Please, please, please go somewhere.
Please go somewhere and announce that this is happening.
This might be the most important broadcast that GigaOM Biological has ever done.
So if you're going to share something live, this is the one to share.
Because this present, once it's opened,
The landslide is going to start today, I think, ladies and gentlemen, if it hasn't started already.
So please take the extra time to share this and make sure that as many people as possible are here to witness it.
Let's get this done.
I said to Ryan, I said, Jedis don't give up.
I mean, even if he had a problem, he would maybe take a year to try and regroup.
But if he made a mistake, he would try and right that wrong.
So right there, we had a fundamental difference.
It's not my story anymore.
It's somebody else's story.
And Ryan needed me to be a certain way to make the ending effective.
That's the crux of my problem.
Luke would never say that.
I'm sorry.
Well, in this version, see, I'm talking about the George Lucas Star Wars.
This is the next generation of Star Wars.
So I almost had to think of Luke as another character.
Maybe he's Jake Skywalker.
He's not my Luke Skywalker.
But I had to do what
Ryan wanted me to do because it serves the story well.
But listen, I still haven't accepted it completely, but it's only a movie.
I hope people like it.
I hope they don't get upset.
And I came to really believe that Ryan was the exact man that they needed for this job.
So the real question here with regard to putting Mark Hamill on the spot,
really is to illustrate that all it takes is a spectacular commitment to lies.
Mark Hamill just has had to stay committed long enough, keep his mouth shut long enough, for them to make the millions of dollars and ruin the Star Wars franchise just like they intended.
It's easy for an eight-year-old to see that what was written as the sequels to the original trilogy and the prequels, they're all terrible.
But the ones that were just recently released during kind of this transition into this bizarro world that we're now in, there's no way to explain it with creativity or with a subtle pivot to a new story.
They just destroyed something that they could have otherwise just made up something else.
And Mark Hamill just had to stay committed long enough to that lie so that it would effectively be irrelevant what he thinks.
And that's why I show it.
There's lots of people that are involved in the pandemic right now that could have told us a lot sooner and will eventually tell us, but they won't actually tell us that they knew all along that they are actually responsible
for all the tickets being sold.
They're responsible for everybody getting on the bandwagon.
And it's partly because when they could have, they didn't say it.
And in fact, they agreed not to say it.
And then more than one of them went on a podcast and said it and didn't say it.
And when you go back to 2020 and 21, there's nothing else to see other than the very actual spiritual wickedness that exists in these places.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's going to be one of the most important shows.
And this whole summer is going to be full of these important shows unless they start erasing pretty quick.
Oh, wait, we've archived it all already.
you
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.
Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest kind of distillation of what the pandemic means to society, to biology, to science, and to democracy, and to the whole kind of idea of empiricism and integrity.
And then each of us, this incredible preeminent panel that we have, each one of you is going to get a chance to comment
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, and it's measles plus.
Okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles because not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end.
No, when we have this new pandemic that has got 75% mortality, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs.
It'll be a moral emergency, because it has to be.
so so
The unfortunate thing for Sam Harris is that that recording is from the eighth podcast that Bret Weinstein ever did.
The eighth podcast that actually occurred in December of 2019, right before the extremely deadly pandemic that we wouldn't be able to tolerate the anti-vax position during.
So it's more than a premonition.
It's more than a prediction.
It was a pre-programmed part of the script.
And what we're really doing, Replay Sound is a quarter of me.
Okay, so I should turn myself down a little bit, I guess.
Um I got the music really low but my ears, I don't know.
Thanks for the feedback though Pamela.
Um we are still in interesting times.
Um it's gonna get more interesting I think because the truth is about to
get a few more dimensions.
And as the truth, as we add more dimensions to the truth, as we look backwards, what we perceive to be true and what is true starts to overlap.
And that's really not useful to these people.
Because our consciousness is a prime real estate that they've been in control of for four years.
And as we start to escape control,
and we start to see things for what they really are, we also start to see people for who they really are.
Sometimes I'm starting to get suspicious because still nobody's really talking about this list.
Still there's really nobody talking about this list.
The only person that really dares to talk about this, of course except for my friend Mark Kulak of Housatonic who I do absolutely trust, is occasionally Nick Hudson and occasionally an anonymous account that I think is someone in Australia.
Jikki Leaks, these are the only two people besides Mark.
So this whole list right here, this whole list right here, it's only Mark and occasionally Nick, and occasionally Jikki Leaks, because I don't really pay attention to that too much.
But I do notice that Nick has done it, these two lists right here.
mentioning that the protocols are murder, that gain-of-function is a mythology, that they fooled us into doing it, and that all it takes is a spectacular commitment to lies.
It's not very many people.
And maybe, maybe I don't care about what other people think about me as long as they don't attribute bad motives, but just keep
pointing out what we're teaching.
So if Jiki stops pointing out what we're teaching and starts attributing just bad motives, I don't know, then I guess I stop, you know, listening or communicating or I don't really promote him.
He's in a different trap.
See, that's part of the problem.
Clucky Ducky, the same thing.
Clucky and Ducky have never done and said anything disparaging to me, never said don't follow me, and never really promoted things that I necessarily disagree with, except for maybe they still have some faith that there's a gain-of-function virus.
But it took me three years of hard work to see through the gain-of-function virus narrative, and so maybe it'll take other people longer.
I'm noticing a pattern of people who do not
acknowledge Giga Home Biological.
And if they do, they acknowledge it in a bad way, in a negative way, or in a non-useful way.
And this list of people that doesn't acknowledge Giga Home Biological in a useful way, it spans the entire list of characters in this play.
You can, I have selfies with all of them.
They all know who I am.
They've all shaken my hand.
They've all told me face to face that they love the work that GigaOM Biological does, but you'd never know if you looked at their social media.
You'd never know that they learned anything from me.
And that's really the extraordinary part.
You can be listed as the foremost, the first expert that contributed to a book.
And that person who wrote that book can completely ignore you as an expert.
Even as soon as one month after the book is released.
And so they're in an interesting place because as GigaOM Biological and our followers are surfing this wave, this manufactured wave of lies, the liars have to pretend that we're not surfing it.
The liars have to pretend that we're just in the water like everybody else and not on our way to the shore in style.
But actually we are on our way to the shore in style and it might even be not the skilled TV watchers down here anymore.
We might have to edit this.
We might have to edit this and say the coordinated
Liars, actually, are being run over by the wave of lies.
And that's really actually where we might be.
It's interesting.
I'm very, very curious as to whether or not we can stay focused on the biology, not take their bait on social media and love our neighbor enough to get out of this, but I think we can.
So please keep sharing because this is really crucial that as many people as possible get where we are.
And that means even sharing this with Jiki because maybe we can learn more about these loyalties that these people have and how they're not related to saving America.
Because I'll tell ya, I'm gonna be real straight.
I'm an American, and the way that I understand this situation is that everybody, because we each have different legal systems, and we have a different set of laws that has been used against us, it's actually important for individual states to organize a way
to repel this action.
So Pennsylvania needs to locally organize and make sure that there aren't laws in Pennsylvania which do not allow us to engage in informed non-compliance.
We need to look if there are laws in every of the 50 states and how they could be used potentially against us in cooperation with or in concert with federal laws.
And these are very serious legal issues that we need real lawyers that are taking it seriously.
We need them to be working on this.
Look.
We don't need music for this.
We just need people.
You just need somebody.
We need real lawyers in America that understand the legal system, that have been working in it for years, that understand the problem that we face and to organize in such a way so that each individual state has a group of people, a group of patriots that's genuinely interested in making sure that the laws of that particular state are such
that the PrEP Act and the 21st Century Cares Act and all this other shit, the 21st Century Cures Act, I don't know, that cannot work together in concert to enslave us.
And so we can talk all we want about censorship on social media and all these other non-issues with lots of lawyers screaming and yelling about how the who is gonna do all this stuff,
When in reality, what we need are state-by-state organizations, little groups that are organized with real expertise, lawyers that are maybe volunteering their time to make a citizen's effort to remove
the teeth or even the public health laws in general that have been put in place to enable this kind of thing to happen again and to prevent it from ever happening again.
And so anybody that's doing that I think is legitimate.
I just don't know very many people who are.
I mean, Meryl Nass has decided to start another nonprofit organized against the who when she was already helping CHD who's organized against the who.
And so we don't have these organizations of lawyers that are actually working to change the appropriate laws that people like Catherine Watt have outlined as well.
We need to get rid of all these things, change all of these things.
We have no lawyers.
that are working to do this and we have no lawyers that are trying to educate anyone in Pennsylvania about how Pennsylvania laws need changing or how Illinois law needs changing or why Pennsylvania law is an example for how they could do it in Illinois.
I don't know because there's no lawyers who are taking this as serious.
There isn't one lawyer that I know of on social media that is saying that, you know, the laws in such and such a state are pretty good.
And maybe we should use those as a template for other laws and other states, or we could use that law as a template to show you why those laws are lame.
There's no lawyer, not one talking about this stuff.
This should be terrifying.
And yet nobody cares.
The whole social media seems to agree that this is just a non-issue.
Like what is Jonathan Cooey talking about with informed non-compliance?
What is he saying?
He's just trying to divide everybody.
No, I'm trying to show you that there is no one.
There's no one coming to our rescue.
No one.
So,
I will admit, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the show.
This is GigaOM Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
It's June 10th.
I'm coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the back of my garage.
I'm very happy that everyone is here.
I just want to make very clear that first and foremost, I think as a rule, number one, anonymity on social media is great.
But anonymity as far as being a thought leader or anonymity as far as being somebody who is going to, let's say, purport to be a patriot of a particular country and purport to be someone who's really trying to help not themselves, but their children and their children's children, I don't think anonymity is often very helpful.
And I understand that there are people who have to remain anonymous because of the life situation that they're in, but I will say it over and over again, there's not a single anonymous account that I trust.
And that includes JikiLeaks.
JikiLeaks has been interesting because, as I've pointed out repeatedly, he doesn't really
publicly attack me.
He's publicly attacked a lot of other people, but he or she has not publicly attacked me.
And if he or she has, I have not seen it, and that's fine, because I don't take these anonymous accounts very seriously.
But I do think that interacting with something, some of them, especially one as prominent as Jiki, who I think is
can be pretty confidently linked with a substack that we all know the name of.
I do feel like there's been a lot of good ideas that have been promulgated by this account, and it's important to see that.
Part of the way that I myself have pulled myself through this cave is to watch these patterns.
And I don't care about the vast majority of these accounts because the vast majority of these accounts haven't had a, there's no pattern to look at.
They haven't been there in my view, but this account has been around for a long time and more or less behaving pretty consistently.
And so if it's useful to watch the behavior of this account, then I watch it.
And if it's useful to watch some of these other accounts, I think you should, but you always need to understand that the moment you're paying attention to an anonymous account, you don't know for absolute certain whether you're watching the pattern of that person or a collection of people or worse.
And so that's why I err on the side of, you know, if you're trusting anonymous accounts, you could be trusting yourself to foreign traders, which is very, very likely.
And the worst case scenario is still bad, or sorry, the best case scenario is still quite significant because each country is its own trap.
They were shown a different social media.
They saw a different set of influencers.
I mean, there's this whole thing in Australia called Quillette or something like that.
It's kind of like a substack, but it's not a substack.
And they had all of their own debates and their own arguments down there.
And they had their own, you know, forums and their own social media groups that were all different bubbles that were seeing a different reflection of what was happening in the United States, a different fraction of the
the limited spectrum of debate that was presented to us.
We can't, it would be very, very dangerous to try and put a cap on the amount of distortion that was created on purpose, even between different states and different TV regions in America.
Nevermind the amount of distortion that was created across languages
or across time zones or across whole government infrastructures.
They all have their own private partnership with the media of their own countries.
And so they had their own preexisting set of medium level influencers and medium level discussion forums and medium level thought bubbles.
And there's no way for any of us from our perspective, where our IP address is,
to see what other people with other IP addresses see.
There's no way.
And those people are allowing those thoughts in their head all the time as they scroll the same way that we were.
And because we were under the assumption that, well, when we scroll, we either see the same thing that they see.
And that's just absolutely absurd.
And so it's possible that through the careful use of these social media tools and the pre-programming of them, that people have been very efficiently led to believe that good people in one region are bad from the perspective of another region and vice versa.
so that the groups that we have established in each individual country are actually focused on bad guys in other countries, which is a pattern that was established very early by people like Kevin McCairn.
that extremely early in March of 2020 already knew that Andrew Kaufman in America was somebody that I needed to oppose.
And Sam Bailey in New Zealand is somebody that we all need to oppose.
What an interesting random choice out of the, what is it, seven billion people on the planet to just pull out of the hat that you're sure that the no virus people that we have to oppose are these two?
And I only have examples from my experience of looking backwards and seeing how scripted these people were, but we all have an experience that we scrolled through on social media, that if you can peel back the layers of your own memory and look back on it, you're gonna see that it didn't matter what stage you went to in this Lollapalooza of lies, you were gonna essentially get onto this train where you were influenced by a group of people who seemed to agree about particular questions.
And if you want homework, all you gotta do is go on the internet and find it.
I'm a human just like you.
I got a limited amount of time.
I got kids that want my time.
I have a wife that I'm trying to maintain a relationship with as a friend and as a colleague and as a lover and as a best friend and as a life partner.
And so it's a, this is just a real guy here.
And I'm going to be in South Dakota this coming weekend.
And like I've done for the entire pandemic, I'm going to put it all on the line.
I'm going to play it as if this is my one chance.
I'm going to Madison Square Garden, and they're actually going to give me a spotlight and the microphone.
What are you going to say?
That's how I'm playing this.
And I'm not going to pull any punches.
I do think that there is a message here.
I do think there's a message here.
And I am going to try and leave them with these thoughts.
But I hope you won't be disappointed if the talk is sharper than that.
You've only seen me improvise.
You've only seen me just basically shoot from the cuff for four years in the sense of I throw up a video or I throw up a slide and I talk about it.
You've never seen what I do when I plan it.
And none of these people have actually, which is actually probably what makes them the most frightened.
But they don't really have any options at this stage, other than to maybe run me over.
And then my children will be their problem.
So, we don't need to fear any free-range RNA molecules, I assure you of that.
And these people have gotten a lot of influencers to agree that we don't need to worry about the murder because this was a lab leak.
And they've also gotten a bunch of influencers to agree that the old vaccine schedule isn't even on our radar anymore.
I mean, it's the new vaccine schedule that we're concerned about.
And it's the spectacular commitment to these lies that what's allowing them to do it.
It is that concert.
This is the harmony between all of the acts at this Lollapalooza of lies.
It's the same.
This is the song they will all cover.
And they cover it in their own way, with their own set of instruments, with their own set of unique quirks, maybe with a surfboard picture or, I don't know, a comment from their graduate students.
And so I think that this is pretty much the most succinct summary of where we are right now.
There aren't very many people you can trust.
Actually, the less you hear about them, the more likely it is you can trust them.
And so as you watch these people rising through social media with 200,000 followers and saying all kinds of things that everybody sees,
just realize that that can only happen if it's by permission.
There is no one that reaches the level of 250,000 followers on Twitter that hasn't reached that with permission.
There's just no other way to explain how it is that somehow or another, I mean, I guess it's possible, but there's no other way to explain what you see.
These people are playing a very malevolent game.
Wittingly or unwittingly, they are essentially traitors to the American Republic and to all the free countries of the West that thought that we were all on the same team somehow, NATO or whatever they call it.
These people have all agreed to agree that we need to fear free-range RNA molecules, and it's the one lie that they're not going to question.
And the only people that were pretending to usefully question it from 2020, 21 and 22 are up there in the corner and they didn't do a very good job of it for a long time.
And I think that was also by design.
And so that's why they don't like me either because I have critique for their 2020 and 21 presentations as well.
Just like I have critique for my own, but a lot of the reason why I
was unable to succeed in being where I am now in 2021 was precisely because of these people on this screen and the selfies that I've taken with them.
And so that's why I have a particular vendetta with a particular group of people that I'm pretty sure have been lying consistently since the beginning of the pandemic and why I feel an obligation to call them out as if every stream is my last stream.
I have to call out these people because I believe that this is the story that breaks their back.
This is the story that breaks the reed.
It bends it too far and it snaps.
Once you start to inspect what it is precisely that these people said in 2020 and how they were able to say it uncensored or conspicuously censored, you start to realize that the pattern is unmistakable.
And you don't have to look at any particular cast of characters.
It's just unfortunate or fortunate for me that most of the cast of characters has interacted with me.
So many of them decided to come to Pittsburgh.
So many of them decided to be on my podcast early on before they realized how far off script they were gonna have to go.
In fact, before they realized that there is no how far off script do we have to go before Cooey shuts his mouth.
That's why I feel like I need to call out particular people who have been exposed to me in very particular ways by very particular people using very particular words, mostly flattery and then cover up.
Flattery and then talking over.
And make no mistake about it, I don't think this is exciting for me to be able to, or have to, or feel the need to use as armor the fact that I think it is very likely that the guy in the middle is on the same team as the lady over here, and the guy up there, and the lady down there in the bottom corner, and maybe even Tess.
I just think Tess probably doesn't know to the extent to which she's being used by Epigirl and by Anthrax Lady and by Ditraman.
So it's not fun.
That's why I'm streaming like every one of these streams is my last stream.
Because it could be.
For whatever reason, I think that now I'm really causing a problem.
I'm really causing a problem for them.
What I want is high morbidity.
I want people to complain.
So what do I do?
I go to Des Moines.
Ladies and gentlemen, the people on the screen, I have nothing against Des Moines.
I lived there for four years.
I go to Des Moines.
I infect a couple of sentinel cases in Des Moines.
I go to Seattle.
I infect a couple of cases there.
I go to North Carolina.
I go to Wisconsin.
What I'm doing is I'm using a dispersion methodology to be able to infect sentinel cases with a highly morbid condition.
These individuals complain.
Again, this is a central nervous system condition.
So they're complaining of whatever the bug may do.
It'll produce some cascade of neurological and neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms.
Wouldn't it be really crazy if the bug wasn't even a toxin, but it was just getting people to use supplementary oxygen in a maladaptive, nasty way so that they would progress to ARDS?
So instead of seeding a toxin like Sasha Latupova, so sure that the DOD did, there's no viruses, but they use toxins instead.
Just like James Giordano said, it couldn't be a really bad idea that gets misconstrued as either a virus or a toxin.
And we can argue about that forever.
Because as long as you're arguing about whether it was a toxin or what toxin it was, or whether it was a virus or an exosome or whatever, you're not acknowledging that there are other ways that the protocol could have been used to create the illusion of a pandemic.
And so if you do remdesivir, for example, well, then they still got to get in there somehow.
If you do ivermectin, then you presume the existence of the virus.
And so there's one key issue to all of this that is missing, and that is, of course, that SARS and SARS-2 are associated specifically with ARDS.
And you can look it up.
There's papers all over the universe of this, thousands of them, throughout the history of this recent mythology.
Now, keep in mind, stay with me here.
All you gotta do is get to ARDS in order to get to a SARS virus.
And so if the way to get to ARDS is simply the poor application of supplemental oxygen, and you could get doctors to accept a story about we don't know what to do, we don't have anything, this is a new thing.
The best we can do is supplemental oxygen.
you might have a very, very interesting adaptation of the, again, remember, public facing version of the biosecurity narrative.
The public facing version is, James D'Origiano says, is that you release a toxin and then you tell everybody on the internet that it's spreading with asymptomatic prodrome stuff.
So maybe the secret version is that you don't release a toxin, you just start with some murder and lie about it.
And specifically lie about all the ways that the murder is happening so that nobody realizes how it's happening, which is, I think it's possible.
In fact, it's worth seriously considering the possibility that it was the pulse ox lie
I think it's really worth considering this.
It's worth considering because Brett Weinstein is a very curious little meddler in this, who I was in a signal chat for a long time with some very conspicuous players that include an account by the name of Rollergator, Dr. Rollergator.
You can find him on Twitter.
Chris Martinson, Alexandros Marinos, who was exclusively on ivermectin for more than a year.
Brett Weinstein, his wife.
Chris Martinson, who is a retired pharma exec who's living off the grid and who was promoted by PBS NewsHour in 2008 or 2010 or whenever it was.
All of those people have consistently ignored me since learning almost everything they purport to know from me in that little signal chat, which is still unfortunately for them preserved on my phone and elsewhere.
So it feels like the clock is ticking.
It feels like they're just running out the clock and the clock is actually running out on them.
That's why I'm calling all these names out.
That's why I am confident that we can do it.
Because once you realize where this all comes back to, once you realize that these pictures could not exist if I was wrong, the patterns that these people behave and follow could not be otherwise.
It just simply can't be possible.
The only way to explain this is that all these people are ignoring me because the truth is inconvenient.
The truth is really a problem.
We're not supposed to get there yet.
And so we're trying to break free of this.
I'm trying to break free of this limited spectrum of debate by assuming that that's what all these people are doing and it's working very well.
We had a very interesting revelation yesterday about the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.
When we realized that something very interesting was missing from the hero Corey timeline.
a timeline that has been curated by only certain people.
I'm not so interested in Pierre Kory that I've actually sat down and done a timeline of it.
I've been focused on this stuff, and more importantly, focused on trying to find as many different ways as possible to say those three things.
And although people have come around and said, yeah, I really like what Jay's saying, very few of them, and I mean very few, are able to just share it.
You know, like you could clip this as a picture and put it on your tweet or something like that.
But very few, no, actually almost no one has done that.
No one that's not in our chat regularly.
And we've seen this crack pipe theme go around now with debunk the funk jumping on board.
And it's hilarious, right?
Because this again is the best response that they have to me trying to get somebody to say that weaponized piles of money have gotten a lot of people on the internet to agree that it's not murder, but it was gain of function.
And they've gotten it to happen by performing this little act.
And I think one of the most
egregious of these performers is Pierre Kory.
I think it's possible that Pierre Kory and a few people that worked with him are responsible for this being lost, that nobody's talking about it.
You know who the person who first talked about this was?
You know who the first person that brought this to us was?
You're gonna think, oh, maybe it was Jonathan Engler, or was it Jessica Hockett, or was it, I don't know, maybe it was, who else is really good in this field?
Maybe it was Mark Kulak, or maybe it was Jonathan Cooley who thought of it.
All, all of those would be, all of those would be wrong.
It was Grace's dad.
Grace's dad actually, and look that guy up, please.
Grace's dad is the one that pointed out that the FLCCC protocol recommended that if your pulse ox was below 94, you should seek help immediately.
Stop lying.
That's pretty significant.
It's also pretty significant that nobody shares Grace's dad's work.
Nobody.
Where is he on the internet?
Where is he on Twitter?
Where's these people, all these mice sharing the story of Grace's dad?
Where's CHD sharing the story of Grace's dad?
Where are all these people sharing the story, having him on their podcast?
Nowhere.
But Grace's dad is the one who showed us that the FLCC protocol said 94%, you better go to the hospital.
And who's the head of the FLCCC?
Who's the one who's been pushing that train around?
Chalking his hands up on podcasts every week.
Grace's dad, big shout out to Grace's dad.
He saw stuff that we did not see.
I can't believe I didn't see it, but shout out to Grace's dad.
Let's listen to Pierre and Brett from 2021.
I believe the date is June 1st, which would mean in the timeline of the theater, they thought that it would be better to bring Pierre Cory on stage first.
so that when Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone showed up a couple weeks later, Bret Weinstein would already have developed his schtick with regard to ivermectin being the ultimate prophylactic.
which if you have forgotten on June 21st, 2020, Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch went on the Brett Weinstein podcast for a three hour tirade about how they were going to save everyone.
And the main message was basically prophylactic use of ivermectin for 30 days would clear the earth and get us to zero COVID.
So I'm going to really admit I haven't watched this movie since this video since it came out.
And I don't even know if I watched it when it came out because I wasn't really following Brett and his podcast.
I was connected with Brett before I knew who Brett really was.
And that's the truth.
Somebody told me, do you watch Brett Weinstein?
And I said, I don't even know really who that is.
And then I looked him up and I thought, yeah, connect me with him.
That's the truth.
And so if you knew who that person was who said, do you know who Brett Weinstein was, then you would be able to go, wow, wait a minute, what, really that person?
And so I know who it is.
And I can say it out loud whenever I want to, but people who have been following me for a long time know definitely who that is.
It's a very conspicuous name in my 2021 timeline.
That's very conspicuously absent from my 2022 and 23 and 24 timeline.
In fact, vanished in 21 already for all practical purposes.
It's a very, very interesting web that I exist within.
And most of these people still think they have some
some semblance of a disguise left, which is pretty funny.
But I'm just telling everybody now, just trying to be honest to all of y'all out there.
I know who almost all of you are because of the mistakes that you make or made.
And this one here, this one is really good.
This one is really, really good.
Let's take a look at what we've got here.
I need to look for Corey, Brett, Rogan.
No, we don't want that one.
That one I think was later.
We need Corey and the Brett.
Alex Jones, no.
Where is it?
I just saved it.
I just don't remember what I named it.
Sorry guys, I don't mean to do this.
Darn it.
There it is, sorry.
He is also a- Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
I am Dr. Brett Weinstein.
I am sitting with Dr. Pierre Kory, who is the president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC, which is the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.
He is also a lung specialist and an ICU specialist.
Welcome Dr. Kory.
Brett, thanks for having me.
Really good to be here.
I could not be more excited about this podcast.
I really have the sense that the story that you and I are about to delve into couldn't possibly be more important.
There's a tremendously hopeful aspect of it, and there's a tremendously frightening aspect of it.
And I am just simply looking forward to having it in the world well understood.
Before we do that, though, I think I need to say a word or two in light of the fact that there is what we will talk about, an industrial strength campaign
to censor this story and I need to say something rather directly to those who are most likely to attempt to censor it.
What I want to say is that Dr. Corey is not only an advocate for a therapy that is incredibly useful in the context of COVID-19, but he is also someone who has pioneered therapies already that are now the standard of care for COVID-19 patients.
That means he has earned the right to talk about whatever he thinks is important.
Thanks, Pamela.
For my part, as you know, I was also very early on the lab leak hypothesis, and I was very careful about how I presented it.
And of course, in the last month,
That hypothesis has been vindicated.
Everyone, including Dr. Ralph Baric, who is the leading expert in the world on bat-borne coronaviruses and their modification in the lab, has acknowledged that a leak from the lab in Wuhan, China is plausible.
I have also earned the right to talk about what I want to talk about and what I think is necessary.
So he's earned the right to talk about it because he was ahead on the lab leak, which has now been vindicated.
That's a pretty remarkable statement to make.
on June 1st, 2021.
Don't you think?
In retrospect, like he's the head of the Scooby-Doo Mystery Solving Team and he's declared that after being the sleuth of sleuths and wearing a bandana and goggles when it was needed, he's now figured out that this was a lab leak and therefore he was actually smart to have isolated.
He was actually smart to have worn the goggles and the bandana because he avoided the lab leak.
You see where this is going, where it went?
We are now gonna have a conversation.
And if you don't like it, that YouTube is your problem.
We are entitled to discuss this because a lot depends on it.
And we'll- Screw you, YouTube.
It sounds a lot like some teenage girl that did in 2019.
Screw you, YouTube.
We do when issues are don't like it.
I have also earned the right to talk about what I want to talk about and what I think is necessary.
We are now going to have a conversation.
And if you don't like it, that YouTube is your problem.
We are entitled to discuss this because a lot depends on it.
And what we do when issues are complex is we hash them out and figure out what's true through dialectic.
So that's what we're going to do.
Yeah.
I appreciate that you already said a few things but I'd like that hopeful part because there is a lot of weirdness.
The censorship is unpleasant but ultimately this is a message.
There's a really hopeful message about science here and so that's why I'm really glad to be here.
I'm glad to see just more scientists of credibility willing to really look at the evidence behind a phenomenally effective therapy and so like I said, I'm really happy to be here.
Great.
Well, let me say, I think the evidence is incredibly compelling, and that the fact that it is compelling, and yet not widely known, is an important fact in and of itself.
There are layers to an onion to this story.
And whatever it is that causes an obviously useful therapy to be suspected in ways that it shouldn't be, based on the evidence, whatever that thing is, is also a disease of sorts.
Somehow, we have to get to a place where evidence-based medicine really means evidence-based medicine.
okay so they are already establishing what questions they're going to ask and where the limited spectrum of debate is and it's a hopeful message about science using the word science in exactly the same way that debunk the funk used it with zoobie a couple days ago using the word science exactly the same way as tony fauci used it
And Brett Weinstein doesn't seem to need to correct him at all.
He agrees that there's some capital S science with a trademark after it.
This is in June of 2021 when people needed clarity and people with principles.
And here's two people that are agreeing that we are the two guys with principles and they are lying about that.
And if two people agree to lie to us, we're in big trouble.
Just like I told you the story about my two little boys thinking about fooling their little sister with the Minecraft game in a computer in the other room.
If two people agree to lie to you, it's very difficult to see through it.
And I am making the accusation that because this was a national security operation that was intending to use America as an example for the rest of the world of what happens when you screw up a response to a virus, these people were recruited wittingly or unwittingly, are participating wittingly or unwittingly in this charade
that something especially dangerous is happening in America because they are especially bungling their response to it.
That's what's happening right here because Australia locked down and New Zealand locked down and, and Japan wears masks all the time.
You must remember very hard, try to remember where we were at this time in 2021 to understand how significant it is that these two jackasses are so dead on balls narrative that it's impossible to explain by chance.
I agree.
No, you're right.
I like that you just said disease.
I mean, it is, it's, it's a symptom of dysfunction in our system.
I mean, our system is creating this problem around a really effective medicine and it's, it's really damaging.
All right.
So I'd like to step back.
So wait, which is the disease COVID-19 or is the disease, the, the censorship or the inability to, what are they talking about?
I got to go back and play that again.
This is going to be a long video.
It looks like.
The evidence is incredibly compelling and that the fact that it is compelling and yet not widely known is an important fact in and of itself.
There are layers to an onion to this story and whatever- Now keep in mind, right, if this is June 2021, then that means Pierre Kory has already served as a witness for something to do with George Floyd, right, or not?
We need to put this in the right order.
And I don't know what the right order would be, but other people could see this as a challenging sort of thing to Pierre Corey's legitimacy.
If he is revealed to have participated in the George Floyd bonanza, for example, charade, whatever that was, I don't even care.
You know, that they used it against us.
You know, that it was some kind of orchestrated thing that made them burn down things all over the place so that they could test their algorithms.
many different ways they can drive people bananas with what bad ideas can they drive people bananas the easiest if they don't discuss this and it's already occurred if he just kind of omits it from his history oh yeah by the way not only did i rush into the burning house that was new york city in april of 2020 because i'm such a hero
but I also rushed into the courtroom to make sure that the death of George Floyd was based or was blamed on the cops like it should be instead of on whatever else that criminal might've been on.
I'm not trying to take a stance on George Floyd.
I'm trying to make you realize that it is unbelievably remarkable that this gentleman participated in that.
The same gentleman that was put in front of the Senate of either Texas or the United States after what happened in New York to testify about it.
Did they murder people in New York City with an on-ramp to ventilators created by ARDS that was derived solely from the misapplication of
of oxygen as so eloquently described by none other than the star of the show, Kyle Seidel.
Has this actually led to a break in what was supposed to be a, you know, solidify Pierre Kory as the authority on certain things now?
Because if we're all just gonna conveniently omit that this guy provided the testimony and the expert testimony in the George Floyd case, and that's not relevant to him also having an ivermectin book, also being in front of the Senate, also touring the world for international COVID conferences, also being in hot tub photos, also being in shoe photos,
Having met me multiple times associated with CHD, ladies and gentlemen, the brick wall is visible.
We have already illustrated time and time again how Brett Weinstein's not playing fair because of how he behaved with Bobby Kennedy.
I've already illustrated many times why it doesn't feel like Bobby Kennedy's playing fair with me given what I am represented as in his book.
Yet somehow or another, he's happy to promote Bret Weinstein.
CHD is happy to promote Bret Weinstein.
CHD is happy to sell that book.
It's just a very inconvenient fact that Jonathan Cooley's in that book, and it's a very inconvenient shit what Jonathan Cooley put in that book.
They really thought they were gonna get away with it.
that they would be able to absorb the story of my family getting screwed because I opened my mouth.
My family losing their income and their means of making a living because I opened my mouth and I had a legitimate career, a legitimate track record of just trying to do science and not taking a big salary for it because I was dumb.
Because Dan Wilson said, I'm raising a second kid and if you know anything about academia, I'm not going there.
I was dumb.
I was naive.
I thought science was really a pursuit worth pursuing and that's why nobody liked how I did it.
Nobody wanted the questions answered that I wanted answered.
That's why I couldn't get grants.
That's why I never really succeeded.
Why I have a 20-year track record of getting paid about $45,000 a year for doing something that very, very, very few people in the world would even attempt to do, never mind pretend or say that they had the expertise to do it well.
Why did I choose those words?
Because that's the reality.
The kinds of experiments that I was trying to do when I was in my real wheelhouse of electrophysiology were experiments that a handful of people on earth can do now, nevermind back then.
And some of the most famous neuroscientists at the time knew my name, knew me by first name basis, would recognize me from across the hall of neuroscience where 30,000 people were and put their hand in the air and waved to me.
I'm not some guy who pretends to have had a lab about Tourette's syndrome in monkeys in South Korea before the pandemic.
I'm actually a guy who worked for a Navy captain at the University of Pittsburgh, whose wife worked for McKenzie at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine when I was told not to come in anymore.
Those aren't details that I'm just adding because they're spicy.
Those are details because unfortunately they just remain part of this,
giant pile of truth that I can't forget.
While what's the story with Brett?
What's the story with Corey?
It seems really weird.
Because they forget plenty of stuff.
They omit plenty of things.
Their backstories are always so well-sculpted, you know?
Like Dan Wilson, who used to think that 9-11 was a big conspiracy, and then more recently, like right before the pandemic, pulled his head out and realized that they told us the truth all along on TV, and started to crusade for the truth on television.
And now Zuby elevates him as somebody worth talking to.
And we're supposed to believe that Zuby's a good guy.
Just like Brett Weinstein's a good guy.
Just like Pierre Cory's a good guy.
And they're all lying, and they're all on the same team.
it is that causes an obviously useful therapy to be suspected in ways that it shouldn't be based on the evidence, whatever that thing is, is also a disease of sorts.
Yeah, somehow we have to get to a place where evidence based medicine really means evidence based medicine.
This is the opposite of trying to be precise.
So instead of, okay, we're going to keep our language crisp and we're going to explain to people what's going on right now.
No, I'm going to add another disease.
I'm going to add another disease to this discussion.
And that's the disease of holy shit.
Stop lying.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be able to keep my cool with this because I really think that it's time for the pressure.
It's time to stomp.
It's time to break through the floor.
We're all gonna fall through the ceiling here.
No, you're right.
I like that you just said disease.
I mean, it's a symptom of dysfunction in our system.
I mean, our system's creating this problem around a really effective medicine.
And it's really damaging.
All right.
So I'd like to step back a little bit.
Obviously, the best thing to do from the point of view of an interesting discussion is go right to the heart of the matter.
But I really think it's important that a couple of things are on the table first.
Stop lying!
Number one on that list is your organization, BFL-PCC.
Stop lying!
is not an ivermectin organization on the table.
Obviously, the best thing to do from the point of view of an interesting discussion is go right to the heart of the matter.
But I really think it's important that a couple of things are on the table first.
Number one on that list is your organization, the FLCCC, is not an ivermectin organization.
It was founded, as I understand it, to discover what the most useful therapies for COVID-19 were in the early days of the pandemic.
So in the early days of the pandemic when he's implying we didn't know anything.
We had no idea what to do for respiratory disease at the start of the pandemic because this was a new one.
Make sure you hear it very clearly what they're doing in June of 2021 to make sure that they sort of shore up the narrative and the shore up the understanding of what just happened in 2020.
Make sure everybody's very clear that we're all on the same page.
He's teeing up this guy who's now got to tell the story that he's prepared.
So I want you to think very carefully about how you would act if you're finally being queued up, finally going to go, OK, now here's where I'm actually going to start to perform.
And I'm a little bit shit and bricks.
It's basically like what my daughter's going to go through tonight at her first piano recital.
You've been practicing.
It's fine when you did it off, you know, on your piano or on the piano at the church when you're doing the rehearsal.
But now when everybody shows up and you got your pretty dress on and everybody's there and the food's waiting outside and it's time to go up, how do you react?
How does the nervousness manifest itself?
Do you want to say something about where you started?
Yeah.
So the first thing I have to say is that we start with Professor Paul Marek.
So Paul Marek, he's actually the most published intensivist in the history of our field who's actually practicing medicine.
The other doctor who published more doesn't see patients.
So Paul is sort of a giant in our field, well-known internationally.
What happened was when COVID was rolling to our shores, and it really kind of hit New York and Seattle,
Some prominent doctors went to Paul and said, hey, you got to come up with a protocol.
Because Paul's well known for his protocols for sepsis and whatnot.
Get a group of your colleagues, put together a protocol to treat this.
And that's what he did.
And I'm honored to be a member of that team.
And so Paul and I started talking with the group, and we put together a protocol.
And our first protocol actually included blood thinners, pretty aggressive, and corticosteroids at a time when every national and international society
basically said there's insufficient evidence.
Now we're already being disingenuous here, right?
Because if the protocol says you need to seek help when you have a 94% pulse ox and the place that a person seeks help believes in the TV narrative, then you're not going to get what the FLCCC recommends.
you're not gonna be able to take the FLCCC protocol and say, hey doc, hey look, I got this protocol off the internet and the protocol off the internet says that I have a pulse ox of 94, I'm supposed to come to you and then you're supposed to give me this stuff.
It seems like that's what they're proposing here.
That the FLCCC protocol is something that you can just print out and take to the emergency room and then other doctors will read it and follow it.
What else are they implying here?
And how naive would it be for you to take a protocol to your doctor and say, hey doc, I got this off the internet.
And it's not what the CDC says, but I would really like you to follow it.
Just keep in mind what what else are they proposing if they're not proposing that?
Hey, you got to come up with a protocol because Paul's well known for his protocols for sepsis and whatnot.
Get a group of your colleagues put together a protocol to treat this and that's what he did and I'm honored to be a member of that team and so Paul and I started talking with the group and we put together a protocol and
Our first protocol actually included blood thinners, pretty aggressive, and corticosteroids at a time when every national and international society basically said there's insufficient evidence and do not use.
In fact, they thought corticosteroids were harmful.
I was actually invited to give a Senate testimony back in May, where I testified in the Senate that it was critical to use corticosteroids, that lives were being lost.
And as you might know, I got killed for that.
We got killed for that.
I wonder if he's talking about May of 21 or May of 2020.
That's interesting.
He says he put together a protocol.
I'm asking who would follow it.
What does it mean if a bunch of rebel doctors puts together a protocol online?
if no one will ever follow it.
And the primary recommendation for people that are going to decide what to do was that you have a 94% pulse ox, you should go to the hospital, which is actually telling people to go online and order a pulse ox.
How else are you going to know what your pulse ox is?
So, if I have two pulse oximeters and I put them on my fingers and I find out that they don't read the same thing from the same person, what would happen then?
What situation would we be in if that was the case?
I'm just trying to figure out what would happen.
What would you interpret that as if
We had two pulse oximeters that couldn't read the same number.
I mean, how close am I to having COVID right now if these things say what they say like this?
98, 97.
Sorry, the other one quit starting over again or something.
I don't know.
Maybe the battery's dead.
I might have to charge it up.
I hope they are chargeable.
96, there it is.
I have a 96% pulse ox on one side.
Does that mean I have to go to the hospital now or was it 94?
That's also quite significant, right?
If it was 94.
And so my point is, is that one simple way without a toxin would be to just sell a bunch of shitty ones of these and then put good ones back on the market a few months later.
I mean, that would require no toxins.
You could use Amazon to do it and you could use social media to do it.
People implying that pulse ox is a great way to figure it out.
That's what Pierre Cory said on YouTube that one consistent thing with all these patients was their pulse ox was low in the 80s.
And he's a lung expert, right?
So here we are listening to him on Brett Weinstein in June of 2021.
And he's not talking about the fact that he was a witness for the George Floyd thing at all.
It's weird.
totally criticized for not having an evidence base to say that on.
And we actually did.
Our reading of the evidence was that you had to use it.
And so that's how we came together.
And that was the first components of our protocol.
But like you said, ivermectin was not in our protocol initially.
So I find this just stunning.
You discovered as clinicians that corticosteroids and blood thinners were important in the treatment of covid patients.
And in trying to make this point, you were criticized and then vindicated.
This is now standard of care.
And now this is part of what I would argue from the non MD perspective is part of that narrative.
This is very similar to the narrative that there are more cardiac arrests and strokes as a result of the gain-of-function incapacitating agents circulating the globe.
And so this dovetails very nicely to what they were trying to confound as a novel circulating pathogen.
Of course, this is seeding more
little breadcrumbs about why it's a novel pathogen because, you know, this is the first time we've ever needed to use blood thinners to treat people.
So this is a crazy new virus, right?
And who was one of those people?
That is also like Richard Fleming, who was promoted a lot by Kevin McCairn in 2020 and 2021, and who blocked me very early on Twitter.
So all of these performers were part of a coordinated lollapalooza of lies.
And because when we look backwards, they line up so uncannily, it would be very, very dangerous for our kids' future not to acknowledge this pattern and to figure out why it's there.
I think it's because they're all part of the show.
Standard of care.
So in thinking about this question, right, there's a barrage of nonsense that comes back when you even say the word ivermectin.
People have to realize who they're up against.
They're up against people who have not only been successfully treating patients but have been innovating the standard of care.
The very same people are now talking about ivermectin and its potential, and that is
Oh yeah, I forgot to remind you of one thing.
They were talking about steroids a minute ago and talking about how steroids are hurting people.
But don't forget around this same time, about a month later, Robert Malone, after appearing on Brett Weinstein's podcast, is going to go on a podcast with Paul Cattrall and explain to Paul Cattrall and this guy Neely
that they are killing people by giving them steroids and then sending them out of the hospital because the steroids are like a brick to the immune system and knock down the immune response.
And so get rid of all the symptoms, but then send people home with secondary pneumonia and they die.
So what an interesting dichotomy of opinions that Brett Weinstein doesn't seem sophisticated enough to sort out, even though they appeared in sequence on his podcast in the same month.
Should have had a notebook or something and took notes, right?
If he's not equipped.
But I think he was probably counting on other people to provide the script and he was just going to go along with it.
He's just got to ask the questions and provide the mic, right?
I hope you're able to see as much as I can see in which what you say about this drug has to be taken.
And so as irrelevant as it would be for me to say that I've been a scientist for 20 years and so I know what I'm talking about now, the only thing you have to evaluate is what I'm saying now.
You don't have to go back and see whether or not I was doing great science or crappy science.
And if you do, I'd be proud of you to go back and look and find out that I did great science.
Science that influenced a lot of people that were trying to think about the same problems that I was.
And in fact, my ideas are still influencing their way of thinking about the problems that they're trying to solve.
And I would be willing to bet that the only other neuroscientists that is in this narrative by insertion cannot make that claim.
And that should tell you everything you need to know about this poser and all of these posers.
Brett Weinstein can't make a claim to suffrage.
He can't make a claim to sacrificing anything.
He was a tenure track professor at a podunk college and then elevated by a fake social media event to the point where he was given a
half a million dollar settlement to transition to podcasting right before the pandemic started and allowed to elevate himself in front of the Senate to talk about this woke problem in America so that he would be an artificially elevated position to talk about it when the pandemic started.
His brother was elevated that way.
Brett Weinstein's whole crew of Intellectual Dark Web was elevated that way before the pandemic so that trusted sources of information would be present even on the backwoods of the internet.
That's why they were there.
That's why they're there now.
There's no other way to see it.
Nobody gets 200,000 followers because they are awesome.
It's because they're irrelevant or they can be used to control people's attention and keep it focused on something that will not get them out of the trap.
Anybody that's providing information that would usefully get you out of the trap will never attain 200,000 followers, never.
It will never happen, that's my prediction.
So you can just basically make your choice by not following anybody with over 200,000 followers and then just see what you find.
Maybe even put the threshold lower
and lung disease is Umberto Maduri.
And he is part of our five that started the FLCCC.
There's a lot of his guidance around steroids that we put it in our protocols.
And so, I mean, I keep saying you can't call upon more credibility and experience, not only in evidence-based, but in clinical.
But Eric is more important because Eric is a liaison probably between the, a liaison between the weaponized piles of money that he works for,
and his father's information.
Bret Weinstein is a useful idiot.
Bret Weinstein was elevated by his own brother on the Portal podcast before he started his own podcast and elevated in a very yucky sort of way where
His brother, Eric, basically did a three-hour podcast blowing sunshine up Brett's butthole, saying that he was one of the most smart and insightful biologists in the world, and that he was being way too humble about how super smart he was and about how everybody needed to know who he was as an evolutionary biologist and a thinker, putting him on par with Dawkins and all these other people.
That's real, that's still available on the internet, and that happened before the pandemic.
Not by accident, but by design.
And their connection to the weaponized piles of money that Peter Thiel and Elon Musk are connected to is not accidental.
Their pseudo-worship of Elon Musk as the sort of ultimate philosopher
Superman guy is just not by accident.
And their almost uniform promotion of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
for the last couple months is also not by accident.
Because they all agree on a novel virus.
They all agree that millions were killed.
They all agree that millions more were saved, could have been saved by particular things.
And likely this will come again because this was a lab leak.
They all agree.
Robert Malone, Bobby Kennedy, Pierre Corey, the Weinstein brothers, Peter McCullough, Jessica Rose, Kevin McKernan, Kevin McCairn, Charles Rixey, Mary Holland.
How long can the list go?
Meryl Nass, all of them are certain something strange happened.
Certain that something novel
cannot be denied.
Certain that they may have had it multiple times.
Certain that ivermectin is part of the story.
Certain that infectious clones are not worth talking about.
Certain
medicine, literally treating critical illnesses for decades.
And that's what we do.
So I have my own trajectory into this story much later than yours.
You know, as I started to understand how strange this story was, and that, of course, spurred me on to dig deeper and deeper.
The thing that I find so strange about it, you know, I've been to a number of these battles.
This isn't my first rodeo.
It spurred me on to dig deeper and deeper.
The thing that I find so strange about it, you know, I've been to a number of these battles.
This isn't my first rodeo, as some would say.
In general,
The people who one ends up defending in such a circumstance, they are fringe, and they may have something very important to say, but there is something about them that is hard for people to understand at first.
You guys, you're blue chip.
You guys are absolutely unimpeachable.
You couldn't ask for better credentials.
You couldn't ask for a better publication record.
How long are they going to insist that their past record means that they have to be right?
How many more times are they gonna insist that I've earned the right to speak up?
I mean, how far are we into this already?
It's impressive, right?
You guys are, you know, center of your discipline, and yet you are being dismissed as if you were kooks on the fringe making wild-eyed claims.
So, you know, I have to say, I haven't seen a battle like this, and I'm a bit excited to see what happens when, you know, the heroes of the story are also squeaky clean and, you know, speaking plain English.
We're not fringe, right?
Yeah.
Okay, that's remarkable.
Before we get to the ivermectin question, though, I do want to talk to you a little bit about what it looked like.
What it looked like.
Okay, so remember what I said a little earlier, I thought I was queuing this up, but I was a little early.
How does one behave when they are about to say what they have prepared to say?
How does someone behave when they're about to actually tell a lie and they know they have to get it right?
How does someone behave?
as you as a lung specialist, an ICU specialist, were encountering COVID patients and coming to understand what they were really sick with, rather, I mean, I, as you are not French, are also squeaky clean and, you know, speaking plain English.
We're not French, right?
You are not French.
Yeah, so okay, that's remarkable.
Before we get to the ivermectin question, though, I do want to talk to you a little bit about what it looked like as you, as a lung specialist, an ICU specialist, were encountering COVID patients and coming to understand what they were really sick with.
Rather, I mean, I remember the early days of the pandemic and the sort of groping for reason.
Why do the symptoms look like this, right?
Is it a lung disease?
Is it a blood disease?
What is it?
So what did happen with these patients?
So that's something that Kevin McCairn,
Charles Rixey, Richard Fleming, Walter Chestnut,
Jessica Rose, on the internet, they all agreed that the ACE2 component, that the AIDS component, that the mitochondrial component, the clotting component was all based on the spike protein, the gain of function spike protein that had a fear and cleavage site, which enabled it to be the most contagious virus that mankind has ever encountered in modern times.
These guys aren't questioning any of that at all, and in fact, adding a layer to it.
As a lung specialist, an ICU specialist, we're encountering COVID patients and coming to understand what they were really sick with.
Rather, I mean, I remember the early days of the pandemic and the sort of groping for reason.
Why do the symptoms look like this, right?
And so they're implying that ARDS is developing, that people are having clotting problems, and that this is all evidence of a novel spreading pathogen that, again, Mary Holland agrees was strange, that
that Meryl Nass has testified over and over on camera that was strange that she's had it three times even though she didn't test and so this narrative needed to be solidified it needed to be shored up they needed to put sandbags around it and the narrative is that it's a novel disease with a novel presentation
And that novel presentation is based on the fact that there's ACE2 everywhere, so it can attack all kinds of different organs.
Can have all kinds of different effects.
And they spent months and months with people like Spartacus and people like Richard Fleming, talking on Kevin McCarron's podcast and other podcasts about the details of the implications of the ACE2 binding and how, because it's so high affinity for ACE2, then its effects are even worse than a regular ACE2 binding virus.
All this was bubbling in the background, fired up in a million different ways, at a million different platforms, by a million different podcasts.
That's the background on which these two guys are talking about this interesting new syndrome that has aspects of a respiratory disease, but also aspects of some kind of clotting disorder, which would conveniently then also be linked to the J&J shot
in about another, what, month?
Two months?
lung disease, is it a blood disease?
What is it?
So what did happen with these patients?
What did you realize about them?
Yeah, so, sorry about clearing my throat, but is it rather, I mean, I remember the, as you, here comes the lie.
So, okay, that's remarkable.
Before we get to the ivermectin question, though, I do want to talk to you a little bit about what it looked like.
The ivermectin question is the easy one.
That's the story he's ready to tell.
Covering up the murder is what happens right now.
Covering up the fraud is what happens right now.
Covering up whatever happened in New York City and whatever happened around the United States in 2020 is gonna happen right now by Pierre Kory.
And so this is the, he's stepping to the free throw line right now and the entire stadium is screaming.
How does he react?
Like, as you, as a lung specialist, an ICU specialist, were encountering COVID patients and coming to understand what they were really sick with, rather, I mean, I remember the early days of the pandemic and the sort of groping for reason.
Why do the symptoms look like this, right?
Is it a lung disease?
Is it a blood disease?
What is it?
So what did happen with these patients?
What did you realize about them?
Yeah, so, sorry about clearing my throat, but
you know it was clearly you know what was clearly recognized early on is that it was a disease of phases right so it started out as a general viral syndrome most people recovered self-limited and it's like a cold right sometimes a little keep in mind he's having him testify about what supposedly all the doctors in the united states know he's this is june of 2021 he's gonna testify and describe what every doctor in america that's worked at a hospital should already know
And any doctor that listens to this right now should be going down a little list of stuff and say, yep, check, I saw that, check, I saw that, check, I saw that.
But they didn't.
The doctors that didn't see this didn't ask the question of, wait, what he's describing, I never saw that.
No doctors now in 2024 are gonna say what he describes could come from the misapplication of high flow nasal oxygen for a few hours.
Are any of you aware of that?
We're not gonna have one of these MDs say this.
It's not going to happen because the lie was started right here.
Listen carefully because it's about to happen.
What was clearly recognized early on is that it was a disease of phases, right?
So it started out as a general viral syndrome.
Most people recovered, self-limited, and it was like a cold, right?
Sometimes a little bit more severe than a cold.
But everyone quickly realized that around day 5, 7, 8, there was a proportion of patients who suddenly started dropping their oxygen levels.
And basically, their lungs were inflamed.
And we now know that it's a cell called the macrophage.
which gets activated and literally attacks the lungs.
And so you have this sort of immune response that is attacking the lungs and the lungs start to fail.
So a macrophage.
So a macrophage is attacking the lungs as opposed to high flow oxygen being given over the mouth with a mask leading to ARDS.
And we have papers that show in monkey studies from 1989 that if you give 80% pure oxygen
to a monkey, they will develop ARDS almost as fast as if you give them 100%.
And we have Kyle Seidel telling us that they were giving 100% at 60 liters per minute.
We have lawsuits that are coming through in Oklahoma right now, which feature a primary thing on the protocol, which was this high flow
nasal oxygen being given for hours, leading to a progression that got people on ventilators.
So this lung expert, this critical care expert, seems to be unaware that inappropriate use of high flow oxygen could lead
to acute respiratory distress syndrome, and that it's a danger in the ICU to use high flow oxygen because they're not able to report the damage that's happening in their lungs if they're unconscious.
And there is no clarity here at all that that's even possible.
And curiously enough, since we've arrived at this through the help of Grace's dad and others,
the emphasis of the potential for this one detail to open everybody's eyes has been absolutely discarded from the table by almost everyone.
The only people that are consistently mentioning on a regular basis that don't forget, no doctors are talking about high flow supplementary oxygen as a wrong idea.
No doctors, none, zero, zip, just me, just Mark.
The ones that we have talked to have said, obviously it's stupid.
And the papers that we have found say that it is empirically damaging.
There are entire companies that are based around a feedback loop between a pulse oximeter and an oxygen humidifying
supplementary air system so that the amount of oxygen in the supplementary air being humidified by the device is regulated by the pulse ox that is being read.
If we were running out of ventilators, I bet we didn't have enough of those machines.
If the videos that we've seen from Kyle Seidel are true, if the comfort ship that pulled into New York really did have an oxygen plant on it and they were shipping supplementary oxygen to all of these places and putting people on supplementary oxygen until they complained about pain and the progression of a disease that they thought was a novel virus, but was actually the oxygen mask that they were given two hours ago.
And this lung specialist seems to be completely unaware that that was possible.
is like an amoeba-like cell that goes around basically garbage collecting.
It does a little more than that.
It's a scavenger cell.
It was attacking the lung tissue.
It's the front line of defense, right?
And it goes into the lungs and it causes a lot of inflammation.
And so that inflammation injures the lung.
And so you could see the lungs starting not to work.
And so it's pretty dumb.
So it's interesting because he's not even really blaming it on the virus.
The virus isn't causing the macrophage to show up and cause inflammation.
The macrophage is just shit.
It's really an interesting presentation of the mythology and it's not a very cohesive one.
In my mind, it reveals 100% the fact that these guys are working down a script that they're not even familiar enough to understand that it has holes and that they might need to stay away from some holes in it.
I mean, it's amazing to me.
Clearly, the landslide is about to happen because this poser was not only involved in curating the New York narrative all the way to the US Senate, but was involved in curating the George Floyd narrative all the way to his civil trial.
This guy is responsible for curating a narrative about who his father is, who his brother is related to, and how that might have resulted in weaponized piles of money being able to make a lot of profit
off of intellectual property or the trends in the value of intellectual property.
You know, like the antibody patent paradox threatens to change the intellectual property value of lots and lots of pharmaceutical companies around the world.
And that happened right at the beginning of the pandemic somehow.
commonly a severe lung disease.
And what I will never forget in my life is those early months because, and I'm gonna go back to that steroid thing.
We saw patients, just this disease marching straight to the ventilator.
And so many people were landing on ventilators.
And you remember, people were running out of ventilators.
And there was two- But they would only run out of ventilators if they needed them, right?
And how would they need them?
Oh, I'm in so much pain.
Can you take this mask off?
No, I mean, maybe this is just the COVID progression.
We could sedate you and then you won't feel the burning pain of the progression of acute distress, respiratory distress disorder, or whatever its syndrome, ARDS.
No mention at all that there is a possibility that supplementary oxygen, if given high flow or too long, could damage lungs.
And so we've got to be really careful, as these people come into the hospital and overwhelm our ERs, that we don't misuse oxygen.
We have to be very careful about this.
There's nothing, nothing at all.
that approaches a nuanced understanding about how to approach an unknown respiratory disease where the primary indicator is a low pulse ox.
If you were aware that misapplication of high flow nasal oxygen in a supplementary way might lead to ARDS, you would certainly warn about it if the primary symptom to the disease that you thought was going around ended up being low pulse ox.
And you would be a little bit more nuanced when you said, everybody's just ending up on the ventilators.
Well, how could that happen by accident or by, how could that happen unbeknownst to the young doctors that are manning these posts when the old doctors were told to go home and to give an early retirement, where the attendings became the residents and the residents were told by the administrators to follow the protocol.
What hospital actually allows a doctor from another state to just show up at their doorstep and start practicing in their hospital?
In his testimony to the George Floyd trial, whenever that happened, that letter clearly states that he's licensed in Wisconsin and Illinois.
So if he's licensed in Wisconsin and Illinois, how the hell can he go to New York City and start treating people
and be on the front line.
How does that work?
Did they have to waive his certifications?
Or did New York City do something else?
And why doesn't he mention that he was in New York City and lost his job in Wisconsin in the testimony that describes his background for his expert letter for the George Floyd trial that says that he suffocated from the cops?
reasons for that.
One is because the entire healthcare community globally said this is a viral disease, so supportive care only.
You're talking about Tylenol and fluids.
Tylenol and fluids.
And because we don't have enough ventilators, maybe we can give you supplementary oxygen.
Careful, careful.
That's nowhere gonna come even close to the front because that's exactly what this was for.
They are constructing the limited spectrum of debate that these two guys and their friends are gonna agree to argue about for the next three years and effectively run the clock out on our kids all the way till right now today.
They're not going to ask any more questions than the ones they detail right here.
And they're going to focus on those ventilators, ventilators, ventilators.
How did they get there?
I don't know.
And as they did supportive care only because there was no randomized controlled trials letting them do like everyone talks about evidence-based.
I'm always like, what about experience-based medicine?
Like I've been doing this for 30 years.
Why can't I do what my experience tells me to do?
I don't have randomized controlled trials, but to do nothing.
was leading to ventilator shortages.
Okay, I want to clear one thing up for my audience who won't be familiar with the term.
Tylenol is likely contributing to the problem with vaccines because vaccines are given and often, often, often parents are told to give them Tylenol for the pain or the symptoms that occur afterward.
It's malevolent as malevolent can be written with boldface letters and all capitals.
It's malevolent.
This is a coordinated group of liars that's covering up the criminal vaccine schedule in the United States and using lies about murder to make us or trick us into teaching a mythology about gain-of-function viruses to our kids.
They work for the slavers, ladies and gentlemen.
There's no other way to see it.
and then make a point about what you've just said.
The first thing is, what did you call this policy of Tylenol and... Supportive care only.
So the idea here is that, historically speaking, we have had very little to do about viruses.
We've been tremendously effective with antibiotics against bacteria, against fungi,
They don't, in general, work against viruses.
And antiviral therapies have been a dicey business for a long time.
What does work has been vaccines.
But if you get to a pandemic and you don't have a vaccine, what you were effectively being told is, look, there's not a whole lot of positive intervention you can... I mean, are you getting sick yet?
Are you getting sick yet?
Antibiotics don't work for viruses.
Isn't that what Dr. Griffin says on the, on This Week in Virology every week?
That antibiotics don't work for viral pneumonia.
They use the term viral syndrome, or it's a typical viral syndrome.
You know, most people, it passes in five days or so, like a common cold.
Over and over again, reinforcing in the minds of everybody listening to this June 1st, 2021 podcast, there's definitely a novel virus.
I mean, come on.
It's got symptoms that are clotting and lungs.
It's weird.
It's strange.
It comes in phases.
And we're guilty of giving supportive care only.
But the one supportive care that Kyle Seidel said they were running out of, that Pierre Cory doesn't seem to be able to mention, is the supplementary oxygen.
No one seems to mention supplementary oxygen as the on-ramp for ARDS.
No one.
Even though there are papers in the literature that show it, that somebody like Mark Kulak, who's not even an MD or a biologist, is the first one to have reported on.
Not me.
not Paul Merrick or Pierre Cory, the experts in critical care and lungs pulmonary medicine.
They're not gonna tell you that that's dangerous.
Even though they damn well should know it's dangerous, they're not even gonna say that they've used that.
One of the things that we do because we're running out of ventilators is that we can give people supplementary oxygen.
It's not even on the list.
but we know from countless people that went into the hospital and never came out that that was one of the first things they got.
We know that from the UK.
We know that from New York.
We know that from the Oklahoma case that's going through right now.
We know that from a lot of these people that haven't bothered to look at their protocol because they were told their friend or their relative didn't get remdesivir or didn't get midazolam.
But if they got supplementary oxygen for a day or two upon entry into the hospital, all bets are off.
If they got supplementary oxygen for more than four or five hours, all bets are off.
You don't need remdesivir or midazolam anymore.
You just need to make a few more mistakes.
And depending on the comorbidities of the person that you're treating, those mistakes could all be different.
Pierre Cory is a liar, and that's why he's involved in the George Floyd trial.
Pierre Cory is a liar, that's why he was elevated in 2020 with respect to New York, even though he's not licensed in New York state.
Pierre Cory is a liar because he was elevated by the liar, Brett Weinstein, who I know is a liar because he lied to me for more than a year, personally.
And I would go to court and testify about it.
And I would submit all of the evidence that I have on my hard drives as part of my testimony.
Brett Weinstein's father is a huge piece on this board that nobody's talking about because, again, Brett Weinstein's father connects him directly to Bobby Kennedy and that whole family.
because John F. Kennedy appointed Brett Weinstein's dad as the first patent lawyer to the Department of Justice.
And he contributed intellectually, really contributed intellectually to the ideas that formed the basis for the FDA.
And Mark has done a spectacular job of bringing some resources together, which show that way beyond a shadow of a doubt.
We've never heard any of these historians talk about Kefauver.
Only Mark talks about that senator.
Only Mark has shown why it's interesting that Brett Weinstein's dad worked on a thalidomide case in Denmark at the time that he worked on it.
Only Mark.
Not Shannon Joy or Tommy or, you know, Cullen and Goodman or McCarron and Rixey.
No Jessica Rose podcast about this or Substack about this.
Nope.
Crickets.
Because they're all part of the same team.
That's why they also have toured the world together for the last four years and show up on stage so often together.
And that's why if you look at their pattern of cross-promotion, they never cross-promote me and they always cross-promote each other.
It is a lollapalooza of liars and it doesn't matter whose stage you go to.
You're gonna hear the same covers.
has been vaccines.
But if you get to a pandemic and you don't have a vaccine, what you were effectively being told is, look, there's not a whole lot of positive intervention you can do.
So let's just make them comfortable, rescue them if they need to be rescued.
But other than that, kind of hands off.
But here's one of the mistakes.
So it is correct to say we don't have good antiviral therapies.
It's incorrect to say that they were dying of the virus.
We knew relatively early on.
By the time they get to the ICU and they're that sick, there's not a lot of viral replication going on.
In fact, you can't culture virus after about day seven or eight.
Look at how many things about virology they know all about.
They know when virology can be cultured and they're nodding.
Yeah, I know that too.
I've read that as well.
Boy, what a handy thing that we understand virology exactly the same way, even though virology
is the greatest set of lies and exaggerations ever perpetrated on mankind, as far as I can tell.
And I am very late to that show.
There were people before the pandemic who knew it.
And it was not me, because unfortunately, I did not save my daughter from the childhood vaccine schedule in America.
I was that dumb.
and I will live with it for the rest of my life.
And so it's actually disease of inflammation, not viral invasion.
In fact, in autopsy series, only 20% do they find what's called cytopathic changes from the virus into the lung.
And so it wasn't, you didn't have to go after the virus at that point, you had to actually check the inflammation.
Okay, so again, I wanna do a little translation for the audience.
So inflammation, and by the way, this is a place where I would take doctors to task, but doctors often treat something like inflammation as if it's inflammation, as if it's simply bad.
The fact is, inflammation is an adaptation that often gets out of control and can easily kill you, right?
Over exuberant.
So we have to bring it into check.
Yes.
So what you're telling me is that COVID patients were infected with the virus.
It triggered a pathway that is part of healing, but triggered an overreaction.
And the patients who were dying on these ventilators weren't really dying of the virus being so very active.
They were dying of this cascade of events that follows the body's attempt to fight off a pathogen it's never seen.
It was a reaction to, in fact, one of the most impressive studies that Paul actually highlighted is that they, what we think triggers the inflammation.
He keeps using Paul.
Paul is the reason why you should believe Pierre.
Paul is the guy who highlighted this study.
Do you see what is happening there?
My interpretation of this would be that Paul Merrick's a good guy.
And Paul Merrick has been saying things like, there's no pandemic, or we don't need the CDC to help us, or there's lots of easy ways to treat an unknown respiratory disease.
And they needed to step in and make that corrected.
And so the way they correct it is they show deference to his expertise and laud him as the guy that they're really rallying behind.
But then it's actually Pierre Kory that goes on all the shows.
It's Pierre Kory that gets the book deal.
It's Pierre Kory that testifies at the George Floyd trial.
Even though he's pretending like, you know, I'm just rallying behind Paul Merrick because he's so great.
I think Paul Merrick knew it was a lie.
I think Paul Merrick's main message was probably it's a lie and that doctors should just be allowed to treat and that needed to be absorbed.
So they created the FLCCC and they put Corey in front of him and he's actively stepping in front of him right now.
That's why he keeps mentioning him.
It is pseudo-deference to make sure that everybody that was following Paul Merrick now sees that it's time to follow this guy instead.
It's kind of like what they tried to do with Sasha Latupova when they had her do a sub stack about the video with, with, um,
with James Giordano and then try to pretend that she had just stumbled upon that video and used it to make a similar point that I'm making.
It's the same, and it's really awkward once you see how they do it.
They just pretend to promote somebody that they intend to step in front of.
And it's exactly what Bret Weinstein did to me in 2021 and what I think Bobby Kennedy did with me in that book.
If I will not go along,
with the lab leak narrative and claim that I'm the guy who figured it out, then they'll just step in front of me and let someone else say it and forget the fact that they paid me for a year to help them write that book.
They can just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist because that's what they gotta do.
That's what you see happening right here.
There's no other way to explain how it is that I was paid for a year and a half by that organization, and now they won't even say my name, even though my name is in that book six different times, plus in the acknowledgements, plus in the index, plus in the glossary and list of characters.
It's the most inconvenient truth in the world right now, the Wuhan coverup book.
We need every household in America to own that book.
If only because they'll just be more and more terrified of it.
Because the truth is inside of it.
The Sina Bavari and Allison Totura paper is detailed in there.
The use of recombinant DNA and RNA to create what virology calls infectious clones
is detailed in that book.
And a very succinct statement that they don't even need a virus to pull this stuff off is very succinctly in that book.
And they desperately hoped that if they allowed me to say everything that I tried to say in that book, that they would get away with absorbing me.
And what happened?
They had to fire me at the beginning of 2024 because I called out Robert Malone and Meryl Nass as meddlers.
When I still believed that Bobby was good, they had to fire me already.
And now, in retrospect, there's no other conclusion I can come to that every single one of these people, to the extent that they could, has played me.
And the list is very, very long, unfortunately.
But all my son ever says to me is, doesn't that just mean that you're right, Dad?
And it's because of the love of my kids and my wife that I keep going, because there's nobody else telling me I'm right.
Actually, the viral debris, it's the RNA that actually has this, it triggers this massive response to the virus.
It's not the virus, it's actually the debris of the dead virus.
The inflammation is actually the viral debris.
It's the RNA that actually has this.
The viral debris, the RNA, it's not the proteins that they make.
I think Kevin McCairn thinks that the virus makes a lot of protein.
It's the RNA.
Wow.
I mean, I think that he doesn't understand virology as well as he's coming off here.
It's the RNA.
Wow.
this cascade of events that follows the body's attempt to fight off a pathogen it's never seen.
It was a reaction to, in fact, one of the most impressive studies that Paul actually highlighted is that they, what we think triggers the inflammation is actually the viral debris.
It's the RNA that actually has this, it triggers this massive response to the virus.
It's not the virus, it's actually the debris of the dead virus that does it.
So it's- Well, let me flag something for the future.
My advisor, who's now gone, a guy named Dick Alexander, used to talk about the point in a respiratory illness when you stop coughing on behalf of your virus and start coughing on your own behalf.
And the point he was making was that actually these pathogens... Wait, his former advisor, who's not with us anymore, named Dick Alexander, had something anecdotally interesting to say about a respiratory disease?
Am I hearing this correct?
What in the absolute shit hell is he talking about?
My advisor who's now gone, a guy named Dick Alexander, used to talk about the point in a respiratory illness when you stop coughing on behalf of your virus and start coughing on your own behalf.
And the point he was making was that actually these pathogens necessarily induce changes that cause them to be passed on.
So they will create irritation, they will create inflammation, they will create all kinds of phenomena that are symptoms that are actually
basically the ecology that allows them to thrive.
To transmit.
Right.
Oh, so the virus intentionally makes us cough.
It's intentionally irritating our lungs so that we take the time to cough it out and disperse it on others.
If you need help, what I see here is a person who's working really hard to try and make sure you understand all of these phenomenon that occur
are out of your control and are caused by things that are outside of you or inconveniently get inside of you.
Things that you can't control, things that you'll need a vaccine for.
Brett just said it.
Antibiotics work great for bacteria, but we've learned that viruses are really gotten rid of by vaccines.
And if you don't have a vaccine and it's a virus, well then we're in pretty big trouble here.
Rewind and listen to it again.
He said that about five minutes ago or 10 minutes ago.
This is so incredibly dead on balls narrative and so incredibly awkward in its inbuilt, seemingly unacknowledged incongruencies that there is no other way than to see these two as malevolently participating in some kind of course correction.
that seems to be necessary.
They had to do these podcasts to try and get the narrative back on track, to make sure that social media was solving the Scooby-Doo mystery as intended, rather than wherever we were in 2021, maybe waking up from Jonathan's Cooey's review that is titled, Pause All Transfections.
Maybe we're having to deal with the fact that Byram Bridal is trying to tell everybody to pause all transfections because this shit goes everywhere.
I suspect it was probably Byram Bridal that has inspired more of this course-correcting narrative curation than me.
Could be Mike Yeadon, could be Wolfgang Wodach.
But the bottom line is, is we're not where the national security state and DITRA wanted us to be.
And so this is the way that they have decided to course correct.
Using the trusted sources that were put in place before the pandemic to try and course correct.
And so here we have the humble Pierre Kory, certified in Wisconsin and Illinois,
expert for the Floyd trial, expert for the Senate on what happened in New York City, now making sure to succinctly define what happened in the first year of the pandemic on Les Weinstein's son's podcast, Eric Weinstein's brother's podcast.
Peter Thiel's advisor's brother's podcast.
Bret Weinstein's father's Les Weinstein's son's podcast.
And so, in a sense, I don't know why it's the viral debris, but there's a pretty good chance that this virus learned that by creating debris, it could cause a lot of stuff to accumulate in the lungs that got ejected in some chaotic way.
Who knows?
It could be.
I didn't think of it that way.
It's worth thinking about.
But the other point I wanted to... So he hasn't thought of it that way.
Brett's got actually some interesting alternative theories for how a respiratory virus can cause disease.
obvious that virology hasn't figured it out yet.
Otherwise, these two guys wouldn't be like, yeah, I guess that's a possibility too.
It's such a novel virus that, you know, we're going to have to draw new cartoons about how this one might work.
And so since I spoke out so early about the, the lab leak, I've earned the right to speak out against the, about the possible mechanisms of how this gain of function virus works.
I'm not putting any, I'm not going too far here.
This is exactly what they're implying.
In June of 2021, they know everything.
They are certain what they know, and they're certain that they have the right to say it because you know.
Making reference to your sense as a clinician that you were, you know, effectively having your hands tied behind your back when you knew a whole lot about patients and we're learning more every day, right?
You needed to be freed to try things.
And the point I would make is once upon a time,
Before we were born, doctors were scientists.
They had fewer tools, but what they had was a whole lot of experience.
And even, I want to bring attention to the house call, which has now effectively gone extinct.
But the house call allowed a doctor who didn't have a huge range of pharmacological agents
tools at his disposal but what he did have was the ability to observe patterns right so if people what he did have according to kevin mckernan on april 24th 2020 was a bag full of weed according to kevin mckernan the most prescribed pharmaceutical in the early history of the united states was just cannabis
So I guess Brett's not aware of that history.
People on one side of town were sick with something, and people on the other side of town weren't.
Maybe there was something in the water, for example.
So anyway, that ability to observe patterns was part of a scientific mindset that my impression, having interacted with doctors over my lifetime, is that that mindset has basically dwindled.
I love that you're going back, because I love the history of medicine.
And when I read stuff from 100 years ago, you're constantly shocked by how much they knew.
Oh, really?
I'm interested about what they knew.
Let's do something here, because that just queues this up.
We might as well do it.
I gotta unplug for a second, because this is attached to my shorts.
I don't know if you guys remember or not, but a couple weeks ago,
I spent too much money on a set of books that are the Foster's Encyclopedic Medic Dictionary from 1896.
It looks like this.
It's four volumes.
And I'm in volume four.
And it is from M-I-N-N to Z-Y-T-H.
So what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna try not to tear any pages and I don't have my white gloves.
Because somebody put this in my hands for a reason.
And so I don't think we have to worry about it going anywhere.
What I thought would be interesting would be to look up smallpox.
Because smallpox is of course something that they were familiar with in the 1800s.
And so I should be able to do S-M.
I'm so bad with guide words.
It's hilarious.
I remember doing this as a kid and being really bad at it too.
E-I-H-I-J-K-L-M-N.
Sorry.
M-M.
Smallpox.
Here we go.
Okay, now what kinds of things do you think you should see in the definition of smallpox?
If we go to the, whoops, sorry.
If we go to the, what the hell?
Why isn't this on?
Okay, sorry about that.
I'll switch over here quick.
So what should we see if we look at smallpox in this book?
Now I'm not going to turn any pages underneath the camera because that's how I screwed up last time.
I got to move my mouse.
I'm trying to respect the book as much as possible while at the same time realizing that this book is going to die no matter what I do to it because I'm not a museum.
So here we go.
I'm going to slide over here.
And we're going to look at smallpox.
And I'm going to try and, this is not very easy for me because this is not the space supposed to be.
It's supposed to be where I write.
So it's not going to be totally readable.
I, oh shit.
Sorry.
I get that.
I'm going to break my setup here.
But I'll try and put it next to the keyboard a little bit so you can kind of see it.
And then maybe if I push it down, it will become a little bit more in.
Maybe I can push it down with this.
So.
It says, an infectious, contagious, acute febrile disease chiefly characterized by a pustular exanthem upon the skin.
In most cases, the eruption begins about the fourth day of the fever in the form of papules that turn first into vesicles and then into pustules attended with phlegmonous inflammation.
which are succeeded by crusts and finally by more or less marked circuitruses or pits, variola pustulosa.
In other cases, the exanthem does not become pustular, but is characterized by an intense arithmetosis, congestion and hemorrhages.
So that sounds nasty, but I'm not really, they're not saying dead.
in which vesicles fill with, so wait, intentional inoculation in an unvaccinated person, smallpox occurring causally and not intentional inoculation in an unvaccinated person.
So it seems to imply here also that when you inoculate somebody, they can also get smallpox, but that's not smallpox.
That's variola, but I'm,
Okay, I'm reading it.
But don't you find it a little strange that they don't say that it's a deadly virus or that it's a deadly disease that has killed millions of people already?
Because isn't that the history of smallpox, that we're supposed to believe that millions of people were killed by it, yet there in a medical dictionary, they don't bother to say that it's deadly?
The pustules lead to pits, so scarring on people's face seems like the most awful part about it, because they don't mention death.
I find that pretty extraordinary.
For a person who really likes the history of medicine, I wonder if he's aware of how much sanitation and aseptic technique and good food contributed to the decline of disease.
I think it's very extraordinary that I don't have to work very hard with a book like this to find countless examples of that.
where something that we're told has a very specific history doesn't seem to mention that specific history here at all.
This book marker right here marks the page where they talk about vaccination.
I can't wait to open up that page when it's needed.
I love this book.
I think this set of books is so spectacular.
And I think it might be this, actually this module,
this oh yeah so check this out the other thing that's in this is they all have this very special page in the front that's got like this artwork that if you think I you don't want me to touch the others pages and you definitely don't want me to touch this this artwork is in the fourth volume it's the only color artwork in the book and it's in the very front of the book and what is it it's pictures of crystals that come out of the urine
It is principal and normal, abnormal constituents of human urine redrawn by some dude.
Check these out.
How cool is that?
So every one of these volumes
Seems to open with a plate like that.
Like if you see it, it's a plate that's got this very thin page of something that covers it.
It's super, oh careful, don't bend things.
It's super cool.
These books are like the treasure of all treasures.
I'm so happy that somehow or another I ended up being able to acquire them.
And I just, whenever I'm cued, which just happened right now, I feel like I got to pull them in.
So anyway, here we go.
Back to the Pierre, Corey, and Brett Weinstein show.
with very little of it.
I mean, they don't have the experiments or the techniques to discover what now we know.
They did it all by powers of observation.
And really, medicine was created by the best doctors who had the keenest powers.
So the giants of medicine had these unbelievable powers of observation, and they were able to do a lot.
And that's why I always say to my students, I always say that what separates sort of them from me, we've read the same books.
We all have the textbooks.
But an expert has pattern recognition.
You just see diseases play out.
You see how different people react to same illnesses.
And you just get to see patterns and patterns.
And what happened to me, I love talking about this, but every time I came to the bedside of a patient and there was something wrong with them, I always had to very deliberately kind of analyze like it could be this or this or this.
And after about a couple of years being immersed in ICU medicine,
I noticed that I could now walk into a room.
1894, did you see that?
With very little information, just kind of know what was going on.
It suddenly became like intuitive and second nature.
I have four.
And it was all just about observing patterns.
I have four of them.
I think that's really key.
And that's why with this disease, this is not an ego exercise, but we knew you had to anticoagulate these patients within like four patients.
We knew they were clotting to degrees that we hadn't seen.
And there was so much controversy around putting someone on a blood thinner, which
People are put on blood thinners in hospitals for far less reasons than we were promoting with this.
And so it was just evidence-based maniacism.
It was bizarre.
Like, now you can't observe, you can't make clinical reasoning, you can't deduce, you need a trial before you do anything.
Okay, so this is, I must tell you, exactly the same thing in my field.
The people who are really good evolutionary biologists or ecologists, evolutionary ecologists in the best cases, have intuition, they know how to follow a hunch, they know how to figure out when their hunches are wrong.
The point is, it's an art more than a science, actually.
In the case of a brand new pandemic that is spreading like wildfire, this is, of course, exactly the mindset that you want.
You want... In the case of a novel pandemic that's spreading like wildfire, just like Charles Rixey has explained for the last four years straight because of a furin cleavage site that cued me off into knowing it was a lab leak... Stop lying!
I hope you can see that just like the podcasts of Kevin McKernan in 2020, the podcasts of these people in 2021 reveal them as the Red Inn narrative curators that were brought on the scene to try and get the thing back on track, to try and get us back on the rails.
because maybe warp speed or something had accelerated things that they are introducing things at different times and so the way that they intended to do it over a few years was accelerated into a couple or maybe even into one and there are so so awkward here
The only way to see this is not that, wow, we're finally figuring it out in June of 2021, but no, actually we're so off course that we have to have Les Weinstein's son, Eric Weinstein's brother, do a podcast with a number of people that are involved in curating the narrative.
And that includes Pierre Cory, that includes Robert Malone, that includes Steve Kirsch, et cetera.
This is the real-time history of the pandemic narrative being curated by the real-time players that are working for the slavers.
that I've been trying to call attention to for almost three years now.
People who are capable of deducing that there is some pattern, and then figuring out whether they were fooled by some sort of noise pattern, or whether it was actually something, testing a hypothesis.
But there is a point at which you know, and you know better than a study, because you've acted on that hunch, and you've seen that the patients get better, and it happens enough times that it can't
The fact of the matter is, Dark Horse and that symbol is just as revealing as the lion mask that Robert Malone uses behind himself.
There's an army unit for the love of God that says they're called the Dark Horse and they do psi-ops.
That's not by accident.
And if you wanted to be a person who was trying to bring the truth, you would not choose something that you could just Google and find out was a term used to describe the PSYOPs in American armies.
Like you just wouldn't use it.
Instead, they used it.
random.
And so anyway, there's something about the mindset of the moment in which it's all about peer review.
And the mindset of the moment makes me draw my attention back to the interview on 60 Minutes of Alex Karp, the head of Palantir.
Because that's another guy who I think revealed things that we should have seen a long time ago.
pretending on 60 Minutes that he was interested in the big issues, you know, like how do we really know something and whether or not citizens can actually participate in a democracy.
Basically talking about the same things that Edward Bernays talked about in 1920 already, the statement that I use over and over again that I got from Veer Sharav,
which is that the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized opinions and habits of the masses is an absolutely integral part to a democracy.
And that's what you are witnessing right here.
That's what you are witnessing on social media.
That's what you are witnessing on TV.
It is a coordinated Lollapalooza of liars that has been elevated artificially to ask questions that cannot save our children.
And they have been doing it to us before the pandemic, but during the pandemic, they have done it in a way and in a magnitude and on a crescendo never before seen in human history.
these published peer reviewed papers, and it's all about the official guidance from, you know, the WHO and the CDC.
And it's basically a kind of intellectual authoritarianism that is so bizarre in the context of a complex system like medicine, especially in the context of a brand new disease that, you know, we're all not expert.
And so they're actively participating by pretending that they are not part of that system.
But in fact, they are.
They work for the same people, they work for the same weaponized piles of money, and that's why they are asking specific questions that will trap us.
That's why so many of us are still trapped, because this was so convincing at the time, and no one is being allowed to look back at it and reconsider it.
except for by me and Mark.
No one else wants to look back and reconsider it.
They want you to focus specifically on what did Pierre Kory say last week?
What did Pierre Kory say on the Jimmy Dore show?
What did Pierre Kory say in response to so-and-so's substack?
Why doesn't anyone realize that Pierre Corey was the witness in the Floyd trial and find that a little strange because he's not a doctor in Minnesota.
And he was supposed to be in New York then.
What the hell is going on here?
And is the internet gonna be just as silent about this anomaly as they have been about the anomaly of, hey, wait a minute, you know, Grace's dad brings up an important point.
What if this whole thing was started with the FLCC and others saying that low pulse ox was a reason to go to the hospital?
Why is it that Grace's dad is the only person that's ever brought that up to me in all the years that I've been working on this?
Why is it that since I've come upon this, even the people that I trust most don't seem to be able to repeat it?
Mark and I are the only ones.
There are no experts that we can simply default to.
Everybody's, you know, a novice.
I like that term, intellectual authoritarianism.
There are no intellectual authorities we can defer to because we're all novices.
Why?
Because it's a novel virus that's killing millions of people for which we have no cures for.
It likely came from a laboratory and I was the first one to say it.
So, you know, I have the right to speak up now and it'll probably come again because, you know, viruses are out there.
That definitely happens.
Viral syndromes are real.
And so I guess it'll come again if this was a lab leak and maybe this is a good one and the next one will be worse.
2021 of June, this coordinated Lollapalooza of liars was already a year deep.
Actually, although I don't know that it was occurring to this degree or even remotely to this degree pre-COVID.
I actually I looked around in COVID and I started to see like all the institutions coming up with their treatment protocols.
You weren't allowed to stray from the protocol even like if you're an expert and you're like I want to like literally the leaders of the hospitals were saying don't use and you couldn't do anything.
So the interesting thing about this is this is not the argument that that
And I'm just remembering because remembering the truth means you don't have to remember anything, just what pops in.
This is not, not, not, it's not the argument that Peter McCullough made.
Listen to it again and then I'll tell you what Peter McCullough said.
Everybody's, you know, a novice.
I like that term, intellectual authoritarianism.
And it actually, although I don't know that it was occurring to this degree or even remotely to this degree pre-COVID.
I actually, I looked around in COVID and I started to see like all the institutions coming up with their treatment protocols.
You weren't allowed to stray from the protocol, even like if you're an expert.
All the institutions coming up with their protocols.
That's the opposite of what Peter McCullough was arguing.
Peter McCullough was actually arguing that, hey,
Usually when something like this happens, Yale and Harvard and Texas Tech and every one of these hospitals prides themselves on coming up with their own protocol.
And for COVID, nobody did that.
Dude, this is huge.
And I told you this was going to be an important stream.
Every stream that we do from now on, knowing what we know, is going to contribute directly to the coming landslide.
Where all of these posers are discarded as one chorus.
Because they have revealed themselves as one chorus.
Where so many of them are convinced that Pierre Kory, George Floyd expert,
is a hero.
Pierre Cory, high flow oxygen expert, is a hero.
Or at least the person to argue with.
and you're like, I wanna like, literally the leaders of the hospitals were saying, don't use, and you couldn't do anything else.
You couldn't actually doctor.
And suddenly I felt like I was being handcuffed.
It was bizarre.
I've never seen that in my life before.
I have the same.
But how, it only takes your hospital to handcuff you, right?
And speaking of all hospitals in America and saying it felt like handcuffed, the only hospital that made you feel handcuffed was the one in Wisconsin, right?
Because that's why you went to New York.
I hope we get to that part soon.
The doctors have been demoted, forcibly demoted from the position of scientific clinician to technician.
And the point is you're really delivering a prepackaged good more than you are- That couldn't happen unless they sent all the attendings home, which they did.
So they're overlooking part of the PSYOP here as well, that they put young residents in charge because old doctors were in danger of the spreading novel pathogen.
to understand your patient and what they're sick with and what they therefore need.
And it's a travesty.
I've never been asked to do that before.
I've always been asked to use the best extent of my experience and judgment and insight to best help the patient.
That's the oath I took.
The oath wasn't do what the gods of science and we – Paul calls the healthcare leaders the gods of science and knowledge, right?
The Paul thing again.
We're just little mortals and we have to listen to the gods and I've never been asked that before to get advice from – oftentimes, I'm sorry but I don't want to sound so dismissive but many of them are really desk jockeys.
I mean they're not on the front lines.
They're reading some papers.
They think they know what the disease is.
They don't know what this disease is.
They're not sweating it out, seeing day to day the manifestations, the responses to therapy, the lack of responses.
They don't understand this disease, and yet they're telling everyone how to treat it.
And I find it, we want- What's implied here, of course, is that Brett and Corey understand the disease.
What's implied here is that as his experience-based medicine understands the disease, they just got to listen to him.
This is some pretty high elevation right now.
We're pulling back on the hand glider and going as high as we can right now.
Listen to me.
These people don't understand this disease.
A seat at the table, expert clinicians.
Where's the expert clinician committee?
Right.
I absolutely agree.
Now, why does the expert physician or clinician committee now contain the same people?
It contains, let's see, Robert Malone, who's not a clinician, Meryl Nass, who only is a backwoods doctor from Maine, who actually is primarily famous for her anthrax blog.
What other clinicians are in the thing?
Is Jessica Rosen?
No, she's not a clinician.
What about Jill Glasspool Malone?
No, she's not a clinician.
What about maybe Brian Hooker?
No, he's not a clinician.
What about Laura Logan?
No, not a clinician.
How about the Canadians?
No, those were politicians and bloggers.
No.
What other doctors?
Pierre Corey, Peter McCullough,
Merrill Nass, Robert Malone.
I'm having trouble coming up with the MDs that he would propose to be on the clinical committee.
It's a little weird because, again, the story that they're telling is that all doctors in the world should be able to tell us about the symptoms of COVID from last year, even though he insists he's the only one who knows.
All these doctors don't know anything, but he knows.
And he's known since 2020, back when he went to New York, which he's not being very specific about.
Stop lying!
I see that at the level of doctoring.
I see that at the level of the pandemic itself.
Yes.
Right?
The fact is, we have a novel phenomenon.
It came potentially from an unusual source, right?
A knowable source, potentially.
What we are supposed to do about it to actually
take care of it so that it does not become a permanent fellow traveler of humanity that take there's the conundrum will it become a permanent traveler of humanity or will we be able to get to zero covid another crucial idea that brett weinstein needs to spike into the ground as many times as he can in june of 2021 apparently
It's really smart, insightful, courageous people who have been totally liberated to have whatever discussions need to be had.
Instead, we're in a situation where if we open our mouths and say the wrong words, suddenly there are warnings appended to what we've said.
It's insane.
It's limiting discussion, limiting choices, limiting approaches.
And killing people.
It's hurting.
And I don't know, do we, do we have whatever discussions to be had?
Instead, we're in a situation where if we open our mouths and say the wrong words, suddenly there are warnings appended to what we've said.
It's insane.
It's limiting discussion, limiting choices, limiting approaches.
And it's hurting.
And killing people, said Brett.
Interesting.
I think that needs to be corrected.
Yes, it's.
And I don't know.
He didn't say, yes, they are killing people.
Yes, it is murder.
It's malpractice.
It's something.
No, no.
Pierre did not say that.
That was not what Brett was supposed to say there.
And totally liberated to have whatever discussions need to be had.
Instead, we're in a situation where if we open our mouths and say the wrong words, suddenly there are warnings appended to what we've said.
It's insane.
It's limiting discussion, limiting choices, limiting approaches.
And it's hurting.
Yes.
And I don't know what do we... Corey wanted to say hurting people.
Yes.
Yeah.
Right.
Killing people.
Did we all forget the history books that we read?
Like, when has censorship ever been a good thing?
Yeah.
When are the censors ever the good guys?
When has that ever led to a societal good?
And now it's censorship.
Well, that is, I mean, and I really hope that whatever thing it is inside of YouTube and Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn that has its meetings, I hope they look at this and they sit down and somebody in the room is courageous enough to look at everybody else and say, are we the bad guys in this story?
And if so, how did that happen?
I get the intention, right?
So you want to protect people because medical misinformation might harm them.
But what I find, I have two problems with that, which is
who's the who's gonna you know if you're gonna limit science i mean science that's antithetical to science science is about exploration here we are again using science like debunk the funk dan wilson uses it science is a hard subject for people to understand science is hard for people about the season and scientists never discovered
at the NIH building, right?
It's actually the people on the ground doing experiments, making deductions.
We should flow the information to them, not they flow information to us.
So that's that.
And then the placing of medical misinformation on a par with like violent hate speech, white supremacy, like, I'm sorry, but medical, you know, medical information, it's not as harmful as you would think.
I mean, you know, people are afraid that... So there is medical misinformation.
Wait, I thought that we were saying something like there is nothing certain in medicine or that biology is so complex we can't know anything for certain or not every cure would be good for every person.
No, no, that's not what they're saying at all.
Make sure you're very clear about that.
That's not what they're saying at all.
They're not talking about the irreducible complexity that needs respecting or the infinite diversity that is sorely misunderstood or not understood at all.
They're talking about something very different, not the other way around.
So there's that.
And then the placing of medical misinformation on a par with like violent hate speech, white supremacy, like, I'm sorry, but medical, you know, it's not as harmful as you would think.
I mean, people- So how helpful are they being right now by saying that medical information, medical misinformation is not as harmful as you might think?
How is this the relevant discussion to have, the relevant question to ask, the relevant answers to debate?
afraid that you're gonna espouse some medicine that's not gonna work and they're gonna hurt someone.
I think people do not need to be protected to that extent.
I mean, people have judgment.
They do lots of things in the world.
You know what I'm saying?
Censorship's not the answer to that.
Well, I would say censorship's not the answer to people trying their best.
But their whole assumption is based on the idea that the national security state and its actors would never lie to us
in agreement, in concert about something that didn't exist.
That would be crazy.
We're supposed to believe that these guys are doing their best to pull our head out and expose the lies that the national security state is covering up.
when in reality, they are seeding the other half of a limited spectrum of debate that makes almost certain our kids and our grandkids will never see the lie of the national security state, which is the gain of function mythology and the vaccine schedule in America.
Those are lies.
They are criminal enterprises and mythologies that they want to use to enslave everyone in the world.
The problem is that you get the harm to people on both sides, right?
If you try to constrain things to only the information that we're really, really, really certain of, you're going to kill a lot of people because you're not going to benefit from the exploration.
And if I can actually just draw an analogy between what you do, you know, with your individual patients and the situation that civilization has caught in with COVID more broadly.
In the ICU, and I don't know I've never been an ICU doc, but in the ICU you are dealing with people who are really sick.
Their lives are on the line.
The sickest of the sick.
Right.
Now if I'm in that bed, right, and you're my doctor, my sense is I do not want you
So terrified that you may kill me trying to help me that you are paralyzed I want you to take your best shot at getting me through it and I am accepting That you may kill me because the chances are you are more likely to help me So when we are talking about the question of what these therapies are we are in the middle of a brand new disease?
Yeah, we are discovering if it turned out that
that you were wrong about ivermectin, then some people would die.
But the number of people who have already died because we haven't used this drug is absolutely immense.
So the point is, look, let's be adults.
So that's a pretty certain thing to be certain about, that ivermectin, if was used correctly, would save millions of people.
from something that they're not even sure is killing anyone, can't be sure is killing anyone, and seem the farthest away from coming to the conclusion that the national security state could just lie and use something as simple as high flow nasal oxygen as a I don't know what else to do kind of situation.
and send all of the doctors who are old enough and have the experience to know that that wouldn't be a good place to start.
Send them home and tell them that you're too old and that you shouldn't stay in the ER because, you know, you could be in danger.
They offered faculty members early retirement at the start of the pandemic so that they could re-staff emergency rooms and they put residents in charge.
And they had hospital administrators brief them on the response.
And these people did not have the requisite experience to question the application of supplementary oxygen in response to a low pulse ox.
I think wherever this was done, people were killed.
and I think it was central to the murder that was necessary.
It can't all be fraud.
The stuff that happened in New York City can't all be fraud.
There's no way to take the position that the transfection in doses that were hot didn't hurt people.
There's no way to take the position that, oh, you know, I don't know anybody that was hurt by the shot.
Because if you take a position like, I don't know anybody that's hurt from the shot, then you're discarding every person on the internet before and after the pandemic that claims that they were hurt by a vaccine or their child was hurt by a vaccine and the temporal correlation is too great.
If you are able to make that statement on social media, say, I don't think that the current shots are necessarily hurting anyone, you are definitely not really helping us right now, because that's not a question that we need to ask.
The only question we need to ask is why weren't more people hurt by the transfection?
Because according to me, if they were good and the doses were there and the lipid nanoparticles were made correctly, in the best case scenario, there should be more people hurt by the shot.
That's my statement that nobody else is picking up on, but that's the correlate of placebos.
If you rolled out placebos to make sure that a signal would never be discernible,
and at the same time rolled out somebody that was gonna exclusively use VAERS as evidence of a signal, then you could create a limited spectrum of debate where you could get people who would just say, I don't know anybody that was hurt from the shot.
Oh, I know lots of people who were hurt from the shot.
Well, I don't know anybody that said that the vaccine schedule was bad before the pandemic, and I know somebody who's saying that the vaccines are bad now, and she's using VAERS to show that there was no signal before the pandemic, and now there is one.
And so you can have an epigirl that says that the flu vaccines did more damage than the COVID vaccines.
And you can have an epigirl that says, no, no, the COVID vaccines are doing more damage than all the vaccines that came before it combined.
And now you've crafted the ultimate, the ultimate
limited spectrum of debate because you have a limited spectrum that's bordered on one end by one set of ridiculous proposals that the VAERS signal from COVID reveals that the COVID vaccines are worse than anything that came before it, including flu and all the childhood vaccine schedule.
And then you have another EpiGirl saying that, no, no, it was fraud in New York.
There were no bodies in New York and I don't think anybody's dying from the shot now.
And so if you have somebody who says, no, no, no, no, we invented the mRNA.
It works great.
And Peter Cullis told us it works great.
And then you have someone else over here saying, no, no, no, it's the lipid nanoparticle.
It's terrible.
And it was an incapacitating agent and they always knew it.
Nah, none of these doses were any good.
It was just a toxin.
Then you have another set of epigirls that argues about two ends of a spectrum that don't usefully question the
presumptions of all of those limited spectrums.
They're all based on the same lie of a novel virus that's circulating around, that's causing a strange situation and strange behavior and strange set of symptoms that strangely we have no way of treating.
So we just have to say supportive care and hope that your viral syndrome passes like another one.
about this.
People are dying.
They are dying.
What we would like to figure out as quickly as possible is what is the way to reduce that.
Oh my gosh.
My son went on a trip with his friend to go stay somewhere and go to water slides and stuff like that.
And he texts me to say, we didn't get a hotel.
We got an Airbnb with a hot tub and a heated pool.
Holy ships.
Am I, am I not?
I am missing.
I am not.
My sons are having a good time for the next couple of days.
That's pretty fun.
I'm very excited.
Wow.
Congratulations, boys.
That number.
And I also think we overfocus on death.
The amount of damage that people are suffering who get sick and recover is immense, too.
Those people will lose years of their lives.
No question.
So, you know, the question really is, how do we minimize those?
Those people will use lose years of their lives.
What is he talking about there?
Well, I got off.
I got really far.
Whoa.
this drug is absolutely, it's immense.
So this drug is ivermectin.
The point is, look, let's be adults about this.
People are dying.
They are dying.
What we would like to figure out as quickly as possible is what is the way to reduce that number.
And I also think we overfocus on death.
The amount of damage that people are suffering who get sick and recover is immense too.
Those people will lose years of their lives.
So the question really is, how do we minimize the net harm of this disease?
And the answer is, there is no way to do it without some people dying as we figure out, as we get our bearings.
There's no way to do it.
I agree.
And Umberto Maduro talks about this a lot, is that we are just demoralized at the lack of really emergency thinking, which is a risk-benefit analysis.
Everything I do at the bedside of a patient is a risk-benefit.
Anytime I prescribe a medicine, it's because I believe that the chances of benefit are greater than the harm.
And you can do that on any amounts of evidence.
You can do it on unassailable mountains of evidence.
You could also do it on little evidence.
I thought Brett was about to drink out of a candle.
You're going to make a risk-benefit ratio.
And the idea that we're not going to use a really safe drug, which has nothing, every study shows nothing but benefit.
OK.
And why we're not employing it.
Well, this is the impossible question.
And I will say, when I started to detect the message that you guys were sending out, I was cautious about it, right?
I looked at this and I thought, Whoa, fair, you know, be cautious.
There's a there's a drug, it has positive effects.
Why am I not seeing it discussed more?
And then as I went deeper into the evidence, and as you all generated more evidence and put it into the world, and as the natural experiments that are in the world revealed themselves and showed the very same pattern, it became clear that this was actually taken in the aggregate.
the amount of evidence is incredible right this is a very clear signal it'd be hard to miss it unless that was your purpose unless you had some confusion or reason not to want to know and then actually ivermectin and water is safer than water because the ivermectin will kill all the parasites in the water so i mean mark you're totally spot on but not quite
And if you extrapolate from that, you get into some very strange territory about why, in light of this tool that is apparently at our disposal, safe, highly effective, not only highly effective at treating these patients, but preventing people from coming down with COVID.
What would it mean if we had that at our disposal and didn't use it?
So, let's talk a little bit about the evidence.
What is ivermectin?
So, ivermectin, right, it's one of the most common medicines in the world.
It actually works against parasites, right?
So, worms, different parasitic diseases that affect humans and animals.
So, it's very... Given once annually to people with unclean water.
Given once annually to people that live in third world countries.
Right?
Once annually.
So, you know, if somebody told you that you could take this poison at a low dose once annually and it might help you, that's a little different than saying that you can use it prophylactically at a different dose on a daily basis to prevent a respiratory disease indefinitely, which is what these guys are about to say.
Common medicine given to animals?
And also one that- Common animal medicine indeed, but how often is it given and at what dose?
Again, this is not being precise, but precisely the opposite.
Nobel prize because it essentially transformed the health status of huge portions of the globe.
So there's a- Not by regular application, but by annual application and not by large doses, but you know, we've got to be precise here and we are not being precise.
Instead- Stop lying!
lot of continents where parasitic diseases were endemic and I mean absolutely were decimated the health status of really low and middle income countries.
One of them is a disease called onchocerciasis or river blindness.
It literally causes blindness and there were some populations in Africa, some societies where I think it's like 50% of the men by the time of age 40 were blind.
So you had like villages where like all the people were blind and here comes ivermectin
It's known to be this really effective, and it basically eradicated the disease.
And so it's been used now for 40 years, 4 billion doses.
The WHO has administered mass distribution programs to many of those areas.
And so for that reason, it's one of the greatest feats of a medicine in history.
Maybe on the part, maybe not as big as penicillin.
That's one of the biggest discoveries.
literally, it's on that shelf, right?
And that's just the persons or persons or organization that put it on that shelf is the who.
So he's essentially not telling you that all doctors around the world agree.
He's not telling you that all doctors in America agree.
He's not telling you that the consensus in Western medicine is that this thing is badass.
What is he saying here?
Please hear it.
He's saying that the who says this is on the list of essential medicines, of the who.
The same people who are now telling us that we need to fight the who, we're using the who as an argument for ivermectin.
I hope you can see it.
Parasites, right?
So as I understand the story, it's discovered in the early 70s.
So the first discovery was identified in like 70, 75.
By Satoshi Nomura, a Japanese scientist.
Not to be confused with the guy who invented Bitcoin.
A scientist, biologist, yeah.
And he discovered it in, it was produced in the soil by bacteria, I think?
So he was, yeah, what he was doing, his expertise was looking at substances made by microorganisms, sort of like penicillin, right?
And what their effects were as a medicine against other organisms, right?
Because many organisms make substances to ward off other organisms.
And so he would take organisms from the soil and look at the substance they created and then test them as medicine.
That was his expertise.
And what's so fascinating about ivermectin is that-
It's too bad they didn't use the domain server to look at all those things.
It might not have taken them so many years.
They could have just simulated the interaction with different viral proteins and discovered the stuff in the soil a lot quicker.
He found the microorganism near a golf course outside of Tokyo.
And it's an organism called Streptomyces.
And so it made this substance, which is actually called avirumectin.
But to this day, that microorganism in Japan is still the only place you can find.
Now it's obviously produced everywhere, but the source is still in the soil in Japan.
It's never been found from any other sources.
Just an anecdote here, Vincent Ransom Yellow's wife actually worked for the company that owned the patent on ivermectin and worked on that particular substance for its entire presence at Merck.
just in case you care.
So it's really, really wild, his discovery.
And so that's cool.
That's cool.
So I must say, as an evolutionary biologist, this also strikes a chord because I am much more concerned about a totally novel molecule that we have created in a laboratory.
And the reason I'm more concerned about it is that there's every possibility when you create something in the laboratory that our ancestors will never have encountered anything like it.
And therefore, our bodies may not know what to do with it.
But a natural molecule,
Can anybody give me a link for Dr. Shiva's cytosol?
That would be fun.
Is something you can't, you know, obviously if it's endemic to Japan, most of our ancestors probably never encountered the exact molecule, but the chances that they have encountered many molecules like it and therefore will be able to process it in some reasonable way is very, very high, right?
Wow.
So this is an interesting tangent of questions that don't need to be answered.
He's suggesting that although
this organism is unique to Japan, we've been exposed to other organisms and probably related toxins and so we don't need to be afraid of the ant poison.
Wow, what an interesting statement to make.
Why would they give a Nobel Prize to somebody who discovered something that they claim is found nowhere else and a single organism found nowhere else if it's actually all kinds of related compounds are found in soils all around the world?
What an interesting thing for Bret Weinstein to say, which seems to only really make a mealy-mouthed argument for why nobody should be afraid of taking ivermectin, because there's probably all kinds of different kinds of ivermectin in every soil all around the world, that even though this one's native to Japan, we're exposed to all of these!
Stop lying!
Holy shit!
not to know what to do with it.
But a natural molecule is something you can't, you know, obviously, if it's endemic to Japan, most of our ancestors probably never encountered the exact molecule, but the chances that they have encountered many molecules like it, and therefore will be able to process it in some reasonable way is very, very high, right?
Unlike something like Tylenol, for example.
I like that.
Whereas if you've never encountered Tylenol, some people could have a very bad reaction to it.
But because everybody's run into Ivermectin or its related components, in theory, because I'm an evolutionary biologist, I have the right to say stupid shit like this.
In theory, it could be in all the soils.
And so unlike Tylenol, that everybody could in theory have a bad reaction to, it's highly unlikely with this soil substance because it's found everywhere.
And I'm an evolutionary biologist, so trust me.
Holy shitballs.
Can you get this book down there while you can?
Thank you.
Well, yeah, because really that was in recognition not only of the discovery but really the impacts on global health.
And the WHO, that's like some of the hidden
heyday of the WHO is their early work on some of those diseases.
But the story goes on, right?
Oh, Pamela, you're so sharp.
You see why we love Pamela?
Pamela sees even better in the sense of implying that ivermectin and its related soil bacteria producing stuff in North America and elsewhere
means that everybody's seen some form of ivermectin before, so you're much more likely to be able to deal with it.
There's a subtle little subconscious component of that that suggests that if it's a lab leak and he's right about it, then this could be a noveler virus than we've ever seen before.
More novel than ever and more novel could mean, oh my goodness.
Thanks, Pamela.
I don't know how many times I can say thank you to you, but I definitely am saying thank you directly to you today for everything that you've done for my family.
Thank you.
2012, the first study started coming out of labs in virus models.
So they started looking at cell culture models in labs.
They showed that ivermectin was like working against Zika and dengue and West Nile and influenza.
Like it was showing.
It fixes everything.
Oh my gosh, it's Ebola and Zika and every major biosecurity threat we've encountered with Robert Malone since his career started.
But the story goes on, right?
So around 2012, the first studies started coming out of labs in virus models.
So they started looking at cell culture models in labs.
They showed that ivermectin was like working against Zika, and dengue, and West Nile, and influenza, like it was shown.
Can we, I've never seen those papers.
We need to verify whether those papers exist and who wrote them because that's pretty amazing going antiviral properties Malone said it was awesome for Zika.
Okay, you see I don't know.
I don't know everything that's for damn sure There's just too much shit to remember.
I mean
And half of it's lies.
You've got to keep track of those, too.
So it's like a lot.
But thanks, Mark.
As usual.
An experiment.
So here you have this phenomenal anti-parasite drug.
And now it's showing that it has efficacy against viruses.
And so that's where the antiviral story, which is, I think,
Again, we're going to talk about it in terms of COVID, but I actually think I'm so... Go back to the hopeful part.
I am so interested in the future of this drug against other viruses as well.
Can I just say something completely different about flat tires?
Have I told you the story about flat tires that happened to me?
I used to have bike flat tires all the time, and I found this stuff, which I can't show you now because I can't unplug.
It's like this gel.
that you squirt inside of a tire that you never want to inflate again and it just flows around in there with these little particles of rubber and other shit and when you get a puncture
that stuff as the wheel rolls it flows into the hole and punctures plugs it for good and then you can reinflate the tire and it's good and so i had a flat tire on my electric wheel and in order to change the electric wheel tire you have to take the whole damn thing apart like it's a disaster and so i decided i'm just going to try this stuff and see if it works so i squirted it in the tire
I rolled it around and I inflated the tire and that tire is solid as a rock.
And supposedly according to this stuff, even if you get another puncture you can pull out the blade and roll it around and then reinflate it and roll it around again and it'll repair itself.
It will self-heal for years to come because whatever's in there is like silicon or something and so it doesn't dry out.
This product is cheap.
And you can put it in like bike tires and wheelbarrow tires and lawnmower tires and four-wheeler tires.
And when they get punctured, you can run a little bit and then you can pump them back up and you can drive home.
And probably you can use them forever.
It's freaking cool.
And so anyway, it works a lot better than ivermectin on flat tires.
Before we get to that, we should talk about COVID.
But yeah, you know, well, but I think this fits beautifully.
So it's not like this was, you know, when I heard that ivermectin had some utility, and then I looked into the the evidence for it, my assumption was that people were just throwing random molecules to see what stuck.
And so I
throwing random molecules and see what's stuck nobody does that why would they need to do that when in the beginning of february or late january a volunteer team led by ditra commander or ditra colonel uh robert malone
used the domain program server, AI, whatever it was, top secret technology to interface an X-ray crystallography model of the 3CL protease with all known drugs and pharmaceuticals in the FDA catalog to identify ivermectin, silicoxib, famotidine, and remdesivir as the four likely candidates that would provide relief from
this novel virus from the the catalog of stuff that we had already approved?
Why would we need to throw random stuff at it if we had technology like the domain server already spitting out answers and ivermectin was one of them?
Are they going to acknowledge that ivermectin was identified by the domain server?
I haven't heard it yet.
That is a more tenuous connection than, actually, this does have broad antiviral effects.
Ten years of experiments.
There just haven't been clinical trials of it, right?
Right.
And then, you know, the story with COVID is that a group in Australia published a study, I think it was late April of 2020, showing that in their cell culture model, it basically eradicated all viral material within 40 days.
Wow, in their cell culture model in Australia, it eradicates all viral material.
I wonder if he's talking about proteins or RNA because he told us earlier in this lecture that it's the RNA and the scraps of RNA that caused the macrophages to go ape shit.
This is the beginning of the end, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the landslide.
Today, Pierre-Corey, you have been chosen to be exposed and it is the start of something wonderful.
And so it showed this phenomenal efficacy.
in the petri dish, right?
In the lab, right?
And so I always say, you know, very few, and you're going to know this too, very few molecules make it from the bench to the bedside, right?
There's a whole bunch of stuff that has to happen, right?
You know, the concentrations have to be appropriate.
The safety has, and then it has to work in a human model, right?
Here's something that nobody has managed to articulate that I'm going to articulate right now that I've kind of been saving for
deep in a stream because nobody can watch three hours.
I mean everybody complains about how hard it is to watch three hours of the truth.
So Jay's wasting his time when he does these three-hour things.
It'd be great if he could do 10-minute stuff to summarize this Lollapalooza of liars more simply.
I want you to think about something here.
The story of viruses.
Let's talk about the story of viruses and let's do... This is trying very hard to make a clip for Jeff.
Jeff from Earth is a friend of mine from Canada who has a Instagram account where he puts all these clips.
This is a clip for Jeff and so we're just gonna kinda... For the last... I'll start it again.
So here's where the clip starts.
So we've been watching Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory talk about our best understanding of the biology of the pandemic.
And this video is from June of 2021.
And interestingly, there are a lot of details that they get wrong about the basic cartoon virology that we have come to understand as a result of the mainstream media.
and social media united presentation of this mythology around RNA viruses that I tend to try and summarily dismiss by simply saying that RNA cannot pandemic and any virologist, biologist, molecular biologist worth their salt could explain very easily why that's not possible even if there is a fear and cleavage site or two
that is inserted into this very special RNA molecule.
One of the really interesting things about ivermectin is that nobody is really offering up a mechanism by which it stops viral replication.
And in fact, the only person who's ever offered a hint of a mechanism has been Robert Malone.
The guy who, at the beginning of his coming out party, was very adamant in declaring himself
a collaborator with DITRA and a we are the DOD kind of statement and claiming that he spun up a team on advice and phone call from Mike Callahan and that team he spun up used
volunteer work to identify four compounds using a top secret DITRA program called DOMAIN to scan all of the drugs and pharmaceuticals in the FDA catalog to identify, among others, ivermectin.
Now, interestingly, according to Robert Malone, they were all identified as drugs that would interact with the 3Cl protease, which is supposedly the enzyme, one of the 31 proteins or so encoded by the viral genome, which is responsible for the replication of the virus or of the genome or of something.
We don't really know because they're not very specific about it.
And that's the only details.
Besides, the only other person that's ever tried to explain the same thing, and who was that?
Do you know?
It was John Campbell.
And actually, John Campbell, the nurse practitioner from the UK that has seamlessly risen to 3 million subscribers on YouTube and never really been meaningfully censored,
explain to us with small little cut out pieces of paper how ivermectin gets in the way of the 3Cl protease and doesn't allow it to do whatever it does.
Now the interesting thing about this is that virology has never identified the proteins that are responsible for hijacking
the machinery of the cell.
Why is this important?
Well, let me explain it to you very simply.
Virology suggests that we don't make exosomes, that we don't package RNA and DNA and send it around with the intention of communicating signals.
Because if we did, then that would imply that a machinery inside of our cells already exists to package RNA and DNA into signals
And that would undermine the Baltimore scheme of virology, which puts all of these entities and their special enzymes outside of us.
All the clever ways of using DNA and RNA in virology are outside of us.
And we're limited to the DNA to RNA through a ribosome to protein.
All the other tools don't belong to us.
All the other tools are not utilized in our systems, but are exclusively the provenance of virology.
And yet after years and years of studying these foreign invaders that have all these clever enzymes,
They haven't identified any of the proteins that tell our cells to do something that they don't already do.
Because according to virology, we don't make signals like this.
We don't package RNA or DNA out and send it around.
We take DNA and translate it to RNA and then we make protein out of that RNA and we regulate that RNA to regulate our protein.
And our proteins get folded and stuff.
And so somewhere in there, there must be viral proteins that make our cells do something that they don't already do, which is produce virus.
And so as my wonderful chat has pointed out, if you don't have a really well understood mechanism by which the hijacking of our cellular machinery is prevented by this medicine, then you don't have anything.
If you don't have a reason beyond, well, the domain server printed it out, you don't have anything.
And it seems as though Pierre Cory is not even gonna claim that he has the domain server, which is an interesting omission because in a couple of weeks, Robert Malone is gonna be on this same podcast and also not really say it.
Interesting, huh?
Because we're not petri dishes.
But anyway, so you get, you know, very few can make that leap and then hit the goals of safety and efficacy, right?
And at an adequate concentration, right, to be effective.
And so great, it worked in the lab.
Now remember, that was a time where, I mean, literally the world was going insane, right?
I mean, people were dying.
There was so much that was going on that a couple of countries, Peru in particular,
And keep in mind, girl, Catherine Organic says that lung cancers have a signature MI.
It's an interfering RNA in the exosomes, in the micro RNA in the exosomes in the breath.
I don't know why I'm looking at that camera.
The important thing to understand is that even that story of exosomes and their shedding by cancer cells has been very carefully
curated so that we still don't come to the conclusion that if cancer cells signal with exosomes, are there also exosomes that come from healthy cells?
And the kind of subconscious implication by the entire cancer field, and in fact, reinforced by the rhetoric of the virology field, is that
even when exosomes are present, they're a signal of pathology and not part of what would be a natural signaling regime.
And so, just to keep that clear, Catherine Organic is right on the money and she's an incredibly great member of our community.
I just want to clarify what she's saying a little bit there.
They did the boldest move, and because of it, that was really emergency.
I'm very well aware that McCullough has already pushed mRNA transfection as a cure for mRNA transfection.
I'm already aware of it.
I just don't really know what to do about it yet, but it's awful.
Thinking emergency action.
They actually, in their national health ministry, they got together.
They saw what was happening on the ground in Peru, and based on a basic science lab experiment,
They recommend that ivermectin to the population, which is not crazy, because as you point out, there's a lot that can go wrong between the bench and the bedside.
But in this case, it wasn't like some molecule works at the bench.
What the hell is going to happen when you knew it was safe?
You knew it was safe because so many people had taken it.
It was safe.
It may not work in the human as it did in this.
But you knew that you weren't going to hurt anyone.
Right.
So why not try it?
And then you would imagine.
I don't think that that's true, because if you were applying it in animals once a month,
or you were applying it in people once every spring, it's not the same thing as now making recommendations for different dosages as a prophylactic and regular use.
Again, you can sit somebody down and say, you know, you can use ayahuasca once and it might make you, you know, see things differently.
And you can also say, you can put ayahuasca in your water bottle every day.
And those are two very different recommendations.
Telling somebody that, you know, you should really try something is a little different than you should use it regularly.
And these subtleties, you know, like if something works for cancer, that doesn't mean it works for healthy people.
If something works for people that have bad water, it doesn't mean that it works for people that don't have bad water.
And the risk-benefit ratio is not being discussed here at all because, again, they're trying to confuse you with these things.
The object is to start a debate.
that's gonna self-sustain itself for a couple years about ivermectin and that's why the close collaborator in that signal chat that I was trapped in, Alexandros Marinos, also spent an enormous amount of time discussing and arguing about ivermectin effectiveness at the exact same time that this bullshit was going on and nothing else.
actually got really pissed when I finally tweeted out, dude, can you talk about anything else besides ivermectin?
And then his reaction was, hey, who are you to tell me what to talk about?
Well, I'm telling you because you don't seem to have had any principles at the start of this pandemic and still don't have any principles now, Alex.
because you're part of the same group of posers that has a ridiculous amount of certainty about how good a patriot Elon Musk is, about how an absolute inability to acknowledge Palantir as a terrible force in America and around the world, an inability to acknowledge that virology has been under skepticism for many, many decades.
and that the vaccine schedule has had challenges for many decades that all of us were unaware of and these people are definitely not going to come to a realization of in good time in 2021 like I did.
No, no, no, no, no.
the evidence would accumulate.
If it works in people and it's safe enough to try it and you've got an emergency situation where you don't have another effective therapy, then okay, you give it to people, you know, it's a hail Mary, but lo and behold, the evidence accumulates.
So what happened?
It was very controversial.
So first of all, a couple of things happened.
So the way I understand in the beginning is that it was part of the national guideline, but it was really attacked.
So a lot of scientists thought that was irresponsible, unproven.
You know, the cry of these is this... Notice that we're not talking about hydroxychloroquine at all.
So hydroxychloroquine was a scandal before ivermectin was, and we're not talking about that.
being a sort of pretense for or another way to look at the response of the system.
And why is that?
I think that's because if you talk about hydroxychloroquine, then you've got to seed
authority to Peter McCullough because Peter McCullough spoke out earlier.
He spoke out about hydroxychloroquine and spoke out about the idea that the NIH can't say that it's causing swollen hearts.
I've got the technician in the world that's held the most hearts and she can tell you that hydroxychloroquine isn't going to cause swollen hearts.
That was a very big problem for them.
Peter McCullough probably was co-opted at that stage by actual coercion.
If there's anybody in the narrative that I think had a van come to his house and basically threatened him to shut up or disappear, it's Peter McCullough.
And part of it is because I see a pattern of people like Pierre Cory and Robert Malone trying to get people to turn against Peter McCullough.
The first time I ever heard Peter McCullough was a bad guy was when Robert Malone and Matt Crawford and a few other people decided to tell me that the wellness company is bad and the people that take money from the wellness company are bad.
I didn't know who the wellness company was until Robert Malone and Mark Kulak, sorry, not Mark Kulak, sorry, Robert Malone and Matt Crawford and Liam Sturgis and probably a few other people that I could name insisted that the wellness company was worth looking at.
And there are a lot of other people that have insisted that the wellness company is worth blogging about, worth arguing about, worth being present in the chat about.
And essentially, when I first heard of the wellness company, it was at the inaugural CHD conference where I met Jill and Robert and Bobby and Pierre Corey and Ryan Cole.
I met them all in the same place.
as well as seeing Rixie for the second time in person, as well as meeting Matt Crawford for the first time in person, all at the inaugural CHD meeting, where Matt Crawford didn't register, but got permission to register late on the day of the conference because Meryl Nass spoke for him.
Again, you know, it's just inconvenient truths that I can't forget because they actually happened to me.
because those people actually told me those stories.
And then I pass those stories on to people in CHD and vouched for Matt Crawford needing a ticket because Merrill Nass vouches for him.
And then at that meeting is when Matt Crawford said that, you know, did you know that the wellness company is paying people like Peter McCullough and that maybe Peter McCullough is a bad guy.
The same conference where Matt Crawford had dinner with, or lunch with Robert Malone and Jill Glasspool Malone.
Even though they supposedly don't really know each other, they first met at the inaugural international COVID summit, wherever it was in San Paolo or somewhere like that.
That's where they first met.
How is that even possible?
Don't forget that the story with Matt Crawford, I think, is something like his family was military intelligence and him and his brother were in a rape cult.
And because Matt Crawford was triggered by something said in a private phone call by somebody that I know, that I was supposed to drop somebody that I know and trust.
And because I didn't do that, now Matt Crawford in his Bitcoin secret chat has been consistently
um slandering and lying about me and lying about all the ways that he tried to help my family stop lying and keeps kept contacting me for months even though i kept saying in the chat please stop contacting me leave me alone i don't believe you you're a liar
They're all liars.
They have all coordinatedly worked together.
And Matt Crawford worked together with Brett Weinstein for longer than almost any of these people because he was in that original Signal chat and then pretended to get in a fight with Alexandros Marinos so that I would leave that chat angry after Brett Weinstein said he didn't need to listen to me in a Zoom meeting.
And then I would go to Matt Crawford and say, what are we going to do?
And then Matt Crawford would say, let's start a business.
Let's make a curriculum.
Let's sell shares in properties and in collectibles that we'll store at airports to people with Bitcoin.
That's a real proposal that was supposedly meant to save my family, proposed by Matt Crawford, the rounding the earth guy.
We were gonna have like, you know, valuable stuff like baseball cards and gold stored in airport lockers that we would then sell to people with Bitcoin who had nothing better to do with their money.
That was a real proposal that he claims in his Bitcoin forum, even though he doesn't give you any details, is one of many businesses that he tried to start with Jay to try and help him.
That's why they're all up on the wall over there.
I'm never gonna forget any of this, because it actually happened to me.
Because I have it all written down in notebooks, because I have all the screenshots from all these fakers.
Anybody wants to write a book with me that will have all of these screenshots in it,
Anybody that wants to fund the actual history of the pandemic and how the lie was constructed, Mark and I could write a hell of a book, and we wouldn't need that much money and that much time.
You know, if you gave us a year's salary, we could get it done.
Nobody's gonna do it.
Not one book publisher in the world is free to do it.
Because the books right here
All the stuff is right there.
I got four different hard drives with it on there and there are other places too.
It can't go away anymore.
It's just a question of when somebody wants to make a million bucks selling that book.
It'll certainly outsell the Ivermectin book of this clown.
Insufficient evidence that I always hear, and that actually probably applied back then.
There was really not sufficient evidence, but you could say on a risk-benefit ratio, it's reasonable.
But anyway, it was very controversial, and so it wasn't widely adopted.
I think a lot of people didn't agree with that, and fairly soon after that, after a lot of discussion, they removed it from the national guidelines.
Many states did adopt it and began to distribute ivermectin in Peru.
And what you saw in those states, every time they began a campaign, they began it at different times across the summer, spring and summer, every time it was followed by precipitous declines in case counts and deaths.
And really the excess deaths were plummeting in all these regions in Peru.
But what's interesting so that what I think is a landmark paper and probably the one of the most important people in this story besides Paul Marek, right?
So going back to that, here we go.
Where are we going to go here?
Where are we going to go?
My call is we're going to go to DDA Royal in France, and he's going to say that this guy was doing early treatment with hydroxychloroquine.
That's my guess, because you wouldn't want to go to Zev Zelenko, right?
We don't want to promote any American patriots, so we got to go to France.
That's my guess.
Identification, right, of the evidence is, you know, when we talk about pattern recognition, it's really Paul who identified that there was something happening around Ivory.
Wow.
Paul Merrick again.
Paul, Paul, Paul.
Paul is the guy.
Paul is the man that Pierre Cori is stepping in front of.
Paul.
Paul Ivermectin, he noticed this pattern based on just a few studies.
He saw the magnitudes and what it was showing.
And he said, I think this is something.
Because we've been studying all of the trials on everything.
So many were failing.
So many were conflicting, unsatisfying.
But here comes Ivermectin.
And the signal around Ivermectin was really astonishing.
And even the lead researcher for Unitaid and WHO, he found it remarkable too.
There was a team that was looking at repurposed drugs since last June.
They were on their seventh molecule.
and he had heard about Ivan, I think it was because of our advocacy, and suddenly that's all.
I don't know if Zev Zelenko was a PSYOP, but I know for sure there's a video of Zev Zelenko saying that it is an abomination to have transfected children.
He used like the worst word in Hebrew to describe the desecration of children and equated that to what they were doing with the shots.
And so if he was a PSYOP, it's also possible, of course, that Zev was extremely manipulated.
Because remember, everybody very early on that was fighting for this had to be extremely manipulated or killed.
So if Zeb was a PSYOP, it doesn't necessarily mean because he chose to be, but because he was so efficiently meddled with.
You can honestly, seriously, I want you to understand how I see it, okay?
I'm gonna say something very serious when I say this.
And I am being very serious when I say this.
The reason why I have this link right here, Scooby,
is because I think I was so efficiently manipulated by people like Brett Weinstein that I wrote a review that is mostly bullshit.
I wrote a review that doesn't usefully challenge the existence of a novel pathogen, doesn't usefully challenge the abomination of transfecting healthy people.
It doesn't usefully challenge the ridiculousness of using transfection to augment the immune system.
It almost gave them everything they wanted and that's why Asim Malhotra, no sorry,
What was his name?
This other Malhotra guy that was on Twitter decided to promote it right when it came out.
The same guy that coordinated the PCR paper that Claire Craig and Mike Eden and Kevin McKernan are on.
It's all the same.
Coordinated by this guy, Malhotra.
Not the UK heart doctor, but another guy with the same name who looks very creepy and was very creepy on the internet for a very long time.
Calling everybody glowies I don't remember why I'm saying this now, but I I wanted to say it because of whatever they said here So I'm gonna go back and see what they said here and play it again
of our advocacy.
And suddenly that's all they studied.
And he saw the same thing.
He saw everything breaking in this remarkable reproducible.
It's what these people call fakers.
So glowies are people that are like limited hangouts or people that are controlled opposition.
people that are acting anonymously on the internet are called glowies and people that are acting as as as uh fake people are glowies and this is what a lot of these mouse army type people and this mahaltra guy who is a co-author on this pcr paper with mckernan um that's what they talk about can i just show you what i mean um just to show you who i'm talking about here uh let's see if i have it um
Where did I put it?
Oh, it's in the Downloads folder, I think.
Yeah.
Right?
Is it?
Oh, no.
I guess it's in there.
Who would I need to look at?
Where is it?
Kirsch?
No, it would be... Where is it?
Where did I save it?
Come on, come on, come on.
Because there's a video of Kevin McKernan and Naomi Wolf.
and this guy who coordinated the selection of the authors for the paper.
And the reason why I know this guy coordinated it is because in my live interview with Thomas Binder, Thomas Binder confirmed, because I asked him which one of those authors was responsible for assembling the list, and he said the Malhotra guy was.
Come on, where is Naomi and
and McKernan and Mahaltra.
Where did I save that?
I guess I'm gonna have to just go look for it again.
Maybe I can look in the downloads, show all downloads.
Oh yeah, that's right, I did it with that other program, so it's in a separate folder.
Okay, hold on, I almost got it, here we go.
That would be here, that would be here, that would be here.
Yes, here I got it, sweet.
You're not gonna believe this video.
It's only a short one, but it is a video.
Here we go.
The author's stated goal was to create a test that could detect a virus when the virus wasn't present.
What I'm suggesting is that this guy right here is definitely an op.
And he has been an op from the very beginning.
He was a manipulating weirdo on social media, probably a UK kind of 77th Brigade kind of person.
And this guy, right here, is actually the dude who Thomas Binder told me on my show, coordinated the assembly of the PCR paper.
The PCR paper that had Mike Yeadon, Thomas Binder, Claire Craig of the Heart Group, and this guy, and that guy, all complaining that the Corman-Jorston WHO PCR test was not fit for purpose.
and that their proposals for changing the methodology would be more fit for purpose.
And here we are in 2021 in the actual business of Kevin McKernan with Naomi Wolf of Bannon fame.
talking to that person from the UK, I believe, that assembled this fake paper that was gonna be fake opposition to the PCR test.
And here she is trying to understand their motivations and promoting them, actually in person with Kevin McKernan at his office.
Look, that's his office.
There's his symbol of medicinal genomics.
Let's listen.
In addition to that, he didn't have virus, coronavirus COVID-19 to work with.
Ah, Bobby's in Germany.
Thank you very much.
Bobby's a German, even better, even better.
Drawing the sequencing from a computer database.
Is all of that correct?
Yes, only I would say he had an intention to pick up the virus when it was present, but in his design he admitted that he couldn't do a very good job with imperfect information and it would pick up other Asian coronaviruses.
Bobby!
Bobby Malhotra, that's his name, that's right.
I wonder if, no, he can't be related to the other.
It would pick up other Asian coronaviruses.
And when you say pick up, meaning the test would indicate returning positive if there were other coronaviruses.
And for the lay person, I didn't know this either, everything is a coronavirus.
I mean, things, I don't mean that.
Many cold viruses are also called coronavirus.
In fact, COVID-19, it sounded so exotic and scary when we first learned about a coronavirus.
Look at his eyes flashing back and forth.
Where are they flashing back and forth to?
I'm gonna go back so that you can see what he's doing.
This is not somebody who's very comfortable
This is... look at his hands.
Look how tight his hands are.
And why does he keep glancing down?
Watch carefully.
Look at this.
They got this guy on a MacBook over here.
Yes, I would say he had an intention to pick up the virus when it was present, but in his design he admitted that he couldn't do a very good job with imperfect information and it would pick up other Asian coronaviruses.
And that it would pick up... Other Asian coronaviruses.
Stop!
So now we're trying to get confused as to whether it's a background signal or not but we're not going to actually say it's a background signal or not.
We're going to make a differentiation between Asian coronaviruses and other coronaviruses even though in virology coronaviruses are found by looking for a 328 base pair
sequence that's conserved on all RNA-dependent RNA polymerases.
That's how coronavirus biology was done until the pandemic started.
But don't let me insert anything that might damage this lovely narrative about heroes from Germany and a pot company and Yale, a poetry major.
Stop lying!
So really, it's actually that the positive is not specific for SARS-CoV-2, but it's more general.
So they're not even really debating anything.
other than the specificity of the Corman-Joriston protocol.
They're not even talking about false positives like they say in the paper with the primer-dimers and stuff, which is definitely mentioned in the paper, that they don't even seem to bother wanna tell Naomi Wolf as part of their narrative.
It's just that it's not as specific as they said.
Asking the wrong questions in spades is what they're doing.
Naomi Wolf could be partially being misled right now.
That's possible.
But the idea that she doesn't know that she's participating in the curation of the narrative was laughable.
Of course she knows.
I think it's a coronavirus.
I don't mean that.
Many cold viruses are also called coronavirus.
In fact, COVID-19, it sounded so exotic and scary when we first learned about a coronavirus, but many, many
Ordinary cold viruses are coronaviruses.
Is that correct?
It's correct.
There's four that we watch very closely.
HKU1 is the name of one, OC43, and NL63, and NL229.
Those are the four ones that are commonly tracked, but there's in fact thousands of them.
In fact, there are thousands of them, but we can only track four?
Isn't that a really weird statement to make?
Isn't that a really weird stance?
paper, we can't guarantee that this will return a positive that doesn't also pick up other Asian cold viruses, is that correct?
Yes, that's right.
All right, pick up again, Bobby, please, from there.
Yeah, so to pick it up from there, he sent his prototype PCR test to Hong Kong, to Roche Lab, and by luck, it gave a positive test result.
And immediately, Christian Drosten's
sent over his protocol to the WHO and also to US surveillance because he was very happy about it that it was positive.
And yeah, it was all a little bit of a guessing game in this case.
So basically there's no way to know if that first historic positive PCR test was some Asian person with a cold or someone with an early detected COVID-19 case.
Is that correct?
It is correct.
I would say it is correct.
It's not a casual step or gilding the lily.
It's an absolutely essential.
This video is produced under the pretense that the person who made the video thinks that these two guys are misleading her and the person who produced the video could be right or wrong.
I'm not saying that they're right or wrong, but they are making the argument that what's happening here is that these two guys are lying to her about why the PCR test is flawed and essentially it doesn't really matter.
Because we are arguing about the wrong thing if we're arguing about whether they're misleading or about the specificity or not the specificity.
Because as long as we're arguing about that, we're not arguing about the existence of viruses.
We're all accepting that there are thousands of viruses.
And the question only is, how specific is the test for those thousands of viruses or not?
You see?
And so even though it seems like we're having a very vigorous debate where we're actually exposing something,
We're just running in a hamster wheel.
And what's most important is who is suggesting that we run in this hamster wheel.
Who is participating in this malevolent barbershop quartet of liars that's agreeing that these are the right questions and these are the right answers.
It is Naomi Wolf.
It is
Kevin McKernan, and it is this Bobby Malhotra.
Bobby Malhotra promoted my review on my Scooby-Doo site immediately.
Immediately.
And then kind of dropped me when I started to backpedal on what I had said in the review, as everybody did.
Everybody loved the review.
Everybody hated it when I started to say that I might not have been right about everything in the review, including Bobby.
Interestingly, it was after I published that review that Kevin McKernan finally got on my radar and needed to be on my show.
Maybe to reinforce the review?
make sure that I didn't read too far anymore.
The final step sequencing to make sure that what looks like it could be COVID-19, but could also be a bunch of other Asian cold viruses.
Okay.
So I'm going to, I'm going to leave this one.
Um, that last step of sequencing to make sure this is COVID-19 was not taken.
I'm going to leave this one.
Um, because I want to go back to the other video and I hope I can do that with just this little click here.
Oops.
because of the hazard that it carries with it, if there is a safe and effective treatment available.
So if there are two things that the ivermectin treatment appears to be, it's safe and effective, right?
Not only safe and effective, but a prophylactic, right?
So it does a job that the vaccines do, right?
So there is no basis to grant the emergency use authorization.
And I would also point out, as long as we're here,
that there is something so bizarre about the fact that the challenge to ivermectin is not that it is a terrible drug.
It is that the evidence for it is not strong enough, right?
There's only one explanation for why the 80s and the 90s were better than we are now, and it's social media.
There's no other explanation.
You don't need to look to TV.
You don't need to look to video games.
You don't even need to look to porn.
What you need to look to is the phone and social media.
That's it.
If we got rid of the phones and social media, we could back this truck up really fast.
The only reason why the illusion of consensus that these jackasses, that these jackasses are the ones we need to pay attention to is because of the illusion of consensus created on our phones.
If there's anything I've learned from the pandemic, it is my ability to not react to the bullshit that's on here.
is paramount to the success of GigaOM Biological.
My ability to successfully navigate this bullshit has been central to the progress that we've made in the last few weeks because there are still people that are actively coordinating their lies to me.
actively coordinating their lying to me, about me, behind my back, and to my friends.
Actively, there are still people.
And if you are one of them, know that I know who you are.
Because I do.
That's what they claim.
I think this is bullshit.
Of course it's bullshit.
Even if it was true, the emergency use authorization effectively allows vaccines a very low standard that they have to meet because this is an emergency and we have to get them out immediately.
Yeah, the bar was set a little bit low, Brad.
Is that what you're saying?
It was set very low.
So they could leap over and become massively used and distributed throughout the world.
Right.
And they are a marvel, I must say, technologically speaking.
But at the same time, you're setting the bar for them exceedingly low because this is an emergency.
So wait, what?
Did they just agree that the shots that are being released are a marvel?
Because this is an emergency and we have to get them out immediately.
Yeah, the bar was set a little bit low.
Is that what you're saying?
So they could leap over and become massively used and distributed throughout the world.
Right.
And they are a marvel, I must say.
They are a marvel, I must say.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been GigaOM Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
And this has been Pierre and Brett in 2021.
And we have been trying to work to build an understanding of the illusion that these traders created and are still curating today.
with the hopes that they and their colleagues will be successful at running out the clock so that the alternative understanding that GigaOM Biological and a few other people are pushing will never become common knowledge.
That what becomes common knowledge will be the accepting of the pandemic and its explanation being a gain-of-function virus that wasn't as bad as the next one could be.
And I believe that all of these people that I'm naming on this screen and have named on other screens and in other rants are responsible for this.
And that is why the strongest pattern that you will see in the behavior of these people is that they can't acknowledge that at least Jonathan Cooey gets these three things right.
At least Jonathan Cooley is correct, and it is really the inevitable conclusion that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
We don't know enough.
They're never going to say that, just like they're never going to say that, well, he's probably right.
We should have known better because transfection and transformation have been on the academic biology bench for 20 years.
And everybody that's done a PhD in biology has done an oral examination where they were asked to explain the basic path from DNA to protein.
And so they have to know that RNA can't be responsible for a pandemic if what we're told about how DNA and RNA lead to proteins is true.
And of course, there are easier ways to say it that these people aren't going to say.
They're never going to say that we don't need to fear wild RNA molecules, even ones that have special fear and cleavage sites or special HIV inserts.
Ladies and gentlemen, stop all transfections in humans because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
And yeah, this has been Gigaohm Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
The dam is starting to break.
Pierre Kory, it seems to be Pierre Kory and his track record might be the straw that breaks the camel's back because Pierre Kory is
is just the tip of the iceberg.
And I think that we have identified almost all of them.
And so they need new people, I guess.
They're gonna need some new people to mess with me because all the others have failed.
It's only five more days until I leave for South Dakota.
Only five more days to send the van to my house.
Only five more days.
Okay, I promise I'm gonna go fix this list right now.
After I go to the bathroom, I'm gonna update this list.
I apologize if you're not on there yet.
You'll definitely be on there tomorrow.
I love you all very, very much.
Thank you.
Freedom is definitely measured in ohms, Pamela.
And the high resistance on this stream has a lot to do with you guys.
Thanks a lot for being here.