
cancer.
So people didn't like that recommendation by the CDC because they said you know they're saying that COVID is just like every other virus but in many ways it is just like every other virus which doesn't mean that it's less important it just means that those other viruses are also important.
How did we get to the point where we treat COVID differently from other respiratory infections like you said if you're covered negative then you're fine it doesn't matter what you have.
Well because of 2020 I mean we this was a novel virus, we had a blank slate in this country in this world and we would have 1000, 2000, 3000 people dying a day.
We had nothing we didn't have antivirals we didn't have vaccines we didn't have monoclonal antibodies all we had was limited human to human contact that was a scarring year and that left us I think with this notion of COVID exceptionalism if you will that
COVID is different than these other viruses but as now we have an extremely high level of population unity you see that COVID is sort of settling down into what these other viruses do which means we should take them all in an important way.
I feel badly for people let's take this guy who worked at the airport in Florida.
We're not very good about sick leave I think you know there are some businesses that make it very tough for people to take much time off so if that's true you should stay home if you're sick and when you feel better then you can go out into the world.
But if you can't stay home as this man let's say are you couldn't then at least we're a mask.
I want to go back to this CDC.
That's tough I mean that don't even know where to start there but of course you see it you heard it you know what I'm talking about you know what I want to say.
This is an extraordinary commitment to the same basic narrative of a novel virus a clean slate he said we had no we had nothing there was a clean slate everybody was vulnerable we had no treatments we had no idea what would work.
We had no antivirals we had no monoclonal antibodies that's an extraordinary list of narrative certainties right that again you and I have identified as you know part of this worst case scenario narrative that says we had
to respond this way we were going to make mistakes it was rushed it was an emergency in retrospect we would have done it better but holy cow.
I've never heard a more spectacular commitment to this idea that it was a novel virus it was a clean slate we didn't have anything we had no antivirals no the way that he listed it the way that it was layer after layer of insistence on this certainty that it wasn't there
before and that has huge consequences to your interpretation of reality is a model.
That makes predictions and none of those predictions come true.
They don't come true in the data they don't come true in the numbers they don't come true in the death certificates they don't come true in the disease presentation they don't come true in the zero prevalence numbers and doesn't come true in the
data file genetics none of it.
But nobody's checking that everybody's working on the assumption that these models are already verified by what we experienced but what we experienced was on our phone.
What we experienced was on our television on Facebook.
Let's hear some more story telling.
COVID in the Academy what have we learned everyone please welcome Dr. Prasad.
Thank you thank you for that kind reduction Alex and thank you for the organizers for having me here and thank you all for attending.
I'm going to talk about COVID in the Academy what have we learned and first by way of background you know so just so you know a little bit about me.
I'm a professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF and I'm also a hematology oncology doctor and so you'll find me every week at San Francisco General Hospital where I have a clinical practice.
I work every week and I attend maybe two three months a year on service.
I teach several classes at university I teach a class in epidemiology called publishing and presenting research classes on randomized control trials and some of the small groups for medical students.
I'm also a researcher we run a laboratory and that's we can find some of the work we've done.
So I think that should give you some context.
Prior to the pandemic we mostly do work in healthcare policy in how we understand the effectiveness of medical therapies and the cost of cancer drugs my interest in cancer medicine and then the pandemic naturally caught my interest because it was a unprecedented event in healthcare policy and in epidemiology.
The major theme of this talk I think is that the Academy was not able to handle the pandemic and the debates around the pandemic and that the Academy I think failed in its fundamental duties to promote academic freedom.
I think to me one of the most notable things is we talked about several examples where the speakers have made their points on school closure on masking outdoors and some of the controversial policy decisions.
They have their opinion there are other people may have different opinions I tend to agree with mostly speakers of the morning but no matter what your opinion surely we have to have some concern that we did not host any debates in academic settings.
This university to my knowledge did not host debates on all of the most pressing questions like school closure lockdown vaccine mandates and some of the other things I'm going to talk about in my talk.
I think we have to be concerned with the fact that we held zero debates at Harvard at MIT at Stanford at my university on these controversial topics.
I think we did permit inappropriate censoring of faculty which I'll talk about and I think there are two types of violations of academic freedom but active violations of freedom where people were literally asked to stop talking and there's active censorship but there's also
passive academic freedom violations where people and debates were not fostered or permitted.
All right so here are some of the bigger issues that I'm going to touch on lightly in this talk.
I'm not to not to whine. I just want to put objectively out there that most of the people that we see on social media and are being are being put in front of us in social media are not people that lost their jobs.
And the ones that have are now very successful in what they are doing.
If you knew that Pierre Corey was getting $230,000 a year as the head of the FLCC, would you feel as bad for him.
As when you thought that he lost his job when he went from Madison to New York City to try and save people in April.
Each of these people has a sort of history that needs to be well understood so that we understand whether they really sacrificed anything because I have a 20 year track record or 18 year track record of publishing
of being a postdoc taking very low salary not saving any money not buying houses not having property.
Following the science around the world from the Netherlands to Norway back to the Netherlands and then to Pittsburgh just trying to make it in the tenure track running wheel.
And at the start of the pandemic for speaking out for having a YouTube channel for not wanting to wear a mask all the time I was asked to leave a top 10 medical school in the United States.
And I was basically ignored until my career was ended in silence.
Now it's no big deal because I wasn't some, you know, Nobel Prize winning super guy I just was an average scientist grinding away in this falsification of a null hypothesis p value grind.
But I wasn't a bad guy.
The science that I did was okay.
My enthusiasm for teaching was unparalleled and my skill at it was at least beyond competence.
And yet I was discarded in a heartbeat.
This guy didn't lose his job.
J about a chariot didn't lose his job done in the people that signed the Great Barrington Declaration lost their job.
A lot of the people that were in front of the Senate didn't lose their job and the ones that did now have a sub stack that can pay maybe even 10 times what they were getting before the pandemic.
And so am I jealous about these things I guess jealous in the sense of I am trying very hard not to make my family suffer.
I would very much like not to be homeless.
But what I want is this information out there the idea that this agreement on this story cannot possibly be spontaneous.
The agreement on this story cannot possibly be seen if you take a deep breath and do your due diligence.
Any not every but any adult with a little work can realize that none of the people that purport to be doing the right thing are actually doing the right thing if they are rising on social media.
They are not there.
And it's unfortunate because I will I won't I'm not worried about it I'm not going to rise on social media because I am telling the truth and even if we get this out to millions of people, none of us will be able to see it.
Except for maybe I'm peer to which is exclusively under my control.
But on Twitch we won't see it on YouTube we won't see it on rumble we won't see it it's always going to be 2000 views on rumble it's always going to be 1500 views on Twitch it's never going to go higher than that it doesn't matter what we do.
Or how long I stream or how consistent I do it will never see it.
We have to have faith that it's happening.
We have to have faith that it's getting to more people because that's the only thing we're ever going to have social media is a lie it's not an accurate open window into some reality on cyberspace it's not at all and we've got to get over this illusion.
Mostly to talk about the academy but I think to understand the academy I think about the issues one is hospital's visitor policies during the pandemic we had extremely draconian restrictions on visitors I'm going to tell you about what was the evidence to support those policies how were those policies debated and implemented.
There's the issue of delaying vaccine approval I put that in my bonus content if we run if we run out of things to talk about I'll talk about that vaccine mandates and what are the rules around mandating medical interventions and firing people from jobs who refuse to comply with mandates we'll talk about that.
The idea that we'll have a perpetual booster that each year we need a booster after booster whether you're 12 years old or 82 years old which is a very American idea most of Europe has restricted annual boosters for COVID-19 to the elderly.
Masking kids versus masking adults I think we'll talk about whether or not we all should be testing ourselves for COVID-19 every time we have a scratch in our throat errors made by the seat.
Now remember all of these biologists all these doctors that work at medical schools they're not talking about biology here.
Is this biology visitor policies is delaying vaccine approval is that is that a biology subject is mandates are those is that a biology thing.
Do you see how absurd this is already from the very start we are talking about asking questions and debating and arguing about things that have nothing to do with the novel virus nothing to do with the millions of people that apparently died.
And so we're not investigating the role of protocols we're not investigating the role of iatrogenic murder at all it's not even on the list.
Even though from our perspective in the independent bright web it's like central it's the main thing and then the more causes we can find the more devastating that that hypothesis becomes because it doesn't have to be one thing that was how they were tricking us for a couple years.
Oh it's remdesivir oh it's this oh it's that no it's different things in different places.
All different knobs that can increase the all cause mortality and then they can blame in turn on COVID and it's it's impact on our on our public health ladies and gentlemen we're there.
We're right there at the goal light and all we got to do is collectively get together and make a rugby scrum and push it across.
EDC long COVID lockdown school.
These are the very controversial issues and they have different policy interpretations.
But let me give you a little flavor of the rest of freedom that we faced.
I think perhaps one of the biggest threats to freedom occurred very early in the pandemic in 2020 and it was this is an article I wrote instead.
It says at a time when the US needed a COVID-19 dialogue between scientists Francis Collins moved to shut it down.
We now know from FOIA to emails that Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci.
And so I want you to hear it quickly.
I want you to hear the confusion that's being created here because it's about censorship and it's about not talking about certain things.
And it's not having a dialogue.
And so the idea is, is that Rod or Brahmalone really was censored and that all those people that were in front of the Senate really were censored.
It is significant that Brett Weinstein got his his podcast demonetized on YouTube.
We're supposed to care about that level of censorship because that's what they're talking about.
They want you to think that if the government hadn't asked Facebook and Twitter to censor us that they wouldn't have done it.
And Facebook and Twitter are in cahoots with the government already. That's like, that's like a military thing.
That's the whole point.
They want you to believe that this private industry with these private algorithms that are out of the control of the US government have done something because the US government asked them to think about that.
And now this person has decided to point that out.
Now. Now.
Can you please go back and look at what this guy was talking about in 2020 and 2021 with with people like Z dog MD and see that he should be.
He has no clothes.
He should be ashamed of himself. He should have put on a clown suit before he gave this talk just to, to do that to visually signal the amount of penitence that he, he thinks he has to.
Because I think if I would have come up with a better understanding of what was going on and would have understood the depth and the breadth of the lie better earlier, I might have been able to save my friend Nate.
I might have been able to save other people from the shot, but I didn't understand it.
And people weren't helping me to understand it at a crucial time when I was trying to write a review and try to put something out there that made sense about the biology I was still lost in these ideas.
Still lost in the idea that the spike protein might mean something and that transfection might actually produce some immunity that might have some other effects that might need to be concerned with regard to the, the evolution of a virus that I still hadn't understood could have also just always been there.
And that crucial time in early 2021 is just a source of endless frustration for me because there were so many people that were playing me at that time that I'm not allowed to talk about anymore because then that makes me a divider and I'm trying to separate everybody that's on the good side now.
But honestly, I don't believe that I believe that a lot of these people have had an organized coordinated response, which was designed to distract and distort confused people like me.
People like Mark Koolak.
That we're really trying to put hours and hours into understanding what was going on and really, really giving it a go, you know, not, not playing at it.
I really believe to this day that somehow or another, they made a mistake that they should not, they should not have told me to go home.
They should have given me another student. They should have given me extra funding. They should have given me a promotion at work so that I had too much to do at work that I couldn't pay attention to this.
They should have given me a course to teach.
Instead, they sent me home and they thought that I would be so on board with the lab leak and so easily manipulated into believing that it was a lab leak because they knew there was going to be a national televised theater about it.
And actually sending me home might be the best idea. Give him as much time as possible to dig into this.
And then we'll put him in contact with a few people that'll keep him digging into this.
Get him in that group drastic. That's a good idea.
And now we're here, where I have helped Bobby write a book that I got hired by CHD that I got somehow let go.
And if anybody's paying attention, I haven't changed anything.
I've just learned, continued to read, continued to doubt my own conclusions, continued to doubt that which other people are hyper certain about.
And now the only thing that they can really do is ignore me as long as I keep focused on these messages and keep bringing these messages home, they have to start ignoring me because they're trying to get me to talk about them.
But what do they have to say? It's all about the same mythology. It's all about not acknowledging that it's so much of what happened in 2020 could have been avoided if any of them, any of them would have pulled their head out and said something useful.
And that includes Vinay, whatever the hell his name is.
We're extremely critical of a petition that came out in the fall of 2020 called the Great Barrington Declaration.
And full disclosure, I actually didn't sign the Great Barrington Declaration, although I have an affection for the authors of that and I thought that they are well in tension and they had a lot of things right, but I'm not a signatory of it. I'm also not a signatory of the counter memo either.
But I certainly thought that that memo warned the discussion. So let me just tell you what was the premise of the memo.
In the fall of 2020, after lockdowns were continuing across many states and they were going to be on and off again.
Schools were widely closed, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, private schools and daycares, those were open, but of course elementary schools and public schools were closed, typically in urban cities.
The Great Barrington Declaration came out. It was a memo that basically said, we disagree with the ongoing pandemic response.
We would favor a policy proposal where we focus on the people at extremely high risk of that outcomes, the elderly and have extreme precautions around those people, but let most of people society return mostly to normal life.
I didn't agree completely with the spirit of that, but in that was something very different than the standard practice at that time, which he didn't agree with it.
You see, so why does he get to stand up and say anything when the Barrett Great Barrington Declaration was a bare minimum reclamation of some semblance of common sense, but it didn't go that far.
It wasn't that controversial. I mean, come on, give me a break.
Again, now Martin Kildorf has finally lost his job at Harvard after all this time and all this what.
It's, it's a show, ladies and gentlemen, it's all one big show.
Was they supported widespread elementary school reopening the fall of 2020, they supported middle school reopening, and that I wholeheartedly agree with that that was the right policy decision in 2020.
But Francis Collins, who is the head of the NIH at the time, did not want to have that dialogue.
And even if you don't agree with everything your opponent says, why wouldn't you want to at least hear them out and maybe agree partially school closure elementary school closure I thought that was something we could have all agreed upon in 2020.
Fortunately, in the city of San Francisco and L.A. and D.C. and it tends to be large urban cities that run left and center, they kept schools closed for another year with catastrophic learning losses that we're seeing now.
Francis Collins and Eddie Fauci are both high ranking members of the NIH, and they were public spokesperson for the government policy.
And that's kind of a tension, because if you're any researcher at any university in this country, you require funding predominantly from the National Institutes of Health or NIAD which Fauci ran.
There's a tension between being critical of the leader of NIAD.
No, what you're being misled here about is the idea that he and ZDOG MD and Brett Weinstein and and debunk the funk and all of these people are just spontaneous content creators, people that just spontaneously decided to pick up a camera and start making videos.
They just happened to be right around the pandemic, and they just happened to be all on the side of the limited spectrum of debate that clues a novel virus that killed millions and millions more were saved from that likely came from a laboratory and probably will come again.
Listen carefully is about to say it.
While simultaneously submitting an R1 grant application to NIAD.
And I think that's a fundamental tension where the policy spokesperson should be someone different than the person who's approving your funding or naturally they'll be reluctant among anyone seeking funding to be critical of the policy spokesperson, even when they're wrong.
So that to me is a deep concern.
So I think this was a, this was an affording to read the article and you can read what he said.
He said, we call for a quote, swift and devastating takedown of the GBD.
He didn't want to engage with the authors.
He didn't want to have any debate on the topic.
He just wanted this gone and they use sort of coordinated media campaigns to achieve that goal.
Meanwhile, 16,000 scientists did sign this suggesting that there was some dialogue and needed to be had.
Facebook, a worthy judge on medics.
So 16,000 scientists signed it, but this mealy mouth apologetic, whatever, did not think about how long he had to sign it.
He's on the same faculty as J about a charia, but he didn't sign it.
Think about how sad that is.
How can you advocate for it as a pretty good idea?
How can you say that you agreed with school opening back then you thought it was a good idea, but you didn't sign it.
It was in your faculty.
I signed it.
I mean, come on.
Go information, you know.
It should be able to have Facebook referee scientific debates.
I think it's extremely problematic and throughout the pandemic, Facebook outsourced to their independent fact checking to some independent third party groups to decide what kind of claims you could be making on Facebook, what could be removed.
Most notably, Facebook prevented people for at least six months of even discussing the possibility that lab leak could be the source of the virus.
They didn't, they just, they recruited the discussion of the possibility and then they ultimately rescinded that based on some good reporting by Nick Wade and others that suggested that it's at least a possibility.
And at this point, I think with emerging evidence is perhaps even the most likely possibility.
But to prevent the discussion on such an important policy issue that I think is extremely problematic.
A very recent study comes out by Harvard, which shows that the fact.
So here he just said it right there that even Vignette Persaud believes that I guess it's the most likely thing.
Now it came from a lab leak. The Scooby-Doo is complete.
Don't you hear it?
This is a guy who was totally, you know, on board with the TV narrative with subtle, you know,
limited objections, terrible person in 2020 and 2021, terribly confused about the novel virus.
And pretending now as if that wasn't the case, as if he sees what he should see and what we should see.
It's absolutely.
It's despicable.
All right, let's listen to one more storyteller.
Good morning, Children's Health Defense. I'm Mary Holland, and I am delighted to welcome as our guest today.
Dr. Drew Pinsky, board certified physician and internal medicine. Good morning, Dr. Drew.
Thank you for having me. Oh, we're delighted to have you.
So I recently watched a tweet from the Rubin report where you were discussing the fact that you believe that the biggest battle right now is the battle for freedom.
Now, what did she say? He was just on the Rubin report.
So the Rubin report, of course, is Dave Rubin and Dave Rubin is at that table of the original intellectual dark web with Joe Rogan and Peterson and Shapiro and Rubin and Sam Harris.
And so to hear Mary Holland promote Dr. Drew's appearance on the Rubin report is nothing short of a closing of a circle.
If you think about the idea that one of the primary targets of my ire during the time when I was streaming and working for CHD was Brett Weinstein was Eric Weinstein was the intellectual dark web was the illusion of the intellectual dark web and who was really behind it.
That's a very spontaneous thing.
That's musk and teal back there behind that. That's, that's those weaponized piles of money in the connection to the orchestration of the internet, the spontaneous chaos of the internet beautifully orchestrated symbol of a circle.
I think anybody really takes Dr. Drew seriously, except for, I guess, the president of Children's Health have been so much so she's doing a program with him.
So I hope that he's got some good things to say. Let's, let's hear how close he gets the narrative to the, to the bullseye.
And I wanted to follow up with that. What did you mean by that and give us your thinking?
It's hard for me to actually put all the pieces of the history back together.
However, there's sort of moments that stand out for me. And one of the moments is me thinking to myself, oh my goodness, at this point in my life, this has become my task is to be able to defend speaking publicly freely.
That is, where do I live? I just, it occurred to me probably.
No, isn't that an interesting red thread there that Vinay is primarily talking about the hampering of free speech and dialogue at the university level.
And now Dr. Drew opens with the, you know, hampering of free speech. And I never expected that I would be fighting for free speech.
Isn't, isn't Jordan Peterson also fighting for free speech?
And against controlled compelled speech. Isn't this a weird thing that it's like a red thread that's running through all of them, actually, that misinformation, of course, is what, what, what.
Doctor often is also very worried about and hesitant, but advocating for control of.
Interesting.
I think CHD's also got a case in front of some court right now, which is also about free speech and censorship.
Not about the biology, not about strict liability, not about the Seventh Amendment violation that is the prep act.
None of those things that you might think would be a pretty important legal, let's say, attack vector, but free speech.
I'm not saying free speech is not important. By all means, understand that this is how I make my living now for so free speech is absolutely important.
But I want you to understand that if we fight and ask for the wrong things, we're going to get them.
And that's what they're tricking us into doing, I think.
Well, the one moment when it came to me was when I was interviewing RK Jr.
And at the end of the interview, my first time I interviewed him, he said, boy, you're so courageous to interview me.
You're so brave.
And I thought, brave to have a public conversation with another professional.
What the hell is going on?
Where am I?
And I thought, wow, okay.
That's when I sort of doubled down.
Already at that point, I was taking the position that, man, the people that the mobs were canceling, the professionals, the scientists, the physicians were like decorated professionals.
You know, highly published leaders in various positions, they must have something to say.
And so I made it my business early in the debacle.
We call the pandemic to sort of start interviewing these people to see what I could learn.
And so did you catch that?
He said that the masses were canceling people.
Now, what I find curious about that is wouldn't that be one of the best ways to use Twitter to make it seem like that all these accounts were ganging up on people.
Create the illusion of consensus that these guys are bad guys, that these guys are anti-vaxxers, misinformation spreaders, danger to society security risks.
What in a magnificently easy illusion to create if you have the tools of Twitter, Facebook, GAB, Getter, Telegram, all these things that appear to be like groups of people having discussions signal.
How many of those people are real?
How many of those people are part of an illusion of consensus of six posts in a row from six different accounts that really seem cogent and related.
And reinforcing, but are actually just nonsense.
That's the kind of programming and use of social media they don't want you to think about.
Instead, they want you to think about that as AI and out of their control.
It's an algorithm.
I don't know exactly how it works.
We only have a couple knobs.
That's absurdity.
It's just the mob canceling people also absurdity.
But that's what we're getting told now.
This is a story that we're being told because we are governed by stories because people are motivated by stories exactly as that little little golem guy said earlier.
I'll be damned if every single one of them didn't always agree with everything everybody said, but I learned something substantial from each and every one of them because I learned through all this.
I can't trust anything anywhere.
I'm just mind boggled that the medical literature is adulterated.
I'm mind boggled.
The press is completely nonsense now.
But I came to that realization.
There's another thing I told Dave Rubin on the show that caught a little wind.
So along the way, I kept going back to these other plugs and some more because I started opening ideas that I would have been very, very dismissive of a year before or two years before.
And I'm still, I'm still a kind of a, I'm just kind of.
Point taken.
That was kind of an insult to golem into that.
It's point taken.
I'm some plating things.
I'm trying to acquire more information to look at all points of view.
I'm maybe not though, because remember convinced of a lot of things, but I'm open to a lot of ideas.
I would remember I would be insulting him.
I think more if I would have called him Schmeagel at the Schmeagels is good name.
Right.
So calling the other guy, golem is not so bad, but I get your point.
I do 24 years ago.
And part of that is a really important message.
And this is the words of Joseph Freiman who framed this for me and he's a great researcher, a good year doctor who did some research on the Pfizer situation.
And he had a great research group.
He said, look, these people that have categorical certainty, categorical certitude is the opposite of how we are trained as scientists, which is to have rational uncertainty, not irrational certitude.
That's good.
At least they're absorbing one good message.
That's in a message that we've been sending a giggle and biological for about three years.
The certainty that people were showing at the beginning of 2021 at the end of 2020 was extraordinary.
There was certainty that I ran into in March of 2020 on five streams in a row with Paul Catrell at all, where they knew everything that was going to happen.
They were sure about neurological effects and cardiac effects and yada yada yada.
They had all kinds of details about what was going to happen because this was a in capacitating agent bio weapon release, whatever.
So certainty is something that I've been fighting against since the very, very first day.
It's interesting to hear Drew Pinsky say that on a CHD broadcast.
It's, it's, it's curious.
It's curious.
It's funny.
It's nice.
I'm flattered.
Certitude is irrational.
I mean, you know, go back through the European philosophers, you know, the continental philosophers to look at them struggling with just the idea of what, but we know what don't we know.
And science is always about evolving and changing and maybe sometimes even having a paradigm shift, but being open to things.
But a key in that ability to do so is a broad reading of the medical literature and constant reading of it.
So you can kind of get a sense of the back and forth in terms of what is there is not likely to be the case.
When the literature started going all one direction, I knew something was terribly terribly terribly.
So it sounds like the evolution in your thinking, Drew, if this is, if this is correct, it's really took accelerated during COVID.
Is that fair?
It blew open during COVID.
I didn't know it.
First, that neuro linguistic programming, the evolution of your thinking accelerated during COVID. I mean, I'm.
I'm not trying to read a that's pretty funny language to choose, though, because the evolution of the virus accelerated during COVID.
It was like a hundred thousand years of evolution, according to Andrew Hough.
I remember that statement so well.
Oh my goodness.
I mean, this is a moral, a scab dressing off a wound of how what was happening in my profession that I was not aware of in terms of everyone being employees and everyone being afraid to do their jobs and not putting patients have had everything.
This was this was shocking to me, condemning what another physician does with his or her patient.
That's not our business.
I mean, the professional society should keep an eye on things for sure.
But to say that you can't use something off label because, well, we decided that's that's literal nonsense.
I mean, all day long, I have my entire career.
There's many, many examples of that.
Just what we Thomas Binder is Thursday, Thursday is Thomas Binder. I'll check my calendar at the end, but I'm pretty sure it's Thursday.
Dude, I remember I was doing a company.
It's funny as you try to get bring me back to my history.
It's this whole thing kind of shipped away at me over the course of about two years.
I'm remembering now I had a nightly newscast, a local new station in Los Angeles.
They had me come on with one of their anchors, a great guy, great anchor, smart dude.
And we would sort of do an update every now and what's going on with COVID and what the numbers are playing, what's happening and trying to make sense things around to get people to calm down with sort of my goal.
And all of a sudden, he starts, he starts going, well, what about the FDA? What about what they're saying?
I go, are you kidding me? The FDA, I taught medicine for years.
But here's some words that never came out of my mouth.
What is the FDA taught medicine?
I'm not even sure what to do with that.
But in my humble opinion, anyone that was any sort of teacher at the collegiate level would never, ever say I taught medicine.
Because unless you taught so many courses that, you know, like I taught anatomy and advanced physiology and immunology 404 and also, you know, as advanced surgery techniques.
Unless you taught all kinds of stuff, like so lists so long, you can't remember, you would never say that you were, you taught medicine.
I mean, if you said you taught biology, chances are you would mean you taught biology 101, right? A big, big broad survey course.
So what did he teach when he says he taught medicine? I think that's a slip.
I think that's revealing exactly what kind of charlatan that he might be because that, that does not, that those words don't make sense.
It's like when Jessica Rose says that she has post doctorate degrees.
Nobody who has done a postdoc calls that a degree. Nobody would claim a post doctorate degree in this and that and then that.
That's not how postdocs work and yet she does that consistently or the people that introduce her from the very beginning in 2020 have introduced her that way as having like four degrees.
And so it's extraordinary because if you did four postdocs in four unrelated or, you know, kind of not really related things, then you would be kind of wandering around, whereas anybody that was really working in the academic field in the way that you're supposed to succeed.
You would be ever narrowing your focus on a question or set of questions and a focus on a set of physiological parameters or measurements that you were going to use to answer questions for the remainder of your career.
If you took postdocs in four or five different things and never really became an expert in any of them, you were never intending to become an academic.
And yet we're again made to be made to believe that those are all degrees, just like we're kind of being made to believe that Drew is a is a doctor that we should take seriously because he's a board certified physician.
He passed a test that I think they give doctors at the second year of medical school right or something like that.
I don't know. I'm just saying nobody would say I taught medicine. Nobody would. And so listen to him saying again so you know how weird it sounds.
And all of a sudden he starts, he starts going, well, what about the FDA? What about what they're saying? I go, are you kidding me? The FDA, I taught medicine for years. But here's some words that never came out of my mouth.
What does the FDA say about the use of this medication? Ever. The FDA determines the circumstance under which a company can bring a product to market.
What we do it with as physicians is in the what we think is the best interest of the patient. Period. What the FDA says, we can look at it for for evidence basis and to sort of review what they've done.
What we do is up to us in the best interest of the patient. FDA has nothing to do with practice medicine. Are you kidding me? It's the craziest thing ever.
And as you know, there's been just unbelievable pushback and and D licensure of physicians who spoke out against the orthodoxy during COVID. And so we ordered the representation of Dr. Nass.
We work closely with the physicians at FLCC, the COVID frontline critical care. Right now, representing Dr. Eggleston, we're funding the representation of Dr. Eggleston in Washington state, who as a retired physician wrote an op ed about COVID treatments and about problems with the government's narrative.
And he would be licensed as a retired physician. So they're, they're using CHD funds and resources to defend a retired physician that wrote a essay in a newspaper and then lost his license.
Do you think that's the most important case pending in America right now? The most important, you know, people that need defending. It couldn't possibly be somebody who lost a relative to a protocol.
Lost a relative to COVID protocols, which are essentially a atrogenic murder.
How much longer do you think this is going to go on before they finally address that big problem? I guess never.
But they're very concerned about the legal case of a retired physician who wrote a newspaper article and then lost his certification, just like they're concerned about a bioweapons expert that lives up in Maine.
CHD is a wonderful organization full of really dedicated people, many of whom who have real skin in the game because they've lost someone or are actively losing someone every day to the damage caused by our public health care system.
By the, the polluted environment and food of our nation.
The collective assault on our bodies by the pollution and, and, and just contamination of our environment. That's the adulteration we should be worried about.
I don't want to be harsh. I want CHD to rise from this. I want CHD to become the organization that it always should have been.
Because they haven't said anything about vaccines. They haven't said anything about what exactly Drew is losing his faith in.
What exactly Drew has become questioning anymore. Is he questioning everything?
I bet he's not. Let's listen.
I think a soapbox article and it's quite an extraordinary level of censorship really focused in large part on the medical profession. What do you think of that?
Well, it's, it's the, it's the licensure version of lawfare, right? It's using these, these institutions that are supposed to protect the public from outrageous egregious outliers.
You know, when, when California was going to come up with that, that law that would make it a fiat authority at the, at what I call them.
And I spoke to the president of the board and she was lovely and she was an attorney or advocacy rally just.
And I said, look, this is, this is going to be, you don't understand what you do. First of all, when you make an accusation to a physician, it cuts through us.
We, we, this is our identity. We've done this whole life. It is profoundly disturbing.
Then we have to stop what we're doing and accumulate a body of literature to defend ourselves and write a legal defense and spend the money on a lawyer.
And we can't make, can't have a living during that period when you're just focusing on your defense. They have no regard for that. What?
Now he's not wrong about that, right? And I'm not saying that doctors weren't mistreated, confused, made to fear the consequences of not following orders and protocols.
That's all part of the national security operation that was run on us in 2020 and 2021, that all of these people collectively want to story tell through.
They want you to just accept the fact that there was a novel virus. We didn't know what to do. It took us time to figure it out. There was a lot of lying and distortion and covering up.
And so by the time we got to the rollout of the vaccine, now we can start paying attention. That's the story that Vinay told. That's the story that Drew is telling. That's the story that you heard Paul Offit tell.
So make no mistake about it. You can now see the limited spectrum of debate from lots of different sides that you.
And I probably thought we're very different sides of this debate at some point during the pandemic.
It's not true.
So ever, however, she did say to me and I felt good about her intent, which was that she wants to get the outliers and there are outliers and she told me some horror stories and I was like, OK, well, I hope.
But then then when I hung up feeling better, I walked away and went, Oh, what happens when she's not the president?
Well, as you know, in California, it was initially put in statutory language and we supported the litigation to win a preliminary injunction against that law going into effect.
And then the legislature itself rescinded that law.
They seem to be doing this sort of orthodoxy in the standard of care. So we have a new lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Pierre Corey in California against this attempt to against the board to utilize standard of care.
Say, if you don't follow the orthodoxy, we will take away your license. As you point out, it's just ridiculous because doctors having achieved licensure, having studied and done residencies and internships.
They are empowered to use their clinical judgment.
You're upsetting me even more now because clinical judgment has been marginalized. You have to remember randomized control trials have only been around for 75 years, and most of them are insufficiently powered to make the conclusions they attempt to make.
That's just simply the case. And it's a conundrum everyone's aware of it and tries to do their best with it, but that's the case.
And prior to 75 years ago, physician evaluation, physician impression, physician judgment.
Go watch the TV series, the NIC that that was everything that was and we would then communicate that to the physicians we were training.
It was our experience that was paramount.
Our experience has been completely marginalized, which is at the peril of patients. I'm telling you something that that is a catastrophe, particularly when you've had years and years of experience.
The evidence usually catches up with our experience. It doesn't determine necessarily what we do.
But the clinical impression has been swept aside in the name of evidence based medicine. Now, I'm all for evidence based for everything we do.
But you have evidence basis, be thus say at the Lord, you will end up with a lot of wrong treatments and a lot of people harm.
Do you share my impression drew that, in fact, medicine is moving towards a really high level of mechanization between eye and between people, not doctor.
So physicians, assistants and nurse practitioners and hospitalists. And it's really, it seems like in many ways, marginalizing the profession of medicine.
Oh, that was clearly early on and intent, right? Doctors make too much money. Medicine is too expensive. We're going to put paraprofessionals up front.
And if we get the right protocols in place, clinical pathways, then they can just follow the menus that we have.
And I support that to some extent. I mean, yes, they're right. There should be more efficient ways of doing these things.
But a physician simply can't reasonably review 30 records an hour, or even 10 records an hour. How can I?
It takes 15 minutes to read and think about and really kind of go through your mind what the best thing for this patient is, as opposed to just signing off on stuff.
But the really egregious part and the part I didn't anticipate is that physicians themselves have become box checkers.
We just now, and they're in controlled by the electronic medical record. And then their employees and if they step out of line, their job is a bad situation. It is not good.
So we need to find creative ways to deal with that.
The weird thing is that he claims to be awakening to this dire consequence of our health system, but doesn't understand that that could have been weaponized against us to make us understand that there was a pandemic when there wasn't one.
To make us accept a reality of a mythology that is wholly false.
He doesn't understand that that's most likely what would happen if the system that he describes indeed exists. How could it not? The monetary incentive is immeasurable.
And yet somehow or another, he describes the situation without being able to use that model to make predictions about what the consequences would be, which would be including what Peter Thiel said, which is there would be a tremendous potential for exaggeration and lying.
And therefore I start with a great deal of skepticism, but you can't just be skeptic about some stuff.
If the cardinal sort of discovery is that they're lying.
And that's what this a very limited spectrum of debate is that this guy was talking about a smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of debate, but allow a very lively debate within that spectrum.
There wasn't going to be a lively debate within the spectrum of debate that they wanted if I stayed at CHD.
There wasn't going to be the control that they wanted if I stayed at CHD they wouldn't be able to do what they're probably doing right now if I would have stayed at CHD.
Because I would have been vocal I would have been speaking out I would have been saying what in the world's going on and I would have been streaming saying it to which would have never really worked right because having an independent voice was not what they wanted me for.
That wasn't why they hired me.
I think they probably hired me with the intention of controlling that voice, giving me a reason not to exercise that voice anymore.
And so now I'm here all by myself on the internet shaking a can for support, trying to support my family with what I think is the right thing to do which is speak out about this and take no sponsorships sell no t-shirts or hats.
And I just ask people for their hard earned money so that I can keep teaching this stuff.
And when we start to learn biology make sure that you realize that there's a lot of work going into preparing these lectures it's not that I can just open up a paper and read it and make a slide and tell you what it is.
And I have to read a lot of papers that I'm not going to teach in the coming weeks in order to teach the papers that I do teach in order to verify what I think that these papers are significant not just that somebody cited them.
It is going to take an active effort on your part to keep up as we work our way out of the presuppositions of this debate.
Try to gnar way out of the trap that our leg is caught in.
You too. How are you doing in a week where there has been high profile royal support for the vaccine rollout tonight further endorsement.
We can wholeheartedly support you having vaccinations. It's really, really important. We've spoken to a lot of people about it and the uptake's been amazing so far. We've got to keep it going.
The due conductors of Cambridge were joined by two women with long term health conditions.
Yes, entirely shielding since March 2020 who shared their experiences of the pandemic and expressed optimism now their own vaccinations are imminent.
I have always been somebody who truly believes in vaccines. I truly believe in science and medicine.
William and Kate's video calls come just days after the Queen's highly unusual intervention on matters of public policy.
Once you've had the vaccine, you have a feeling of, you know, you're protected.
Urging everyone to take up the offer of a vaccine.
I feel protected.
This message for those who have been reluctant.
It is obviously difficult for people to if they've never had a vaccine because they want to think about other people rather than themselves.
Now it's the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge who are having public positive conversations about COVID vaccines.
Whilst comparing notes on current daily life.
They were compelled.
Yeah.
The Royals rarely intervene in public policy.
They rarely intervene.
Just how strongly they support.
They sure support it.
Boy, are they good for it.
Those communities that are proving heart.
So what is this showing you?
It shows you that bad ideas are scarier than an RNA molecule.
It shows you that bad ideas have been wielded out mainstream and behind the scenes to get you to believe that the worst case scenario is.
And the worst case scenario could be avoided if we just followed the directives just followed the orders just took it seriously.
If we just locked down harder, if you'd have made more masks.
That's what this new world order is all about.
Getting you to accept this story of a RNA molecule that you have to be worried about.
It doesn't matter what the worst case scenario in detail is if it's pre on disease or if it's if it's lab leak or whatever details that they've got you concerned about.
It is passing this story on to your children that they want and that they've almost got.
And the only way to break it is going to be to learn the biology.
Otherwise, this is going to fade away and become the truth.
And so we've got to we've got to use the tools of broken science, use the tools that James and and stove have given us to dismantle the p value falsification science that underlies the idea of pre ons that underlies.
The idea of gain of function viruses that underlies the idea of pandemic potential in RNA viruses that maybe even underlies a lot of the biological mythology associated with some of the earlier stories about vaccination and viruses.
If we can do that, I think that all of this show will become irrelevant because the bottom line is is that the only alternative that the people who are against us in this picture will have is to ignore us because there won't be a response to the truth.
A class that they've never taught a lecture. They've never given a slide set that they've never bothered to make despite hundreds of pages of sub stack, thousands of pages of sub stack, even even thousands of sub stack articles and still nothing to do with the basic biology that gets our kids out of this.
And that's what you get on biologicals going to try and bring. We're going to try and dispel this illusion of consensus about a gain of function laboratory bio weapon.
Catherine, I'm not a medical experts by any means, but if it's any consolation, we can.
Not medical experts by any means, in fact, are the people that got us into this.
You know, the head of the COVID response wasn't a medical expert. It was a guy who learned his medical expertise from running the Ebola response.
The teamwork case scenario was everywhere and is actually coordinated by a few people, it seems.
Controlling a few real voices.
And they've relied on the idea that we weren't going to see beyond this, but we are actually have moved the curtain and I believe that that the wizard is visible right now.
It's only a question of whether you accept it and see it.
They seeded this story.
They seeded this idea knowing full well that one of the main objectives they had to achieve was that the mystery virus would be accepted as the cause of all the excess deaths that they showed on the chart.
They had to account on us to ignore the use of pulse oximeters and and and and supplementary oxygen to ignore the do not resuscitate orders, the ventilation, the antibiotic use the steroids.
They had to ignore all of this and not really question the PCR in a useful way, but only with regard to cycle threshold, not with regard to specificity of primers at all.
It has allowed them to have a very lively debate within that limited spectrum that has nothing to do with zero epidemiological evidence of spread zero to do with strict liability for all vaccine products zero to do with the Seventh Amendment violation that represented in the prep act.
And that's why I think this limited spectrum of debate once it can be accurately outlined can be easily dismissed just like a bubble can be popped.
And let's pop this bubble over the next couple weeks. Let's get out of this tragedy, which was us being stranded on a road and getting picked up by a car and then being told stories by these people that we thought were coming to our rescue, but they really weren't.
They were part of all the same operation that was designed to permanently change the way we think.
Some of them are winningly some of them are unwittingly involved some of them probably regret it none of them can get out.
Unless they give up everything that they currently have, including their credibility they know that they will get burnt, just like I've been burnt for four years ignored for four years lambasted made fun of for four years.
They'll do the same thing to any of them so they have to risk it all.
So don't just think of James Giordano also think of the Tommy podcast think of all of these podcasts that we thought were we're breaking the news that were actually just part of a controlled spectrum of debate.
Set up by very large weaponized piles of money that all took a separate place on the side of the train and all pretended very carefully not to get in each other's way, not to encroach on each other's act.
So we were all convinced that, wow, these people are doing it. Wow, I don't have to worry. Robert Malone's got my back Brett Weinstein's fighting for our kids so goodness sakes I can rest assured I can relax and put Netflix back on.
So we started novel virus everybody's vulnerable you heard all of them say it none of them questioned it even doctor drew.
Then we talked about how pharmaceuticals were being you know not are pre approved things were not being allowed to use for the novel virus exactly as designed.
So we participated from day one on purpose to create a question that made you accept the presupposition of that question, which was that there was a novel virus that needed novel treatments.
The DNA contamination is now being used to convince people on both sides of the aisle that transfection worked pretty well.
And anything that went wrong might very well have to do with this and it could maybe have nothing to do with transfection itself, which is a disaster and definitely a bamboozlement.
So this is the same thing something that I called out very early as a distraction and likely a fake. They added more emails they got more foil as this doesn't mean that all of these people know that it's fake but it is just an elaborate illusion in my humble opinion.
Those communications could have easily been generated by the AI we're supposed to be afraid of I mean come on.
They added it in the literature they seeded it in the bureaucracy.
They made sure that that the rumors they needed to cover up for the countermeasures were seeded with the mass casualty events and they had a team worst case scenario there to shepherd us all through it.
They're all sworn to secrecy because it's actually a national security priority and that's why they're so confident that they won't get exposed.
And this whole confusion between transfection and the virus is causing a disaster.
The political cut I have on the specializations always that if you analyze the politics of science the specializations should make you suspicious.
It's because it's gotten harder to evaluate what's going on. And it's presumably gotten easier for people to lie and to exaggerate.
And then one should be a little bit suspicious and that's that's sort of my starting my starting bias.
Suspicious of everything right suspicious of this faith in a novel virus. We can't let them get on the train. I'm just going to go through this really quick. The pandemic was created. This is a list that you should read and understand that there were some byproducts.
There were some extra things that happened because this wasn't a public health thing. This is a shift. It's part of a plan that's ongoing.
And they want us to keep going with it. They don't want us to resist. They want us to still feel like we're lost on this road.
Make sure you realize that biology is the way out questioning all the vaccines in America is the way out imposing strict liability is the way out.
And you can see the people who are meddling with us because they don't use the word transfection effectively talk about clones as being evidence for the reason why RNA virology is grossly over exaggerated and they can't seem to summarize
across anything and they've stayed surprisingly focused on one subject since the beginning of the pandemic. That's how you see them. They also don't talk about AI is being an illusion, but they all agree that AI is dangerous.
And that is also a red flag because it's not what's dangerous is people using machines to lie to us using programming to lie to us to make us think that there's AI to make us think that we are about to have a a singularity and that's absolutely ridiculous.
That's a new world order mythology, all part of the same burrito of nonsense that they want us to feed to our kids. Please, ladies and gentlemen, don't let other men with machines and slave our children.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been Giga on biological and high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by biologists.
I will be on again tomorrow. Thank you very much. Thursday is Thomas Binder. I don't have any other interviews.
So we're going to probably start breaking down the free on biology very soon. Hope tomorrow.
I'll see what I get done this evening. Thank you very much for joining me. I'll see you again tomorrow.
Thank you very much for joining me.
I don't know why that's going so slow. I'm going to just advance through it.
This has been a production of the independent brain lab. Whatever that means, please support it.
Thank you.