you you
you
This long day we see, hacking through, hacks it up, et cetera, who's the luck?
Sepahu, Latim, Akwi!
Hey, this is JC on a bike in the woods.
Hey, JC on a bike in the woods here.
We're at 1,192,000 people infected, about 64,000.
Around the world, the only way that we're going to get through this is together.
I think we have to come together as neighborhoods and as communities, as cities and as a country to try and pull each other through, especially those people who are suffering the most right now, people who have lost their jobs and people who are already on the edge financially are now suffering big time.
And we need to look out for those neighbors, especially right now.
Look out for your neighbors.
Contact them.
Say hello.
Let's stay in touch.
I know that there's an order to stay socially isolated, but that doesn't mean you can't wave across the street.
It doesn't mean you can't leave them a note.
It doesn't mean you can't wave and say hi.
Speaking of working together, I'm really excited to bring you some news.
The paper from 2015 that's kind of the center of any theory about whether or not this current novel coronavirus might have originated in a laboratory comes from the Barrick Laboratory at the University of North Carolina.
This paper does a whole series of manipulations of a novel bat coronavirus to try and prove that there is pandemic potential within these SARS-like coronaviruses that were found in these bat populations in 2015.
This paper is quite interesting, again, as I've said before, because it is kind of the central paper in terms of fueling this speculation that this virus might have originated in a laboratory.
Well, I've read this paper quite a few times, and I understand it pretty well backwards and forwards.
Even though I'm not a virologist, it's one of the places that I also started.
And in the bibliography specifically, it's a great place to follow through as you find one interesting paper.
Chances are you're going to find interesting work that previously came and is cited in the bibliography of any paper that you're interested in.
And so I followed the bibliography of this paper quite extensively, although apparently not good enough.
Specifically, a viewer from New Zealand, a retired English teacher, sent me a list of observations that she made wherein she found that a 2015 author's manuscript version, which is still archived on the internet, has a total of five or six, I think it's six, different references in its bibliography that don't appear in the current version on Nature Medicine's website.
Neither the online version nor the PDF
version contain five of these papers which are each methodological papers which show some aspect of this this laboratory origin theory that I've been putting forward for quite some time.
So thanks to this viewer I'm going to be doing an extensive bike ride that will sort of show that will sort of show
that will sort of show what these papers contributed to our viral biology in the last 10 years, what these methodologies mean in terms of their usefulness in exploring coronavirus biology, and then how they also could potentially be used to enrich for coronaviruses like the one we're currently experiencing.
So again, thanks to this viewer, and let's make this start to become a pattern where we work together, we try to work together to pay attention.
Thanks for joining me in the woods.
I'll see you guys on the bike in a few days, okay?
registered a vote it says down there wow and think about how how sucked in we got in then um and how sucked in i was already there but then a couple months later i mean i was already talking on a time frame there where i said that i've been putting forward this idea of a lab leak for quite some time it's april 2020 for quite some time is what i said there i mean
That's extraordinary.
So here's July the same year when the fear is gone.
Oh, the next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of the of America, of the American people is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us to ruin maybe America.
I don't know.
Crash the dollar.
I don't know.
Steal the rest of our our what limited Treasury value we have left.
I don't know.
But I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary, and more importantly, never be possible.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.
There are few things more dishonorable than misleading the young.
you
Saw your mama laughin' and talkin' on the phone With a little girl workin' on ice cream cone Drippin' on her shoes And I thought about you Saw spring break, Honda helpin' for Daytona Boys in the back, hidin' their corona Like kids do And I thought about you
I thought about me.
I thought about God.
Everything love is and everything it's not.
I thought about songs that make us feel better.
I thought about faith that ties it all together.
I thought about now and I thought about forever.
and how we walk through it.
The times I got it right, the times I blew it.
I thought about real.
I thought about good.
And I thought about true.
And I thought about you.
I saw hungry misspelled on a cardboard sign In a dirty t-shirt that said road time So I gave him a few And I thought about you Ran into a buddy, said, how long's it been?
I said, a couple of years He said, boy, it's been ten That's what time will do
I thought about songs that make us feel better.
I thought about faith that ties it all together.
I thought about now and I thought about forever.
I thought about fire and how we walk through it.
The times I got it right, the times I blew it.
I thought about real, I thought about good, and I thought about true.
All about God Everything love is And everything it's not I saw a red balloon Somebody just let fly I watched it getting smaller Up in the sky For a minute or two And I thought about you
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
It is the 18th of October, 2024.
I'm coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1.24 in the afternoon.
Staying focused on the biology, not taking the bait on social media and trying to love our neighbors as best we can as we together run in this hamster wheel and we try to free ourselves from this mythology that has occupied our consciousness.
for the last five years.
I'm glad to see everybody in the chat.
It looks like there's some energy around the recent presentations to Sukrit Bhakti and to Senator Ron Johnson.
We'll see if we make any headway with that.
These charlatans are well ingrained in our system.
They're everywhere and they are whispering in the ears of people who are completely unaware of it.
This is a phone call that I can't take right now and I need to unplug that.
That's annoying.
Um, the charlatans, yes, the charlatans.
Also the ones on social media.
Ladies and gentlemen, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminal.
And RNA cannot pandemic because viruses aren't pattern integrities.
There's no biology to back it up.
So if we go there and realize that we have been having a very lively discussion within a limited spectrum of debate that will never really free our grandchildren, then you kind of understand where we are.
And so whether you listen to Edward Bernays or Noam Chomsky or Aldous Huxley, make sure you realize that since they dropped us off at the beginning of the pandemic and said we were all lost,
um they've been teaching us a mythology and a mythology was repeated over and over it didn't matter what car you got into you were hitchhiking on this road and they picked you up and they gave you a ride and by the time you rode around with them all the people in the car convinced you that there was a novel virus it was strange
Millions died, but millions more were saved.
But it's probably from gain of function.
And even if it isn't this time, it will be next time.
And that is the trap.
That's the trap that was so wonderfully laid for all of us on social media.
And you can see that video in the beginning of me very clearly falling into that trap about a mystery virus explaining the excess deaths that Judy Woodruff was showing us on the PBS NewsHour.
Not a real explanation.
whoa that's too fast what are you doing that's almost almost funky it's not a real explanation it was an explanation that omitted a bunch of the obvious murder and and just substituted a really big red and gray picture of a virus
And even months later, when there was no epidemiological evidence of spread, very few people were actually in our vision saying any of these things.
It's really quite extraordinary.
And that's the same thing that I find very extraordinary about how almost seemingly inept
the legal leadership has been with regard to these issues over the last, let's say, few decades, where the Congress continues to write laws which do not require the government to have any real justification for declaring an emergency which will
remove many fundamental rights.
And not only that, but the courts and the people interacting with the courts don't seem to know how to usefully use the U.S.
Constitution and its supremacy in American law to challenge any of these notions.
and leave it up to the rational basis review principle in American law.
The fact that you've never heard about the difference between strict scrutiny and the rational basis review is really one of the central pillars of the evidence that people like Aaron Seery are not actually working on behalf of our grandchildren.
And make no mistake about it, I don't make these accusations with names lightly.
I think these are crucial
crucial legs that need to be knocked out from underneath these posers that have not been usefully fighting the mythology that we need to free our grandchildren from, even those grandchildren that are not yet born.
We need a new consensus about the vaccine schedule.
We need a new consensus about transfection and the products that were called transfection before the pandemic.
and we need to have a new consensus about what RNA can and cannot do and the biological basis for those propositions.
Because right now, we are just taking the word of big pharmaceutical companies and biosecurity people and governments around the world who have had a problem to manage
And we are taking their word for it that RNA can indeed pandemic, that it has some magic properties of a, let's say pattern integrity.
And that's just ridiculous.
What has really happened is that these people have created an illusion of consensus, and our acquiescence to social media has made us very vulnerable to the limited spectrum of debate that they have created, because it can feel a lot like we're fighting, but we're actually not fighting.
What we're doing is participating in a theater.
And the people on stage are actually part of that theater and they are part of a new kind of totalitarianism that was first and best described by Aldous Huxley.
And in that description, he very aptly describes that acolytes of the ruling oligarchy will perform for us while the oligarchy quietly runs the show.
We won't be looking at any real debates or any real mysteries being solved.
And I am suggesting that that is how the pandemic was
pulled off, that social media and the resistance to the narrative was actually a controlled theater, performed by people that are put in place by weaponized piles of money that include Peter Thiel, and Elon Musk, and the Vatican, and the City of London, and banks, and private equity.
Of course, all of these things combine to sit at the table, provided they have enough money in a single pile to be weaponized against us.
And it's trivial for these people to be lined up against us.
The numbers here are orders of magnitude, right?
And you know, I'm working on the lowest end of the magnitude here where I have to just say that these weaponized piles of money are who I'm fighting and so I need you to help me because I don't stand a chance without your help because most people are participating in the argument on social media.
They are actively
using social media and more importantly skillfully using it so that they can be actively governed this way.
And I'm afraid they're all going to act the fool in a few weeks no matter what happens.
Everybody's going to lose their mind.
Everyone that is skillfully using social media is going to be very vulnerable to this.
And so I have put together a, with the help of some friends, stream.gigaohm.bio, which is a free archive of all the work that we've done this year.
And the idea here is to make sure that everybody can get at it without a algorithm, without somebody storing their data, without somebody following you around.
So welcome to the show.
This is Gigaohm Biological.
My name is Jonathan Cooey.
I live in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I'm coming to you live from my garage.
And I guess I'm doubled up here on the screen because I don't know how to run my own setup Like I said, it's the 18th of October.
I'm happy to be here I'm feeling a lot of energy from the recent couple days where I Feel like somehow or another progress is being made or maybe progress is not being made but the illusion has gotten better of the progress recently and it's been more engaging and
So I'm excited.
I didn't expect Senator Ron Johnson to show up at the presentation that I was doing for the Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International, the Stephen Frost and Charles Kovas group.
It was pretty fun.
Dr. Asim Malhotra on the high wire would indeed be quite comical.
We'll skip that for today.
In case you don't know who you're talking about or talking to or listening to, if that be the case, my name is Jonathan Cooey.
I used to be an academic biologist and microscope jockey.
I did a lot of in vitro work, but also some in vivo work.
You can find the record of that work on PubMed, the National Institutes of Health online library.
You can just look for my last name and it's pretty easy to find.
The kind of experiments that I did involved connectivity between neurons and some of the work that I did originally start with could have been called biophysics.
I did some
some single channel recordings and giant patch recordings, this kind of thing in my early work on potassium channels.
And so I became a jack-of-all-trades of everything kind of small and cell membrane style.
Of course, that's a whole universe of stuff there, and Mark is actually doing a very good job of giving us an introduction.
Mark of Housatonic ITS, Housatonic Live on YouTube, is doing a very good job, and on Twitch, of giving us an idea of how much of a factor influence
the Atomic Energy Nuclear Weapons Manhattan Project had on the direction that genetics and biology and the investigation of the big ideas on which all other things are kind of founded.
These techniques and these ways of thinking and these ways of applying math all originate from physicists and physics and chemistry coming together to try and penetrate the physical laws of biology.
And we're all kind of converging in the same place when we read books like Jonas Salk's Survival of the Wisest, or we read this book that we're reading in our Biology 101 class, which is What is Life, and a lot of the
the sort of summary ideas, or as they matured with regard to physics and chemistry, they all kind of come back to this aperiodic crystal idea that this guy put forward.
That combination of words seems to be very enticing for quite a number of these thinkers.
And so it's just really nice how all of these things in our work has dovetailed together.
Mark, being a guy who's very interested in the human history of this and how these ideas have
been passed down and who passed them down and how they were passed down and how that so overlaps with my sort of calling or whatever that I feel like as a general biology teacher, as an introductory biology teacher for adults, recovering adults, if you will, from recovering from the immunomythology that we all grew up with, I feel like recovering young adults
need to have somebody that can bring them in from a helicopter perspective, from a 30,000 foot view right down through to, okay, so the foundational ideas where you were given in university are where you're trapped.
And once you realize how malevolent of a trap this idea of a selfish gene is, the more you will see how easy it would be to bamboozle anybody who that idea made just enough sense so that you go, oh, I guess that makes sense to me.
And then you don't really question anybody who can run away with that.
And that's a very, very dangerous place for our kids to be.
And it's a very dangerous place for us to be almost two generations away from the truth.
If you see what Mark is doing, you can see that we're almost two generations away from when people were still genuinely trying to figure stuff out.
And that is pretty darn frightening.
I think we're in a really exciting place though.
And so I'm very happy to be here.
I'm very happy that my, you know, almost lifelong desire, uh, drive to, to understand the living world has really brought, put me in a nice position to be here, to capitalize on this and to be able to, um,
I don't know, fight on the front lines of this idea and these ideas.
And I feel very humbled by the fact that there just aren't very many people here.
There aren't very many people who can see it as clearly or see this side of it.
I don't know what the right way to say it is, because I'm still very convinced that I have a lot of work to do and a lot of reading to do.
And it's not just the books behind me, but it's
It's a lot of books that aren't behind me yet that are already on my PDF reader.
And it's, it's, we have a lot of work to do.
And I understand that, but then I also realized that no one else is going to do this work if we, or I, GigaOM doesn't doing it.
So, um, why is this not running?
So you can find me at stream.gigaom.bio, all the links are there.
If you go to that home link, that home link is the best place to start because it'll get you wherever you need to go as quick as possible.
That's also the one really to share with people because otherwise it bounces around mostly time to my channel.
Just because that's the way we set it up to make sure that people couldn't meddle with it.
I'm going to escape for a second and start that slide again.
um and switch down to here there's really important little basic things that are out there now that everybody seems to want to ignore and it's become kind of clear to me that there's a reason why i got so much attention in 2021 and i think it's because i got to this point right here
We have to understand, and this is very important, that every time any one of these people on X or any one of these people that listens to the short presentation or the elevator pitch ignores this part right here, this part, then you know that they probably, it's very bad.
Because this part right here is able to explain almost everything except for the shape of those peaks.
In other words, I would argue that statistically speaking, almost none of those people, if you take away the people that were murdered, and you take away the people that were overdosed, murdered, then you will find that very few of those people were unexpectedly dead.
Like this was not their time yet.
And if you see it as that, that the only things that have contributed to any useful signal and decrease in life expectancy are murder or opioids or identifiable causes, then you can already see the problem.
If you already understand, and this is crucial for people in Europe to accept, for people in America to understand that Ted Turner,
and others were talking about this problem and how to manage it for a long time.
And the problem that they're talking about is, is that the old retired population is very expensive in these countries.
The old retired population is very expensive in these countries.
And so it is a problem that these countries would need to manage, especially if their fiat currencies were already leveraged.
And they have seen this problem coming for some time.
They have complained about it on television, on the evening news about social security is gonna go bankrupt or something like that.
It's yeah, okay, but it's a limited spectrum of debate.
Remember Noam Chomsky told us.
And so that limited spectrum of debate acknowledges this, but not really and does definitely would not tell you that this expected rise in all cause mortality could be five or eight years long.
and that with careful manipulation, they could create illusions for quite some time with just this one biological certainty that there are more old people than we need and when they're gone, we're gonna have a sort of excess of infrastructure and societal whatever that won't be necessary, will be overkill, will be different, it'll just be strange because the pyramid went from this to this
Right?
And now it's going to go to this.
Like that's, that's what we have here.
And that's why only Elon Musk and a few other people will occasionally say that something to do with population.
But I don't think Elon Musk is ever going to say anything about population again, because what he was saying was that population is about to collapse.
Yes.
But what does that actually admit?
If population is about to collapse,
then that means the population has a bump in it.
So now remember, please, this is really important because I think this is one of the central things that everybody's ignoring right now.
Everybody meaning not you guys, because you're not ignoring me, but the people that are trying to distract you from what, distract other people from what the message of GigaOhm Biological is.
If you understand a population pyramid, the population pyramid is a graph which goes, and it's divided in the middle, and you have female on one side, you have male on the other.
And going here, you have age.
And so 100 years old would be here, and zero would be here.
And then the bars would be, let's say, every five years or something like that.
So if you made it a smooth curve, a country like Mexico might look like this, where you have not very many old people and a lot of young people.
And a country like the United States in the state of the
of the country that we were in right before the pandemic, if the people that we're playing with were honest, my guess is that it would look something like this.
And so there was a noticeable bump that was moving up every year, right?
Because every year these people get older and then eventually would have, you know, you get to a hundred years old and then there's nobody or nobody up there because people die.
And so what I'm suggesting to you is if this bump was approaching maturity, if you will, retirement, if you will, Medicare, full-time, if you will, then people like Ted Turner already saw that coming years ago when it was down here.
That's the argument I'm making, that 20 years ago, this bump would have been visible down here.
And instead, maybe there was a curve that looked like this, and there was a bump like that.
But irrespective of what it was, I guarantee you the real data that these actuaries saw, this bump has already been visible for decades.
And so there has been a concerted effort over a couple decades to seed a narrative within the bureaucracy of a biosecurity hazard.
And this was why.
So that they would have an excuse to manage this problem that would otherwise bankrupt them if they just tried to extend the life of all of these people for as long as possible so that they could have as many happy Christmases as they could.
Well, then we would have an incredible expense happen, depending on how bad this bump was.
If this bump was a doubling or a tripling of the people aging out, then it could potentially be a doubling of the Medicare costs, right?
And a doubling of the Medicare costs, if they're already half of the budget of America, then where are we then?
I don't know why that's playing like that now.
What happened there?
Is it the Q button?
I have no responsibility.
It should really pause there.
Darn it.
That's annoying.
Anyway, you know what I'm trying to say here, right?
The population signal here, depending on the curation of this data alone, could potentially be very dangerous.
There we go.
could be potentially very dangerous and a source of a huge signal explanation, which means that, again, if you follow my argument, it only takes a little tiny bit of murder and lies to create little peaks like this.
If you take the second I move this graph down, you can see that there's actually a peak missing from 2019.
There's a little peak missing there.
Usually they have a big peak in the winter, you know, of the flu deaths, and here there's no peak.
So maybe this year in 2019, they just saved a bunch of people, spent a lot of extra money, keep a few more people alive one more year, and then in this year, they just said, boink.
Little spike in New York City.
High fives behind the scenes.
Judy Woodruff gets cued to go on screen with a big picture of a virus behind her, and they get a few people like me from universities around the United States to make YouTube videos about how there's a million cases.
And we're off to the races.
Now we have effectively pulled the wool over everyone's eyes about an expected biological signal that could have potentially been very large.
maybe for five years, a huge problem.
You're not gonna tell everybody, well, ladies and gentlemen, if we keep your grandmother alive on Medicare, and we keep everybody else's grandmothers and grandfathers alive on Medicare, all the veterans alive on Medicare, as long as we possibly can, we actually can't afford it.
That's the actual truth.
If they were gonna go on TV and tell you the truth five years ago, they would have had to say, look, here's the deal.
We got a lot of people that are getting older.
The population curve looks like this.
And as these people get older, we're simply not gonna be able to afford to give everybody the care that they would need to live the longest that they can.
If you think about it the same way that you think about your grandmother who died five years ago or 10 years ago.
If you think about the way that your father died, we're not gonna be able to provide that for everybody in the coming decade because
This group is too big.
The families after World War II were too big and there were too many people in those.
Do you see the problem?
There's no way to present that to people.
There's no way to admit that that's a problem.
And so they say things like, oh, social security is going to run out of money, la, la, la.
But if you can't hear it, Medicare and Medicaid or whatever it is, and it doesn't even matter if we're specific, argue with us about this.
is half the budget of America.
So if the aging out population is starting to grow for even a very brief period of time, even for five years, just like I'm suggesting here, then this would be a management problem, a huge management problem.
Maybe it was such a big management problem that they had somebody as early as May of 2020 publish a huge paper with over 50
50 figures talking about all cause mortality and didn't talk about this phenomenon at all.
Let me repeat that.
Can you imagine a scenario where the weaponized piles of money that were trying to manage this problem that they could have known was coming for decades, if they would have known that they were going to manage this problem, one of the things they would have had to do was had somebody or some buddies out there very early managing the numbers of all cause mortality and not
calculating this in as part of the expected whole cause mortality.
Because that's really the key here.
Because if they expected this rise, and they're not telling us that, then all the numbers that we're calculating are wrong.
All the baselines are wrong.
And if the baseline, for example, doesn't take into account that it's not normal,
for 100,000 or more Americans every year to die of opioids.
It's not normal.
That's not all-cause mortality expected.
If we don't accurately consider what our expected mortality is, then we're in very big trouble because these numbers aren't big.
There's not very big game being played here.
These numbers that these people throw around of a million people dead, that's a game they're playing.
Because again, remember, we expected this.
Three million people die every year in America, give or take.
Three million people every year are expected to die.
This graph right here shows between 50,000 and 65,000 people a week dying in America.
I hate to harp on this, but this is really what I think is one of those things where everyone that puts a little time and a little thought into it can really see how potentially huge this is in terms of explanatory value.
Because it also explains the motivation for all of these countries being in what they themselves called lockstep.
Because their population problem was exactly in lockstep as well.
Because they all experienced the same peace and prosperity after World War II.
The same abundance.
The same exuberance for life and family.
You see?
Do you see?
And so, if I keep this going before we lose the plot here, they had to murder people to fix this problem, and the murder was long, and the list was long, but it was also curated.
Just like Noam Chomsky said, they had people out there saying, oh, they're censoring the early treatment.
Early treatment can save people.
but nobody was out there saying that pure oxygen can kill people, so we better be careful as we flood the hospitals and talk about ventilators.
Nobody was out there saying that you don't put people on a ventilator until they've been like, had their ribs crushed or something.
You don't just put somebody on a ventilator because their pulse ox is low or to stop the spread of a respiratory virus.
That would be ridiculous.
Why weren't there any doctors saying that?
That ventilating somebody is an incredibly invasive and ridiculously dangerous idea with all kinds of downsides if the person wouldn't need it.
How come Pierre Cory didn't say that?
He's an ICU guy.
He's a extensively
experienced, extreme medicine guy.
He should have done known better than to let just everybody go nuts with ventilators and pure oxygen.
And yet extraordinarily, CHD is promoting him right now.
And he spent an enormous amount of time in BACS-3 talking about ivermectin, not about murder.
And if you see that all of these people essentially were put in place or recruited during 2019 and 2020,
and became part of Team Robert Malone or whatever team it is.
Maybe it's Team David Hone or it's Team Mike Callahan.
I don't know.
But all of these people are basically on the same comic book story where you can spill something outside of a laboratory to no fault of your own if it's got the right fear and cleavage sites.
Away it goes.
And if you don't close all the doors and close all the airports, you're going to have something go endemic.
And the whole, I, the word endemic, the whole discussion and definition of endemic is an enchantment.
The moment you accept that there's a word that describes the process of a non-pattern integrity chemical molecule going from some to all over the place, then you're already engaged in enchanting yourself.
You're already allowing yourself to be enchanted because the very definition of this word has no biological basis in reality, especially with regard to RNA.
And yet all of these people have never challenged the idea, accepted the idea, could define the idea, even told us that this was the worst case scenario before and during the start of the pandemic, right up until Robert Malone's infamous appearance on Joe Rogan and on the Bret Weinstein podcast in the middle of 2021.
And this talk of endemicity is very frustrating to me now because I can clearly articulate why.
And people still keep ignoring it.
The reason why this is so important to understand is because we don't have any data from before 2020.
And without data before 2020, there is actually no way to differentiate spread from an existing background.
And most or all of these people will have to ignore this fact now because the illusion requires you not to understand this.
Because PCR was actually used on that background to create the illusion of the pandemic.
PCR can't be questioned in a useful way by any of these people.
All of these people were on the overcycling myth.
And it has nothing to do with overcycling if the background is hot.
And that's why none of these people usefully questioned the PCR test.
And the only people who did were led by a group of people that was kind of coordinated by Kevin McKernan of the Human Genome Project, i.e.
he's interested in sequences and interested in hiding the illusion of genes and the illusion of high fidelity understanding of, you know, genes are just a plan, a something something.
that describes how our proteins are made or something like that.
And Claire Craig, who was previously a private working for a public health initiative called the 100,000 Genomes Project.
And those people didn't usefully question the idea of using PCR to detect something and diagnose something.
They just created a limited spectrum of debate that they themselves were thus in a position to curate.
And it was a limited spectrum of debate about primer dimers, or primer specificities, or temperatures in the reaction.
And Mike Eden was in on that.
Thomas Binder was in on that.
Claire Craig.
Kevin McKernan.
There's another dude.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
The point is that those same people were also very, very hot on different parts of these things.
You'll notice that in 2020, Kevin McKernan never really talked about the fear and cleavage side at all.
Kevin McKernan didn't touch the fear and cleavage site at all in 2020 because that was not part of his limited spectrum of debate.
That piece of the puzzle was not what he was instructed to curate.
He was curating the general narrative about PCR, the general narrative about RNA can indeed pandemic, the general narrative that we can really sequence things and we can learn about those sequences and put them in phylogenetic order.
Jessica Rose was very specific, focused on VAERS, even though her entire resume while working under the funding of NATO was for modeling and doing mathematical studies of virology and including an HIV paper.
And so once you start to see that all of these people were put in place to curate a narrative so that there would be specific puzzle pieces that dumb people like me
interacting with them would never realize that they were curating a limited spectrum of debate standing in front of me while they rose ever higher through these money laundering schemes called Substack and Locals and all these international COVID summits that are somehow paid for by who knows who.
Who's paying for these people to go all around the world for the sixth conference?
Do we have a disclosure of the donors that are running the Unity Project, a disclosure of the donors that are funding the Steve Kirsch Vaccine Safety Research Council or the FLCCC that paid Pierre Cory a quarter million dollars a year?
Does that sound like the real use of donations to try and fight this?
Hot tub pictures and pictures of really expensive shoes.
And the same people in 2020 who knew all these tricks are still the same people that are actually curating this narrative about transfection and DNA contamination now.
And until we realize that they're doing it, until you see that they're covering up the murder, for example, none of these people have had the sympathy to say that, wow, the Scotland study is disturbing because they sure did murder people there.
Because that would encourage people to look for murder in America and find it.
I think John Baldwin could probably find the murder in America if he looked for it.
He could find the people that died from COVID in 2020 and how many of them were given supplementary oxygen before they were ventilated or supplementary oxygen before they were given remdesivir, supplementary oxygen before they were anesthetized or given dexamethasone.
He could find all of that stuff, but he is working exclusively on the shot and exclusively focused on the shot because
He is collaborating with people who I guess don't want him to also look at the murder that justified people taking the shot.
Because if we uncovered the murder that justified people taking the shot, then they would have even more ammunition to fight against the shot.
But that's not what they want to do.
And Steve Kirsch told us that the other day when he was on that podcast, when he wouldn't talk about a background signal or he wouldn't talk about PCR being accurate on a bench, but not for COVID.
He wouldn't talk about transformation or transfection.
The only person doing it right now is Jiki online and Jiki and getting promoted for it is a joke because he's saying that there were transfection agents
in the shots that are causing the DNA contamination to go into cells.
And so this is a gigantic admission, ladies and gentlemen.
It is a gigantic admission
that this statement here, that the countermeasures were classified as transformations and transfections before the pandemic, that academic biologists bought products that were called transformations and transfections as methodologies before the pandemic, is a message that cannot get out to academic biologists.
And so anybody that's curious on X is gonna run into Team Robert Malone's anonymous representative, Jiki Leakes or Archmedic.
And Archmedic is gonna complain about the fact that the Australian authorities have found DNA in the shots.
And Kevin McKernan is one of the heroes that spoke out about it.
And he's going to say that transfection agents are also found in the shots.
And so what he's doing is tearing apart this narrative, this actual truth here.
And he's incorporating it into the narrative rather.
He's weaving it into the narrative.
So it sounds like to a lot of people without the scrutiny or the insight to understand that enchantment, that the whole thing is a transfection agent.
The lipid nanoparticle carrying a RNA is a transfection agent.
If there's DNA in there, then great.
There's also that too.
But he's confusing transfection as a methodology, which it was before the pandemic, which is the argument I've been making since I figured it out in 2020.
It's a methodology that they have lied about and called an investigative vaccine.
It's not a vaccine with transfection agents in it that they lied about.
Jicky, arch medic, meddler, liar, traitor to your grandchildren in Australia or wherever the hell you live.
It's important to understand that this admission is huge.
Because to write a substack and promote Kevin McKernan as having found double-stranded DNA and that there are transfection agents inside of the shots which are driving the DNA into your nucleus of your cells is so disingenuous and such a malevolent perversion of the truth.
Because the truth is these words meant something before the pandemic.
They meant a product type, a general methodology.
And so what Jiki Leaks or Archmedic is doing is malevolent, and it is absolutely biologically wrong.
And that same account, that same anonymous account has pretended to oppose some people in Panda, pretended to oppose some people like argue with Nick Hudson, but will not challenge Robert Malone, will not challenge Jessica Rose.
And in fact promotes all of them who I have identified in my humble opinion as the center, the main core of a team Robert Malone.
a team Ditra, a team David Hone that have been curating this narrative at home.
And if we get to see them, if the average person can see them, it is going to be a level of, of, of movement that they cannot counter.
But they're trying and they're trying and they have been for a long time able to counter it with the coordinated effort of accounts and the actual engagement with those accounts on social media.
And since we have stopped engaging with those accounts, the only way
The only thing that happens is that they make admissions and this latest admission from today from Jikki Leaks and the people promoting Jikki Leaks and the lists of people that they make really edify the idea that they're all part of one little weird multinational movement of meddlers on X. They could all just be employed by Elon.
Why not?
It's a very simple explanation.
And then it would really explain why it's not really a lot of super smart people.
It's just a lot of people that know how to use GIFs or some other thing, because Elon is not choosing the smartest people.
He's choosing people like Steve Kirsch, who gave a lot of money to the DNC right before the pandemic.
And for years before that, Robert Malone, who was a clear Democrat before this,
that his wife has praised Peter Hotez for goodness sakes.
I mean, this is ridiculous where we are right now, that any of these people have any clout left with any of the people who are awake.
And once the people who are awake realize that they have been taken by these people, we will have a huge momentum that cannot be stopped.
And so these obvious truths will get out.
People like Mike Eden, who worked for pharmaceutical companies for years, need to admit that in order to make a biologic, you have to start with DNA and a bacterial culture, then somehow you have to get through the RNA to protein stage, and then you have to purify the protein.
And that purification process is the most expensive part of the manufacture of a biologic like a monoclonal antibody.
And that very expensive process called anion exchange chromatography isn't necessary and isn't even useful when purifying RNA.
And so in reality, the process of changing from biologics to an RNA or DNA based vaccine made this insanely cheap and made it impossible for them to purify it.
And so anybody who's worked in pharmaceuticals for 20 years would know that.
And that includes anybody that claims to be a process expert.
That includes anybody that says that they were, oh, I was in pharmaceuticals for a few years and then I retired and became a lawyer like Jonathan Engler.
Anybody that retired from pharmaceutical testing like Sasha Latupova would know that biologics are manufactured in that way and that those steps are there and that it would be trivial for them to reorganize and in fact really cheap for them to reorganize their manufacturing structure so that they just stop short.
And so this is the extraordinary part about it, because of course, Kevin McKernan knows this.
He's cut his teeth in the Human Genome Project when he was like 16 years old.
He's like the Doogie Howser of genes.
That's why we call him McGenome in the chat.
He knows how biologics are made.
He knows why they're expensive.
He knows what happens if the purification stage doesn't work and they detect genetic material in the final product.
And he knows the intellectual property space around the processes of that.
He knows the intellectual property space that was changed at the beginning of the pandemic with regard to monoclonal antibodies, and they don't talk about it at all.
The other thing that's really interesting, and none of these people that have worked in pharmaceuticals for this long, like Jonathan Engler, or Mike Yeadon, or Sasha Latupova, or Kevin McKernan, will talk about how, wow, it's a really interesting point that Jay has about placebos, that if they needed to make a manufacturing quota that they knew they couldn't make, but they wanted to have everybody calm down and think that there was a countermeasure coming,
then they could roll out placebos and give placebos until they got everybody you know maybe that's why they needed to do so many boosters because by the time they got everybody to take the fourth booster at least you would have gotten two hot shots and then everybody would have been you know gotten their thing and in the background they could have told a lot of a lot of numbskulls that you know we can't make this manufacturing quota
And so it's okay for you to encourage people to take the shot because the vast majority of the first two waves will be placebo.
And then once everybody has, you know, accepted it, that it's going to be safe, we're going to start more and more as we ramp up manufacturing, we're going to, we're going to put more and more hot lots out there.
And there could be whole rooms of people who understand that.
And that's why we have all this nonsense about hot lots and not hot lots and all this correlation studies and whatever, because it would be trivial to do that.
And it would in fact be advantageous to both the biosecurity state ends and the pharmaceuticals ends.
And so when you start to realize that the whole, you know, illusion of the manufacturing process needing to be retooled is actually a lie, and that that lie is also couched perfectly within this lie about virology and high fidelity virology,
that it appears that a lot of virologists are not aware of how tenuous their field is and how seminal or vital it is to their field that they have access to commercial DNA sequence manufacturing, commercial DNA assembly products.
Because without that, they wouldn't be able to get a handle on any of the phenomenon that they claim to study.
And in fact, I think it's really important here to draw a little attention to something that we do know before we watch the video that I want to watch today.
And that is this idea of what an infectious clone is.
Now remember, there's a couple stories that they've told us.
The first one, I apologize, I wasn't planning on drawing a picture.
The first story, of course, is of a bat cave.
And in the bat cave, there are bats, right?
So bats are coming out.
Can I draw a bat?
Yeah.
I didn't draw a bat very well.
There are bats coming out of the bat cave, and the bat caves have the viruses, right?
Now,
The story is, is that you can take this virus and you can grow it in a petri dish.
But the problem is, is whenever they do that, you get the same result.
Okay?
And it doesn't matter.
And this is something that even Kevin McKernan himself has mentioned.
Hold on.
I don't have my bookshelf over here.
So I got to wheel it over here because I got a couple of books I want to show you.
So this book is a book that was published in the 80s, I think.
It's actually a journal.
It's called Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, and it's volume 173.
And it is a discard from a library in New York.
in the Squibb Library and it's called Molecular Biology and Pathogenesis of Coronaviruses.
So it's a really interesting book that was published in Utrecht in the Netherlands and then also in the New York London Press.
The original time it is published is 1983.
And so I can show you this here, that's this book.
And that's the title there, and that's the articles.
Oops, sorry, this way.
That's the dudes that edited it.
And that's the book.
And it has a very nondescript cover, right?
Because it just has this, Advances in Medicine, and then it's got that thing there.
So, I guess it's a publication that they were putting out.
And then the rest of the book is really typed.
It looks like they did it with a typeset printer, which is extraordinary.
So, no matter what is done with regard to these... You know, these are bad gels, okay?
You're not going to see great gels here.
But...
What I want you to see is that this signal hasn't been good ever.
So even when they were playing with coronaviruses in the 80s, here's one for example.
Selective of S1, no we don't want S1NM.
Well here, here's them already showing you that they can find those proteins or that they can find those mRNAs.
Some of them that we recognize S1, S2, N protein, M protein.
The most important thing that I wanted to show you, which now I'm not showing you, which is annoying, is I would really like, I don't know, I don't have a good, maybe I should have looked before I did this.
Here maybe?
No, that's not it either.
That's microsomal membranes.
My point is this, okay?
You have a,
When you look at this sample and you analyze all the RNA in it, and you put the RNA in a gel with electricity in it, and the voltage is running like this, the voltage is pulling
it pulls the positively charged molecules to the bottom.
And because it's a gel, the longer you leave them in, the farther they move.
And the ones that move the fastest are the smallest RNA molecules.
And so when you separate out all the RNA from a culture that you create from a bat, you get a smear of RNA and the sub genomic RNA species
are well characterized and they were all well characterized back in the 80s and I'm sure there's a page in that book that would show what I want to show but I don't want to
read 50 captions before I find the right one.
And I also don't want to show you the wrong one and, and use it as an example of what the signal should look like, knowing that it's not the signal that I wanted to show you and then have somebody be able to say that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
So if you take all the RNA from a coronavirus sample that you put into a cell culture, and you run it on a gel where you use voltage to separate different RNA molecules,
from each other, at the very top, up here, there should be a band, and that band should be the full virus RNA.
And the reason why is because the full viral RNA genome is 30,000 bases long, and so that's the longest molecule that would be produced in this thing that you put virus into.
because all the subgenomic RNAs by definition are much smaller.
There's going to be an E protein, there's going to be an N protein, there's going to be an S protein, there's going to be some other proteins in here, but there's only going to be one of these, one line up here that corresponds to the actual weight of the genome.
which would be 30,000 bases.
And that's the piece of RNA that will move the slowest.
And what they have found consistently, no matter how you do this experiment, you get a very faint signal up here.
And a lot of these signals are gigantic, so gigantic that they smear around and they blend into each other.
And they're really dark.
And they're huge, giant bands.
And this one is almost like faint.
It's like barely visible.
Because if you just quantify the RNA in an experiment like this, very few, if none, pure, full genomes can be isolated.
And it doesn't matter how they do it.
And in fact, right up until the start of the pandemic, when they started looking at this kind of an experiment with coronavirus RNA,
they could hardly identify the transcripts which would qualify as full genomes.
Like we're talking about finding hundreds and hundreds of thousands of these subgenomic transcripts and only 11 in one paper and only two in another paper of sequences that would qualify as almost full sequences, but none of them were full sequences.
And so it doesn't matter if you look at data from the 1980s or you look at data from 2021, you're going to find no evidence for the production of lots of full genomes that would belie a self-replicating pathogen pattern integrity that can go and circulate the globe.
One of the interesting things about this notion, of course, is that
Their biology is very contradictive if you think about just this one aspect of it.
RNA changes every time it goes into an infected person according to their mythology of how RNA works.
But this RNA goes even faster because it has a fear and cleavage site.
And it is copying itself very, very well
because the sequences that we are finding in all of these people after five years are incredibly high fidelity and incredibly similar.
The rate of change is more equivalent to that of what we might expect for a DNA signal than an RNA signal.
Nobody cares.
Nobody sees this as extraordinary.
And what's really interesting is despite the fact that there are so many people on earth that any phenomenon like this before would have gone into a lot of dead ends by now and made a lot of mistakes and recombinations by now, this signal is purported to still be present in very high fidelity, distinct from all other backgrounds.
And it's just a claim with no precedence in biology.
And the only people who are usefully sustaining the technical belief in it are people like Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan and Jessica Rose, the people who have been put in front of us with the requisite knowledge to know and the coordinated agreement to not teach us.
Because what is a synthetically created version of this?
If this is the best we can do, then in order to find a full sequence of a virus somewhere, in any of this preparation, it would be very hard to get a lot of this.
We're not gonna be able to get a lot of that.
No matter what we do, we won't be able to get a lot of that because this is all we've got.
Oh, except we can make pieces of that
synthetically, and then we can use restriction enzymes to sew them together.
Essentially, we can use synthetic methods to make any DNA we want to.
And Mike Eden knows that.
Robert Malone knows that.
Kevin McKernan knows that.
They all know that.
So they also know that they can't make it this way.
You can't grow it in culture.
You can't passage it in ferrets.
It doesn't work like that.
The only way that you can passage it in Ference is if you start here.
The only way that you can test it in some of the preparations that they do in vitro in some of these, many of these gain-of-function papers is to start here.
Any paper that starts with SARS Urbani starts here, where they start with a DNA that they've synthetically manufactured to a high level of purity.
This is not a high level of purity.
This is a faint quantity.
This is a potentially infinite quantity of DNA and an infinite or near perfect purity.
That's not achievable here.
That's not even close to possible in any of these traditional methods where you start out with what these virologists call the signal.
And so any substantial study of this viral phenomenon is starting right here.
And that's the only message that I was trying to get to these no-virus people as I tried to promote Mark Bailey's work, for example.
Yes, you're right about viral isolation, purification, and the illusion of viral culture.
But what you have to understand is that when the illusion of viral culture couldn't be sustained anymore,
That's where the Human Genome Project and those methodologies came in.
That's where recombinant DNA came in.
That's where making recombinant DNA cheaper and cheaper and available more widely and widely makes this possible.
And once you realize that the manufacturer of synthetic sequences and their application to cell culture is just
infectious clones.
It's transformation and transfection in cell culture in animals.
You can see how the technology of the Human Genome Project is actually being misconstrued as virology.
They just make stuff and squirt it there.
That's it.
And the ineffectiveness of the no virus position effectively worked in concert with people like Kevin McKernan and Robert Malone.
And that's also why you'll never see Mark Bailey and those five no-virus people get together to do a Kevin McKernan is a Human Genome Project liar.
And they're never going to get together, all five together, and do an hour on Robert Malone and how he's a DITRA agent and used to sleep on the couch of Dave Hone.
They're not going to talk about that.
They're going to get together and say that Jonathan Cooey and his infectious clone idea is just what Kevin McKernan called it.
Chemtrail retarded.
That's why none of them will dare say RNA cannot pandemic because it'll be a hat tip to me and it means that all these other things are true.
Obvious truths.
So I'm a victim, uh, unwitting, unwitting participant in their show for a very long time.
That's why I showed that video in the beginning.
Um, oh my gosh.
Oh no, we're doing a late basketball today.
That's perfect timing.
Um, so this was me on X. I was trapped by them.
I thought I was fighting Fauci by, by fighting with these guys.
And I was being, I was being misled.
I was being baited into being the lab leak guy.
That's what that book is all about.
They wanted me, they wanted desperately for me to be the lab leak guy at CHD and to be the lab leak guy in the big top tent of health freedom.
That's what they wanted.
And unfortunately, or I should say fortunately for my family and for all of us and for our grandchildren, I didn't buy it.
I didn't see it.
Saw right through it.
I tried desperately actually to get Bobby to put it in the book to say that this biology could have been exaggerated by the biosecurity state and and and there are reasons to believe that and here they are but we did this was not the book for it and That's why we're here.
That's why we're trapped.
That's why Kevin McKernan already way back.
This is already a more than a two years ago now and
is ignoring the preprint of Alina Chan.
You know, the one that got employed by his former boss, Mark Lander, at the Whitehead Institute in MIT after she put out this preprint that showed that all of the sequences of SARS-CoV-2 are really, really, really, really, really closely related, which is really, really, really, really not possible with RNA.
And that's why you can see the sequences that she reports from the first SARS seem to evolve a lot more.
Why?
Because maybe they did.
Maybe the first sequences that were found in 2002 were a real release, a real release of a transfection, a synthetically created DNA or RNA, and a deployment of it in China just to see how far it would go and how long it would be detectable.
How far could they follow it around the world if they told everybody that something was spreading?
And then this was the data that Helena Chan maybe naively walked into at the beginning of the pandemic and presented, and this paper's never been published in Cell or Science.
But, but.
Alina Chan was able to cooperate with a non-American.
I do believe that Matt Ridley is not American.
She was able to collaborate with a foreigner on a book.
Her paper showing that SARS-CoV-2 is not evolving like a natural RNA virus is not published.
I did two bike rides about this.
I tried to get in touch with her in 2020.
This is submitted in May of 2020.
You know, all those videos that we just watched at the beginning, this, this is what she got out of it.
And an appointment at Kevin McKernan's boss's institute, the Whitehead Institute.
She's just a scientist now.
gets interviewed by the New York Times and the PBS News Hour and is on, of course, somewhere like X. You know, if you go look back at her role on X was extraordinary.
She had these long threads explaining the lab leak with all kinds of funny gifs and stuff.
She was like setting the bar very high for people who were gonna write instructional threads or educational threads on Twitter.
And so you can see Alina Chan as being probably employed by Elon Musk and Peter Thiel.
And so it's not too hard to imagine that this guy is also working for them as a consultant or an advisor because he knows all the ins and outs of this mythology.
He knows exactly where the giant exaggerations are and where the giant shortcomings are of the model of genes and the model of determinants, heredity,
and how it all just comes down to sequences.
And he's the man.
And these things are hilarious, how he talks or tries to talk about this stuff.
He's actually, you can read it here, he's throwing softballs that are designed to make it seem like the idea that synthetic DNA and RNA applied to cell culture is virology is nuts.
or that I'm trying to say that that means that they released it everywhere, so he's nuts.
They just put clones everywhere.
That's not what I've ever said to him.
I didn't say that to him on the St.
Patrick's Day presentation.
I've never said it in any private conversation.
I never said it to the no virus people when I said infectious clones were an illusion.
or that they could have been used to create the illusion of the pandemic.
That just means that if you take that DNA and smear it on a table and then you innocently test the table or innocently test the cruise ship, you will find that sequence and it will be very, very high fidelity signal that all the technology that Kevin McKernan has invented will pull that thing right up.
And so it's absurd what has been going on.
Here, Robert Malone actually promoted a substack of Kevin McKernan, which is essentially an admission that they're on the same team.
And I've come to suspect that for a long time, that ArcMedic was also on his team.
ArcMedic is Jiki and Jikiki and all these mice that are full of shit.
They're all coordinating with these American traders to assure that this illusion is sustained, the illusion of a novel virus that circulated the globe, that lockdown protected Australia from.
And Jicky Archmedic is now the guy who is saying that there are transfection agents inside of the shots that are causing the contaminant DNA to get into the nucleus of cells.
Not that the lipid nanoparticle preparation with RNA alone is a transfection, but inside of the COVID shot is a transfection agent, which has an interactive effect with the DNA contamination.
Stop lying!
And of course, Jessica Rose, also promoted by these people, also a very limited spectrum girl on the podcast with John Bodwin and Kevin McKernan and Stephanie Seneff and myself on St.
Patrick's Day 2023, she can be heard saying that, boy, that idea of the clones thing that you said the other day is just extraordinary.
It kept me up all night.
possible that she was telling the truth.
It's possible that she was a willing participant in what is called in the military circles the look-away doctrine.
You don't need to tell me what's behind that curtain.
You don't need to tell me how bad this is.
I'll just go discuss VAERS and surf on three continents while this all goes on.
I'm fine with that.
It's cool.
And maybe at some point she realized, holy cow, I mean, Jay, that idea is nuts.
If that's the case, then maybe I facilitated something.
Oh yeah, you better shut up.
Your very lucrative substack job will disappear very quick if you actually speak out.
And that's why we got there.
That's what this whole article was about in The Defender when Alex Washburn's paper came out, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
woke me up in the middle of the night that we have to write this paper, and we have to teach everybody that these restriction enzyme sites are exactly what you predicted.
But we couldn't put in there that they don't spread around the world.
We couldn't put in there that RNA cannot pandemic.
That's not what we were going to put in there.
We were going to put in there that it was a lab leak, and that's what we did.
And this paper, this guy, Alex Washburn, who says that he found the no-see-um technique in the sequence, you don't think Kevin McKernan could have looked for restriction enzyme sites in the sequence of the virus before this?
You don't think Kevin McKernan is aware of restriction enzymes and how they're used to make large DNA assemblies?
You don't think Mike Yeadon is aware that they use restriction enzymes to assemble DNA sequences to create big monoclonal antibodies?
You don't think that Kevin McKernan knows that the Human Genome Project really was just a series of restriction enzyme maps?
Of course he does.
They were counting on the fact that I wouldn't figure it out.
They were counting on the fact that I would just rely on what I already understood in molecular biology without thinking about it in the context of what I already knew about the sacred irreducible complexity of biology.
The biology that my grandmother taught me when I was a birder.
And that's why you see these people working together.
That's why they all coordinatedly tried to make this diffuse proposal real again, that the diffuse proposal proposed that they would stitch together things and add fear and cleavage sites.
And Alex Washburn has found that it looks like they stitched together things and there's a fear and cleavage site.
And so this was in January of 2024.
We are now in October of 2024.
And this whole thing here has circulated all the way to the top again.
And here is the actual Substack post where you can see that the seeding clone hypothesis is Chemtrail retarded.
Nobody said seeding clones except for him.
I have never said that.
And so the Scooby-Doo nonsense, the trap that we are in, I think it's important that we keep focused.
Four days ago, there was a video that was a four-part panel series put forth by Stanford University.
Why are you not showing me the videos?
Stanford University is where my friend Jay Bhattacharya is still a faculty member despite supposedly being censored at the start of the pandemic about the Great Barrington Declaration.
Why is this not working?
And the Great Barrington Declaration, of course, was this group of people, a Dutch guy by the name of Martin, Martin, man, why can't I think of his name?
And Jay Bhattacharya and a lady from Oxford, Gupta is her last name.
And so had to be, I don't know why this is not working.
What's going on here?
Well, I can do it this way.
So the pandemic opening remarks.
Thank you for coming to this the Stanford Conference on Pandemic Management.
I am delighted to introduce President John Levin, who's going to give the opening remarks.
And I just very briefly, I'm so grateful to each and every one of you that's come.
This is going to be an amazing event where we are going to talk to each other in a civil way and learn from each other.
And it is going to be an incredible, incredible day.
That's one of the things that Jay has said to me a lot of the times, you know, I've just got to take it easy and stop calling people out.
I got to stop calling out Robert Malone and everything would be fine.
He said that a number of times to me in person.
We've met several times in the last three years.
thanks to a mutual friend.
I have to say that I'm quite disappointed because Jay has had several biologists on his Illusion of Consensus podcast, but in person he tells me that what I do is brilliant, but he can't
he can't evaluate my biology.
And so that's, that's disappointing to me because I don't think I'm that bad of a teacher.
And here he's going to introduce the president of the university.
And I'm just going to let it go for a second because I want to get, want you to get a feel for this fake it till you make it, because that's what this guy is doing.
He's probably been faking it.
He thinks he's made it, but it's still very clear that he's faking it and has never made it.
And yes, one of the previous panels that I chose not to watch had Marty Macri and also this Indian lady with the big eyes, the two people that have been on
ZDoggMD and Vinye Prasad's YouTube channels quite a bit.
And so I couldn't do that panel.
But the panel that we're going to watch today has Alex Washburn on it.
And that is the guy who is one of the authors on that paper that I was asked to write a
article for the Defender about with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
back in the beginning of I guess what would be this year.
I have to look again now, wait, where did that come in?
That paper, that was published 10, 29, 22, sorry.
So I wrote that article in the Defender almost a year and one month before
Robert Malone is cross-promoting Kevin McKernan and Kevin McKernan is finally arguing with me about the providence of whatever I've been saying.
So the timeline is really, really curious here because already back then in October of 2022, I could articulate what it was that I thought the diffuse proposal was.
And so already in that part of that article, of course, I had just been, I've only been working for him for about four or five months on this book.
And so I'm dead in.
I'm totally into the idea that we are, we are exposing it and I am on the best team to be exposing it.
And so I need you to see that at some point in time they thought they had me.
They thought they had me in there.
And while I was still working for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., I pulled my own head out and in the process of trying to teach Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
that transfection and transformation using synthetic DNA and RNA is all virology really is, especially gain-of-function virology, that's when my whole world started to fall apart.
And when I started to point to Robert Malone as somebody who I thought was central to sustaining this mythology is when Merrill Nash decided, or sorry, Mary Holland decided to fire me at the end of 2023.
So I wanna put into context this guy that is about to come up here.
So I'm just gonna get over here and escape out of this for a little bit.
Let me just size this different so I can control this better.
So back here, this is the guy he's about to introduce, Jonathan Levin.
He is an American economist.
He's the president of Stanford University, used to be the president of the business school.
He went to Stanford, then he went to Oxford,
Then he went to MIT.
Then he went to Yale.
And he's been on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Now, the guy that preceded him is Richard Saller.
And Richard Saller was an interim president for only a little while.
And before him was a guy by the name of Mark Trevor Tessier Levine.
And this guy used to be the chief scientific officer at Genentech, which is a pretty significant company.
And there was some fabricating of results in articles between 2001 and 2008.
So anyway, he was president of the Rockefeller University, which is also not a good thing.
And so you can see very clearly here what we have.
This guy who you're about to see fake it until he makes it is not going to fake it very well.
He's going to be pretty awkward, and he's going to sound like a buffoon.
But that's the context in which we find ourselves, where we're going to be really nice to each other, and we're not going to argue.
We're going to be very respectful and essentially agree to cover up the lack of principles that all of us have.
That's what this is.
And I'm sorry, but I'm very disappointed in the guy that
that calls himself my friend named Jay Bhattacharya.
President Levin, thank you for coming.
Thank you for talking.
Please, a round of applause.
Okay, good morning and welcome to everyone.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
I want to share something with you.
When I first pulled this video up, let me get my head out of the way.
I thought this woman was Jill Glasspool Malone.
So if you go all the way back to the beginning of the video and you watch it right from the beginning, you can see this.
I thought that was Jill Glasspool Malone, but it's not Jill Glasspool Malone.
I'm pretty sure it's not.
She's a lot younger and she's more petite in her build.
But anyway, it's just very funny.
This lady right here, I was freaking out.
For a little while, I was like, ah, running around the house.
But no, it's really not.
I don't think so.
Welcome to everyone.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Now, you might wonder, why is John Levin opening this conference on pandemic policy?
You might say, John is not a public health expert.
And of course, I might say, well, I did run a business school during the COVID pandemic.
So I do have some experience making COVID policy decisions.
And they also say that- This guy reminds me of the former prime minister of the Netherlands, who has just recently taken over as the head of NATO, who kind of already understands that he's in
And he doesn't need to maintain any illusion anymore because he knows his friends have his back.
And so he's just talking casual because he thinks the vast majority of people that are, he knows who's in on it and he knows who's not.
And his comfort level reveals something extraordinary.
Making mistakes is the best way to learn.
And so I can tell you that I have at least a thousand Stanford MBAs who will tell you that by that measure, I'm basically a world expert.
But actually that's not why I'm here.
When I was invited to participate in this event a few months ago, it was with the understanding that the goal would be to bring together people with different perspectives and engage in a day of discussion and in that way try to repair some of the rifts that opened during COVID.
And that struck me as a valuable goal.
And in fact, the sort of goal we should aim for at Stanford.
And so I agreed to give a few remarks to that effect.
And what followed over the last two months was actually, was in many ways, somewhat disappointing.
Because when I was invited, I asked around and indeed the organizers were in discussions with a whole array of people with quite different views who were likely to speak.
But it proved not so straightforward to execute on that agenda.
Some of the invitees weren't able to make it.
Some of them withdrew.
Some of them didn't want to participate in an event with other speakers whose views or behaviors they claimed were attacking or abhorrent.
And when the initial agenda, a partial agenda was posted, it was immediately perceived as one-sided, and I'm sure you all noticed, became the subject of op-eds and social media attacks.
And in a sense, that was ironic because instead of repairing rifts as was intended, and perhaps spurring some fresh thinking, that process seemed to reopen and revisit a lot of old and existing divisions.
I didn't mean for you to see any more than that.
I just wanted you to see that this guy seems to be kind of faking it until he makes it.
He doesn't seem very bright.
He's not very sharp.
As a president of the university, he's not taking very seriously this idea of opening a conference if he's that
kind of lackadaisical and misspoken.
I mean it's just disturbing right now to me how the veneer of academia is shattering so quickly when you have somebody like Jay Bhattacharya who claims to have been censored very early on and be very angry about it
start a conference like this pretending as if there's no reckoning to occur, as if there were no crimes committed, or no mistakes made, or no overreaching, or no exaggerating.
We should just be nice, because we all had good intentions from the start.
Stop lying!
It drives me bananas.
And so that's what I do my show for.
I have my own show, so I can talk about whatever I want to talk about and get mad whatever I want to talk about.
So I'm going to get mad about that.
There's a familiar theme today that we need to understand what happened so that going forward, we'll be better prepared.
And this last panel is called COVID-19 and the regulation of virology.
We all witnessed the toll that COVID took on the global community and going forward, we will want to be sure that we're not solving for the wrong problem.
This panel will be moderated by Jan Jekielek,
and Mr. Yakelik is Senior Editor of the Epoch Times.
Jan Yakelik is going to, Jan Yakelik, Jan Yakelik of the Epoch Times is going to chair a health policy panel number four at Stanford University.
I mean, I don't even know what to say.
That guy had Sasha Latupova on his little podcast and called her an American thought leader.
He did a whole series of episodes about Robert Malone on his farm.
Jan Jekielek.
is definitely a traitor if he's an American, and he's definitely a foreign meddler if he's a foreigner.
There can be no doubt.
And so the idea that he's on a panel at Stanford University, he better be American because otherwise this is despicable.
I'm tired of seeing panels of foreigners speaking in front of my Senate, nevermind in front of a Senator from my home state of Wisconsin.
American Thought Leaders, where he engages in deep conversations that challenge grand narratives.
Thank you.
Well, it's an incredible honor to be able to moderate this extremely distinguished panel on a very, well, what's been in our country, I think around the world, a very contentious issue, right?
What is the origin of COVID-19?
But then there's also this other piece, which is, how do we need to regulate virology?
What is the origin of
of SARS-CoV-2 presumes a SARS-CoV-2.
If you argue with these people, you accept the premise of the argument.
And the premise of the argument is that there is something whose origin requires debate, whose origin is a mystery that needs to be solved, whose origin was something that people wanted to cover up.
And these are all, stop lying, in general.
And they're actually, these are two parts.
The way that the question of this panel is being posed, you know, if it is indeed a zoonotic origin, if it is indeed a natural origin, you know, maybe we need to look at how to minimize these contacts of wildlife with human beings, right?
Or if it's a lab origin, well, then we really need to regulate the sort of the risky types of experimentation, what's often called gain of function.
I guess the question I want to pose is, is the premise correct in the first place, right?
Are both these things something that we need to do, or are both these things something that we don't need to do, irrespective of the answer?
So we're going to start.
I'm going to do a super brief introduction.
Irrespective of the answer?
What?
What is he saying that we need to debate?
What?
Again, if you listen carefully, what you will see is the construction of a limited spectrum of debate.
It's like a metal cage of thought.
And now Alex Washburn and Miss Gupta and the Bryce Nichols guy, they're all gonna get out a motorcycle inside of this metal cage and they're all gonna ride around in concentric circles chasing each other and they're gonna make a lot of noise and there might even be fire coming out of their exhaust pipes, but they're never gonna leave that cage.
And that cage is what?
It is the debate about whether it's a zoonosis or a lab leak.
and all the biology and all the useful questions that would get us out are not gonna be questions.
We're just gonna hear.
Motorcycles going around in circles and people cheering and maybe the cage will even be rotated around on a big arm so that it goes up and down and it gets even more dramatic.
Each panel member here before they go into their five minute introduction because I think I could spend the whole panel basically explaining
all their achievements throughout their careers.
So let's start with Alex Washburn.
Alex Washburn is the scientific consultant at Solvay Analytics LLC.
And also, if I may editorialize a tiny bit, has a vast depth of knowledge on this issue of origins.
Vast depth of knowledge.
He has a vast depth of knowledge.
How can anybody have a vast depth of knowledge about something that's almost intractable in a laboratory without synthetic DNA or RNA?
Stop lying!
He's been thinking about it since the very beginning.
Stop lying!
Please.
Thank you, Jan, and thank you, Jay and Sanford, for having us all here.
Yeah, I have a checkered past.
I'm a mathematician and a biologist, and yeah, they like to say that... Oh, my gosh, does that already not set off a red flag?
If you've been following Housatonic Live and the stuff that he's been looking at with regard to
the history of the thinking about genes and the thinking that preceded genes and their identification or supposed identification, this codifying of this knowledge, this assumption that DNA is a plan for the organism, that it's all determinately held inside of this DNA code and we're just not sophisticated enough to read it.
This is a biologist, like many, many, many, many, many biologists out there, fully trapped inside of that, but worse, believes in this idea that because of that, because there is a physical, chemical explanation for everything that we just haven't become sophisticated enough to understand, that mathematics can be used to project and to postulate and to model
conditions inside of this understanding.
And that is an illusion, a very enticing illusion, that essentially can be traced back to this crossover between the Manhattan Project and nuclear thinking and physics thinking and chemistry thinking back in that time.
the crossover of those people into biology and their import of their basic method of thinking, their basic method of analysis and the basic assumptions that they make about the natural world.
And so by saying he's a mathematician and a biologist, he is unwittingly admitting that he is fully bamboozled by this idea that with enough computing power and enough measurements, we will eventually get to be able to predict the weather and predict the outcome.
If we just have a sequence, we can know what the animal is and how it'll come out.
The problem with being a mathematical biologist is the mathematicians think you've gone soft and the biologists think you've gone crazy.
Before, you know, I've done a bunch of things, but I think most relevant to this panel is in 2017, I was working on a DARPA grant to study pathogen spillover from bats to people.
Oh, so he was working on a DARPA grant to study the spillover of pathogens from bats to people.
I would say in a country of 350 million with quite a few qualified biologists, we don't need this guy explaining anything to us at this point, do we?
Do we?
And my work was specifically focused on outbreak forecasting and viral origins.
So before it was cool, I was looking into the origins of filoviruses and forecast about... Before it was cool, does that mean you weren't getting paid?
...Hanipa virus outbreaks and things like that.
And then during the pandemic, I got involved in a lot of the other kind of contentious topics of outbreak forecasting, public health policy, helped a hedge fund short the market in February of 2020, and other kind of obvious...
He helped a hedge fund short the market in 2020, so he's really financially strapped now too, I guess, huh?
Viral origins.
So before it was cool, I was looking into the origins of filoviruses and forecasts about Hanipa virus outbreaks and things like that.
And then during the pandemic, got involved in a lot of the other kind of contentious topics of outbreak forecasting, public health policy, helped a hedge fund short the market in February of 2020, and other kind of oddities and things like that.
At the end of all that odyssey of outbreak forecasting and stuff like that, I got back to the questions of where did this virus come from, and drew on this work from a DARPA PREEMP team that I was working with on the methods we use for forecasting the likelihood of a jump-capable quasi-species in the language of that call.
And I found out that the Diffuse Grant is one of the main pieces of the lab origin theory, and it traces back to the same call that I was working on back in 2018, 2019, 2020.
So yeah.
So he was working on the same grant call.
What a convenient story for him, huh?
and quasi-species and all this other shit that I was talking about before anybody else and being told that it was nonsense.
But the quasi-species is how I got to the point where I realized Robert Malone actually admitted it, that this RNA, this RNA and subgenomic RNA, these signals that went back all the way back to the old days, these signals are all real.
that the manufacture of whatever's being manufactured here is a very low-fidelity process.
The vast majority of what is processed is nonsense.
Very few full, competent genomes are produced.
That's what Robert Malone said on a podcast with a blonde English woman in 2021.
I've got the recording.
But that describes the quasi-species.
This RNA thing, it describes the quasi-species that they don't want you to understand for the phenomenon that it is.
which is that these phenomenon are incredibly low fidelity and everything that they claim about them is an exaggeration, including their basic understanding of the role that they play in our biology and the biology of other animals and plants and whatever.
It's hilarious at this point that they are doubling and tripling down on these people and then they have these resumes that just should disqualify them as any whistleblower for the like Robert Malone could come out and say that he I worked for Ditra and uh, you know, I I got a call from a CIA agent and so and
in January and then I spun my team up and the next thing you know I got ivermectin and silicoxib and famotidine and remdesivir on my radar because that's just how it works here when we're on the farm we do work and when we get the call we answer it.
diving into the details and thinking about the methodologies of the wildlife virology.
And we had this big operation catching bats in Africa and Asia and Australia and shipping samples across borders and then processing them in the lab.
And from that lens, I entered the origins question and looked into whether or not the virus has any methodologies of the wildlife virology.
And we had this big operation catching bats in Africa and Asia and Australia and shipping samples across borders and then processing them in the lab.
And from that- And when you process them in the lab, what does he mean?
Sequence them.
He's taking samples and he is sequencing them.
Those sequences cannot be studied.
They can't be cultured.
I've shown you that already.
We know that from all of the work that Mark Bailey has done.
All the work that Stefan Lanka has done has shown that these culture methods, these purifications, these electron micrographs, they don't show the high fidelity biology that these people claim.
And so now, is he aware of the fact that processing it in the lab is sequencing and that sequencing, if done malevolently or without good intentions, you could create all kinds of illusions, you know, like maybe metabiota and Nathan Wolf did?
Is he aware of that or not?
Because it doesn't seem like he's aware of it.
He thinks that virology is very high fidelity science and that you get these signals in the wild and then you make them in a laboratory and study them.
He's not aware of this huge gap between what can be done with the natural sample and what is done with synthetic DNA and RNA in cell culture.
And unfortunately, Mark Bailey hasn't been able to get where I'm going today and have been here for so long now.
It's just crazy to me.
And I think that indicates that Mark Bailey and Sam Bailey are actually on this team of people that is out there in the internet to make sure that anybody who asks the right questions is never going to get the answer that will free their grandchildren with knowledge.
You cannot escape this trap by just not participating.
In order for your grandchildren to escape this trap, it must be common knowledge that they lied to us for a generation.
It must be common knowledge that they have been experimenting on us for a generation.
It must be common knowledge that we have been governed by mythology for a generation.
Otherwise, our children will not escape.
lens, I answered the origins question and looked into whether or not the virus has any evidence consistent with the methodologies from that time.
And so I produced, helped produce one paper on the virus looking like it may have a pattern consistent with the methods we've used to resurrect these viruses from field samples or what's... Oh!
The methods that we use to resurrect these viruses from field samples.
Is it possible that he doesn't understand that these are not equivalent?
that the ability to rescue these samples, as he calls it, which is not a good word for it.
Rescue these samples means that you're getting back to something that you already had when you didn't.
You never could get a purity or a quantity that can be obtained by the synthetic manufacturer of those sequences.
And yet he very deceptively calls it rescuing
You are producing a quantity and a purity of these signals that you purport to identify by analysis in the lab.
You are producing a purity and a quantity that is impossible to achieve by any other means.
And then using that as an equivalent starting point for virology.
Stop lying!
We need Alex Washburn to see this video and to understand where he's either confused or to expose him as part of this.
called infectious clone technology.
It was corroborated and it's consistent with the methodologies from that time.
And so I produced, helped produce one paper on the virus looking like it may have a pattern consistent with the methods we've used to resurrect these viruses from field samples or what's called infectious clone technology.
It was corroborated somewhat in a January of 2024.
So why do you rescue them from field samples and call it infectious clone technology?
Why isn't he being very clear that almost unlimited quantities of these infectious clones can be made?
Whereas if you wanted to do that with the wild signal, that would be impossible.
That when they try to isolate that signal in the wild, it's like this very faint line on their RNA analysis, a very faint line.
And when they use their super nanopore sequencing technology, they find like two almost full sequences.
Or in the case of another order of magnitude of analysis, they find 11 almost partial full sequences.
And so either this guy is just sophisticated enough to be able to make mathematical models of this bullshit.
Or he is absolutely aware of the illusion that he is sustaining.
I'm not trying to be a creep.
I'm trying to help people.
And if this guy, if we give him a window into how he might be seeing it incorrectly and he sees the truth, then very soon Alex Washburn and I could be friends.
But I don't think that's very likely to happen.
I don't think he can't see.
And if he can't see, then there are plenty of people around him who will make sure that he will never see me.
Oh yeah, of the Diffuse Grant, which found the specific enzyme we had hypothesized could have been used for a reverse genetic system in SARS-2, that specific enzyme was in an order form for the Diffuse Grant itself, and so... Oh my gosh, they identified a restriction enzyme site, and that restriction enzyme was ordered by Peter Daszak in the Diffuse Proposal.
It takes a lot of math and biology to fully consider it.
In other words, there's no way for a general biology student to understand this.
You could give it up if you're a teacher.
I don't even care if you're a high school biologist.
You don't have a chance.
It takes quite a bit of math and biology to get a grasp on what's going on here.
Stop lying!
Can do it justice here.
And so thank you so much.
I'm really excited to chat about it.
All right.
Well, next we have Dr. Simon Wayne Hobson, Professor Emeritus at the Pastor Institute.
And you may be familiar with him from some of his work around HIV.
Yeah, so I'm a sort of a wet blower.
His work on HIV!
Wow, that's pretty funny.
I've been battling this, what's known as the gain-of-function risky virus.
We're at search now for 12 years.
I was about the only virologist addressing this back in 2012.
Basically, this is taking viruses, mainly from animals, and deliberately adapting it to humans.
Deliberately, not perhaps deliberately.
And basically, they're making the world a more dangerous place.
But the shock is that these experiments cannot deliver a single result for any health official.
They cannot deliver and have failed to deliver and in 12 years you will not find one good justification of why this work should be done but it's gone forward.
And so he lives under the same illusion that Alex Washburn apparently lives under that what they find in the wild
has all the same properties of the resurrected version, as Alex Washburn described it, when they make an infectious clone of it.
Even though an infectious clone, by definition, is a quantity and a purity that cannot be made in any other way and is not found when they swab a bat.
It is not found when they grow the swab sample in a cell culture.
No matter what technique or specific cell type they use, the only way to achieve micrograms or even grams of a DNA that is supposedly derived from a coronavirus signal found in the wild is to use pharmaceutical grade technology to produce it.
And even when you do that, it will still result in the erroneous, highly noisy, almost never perfect translation of that signal in a cell culture.
And that's why you always get this weird smear of RNA when you look for it.
It doesn't matter if you put an infectious clone in either because they've done that.
We've looked at those papers and infectious clone produces the same assortment of subgenomic RNAs and same paucity of full genome RNA sequences.
So there's no way to explain how it would be that such a sequence produced in such a way and such a quantity would be endangering the planet.
It's not a nuclear bomb or an improvement on it as Kim.com would say, or any of these people would say, and they're not endangering the planet unless they make enough of it and put it places.
Unless they transfect people with it.
You know that word that we've been using for 20 years that all of a sudden everybody forgot about and now Jicky Leaks says is a transfection agent inside of the vaccines?
The scientists do not see... There's another name for golf, it's dual-use research of concern.
The scientists do not see the D, the dual use.
They see... Dual-use research of concern.
You want to know some dual-use research of concern?
It's the fact that they have taken the entire field of neuroscience and bamboozled them to believe that they should focus on genes and make genetic knockouts of mice and study the
biology of genetic knockouts to understand what individual genes do in the context of genetic disease.
Now that's some malevolent bullshit right there.
to help society.
They do not understand the D. The D is for the State Department, which is the lead department in Biological Weapons Convention at Geneva.
The State Department?
Mark, did you hear what he just said?
The State Department helps society.
They do not understand the D. The D is for the State Department, which is the lead department in Biological Weapons Convention at Geneva.
They do not see the D. So they're totally schizophrenic in this.
And there's been no, very little public discussion, good discussion about two good conferences in all.
How is this possible?
Bench scientists no longer have the time to care.
They're so busy running after money, doing experiments.
Oh, scientists don't have time to care.
How many times have I said this?
That there are plenty of academic biologists that if I could just get in front of them and explain how PCR is great on their bench and terrible in a diagnostic, that RNA can't pandemic, and why they have it in their brain to know that in their bones.
Oh, ladies and gentlemen, we are close to a landslide.
They use words badly and imprecisely!
Guess who's been saying that for a long time?
That would be David Stove, who actually is first little part of this book.
Also, just keep in mind that in the beginning of this book, which is really ironic, to the memory of George Orwell, who might have enjoyed at least part one of this book.
This is the book.
It's a wonderful book.
It's very short.
It's very narrow.
Actually, the Broken Science Edition now has
the exclusive rights to print this book, and I think they're making a nice copy of it.
And the first chapter of this book is called Neutralizing Success Words.
Isn't it crazy how close we are to absolutely... There are people falling out of the truck while we drive down the highway at an ever-increasing speed.
It's really funny how badly this is crashing now.
What can be done?
And I'll go from the easy to the most difficult.
We need, in times of crisis, virologists at best doing their virology.
But there are times when it impacts society.
We need to share a little more of what we know.
The public want a little more.
They don't want everything.
They want a little more.
That's relatively easy.
My wife is a pediatrician.
My son is an interventional cardiologist.
They've taken a Hippocratic oath.
They could do harm.
But as a virologist who's thought about this, I could conjure up some really nasty stuff that you really wouldn't want to know about.
And no Hippocratic Oath.
I think a Hippocratic Oath for life science PhDs, pretty easy, fairly easy to do.
Stanford could start it tomorrow if they wanted, I imagine.
The next thing, we do need independent oversight.
And Bryce will talk about this.
And therefore, I won't take his time.
um and it has to be in so bryce nichols is going to talk about that i want to get to the i want to get to the pandemic um next we have a dr bryce nichols professor of genetics the lab director at the wakesman institute of the professor of genetics
It's weird how, like, Claire Craig's a geneticist.
Mark, I mean, Kevin McKernan is a gene guy.
Robert Malone cut his teeth in those labs.
Judy Mikovits cut her teeth in those labs.
Shoot, there's so many people that are rising to the top of this dissonant movement who have a whole career sort of controlling and curating previous narratives about the biology
foundation of biology 101.
All of these people's career have been integral in providing the intellectual foundation for this absolute pile of bullshit that's now in its like 15th edition.
That's why they're also in music videos together from the last four years, including a musical.
Microbiology at Rutgers University and the co-founder of Biosafety Now.
Okay, thank you very much.
So I really am here in my capacity as one of the founders of Biosafety Now.
But Biosafety Now is a non-profit that was founded in... It's a non-profit that pays me more money and yada, yada, yada.
It's awful.
We're going to start a non-profit for the independent bright web.
I'm just not really sure all the details about it, but that's coming very soon because this game is over.
And we are about to win for many, many, many years to come.
Five years from now, I envision there being thousands of high school seniors graduating and deciding what to do with their lives after having had two years of biology instruction from me.
That's what I envision in five years.
thousands of young individuals with a renewed spirit for building, a new spirit for community, and a new spirit for a new vision for where America should go and where we should go in Pennsylvania.
So I don't know what I'm gonna be able to do for the whole world, but I do know for sure that Western Pennsylvania is about to have an intellectual nuclear bomb dropped on it over the next couple years.
I'm just going to pass through here.
Will it move fast track in the next two months?
He could be very excited about it.
He could be very genuine and he could not have the sophistication and the appreciation for the sacred biology to be able to see through the illusion that has been seeded for generations.
I didn't see through it until less than a year ago.
So don't mistake my vigor for overconfidence or my vigor for arrogance, because I am the most humble servant here, trying desperately to get more people to dance with me, being the only person standing up in the lawn, dancing to the music and not doing it very well, but trying desperately to get other people to stand up.
I swear, we can do it.
You just have to step up.
Well, I'm going to write an email to say the contrary if you do that.
So that's fine.
That's fine.
An email that, so I guess I'll stop so we can go.
Yeah, that's right.
All right.
Well, Dr. Laura Kahn, co-founder of the One Health Initiative.
And it would also be good to understand, I'm sure you're going to tell us a little more about what that means.
Right.
Thank you.
First, I'd like to thank the founder of the One Health Initiative.
Oh, my gosh.
Jay and the organizers here at Stanford University for organizing this really important conference.
And thank all of you to sit through all of this until our panel.
So thank you for your attention.
Well, first, before I start talking about One Health, I think it's important to determine what exactly is the evidence needed to prove the origin of the virus.
And if one wants to conclude that this was a natural spillover event, then we need to look at what was the evidence that was used for SARS-CoV-1 back in 2002, 2003, and what was used for MERS back in 2012, the evidence that was accepted that these were natural spillover events.
Now, so for SARS-CoV-1, and I apologize, I can't share my PowerPoint slide with you, but the evidence for SARS-CoV-1 was that there was animal antibody and viral genome evidence
from palm civets in the animal market in Guangdong, China, had genome sequences that were 99.8% identical.
Instead of the data from Alina Chan, where you can clearly see the evolutionary difference between these two signal sets, irrespective of whether you believe that this biology is genuine, there is a signal that Alina Chan reported that never actually got published or confirmed.
And yet she has succeeded in becoming a sort of a pretty well, well set up academic.
It's incredible, really.
I find this just incredible, what we're witnessing here.
I don't really want to listen to her too much.
In addition to that animal evidence, there was also occupational serological evidence.
A study of 800 people in the Guangdong province found that people who traded in masked palm civets had the highest positivity rate.
That day, samples of thousands of people to assess the... She doesn't believe what she's saying here.
I don't see the truth in her eyes.
I see a terrified person who just wants to get this over with.
Pervalence rates of... There was a... The origins question, maybe for the first part of the panel and the second.
We'll do the second part will be on the regulation of virology and so forth and the Risky Review Act and so forth.
So without further ado, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford.
Thank you very much.
Okay, what I'm gonna do, I thought.
So she's the theoretical biologist.
So what she's gonna do is talk about how, you know, these things can't, they would have fizzled out.
She's gonna lend credence to the idea that RNA molecules can do very special things, but just not as special or as scary as a lot of these people say.
And it's because she's a theoretician.
And she stood up with Martin Cole.
I can't remember his name.
Somebody type it in the chat.
Koldorf, Martin Koldorf, Jay Bhattacharya, and this woman are the Great Barrington Declaration, which said that we should have focused lockdowns, but didn't speak out about anything else, and I don't think actually made any real significant stand on behalf of biology or on behalf of not lying to the human population about what's going on.
I don't think so.
Not Sanjay Gupta, sorry, her name is, she just said it.
Especially since I'm quite jet lagged and it's late.
This is my second panel.
I'm going to just read out what I wrote for Prospect magazine when they asked me to make a small comment about this whole theory.
Someone had written an article and this was supposed to be a reply but it was solicited.
So this is what I said.
I said, to my mind, the discussion about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 rotates around two equally implausible scenarios.
Either that the virus was manufactured in a laboratory in Wuhan, or that it jumped out of a dish of pangolin chop suey somewhere nearby.
What is far more likely is that the virus had already been circulating over a period of several months in China and only came to light in Wuhan.
Just because we found it in Wuhan doesn't mean it came from Wuhan.
It only came to light in Wuhan when it was at sufficient prevalence for an intelligent physician to identify an atypical cluster of hospital cases and raise the alarm.
I cannot blame my colleagues for rushing to stem potentially dangerous speculations about a leak that might seem plausible from the coincidence that the virus was first
detected in such close proximity to the Wuhan lab.
However, it is extremely unfortunate that a civilized discussion about the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 became impossible under the dedication to a single narrative that was subsequently supported and sponsored by them, not just regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
So now you're experiencing the scooby-doo.
where the censorship of the discussion indicates that this is a question that needs answering, a mystery that needs solving, villains that need unmasking.
And that's why two and a half years ago already I started calling it a Scooby-Doo because I realized that I had been fooled.
into solving this mystery and fooled into accepting or representing one half of this illusion.
And like it or not, I was part of the limited spectrum of debate and very happy to bounce around in that cage.
I was riding my motorcycle around in circles hard as I could.
But also with respect to the infinitely more important question of how to come up with a humanitarian solution to the problem of minimizing deaths from the pandemic.
I should also like to make the point that the hysteria around gain-of-function is misplaced.
Sorry to be not entirely respectful.
Those clamouring for it to be restricted would do well to recognise that many of the proponents of lockdown were also firmly in favour of stopping gain-of-function research in pre-pandemic times.
My own assessment of gain-of-function, which I believe is shared by many other virologists, is that it's an unfortunately named standard process for determining the properties of viruses and carries a very low risk to any of us.
And so as a theoretician, she actually hasn't done enough biological work and biological study.
And I mean, like, been in the field, gone camping, captured
snakes, and kept rabbits, and had a dog, and made plaster casts of bear tracks, and all the things that people who are real biologists do from when they're little babies.
And so she has no real big place in her head for the humble reverence for the irreducible complexity that can be witnessed if you're there and you're present, that you can see it in everything from a newborn baby all the way to the 75-year oak tree in the backyard as it changes color this fall.
And that's a kind of appreciation for biology that we need more young people to have so that they are not vulnerable to these shortcut explanations and these broad ranging simple models that allow all of these public health initiatives to thrive and go forward.
I can substantiate on that.
In fact, gain-of-function experiments are far more likely to lead to medical interventions that improve the lives of people than to spawn a new pandemic.
Nature is far more adept at that.
So what I'd like to... So nature is far more adept at making pandemics than mankind would be.
That's her stance.
That's the theoretical biologist that is on the same team as Jay Bhattacharya, who says that he's too unsophisticated to understand my biology.
But he can have a French-speaking immunologist on to tell him why the DNA in the shots is bad and why the next generation of these vaccines is going to be really great because they already proved themselves in the pandemic.
Jay Bhattacharya had that podcast about a month ago.
I've done a study haul on it.
What I do is actually go back to the framework that I used in the last panel.
to think about lockdowns.
I'm not going to listen to her anymore.
Yes, but I just suddenly realized that this part of it is more about just assessing our response to gain-of-function research itself.
So perhaps what I should do, I'll save that for later and just respond to that because I have been vocal while Bryce is speaking and also Laura.
Just say why I think
And don't underestimate how dumb they think we are, that they think that just because somebody speaks in an English accent that we'll believe them, because it works.
It works on a lot of Americans.
And once they figured that out, that's why they got John Oliver and these people over here.
I mean, that's what is happening.
Understand that very clearly.
That's why they use foreigners.
That's why so many of these American traders are collaborating with foreigners, because it's part of the hypnosis.
I don't buy these arguments.
So with regard... That's the reason why Claire Craig is more vocal and visible around the world than she is in her own home country.
Let's just comment about 1918, the flu virus of 1918, that it would kill everybody.
We actually have evidence that it would not.
In 2009, we had a pandemic, swine flu pandemic, which was, at least in terms of its hemagglutinin protein, almost identical to the 1918 pandemic.
Some of the work I've done... Enough, enough, enough, enough, enough.
I would love to have a panel discussion with her about the actual biology that underlies these presumptions.
I think I would make her look like a clown.
Unfortunately, because a lot of these people just wouldn't be able to expound on these ideas if you ask them questions that are sharp enough.
See, that's the problem with
RNA cannot pandemic or intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb or even saying that transfection is criminal because then these people are already in a place where they can no longer move.
It's outside of the ball where they're riding their motorcycle.
And even Gupta is riding a motorcycle inside of this metal ball with fire coming out of her exhaust pipes.
It's just a different circle than these others are riding.
Or maybe it's on the other side of the moving arms and there's two, two spheres of motorcycles going around.
It's the, it's the wheel of death.
But the moment that you get outside of that and you stand on the ground and say, well, RNA can't pandemic.
Now all those motorcycles making noise and all the fire coming out of the exhaust pipes becomes, wait, what?
That's what you see happening in real time on X and real time in these groups where after five times of presenting, there's no more to talk about.
There's no more to discuss.
And now you have people in that UK chat like Nick Hudson saying that these technical discussions are useless now.
And you have Dave Rasnick saying that the technical discussions are useless.
I know because I tried to do it for AIDS and everybody ignored me.
And so you should give up on your grandchildren too.
I'm not willing to give up.
I think that there are people at the University of Pittsburgh who can still remember that there was this really cool, funny guy at the University of Pittsburgh named Jay who helped me with my preparation or carried that heavy box for me.
And then they could think back and say, I wonder what Jay's doing right now.
And somebody could show him that, well, he wrote a book with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and then kind of shot himself in the foot by contradicting him about the biology.
And he's currently just teaching online, trying to get people to realize that RNA cannot pandemic.
And there might be a faculty member at the University of Pittsburgh who will call me up and say, holy shit, dude, we need to get this in the newspaper.
Can I help you?
Maybe there's a person at the university in Trondheim, the NTNU where I used to work in the lab of Mosers that will find me and say, wow, he used to work here.
And then somebody will ask around and one of the technicians will say, oh yeah, he was one of the coolest people that was ever here.
The first day that he came in here, I asked him for a knife and he pulled out an automatic knife and I almost passed out.
Then they'll say, well, you know, he's online teaching the RNA pandemic.
Is he a smart guy?
Does he know what he's talking about?
And then all of a sudden something will happen.
That's how close we are.
There are people that work at the Allen Institute who I've stayed at their house before.
My old boss got the Nobel prize in 2014.
There are people who know my name.
And so if this idea or these ideas get out there and those biologists go, yeah, he was a smart guy.
And what he's saying is quite provocative.
And, you know, come to think of it off the top of my head, I can't really argue with him.
something might happen.
But instead, nah, we don't need to talk about it.
Technical discussions are so 2020.
Technical discussions are so the Vance Crowe podcast in 2020.
Come on, dude, get up to speed.
With regard to not being able to find it in animals.
Well, you know, the fact is, clearly, it's a specific evolutionary event, which
may or may not make it transmissible in animals.
I'm going to go forward a little bit because I don't want to hear her talk about virology.
I want to get to Alex.
Now remember, Alex already said that infectious clone technology is used to rescue
the sequences that they identify in the wild by taking samples in the wild and processing them in the laboratory.
The processing is sequencing.
And then in order to study those sequences, number one, they have to fill in a lot of blanks.
And a lot of times they fill in blanks with previously discovered sequences and construct a consensus genome as determined by Ralph Baric's description.
And so he's already being disingenuous in the previous discussion where he said that, well, you know, we get these sequences and then we make DNA clones.
He didn't say that, well, we never find all the genes.
And so we know that these genes are necessary to get anything to happen.
And he doesn't say what I say in my sub stack.
which is the substack that I tried to work on with Jessica Hockett and Jonathan Engler and Nick Hudson and Martin Neal, that substack where I show paper after paper where infectious clones are used and they actually co-transfect with the N-protein because if they do that, they get a lot more viral particles.
So he's not gonna tell you anything about that.
Neither is Jonathan Engler, neither is Jessica Hockett, neither is Nick Hudson, even though Nick Hudson showed up at my medical doctors for COVID ethics presentation two days ago.
And when he decided to speak, he didn't say, oh, wow, I've known Jay for many years.
He's presented three times to Panda.
When he gave an immunology presentation at Panda, David Wiseman said it was the best immunology lecture he'd ever seen in his career.
Nick just spouted in that these technical discussions are just a waste of time now.
A likely scenario.
Let's, from our other panelists, so I think our side towards the lab leak side, let's just kind of enumerate the evidence in particular.
I guess some of the specific, like for example, Alex, you found these very specific restriction enzyme fingerprints, right?
This is a very interesting piece of evidence that's valuable to consider.
Let's go through the remaining panelists and just set up the evidence for lab origin.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
So first I want to let everyone know that there are a few people in the world I admire as much as Dr. Gupta.
And so I'm really excited to hear her thoughts on this.
And from the lab origin theories perspective.
It really boils down to probabilities.
And even though there are- Ha!
It boils down to probabilities, Mark!
Did you hear that?
It's just probab- ha ha ha!
Two equally likely scenarios, the likelihood ratios may not be similar, at least when we try to do due diligence and use prior methods to estimate those likelihoods.
What is the probability that there was a novel RNA molecule that, because of its unique sequence, was able to circulate the globe for five years and kill millions of people, or that the national security state that understood this biology very well and the many limitations of it would have lied about that in order to manage a problem, you know, like a population pyramid with a top-heavy...
is hilarious so one example is what's the odds of this endemic let's say coronavirus emerging in wuhan of all places what's what are the odds of this what did he say endemic coronavirus you mean a coronavirus that's already there a coronavirus that's already in the back why did he use that word endemic what clarify please mr man his perspective
it really boils down to probabilities.
And even though there are two equally likely scenarios, the likelihood ratios may not be similar.
At least when we try to do due diligence and use prior methods to estimate those likelihoods.
So one example is what's the odds of the- I think a lot of these people are using the words due diligence just to use the words due diligence to make sure that nobody ever uses the word strict scrutiny or strict liability or rational basis test.
due diligence.
I worked really hard, and I tried really hard to read everything, but he, he did due diligence.
This endemic, let's say, coronavirus emerging in Wuhan, of all places.
What are the odds of an endemic coronavirus emerging in Wuhan?
Does he, does he not, for you, reveal an incredible level of unsophistication here?
He's actually using words that he doesn't understand incorrectly right now.
How does an endemic virus emerge?
It's already endemic.
Stars coronaviruses span this region of Southeast Asia that contains about a billion people.
Wuhan has about 10 million people.
So just off the cuff, you might estimate if you were sitting in my chair in 2018 trying to forecast the emergence of bat viruses.
Here he goes.
He's going to use math to make an accurate prediction about the sacred irreducible complexity that is our planet.
And he's going to use math to make a relative off-the-cuff calculation about what a pattern integrity RNA molecule could do.
Wow.
You'd estimate a 1% chance that Wuhan is the site of origin of a SARS coronavirus.
Can we see the napkin that that calculation was done on, Alex?
Because that doesn't really convince me.
The thing to look at is SARS-CoV-2 has this interesting motif called the furin cleavage site.
The cell cuts open the viral protein and engulfs the cell.
understand that this is part of the admission here.
He doesn't understand this biology, the implications of a fear and cleavage site, the mechanism that's involved.
So actually, I think this is the admission that he is a mathematician who masquerades as a biologist, and these people are very happy to give him fame and comfort in order for him to keep masquerading as a biologist.
We need to get him on the show.
We need to get him on the show so that we can expose him for the fake it till you make it biologist that he is.
So we knew some of these mechanisms by which these proteolytic cleavage sites have been interesting motif called the furin cleavage site that in 2018 and before people were studying the roles of these proteolytic... That's exactly what Charles Rixey would also tell you because there's one video where a Dortmiter
Or whatever his name is, Dortmetzer says that when we find a furin cleavage site in a flu culture that we get rid of it.
So we knew some of these mechanisms.
So both times he tried, he got that wrong.
First, he said the virus cuts the protein and then engulfs the cell.
Then he said the cell engulfs or cuts the protein and then engulfs the cell.
So he said it.
He said it wrong both times.
This is not a sophisticated biologist.
This is someone who knows just enough to be elevated in this panel and knows just enough to stick to what he knows and not get himself into danger.
That is SARS-CoV-2 has this interesting motif called the furin cleavage site that in 2018 and before people were studying the roles of these proteolytic cleavage sites that the virus cuts open the protein and uses that to then engulf the virus.
The cell cuts open the viral protein, engulfs the cell.
So we knew some of these mechanisms by which these proteolytic cleavage sites... We knew some of these mechanisms that I can't even explain because I just got briefed on them a couple months ago when they told me that Jonathan Cooley wasn't going to play the role that they wanted him to and so they recruited me to do it.
And the way they handed it off was that they had Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
call me in the middle of the night and tell me that we had to write a paper to get ahead of this story to make sure that we were the first ones.
And the story was about Alex Washburn's paper that showed that his hypothetical restriction enzyme was actually in the diffuse proposal.
I'm trying to confess that I was used as a patsy, as a dupe, as a dipshit.
for as long as they could use me.
And then when they realized I wasn't going to be useful to them anymore and I was doubting the providence of the defuse proposal, they brought this fool in and connected him to me and made me very tempted to promote him so that what?
He could be on a Stanford panel with my friend Jay Bhattacharya a year later.
And we were thinking about these as well as like the what that could be a mechanism for jump capability.
But when you look at the evolutionary tree of SARS coronaviruses, there's about a thousand years of evolutionary time.
Now, granted, it's not equally sampled and we haven't been going back a thousand years, but we still we can reconstruct a tree.
See, so we don't have any evidence, but if we assume
that they have evolved through spontaneous evolution.
You know, that really crazy idea that really goes back all the way to the Manhattan Project and to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.
And the idea that they might even be able to speed up evolution by exposing people to radiation, you know, like the Incredible Hulk or the X-Men.
It's all the same bad ideas.
and the branch length is 1,000 years.
And there's not a single furin cleavage site within the SARS coronavirus clade until a year and a half after people proposed to insert one.
Where did they propose to insert it?
In Wuhan.
So now we have a Wuhan origin, we have a grant proposing to insert the strange motif in a SARS coronavirus.
It is extremely well done.
You need to watch the movie The Sting.
One of the best movies of all time.
Watch the movie The Sting to see exactly how well this can be done.
And exactly what they've done to us over a multi-generational sting.
please watch the movie Sting.
Maybe I'm even going to watch the Sting with you here, because it's such a good movie.
I need to watch it with my kids this weekend.
Virus in Wuhan, but then how would they do that?
In order to insert, if you're in a cleavage site, in this RNA virus, the RNA virus has a single-stranded RNA genome that's really wobbly, and you can't actually just insert things into it.
You have to build a DNA copy of the virus.
And it's not only just to do the insertion,
protocol for getting bat samples out of Laos and shipping them across borders to then study the virus in the lab required typically inactivating that bat virus sample so that it didn't infect people along the way.
And then you have an inactive virus.
An inactive virus is also just a tube with a bunch of fractionated RNAs in it that you're going to derive a sequence from.
Oh my gosh.
In your lab, wherever that is,
So you typically print out chunks of the virus and then you glue them together with these cutting and pasting sites.
So the pattern of these cuttings... So do we really need him to teach us this when that technology is all the basis for the Human Genome Project?
Isn't it very strange that somebody like Kevin McKernan would come out on, I don't know, a podcast run by a former World Bank employee named Vance Crowe?
three times in 2020 and never bring us to understand how virology is enabled by the rescuing of these sequences and their processing and manufacture by synthetic DNA clone?
That we needed somebody like Alex Washburn to come out in 2023 and tell us this?
Do you really think that that's not an absolute, terribly awful red flag admission that Kevin McKernan
who knows that the Human Genome Project is restriction enzyme mapping, knows that restriction enzyme mapping was seminal to our understanding of any kind of sequencing, because that's how they do it.
and can explain how seminal they are to all commercial versions of synthetic molecular biology, you don't think that he could explain how coronavirus biology was done in a laboratory in 2020, but he had to focus on PCR testing and talk about testing PCR in weed in 2020?
And then now in 2024, that same guy still isn't able to explain this?
It has to be this guy?
I don't think I need to go any farther.
I think it should be very obvious now, I will point it out one more time, that this article and its promotion of it were done very exclusively by Team Robert Malone, specifically using the man Kevin McKernan, who's probably on the same team, maybe even smarter than Robert Malone in some ways in terms of
of the state of the art of some of these things and coordinating with them were people like Archmedic or Jiki Leakes and also Jessica Rose who again promoted the idea that the diffuse proposal was evidence and that Alex Washburn was an authority and that Kevin McKernan is an authority who
didn't bother to teach us all the things that he knew about restriction enzymes before this paper came out.
But once the paper came out, I guess he all, wow, now it all makes sense to him.
And so that's what's really sad about the idea that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and Charles Rixey and I supposedly needed to write this
article explaining what happened in Alex Washburn's paper and that they all insisted that we not suggest that, well, the diffuse proposal could also be just bullshit so that all of these stories seem to fit together seamlessly.
which is what I was trying to teach them at this time, and why I suggested very early on that Charles Rixey might be a bad guy, and that he actually was sent to my house in 2022 to make sure that I took the diffuse proposal seriously.
That's actually why he came to my house in Pittsburgh in January of 2022.
So he says I got him fired at CHD, but that's not true.
He actually brought Kevin McCairn, Ness Commander, the guy that I streamed with five times at the beginning of the pandemic and I know is a liar in Japan or UK or wherever he lives.
That guy was live in a Zoom meeting where we were going to discuss with the rest of the editing team the contents of this book.
And when I told the rest of the editing team to go ahead and look up who Kevin McCarren is and look at his streams, they decided to fire Rixey for his association with that guy.
And more importantly, for him allowing him to be president of a live Zoom meeting where there was an agreement that nobody could read this text but us.
And yet somehow or another, they have gone around the world for three years making memes with me and a shotgun in my mouth.
They are all part of the same team that is hiding this illusion of high fidelity genetic understanding of our biology and its usefulness to public health.
Ladies and gentlemen, they wanted to make the diffuse proposal real again a couple years ago, and they failed because I can see through their bullshit.
If you want to hear a summary of my summary of their bullshit, you can watch the Dear Senator Ron Johnson stream that I did yesterday.
Thank you very much for joining me.
These people won't talk about a background signal.
They won't talk about PCR.
They won't talk about transfection or transformation.
They won't talk about infectious clones, even though Alex is right there.
He's very close, but he admitted in that talk that his biological understanding is not mastery.
It's just enough to come close to using the right words in combination correctly.
And that's why he failed to explain what the fusion protein does and what the fear and cleavage site does, and if it's there or not there, and the role that it plays.
He didn't say, for example, that according to their cartoon, that means that once you're infected with this virus, that it can spread through your tissues because when the fear and cleavage site is cut, you don't need an ACE2 receptor anymore.
He didn't explain that because he doesn't understand their illusion well enough to see it.
And that's why he doesn't understand that RNA cannot pandemic, because he's a mathematician who's masquerading as a biologist and we've got to not let these people do it.
He used the word endemic to describe the virus that would leak.
The virus that would pandemic would already be endemic.
That's how silly he is.
He doesn't even understand that that's not what endemicity means.
Endemicity is a process that is hypothesized to have happened and be the source of these background signals.
And this is all lost.
It's all lost in a COVID shots are bad, don't talk about 2020 bullshit storm.
And if we don't wake up from it soon, we're gonna be in trouble.
We need a new consensus about the vaccine schedule in America.
We need a new consensus about the, no, no, no, I don't know what that was doing.
Hope that didn't screw anything up.
What the hell just happened there?
Okay, something weird happened there.
I hope I'm still streaming.
We need a new consensus about this stuff.
We need a new consensus really fast.
If you like what you saw, please share my work at any of these places.
And if you have the means, our family is really, really struggling right now to make ends meet.
We've kind of been going on fumes for a long time now.
We've been relying on a couple big donors that pay like half of our rent every month.
and the combination of two or three people and we're managed rent.
And if any one of these three people can no longer support us, that will be the end in like one month.
And so I'm not asking for anybody to put themselves out.
I'm asking for people that are stumbling on the stream, that are finding out how long we've been here and how much we've sacrificed and how long we've maintained this record of integrity
to decide to support us.
And very soon I'm going to have a nonprofit that you can donate to, and maybe that will open more doors for people to assist with this.
But I intend to make this a long-term effort to try and change the minds of as many young people as I can over the next few years while there's still a window for this change to happen.
I love you very much.
Thanks for being here.
I'll see you tomorrow.
Sorry if I blew out your ears there.